|
|
|
d.
Guatemala
The
Blake Case
232.
The Commission has continued
presenting to the Court its periodic observations on the reports of
the Guatemalan State regarding the measures adopted to protect the
physical integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures
that were extended in due course through Court decisions issued on
April 18, 1997, August 18, 2000, and June 2, 2001.
The
Colotenango Case
233.
The Commission has continued
presenting to the Court its periodic observations on the reports of
the Guatemalan State regarding the measures adopted to protect the
physical integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures
that were extended in due course through Court decisions issued on
December 1, 1994, May 18, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996,
April 16, 1997, May 31,
1997, September 19, 1997, May 31, 1997, September 19, 1997, November
27, 1998, June 3, 1999, February 2, 2000, and September 5, 2001.
The
Carpio Nicolle Case
234.
The Commission has continued
presenting to the Court its periodic observations on the reports of
the Guatemalan State regarding the measures adopted to protect the
physical integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures
that were extended in due course through Court decisions issued on
September 19, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996, September
19, 1997, June 19, 1998, November 27, 1998, September 30, 1999, and
September 5, 2001.
The
Bámaca Velásquez
Case
235.
The Commission has continued
presenting to the Court its periodic observations on the reports of
the Guatemalan State regarding the measures adopted to protect the
physical integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures
that were extended in due course through Court decisions issued on
August 29, 1998 and September 5, 2001.
The
Helen Mack et al. Case
236.
On August 9, 2002, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights put forward a request for
provisional measures in favor of Helen Mack Chang, sister and
representative of the alleged victim in the Myrna Mack case, and of
officials of the Myrna Mack Foundation (FMM). In the request for
provisional measures, the Commission required the Court to adopt “effective
security measures to protect the life and physical integrity of Helen
Mack Chang and of those people who make up the Myrna Mack Foundation,”
following threats they had received because of their work in the area
of human rights, in the light of the increasing number of attacks on
“defense counsel, justice workers, witnesses, and community leaders,
that have taken place in Guatemala during the year 2002,” and of the
information regarding the existence of a plan to murder Ms. Helen Mack
in Guatemala.
237.
Having consulted the judges
of the Court and considering that there existed
prima facie evidence of imminent danger, on August 14, 2002, the
President of the Court issued a Decision with urgent measures relating
to this request for provisional measures. In this Decision, the
President decided to require the State to adopt without delay whatever
measures were necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of
Ms. Helen Mack Chang and of those who work for the Myrna Mack
Foundation (FMM); to allow participation by the petitioners in the
planning and implementation of the protection measures and in general
to keep them informed of the progress made on the measures dictated by
the Court. In addition,
the President required the State to investigate the events that were
reported and that gave rise to the urgent measures in order to find
those responsible and punish them accordingly.
And finally, the President requested the State to inform the
Court of the measures it has adopted in compliance with the Decision
of urgent measures and allowed until August 22, 2002, for it to do so,
and requested the Commission to present its observations on this
report within one week of receiving it.
238.
The Court studied the briefs
presented by the parties and on August 26, 2002, resolved as follows:
1.
To ratify the August 14, 2002 Decision of the President of the
Inter-American Court in all respects. 2.
To order the State to adopt, without delay, whatever measures
are necessary to protect the life and safety of Helen Mack-Chang,
Viviana Salvatierra and América Morales-Ruiz, of Luis Roberto
Romero-Rivera and of the other members of the Myrna Mack Foundation. 3.
To order the State to allow the applicants to participate in
planning and implementation of the measures and that, in general, it
keep them informed of progress regarding the measures ordered by the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 4.
To order the State to investigate the facts stated in the
complaint that gave rise to the instant measures, with the aim of
discovering and punishing those responsible. e.
Mexico
The
José Francisco Gallardo Case
239.
The Court, by its Decision of
January 23, 2002, summoned the Commission and the United Mexican
States (from here on referred to as Mexico) to a public hearing on
February 19, 2002, at 10.00 a.m. so that the Court could hear their
arguments on the facts and circumstances that gave rise to the request
for provisional measures and to receive the statements of the
witnesses and the opinions of proposed experts.
240.
On February 8, 2002, Mexico
reported that the “President of the Republic, Mr. Vicente Fox
Quesada, signaled his agreement to the Defense Ministry permitting the
reduction of the sentence that Mr. Gallardo Rodríguez was contesting”
and that “in fulfillment of the Presidential Agreement already
mentioned, the General Directorate of Military Justice requested the
penal authorities of the State of Mexico to free José Francisco
Gallardo,” who was then freed, and “is furnished with the
protection of an escort 24 hours a day.”
241.
On February 12, 2002, the
Commission informed the Court of the release of General Gallardo and
indicated with reference to its previous requests that the
circumstances leading to these requests had varied substantially. And
that, taking into account the freeing of General Gallardo, and the
security measures being provided to Mr. José Francisco Gallardo and
his family by the special rapid response group of the Office of the
Prosecutor General of the Federal District of Mexico, it had decided
to withdraw the request for provisional measures in the present case.
By the same token, the Commission requested the Inter-American Court
to cancel the public hearing scheduled for February 19, 2002. That
same day, Mexico tabled a paper in which it declared “it agrees
fully in all regards with the position expressed by the Commission in
its note of February 12, 2002.”
242.
The following February 14,
through a Decision of the President of the Court it was considered
that although Mr. José Francisco Gallardo had been freed, his life
and physical integrity could be at risk, which made it necessary to
maintain the urgent measures adopted by this President through the
Decision of December 20, 2001, in the sense of requiring the State to
adopt measures that may be necessary to avoid irreparable injury to
Mr. José Francisco Gallardo. At the same time, it was considered that
it was the responsibility of the State to adopt security measures to
protect all persons who may be subject to its jurisdiction and that
this duty becomes even more evident in relation to those involved in
cases brought to the attention of monitoring organs of the American
Convention.
243.
With regard to the public
hearing scheduled for February 19, 2002, the Presidency accepted the
request of the Commission--with which the State of Mexico is in
agreement--to cancel the said hearing.
244.
Through the resolution of
February 18, 2002, the Court endorsed in full the Decision of the
President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on December 20,
2001, and February 14, 2002. At
the same time, it required that the State report within 15 days
counting from notification of the present Decision to the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures that had been
adopted in fulfillment of the same and that it should continue
reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights every two months
on the provisional measures adopted. In the same way, it required the
Commission to comment on the said reports within a period of six weeks
following receipt thereof.
Case
of the “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (PRODH) Human Rights Center et
al.
245.
In 2002, the Inter-American
Commission continued presenting to the Court its periodic observations
on the reports of the Mexican State on the measures adopted in the
case involving the “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (PRODH)
Human Rights Center et al. The provisional measures ordered by the
Inter-American Court on November 30, 2001 relate to protection of
lawyers Pilar Noriega García, Bárbara Zamora López and Leonel
Rivero Rodríguez, and to the parents and siblings of Digna Ochoa y
Plácido.
f.
The Dominican Republic
Expulsions
of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin from the Dominican
Republic
246.
On January 17, the
Inter-American Court forwarded to the Commission the eighth report by
the State on the provisional measures ordered by the Court in a
Decision of August 18, 2000. On March 6, during its 114th regular
session, the Commission had a working meeting with the parties to
coordinate an IACHR visit to the Dominican Republic for talks
regarding Case 12.271. On
March 18 and 19, there were two meetings of the Commission, the
Dominican State, and the legal representatives of the petitioners in
the Dominican Republic to ensure that the petitioners are given
safe-conduct passes and to finalize and sign the Memorandum of
Understanding (Acta de Entendimiento) that would define the tasks of
the advocacy group (Comité de Impulso).
Fifteen petitioners received special safe-conduct passes as
envisaged in the provisional measures ordered by the Court.
During the meetings, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed,
establishing an advocacy group to supervise implementation of the
provisional measures.
247.
On April 12, the IACHR sent
the Court its observations on the eighth report of the State.
In its observations, the Commission referred to the
aforementioned meetings and, in particular, to witnesses Sonia Pierra
and Pedro Ruquoy, which told the IACHR that since the signing of the
Memorandum of Understanding, Ms. Sonia Pierre had been receiving
threatening phone calls every day. On May 2, the Inter-American Court
forwarded the ninth report to the Commission. The IACHR presented its
observations on June 25.
248.
On July 15, the Court
forwarded to the IACHR the State’s tenth report, which mentions
that: “This is not the first time that Ms. Pierre alleges that she
has been threatened… The Government of the Dominican Republic has
repeatedly offered to provide protection for Ms. Pierre, who has
always refused it.” The State also indicates that it has no
objection to granting safe-conduct passes to all beneficiaries who
have not yet reported to the competent authorities.
The Commission presented its observations on August 23 and
mentioned that on August 12 the Directorate of Migration had handed
over the missing safe-conduct passes for the Sensión Virgil and Jean
Mesidor families.
249.
On September 10, the Court
sent the IACHR the eleventh report by the State. In its observations,
the Commission stated that the Government should continue to ensure
effective application of the measures adopted. The IACHR also asked
that the Government report on the review of unconstitutionality being
heard by the Supreme Court. On November 26, the State submitted its report.
g.
Trinidad and Tobago
The
James et al. Case
250.
The Court studied the briefs
of the Commission presented between January and April 2002, regarding
the situation of Mr. Christopher Bethel and Mr. Anderson Noel, who are
both beneficiaries of provisional measures ordered by the Court with
respect to the State of Trinidad and Tobago, in which it is indicated
that the circumstances of imminent danger or vulnerability to
irreparable harm no longer exist.
251.
On September 3, 2002, the
Inter-American Court issued a Decision in which it resolved:
1.
To rescind its order of
provisional measures on behalf of Christopher Bethel and Anderson Noel
dated June 14, 1998, August 29, 1998, May 25, 1991, August 16, 2000,
and November 24, 2000 respectively.
2.
To require Trinidad and Tobago to maintain all measures
necessary to preserve the life and personal integrity of Wencelaus
James, Anthony Garcia, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, Denny
Baptiste, Wilberforce Bernard, Naresh Boodram, Clarence Charles,
Phillip Chotalal, George Constantine, Rodney Davis, Natasha De Leon,
Mervyn Edmund, Alfred Frederick, Nigel Mark, Wayne Mathews, Steve
Mungroo, Vijay Mungroo, Wilson Prince, Martin Reid, Noel Seepersad,
Gangadeen Tahaloo, Keiron Thomas, Samuel Winchester, Peter Benjamin,
Kevin Dial, Andrew Dottin, Anthony Johnson, Amir Mowlah, Allan
Phillip, Krishendath Seepersad, Narine Sooklal, Mervyn Parris, Francis
Mansingh, Balkissoon Roodal, Sheldon Roach, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal
Ranmarace, and Takoor Ramcharan.
3.
To communicate the present
Decision to the State and to the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights.
h.
Venezuela
The
Luis Uzcátegui Case
252.
In May 2002, the Commission
made an on-site visit to Venezuela. During this visit, it received
information from the Public Defender to the effect that there existed
in Venezuela "death squads" made up of officers of State
security who are active in the States of Portuguesa, Yaracuy,
Anzoátegui, Bolívar, Miranda, and Aragua. In this connection, the
Commission noted with great concern that the "death squads"
are not only an unlawful mechanism of social control but also form
part of a criminal profit-making organization within the state police
force and that the failure to act on the part of the appropriate
authorities responsible for investigating, judging, and punishing the
members of the so-called "death squads" is a fundamental
factor that allows them to continue to operate.
253.
At the same time, the
Commission noted that these organizations were continuing to operate
in seven states including in Falcón State, threatening the families
of victims and witnesses who are completely without protection.
254.
Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui
Jiménez is the brother of Mr. Néstor José Uzcátegui Jiménez who,
on January 1, 2001, was murdered in his home in Falcón State by more
than 40 officers of the local police corps–the armed police of the
State of
255.
Accordingly, on October 18,
2002, the Commission requested the Venezuelan State to adopt
precautionary measures on behalf of Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui
Jiménez with a view to protecting his life and physical integrity.
However, notwithstanding the authorization of precautionary measures
by the Commission in the month of October 2002, the threats and acts
of harassment, the lack of protection on the part of the State to
protect the life and physical integrity of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui,
and the failure to investigate the acts of intimidation, persist.
The State has not offered an official response to the request
made by the Commission to report on the fulfillment of the same
requests. However, the petitioners have informed the Commission that
the State has provided no protection whatsoever. As regards
investigating the acts of intimidation and the threats made against
Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui that have occurred following the death of
his brother when he began to denounce these acts via the regional
media; one of the petitioning organizations lodged an accusation
concerning the first threats against Luis Uzcátegui with the Attorney
of the State of Falcon. However, there has been absolutely no progress
in the investigations.
256.
Accordingly, on November 27,
2002, the Commission submitted to the Court a request for provisional
measures on behalf of Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez. This same
day (November 27, 2002,) the Court, responding to the urgent request
of the Commission, resolved as follows:
1.
To require the State to
adopt, without delay, whatever measures are necessary to protect the
life and physical integrity of Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez.
2.
To require the State to allow
the petitioners to take part in the planning and execution of the
protective measures and that in general it should keep them informed
on the progress of the measures determined by the Inter-American Court
for Human Rights.
3.
To require the State to
investigate the acts in question that have given rise to the present
measures for the purpose of discovering those responsible and
punishing them.
The
Luisiana Ríos et al. Case
257.
Towards the end of January
2002, the Commission requested Venezuela to adopt precautionary
measures on behalf of Luisiana Ríos and Armando Amaya, among others,
with a view to protecting their physical integrity and freedom of
expression.
258.
The acts of violence against
the people under protection continued even after the measures
authorized by the Commission and no progress has been notified in the
investigation of the acts reported by the petitioners.
With regard to this, on July 29, 2002, the Commission agreed to
extend by an additional period of six months the validity of the
protection measures adopted on January 29 and 30, 2002 in favor of
Luisiana Ríos and Armando Amaya, among others.
Subsequently, on November 25, 2002, Luisiana Ríos, Armando
Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, and
others, requested the Commission to agree in turn to request the Court
to authorize provisional measures on behalf of the five journalists of
the Venezuelan television station RCTV.
259.
On November 27, 2002, the
Commission submitted to the Court a request for provisional measures
on behalf of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy,
Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe, all employees of the Radio
Caracas Television broadcasting station. That same day,
(November 27, 2002,) in response to the urgent requests received from
the Commission, the Court resolved:
1.
To require the State to adopt
without delay all necessary measures to protect the life and physical
integrity of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy,
Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe, all employees of Radio Caracas
Televisión (RCTV).
2.
To require the State to allow
the petitioners to take part in the planning and implementation of
protective measures and in general to keep them informed of the
measures laid down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
3.
To require the State to
investigate the acts at issue which have given rise to the present
measures with a view to identifying those responsible and punishing
them.
The
Liliana Ortega and Others Case
260.
On April 19, 2002, the
Commission requested the Venezuelan State to adopt protective measures
on behalf of Liliana Ortega Mendoza, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda Páez,
Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano, Alicia de González, and Carmen Alicia
Mendoza, in order to protect their lives and ensure their physical
integrity. The said protective measures were authorized on the basis
of acts of harassment and direct and indirect threats to which members
of COFAVIC were subject. On October 14, 2002,
“the Commission agreed to extend for an additional six months
the validity of the protective measures adopted on April 19, 2002, in
respect of COFAVIC, basing itself on new acts which occurred between
May and September, 2002."
261.
In
this regard, the Commission requested the Court to adopt provisional
measures, given that threatening telephone calls as well as
intimidatory acts on an escalating scale and relating to the work of
COFAVIC, constituted clear signals that the safety of the members “depended
on their silence.” Similarly, the threats continue notwithstanding
the request for protective measures made by the Commission and
notwithstanding the fact that the Venezuelan State ordered police
protection for Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda Páez (Gilda
Páez), Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano (Lizcano), Alicia de González,
and Carmen Alicia Mendoza, which is the responsibility of the
Metropolitan Police. Responding to the Commission’s request, the
Court resolved as follows:
1.
To require the State to adopt
without delay all necessary measures to protect the life and physical
integrity of Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda Páez (Gilda
Páez), Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano (Lizcano), Alicia de González,
and Carmen Alicia Mendoza, all of whom work for the nongovernmental
organization, the Committee of the Families of Victims of the Events
of February-March 1989, (COFAVIC).
2.
To require the State to allow
the petitioners to take part in the planning and implementation of
measures of protection and in general to keep them informed on the
progress of the measures laid down by the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights.
3.
To require the State to
investigate the acts in question that gave rise to the present
measures with a view to identifying and punishing those responsible.
2.
Contentious cases before the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights
a.
Argentina
The Bulacio Case
262.
The
Bulacio case is still pending before the Inter-American Court at the
merits stage. On January 4, 2002, after due consultation with the
representatives of the victim, the Commission submitted its arguments
and evidence with regard to possible reparations in this case.
On July 3, 2002, the Commission requested a postponement of the
public hearing because the representatives of the victim had reported
that they were in talks with the State regarding a possible friendly
settlement and therefore wished to postpone the hearing.
On November 26, 2002, the State sent a communication along
similar lines, requesting that the public hearing be suspended.
For its part, having consulted with the representatives of the
victim and observing the amount of time that had elapsed without the
negotiations for a friendly settlement reaching a conclusion, the
Commission wrote on December 12, 2002 that in its view it was
essential not to postpone the hearing. In a Decision on December 20, 2002, the Inter-American Court
convened the parties to the public hearing to be held on March 6, 2003
to hear the statements of the witness and expert witnesses that had
been proposed, as well as final arguments on the merits of the case
and possible reparations.
263.
The
petition in that case was submitted in relation to the arrest of a
young man named Walter Bulacio by the Argentine Federal Police on
April 19, 1991 and to his death on April 26, 1991 as a result of the
conditions under which he was held and of the tortures inflicted by
the police. The petition
states, too, that the State failed to provide effective judicial
remedies and denied the victim and his next of kin access to judicial
protection. In short, the
petition refers to violations of the rights to personal liberty and
security, life, a fair trial, judicial protection, and of the child,
enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, and 19 of the American
Convention, and of the obligation of the State under Article 1(1) to
respect said right and ensure the full exercise thereof.
The
Cantos Case
264.
On June 17, 2002, a public
hearing took place to hear the arguments of the representatives of the
alleged victim, of the Commission, and of the State of the Republic of
Argentina regarding the legality of the case and possible compensation
as well as the statements of the witnesses proposed by the
Inter-American Commission. The State offered no proof evidentiary or
expert for this stage in the proceedings.
On
October 17, 2002, the Argentine State opposed the presentation of the
final argument on the legality of the case and possible reparations
and requested that the Court should pronounce on this matter. The
following day, the Court replied rejecting the State’s request. The
written brief of the final argument was presented within the timetable
stipulated by the Chairman. The Commission and the representatives of
the victim presented the respective brief in which the demand was made
that the State of Argentina be declared to have violated and be
continuing to violate the rights to legal guarantees and judicial
protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention respectively
and the right to property recognized by Article 21 of the Convention,
all this in relation to the obligation of the said State to respect
and ensure the rights violated in accordance with Article 1(1) of the
Convention. And in consequence, the State should be ordered to
reestablish, in full, the rights of Mr. José María Cantos and among
other measures, make good the consequences of the violations
mentioned, and pay him fair compensation in accordance with what is
established in Article 63(1) of the Convention.
265.
On this basis, the Court in
its Decision of November 26, 2002, declared that the State had
violated the right of access to justice enshrined in Articles 8(1) and
25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation with 1(1)
of the same, to the prejudice of Mr. José María Cantos, and
accordingly decided, unanimously, that:
1.
The State should refrain from
charging Mr. José María Cantos the justice tax and the fine for
failing to pay the same on time.
2.
The State should fix at a
reasonable level the fees chargeable in the case C-1099 of the
Argentine National Supreme Court of Justice, according to paragraphs
70.b. and 74.
3.
The State should agree to pay
the fees and corresponding costs of all the experts and lawyers of the
State and of the province of Santiago del Estero, in accordance with
the conditions established in the preceding point.
4.
The State should lift the
embargoes, the general prohibition, and other measures that have been
taken against the goods and the commercial activities of Mr. José
María Cantos to ensure the payment of the justice tax and the
stipulated fees.
5.
The State should pay to the
representatives of the victim the total amount of US$15,000.00
(fifteen thousand US Dollars) for expenses incurred in the
international case before the inter-American system for the protection
of human rights in accordance with what is stipulated in paragraphs 73
and 74 of the present Judgment.
6.
Set aside as out of order the
other claims in the case.
The
Garrido and Baigorria Case
266.
In monitoring the full
implementation of the judgment on compensation in the present case,
the Court has established that the State paid the appropriate sums as
reparations to the families of the victims as well as the costs and
expenses, fulfilling the first and second resolutions in the judgment
on reparation as the State indicated on July 29, 1999, in its second
report on the implementation of the judgment.
267.
The Commission and the
representatives of the families of the victims confirm that the State
did pay compensation although it did not do so within the period
established in the fifth resolution in the Court’s judgment.
However, the Commission does not agree with the State as regards their
fulfillment of the obligation to investigate and punish those
responsible given that, as the Commission reported, “as long as no
serious, exhaustive, and impartial investigation has been carried out
into the facts that are the object of this case and since those
responsible were not punished, the judgment on compensation has not
been fully implemented.”
268.
In this connection, the Court
decided through its Decision of November 27, 2002, that:
1.
The State had the duty to
take all necessary measures to give prompt and effective fulfillment
of the compensation judgment of August 27, 1998, handed down by he
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Garrido and Baigorria Case
in accordance with what is laid down Article 68(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights.
b.
Bolivia
The
Trujillo Oroza Case
269.
On February 27, 2002, the
Court pronounced judgment on compensation in this case. In this
judgment, reached with unanimity, the Court decided:
1.
That the State must employ
all necessary means to find the mortal remains of the victim and hand
them over to his family so that they may give him an adequate burial,
in accordance with paragraphs 115 and 117 of the […] Judgment.
2.
That the State must in its
internal juridical classification identify the crime of the unlawful
disappearance of individuals, in accordance with paragraph 98 of the […]
Judgment.
3.
That the State must
investigate, identify, and punish those responsible for these
injurious acts treated in the present case, in accordance with
paragraphs 109, 110, and 111, of […] Judgment.
4.
That the State must publish
in the Official Gazette the judgment on the case delivered on January
26, 2000.
5.
That the State must adopt, in
accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, those measures for the
protection of human rights that will assure the free and full exercise
of the right to life, liberty, and physical integrity, and protection
and judicial guarantees with a view to avoiding the future occurrence
of injurious acts like those of the present case, in accordance with
paragraphs 120 and 121 of the […] Judgment.
6.
That the State must
officially give the name of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza to an
educational center in the city of Santa Cruz, in accordance with
paragraph 122 of the […] Judgment.
7.
That the State must pay, for
moral damage (daño inmaterial):
a) The sum of US$100,000.00 (one
hundred thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian currency to
Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, in her condition as entitled person, in
relation to José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, according to the terms of
paragraphs 87 and 89 of the […] Judgment;
b) The sum of US$80,000.00
(eighty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian currency to
Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, according to the terms of paragraphs
88.a), b), and c), and 89 of […] Judgment;
c) The sum of US$25,000.00
(twenty-five thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian
currency, to be distributed in equal parts between Gladys Oroza de
Solón Romero, Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza and Walter Solón
Romero Oroza, and that it should be paid to them in their condition of
entitled persons in relation to Walter Solón Romero Gonzales, in
accordance with paragraphs 88.a), b), and d), and 89 of the […]
judgment;
d) The sum of US$20,000.00
(twenty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian currency to
Pablo Erick Solón Romero Oroza, in accordance with paragraphs 88.a),
and d), and 89 of the […] Judgment; and
e) The sum of US$20,000.00
(twenty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian currency to
Walter Solón Romero Oroza, in accordance with paragraphs 88.a), and
d), and 89 of the […] Judgment.
8.
That the State should pay as
material damage:
a) The sum of US$130,000.00 (one
hundred and thirty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian
currency to Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, as entitled person in
relation to José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and in relation to the income
forgone by the latter as a result of the facts of this case, according
to the terms of paragraphs 73, 75, and 76 of the […] Judgment;
b) The sum of US$3,000 (three
thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian currency to Gladys
Oroza de Solón Romero, for the expenses arising in the search for the
victim, in accordance with paragraphs 74.a), 75, and 76 of the […]
judgment;
c) The sum of US$20,000.00
(twenty thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian currency,
to Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, for the medical expenses occasioned
by the facts of this case, in accordance with paragraphs 74.b), 75,
and 76 of the […] judgment.
9.
That the State must pay as
costs and expenses to Sra. Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, the sum of
US$5,400.00 (five thousand four hundred US Dollars) or its equivalent
in Bolivian currency and to the Center for Justice and International
Law (CEJIL) representing the victim and his family members, the sum of
US$4,000.00 (four thousand US Dollars) or its equivalent in Bolivian
currency , in accordance with paragraph 129 of the […] Judgment.
10.
That the State should fulfill
the compensation measures ordered in the […] Judgment within the
space of six months counting from the notification of the same. The
classification of the crime of the unlawful disappearance of
individuals should be effected within a reasonable period of time in
accordance with the terms of paragraph 133 of the […] Judgment.
11.
That the payments ordered in
the […] Judgment should be exempt from any current or future impost
or tax.
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |
