Chapter III - Contentious Cases (Continuation)
Cesti Hurtado Case
927. On January 9, 1998, the Commission lodged an application with the Court for the prosecution of Mr. Cesti Hurtado in proceedings before the military courts, in which he was arrested, detained, and sentenced, even though a final judgment had been given in a habeas corpus suit ordering the victim to be released from the military proceedings and for no violations of his personal liberty to be committed. The Court issued its judgment on the merits on September 29, 1999, and its judgment on reparations on May 31, 2001.
928. On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in this case, instructing the State to take all the steps necessary for prompt and effective compliance with the points of its judgment still awaiting implementation and to report specifically regarding the payment of the interest accrued on the compensation amount ordered as moral damages; the investigation of the incident and the punishment of the guilty; the payment of the compensation for material damages; and the annulment of the military proceedings and all effects arising therefrom. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cesti_22_09_06_ing.pdf.
929. During 2007, the Commission presented its comments on the information submitted by the victims’ representatives and by the State regarding compliance with the forms of redress ordered by the Court in its judgment of May 31, 2001. The IACHR noted the lack of information regarding compliance, together with the various obligations of the State still pending after the issuing of the relevant judgments, the intervening period of time, and the particular efforts the injured party had to make in order to secure redress.
Case of De la Cruz Flores
930. This case involves the violation of the principle of legality, the freedom from ex post facto laws, the right to personal liberty, and the right to a fair trial with respect to Dr. María Teresa de la Cruz Flores, together with the right to humane treatment of her and the members of her family. The full text of the judgment of November 18, 2004, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_115_ing.pdf.
931. During 2007 the Commission submitted its comments regarding the items still awaiting compliance and it emphasized the importance of the State’s meeting its duty of reporting to the Court about all of them.
932. On November 23, 2007, the Court adopted a resolution determining that the State had complied with paying the compensation ordered, together with the costs and expenses, with the reincorporation of Dr. de la Cruz Flores in employment at public institutions, and with the publication of the relevant parts of the judgment in a national daily newspaper. The Court resolved to keep the procedure open as regards the other elements of the judgment and instructed the State to submit a report by February 15, 2008.
Durand and Ugarte Case
933. This case deals with the aftermath of the riot that took place at the penitentiary known as “El Frontón” on June 19, 1986, and the failure to identify the dead bodies of Mr. Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Mr. Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, two of the inmates. The text of the judgment on the merits can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_68_ing.pdf.
934. The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated November 27, 2002. The text of that order can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/durand_27_11_02.pdf.
935. During 2007, the Commission sent the Court its comments on the State’s noncompliance with the matters still pending, particularly as regards the application of statutory limitations to the investigation of the case and the failure to submit information on the specific steps taken to locate and identify the remains of Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera and hand them over to his next-of-kin.
Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas
936. This case refers to the violation of the rights to personal liberty, a fair trial, judicial protection, the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, and humane treatment with respect to Messrs. Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas. The full text of the judgment of November 25, 2005, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_137_esp.pdf.
During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on the State’s first
report on compliance and, on July 12, 2007, the Court issued an order
ruling that the State had partially complied with the remedies ordered
and requesting additional information. The full text is available at:
Case of Gómez Palomino
938. This case deals with the forced disappearance of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino in Lima, Peru, on July 9, 1992, and the failure to conduct an investigation and to punish the perpetrators of the violations committed. The full text of the judgment of November 22, 2005, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_136_esp.pdf.
939. During 2007, the State did not send the Court the report on compliance that it was instructed to submit on several occasions. On October 18, 2007, the Court issued an order stating that the State had failed to lodge the required reports and setting a new deadline for it to meet its international obligation in that regard. The full text is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_18_10_07_ing.pdf.
Case of Gómez Paquiyauri
940. On February 5, 2002, the Commission lodged an application with the Court in this case, for the events of June 1991 when, during the course of two police operations, the brothers Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, aged 14 and 17, respectively, were arrested by the National Police and placed in the trunk of a patrol car; one hour after their arrest, their bodies, showing signs of torture, were admitted to the morgue. Their family was given no adequate redress and, on July 8, 2004, the Court issued a judgment on merits and reparations in this case.
941. On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in this case, instructing Peru to take all the steps necessary for prompt and effective implementation of the pending elements of its judgment, namely: effectively investigating the events to identify, prosecute, and punish all perpetrators of the violations committed against the victims; officially bestowing the names Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri on a school in the province of El Callao, in a public ceremony attended by the families of the victims; and creating a scholarship covering studies up to the university level for Nora Emely Gómez Peralta and facilitating her vital-records registration as daughter of Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_%2022_09_06_ing.pdf.
942. During 2007, the Commission presented its comments on the information submitted by the victims’ representatives and by the State regarding compliance with the redress ordered by the Court in its judgment of July 8, 2004. The IACHR reiterated its concern at the lack of specific progress and the delay in implementing the three pending obligations indicated in the order of September 22, 2006.
Case of Huilca Tecse
943. This case deals with the extrajudicial killing of the trade union leader Pedro Huilca Tecse on December 18, 1992, in Lima, Peru, and the subsequent failure to investigate the incident and punish the guilty. The full text of the judgment of March 3, 2005, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_121_ing.pdf.
944. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments regarding the State’s report on compliance with the judgment in the case. The reparation measures still pending per the Court’s order on compliance of September 22, 2006, include the following: investigating, identifying, and punishing the persons who carried out and ordered the execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse; establishing a course on human rights and labor law named after Pedro Huilca; recalling and honoring the work of Mr. Pedro Huilca Tecse during the official May 1 (Labor Day) celebration; erecting a bust to the memory of Pedro Huilca Tecse; and providing his family with care and psychological treatment. The text of that order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/huilca_%2022_09_06_ing.pdf.
Ivcher Bronstein Case
945. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s reparations orders contained in its judgment of February 6, 2001, and in the Court’s most recent order of September 21, 2005. According to that order, still pending are the State’s obligations to investigate the incidents that led to the violations described in the judgment; to facilitate the victim’s efforts to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as the largest shareholder in Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A.; to pay compensation for moral damages; and to reimburse the costs and expenses incurred at the domestic and international venues.
946. The Commission voiced concern over the failure to implement in full the Court’s judgment in this case, more than six years after notice of it was served on the State. It also asked the Court for the following: concerning the obligation to facilitate Mr. Bronstein’s recovery of the use and enjoyment of his rights as majority shareholder, which he was until August 1, 1997, to order the State to take specific steps to end actions preventing Mr. Bronstein’s use and enjoyment of his rights as majority shareholder in Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A.
Case of Juárez Cruzatt et al. (Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case)
947. This case addresses the events of May 6 to 9, 1992, at the Miguel Castro Castro Prison in the city of Lima, during which 42 inmates lost their lives, 175 were injured, and a further 322 were subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for various lengths of time; the treatment subsequently given to the surviving victims at the various hospitals and detention centers to which they were taken; the failure to conduct a timely and thorough investigation; the destruction of evidence that was essential for casting light on the incident; and the denial of justice suffered by the victims and their next-of-kin.
948. The State is to submit its first report on compliance with the judgment in June 2008, on which occasion the Inter-American Commission will submit the comments it deems relevant.
Case of La Cantuta
949. On February 14 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in the case of the human rights violations committed against Professor Hugo Muñoz Sánchez and the students Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa, together with their families, as a result of the victims’ abduction from the Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University of Education in La Cantuta, Lima, in the early hours of July 18, 1992, with the participation of members of the Peruvian Army at whose hands the victims were kidnapped, disappeared, and, later, in the case of some of them, summarily executed, together with the impunity surrounding the facts of the case.
950. On November 29, 2006, the Court ruled on the merits and reparations in this case. It accepted the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility offered by the State and ruled that Peru did violate the right to life, humane treatment, judicial protection, and a fair trial set forth in the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligations of respecting and ensuring those rights and adopting domestic legal effects. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_162_ing.pdf.
951. The Commission is awaiting the State’s first report on the reparations ordered by the Court.
952. Subsequently, on November 30, 2007, the Court issued a judgment of interpretation of its judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs in which it determined the scope of various issues raised by the representatives and next-of-kin of the victims on March 20, 2007. On that occasion, the representatives requested the clarification of several points related to the identification and/or determination of the next-of-kin of the victims in the case in connection with their status as beneficiaries of the reparation measures ordered in the judgment.
Loayza Tamayo Case
953. This case deals with the violations of María Elena Loayza Tamayo’s rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection that began on February 3, 1993, in Lima, Peru. The judgments on merits and reparations adopted by the Court in the case are available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_33_ing.pdf and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_42_ing.pdf.
954. The most recent order on compliance, dated September 22, 2006, resolved to keep the procedure open with respect to the following pending State obligations: reinstating Mrs. María Elena Loayza Tamayo as a teacher in public institutions, in the understanding that her salary and other benefits must be the equivalent of her remuneration from those activities in the public and private sector at the time she was arrested; guaranteeing her full right to retirement benefits, including the time during which she was detained; taking all domestic-law measures to ensure that no adverse ruling issued in Mrs. Loayza Tamayo’s civil prosecution will produce any legal effect whatsoever; taking the necessary domestic-law measures to ensure that Decree Laws Nos. 25475 (Crime of Terrorism) and 25659 (Crime of Treason) are brought into conformity with the American Convention; and investigating the facts of the case, identifying and punishing the guilty, and taking the necessary steps under domestic law to ensure compliance with this obligation. The full text of that order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/loayza_%2022_09_06_ing.pdf.
955. During 2007, the Commission addressed the items still pending compliance and, in particular, noted that the most recent development in the criminal proceedings is the declaration of expiry of criminal action issued on behalf of the members of the National Terrorism Directorate (DINCOTE) accused of violating the victim’s rights, which is a source of particular concern and in contravention of the State’s international obligations.
Case of Lori Berenson
956. This case involves violations of the right to humane treatment, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, and of the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws committed with respect to Mrs. Lori Berenson. The full text of the judgment of November 25, 2004, is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_119_ing.pdf.
957. The Court’s most recent order is dated September 22, 2006. The redress measures still outstanding include: bringing domestic law on terrorism into conformity with the standards of the American Convention; providing the victim with adequate and specialized medical care, including both medical and psychological attention; bringing detention conditions at the Yanamayo Prison into line with international standards, and transferring to other prisons inmates whose physical condition precludes imprisonment at that altitude; and reporting to the Court every six months. The text of that order can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/lori_22_09_06_ing.pdf.
The State was required to furnish information in March 2007 but has not
Neira Alegría Case
959. This case addresses the aftermath of the riot that took place at El Frontón Prison on June 19, 1986, and the failure to identify the bodies of Messrs. Víctor Neira Alegría, Edgar Edison Zenteno Escobar, and William Jans Zenteno Escobar, who were inmates at the facility. The merits judgment of January 19, 1995, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_20_ing.pdf.
960. The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated November 28, 2002. According to that order, the State’s obligations of locating and identifying the victims’ remains and of handing them over to their next-of-kin are still pending implementation. The full text of the order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/neira_28_11_02.pdf.
961. During 2007, the State failed to meet its obligation of informing the Court about the steps taken to implement the judgment.
Constitutional Court Case
962. The application in this case, lodged by the Inter-American Commission on July 2, 1999, addresses the dismissal of three of the seven justices of Peru’s Constitutional Court by a majority of the Congress of the Republic, after the Court exercised its function of ensuring constitutionality and ruled that Law No. 26657 was inapplicable in that it empowered the President of Peru for a second reelection in breach of Article 112 of the Constitution, which limits the presidential mandate to two consecutive five-year periods. The dismissal of the three justices left the Constitutional Court dismantled, with only four justices, thus legally unable to perform one of the Court’s key functions, that of overseeing constitutionality by means of unconstitutionality suits, thereby leaving the inhabitants of Peru in a state of defenselessness and vulnerability.
963. On February 7, 2006, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in this case, in which it resolved to keep the procedure open with respect to the State’s pending obligations: investigating and identifying the persons responsible for violating the victims’ human rights and punishing them; and determining and paying, in accordance with the applicable domestic law most favorable to the victims and in line with due process of law, the interest accrued during the period of unpaid salaries and other benefits of Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry, and Delia Revoredo Marsano. The full text of the order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tribunal_07_02_06_ing.pdf.
964. During 2007, the State submitted no information whatsoever regarding its compliance with the judgment of January 31, 2001. As a result, the Commission has not been able to present its periodic comments on compliance with the Court’s orders.
Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees
965. On February 4, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, which involves the dismissal of 257 employees of Peruvian National Congress, part of a group of 1117 workers dismissed by congressional resolutions on December 31, 1992.
966. On November 24, 2006, the Inter-American Court issued its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, finding that a violation of the dismissed congressional employees’ right to a fair trial and to judicial protection had been committed, together with a violation of the general obligation of respecting and ensuring rights and of enacting domestic-law provisions established in the Convention. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_158_ing.pdf.
967. The Commission is awaiting the State’s first report on the reparations ordered by the Court.
968. On March 8, 2007, Mr. Adolfo Fernández Saré, a victim in the case and the representative of one of the groups of victims, requested an interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs; subsequently, on November 30, the Court issued its judgment of interpretation of the judgment of November 24, 2006, ruling the interpretation request inadmissible since it did not comply with the terms of Articles 67 of the Convention and 29.3 and 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
r. Dominican Republic
Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Case
969. On July 11, 2003, the Commission lodged its application in this case, which deals with the refusal of the State, through its civil registry authorities, to issue the girls Yean and Bosico with birth certificates, even though they were born in the territory of the State and the Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes the principle of ius soli for determining who are Dominican citizens. The State thus forced the victims to remain in a situation of continuing illegality and social vulnerability – violations which are additionally serious since they are both minors; the Dominican Republic thus denied the victims’ right to Dominican nationality and kept them in statelessness for a period of time.
970. On September 8, 2005, the Court issued judgment in the case, ruling that there had been violations of the right of nationality and the right to equality before the law, of the right to a name and the right to juridical personality, and of the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention. The Court also specified the remedies it deemed pertinent. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_130_%20ing.pdf.
971. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s reparations orders set out in its judgment of September 8, 2005, noted its satisfaction at the fulfillment of the judgment’s monetary obligations, and awaited future reports from the State on its compliance with the other obligations stipulated in the ruling.
972. On November 28, 2007, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment, ruling that the State had met the obligation of paying the amount due for nonmaterial damages and had paid the costs and expenses ordered. It also resolved to keep the compliance monitoring procedure open as regards the points still outstanding, namely: (a) publishing, at least once, in the official gazette and in another newspaper with national circulation in the Dominican Republic, certain sections of the Court’s judgment; (b) organizing a public act acknowledging its international responsibility and apologizing to the victims and their next-of-kin, in the presence of State authorities and the victims, their next of kin, and representatives, with media coverage; and (c) adopting, in its domestic law, in accordance with Article 2 of the American Convention, the legislative, administrative, and any other measures needed to regulate the procedure and requirements for acquiring Dominican nationality based on late declaration of birth. Finally, the Court instructed the State to take all the steps necessary for prompt and effective compliance with the outstanding items ordered by the Court, as required by Article 68.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
Case of the Moiwana Community
973. This case deals with the deficient investigation conducted by Suriname into the attack on the village of Moiwana on November 29, 1986, the State’s violent obstruction of justice, and the lengthy period of time that passed without the incident being cleared up or the guilty punished. The full text of the judgment of June 15, 2005, may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing.pdf.
974. During 2007, the Commission noted that the State had complied with organizing the public ceremony to offer apologies and acknowledge its responsibility and had paid the amounts ordered as compensation, costs, and expenses; the Commission urged the State to comply with the remaining outstanding items.
Case of the Twelve Saramaka Clans
975. This case deals with the failure to legally recognize the Saramaka people and their communal property rights over the lands they have traditionally occupied and used, and the denial of justice the people have faced in seeking to protect their basic rights.
976. On January 19, 2007, the State submitted its reply to the application and filed seven preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Commission and the victims’ representatives responded to those objections on February 28 and March 1, 2007, respectively.
977. On March 30, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, which was held in the city of San José, Costa Rica, on May 9-10, 2007, with the participation of the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their families, and the State. On July 3 and 9, 2007, the parties submitted their final briefs.
978. On November 28, 2007, the Inter-American Court, after giving consideration to the evidence furnished by the parties at trial and the claims they made, issued a judgment dismissing the seven preliminary objections lodged by the State and ruling that a violation did take place of Articles 3, 21, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate.
979. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_172_ing.pdf.
t. Trinidad and Tobago
Cases of Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin, et al.
980. This case is the result of the joinder of the cases of Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al., which were lodged separately with the Court by the Inter-American Commission against the State of Trinidad and Tobago on May 25, 1999, February 22, 2000, and October 5, 2000, respectively. It addresses the obligatory nature of the death penalty; the process for granting amnesties, pardons, and commutations of sentence in Trinidad and Tobago; the delays in the criminal prosecutions of some of the victims; the deficiencies in the treatment and detention conditions of some of the victims; the violations of due process prior to and during the trial and during the appeals phase; and, finally, the nonavailability of legal counsel to assist some of the victims in securing access to domestic remedies for reporting the violations of their rights.
981. The Court handed down its judgment on merits and reparations in the case on June 21, 2002. The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated November 27, 2003. In that order, the Court noted the State’s obligation of reporting on the measures adopted every six months and the fact that it had not complied with that requirement. It consequently resolved that “if the current situation persist, to report on it to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention […] and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court.” The judgment and the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_94_ing.pdf and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/hilaire_27_11_03_ing.pdf.
982. During 2007, the Commission again received no information from the State regarding compliance with its obligations under the judgment.
Case of Winston Caesar
983. During 2007, the Commission periodically submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of March 11, 2005.
984. On November 21, 2007, the Court adopted an order establishing that the State had not met its obligation of informing the Court about the measures adopted to comply with the judgment. The Court stressed the State’s duty of compliance therewith in spite of its denunciation of the American Convention and instructed it to report by March 8, 2008.
El Amparo Case
985. This case involves the extrajudicial killing of 14 fishermen by police and military personnel on October 29, 1988, at Canal La Colorada in Venezuela, the subsequent failure to conduct an investigation and punish the guilty, and the violations committed with respect to two survivors. The complete text of the merits judgment of January 18, 2005, may be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_19_ing.pdf.
986. The Court’s most recent order is dated July 4, 2006. In it, the Court declared that the State had fully complied with paying the interest accrued in the case; that if after ten years the next-of-kin of Mr. Julio Pastor Ceballos do not claim the amounts kept in their name at the corresponding financial institution, those funds shall be returned to the State, with the interest earned; and that the form of redress pending in the case is to continue with the investigation of the facts and to punish the guilty. The text of that order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/amparo_04_07_06_ing.pdf.
987. During 2007, the State failed to meet its obligation of reporting to the Court on the points still awaiting compliance in spite of repeated requests for it to do so.
El Caracazo Case
988. According to the most recent order, the State is still pending compliance with the following obligations:
a. investigating, identifying, and punishing, administratively and criminally, with all the conditions and characteristics set out in the judgment;
b. finding, exhuming, and identifying the mortal remains of certain victims, and handing them over to their families;
c. reporting, when burials have taken place, if the State assumed the costs thereof and took into account the locations chosen by the next-of-kin for the interment of the mortal remains of the individuals referred to in the second operative paragraph;
d. taking the steps necessary to avoid recurrence of the circumstances and facts of the instant case; and,
e. reimbursing the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) for costs and expenses.
989. During 2007, the State failed to meet its obligation of reporting to the Court on the points still awaiting compliance in spite of repeated requests for it to do so.
Case of the Disappeared of Vargas (Blanco Romero, Hernández Paz, and Rivas Fernández)
990. On June 30, 2004, the Commission lodged its application in this case with the Court in light of the events that took place in Vargas State, Venezuela, between December 21 and 23, 1999, when Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz, and José Francisco Rivas Fernández were arrested by and subsequently forcibly disappeared at the hands of state agents.
991. On June 28, 2005, after the State had offered an admission at a public hearing, the Court adopted a resolution in which it agreed to accept the recognition of international responsibility made by the State, to note that the dispute regarding the facts had ended, and to continue with the processing of the case. On November 28 of that year, the Court handed down its judgment, ruling that violations of the victims’ right to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, and of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, had taken place; and that the State had failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and in Articles I.a y I.b., X, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Court also ruled that there had been violations of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection, and of the obligation set out in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, with respect to the victims’ families. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
992. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on the information presented by the parties, stressing the importance of compliance with Court’s binding judgments within the timeframe and in the fashion stipulated by the Court, together with the need for the State to report on the specific measures adopted to that end and to refrain from offering interpretations seeking to amend the judgment and the reparations owed.
Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. (RCTV)
993. On April 20, 2007, the Commission sent the Court its application in this case, which addresses a series of restrictions on the right of free expression of journalists, news team personnel, workers, and executives of the television channel RCTV, together with the State’s failure to provide an adequate and effective response to the complaints lodged at domestic venues by the victims. The restrictions on the exercise of free expression addressed in the case can be summarized as follows: (i) hindrance by means of acts of violence – occasionally resulting in physical harm – and/or acts of intimidation against teams of reporters both investigating and reporting information as a part of their journalistic endeavors away from the channel’s headquarters; (ii) barriers to access to official sources of information; (iii) acts of violence against the channel’s premises and property; and (iv) threats made by ranking State officials, including the President of the Republic, regarding the closure, cancellation, or nonrenewal of frequency concessions on account of the editorial line followed.
994. Notice of the application was served and the case is in the early stages of processing.
Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia)
995. This case deals with the events of November 27 to 29, 1992, inside and near to the Flores de Catia Judicial Detention Center, a prison facility located in the city of Caracas, and with the lack of preventive measures for averting acts of violence and tackling emergency situations within that center; the excessive use of force; the extrajudicial killing of several inmates; the subhuman detention conditions, which triggered the violence and lack of security at the Center at the time of the incident; the failure to conduct a timely and thorough investigation; the denial of justice with respect to the victims and their next-of-kin; and the lack of prison policies in line with international standards.
996. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs of July 5, 2006, the implementation of which is still pending in its entirety.
Case of Gabriela Perozo et al. (Globovisión)
997. On April 12, 2007, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case 12.442, alleging its responsibility in the violation of Articles 5, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligation established in Article 1.1 thereof.
998. The case addresses a series of incidents involving harassment, persecution, and aggression that began in 2001 and that were aimed at 44 individuals with ties to the Globovisión television channel, including reporters, associated technical support staff, employees, and executives, together with the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating those incidents.
999. The victims’ representatives lodged their brief containing requests, arguments, and evidence with the Court on July 13, 2007. On September 11, 2007, the State submitted its reply to the application and filed a preliminary objection to the Court’s jurisdiction, two formal comments on the brief presented by the victims’ representatives; and a request for the recusal of two members of the Court. The Commission replied to those objections on November 16, 2007.
Case of Reverón Trujillo
1000. On November 9, 2007, the IACHR lodged an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case No. 12.565, María Cristina Reverón Trujillo. The case involves the arbitrary dismissal of Mrs. María Cristina Reverón Trujillo from her post as 14th Provisional First-Instance Criminal Judge of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit on February 6, 2002, by the Judiciary Operations and Restructuring Commission, and the lack of effective judicial recourse to provide adequate redress. Despite her having obtained a favorable ruling from the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela on October 13, 2004, declaring her arbitrary dismissal null and void, that Court did not order her reinstatement in her position in the judiciary or in another post of similar hierarchical level and salary scale, nor the payment of her lost earnings and benefits. That decision was based on the fact that Venezuela’s judiciary was at the time undergoing a restructuring process in which it was agreed to open all judicial positions to public competitive examinations, including those held by provisional judges such as Mrs. Reverón Trujillo. However, on the date that decision was made, no competitive examinations had been organized or even announced. Consequently, in spite of having obtained a judicial ruling recognizing the arbitrary nature of her dismissal, the annulment remedy was not effective in providing Mrs. Reverón Trujillo with full redress for the violations detected.
1001. The deadline for the victim to submit her brief of pleadings, motions and evidence is pending.
Case of Ruggeri Cova et al. (First Administrative Litigation Court)
1002. On November 29, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the State of Venezuela in case 12.489, Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras, and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, because of their removal as judges of the First Administrative Litigation Court on October 30, 2003, without observing the safeguards of independence and impartiality, through a decision lacking sufficient reasoning regarding the “inexcusable judicial error” they were said to have committed, and without an effective judicial response to the legal action they filed challenging their removal.
1003. In the processing of the case before the Court, the parties have filed their main briefs, and a public hearing in the case has been convened for January 31 and February 1, 2008.