17. On June 28, 2009, democratic and constitutional order in Honduras was interrupted. That same day, the Inter-American Commission condemned the coup d’état and the interruption of the Honduran constitutional order, and issued an urgent call for democratic order to be restored and for human rights, the rule of law and the Inter-American Democratic Charter to be respected. It also urged unqualified respect for the right to freedom of expression.
18. The organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights have emphasized the intrinsic relationship that exists between democracy and observance of and respect for human rights. Representative democracy is the form of political organization that the OAS member states have explicitly adopted. In its principles, the OAS Charter provides that “(t)he solidarity of the American States and the high aims which are sought through it require the political organization of those States on the basis of the effective exercise of representative democracy.” Furthermore, “representative democracy is an indispensable condition for the stability, peace and development of the region.” The countries of the American hemisphere reinforced their commitment to democratic government through their adoption of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which provides that “the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it.” That legal instrument reflects the efforts to promote and strengthen democracy and the mechanisms implemented to prevent and respond to situations that affect the development of the democratic political institutional process.
19. The Inter-American Democratic Charter reaffirms that “the promotion and protection of human rights is a basic prerequisite for the existence of a democratic society” and declares that:
Essential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, the holding of periodic, free, and fair elections based on secret balloting and universal suffrage as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, the pluralistic system of political parties and organizations, and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.
20. From the moment the coup d’état occurred, the Commission received numerous complaints of human rights violations committed by the de facto government, which affected such basic rights as the right to life, the right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty and freedom of expression.
21. In compliance with its obligations to promote and defend human rights, the Commission has been constantly observing and monitoring the human rights situation since June 28 and has used precautionary measures and the procedure of requesting information as means to protect the human rights of thousands of persons.
22. The Commission conducted its on-site visit from August 17 through 21, 2009, to verify the observance of human rights in Honduras in the wake of the coup d’état. On August 21 the IACHR presented its preliminary observations publicly in Tegucigalpa, where it reported on a pattern of disproportionate use of public force, arbitrary detentions, and control of information aimed at limiting the political participation of a sector of the populace. It also found that the interruption of the constitutional order caused by the coup d’état was coupled with a heavy military presence in various areas of civilian life, suspension of guarantees with enforcement of curfews, and the ineffectiveness of judicial remedies in safeguarding people’s fundamental rights.
23. In its preliminary observations, the Commission concluded that the conditions for effective observance of the human rights of all inhabitants of Honduras would only be possible when the democratic institutional system was restored in Honduras.
24. The present report, which concerns the human rights situation since the coup d´état, was prepared after the on-site visit. During that visit, the Commission had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the de facto government and of diverse sectors of civil society. It also had an opportunity to observe and verify, in different places throughout the country, the situation of human rights in Honduras in the context of the coup d’état.
25. The Inter-American Commission approved the present report on November 27 2009. Pursuant to Article 58 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, the report was forwarded to the state of Honduras on December 7, 2009, with the request that it submit such observations as it deemed pertinent within 15 days. The Commission’s communication was addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Honduras and to the President of the National Congress, given the impossibility of communicating with President Zelaya or his Foreign Minister, Patricia Rodas.
26. On December 16 2009, the State requested an extension for the purposes of submitting its observations. The Commission did not accede to the State’s request. The observations were received by the IACHR on December 22, 2009, signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Honduras and, wherever pertinent, have been introduced throughout the body of this report. The Commission approved publication of this report on December 30, 2009.
27. The observations presented by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, contain comments pertaining to form and substance and a statement to the effect that “by claiming to have established and verified the presence of serious human rights violations, the draft report adopts an accusatory tone that constitutes a prejudgment of the Honduran state’s international responsibility for alleged human rights violations.” The observations also state that the Report “fails to provide an exhaustive account of the communications that the Supreme Court and the Foreign Ministry sent in response to the Commission’s requests for information.” The State’s response goes on to state the following:
The State of Honduras once again underscores its willingness and commitment to comply with its responsibilities, to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, and to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction without any form of discrimination.
The State of Honduras understands that in its draft report, the IACHR recognizes the structural problems in the areas of justice, security, marginalization and discrimination that have for decades adversely affected the human rights of our inhabitants, and that these structural problems have only been exacerbated in the political crisis that Honduras is now experiencing and have created a climate in which those rights are vulnerable.
Nevertheless, the State of Honduras reaffirms its readiness to conduct a serious and thorough investigation into the facts described in the draft Report, and to file periodic reports with the Commission on the progress made in those investigations.
Finally, given these observations, the State of Honduras would respectfully request that the Honorable Commission amend its draft report to be in keeping with Article 18(b) of the Statute of the IACHR and Article 57(1)(h) of its Rules of Procedure, and to make an objective assessment of our State’s capacity to comply with the obligations undertaken in the Convention and the measures to be taken to improve its capacity to ensure the free and full exercise of the human rights and freedoms recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights.
A. Measures adopted by the IACHR since the coup d’état
28. The Inter-American Commission issued its first press release on the situation in Honduras on June 28, 2009. In that press release, it condemned the coup d’état, urgently called for the restoration of the democratic order in Honduras and observance of human rights, and demanded that the situation of the Foreign Minister, Patricia Rodas, and other cabinet members be immediately clarified, as their whereabouts were unknown at the time.
29. Since then, the Commission has addressed all its correspondence to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to the President of the National Congress of Honduras, since it was unable to communicate with President Zelaya or his Foreign Minister.
30. In furtherance of Article 51 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, on June 30 the Commission asked the President of the National Congress and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for permission to conduct an urgent on-site visit to verify the human rights situation. That same day, the Commission issued a new press release entitled “IACHR Requests to Visit Honduras, Grants Precautionary Measures and Asks for Information.”
31. On July 3, the IACHR published its third press release wherein it expressed concern over the suspension of constitutional guarantees ordered by the de facto government on June 30 and reported on the amplification of Precautionary Measure 196-09 to add more beneficiaries.
32. On July 9, the IACHR issued its fourth press release in which it clarified that the suspension of Honduras from participating in the OAS did not change the obligations Honduras undertook in the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human Rights. Consequently, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights maintained its competence in promoting the observance and defense of human rights in the country.
33. On July 13, the IACHR received a communication from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court which read as follows: “I hereby respectfully acknowledge your note of June 30, 2009, concerning the visit to our Republic. In reply, the Honorable Supreme Court of Justice has no objection to an on-site visit to our country at your convenience. […] This Court will be happy to receive you and will afford you all the means you deem necessary to accomplish the purpose of your visit.”
34. On July 14, the Commission received a communication from the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic and signed by the de facto Deputy Secretary in the Foreign Affairs Office, Martha Lorena Alvarado de Casco. In that communication, she stated that “[t]he Government of Honduras is pleased to authorize the visit by the Honorable Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.”
35. On July 27, the IACHR published another press release in which it condemned the assassination of Pedro Ezequiel Muñoz (later identified as Pedro Madgiel Muñoz), which occurred in the department of El Paraíso between July 24 –the day on which the Police arrested him— and July 25 –the date on which his corpse was discovered.
36. On August 4, the President of the IACHR spoke on the telephone with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and told him of the Commission’s intention to conduct the visit and the date on which the visit could take place. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agreed to the visit and the date proposed by the Commission. That same day, a communication was sent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and to the President of the National Congress spelling out the conditions under which the on-site visit must be conducted, pursuant to the American Convention on Human Rights and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. These included the Commission’s authority to speak freely and in private with persons, groups, entities or institutions, and the State’s obligation to provide the guarantees necessary to those who provide information, testimony or evidence of any kind to the Commission.
1. Precautionary Measure MC 196-09
37. In keeping with its obligations to promote and protect human rights and given the hundreds of complaints it had received of serious violations of the right to life and to humane treatment, on June 28, 2009 the Commission granted precautionary measures (hereinafter, “MC 196-09”) and requested information on the danger that certain persons were facing as a consequence of the coup d’état. It also requested information pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention and Article XIV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.
38. The IACHR continued to receive requests and complaints of human rights violations and about the ineffectiveness of the remedies under domestic law, the lack of confidence in the judiciary and the inactivity on the part of the domestic institutions charged with protecting human rights. Consequently, and because all the information received was directly related to the interruption of the democratic order, the Commission decided to join all the cases and amplified precautionary measure MC 196-09 on a number of occasions, even after the on-site visit, because this was the only way of responding immediately to the situations denounced.
39. Nevertheless, during its on-site visit and thereafter, the Commission received reports from all affected sectors describing the failings of the de facto authorities in implementing the precautionary measures and their inefficacy as a mechanism for protecting the human rights of the persons affected.
40. By way of example it was reported that, on the initiative of the Supreme Court, on Saturday, August 15 –two days before the Commission’s official visit was due to begin— a list of all the beneficiaries of the precautionary measures granted by the Commission was published in four newspapers with nationwide circulation. At the bottom of the page was a notation to the effect that the individuals in question should report, either in person or through an attorney representing them, to the offices of the Supreme Court for purposes of executing and/or receiving information concerning the application of those measures.
41. The Commission has also received information to the effect that the Supreme Court is not the organ charged with implementing the precautionary measures; instead, it is the Secretariat of Security, an agency reportedly responsible for creating some of the alleged situations. Some civil society organizations and beneficiaries of the precautionary measures reported that having filed complaints against the security forces, they are now afraid of them; that on appealing to the Secretariat of Security for assistance, they have instead become the targets of attacks and threats. Finally, on the matter of implementation of the measures, the Commission received information indicating that some beneficiaries were forced to sign documents renouncing the protection granted under the precautionary measures because they did not want a permanent police presence; in other cases, beneficiaries have simply been given a phone number to call in case of emergency.
42. In its observations, the Supreme Court stated the following: “The competent state organ to implement the precautionary measures of protection is the Secretariat of Security. The Supreme Court ordered publication of the list of beneficiaries of the precautionary measures. The claims that certain beneficiaries have made alleging assaults and threats are utterly false, since when beneficiaries apply for protection it is given promptly and the measures of protection are mutually agreed upon and documented.”
43. The Commission observes that the very problems that have for decades relentlessly plagued the institutions of democratic government in Honduras, especially the administration of justice, have had serious repercussions in the context of the coup d’état, as evidenced by the steadfast refusal of the de facto authorities and the judicial branch to implement the precautionary measures ordered by the Commission.
B. Activities conducted during the on-site visit
44. The IACHR conducted its on-site visit from August 17 through 21, 2009. The delegation was composed of the Commission’s President, Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero; the First Vice President, Víctor Abramovich; the Second Vice President and Rapporteur for Honduras, Felipe González; Commissioner Paolo G. Carozza, and the Commission’s Executive Secretary, Santiago A. Canton. Also on the delegation were the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Catalina Botero, and Executive Secretariat attorneys Isabel Madariaga, Víctor Madrigal, Débora Benchoam, Milagros Noli and Tatiana Gos; the press director, Isabel Rivero; journalist Pablo Sandino Martínez and assistants Gloria Hansen and Gloria Amanda Molina.
45. Considering the purpose of the visit and the circumstances surrounding it, the Commission drew up its agenda with a view to gathering information from all sectors of Honduran society with an overall perspective in the analysis of the impact that the coup d’état had produced on the observance of human rights.
46. During its on-site visit, the Commission received 460 testimonies and complaints, 29 requests seeking precautionary measures and 88 documents on the situation in the country. When all the testimony and complaints were combined, over 300 people had filed complaints alleging assaults and illegal detentions made during the course of the demonstrations favoring the return of President Zelaya. For the duration of its week-long visit, the Commission received complaints at an office opened for that purpose.
47. On Monday morning, August 17, the IACHR met with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the justices serving in the Constitutional Chamber. The meeting was held at the Palace of Justice in the city of Tegucigalpa. There was discussion of the enforcement of the curfews, the processing of writs of habeas corpus, implementation of the precautionary measures, the powers of the police to make arrests, and the conditions under which persons deprived of their liberty since the coup d’état were held.
48. That same day, the Commission met with human rights defenders. Present at the meeting were some 50 defenders, who told the Commission about what effect the precautionary measures the Commission granted had had. Those present also gave detailed information on cases of human rights violations reported to the Commission: complaints of torture, arrests and mistreatment and abuse. The human rights defenders also described for the Commission the incidents of coercion, reprisals and general obstruction of their work, and the inefficacy of the writs of habeas corpus and amparo that had been filed to remedy the violations denounced.
49. The Commission then met with community leaders, who also pointed out the inefficacy of the writs of habeas corpus, the arrests and assaults to which they were subjected during the demonstrations, the poor medical treatment administered to the wounded, the limitations and restrictions on airing certain programs, and the exacerbation of racial discrimination.
50. Later, two meetings were held with journalists. Present at the first meeting were representatives from the following media outlets: Channel 36, Radio Globo, Channel 66 Maya TV and TeleSUR. During the meeting, the journalists complained of the military take-over of the media on the day of the coup d’état –June 28-, the interruption of their broadcasting signals, the telephone threats they received because of their criticism of the de facto government of Mr. Roberto Micheletti, and the threats and other acts of intimidation that the security forces committed against them during their coverage of the protests on the streets of Tegucigalpa and other Honduran cities.
51. The second meeting was with journalists, NGOs, and social organizations associated with the media. Participating in that meeting were attorneys and journalists of the Comité por la Libre Expresión (C-Libre) [Committee for Freedom of Expression], officials of the Journalists Association, one representative of the Foundation Democracy Without Borders and another from the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL). The IACHR received information on the polarization of the local press since the coup d’état; acts of intimidation by security forces and sympathizers of President Zelaya against members of the media; and the self-censorship of journalists to avoid retaliation.
52. The IACHR met with political authorities affected by the coup d’état. On that occasion it received information about the persecution of members of President Zelaya’s cabinet, the assaults against a number of congressmen and former congressmen and one candidate for the presidency, and the failure to implement the precautionary measures granted by the Commission.
53. On Tuesday, August 18, the Commission met with the Secretariat of Defense, the civilian authority to which the Armed Forces answer. There was discussion of the institution charged with controlling the demonstrations, the methods used and the persons who died in the protests. The Commission was also given information about the military presence at Channel 36 and at the Empresa Hondureña de Telecomunicaciones [Honduran Telecommunications Company] (hereinafter, “HONDUTEL”).
54. Later, the Commission met with the Military High Command, where representatives of that body reported on the human rights training that members of the armed forces receive, the fact that the Military High Command has no authority to make arrests, and the military takeover of a number of newspapers and radio and television stations.
55. The IACHR then met with the Secretariat of Security –the civilian authority to which the National Police are answerable- and with the National Police itself. During the meeting, the Commission was given information about the number of persons detained, the persons trapped between the military and police roadblocks set up on various highways in the country, the Armed Forces’ involvement in controlling the demonstrations, implementation of the precautionary measures and enforcement of the curfews.
56. The IACHR met with representatives from the National Congress: its President, Vice Presidents, and 16 congressmen of various parties. In the course of that meeting, the Commission received information on the measures taken by the Legislative Branch in the context of the coup d’état. The congressmen attending the meeting also expressed their views on the coup. There was also specific discussion of the legislation and regulations regarding military service and the events that occurred on August 12 in the columned patio area [known as “Los Bajos”] of the National Congress building, which are described in this report.
57. The Commission also met with the National Commissioner of Human Rights. The matters discussed at that meeting included the way in which the Commissioner handled reports prepared by various human rights organizations, the status of persons reported as disappeared, the violations of the right to freedom of movement and the results of the writs of habeas corpus.
58. The IACHR then held meetings with the Office of the Chief Prosecutor and the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights. At that meeting, reference was made to the actions that prosecutors undertook in response to violations of human rights, the progress made in the investigations and the implementation of the precautionary measures.
59. The Commission also met with the Inter-institutional Commission on Human Rights. At that meeting, information was supplied in connection with the implementation of the precautionary measures, the processing of complaints brought alleging human rights violations in the context of the coup d’état, and the situation of the media.
60. The IACHR then sat down with the President of the National Telecommunications Commission (hereinafter, “CONATEL”) and with foreign correspondents. At the first meeting, the executives of CONATEL gave the Commission their version of the complaints about the military takeover of the media, the blackouts that took some media outlets temporarily off the air and the blocking of the signals of international channels or national programs carried on local cable channels. The meeting with foreign correspondents examined the situation of the Honduran press in the wake of the coup d’état, the polarization of the media, and the problems that journalists have in practicing their profession.
61. That night, the Commission met with the family of President Zelaya, who provided information about their situation since the coup d’état.
62. On Wednesday, August 19, the Commission divided into two working groups in order to travel to other departments in the country.
63. One working group was composed of the President of the Commission, Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, the Second Vice President of the Commission and rapporteur for Honduras, Felipe González, the Executive Secretary of the Commission, Santiago A. Canton, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Catalina Botero, and staff of the Executive Secretariat. This group went to San Pedro Sula in the department of Cortés. The Commission met with civil society organizations, human rights defenders, community and political leaders, journalists and the de facto authorities of San Pedro Sula.
64. At the same time, a second working group, composed of First Vice President Víctor Abramovich, Commissioner Paolo Carozza and staff of the Executive Secretariat, went to Tocoa in the department of Colón. In Tocoa, the delegation held three meetings; it began with a meeting with human rights defenders and community leaders; it then met with representatives of the National Police, the Army and the regional representation of the Office of the Chief Prosecutor; the last of the three meetings was with a group of businessmen and citizens of that community who supported the coup d’état.
65. In the afternoon, the full delegation held meetings in Tegucigalpa with the “Alianza Hondureña Paz y Democracia” [Honduran Alliance for Peace and Democracy], the “Asociación de Mujeres Juristas” [Association of Women Jurists] of the Unión Cívica Democrática [Democratic Civic Union] and the Consejo Hondureño de la Empresa Privada [Honduran Private Enterprise Council].
66. On Thursday, August 20, the Commission again divided into two working groups. The first group, composed of Commission President Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, Second Vice President and rapporteur for Honduras, Felipe González, and staff of the Executive Secretariat traveled to the department of Comayagua, while the second working group –composed of First Vice President Víctor Abramovich, Commissioner Paolo G. Carozza and staff of the Executive Secretariat of the Commission- went to the National Penitentiary and the department of El Paraíso.
67. With the help of civil society organizations, during its visit to the department of Comayagua, the Commission set up an office where more than 100 complaints and testimonial statements were received. The Commission delegation also had a private hearing where it received testimony from four individuals who described in detail the events that transpired on July 30. The delegation then met with representatives of the Police and the Army and conducted an on-site inspection of the places in the town of Comayagua that had been used to hold detainees on the day in question. Lastly, it met with the staff of the regional unit of the Chief Prosecutor’s Office.
68. At the National Penitentiary, the IACHR visited 11 individuals still in custody, who were imprisoned along with another 17 people in the vicinity of the National Congress on August 12. In El Paraíso, the Commission received information from the authorities and from members of civil society concerning the Police and Military roadblocks set up on various roads across the nation, the enforcement of the curfew and its effects, and the detentions and assaults perpetrated by agents of the security forces. The Commission also held meetings with sectors that supported the de facto government.
69. That same day, meetings were held with civil society organizations.
70. The Commission met again with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Tegucigalpa on Friday, August 21. At that meeting, the Commission received information and informed the Supreme Court Justices of the findings it had reached concerning the human rights situation.
71. That same day, as it concluded its on-site visit, the Commission convened a press conference where it issued its press release entitled “IACHR presents preliminary observations on its visit to Honduras” and answered reporters’ questions about its initial observations concerning democratic institutions, the measures adopted by the de facto government and the human rights violated.
 Article 3, paragraph d of the Charter of the Organization of American States, signed in Bogotá in 1948 and amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires in 1967, the Protocol of Cartagena de Indias in 1985, the Protocol of Washington in 1992, and the Protocol of Managua in 1993.
 Charter of the Organization of American States, Preamble.
 Inter-American Democratic Charter, approved on September 11, 2001, during the Twenty-eight Special Session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, held in Lima, Peru.
 Inter-American Democratic Charter, Article 1.
 Inter-American Democratic Charter, Preamble.
 Inter-American Democratic Charter, Article 3.
 IACHR, Press Release 60/09: IACHR presents preliminary observations on its visit to Honduras, August 21, 2009. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/60-09eng.htm.
 Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
 IACHR, Press Release 42/09: IACHR strongly condemns coup d’état in Honduras, June 28, 2009. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/42-09eng.htm.
 Communication from the IACHR, dated June 28, 2009.
 Communication from the IACHR, dated June 30, 2009.
 IACHR, Press Release 45/09: IACHR Requests to Visit Honduras, Grants Precautionary Measures and Asks for Information, June 30, 2009, Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/45-09eng.htm.
 IACHR, Press Release 47/09: IACHR Expresses Concern over the Suspension of Guarantees in Honduras and Amplifies Precautionary Measures, July 3, 2009. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/47-09eng.htm.
 IACHR, Press Release 49/09: IACHR Maintains Its Competence in Honduras Following Suspension, July 9, 2009. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/49-09eng.htm.
 Memorandum from the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, 261-DGAE-09 dated July 8, 2009. It also reported that it had invited the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to send observers to the country.
 IACHR, Press Release 52/09: IACHR condemns murder in Honduras, July 27, 2009. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/52-09eng.htm.
 Communication from the IACHR, dated August 5, 2009.
 Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, Article 55, paragraph a.
 Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, Article 55, paragraph b.
 The mechanism of precautionary measures is provided for in Article 25 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. This provision states that in serious and urgent cases, and whenever necessary according to the information available, the IACHR may, on its own initiative or at the petition of a party, request that the State concerned adopt precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm to persons. Further, whenever it so deems and in accordance with the procedure established in the IACHR’s rules, it may request information from the interested parties on any matter related to the adoption and observance of the precautionary measures. In any event, the granting of such measures by the IACHR does not constitute any prejudgment of the merits of the case. Furthermore, under Article 41 of the American Convention, the IACHR has the authority to ask the governments of the member states to supply it with information on the measures adopted by them in matters of human rights. The IACHR also has the authority to request information on the whereabouts of presumed disappeared persons. This authority derives from Article XIV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “Convention on Forced Disappearance”) and applies whenever the IACHR has received information on a supposed forced disappearance.
 The information on the granting of precautionary measure MC 196-09 and the subsequent amplifications is available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/medidas/2009.eng.htm. As of the date of preparation of this report, 147 persons have been named as beneficiaries of the precautionary measure. A number of the amplifications of this precautionary measure were done on a collective basis.
 The IACHR sent the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Congress communications advising them of the additions made to the list of beneficiaries of the precautionary measures, requesting information and follow-up of information requests. Those communications were sent on the following dates: June 29, July 2, 3, 10, 15, 24, 25 and 30; August 7, 17, and 21, 2009. Via four communications, information was requested on 5 persons whose whereabouts, according to the reports received by the IACHR, were unknown. The Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras and the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs replied to the IACHR’s communications on the following dates: July 3, 5, 8, 24, 25 and 30; August 3, 10 and 12, 2009. The IACHR continued to amplify the precautionary measures and to request request information after its on-site visit, on the following dates: September 4, 23, 24, and 28; October 6, 16, 23, and 30, and November 17, 2009. The de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs sent communications on the following dates: September 2, 16, 18, and 29; and October 5, 6, 13 and 21, 2009.
 The list did not include the names of the persons added to the list of beneficiaries in the communication dated July 24, 2009. It is also important to point out that in the public notice the State misused the terms “human rights defenders”, “journalists”, “relatives of Mr. José Manuel Zelaya Rosales” and “international observers in Honduras” (numbers 68 to 71 in the publication), understood as groups of persons who are beneficiaries of the precautionary measures, since their use in the IACHR’s communication of July 3, 2009 was intended to remind the State of its general obligations to protect and defend the basic rights of any member of those groups.
 Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 12, paragraph 21.
 The Office of the Chief Prosecutor is independent of the three branches of government and was created by Legislative Decree No. 228-93, in force since January 6, 1994.
 The Inter-institutional Commission on Human Rights was created on July 21, 2006, under a Special Agreement for Inter-institutional Cooperation among the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, the Supreme Court, the Office of the Chief Prosecutor, the Secretariat of State for Government and Justice, the Secretariat of State for Security, the Secretariat of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretariat of State for Finance and the Minister Legal Counsel to the Office of the President of the Republic. The Commission, composed of one principal member and one alternate, is responsible for matters brought to the attention of the inter-American and universal systems for the protection of human rights. Article 3, paragraph 3) of that Agreement specifically states that one of the functions of the Commission shall be: “To request, directly from the competent official or authority, implementation of the precautionary measures ordered by the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.” Special Agreement for Inter-institutional Cooperation, received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 477).