Annual Report 2003 - Chapter III

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

87. On April 16, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Chilean State:

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

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

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

88. On November 6, 2003, the Commission requested information from both parties regarding the status of compliance with the recommendations. The Commission did not receive information from either the State or the petitioners.

89. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that compliance with its recommendation remains pending.

Case 12.046 - Report Nº 33/02, Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos (Chile)

90. On March 12, 2002, the Commission approved a friendly settlement in the case of Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos. In this agreement, the State pledged to:

1. Scholarship

… The Government undertakes to award a special scholarship of 1.24 Monthly Tax Units (UTM) to Mrs. Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos while she is enrolled in higher education.

…

2. Symbolic redress

… The Government would publicize the compensatory measures by means of an official communication on the matter, to be issued jointly with regional authorities, recognizing that rights of the petitioner enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights–freedom from arbitrary or abusive interference with her private life and equal protection of the law–were violated when her enrollment was not renewed and she was obliged to leave the educational establishment where she was pursuing her studies, “Andrés Bello” school in Coquimbo, a private school subsidized with co-financing, for the sole reason that she had become pregnant. In addition, steps would be taken to disseminate recent legislation (Law Nº 19,688), amending the Education Act, which contains provisions on the rights of pregnant students or nursing mothers to have access to educational establishments.

91. The Commission, upon approving the settlement, established a deadline of three months, for the Chilean State to report about the compliance with the measures agreed upon.

92. The Commission received reports from the State on July 18, and November 21, 2002. In their latter report, the State informed:

That on April 18, 2002, in the Intendance of Coquimbo’s IV Region, headquarters for the regional government, the Chilean State gave full compliance with the friendly settlement agreement, by way of a public act of amends to the petitioner, which included the symbolic presentation of the President of the Republic scholarship, effective March of the current year, and throughout her higher education.

…

that the petitioner Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos is receiving [the scholarship]…since March of the current year, for an average monthly sum of $ 35,000 (approximate equivalent of US $50).

93. This communication was transmitted to the petitioner on December 12, 2002, with a deadline of two months to present observations on the compliance of these recommendations. The petitioner did not respond to this request.

94. On November 6, 2003, the Commission requested to the parties to submit information on status of compliance with the recommendations. The Commission did not receive information from either the State or the petitioners.

95. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the State complied with the recommendations made by the Commission.

Case 11.715 - Report Nº 32/02, Juan Manuel Contreras San Martín y otros (Chile)

96. On March 12, 2002, the Commission approved a friendly settlement report in the present case, through which it recognizes the agreement of the State to comply with the following measures for reparation:

To award to Messrs. Juan Manuel Contreras San Martín, José Alfredo Soto Ruz and Víctor Eduardo Osses Conejeros, a discretional annuity of three minimum wages each;

To provide to them free of charge adequate training in skills and trades in accordance with their expectations, aptitudes and possibilities, through the office of the National Training and Employment Service (SENCE in its Spanish initials) in the region where they live, in order to enable them to increase their financial incomes and enhance their quality of life;

To publicly provide reparation to the victims before their community by means by an act of the Regional Government duly disseminated by the mass media, designed to restore their reputation and honor that had been certainly damaged by the judicial decisions that once harmed them.

97. In the same report, the Commission took note of the fulfillment of these promises, and recommended that the State carry out studies and relevant legislative initiatives in keeping with the norms for indemnification for judicial error.

98. The Commission opportunely requested from the parties information on the fulfillment of the recommendations in the present case, without having received a response.

99. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the recommendations are still pending full compliance.

Case 11.654 - Report Nº 62/01, Río Frío Massacre (Colombia)

100. The Commission issued Report 62/01 on Case 11.654, on April 6, 2001. The case was about the Riofrío massacre. In that report, the Commission made three recommendations. First, the Commission recommended that Colombia conduct “an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the massacre.” On this matter, the State reported, by Note DDH 47900 from the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated December 17, 2003, that on March 6, 2003, the Criminal Law Chamber of Cassation of the Supreme Court ordered that all proceedings in the military criminal justice system were null and void and that the case be remanded to the National Director of Prosecution Offices in response to a special cassation appeal filed by the petitioners in which it is alleged that the Superior Council of the Judiciary had disregarded the scope of the Constitutional Court’s August 5, 1997 decision, when it referred the case to the criminal courts. The conclusion is, then, that significant progress has been made toward compliance with this recommendation. The Commission shall continue evaluating any progress achieved in the proceedings before the ordinary courts

101. The Commission’s second recommendation was that Colombia take “such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.” The State repeated information sent earlier to the effect that by a decision of May 3, 2002, the Council of Ministers had decided to rule in favor of moving forward with payment of damages to the victims’ next of kin, under Law 288/96. However, no figure appears to have been established and the compensation owed to the victims’ next of kin has not been paid. Therefore, this recommendation has not been carried out yet.

102. Thirdly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia take “the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention as well as the necessary measures to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.” In this regard, the State presented information about past legislative reforms, objectives, training programs and strategies. These measures have been and will continue to be evaluated in the Commission’s general reports and in its exercise of its various convention-related and statutory functions.

Case 11.710 - Report Nº 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro (Colombia)

103. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR issued Report 63/01 on Case 11.710. This case concerned the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro. The Commission made three recommendations at that time. First, the IACHR recommended that Colombia “[C]arry out a full, impartial, and effective investigation within the ordinary jurisdiction with a view to judging and punishing those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro.” By note DDH 47895 from the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated December 17, 2003, the State repeated information it had previously provided concerning the decision of the military criminal court of second instance that acquitted the State agents involved in the facts of this case. It also submitted information regarding other proceedings conducted within the State’s administrative contentious jurisdiction and disciplinary proceedings, arguing that the criminal proceeding was not the only one that should be considered when evaluating the efficacy of the administration of justice. The conclusion, then, is that no progress has been made toward compliance with this recommendation, as no inquiry was conducted within the civil court system.

104. Secondly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia adopt “the measures necessary to ensure that the victims’ next-of-kin receive adequate and timely reparations for the violations determined in the Report.” The State reported that by resolution of May 3, 2002, the Council of Ministers decided to rule in favor of moving forward with the corresponding damages to the victims’ next of kin, under Law 288/96. However, the amount of the compensation has not been determined and payment has not yet been made. Therefore, this recommendation has not yet been carried out in practice.

105. Thirdly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia adopt “measures necessary to fully apply the case law developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by this Commission with respect to the investigation and adjudication of similar cases in the ordinary penal justice system.” The State supplied information about a series of legislative reforms, objectives, programs and strategies. The measures described have been and will continue to be evaluated in the IACHR’s general reports and in the Commission’s exercise of its various convention-related and statutory functions.

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

106. On April 6, 2001, the Commission released Report 64/01 on Case 11.712, which concerned the extrajudicial execution of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry et al. At the time, the Commission made three recommendations. First, that Colombia 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.” By note DDH 47897, from the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated December 17, 2003, the State reiterated that the Defense Ministry’s office to coordinate the human rights group had written to the Office of Military Criminal Justice to request that the proceeding underway in that jurisdiction be expedited. This measure was taken, the State reports, irrespective of the Superior Council of the Judiciary’s decision on the jurisdictional challenge that arose when the Attorney General’s Office requested the Prosecutor of the Second Division to have the proceedings transferred to the civilian courts. In other words, the case is still being prosecuted in the military courts and has not been transferred to the civilian court system. The obvious conclusion, then, is that no progress has been made toward compliance with this recommendation, as no inquiry has been conducted within the civilian court system.

107. Secondly, the Commission recommended that Colombia adopt the measures necessary for reparation of the consequences of violations committed to the detriment of María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and provide due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza. The State reported that by a resolution dated May 3, 2002, the Committee of Ministers had decided to rule in favor of moving forward with payment of compensation to victims and their next of kin. However, the amount of the corresponding compensation had not yet been determined, nor had payment been made. Therefore, this recommendation has not yet been fully carried out.

108. Thirdly, it recommended that Colombia adopt the measures necessary to avoid similar events from occurring in the future, in conformance with the obligation of preventing and guaranteeing the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, and adopt the necessary measures for full compliance with the doctrine developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by the Commission in the investigation and judgment of similar cases by ordinary criminal justice. The State presented information on past legislative reforms, objectives, training programs and strategies. The measures mentioned here have been and will continue to be evaluated in the Commission’s general reports, and as the Commission discharges its various functions under conventions and by statute.

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

109. 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.

110. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they do not have information on any judicial action taken by the State to impose civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions on those directly responsible for the facts that were the basis for the complaint before the IACHR.

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

111. 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.

112. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information on any judicial action taken by the State to impose civil, criminal, and administrative sanctions on those directly responsible for the facts that were the basis for the complaint before the IACHR.

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

113. 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.

114. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State, on January 15, 2001, had proceeded to pay the victim the respective compensation, with which it had complied in full with the friendly settlement agreement, for it had already imposed criminal sanctions on the persons responsible.

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

115. 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.

116. To date the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the preceding paragraph.

117. The petitioners reported that the Ecuadoran State had left the crime in impunity, as on April 28, 1999, the Second Judge of the First District of the National Police declared the criminal action against the accused to have prescribed; this decision was affirmed by the First District Court of the Police. Based on these judicial decisions, the Attorney General, by official note No. 1064 of March 9, 2001, communicated to them that, having seen the decree of prescription, and by express prohibition of the Constitution, it was not possible to carry out a new criminal trial of the persons responsible, which did not stop the Procuraduría from initiating the actions for indemnification against the persons responsible. In addition, they reported that to date they have no information on the actions that the State has taken regarding the exercise of the right to indemnification, expressed by the Public Ministry, or on any civil or administrative actions it has initiated against the persons directly responsible. In February 1999, by signing the friendly settlement agreement, the State undertook to punish the persons responsible and to culminate the criminal proceeding which was opened in the police jurisdiction in 1993. Two months after that agreement, the State issued a decree of prescription on behalf of the accused, with which it was left in impunity. With this, the State showed that in respect of human rights, it does not carry out the commitments it has contracted internationally. The petitioners added that they are not aware of any actions taken by the State to sanction the police judges who had taken cognizance of the criminal proceeding for torture. Their negligence in relation to the proceeding allowed the crime to remain in impunity.

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

118. 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.

119. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State, to date, has not made any determination on the civil or administrative liability of the person responsible or on actions brought against the police judge whose delay in respect of the proceeding contributed to the crime remaining in impunity.

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

120. 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.

121. To date the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that more than three years have gone by since the friendly settlement agreement was signed and since the State undertook to prosecute and punish, civilly, criminally, or administratively, the police, prosecutors, and judges responsible for the facts that were the basis for the complaint, yet to date there has been no such judicial decision.

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

122. In the friendly settlement reached by the state of Ecuador and Mr. Pedro Restrepo, father of the minor children Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy, with respect to complaint No. 11.868, the state undertook to:

SEVENTH - FREEDOM OF ACTION

The Ecuadorian State undertakes not to interfere in the constitutional and statutory rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of the Restrepo family, their sympathizers, and human rights organizations that join this cause for the purpose of commemorating the death of Carlos and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy or for other purposes related to this event. The National Police and Armed Forces shall guarantee these natural and juridical persons the free exercise of these guarantees, in keeping with Ecuadorian law.

123. The petitioners reported that on October 8, 2003, police officers prevented a peaceful demonstration in the Plaza Grande by the Committee of Relatives of Victims of Repression. The petitioners felt that the position taken by the police constituted noncompliance with the friendly settlement agreement. On the basis of available information, the Commission finds that there has been partial compliance with the recommendations in this case.

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

124. 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.

125. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that they are not aware of any actions taken by the State to sanction the police, prosecutors, or judges who participated directly or indirectly in the facts that were the basis for the complaint before the Commission.

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

126. 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.

127. To date no information has been received from the Ecuadoran State or the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph.

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

128. 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.

129. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information on any legal action, be it civil, criminal, or administrative, initiated by the State to prosecute and punish the persons responsible directly or indirectly for the facts that were the basis of the complaint. In addition, they indicated that more than three years have gone by since the State undertook to prosecute and punish the police, prosecutors, and judges responsible, yet to date there has been no judicial decision.

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

130. 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.

131. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that they have no knowledge of any civil, criminal, or administrative resolution against the persons responsible for the facts that were the basis of the complaint before the IACHR.

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

132. 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.

133. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations made by the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information on any legal action, be it civil, criminal, or administrative, initiated by the State to prosecute and punish the persons responsible directly or indirectly for the facts that were the basis for the complaint. They also reported that more than three years have gone by since the State undertook to prosecute and punish the police, prosecutors, and judges responsible, yet to date there has been no judicial decision.

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

134. 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.

135. 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)

136. 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.

137. To date, the Ecuadoran State has not reported on compliance with the recommendations made by the IACHR, transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they do not have information on any judicial actions taken by the State to impose civil, criminal, or administrative sanctions on the persons directly responsible for the facts that were the basis for the complaint lodged with the IACHR.

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

138. 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.