Nº 58/01 
In September 1983, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition from Mr. Hugo César
Gramajo López (hereinafter “the petitioner”) concerning the
disappearance of his brother Oscar Manuel Gramajo López (hereinafter
“the victim”) in the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter “the
State” or “the Guatemalan State”).
The petitioner alleges that on November 17, 1980, the victim and
three companions were arrested by officers of the National Police, with
the assistance of members of the Fiscal Police and of the military. The
arrest occurred under the following circumstances: the victim and his
friends were in the house where one of the friends lived, listening to the
radio with the volume turned up and drinking, when a neighbor reported
them to the police because of the noise they were making.
After reviewing the petitioner’s case and in light of the
Guatemalan State’s refusal to provide the Commission with information
despite warnings that Article 42 of the Regulations of the IACHR would be
applied, the case is found to be admissible. It is also concluded that the
grounds for the report are true and that the Guatemalan State violated
Oscar Manuel Gramajo López’s rights to life (Article 4), to personal
integrity (Article 5), to personal liberty (Article 7), and to judicial
protection (Articles 8 and 25), as well as the obligation to guarantee the
rights protected in the American Convention on Human Rights, as
established in Article 1(1) thereof.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
On November 4, 1983, the Commission proceeded to open the case with
number 9207 and transmitted the pertinent parts of the petition to the
Guatemalan State requesting that it provide information on the material
facts of that communication within a 90-day period.
Having received no reply from the Guatemalan State, the Commission
reiterated its request for information on May 30, 1984 and indicated that
“if the information was not received within 30 days, the Commission
would consider the possibility of applying Article 39 of the
Regulations” whereby the facts reported would be presumed to be true.
As the Commission received no reply from the Guatemalan State, on
February 19, 1985, it renewed its request for information granting
an additional time limit of 30 days and again indicating the possibility
of applying Article 42 of the Regulations. The Commission still received
no reply from the Guatemalan State.
On December 2, 1998, the Commission requested the petitioner and
the Guatemalan State to submit within 30 days any recent and relevant
information that might have arisen in the case. On that date, also, the
Commission offered its services to the parties in reaching a friendly
settlement. In that regard, the Commission never received any additional
information or notification from the parties as to whether they accepted
to proceed with a friendly settlement.
Upon receiving a verbal request from the Guatemalan State, the
Commission sent it copies of the case file on February 11, 1999.
The Commission reiterated its request for information on August 31,
2000, granting a time limit of 30 days, with no possibility of extension.
The State has not responded to this new request for information.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The petitioner alleges that, on November 17, 1980, officers of the
National Police, in collaboration with the Fiscal Police and members of
the military illegally arrested his brother Oscar Manuel Gramajo López
(17 years old on the date of his arrest), who has been missing ever since.
As soon as the arrest occurred, the victim’s family immediately went to
the National Police, who denied having made the arrest.
The victim was arrested while he was with a group of friends
listening to the radio with the volume turned up and drinking at the home
of one of these friends. A neighbor, who was disturbed by the noise the
young people were making, called the police. The National Police, assisted
by the Fiscal Police and members of the military, arrested the four boys,
forcibly removing them from the house and mistreating them. The police
officers then took the four young men to the First National Police Corps
where they were allegedly beaten.
The report further stated that, between 1981 and 1983, the
victim’s family received news from a Colonel in the army and another man
working in the army, who was a friend of the victim, that the victim was
alive and in prison. They also indicated that Oscar Manuel had been held
at the Justo Rufino Barrios army headquarters for some time and was later
subjected to forced labor, under the supervision of the army, on projects
in Santa Cruz Barillas, Huehuetenango, and Poptún Petén.
In August 1983, the victim’s family received information
indicating that he was alive. According to that account, a merchant
driving a van near Santa Cruz Barillas on the way to Huehuetenango was
stopped en route by a stranger, who, it would appear, was the victim. He
asked the merchant where he was and later told him that he was doing
forced labor under army command in the mines of Santa Cruz Barillas. The
victim asked the merchant to let his family know that he was alive. The
merchant delivered the message to the victim’s family through a woman
working with Mr. Gramajo López’s mother.
Position of the State
The Guatemalan State never submitted information in this case
despite having been requested to do so on four occasions. The Guatemalan
State was twice informed that if it did not submit information on the
facts stated in the report, the Commission could invoke Article 42 of its
Regulations, whereby it could presume the facts to be true if the State
refused to submit information.
ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY
The Commission has prima facie competence to examine the
case. The facts alleged in the petition occurred when the Guatemalan State
was bound by the obligation to observe and guarantee the rights
established in the American Convention.
Requirements for admissibility of the case
Exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the petition
As indicated in the report, the victim’s family went to the
offices of the National Police on the day after Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López
was arrested. It is also noted that they did not file a formal report with
the authorities for fear of government reprisals if they reported an
illegal arrest committed by military personnel and police officers.
Similarly, the report states that the witnesses were threatened by the
police and did not want to come forward. For example, Mr. Mario Calderón,
who was at home at the time of the arrest, moved to another town because
he thought the family would ask him to testify in court.
Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Guatemalan State
failed to reply to any of the Commission’s requests for information.
This rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies seeks to give the State the
opportunity to resolve the problem under domestic law before resorting to
an international proceeding. For the Commission, the Guatemalan State’s
silence constitutes a presumption of tacit refusal to apply the rule of
Furthermore, in addition to this refusal to apply the rule of
exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission believes that, when the
events occurred, the remedies of Guatemala’s domestic jurisdiction were
ineffective and failed to provide minimum guarantees of due process of
law. This exceptional situation as regards the
facts, which is envisaged in Article 46(2) of the Convention, is also a
valid condition for application of the requirement of exhaustion of
domestic remedies provided in Article 46(1)(a).
Duplication of procedures and res judicata
There is no evidence that the subject matter of the petition is
pending other proceedings under international law, or that it might be the
duplication of another previous matter already examined by the Commission
or other international agency. Consequently,
the requirements set out in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention
have been fulfilled.
The Commission is of the view that the petitioner’s allegations
concerning the forced disappearance of Oscar Manuel Gramajo López at the
hands of government agents and the latter’s ineffectiveness in
investigating the acts and punishing the perpetrators of that crime could
constitute violations of rights guaranteed in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, and
1(1) of the American Convention. As there is no evidence that these
aspects of the petition are groundless or without merit, the Commission
considers them admissible in accordance with the requirements established
in Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention.
It should also be taken into consideration for admissibility that
the Guatemalan State has never questioned the disappearance of Mr. Oscar
Manuel Gramajo López nor the fact that these acts were committed by
government agents. In particular, since the time the pertinent parts of
the report were transmitted and after repeated requests, the State has not
submitted any information on the case, thereby failing to perform an
international obligation under Article 48 of the American Convention.
For this reason, the Commission considers the presumption within
the limits of Article 42 of its Regulations to be applicable to the case.
Article 42 of the Commission’s Regulations stipulates that the facts
reported in the petition, whose pertinent parts have been transmitted to
the State, shall be presumed to be true if, during the maximum period set
by the Commission, the State has not provided the pertinent information,
as long as other evidence does not lead to a different conclusion.
In this case the existing information does not lead to a different
version of the facts from the one reported, indeed it confirms the report.
Conclusions regarding competence and admissibility
The Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the merits of
the petition in this case and that said petition is, in principle,
admissible, in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American
ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS
Right to life (Article 4), right to personal integrity (Article 5),
and right to personal liberty (Article 7)
Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López
has remained missing to this day.
In that connection, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has
stated that the forced disappearance of persons constitutes a multiple and
continued violation of numerous rights recognized in the Convention, which
the States Parties are required to observe and guarantee. These begin with
the kidnapping of the person, which involves the arbitrary deprivation of
freedom and violates the right of the detainee to an immediate hearing
before a judge. In most cases it also involves prolonged isolation and
coercive severing of communications—which constitutes cruel and inhumane
treatment—as well as the execution of the detainees in secret, with no
form of trial, followed by the concealment of the body in order to remove
any material evidence of the crime and allow the perpetrators to act with
Furthermore, reflecting the development of the Criminal Court for
the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, said court codified this practice,
making forced disappearance an ongoing offense or one that is committed at
successive intervals until the missing person reappears alive or his/her
remains are found, and it is considered a crime against humanity. This is
also established in the International Criminal Statute adopted by the
Diplomatic Conference of Rome on July 17, 1998, in Article 7(1)(I).
The time when Mr. Gramajo López was deprived of his freedom and
seen for the last time coincided with the period of armed conflict in
Guatemala when the largest number of forced disappearances took place.
It should also be taken into account that the victim lived in the San
Marcos Department, which was reported by the Commission to Clarify History
to be one of those departments where the largest number of forced
Furthermore, given the context in which the disappearance occurred,
the silence of the Guatemalan State, and the fact that, after more than 20
years, the whereabouts of Oscar Manuel Gramajo López are still not known,
it can be reasonably concluded that the Convention was repeatedly
violated, in light of Articles 7, 5, and 4 thereof.
Article 7 of the American convention enshrines the right to
personal liberty and security. It is clear from the facts of this case
that Oscar Manuel Gramajo López was taken from the house where he was
found by government agents, who failed to produce any warrant for his
arrest or take him immediately before the competent judge or authority.
These facts constitute a serious violation of the provisions of Article 7
of the American Convention.
Article 5 of the American Convention establishes that every person
has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.
According to the Inter-American Court “prolonged isolation and
deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman
treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person
and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent
dignity as a human being. Such
treatment, therefore, violates Article 5 of the Convention, which
recognizes the right to the integrity of the person…”
The right to life is enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American
Convention, which establishes that every person has the right to have his
life respected and that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of life.
Now, twenty years after the disappearance, the whereabouts of the victim
have not been determined. In light of the time that has elapse, the
Guatemalan Government’s silence, and the context in which the events
took place, it is reasonable to infer that the victim is no longer living.
These circumstances constitute a serious violation of Article 4 of the
For these reasons, the Commission concludes that, based on the
facts reported and the silence of the Guatemalan State, government agents
caused the victim’s disappearance and violated his right to life, to
liberty, and to personal integrity, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of
the American Convention.
Obligation of the State to investigate, try, and punish those
responsible and the right of victims to judicial protection
Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention establish the
State’s obligation to provide access to justice with guarantees of
legality, independence, and impartiality, within a reasonable time frame,
and with due protection, as well as the general obligation to provide
effective judicial recourse in the event of violations of fundamental
rights, incorporating the principle of effectiveness of instruments or
procedures. As indicated by the Court:
Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to
victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be
substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art.
8(1), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to
guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the
Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction.
The lack of effective recourse in the event of violations of rights
recognized in the Convention is itself a violation of that Convention.
Judicial remedies and mechanisms are not only formally provided in the
legislation but must also effectively establish whether a human rights
violation has been committed and remedy its consequences.
Domestic remedies in Guatemala have not provided a satisfactory and
effective mechanism for guaranteeing due process of law and for
determining the whereabouts of Oscar Manuel Gramajo López, investigating
the facts and punishing those responsible for his disappearance. In that
regard, the comments of the Commission to Clarify History (CEH) should be
failure of Guatemalan administration of justice to protect human rights
during the domestic armed conflict has been clearly and fully established,
in light of the thousands of human rights violations recorded by the CEH,
which were not investigated, tried, or punished by the Guatemalan State.
Very few cases were investigated to determine the facts and try and punish
the perpetrators. Exceptionally, in one case, the victims and their
families received reparations for the injury caused. In general, the
judiciary failed to address basic procedural remedies to control the
public authorities in cases where the rights to personal liberty and
security, such as habeas corpus,
were seriously trampled. In addition, on numerous occasions, courts in the
justice system subordinated themselves to the executive, applying legal
standards or provisions that were contrary to due process or failing to
apply those that would ensure due process.
left the population completely defenseless against abuses of power and
gave the impression that the judiciary was an instrument for the defense
and protection of the powerful that repressed or denied protection of
fundamental rights, especially for those who were victims of serious human
this climate of threats, the few judges and magistrates that had assumed
the responsibility for providing the remedy of personal hearings,
refrained from taking further action. According to one judge "fear
was the predominant pathology" that paralyzed any attempt by the
judiciary to protect human rights. It should also be mentioned that the
highest judicial authorities were incapable of protecting the physical
integrity of judges and magistrates….
conclusion, between 1966 and 1982, the judiciary systematically denied the
remedies of habeas corpus and
effective judicial protection for persons illegally detained by the
security forces, for different reasons, most of which can be imputed to
its agencies, in particular the Supreme Court of Justice.
These deficiencies in the domestic remedies of Guatemalan
jurisdiction do not only justify the assertion that the petitioners are
not obligated to use and exhaust domestic remedies; they also invoke the
international liability of the Guatemalan State as they constitute a
violation of the rights to judicial protection and judicial guarantees,
recognized in Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention.
C. Obligation to respect and guarantee the rights recognized by the
Article 1(1) establishes the obligation of States Parties to
guarantee the exercise of basic rights and freedoms recognized in the
This obligation entails the duty to organize governmental structures, and
all structures in general, that would legally guarantee the free and full
exercise of human rights. As a result of this obligation, the States
Parties are legally bound to prevent, investigate, and punish any
violation of human rights protected by the American Convention.
Specifically, in the case of forced disappearance of persons, the State
has the duty to determine the victim’s fate and status, punish the
guilty parties, and compensate the families. Similarly, the Court
State has a legal duty to (…) carry out a serious investigation of
violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those
responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim
In this case, the Guatemalan State has not effectively performed
its obligation to elucidate the forced disappearance of Oscar Manuel
Gramajo López, as well as try and punish those responsible and provide
reparations to the victim’s family. The Commission concludes that the
Guatemalan State has failed in its obligation to guarantee the right to
life, liberty, and personal integrity of Oscar Manuel Gramajo López, as
well as the right to judicial guarantees for the victim and his family
under Article 1(1) of the Convention.
DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOWING THE ARTICLE 50 REPORT
On October 5, 2000, under the terms of Article 50 of the American
Convention, the Commission adopted Report 87/00 in connection with this
case. The report was transmitted to the Guatemalan State on October 30,
2000, along with a request for it to provide information, within the
following two months, about the steps taken to comply with the
On January 29, 2001, after that period had expired, the Guatemalan
State told the Commission that: “The actions deemed appropriate for
implementing the recommendations set forth in the aforesaid confidential
reports were carried out—including a search for information, records,
and judicial case files—but no positive results were obtained. The
Government of Guatemala therefore believes that the Commission should
provide information about the names and addresses of the family and the
petitioners in order to begin implementing the recommendations because, in
order to conduct an exhaustive investigation and compensate the victims,
their identities and locations need to be established in order to set up
communications channels for furthering compliance with the recommendations
contained in the aforesaid confidential reports. The Government of
Guatemala regrets not having met the limit date for reporting on the
confidential reports; however, this occurred because when the time
allotted expired, major efforts were still being made to gather together
information about those cases. In addition, the work required to attend to
the cases undergoing friendly settlement proceedings meant an increased
workload that made it impossible for us to communicate on date set by the
The Commission believes that the Guatemalan State’s comment that
“the actions deemed appropriate for implementing the recommendations set
forth in the aforesaid confidential reports were carried out—including a
search for information, records, and judicial case files—but no positive
results were obtained” confirms this report’s conclusion regarding the
disappearance of Oscar Manuel Gramajo López and the failure of the State
of Guatemala to conduct a serious and effective investigation to reveal
the victim’s whereabouts and to punish those responsible for his
Furthermore, the Commission does not share the Guatemalan State’s
opinion that “the Commission should provide information about the names
and addresses of the family and the petitioners in order to begin
implementing the recommendations because, in order to conduct an
exhaustive investigation and compensate the victims, identities and
locations need to be established in order to set up communications
channels for furthering compliance with the recommendations contained in
the aforesaid confidential reports.” In this regard, the Commission
points out that it is the inherent duty of the Guatemalan State to
initiate and pursue legal investigations and that the State cannot rely on
information provided by the Commission to “conduct an exhaustive
investigation” in order to reveal the whereabouts of Oscar Manuel
Gramajo López and to judge and punish those responsible for his
disappearance. The Commission believes that the fact that more than 20
years after the events described herein the State still lacks even the
most basic information about the identity and whereabouts of the
victim’s family reinforces all the Commission’s conclusions in this
In light of the information submitted by the Guatemalan State, the
Commission concludes that it has not complied with the recommendations set
forth in Report 15/01 of March 2, 2001, and it reiterates its conclusions
Based on the above-stated considerations in fact and in law, the
Commission concludes that the Guatemalan State has violated the rights of
Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López to life (Article 4), personal integrity
(Article 5), personal liberty (Article 7), and judicial protection
(Articles 8 and 25), as well as the obligation to guarantee the rights
protected in the Convention, as established in Article 1(1) thereof.
On the basis of the analysis presented, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights reiterates its recommendations that the State
Conduct and impartial and effective investigation of the facts
reported to determine the circumstances and fate of Mr. Oscar Manuel
Gramajo López, which would establish the identity of those responsible
for his disappearance and punish them in accordance with due process of
Adopt measures for full reparation of the violations determined,
including: steps to locate the remains of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López;
the necessary arrangements to accommodate the family’s wishes in respect
of his final resting place; and proper and timely reparations for the
On March 2, 2001, the Commission sent Report Nº 15/01 to the
Guatemalan State and to the petitioners in compliance with Article 51(2)
of the American Convention. It also gave the State one month in which to
comply with the above recommendations.
The day that the period expired, Guatemala requested
two month extension to report on its compliance with the recommendations.
Given the length of time that has transpired since the occurrence
of the facts in this case which we brought to the Commission's attention
in 1983 and given the nature of the case at hand, the Commission decided
to deny the extension requested by the Government of Guatemala.
The day that the period expired, Guatemala requested two month extension to report on its compliance with the recommendations. Given the length of time that has transpired since the occurrence of the facts in this case which we brought to the Commission's attention in 1983 and given the nature of the case at hand, the Commission decided to deny the extension requested by the Government of Guatemala.
In light of the above considerations and pursuant to Article 51(3)
of the Convention and Article 48 of its Regulations, the Commission
decides to repeat this report’s conclusions and recommendations, to
publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General
Assembly. The Commission, in compliance with its mandate, will continue to
monitor the steps taken by the Guatemalan State in connection with the
aforesaid recommendations until such time as they have been carried out in
Done and signed in Santiago, Chile, on April 4, 2001. Signed: Claudio Grossman Chairman; Juan E. Méndez, First Vice-Chairman; Helio Bicudo, Robert K. Goldman, Peter Laurie, and Julio Prado Vallejo, Commissioners.
The former Article 39 of the Regulations is now Article 42.
Article 42 of the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission states
that: “The facts reported in the petition whose pertinent
parts have been transmitted to the government of the State in
reference shall be presumed to be true if, during the maximum period
set by the Commission under the provisions of Article 34 paragraph 5,
the government has not provided the pertinent information, as long as
other evidence does not lead to a different conclusion.”
The Guatemalan Government ratified the American Convention on Human
Rights on May 25, 1978.
See “Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Republic of
Guatemala,” OEA/Ser.L/V/II.53 doc. 21 rev.2; Annual Report of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1981-1982, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.57
doc. 6 rev. 1; “Report
on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala,” OEA/Ser.L./V/II.61
doc. 47, October 5, 1983.
See pages 7 and 8 of this report.
Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraphs 145
See Report Nº 7/00, Case 10.337 – Amparo Tordecilla Trujillo,
Colombia, February 24, 2000.
See “Guatemala Memoria del Silencio,” Vol. II
(Human rights violations and acts of violence), Report of the
Commission to Clarify History.
Article 7. Right to Personal Liberty
1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.
2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the
reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the
constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established
3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.
4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his
detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges
5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other
officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be
entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without
prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be
subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.
6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse
to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay
on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if
the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws
provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with
deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent
court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat,
this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party
or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.
Article 5. Right to Humane Treatment
1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral
2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their
liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the
3. Punishment shall not be extended to any person other than the
4. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be
segregated from convicted persons, and shall be subject to separate
treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons.
5. Minors while subject to criminal proceedings shall be separated from
adults and brought before specialized tribunals, as speedily as
possible, so that they may be treated in accordance with their status
6. Punishments consisting of deprivation of liberty shall have as an
essential aim the reform and social readaptation of the prisoners.
Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraph 156.
Article 4. Right to Life
Every person has the right to have his life respected. This
right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of
conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.
In countries that have not abolished the death penalty, it may
be imposed only for the most serious crimes and pursuant to a final
judgment rendered by a competent court and in accordance with a law
establishing such punishment, enacted prior to the commission of the
crime. The application of such punishment shall not be extended to
crimes to which it does not presently apply.
The death penalty shall not be reestablished in states that
have abolished it.
In no case shall capital punishment be inflicted for political
offenses or related common crimes.
Capital punishment shall not be imposed upon persons who, at
the time the crime was committed, were under 18 years of age or over
70 years of age; nor shall it be applied to pregnant women.
6. Every person condemned to death shall have the right to apply for
amnesty, pardon, or commutation of sentence, which may be granted in
all cases. Capital punishment shall not be imposed while such a
petition is pending decision by the competent authority.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case,
Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, paragraph 91.
See Inter-American Court of Human Rights Cases: Velásquez Rodríguez,
Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987; Farién Garby and
Solís Corrales, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987,
paragraph 90; and Godínez Cruz, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of
June 26, 1987, paragraph 93.
See Note 8, op cit, Vol. III, pp. 113-151.
Article 1(1) Obligation to Respect Rights
1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights
and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to
their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and
freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case,
Judgment of July 26, 1988, paragraph 166.
Ibidem, paragraph 174.