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

126.        On April 6, 2001, the IACHR issued Report Nº 64/01 on Case 11.712 concerning the extrajudicial execution of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and another person and made three recommendations. Its first recommendation was to “conduct an impartial and effective investigation before ordinary jurisdiction for the purpose of judging and sanctioning those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.” The State (Note DDH 47157 from the Department of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated December 16, 2002) reported that the coordination office of the Human Rights Group at the Ministry of Defense had requested that the Military Criminal Justice Department expedite the case that is ongoing under its jurisdiction. This action was taken, the State affirms, without prejudice to the decision of the Superior Council of the Judiciary concerning the conflict of jurisdiction caused when the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the Prosecutor of the Second Division to refer the case to the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Suffice it to say that the case continues in the military criminal justice system and has not been transferred to the ordinary courts. It can be concluded, therefore, that there has been no progress toward compliance with this recommendation as there has been no investigation within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

127.        The second recommendation was to adopt the measures necessary for redress for the consequences of violations committed to the detriment of María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, as well as providing due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry. The State reported that the Committee of Ministers had decided on May 3, 2002 in favor of offering the corresponding compensation to the victims and their relatives.  However, neither the amount nor the payment of the corresponding compensation has been determined; therefore there has been no effective compliance with this recommendation.

128.        The third recommendation was to adopt the measures necessary to avoid similar events from occurring in the future, in compliance with the obligation to prevent and to guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the necessary measures for full compliance with the doctrine developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by this Commission in the investigation and judgment of similar cases by ordinary criminal justice. In that connection, the State presented information on past legislative reforms, objectives, training programs, and strategies. The measures cited have been and will continue to be evaluated in the general reports of the IACHR and by the Commission in the exercise of its various functions.

Case 11.421 - Report Nº 93/00, Edison Patricio Quishpe Alcívar (Ecuador)

129.        In Report Nº 93/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of US$30,000 in compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in paying the compensation.  

2.         To urge the State to take the necessary measures to carry out the commitment to pursue civil and criminal proceedings and to seek to impose punishment on those persons who, in the performance of government functions or under the color of public authority, are considered to have participated in the alleged violation, and the payment of interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.  

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement, and in that context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General,  of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.   

130.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on its compliance with the IACHR recommendations listed above.  The petitioners reported that they were unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  As such, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.439 - Report Nº 94/00, Byron Roberto Cañaveral (Ecuador)

131.        In Report Nº 94/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of US$7,000.00 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, or to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.  

2.         To urge the State to take the measures needed to carry out the pending commitment to bring civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against those persons who, in the performance of state functions, participated in the alleged violations, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.  

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the Ecuadorian State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on progress in carrying out the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement. 

132.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on its compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above.  The petitioners reported that they were unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. As such, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.445 - Report Nº 95/00, Angelo Javier Ruales Paredes (Ecuador)

133.        In Report Nº 95/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To acknowledge that the State punished those responsible for the violation but has failed to pay the US$15,000 in compensation.  

2.         To urge the State to take the necessary steps to fulfill the pending commitment regarding payment of the compensation. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with the friendly settlement agreement and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed (by the State) under this friendly settlement. 

134.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on its compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above. Thus the Commission presumes that  there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.466 - Report Nº 96/00, Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guamán (Ecuador)

135.        In Report Nº 96/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of US$25,000 as compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged. 

2.         To urge the State to take the measures needed for carrying out the commitments still pending with respect to bringing to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, as to the performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.  

136.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on its compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above. The petitioners reported that they were unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. As such, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.584 - Report Nº 97/00, Carlos Juela Molina (Ecuador)

137.        In Report Nº 97/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of US$15,000 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged. 

2.         To urge the State to take the measures needed to comply with the pending commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement. 

138.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on its compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above. The petitioners reported that they were unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. As such, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.783 - Report Nº 98/00 - Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia (Ecuador)

139.        In Report Nº 98/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of US$63,000 as compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violations alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.   

2.         To urge the State to take the measures necessary to carry out the commitments pending with respect to bringing to trial and punishing the persons responsible for the violations alleged, and to paying interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement. 

140.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above. The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.868 - Report Nº 99/00 - Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo (Ecuador)

141.        In Report Nº 99/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of US$2,000,000 as compensation, and note that it has failed to carry out its commitment to search for the bodies and to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged. 

2.         To urge the State to take the measures needed to comply with the commitments still pending to carry out the total, definitive, and complete search for the bodies of the two brothers, and the criminal trial of the persons considered to have participated in the torture, disappearance, and death of the Restrepo Arismendy brothers, as well as in covering up those acts. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with the settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report “periodically, upon request of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as to the performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement".

142.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above. The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.991 - Report Nº 100/00, Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva (Ecuador)

143.        In Report Nº 100/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of the US$50,000 in compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.  

2.         To urge the State to make the decisions needed to carry out the pending commitments to bring to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.  

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in that context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement. 

144.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above. The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.478 - Report Nº 19/01, Juan Clímaco Cuellar et al. (Ecuador)

145.        In Report Nº 19/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$100,000 as compensation to each of the victims of the situations alleged, and to note the lack of compliance with respect to the punishment of the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and with respect to the payment of interest for the delay in payment of the above-noted sum.

2.         To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

146.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above.  The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.512 - Report Nº 20/01, Lida Angela Riera Rodriguez (Ecuador)

147.        In Report Nº 20/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceedings with respect to the sanction of the persons implicated in the facts alleged. 

2.         To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment regarding the trial of persons implicated in the facts alleged. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, of its compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement. 

148.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above.  The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.605 - Report Nº 21/01, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño (Ecuador)

149.        In Report Nº 21/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To recognize that the State has made payment of $US30,000 in compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceeding to punish the persons implicated in the alleged violation. 

2.         To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment to prosecute the persons implicated in the facts alleged. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement. 

150.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above.  The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.779 - Report Nº 22/01, José Patricio Reascos (Ecuador)

151.        In Report Nº 22/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and the beginning of judicial proceedings to punish the persons implicated in the facts alleged. 

2.         To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged. 

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

152.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above.  The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.441 - Report Nº 104/01, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al. (Ecuador)

153.        In Report Nº 104/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To certify that the State has complied with the commitment to pay US$10,000 to each victim in this case, as compensation.

2.         To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by instituting judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreements, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.

154.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above. The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendations in question.

Case 11.443 - Report Nº 105/01, Washington Ayora Rodriguez (Ecuador)

155.        In Report Nº 105/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case, as compensation.

2.         To remind the State that it should fully implement the friendly settlement by beginning judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR, every three months, on the implementation of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

156.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above.  The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendations in question.

Case 11.450 - Report Nº 106/01, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa (Ecuador)

157.        In Report Nº 106/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.

2.         To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

158.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above. The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes. For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendations in question.

Case 11.542 - Report Nº 107/01, Angel Reiniero Vega Jiménez (Ecuador)

159.        In Report Nº 107/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.

2.         To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

160.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on its compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR listed above. The petitioners reported that by judgment of June 21, 2001, the Criminal Court absolved the persons implicated and that the matter has been left unpunished. The IACHR concludes therefore that there has been no compliance with the relevant recommendations.

Case 11.574 - Report Nº 108/01, Wilberto Samuel Manzanos (Ecuador)

161.        In Report Nº 108/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.

2.         To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

162.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above.  The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question. 

Case 11.632 - Report Nº 109/01, Vidal Segura Hurtado (Ecuador)

163.        In Report Nº 109/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.

2.         To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

164.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above.  The petitioners reported that they have been unable to obtain any information from the State on the respective investigative processes.  For these reasons, the Commission presumes that there has been no compliance with the recommendations in question.

Case 12.007 - Report Nº 110/01, Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez (Ecuador)

165.        In Report Nº 110/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$20,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.

2.         To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3.         To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

166.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above.  The petitioners reported the following: In 1999, a petition was filed with the President of the Supreme Court as the accused included ministers/judges of the High Court of Guayaquil, having jurisdiction in the matter. Since then, the Supreme Court has taken no investigative action.  In the meantime, a new code of criminal procedure has been put in place establishing that the stage of prior investigation, which is reserved, and discovery by the prosecution will be handled by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.  Therefore, in November 2002, the President of the Court was recused from hearing the petition under the new code and had to refer it by law to the Attorney General.  For these reasons, the Commission deems that there has been no compliance with the recommendation in question.

Case 11.992 - Report Nº 66/01, Dayra Maria Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador)

167.        In Report Nº 66/01 of June 14, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1.         Proceed to grant full reparations, which involves granting adequate compensation to Mrs. Dayra Maria Levoyer Jimenez; 

2.         Order an investigation to determine responsibility for the violations detected by the Commission and eventually to punish the individuals responsible; 

3.         Take such steps as are necessary to reform habeas corpus legislation as indicated in the present report, as well as to enact such reforms with immediate effect.

168.        To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported any information on compliance with the IACHR recommendations shown above.  The petitioners reported that the State had not complied with the recommendations made by the IACHR in its Report on the Merits.  For these reasons, the Commission considers that there has been no compliance with its recommendation.

Case 12.028 – Report Nº 47/01, Donnason Knights (Grenada)

169.        In Report Nº 48/01 dated April 4, 2001, the Commission recommended that the State:

1.         Grant Mr. Knights an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.

2.         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, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law.

3.         Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.

4.         Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.

5.         Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the American Convention in respect of the victim’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.

170.        The State has not informed the Commission as to its compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 47/01. On December 23, 2002, the Petitioner wrote to the Commission and informed of the following: On May 2001, Anslem B. Clouden, Attorney-at-Law had written to the Attorney General of Grenada requesting adoption of the necessary measures in compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. To date, as far as we are aware, there has been no response from the Attorney General, and Mr. Knights remains on death row, and we are unaware of any legislative measures, or any measures being adopted in relation to conditions of detention. In March 2002, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered landmark decisions in 3 cases, Patrick Reyes, Peter Hughes & Bertil Fox. They declared that the mandatory death penalty imposed on all those convicted of murder in the Eastern Caribbean and Belize unconstitutional. The effect of this decision means that Mr. Knights’ sentence will have to be reviewed as he was automatically sentenced to death upon conviction. Mr. Knights will now have an opportunity to place before the courts mitigating circumstances as to why the death penalty may not be appropriate in his case.  Whilst the adoption of new legislative measures were as a result of the appeal to the Privy Council in the trilogy of cases mentioned above, and, not as a result of the Commission’s recommendations in this case, the views of the Commission in relation to the mandatory issue were an important aspect of the arguments before the courts. The Commission’s recommendations, and its decisions have played an instrumental role in these decisions." Based on these considerations, the IACHR presumes that the Government of Grenada has not comply with the Commission's recommendations.

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

171.        In Report Nº 4/01 of January 19, 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.

172.        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. 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.  On November 19, 2002, the Guatemalan government reported that it had presented to the Commission on Women and Children of the Congress of the Republic the bill amending Article 317.4 of the Civil Code; and that, as regards the second recommendation, it maintains its view that no reparation is due because in its opinion there is no specific deed through which the petitioner’s rights have been violated.  The Commission notes that to date the provision of the Civil Code in question has not been amended.

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

173.        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.

174.        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 so that it might 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.  Despite the requirement that the parties furnish follow-up information, the Commission lacks up-to-date information on compliance with Report Nº 60/01.

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

175.        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.

176.        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 so that it might 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. Despite the requirement that the parties furnish follow-up information, the Commission lacks up-to-date information on compliance with the report in question.

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)

177.        In Report Nº 59/01 of April 7, 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. 

178.        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.

179.        In a communication received on November 27, 2002, the petitioners told the Commission that the Guatemalan state had failed to fulfill its obligation to conduct an investigation leading to the identification, arrest, and trial of those responsible for the extrajudicial executions.  As for the recommendation on reparation, the petitioners reported that the state had not taken any steps to compensate the next of kin of the victims.  Concerning the fourth recommendation, they said the Civil Patrols were reorganizing and joining up in each region under the local authorities they had been subject to during the armed conflict.  Finally, as regards the fifth recommendation, the petitioners refer to one of the conclusions and recommendations of the thirteenth report of MINUGUA on human rights, according to which in 2002 the “atmosphere of intimidation worsened because of the threats to and murders of judges, journalists, and human rights defenders;” and they conclude that the Government of Guatemala has failed to foster a climate of respect of human rights and to adopt the measures needed to ensure that those rights are observed.

180.        The Commission lacks up to date information from the state on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR in Report 59/01, despite having requested it.

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]