D.      Follow-up on compliance with recommendations of the IACHR

 

62.             In resolution AG/RES. 1828 (XXXI-O/01) “Evaluation of the Workings of the Inter-American System for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights with a View to Its Improvement and Strengthening”, the OAS General Assembly invited the Commission and the Court to continue supporting the strengthening of the inter-American system for the protection and promotion of human rights and, in particular, to consider the possibility of including in its annual reports information on compliance by the states with the recommendations, decisions, or judgments issued by the two organs in the period under consideration. The General Assembly shall study that information (Resolutive paragraph 5).

 

63.             Resolutive paragraph 3 of the same resolution urged member states of the Organization to take the necessary steps to implement the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (paragraph c) and to take appropriate action in connection with the annual reports of the Court and the Commission, in the framework of the Permanent Council and the General Assembly of the Organization, in order to give full effectiveness to the duty as states to ensure compliance with the obligations emanating from the instruments of the system (paragraph d).

 

64.             Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, which entered into force on May 1, 2000, reads as follows:

 

Follow-Up  1.     Once the Commission has published a report on a friendly settlement or on the merits in which it has made recommendations, it may adopt the follow-up measures it deems appropriate, such as requesting information from the parties and holding hearings in order to verify compliance with friendly settlement agreements and its recommendations.

 

2.         The Commission shall report on progress in complying with those agreements and recommendations as it deems appropriate.

 

65.             In accordance with Resolution AG/RES. 1828 (XXXI-0/01), and in conformity with Article 46 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission requested information from the States concerning compliance with the recommendations issued in reports on individual cases published in its Annual Report for the year 2000.  The Commission also decided to include a copy of the responses of member States in its web page (www.cidh.org) where this was expressly requested.

 

66.             The table below shows four levels or categories of compliance with IACHR recommendations:

 

-        Full compliance (cases in which the state has implemented the IACHR’s recommendations in their entirety).

 

-        Partial compliance (cases in which the state has either implemented only one or some of the IACHR’s recommendations or else has implemented all of them but not completely).

 

-        Noncompliance, but with information (cases in which the state has replied to the request for information regarding implementation of the recommendations, but the IACHR considers that they were not in fact implemented).

 

-        Noncompliance and no information (cases in which the state did not reply to the request for information and where, in the opinion of the IACHR, the recommendations were not implemented.

 


 

Full
Compliance

Partial Compliance

Noncompliance (State presented information)

Noncompliance (State did not present, information

Report Nº 54/01 Maria da Penha, Case 12.051 (Brazil)

 

X

 

 

Report Nº 55/01 Aluisio Cavalcante et.al , Case 11.286 et. al.(Brazil)

 

 

 

X

Report Nº 61/01 Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo, Case 11.771 (Chile)

 

 

 

X

Report Nº 62/01 Massacre de Ríofrío, Case 11.654 (Colombia)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 63/01 Prada González y Bolaño Castro, Case 11.710 (Colombia)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 64/01 Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry, Case 11.712 (Colombia)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 4/01 María Eugenia Morales de Sierra, Case 11.625 (Guatemala)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 60/01 Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo et. al., Case 9111 (Guatemala)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 58/01 Oscar Manuel Gramajo López, Case 9207 (Guatemala)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 59/01 Remigio Domingo Morales et. al.,  Case 10.626 et.al (Guatemala)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 49/01 Leroy Lamey et. al., Case 11.826 et.al (Jamaica)

 

X

 

 

Report Nº 50/01 Damion Thomas, Case 12.069 (Jamaica)

 

 

 

X

Report Nº 53/01 Ana, Beatríz y Celia Gónzalez Pérez, Case 11.565 (Mexico)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 111/00 Pedro Pablo López González et. al., Case 11.031 (Peru)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 112/00 Yone Cruz Ocalio, Case 11.099 (Peru)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 110/00 César Cabrejos Bernuy, Case 11.800 (Peru)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 51/00 Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et. al., Case 9903 (United States)

 

 

X

 

Report Nº 52/01 Juan Raúl Garza, Case 12.243 (United States)

 

 

X

 

 

 

CASE 12.051, Report Nº 54/01, Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes, (BRAZIL)

67.             In Report 54/01 of April 16, 2001, the IACHR recommended to the Brazilian State:

 

1.         Complete, rapidly and effectively, criminal proceedings against the person responsible for the assault and attempted murder of Mrs. Maria da Penha Fernandes Maia. 

 

2.         In addition, conduct a serious, impartial, and exhaustive investigation to determine responsibility for the irregularities or unwarranted delays that prevented rapid and effective prosecution of the perpetrator, and implement the appropriate administrative, legislative, and judicial measures.

 

3.         Adopt, without prejudice to possible civil proceedings against the perpetrator, the measures necessary for the State to grant the victim appropriate symbolic and actual compensation for the violence established herein, in particular for its failure to provide rapid and effective remedies, for the impunity that has surrounded the case for more than 15 years, and for making it impossible, as a result of that delay, to institute timely proceedings for redress and compensation in the civil sphere.

 

4.         Continue and expand the reform process that will put an end to the condoning by the State of domestic violence against women in Brazil and discrimination in the handling thereof.  In particular, the Commission recommends:

 

a.          Measures to train and raise the awareness of officials of the judiciary and specialized police so that they may understand the importance of not condoning domestic violence.

 

b.         The simplification of criminal judicial proceedings so that the time taken for proceedings can be reduced, without affecting the rights and guarantees related to due process.

 

c.          The establishment of mechanisms that serve as alternatives to judicial mechanisms, which resolve domestic conflict in a prompt and effective manner and create awareness regarding its serious nature and associated criminal consequences.

 

d.         An increase in the number of special police stations to address the rights of women and to provide them with the special resources needed for the effective processing and investigation of all complaints related to domestic violence, as well as resources and assistance from the Office of the Public Prosecutor in preparing their judicial reports.

 

e.          The inclusion in teaching curriculums of units aimed at providing an understanding of the importance of respecting women and their rights recognized in the Convention of Belém do Pará, as well as the handling of domestic conflict.

f.          The provision of information to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights within sixty days of transmission of this report to the State, and of a report on steps taken to implement these recommendations, for the purposes set forth in Article 51 (1) of the American Convention.

68.             The Brazilian State supplied information to the Commission regarding the investigation to determine responsibility for the aggression and attempted murder mentioned in recommendation 1 supra.  It also informed that the victim has not been indemnified, and made reference to certain initiatives pertaining to the legislative aspects involved in the recommendations.


 

CASES 11.286 (Aluísio Cavalcante et. al.), 11.407 (Clarival Xavier Coutrim), 11.406 (Celso Bonfim de Lima), 11.416 (Marcos Almeida Ferreira), 11.413 (Delton Gomes Da Mota), 11.417 (Marcos de Assis Ruben), 11.412 (Wanderlei Galati), and 11.415 (Carlos Eduardo Gomes Ribeiro), Report Nº 55/01, (BRAZIL)

69.             In Report 55/01 of April 16, 2001, the IACHR recommended to the Brazilian State:

 

1.         That it carry out a serious, impartial, and effective investigation into the facts and circumstances of the deaths of Aluísio Cavalcanti, Clarival Xavier Coutrim, Delton Gomes da Mota, Marcos de Assis Ruben, and Wanderlei Galati, and of the assaults on and attempted homicides of Cláudio Aparecido de Moraes, Celso Bonfim de Lima, Marcos Almeida Ferreira, and Carlos Eduardo Gomes Ribeiro, and that it duly prosecute and punish the persons responsible.

 

2.         That such investigation include the possible omissions, negligence, and obstructions of justice that may have resulted from the failure to convict the persons responsible in a final judgment, including the possible negligence and mistakes of the Public Ministry and of the members of the judiciary who may have decided to waive or reduce the corresponding sentences.

 

3.         That the necessary measures be taken to conclude, as soon as possible and in the most absolute legality, the judicial and administrative proceedings regarding the persons involved in the above-noted violations.

 

4.         That the Brazilian State makes reparation for the consequences of the violations of the rights of the victims and their families or those who hold the right for the harm suffered, described in this report.

 

5.         That the necessary measures be taken to abolish the jurisdiction of the military justice system over criminal offenses committed by police against civilians, as proposed by the original bill, introduced in due course, to repeal Article 9(f) of the Military Criminal Code, and to approve, to take its place, the single paragraph proposed in that bill.[1]

 

6.         That the Brazilian State take measures to establish a system of external and internal supervision of the military police of São Paulo that is independent, impartial, and effective.

 

7.         That the Brazilian State present the Commission, within 60 days of transmittal of this report, a report on compliance with the recommendations, for the purpose of applying the provision at Article 51(1) of the American Convention.

70.             The Brazilian Government supplied no information regarding compliance with the above mentioned recommendations of the IACHR.

CASE 11.771, Report Nº 61/01, Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo (CHILE)

71.             The IACHR approved this report on April 16, 2001.  Based on the conclusions of the report, the following recommendations were issued to the Chilean State:

1.         Establish responsibility for the murder of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo by due process of law, so that the guilty may be duly punished.

 

2.         Adapt its domestic legislation to the provisions of the American Convention, in such a way as to leave Decree-Law N° 2191 of 1978 without effect.

 

3.         To take the steps necessary for the members of the victim’s family to receive adequate and timely compensation, including full reparations for the human rights violations described herein as well as payment of fair compensation for physical and nonphysical damages, including moral damages.

72.             Pursuant to Article 46(1) of its Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission sent a letter to both parties in this case on March 27, 2002 and it established a period of 15 days to report on compliance with the above mentioned recommendations.  The deadline expired with no response from either the Government of Chile or the petitioners.  The IACHR has not received information from other sources regarding measures to comply with the recommendations set forth in Report 61/01.

CASE 11.654, Report Nº 62/01, Ríofrío Massacre (COLOMBIA)

 

73.             On April 6, 2001 the IACHR issued Report 62/01 on case 11.654 relating to the massacre of Riofrío.  In that occasion the Commission issued three recommendations.  In the first place, it recommended the conduction of an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the massacre.  The State indicated that the judicial proceedings in relation to the present case–whose compatibility with the American Convention was analyzed in the Report—had “followed the requirements of domestic law” when carried and resolved by the military justice.  The petitioners have however reported that the Office of the Attorney General has opened a new investigation on the facts of the case, based in a series of new testimonies but that the investigation is in a preliminary stage.

 

74.             In the second place, the Commission recommended that the State take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.  The State reported that it was in the process of enforcing the mechanism provided for in Act Nº 288/96 with a view of complying with this recommendation.

 

75.             In the third place, the IACHR recommended that the State take the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention as well as the necessary measures to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights itself in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.  In response, the State detailed a number of objectives, programs and strategies to fight illegal armed groups and strengthen the administration of justice, including the reform of the Criminal Military Code.  These general measures have been and shall continue to be evaluated in chapter IV of the Commission’s Annual Reports.

 

CASE 11.710, Report Nº 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro (COLOMBIA)

 

76.             On April 6 2001 the IACHR issued Report 63/01 on case 11.710 relating to the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro.  In that occasion the Commission issued three recommendations.  In the first place, it recommended the conduction of an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro.  The State indicated that a military court had issued a second instance decision confirming the acquittal of the State agents tried on account of the victims’ death.  Therefore, the State concluded that it would not be possible to hold a new investigation and trial before the ordinary courts unless the Supreme Court decides to admit a recent complaint filed against the aforementioned decision.

 

77.             In the second place, the Commission recommended that the State take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.  The State reported that it was in the process of enforcing the mechanism provided for in Act Nº 288/96 with a view of complying with this recommendation.

 

78.             In the third place, the IACHR it recommended that the State take the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention as well as the necessary measures to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights itself in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.  In response, the State presented information relating to the reform of the Criminal Military Code and a presidential order directed to the Ministry of Defense.  The impact of these general measures have been and shall continue to be evaluated in chapter IV of the Commission’s Annual Reports.

 

CASE 11.712, Report Nº 64/01, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry (COLOMBIA)

 

79.             On April 6 2001 the IACHR issued Report 64/01 on case 11.712 relating to the extrajudicial execution of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.  In that occasion the Commission issued three recommendations.  In the first place, it recommended the conduction of an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.  The State reported that the judicial process continues in its preliminary stages before the military jurisdiction.

 

80.             In the second place, the Commission recommended that the State take such steps as are necessary to ensure that María Fredesvinda Echeverry, Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and the family of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry are duly compensated.  The State reported that it was in the process of enforcing the mechanism provided for in Act Nº 288/96 with a view of complying with this recommendation.

81.             In the third place, the IACHR recommended that the State take the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention as well as the necessary measures to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights itself in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.  In response, the State presented information relating to the implementation of education programs for the Armed Forces in the area of human rights and international humanitarian law and the reform of the Criminal Military Code.  The impact of these general measures have been and shall continue to be evaluated in chapter IV of the Commission’s Annual Reports.

 

CASE 11.625 Report Nº 4/01, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra (GUATEMALA)

82.             In report Nº 4/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan state:

1.                  Adapt the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to balance the legal recognition of the reciprocal duties of women and men in marriage and take the legislative and other measures necessary to amend Article 317 of the Civil Code so as to bring national law into conformity with the norms of the American Convention and give full effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed to María Eugenia Morales de Sierra therein.

 

2.         Redress and adequately compensate María Eugenia Morales de Sierra for the harm done by the violations established in this Report.

83.             In a note dated February 25, 2002, the State informed the Commission that, in regard to the first recommendation, on March 13, 2001, the Presidential Coordinating Commission on Executive Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) presented to the General Secretariat of the Republic, for presentation to the Congress of the Republic, preliminary draft legislation on amending Article 317(4) of Decree Law 106 (Civil Code) to correct the legislative deficiencies called to the Guatemalan state’s attention by the Commission in its report Nº 04/01.  According to the State’s reply, that draft legislation remains pending consideration by Congress. In a note dated April 11 of this year, the petitioners indicated to the Commission that, according to information provided to them by the Office of the Legislative Director of the Congress of Guatemala, to date the Executive had not submitted any legislation to amend Article 317(4) of the Civil Code.

84.             Regarding the second recommendation, the Guatemalan Government stated its view that no reparations were in order because, in its view, the petitioner had not suffered a concrete violation of her rights.

CASE 9111, Report Nº 60/01, Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo et. al. (GUATEMALA)

85.             In report Nº 60/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan state:

a.          Conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the facts of this complaint to determine the whereabouts and condition of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, to identify the persons responsible for their disappearance, and to punish them in accordance with the rules of due legal process.

 

b.         Take steps to make full amends for the proven violations, including measures to locate the remains of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, the arrangements necessary to fulfill their families’ wishes regarding the final resting place of their remains, and adequate and timely compensation for the victims’ relatives.

86.             In a note of April 4, 2002, the Guatemalan state informed the Commission, in connection with the first recommendation, that the Government had sent a report to the Attorney General’s Office in order for the latter to conduct the investigation. It also stated that the case had been transferred to the Missing Persons Unit of COPREDEH.  That unit located the relatives of Ms. Ileana del Rosario Solares.  Two meetings were held with the relatives, at which they were informed of the Government’s intention to comply with the recommendations of the IACHR.  The relatives agreed to communicate with the relatives of the other victims for the purpose of seeking means of financial reparations.  Concerning the second recommendation, the Government of Guatemala expressed its readiness to have the case heard under the National Reparations Program, which was to be discussed with civil society.  Consequently, the Government undertook to refer the case to the Secretariat of Peace for appropriate follow-up.

CASE 9207, Report Nº 58/01, Oscar Manuel Gramajo López (GUATEMALA)

87.             In report Nº 58/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan state:

 

a.          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 law.

 

b.         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 victim’s family.

88.             In a note of April 4, 2002, the Guatemalan state informed the Commission, in connection with the first recommendation, that the Government had sent a report to the Attorney General’s Office in order for the latter to conduct the investigation. It also stated that the case had been transferred to the Missing Persons Unit of COPREDEH.  That unit began to seek information on the case and to look for the relatives of Mr. Gramajo López.  Concerning the second recommendation, the Government of Guatemala expressed its readiness to have the case heard under the National Reparations Program, which was to be discussed with civil society.  Consequently, the Government undertook to refer the case to the Secretariat of Peace for appropriate follow-up.


 

CASES 10.626, 10.627, 11.198(A), 10.799, 10.751 and 10.901, Report Nº 59/01 Remigio Domingo Morales et. al. (GUATEMALA)

89.             In report Nº 59/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan state:

1.         That it conduct a thorough, impartial and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and attempted extrajudicial executions of each victim and the attendant violations, and punish those responsible. 

 

2.         That it take the necessary measures so that the next of kin of the victims of the extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.

 

3.         That it take the necessary measures so that the victims of the attempted extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.

 

4.         That it effectively prevent a resurgence and reorganization of the Civil Patrols.

 

5.         That in Guatemala the principles established in the United Nations “Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and institutions to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms” be promoted and that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that the right of those who work to secure respect for fundamental rights is respected and that their life and personal integrity are protected.

90.             In a hearing on March 4, 2002, during the 114th regular session of the IACHR, the Guatemalan state, referring to the first recommendation, reported that the Government had requested the Attorney General’s Office to reopen and reorient the investigation.  With respect to the other recommendations made by the IACHR, the State reported that steps to address them were under way, as part of the new human rights policy adopted by the Government of Guatemala.  The Government reported that, according to this new policy, it had presented legislation to Congress to establish the Reparations Fund.  In the aforementioned hearing, the State pledged to apprise the Commission punctually, within the 60-day deadline, of measures taken on each of the recommendations set forth in Report 59/01.

 

CASES 11.826, 11.843, 11.846 and 11.847, Report Nº 49/01, Leroy Lamey, Kevin Mykoo, Milton Montique and Dalton Daley (JAMAICA)

 

91.             By communications dated January 22, 2002, the Commission requested follow up information from the State of Jamaica and from the Petitioners within one month on compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 49//01 dated April 4, 2001 and published in the Commission’s 2000 Annual Report. In its report, the Commission recommended that the State grant the victims an effective remedy which included commutation of their death sentences and compensation, and that the State adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5 and 8, in particular that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law, that the right under Article 4(6) of the Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica, that the victims' rights to humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, particularly in relation to their conditions of detention, are given effect in Jamaica, and that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.  The State did not respond to the Commission’s request for information. The Petitioners responded by letters dated February 15 and February 18, 2002, in which they indicated that the State had by reason of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, commuted the victims’ death sentences and were required to implement a mercy procedure in capital cases, but that they were not aware of information indicating that the State had complied with any of the Commission’s remaining recommendations.

 

CASE 12.069, Report Nº 50/01, Damion Thomas (JAMAICA)

 

92.             By communications dated January 22, 2002, the Commission requested follow up information from the State of Jamaica and from the Petitioners within one month on compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 50/01 dated April 4, 2001 and published in the Commission’s 2000 Annual Report. In its report, the Commission recommended that the State grant the victim an effective remedy, which included compensation, and that the State conduct thorough and impartial investigations into the facts of the pertinent incidents denounced by the Petitioners in order to determine and attribute responsibility to those accountable for the violations concerned and undertake appropriate remedial measures, review its practices and procedures to ensure that officials involved in the incarceration and supervision of persons imprisoned in Jamaica are provided with appropriate training concerning the standards of humane treatment of such persons, including restrictions on the use of force against such persons, and review its practices and procedures to ensure that complaints made by prisoners concerning alleged mistreatment by prison officials and other conditions of their detention are properly investigated and resolved. Neither the State nor the Petitioners responded to the Commission’s request for information.

 

CASE 11.565, Report Nº 53/01, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez, (MEXICO)

93.             In report Nº 53/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Mexican state:

1.         Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation, within the regular criminal courts in Mexico, to determine the responsibility of all persons who violated the human rights of Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez, and Delia Pérez de González.

 

2.         Adequately compensate Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez and Delia Pérez de González for the human rights violations established in this report.

94.             The Mexican Government invited the IACHR to several meetings in Mexico City to address follow-up of its published reports, including the one mentioned above, which took place on July 3 and 4, 2001.  The parties signed an agreement to create a joint working group to explore alternatives to transfer this case to civilian courts, and the petitioners presented a proposal for reparations for the victims.  A meeting was also held on this matter on November 14, 2001, during the 114º regular of sessions of the IACHR.  To this date no information has been received to indicate that an investigation has been carried out in the terms of the first of the above recommendations.  Also, there is no information indicating that the victims received compensation for the violations established in Report 53/01.

CASE 11.031, Report Nº 111/00, Pedro Pablo López González et. al. (PERU)

95.             In report Nº 111/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Peruvian state:

1.         That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation. 

 

2.         That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More.  Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492. 

 

3.         That it adopt the measures required for the family members of  Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.

96.             The Peruvian Government replied, in a note dated March 5, 2002, that it had initiated steps to comply with the aforementioned recommendation No. 1.   With respect to compliance with the aforementioned IACHR recommendations and with others set forth in approximately 100 other reports issued by the Commission since 1987 on similar human rights violations, a follow-up process is under way, involving the IACHR, the Peruvian state, and the petitioners.

CASE 11.099, Report N° 112/00, Yone Cruz Ocalio (PERU)

97.             In report Nº 112/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan state:

1.         That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation. 

 

2.         That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Mr.Yone Cruz Ocalio.  Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492. 

 

3.         That it adopt the measures required for the family members of  Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.

98.             The Peruvian Government, in a note dated February 26, 2002, requested an extension for completion of the report in which it will provide the information requested.  With respect to compliance with the aforementioned IACHR recommendations and with others set forth in approximately 100 other reports issued by the Commission since 1987 on similar human rights violations, a follow-up process is under way, involving the IACHR, the Peruvian state, and the petitioners.

continued...

 

 

 


[1] The text of the proposal before Congress reads: “Officers and rank and file of the military police of the States, in the exercise of their police functions, shall not be considered members of the military for criminal purposes, as jurisdiction shall lie with the regular courts for prosecuting and judging the crimes committed by or against them.”