...continued

CASE 11.800, Report N° 110/00, César Cabrejos Bernuy (PERU)

99.             In report Nº 110/00 of December 4, 20010 the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Peruvian state:

1.         To offer adequate compensation to Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy, pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention, including the moral aspect as well as the material one, for the violation of his human rights, and in particular,

2.         To carry out the Judicial Order issued by the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 5, 1992, reinstating Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy in his position as Colonel in the National Police, paying him his salary and other remuneration owing to him but not paid since the date of his enforced retirement, and granting him all other benefits to which he is entitled as a Colonel of the Police, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension; or, as a second resort, to pay him the salary and other remuneration to which he would be entitled as a Colonel of the National Police, until he is of legal retirement age, paying also in this case his retroactive salary from the date of his forced retirement, and granting him all the other economic benefits to which, as a Colonel of the National Police, he is entitled, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension.

3.         To conduct a full, impartial, and effective investigation of the facts, in order to establish responsibilities for the failure to carry out the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 5, 1992, and to pursue such criminal, administrative, and other procedures as necessary to apply the appropriate punishment to those responsible, as befits the gravity of the violations in question.

100.        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.

CASE 9903, Report Nº 51/01 Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et. al. (UNITED STATES)

101.        On November 14, 2001, the United States delivered to the Commission its Response to the Commission’s merits report in Case 9903 (Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. United States), which was published as Report N° 51/01 dated April 4, 2001 in the Commission’s 2000 Annual Report. In its report, the Commission recommended that the State convene reviews as soon as is practicable in respect of all of the Petitioners who remained in the State’s custody, to ascertain the legality of their detentions in accordance with the applicable norms of the American Declaration, in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by the Commission’s analysis in the report, and to review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that all aliens who are detained under the authority and control of the State, including aliens who are considered “excludable” under the State’s immigration laws, are afforded full protection of all of the rights established in the American Declaration, including in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by the Commission’s analysis in its report. In its response, the United States objected to the publication of the Commission’s final report absent the State’s observations and requested that the Commission either withdraw its report or publish the State’s response in its Annual Report. The State also indicated that it rejected the substance of the Commission’s report in its entirety. The Commission transmitted the State’s response to the Petitioners on December 3, 2001 with a request for observations within 30 days. No response was received from the Petitioners. In respect of the State’s request for the Commission to publish the State’s response, the Commission has decided to include the State’s response on the Commission’s website at http://www.cidh.org

CASE 12.243, Report Nº 52/01, Juan Raúl Garza (UNITES STATES)

102.        By communications dated January 22, 2002, the Commission requested follow up information from the United States and from the Petitioners within one month on compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 52/01 dated April 4, 2001 and published in the Commission’s 2000 Annual Report. In its report, the Commission recommended that the State provide Mr. Garza with an effective remedy, which included commutation of sentence, and that the State review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that persons who are accused of capital crimes are tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the Declaration, and in particular by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital trials.  The Petitioners responded by letter received by the Commission on February 4, 2002, in which they indicated that Mr. Garza had been executed by the State on June 19, 2001 and that to their knowledge the State had not complied with any of the Commission’s recommendations. The State responded to the Commission’s request for information in a note dated March 4, 2002, in which the State indicated that it did not agree with the Commission’s conclusions and that the Petitioners’ petition was manifestly groundless.

E.       Petitions and Cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

          1.      Provisional Measures

103.        Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.

104.        A summary of the 17 provisional measures requested by the Commission and granted or expanded by the Court over the months between the IACHR’s 110th and 113th sessions is provided below, broken down by the countries involved. As in the case of precautionary measures, the number of provisional measures sought does not correspond to the number of persons protected as a result of their adoption.

a.                  Colombia

          Alvarez et al. Case

105.        During 2001, the Commission continued periodic submission to the Court of its comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures duly expanded by the Court on August 10, October 11, and November 12, 2000, with respect to members of the Association of Relatives of Detained-Disappeared Persons (ASFADDES) of Colombia.

          Caballero Delgado and Santana Case

106.        The Commission continued periodic submission to the Court of its comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the persons protected by the provisional measures in compliance with the Court’s order of June 3, 1999.

          Clemente Teherán et al. Case

107.        The Commission continued periodic submission to the Court of its comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted to protect the personal integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures issued in accordance with the Court’s order in this case of August 12, 2000.

          San José de Apartadó Community of Peace Case

108.        The Commission continued periodic submission to the Court of its comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted to protect the personal integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures issued in accordance with the Court’s order of November 24, 2000.

          Giraldo Cardona Case

109.        On December 3, 2001, the Court resolved to instruct the State and the Inter-American Commission to cease submitting information regarding Mr. Gonzalo Zárate Triana, who had recently been murdered and with respect to whom the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had originally ordered provisional measures on February 5, 1997, and lifted them on June 19, 1998. It also requested the State to continue submitting its two-monthly reports on the provisional measures adopted on behalf of the persons protected in this case, and it asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its comments on those reports within six weeks following presentation thereof.

110.        The Commission continued periodically submtting to the Court its comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted to protect the personal integrity of Sister Noemy Palencia, Ms. Isleña Rey, and Ms. Mariela de Giraldo and her two young daughters in compliance with the orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 28, 1996, February 5, 1997, June 17 and November 27, 1998 and September 30, 1999.

          b.       Costa Rica

          Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmose (La Nación Newspaper)

111.        On March 28, 2001, in light of the Costa Rican State’s failure to comply with the precautionary measures requested on March 1, 2001, the Inter-American Commission asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for provisional measures to guarantee the Costa Rican State’s protection of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmose’s right of free expression. One of the measures the Commission requested was the suspension of the conviction handed down by the First Circuit Criminal Court in San José, Costa Rica, until such time as the Commission has examined the case and, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, adopted a final decision on the merits of the case. It also asked the State to refrain from taking any action toward including the journalist Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Costa Rican Judicial Register of Criminals, and to refrain from any other act affecting the right of free expression of the aforesaid journalist or of the newspaper La Nación. After a hearing on September 7, 2001, at which the Commission upheld its position, the Court issued an order requiring the State of Costa Rica to adopt, without delay, such measures as might be necessary to annul Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s inclusion in the Judicial Register of Criminals until such time as the case has been conclusively resolved by the organs of the inter-American human rights system. It also demanded suspension of the order requiring publication, in La Nación, of the concluding part of the conviction handed down by the First Circuit Criminal Court in San José on November 12, 1999, and requiring the establishment of a hyperlink, in La Nación Digital, between the disputed articles and the terms of the conviction. The State, on October 5, 2001, informed the Court that it had ordered the suspension of the sentence handed down against Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa. It also reported that his inclusion in the Judicial Register of Criminals had been suspended. On November 30, 2001, the Commission informed the Court that with blatant disregard for the provisional measures agreed upon, a certified document existed showing that the Register of Criminals contained the following entry with respect to Mauricio Herrera Ulloa: “On November 12, 1999, the First Circuit Criminal Court fined him an amount equal to 120 days’ minimum wage for the crime of publishing defamatory offensive comments.” The Court, on December 3, 2001, asked the State to submit its comments on the Commission’s document. On December 4, the Costa Rican State reported that because of a mistake in interpretation, confusion had arisen in certifying Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s criminal record. It went on to add that the Department of Judicial Archives and Records had taken steps to terminate, once and for all, the uncertainty surrounding Mr. Herrera Ulloa’s status and it promised that under no circumstance would a similar situation arise with any future certifications. On December 6, 2001, the Court resolved to take note of the claims contained in the State’s communication of December 4, 2001, and to require that it continue to enforce the provisional measures ordered on September 7, 2001, and, in particular, to continue leaving void of all effect the inclusion of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Judicial Register of Criminals.

c.       Dominican Republic

Expulsions of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin from the Dominican Republic  

112.       In a letter dated December 4, 2001, the Inter-American Court urged the Dominican Republic and the Inter-American Commission to take "all the steps necessary to create an appropriate mechanism for coordinating and supervising the measures in the case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic, and all actions necessary to comply in good faith with the dispositions of the Inter-American Court" established in previous resolutions.

113.        In its seventh report, the Inter-American Commission noted that in order to comply with the Inter-American Court’s communication of December 4, 2001, the Commission set up a working meeting between the two parties. This meeting agreed to hold a follow-up meeting in early 2002.

d.       Guatemala

          Paniagua Morales et al. Case

114.        At the request of the Commission and the State, in a resolution dated August 28, 2001, the Court decided to lift the provisional measures it had ordered on January 29, 2001, on behalf of Manuel Alberto González Chinchilla.

          Colotenango Case

115.        At the Commission’s request, the Court decided, in an order dated September 5, 2001, to require that the State maintain the provisional measures protecting the lives and persons of the individuals protected by the resolutions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 22 and December 1, 1994, September 19, 1997, and February 2, 2000.

          Carpio Nicolle Case

116.        At the Commission’s request, the Court decided, in an order dated September 5, 2001, to require that the State maintain the provisional measures adopted by the Court on September 19, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996, June 19, 1998, November 27, 1998, and September 30, 1999, on behalf of Marta Elena Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer de Carpio.

          Bámaca Velásquez Case

117.        At the Commission’s request, the Court decided, in an order dated September 5, 2001, to require that the State maintain the provisional measures adopted by the Court on August 29, 1998, on behalf of Alfonso Cabrera Viagres, María Victoria López, Blanca Cabrera, Carmelinda Cabrera, Teresa Aguilar Cabrera, Olga Maldonado, and Carlos Alfonso Cabrera.

e.       Mexico

            Digna Ochoa Case

118.        During the first half of 2001, the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court on November 17, 1999, on behalf of the human rights activist Digna Ochoa y Plácido and members of the nongovernmental human rights organization known as the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center (“PRODH”) remained in force. On May 31, 2001, the Mexican State told the Inter-American Court that there had been no further threats or incidents of harassment and consequently requested that the provisional measures be lifted; this request was made anew on August 13, 2001. After consulting the petitioners, the Inter-American Commission stated on August 22, 2001, that it had no objection to the lifting of the measures, albeit reserving the right to request that they be reinstated if necessary and with the clarification that the petition denouncing the failure to investigate the threats would continue to be processed. The Inter-American Court lifted and concluded the provisional measures in an order dated August 28, 2001.

119.        On October 19, 2001, Digna Ochoa y Plácido died violently in her Mexico City office. Alongside her body was a note containing a direct threat against the members of PRODH for their work in defending human rights. Given the new gravity and urgency this event created, on October 22, 2001, the IACHR sent the Inter-American Court of Human Rights a request for provisional measures on behalf of PRODH’s members and the lawyers Pilar Noriega García, Bárbara Zamora López, and Leonel Rivero Rodríguez. These last three individuals, the IACHR pointed out, helped Digna Ochoa defend cases and had received threats in the past. The President of the Inter-American Court issued an order on October 25, 2001, requiring urgent protection measures for the persons named in the Inter-American Court’s request. At a later date, the Court held a public hearing at its headquarters, at which it received information from both the Mexican State and the IACHR. On November 29, 2001, the Inter-American Court issued an order ratifying the order of October 25, 2001, and requiring the State to maintain the measures for protecting the members of PRODH and lawyers Noriega García, Zamora López, and Rivero Rodríguez; these measures include the investigation of the reported incidents. At the IACHR’s request, in its order the Inter-American Court expanded the provisional measures to cover Digna Ochoa’s parents and siblings.

José Francisco Gallardo Case

120.        On December 18, 2001, the IACHR asked the Inter-American Court to issue provisional measures to prevent irreparable harm to Gen. José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez, his life, his physical, mental, and moral integrity, and his freedom of expression in connection with his life. Provisional measures were also sought to prevent irreparable harm to the mental and moral integrity of his wife, Leticia Enríquez, and of his children, Marco Vinicio, Francisco José, Alejandro, and Jessica Gallardo Enríquez. With respect to his daughter Jessica Gallardo, aged eight, the Court was asked to adopt special protective measures to safeguard her personal integrity. Finally, the measures are intended to prevent irreparable harm to Mexican society as a whole with respect to its right to freely receive information. The Inter-American Commission determined that the best measure for guaranteeing Gen. Gallardo’s basic rights and those of his relatives and Mexico society at large would be to release him from the custody in which he remains in open defiance of IACHR and United Nations reports that clearly identify him as a victim of arbitrary detention. The President of the Inter-American Court issued an order on December 20, 2001, requiring the Mexican State to adopt urgent measures to protect the life and person of Gen. José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez. In so doing, the head of the Court determined that the background information furnished by the IACHR gave prima facie evidence of a situation of urgent and serious danger to Gen. Gallardo’s life and person and he also gave due consideration to the failure to comply with the precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission. On December 27, 2001, the Mexican State sent the Inter-American Court its first report on Gen. Gallardo’s provisional measures, in which it summarized its actions vis-à-vis the Inter-American Commission with respect to the precautionary measures and noted that, for security reasons, the general had been moved to a different prison.

f.       Peru

Baruch Ivcher Case

121.        On February 7, 2001, the State reported that it had revoked the resolution annulling Mr. Ivcher’s certificate of Peruvian nationality; that it had accepted the Commission’s recommendations contained in report 94/98 of December 9, 1998; that Mr. Ivcher, his family, and others now enjoyed protection of their right to physical, mental, and moral integrity and their right to a fair trial; that Mr. Ivcher had been reinstated as a stockholder in the Frecuencia Latina channel; and that the Peruvian State was willing to work to reach a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 53 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. Since the violations for which the provisional measures were issued had ceased, the Court issued an order lifting those provisional measures on March 14, 2001.

Loayza Tamayo Case

122.        On January 6, 2001, the Inter-American Commission replied to a request for information from the Court, expressed in an order from its President dated December 13, 2000, with respect to the provisional measures adopted on behalf of Ms. María Elena Loayza Tamayo. The Commission stated, inter alia, that it shared the position expressed by the victim’s representatives and, consequently, thought it appropriate for the Court to adopt the provisional measures requested.

123.        On February 3, 2001, the Court ratified all aspects of the order issued by its President on December 13, 2000, and asked the Peruvian State to maintain the measures necessary for effectively ensuring Ms. Loayza’s return to her country and protecting her physical, mental, and moral integrity, and to report, every second month, on the measures it adopts in compliance with the order of February 3; it also asked the Commission to submit its comments on the reports from the State of Peru within six weeks following reception thereof and, to date, the Commission has complied with this obligation.

124.        At the request of the Commission and the State, in a resolution dated August 28, 2001, the Court decided to lift the provisional measures it had ordered on February 3, 2001, on behalf of María Elena Loayza Tamayo.

Constitutional Tribunal Case

125.        On August 14, 2000, at the Commission’s request, the plenary of the Court decided to adopt provisional measures with respect to this case. To that end, the Court ratified in all respects the President’s order of April 7, 2000, and again informed the State of the need to take steps to protect Ms. Delia Revoredo.

126.        On February 1, 2001, the Peruvian State sent the Court its express recognition of its responsibility in violating the rights of Constitutional Tribunal magistrates Dr. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Dr. Guillermo Rey Terry, and Dr. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur. The State reported that on November 17, 2000, the three magistrates were reinstated in their positions at the Constitutional Tribunal and their rights were restored. Consequently, in the State’s opinion, the essential demands and claims contained in the original complaint have been satisfied. On March 14, 2001, the Court issued an order lifting the provisional measures issued on behalf of Delia Revoredo Marsano because the violations that required those measures to be implemented had ceased.

Trinidad and Tobago

James et al. Case

127.        In a communication dated October 18, 2001, the Commission requested the expansion of the provisional measures in this case to include the alleged victims of another five petitions lodged with the Commission between November 2000 and May 2001. In an order given on November 26, 2001, the Court decided to expand the measures in this case and to ratify the order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 25, 2001, ordering Trinidad and Tobago to adopt all measures necessary to preserve the lives and persons of Balkissoon Roodal, Sheldon Roach, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal Ramnarace, and Takoor Ramcharan in order to avoid hindering the processing of their cases by the inter-American human rights protection system.

2.       Contentious Cases

Argentina

Bulacio Case

128.        On January 24, 2001, the IACHR submitted the case of Walter David Bulacio to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, noting that it involved, inter alia, violations of the right to personal liberty, to humane treatment, to life, to a fair trial, to judicial protection, and the rights of the child, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, and 19 of the American Convention, through acts and omissions on the part of the Republic of Argentina. The application pertained to events that took place on April 19, 1991, when Walter David Bulacio, on his way to attend a rock concert, was detained by the Argentine Federal Police as part of a police operation. As a result of the conditions he endured while detained and his torture at the hands of this police force, he died on April 26, 1991.

Cantos Case

129.        The IACHR submitted its application in this case on March 10, 1999. It deals with the alleged violation of the human rights of Mr. José María Cantos by the Argentine State.

130.        On September 7, 2001, the Court issued a ruling on the preliminary objections lodged by the State in this case; it resolved to dismiss the first preliminary objection alleging incompetence in accordance with to Article 1(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and to admit in part the second preliminary objection alleging incompetence as indicated in the ruling. The Court then decided to commence its study of the merits of the case.

Bolivia

Trujillo Oroza Case

131.        On September 6, 2001, the Commission attended a hearing at the Court’s headquarters to hear testimony from Gladis Oroza de Solón Romero. At that hearing, the Commission presented its arguments on reparations in this case. Representatives of the victims and the State also submitted their arguments.

Chile

“The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.)

132.        The Inter-American Commission gave the Inter-American Court its comments regarding the Republic of Chile’s report on its compliance with the Inter-American Court’s judgment in this case of February 5, 2001. The comments analyze the constitutional and legal amendments made by the Chilean State with respect to the screening of motion pictures and the extent to which they are compatible with Article 13 of the American Convention, based on the comments given by the victims’ representatives and the opinions of the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression.

133.        On August 25, 2001, the Republic of Chile amended its Constitution to eliminate prior censorship, establishing instead a system for the rating of cinematic works. In addition, on March 5, 2001 the President of the Republic sent to Congress a bill for a proposed statute regulating the rating and screening of motion pictures in that country. In its submission, IACHR alleges that despite the intended reforms the State has yet to comply with the decision of the Court in the case of “The Last Temptation of Christ”.

Colombia

“19 Merchants” Case (Alvaro Lobo Pacheco et al.)

134.        On January 24, 2001, the IACHR referred the case of Alvaro Lobo Pacheco et al., also known as the “Case of the 19 Merchants,” versus the Republic of Colombia to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The complaint alleges the violation of the right to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, through the extrajudicial killing of 19 merchants at the hand of paramilitary groups, with the acquiescence and paarticipation of State agents, in the region of the middle Magdalena river, in 1987. The State objected to the jurisdiction of the Court to examine the case and Commission presented its response to the preliminary objections.

“Las Palmeras” Case

135.        On December 6, 2001, the Court issued its judgment on the merits on the “Las Palmeras” case.  In its judgment, the Court declared the Colombian State responsible for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection as set forth in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights with respect to the relatives of Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Wilian Hamilton Cerón Rojas, Edebraes Norberto Cerón Rojas, NN/Moisés and Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy. During the course of the procedure the State acknowledged responsibility for the violation of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights (right to life) to the detriment of six of the seven victims.  After a hearing on the merits, the Court ordered the exhumation of the remains of the seventh victim, Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy.  The exhumation took place at the city of Mocoa, Putumayo, on June 2001 and it was performed by the Argentine Team of Forensic Anthropologists with the presence of the representatives of the victim’s family, the State, the IACHR and doctor Daniel O’Donnell, as the Court’s special representative. Despite the results rendered by the experts’ studies, the Court considered in its judgment that there was no conclusive evidence regarding the State’s responsibility in the death of indigenous leader Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy.  The Court also decided to open the reparations phase.  

Guatemala

Bámaca Velásquez Case

136.        On November 28 and 29, 2001, the Commission attended a public hearing on the reparations applicable in this case held at the Court’s headquarters. The Court received the evidence from witnesses and experts proposed by the Commission and by the representatives of the victims’ families. It also heard the parties’ arguments on compensation and costs.

Myrna Mack Case

137.        On June 19, 2001, the Commission presented the court with an application against the Republic of Guatemala in compliance with the terms of Article 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights in connection with the extrajudicial killing of Myrna Mack Chang on September 11, 1990, in Guatemala City, an incident that constituted a violation of the right to life, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection of the victim and her relatives under Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring the Convention’s rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof.

138.        Myrna Mack was a renowned Guatemalan anthropologist who, on September 11, 1990, was killed by 27 stab wounds to different parts of her body. To date none of the individuals who planned, ordered, and covered up her slaying have been punished. Thus, on February 12, 1993, the Third First-Instance Criminal Court in Guatemala handed down a 25-year prison sentence against Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez, a specialist sergeant-major from the security section of the presidential general staff, for being the physical perpetrator of Myrna Mack Chang’s murder. This court also decided to close the proceedings against the members of the military and high-level officers from the presidential staff suspected of being the masterminds behind the killing—Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio, and Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera—as had been requested in the secondary complainant in the criminal trial. After a series of remedies filed and pursued by the victim’s sister alone, on February 9, 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice’s criminal chamber decided to leave open the case against the soldiers Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, Juan José Larios, Juan José del Cid Morales, and an individual named Charchal, since “the proceedings give rise to suspicions about their possible involvement” in the murder of Myrna Mack. The trial has not yet ended, and none of the individuals who masterminded, participated in, and covered up Myrna Mack’s slaying have been punished.

139.        For more than ten years, the criminal proceedings have been characterized by the efforts of the victim’s sister to bring all the members of the military guilty of Myrna Mack’s murder to justice, masterminds and physical perpetrators alike, and this process has been fraught with obstacles since the very start. These obstacles range from the murder of the police officer in charge of the investigation, to the intimidation and threats received by judges, prosecutors, and witnesses, the army’s own efforts to hinder and obstruct the investigation by refusing to hand over documents, the imposition of procedural obstacles, and the judiciary’s lack of willingness to pursue the proceedings with determination in order to duly judge and punish all those who had a hand in the murder.

140.        The State replied to the application on September 26, 2001, by filing preliminary objections; these objections were answered by the Commission on November 29, 2001. Using the new rules of procedure of the Commission and the Court, on October 31 the Commission submitted its comments on the victims’ representatives’ statement regarding requests, arguments, and evidence that they had lodged on August 31, 2001.

Honduras

Juan Humberto Sánchez Case

141.        On September 8, 2001, the IACHR sent the Inter-American Court of Human Rights an application naming the Republic of Honduras in the arbitrary arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killing of Juan Humberto Sánchez on July 11, 1992. The Commission accused Honduras of violating the right to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial protection of the victim and his family, in conjunction with the State’s general obligation of respecting and ensuring those rights set forth therein.

142.        Juan Humberto Sánchez, a young Honduran man aged 26, was detained on two occasions by his country’s armed forces because of suspected ties to the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador.  The first arrest was carried out on July 10, 1992, by troops of the 10th infantry battalion in Marcala, La Paz, under the orders of 2nd Lt. Angel Belisario Hernández.  On that occasion, the detainee was taken to the 10th infantry battalion’s barracks, where he was interrogated; he was later released on July 11, 1992, because of insufficient evidence to support the charges.  The second arrest took place at night on the same day, July 11, and was carried out by troops from the 1st territorial forces battalion.  The victim was forcibly taken to the army post in Concepción, where he was interrogated by members of a special army squad known as "Tucán". On July 22, 1992, Mr. Sánchez’s family was informed that his decomposing body had been found trapped between the rocks in a pool on the Río Negro. The body had a rope around its neck, running across its chest, and holding its hands behind its back; other signs of torture were also visible. To date no one has faced trial or punishment for the abduction, torture, and execution of Juan Humberto Sánchez, and this is a case of total impunity. The criminal proceedings, characterized by an absence of seriousness and effectiveness, have not only been utterly insufficient; they have also encountered numerous obstacles from the very start, such as threats made against witnesses and the victim’s family, intimidation, and efforts by state agents to hinder and obstruct the investigation. 

Nicaragua

Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case

143.        On August 31, 2001, the Court issued a judgment on merits and reparations in the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case that the IACHR had previously lodged against Nicaragua. In its judgment the Court decided that the State had violated the right to judicial protection and property of the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community.

144.        The Court decided that the State must take the legislative, administrative, and other steps necessary to create an effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of indigenous communities’ property in accordance with the customary law, values, habits, and customs of those communities, and, until this delimitation, demarcation, and titling is performed, refrain from acts which could cause agents of the State, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use, or enjoyment of the resources located in the geographic area in which the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community live and work.

Panama

Baena Ricardo et al. Case

145.        On February 2, 2001, the Court issued a judgment on the merits of this case, which had been submitted by the Commission on January 19, 1998. It decided to declare that the State had violated Articles 9, 8(1), 8(2), 25, and 16 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. It also ruled that the State must pay the 270 workers their wages owed and other outstanding benefits in accordance with the law, and, in the case of deceased workers, to make such payments to their heirs and assigns; that the State must reinstate them in their posts and, if this is not possible, provide them with alternative employment respectful of the conditions, wages, and benefits they enjoyed at the time of their dismissal. If this alternative is not possible either, the State shall cover the indemnification payment corresponding to liquidation of employment in accordance with domestic labor law. Similarly, the State shall pay the heirs or assigns of any deceased workers amounts equal to the pension or retirement due, within no more than 12 months following notification of the judgment.

Peru

Cesti Hurtado Case

146.        On September 4, 2001, the Commission asked for an interpretation of the reparations judgment of May 31, 2001. It also requested a hearing on the matter. The Court invited the State and the Commission to submit their comments; the Commission did so on October 23. The comments dealt with the matter of restitutio in integrum as part of the damages. The Commission asked whether the petitioner had to take his case for damages before the domestic courts, or whether he simply had to present the Court’s judgment.

147.        On November 27, 2001, the Court gave its ruling on the matter, declaring that the State of Peru must determine the amount of indemnification owed to Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado for the material harm caused, for which purpose the State must in good faith provide Mr. Cesti with access to the relevant procedures offered by domestic law so that the victim can secure the aforesaid indemnification, if applicable, within a reasonable period of time.

Cantoral Benavides Case

148.        On September 6, 2001, the Commission attended a hearing held at Court headquarters in order to hear the testimony of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, Gladys Benavides López, and Eloy Urso Cantoral Huamaní, and the reports of experts Oscar Maldonado and Ana Luiza Vasconcellos. During the hearing, the Commission submitted its arguments on reparations in this case. Representatives of the victims and the State also submitted their arguments.

Barrios Altos Case

149.        On February 19, 2001, in a written submission, and on March 14, 2001, at a public hearing, the State of Peru acknowledged its international responsibility in this case. Consequently, on March 14, 2001, the Inter-American Court unanimously decided to admit the State’s acknowledgment of its international responsibility and to declare that Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, had been violated. It also declared that the amnesty laws, Nos. 26479 and 26492, were incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and, as such, were void of legal effect; and it declared that the State was obliged to investigate the incident to identify the persons responsible for the human rights violations, to make the results of that investigation public, and to punish the guilty.

150.        On June 20, 2001, the Commission lodged a document with the Court, requesting an interpretation of the judgment of March 14, 2001, in the Barrios Altos case. On September 3, 2001, the Court ruled that considering the kind of violation that the amnesty laws (Nos. 26479 and 26492) represented, the resolutions in the judgment on the merits of the Barrios Altos case would be of general applicability.

151.        On September 17, 2001, the State submitted an “Agreement on comprehensive amends for the victims and their families in the Barrios Altos case,” signed on August 22, 2001, by the State, the victims, their families, and their representatives. During this period of sessions, the Court debated and standardized the agreement and, on November 30, 2001, issued a judgment on the reparations applicable in this case. The Court decided to accept, under the judgment, the agreement on amends signed on August 22, 2001, by the State of Peru and the victims, their families, and representatives, taking into consideration the IACHR’s approval and ordering the State of Peru to pay the following: an amount equal to USD $175,000 to each of the surviving victims: Natividad Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega, and Alfonso Rodas Alvítez (or Albitres, Albites, or Alvitrez); an amount equal to USD $175,000 to the beneficiaries of the compensation payable to each of the following deceased victims: Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre, Luis Alberto Díaz Astovilca, Octavio Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco, Luis Antonio León Borja, Filomeno León León, Lucio Quispe Huanaco, Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto, Teobaldo Ríos Lira, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez, Javier Manuel Ríos Rojas, Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo, Odar Mender, Sifuentes Nuñez, and Benedicta Yanque Churo; and an amount equal to USD $250,000 to the beneficiaries of the compensation payable to the deceased victim Máximo León León.

Constitutional Tribunal Case

152.        On January 31, 2001, the Inter-American Court issued a judgment on the merits of this case and decided to rule that Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation in Article 1(1) thereof, had been violated. In addition it ruled that the State must order an investigation to identify the persons responsible for the human rights violations described in the judgment, to make the results of that investigation public, and to punish the guilty. It further ruled that the State must pay the wages owed and other outstanding benefits in accordance with its law due to Messrs. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry, and Delia Revoredo Marsano, together with amounts for fees and expenses.

153.        During the year 2001, the Court asked the Commission and the State for information regarding compliance with the judgment. The Commission continued to furnish that information.

Castillo Petruzzi Case

154.        During 2001, the Court asked the Commission and the State for information regarding compliance with the judgment.

155.        On May 14, 2001, the plenary of the Supreme Military Justice Council revoked the 1994 convictions of Castillo Petruzzi and others, in compliance with the Court’s decision. The Commission reported that Mr. Oscar Luján Fappiano, a delegate on this case, would conduct an on-site visit to observe the new trial. The Court granted a deadline of February 18, 2002, for submitting observations on the new trial.

Baruch Ivcher Case

156.        On May 4, 2001, the Commission lodged an application with the Court, seeking an interpretation of the judgment of February 6, 2001, in the Ivcher Bronstein case, with respect to attorneys’ fees.

157.        On September 4, 2001, the Court ruled that to determine the compensation that could be owed for the material damages inflicted on Mr. Ivcher, the applicable provisions under Peruvian law should apply and the corresponding claims should be lodged with the competent national authorities with a view toward their resolution.

Durand and Ugarte Case

158.        On November 26, 2001, the State presented an “Agreement on comprehensive amends for the victims’ families in the Durand and Ugarte case,” signed that same day by the State, the victims’ families, and their representatives. The Court debated and standardized the agreement and, on December 3, 2001, issued a judgment on the reparations applicable in this case.

Trinidad and Tobago

Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al. Cases

159.        On September 1, 2001, the Court ruled on the preliminary exceptions in each of these three cases brought before it by the IACHR. In all three the Court dismissed the objections made by the State in their entirety and called for a public hearing on the merits.

160.        On November 30, 2001, the Court issued an order combining the three cases—Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al.—and of the associated proceedings. As a result, the combined case is now known as Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. vs. Trinidad and Tobago.

Venezuela

El Caracazo Case

161.        The Commission has continued to participate in the reparations phase of this case. On November 6, the Commission informed the Court that it had no objections regarding the witness testimony and expert statements offered by the victims’ representatives. On December 5, 2001, the Court decided to accept them.

3.       Advisory Opinions

162.        On March 30, 2001, the Commission asked the Court to provide an advisory opinion regarding the scope of the special measures for the protection of children (Article 19) in connection with the legal and judicial guarantees enshrined in the American Convention. Along with its request, the Commission submitted a series of comments, offering some additional elements to complement the request. In November 2001, the Commission submitted a document offering further comments on the advisory opinion it had requested. In its request for an advisory opinion, the Commission asked the Court to render an interpretation on whether Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights impose limits on the discretionary margins available to States for issuing special protective measures under Article 19; it also asked the Court to draw up general guidelines that would be valid in this respect within the framework of the Convention.