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

150. In Report Nº 47/01 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.

151. 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 11.765 - Report Nº 55/02 Paul Lallion, (Grenada)

152. In Report Nº 55/02 dated October 21, 2003, the IACHR recommended that the State:

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

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

6. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to personal liberty under Article 7(2), Article 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion is given effect in Grenada.

153. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.

Case 12.158 - Report Nº 56/02 Benedict Jacob, (Grenada)

154. In Report Nº 56/02 dated October 21, 2003, the Commission recommended that the State:

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

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

155. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.

Case 10.586 – Report Nº 39/00, Pedro García Choc et. al. (Guatemala)

156. In Report Nº 39/00 of April 13, 2000, the Commission recommended that the Guatemalan State:

1. Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and related violations in the cases of the victims named in section VII, and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Guatemalan law.

2. To adopt the measures necessary for the family members of the victims identified in paragraph 287 to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.

157. The information on record indicates that the Government signed the “Commitment of the Government of the Republic of Guatemala in compliance with the recommendations issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its Report 5/00 (case 10,586 and others),” whereby it acknowledged institutional responsibility for the failure to comply with Article 1 of the American Convention, acknowledged the facts recounted in the report, pledged to make every effort possible to find the victims’ next of kin so that they might receive just compensation, pledged to conduct investigations into the facts and to punish those responsible, and pledged to report to the Commission every four months on the measures taken to comply with those points.

158. By note of December 3, 2003, CALDH reported that given the strong commitment undertaken by the Guatemalan State, on November 8, 2002 the petitioners sent COPREDEH a reparations proposal for the García Chuc case. Both the Commission and the petitioners sent a number of requests seeking information on the measures taken to comply with the recommendations contained in Report 39/00, but the State did not reply.

159. The petitioners also pointed out that the State had not complied with any of the recommendations in the Report, one of which was to conduct a thorough, impartial and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and related violations in this case, and to adopt the measures needed so that the victims’ next of kin might receive adequate and timely reparation for those violations. The Commission therefore concludes that the recommendations have not yet been fulfilled.

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

160. 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.

161. On December 19, 2003, Guatemala sent the Commission a note in which it reported that in connection with the first recommendation, on March 13, 2001 the Presidential Steering Committee for Executive Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) submitted a draft bill to the General Secretariat of the Republic for amendment of Article 317, paragraph 4 of Decree Law 106 (Civil Code). The Guatemalan Government stated that COPREDEH officials and Mrs. María Eugenia Morales together visited the Congressional Commission on Women to lobby for the bill and as of the date of its report, the bill had already gone to the Commission on Legislation and Constitutional Provisions, for analysis, observations and subsequent presentation to the full Congress of the Republic.

162. In March 2003, the State presented a reparations proposal to the victim, which the latter rejected as it did not address her claims concerning the nature and scope of the programs to provide training and raise awareness about women’s rights which she had requested in lieu of the adequate compensation that the Commission ordered on her behalf. The State indicated that COPREDEH was coordinating with other government institutions to launch a nationwide campaign to promote and disseminate women’s rights. In their note of December 19, 2003, the petitioners concluded that thus far the State of Guatemala had not complied with either of the two Commission recommendations cited above.

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

163. 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.

164. In a note dated April 4, 2002, the State informed the Commission that, in the case of the first recommendation, it had sent a report to the Attorney General’s Office for it to conduct the corresponding investigation. It also reported that the case had been referred to COPREDEH’s Missing Persons Unit. The latter located Ileana del Rosario Solares’ next of kin and met twice with them to convey to them the Government’s intention to comply with the Commission’s recommendations. The next of kin agreed to contact the relatives of the other victims to look for mechanisms of economic reparation. As for the second recommendation, the Government of Guatemala expressed its willingness to include this case within the National Reparations Program, which has to be discussed with civil society. In that note, the Government pledged to refer the case to the Secretariat of Peace for the necessary follow-up. Although the Commission requested follow-up information from the parties, it does not have current information concerning compliance with Report 60/01.

165. As of the present, the Commission does not have up-to-date information on the progress made toward compliance with the recommendations. It therefore concludes that the recommendations have yet to be carried out.

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

166. 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.

167. By a note dated April 4, 2002, the Guatemalan State informed the Commission that in the case of the first recommendation, the Government had sent a report to the Attorney General’s Office so that it might conduct the necessary investigation. It also reported that the case had also been sent to COPREDEH’s Missing Persons Unit, which began inquiries to locate case-related information and Mr. Gramajo López’ next of kin. As for the second recommendation, the Government said that it was willing to include this case within the National Reparations that will be discussed with civil society. Although it requested follow-up information from the parties, the Commission has no current data on compliance with the recommendations made in its report.

168. As of the present, no more information has been received on compliance with the recommendations or progress achieved. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the recommendations have not yet been carried out.

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)

169. 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.

170. In a hearing held on March 4, 2002 during the Commission’s 114th session, Guatemala reported that apropos the first recommendation, the Government had asked the Attorney General’s Office to reopen and refocus the investigation. As for the Commission’s other recommendations, the State reported that they were underway as part of the Guatemalan Government’s new human rights policy.

171. In a communication received on November 27, 2002, the petitioners told the Commission that the Guatemalan State had failed its duty to conduct an investigation to identify, arrest and prosecute those responsible for the extrajudicial executions. As for the recommendation that it compensate the victims’ next of kin, the petitioners reported that the State had not taken any steps to compensate the victims’ next of kin and concluded that the Guatemalan Government had failed to promote a climate of respect for human rights and to take the measures necessary for those rights to be respected.

172. The Commission has not received any updated information from the State concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report No 59/01, despite its request to that effect. However, on the question of the PACs’ reorganization, in its follow-up to the Commission’s recommendations in the Fifth Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala, the State indicated that while the civil self-defense brigades had been dissolved, a group of former patrollers, exercising the right of association guaranteed to them under the Constitution, had organized in order to obtain recognition of the services they rendered to the Nation during the armed conflict. The State reported that anyone involved in human rights violations would not receive any benefit. The State made it clear that nothing had ever been done to encourage these groups to reconstitute themselves and that freedom of association could not be restricted so long as the exercise of that right was not inimical to the rule of law in the country.

173. During the Commission’s 118th regular session, the State reported that the program was slated to get underway this year. However, because the fiscal year is different, the program will begin in 2004. The State also reported that a member of CALDH would chair the Commission. The State therefore pledged to effect the program in 2004 and to send a complete copy of the file containing the presentations made by the Government at the internal level. The Commission therefore concludes that compliance with the recommendations is pending.

Case 11.382- Report Nº 57/02 Finca “La Exacta”, (Guatemala)

174. In Report Nº 57/02 dated October 21, 2002, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:

1. That it begin a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of the events that took place on August 24, 1994 to be able to detail, in an official report, the circumstances of and responsibility for the use of excessive force on that date.

2. That it take the necessary steps to subject the persons responsible for the acts of August 24, 1994 to the appropriate judicial proceedings, which should be based on a full and effective investigation of the case.

3. That it make reparations for the consequences of the violations of the rights listed, including the payment of fair compensation to the victims or their families.

4. That it take the necessary measures to ensure that violations of the type that took place in this case do not recur in future.

175. In March 2003, leaders from the Finca La Exacta, representatives of the Unidad Nacional de Sindicatos de Trabajadores de Guatemala [National Federation of Guatemalan Labor Unions] (UNSITRAGUA) and representatives from the Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos [Center for Legal Action on Human Rights] (CALDH) entered into talks with the Presidential Steering Committee for Executive Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) to work out a way for the State to adequately comply with the recommendations made in the report issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

176. On June 9, 2003, the parties signed an “Agreement on Terms for the Guatemalan Government’s Compliance with the Recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Finca La Exacta and/or Finca San Juan del Horizonte Case,” prioritizing economic compensation of the victims. The agreement also addressed other forms of reparation and the administration of justice in criminal and labor-related matters. An economic compensation agreement was signed on October 24, 2003.

177. By note of December 12, 2003, the petitioners reported that as of then the State had not yet complied with either the first or second recommendation. Although the latter was included in the framework agreement for negotiations with the Government, the petitioners had still not seen evidence of the State’s political resolve to comply with the second recommendation.

178. As for the third recommendation, an “Agreement on Economic Reparations in the Finca La Exacta Case, IACHR 11,382” and an “Addendum to the Agreement on Economic Reparations” were concluded on October 24, 2003, which earmark funds as follows:

1. One hundred sixty thousand quetzales (Q. 160,000.00) to be divided into equal parts and distributed to each of the families of the four persons who died in the eviction operation that the National Police carried out at the Finca La Exacta on August 24, 1994.

2. Fifty-five thousand quetzales (Q 55,000.00) to be divided into equal parts and distributed to each of the eleven persons injured in the eviction that the National Police conducted at the Finca La Exacta on August 24, 1994.

3. Seven hundred thirty-five thousand quetzales (Q 735,000.00) to the families of the workers on the Finca La Exacta, including the families of the dead and injured covered in paragraphs 1 and 2 supra, to enable all those families to purchase a piece of land to live on.”

179. The petitioners reported that the Government had undertaken arrangements to build the monument referenced in the agreement. A meeting was held with FOGUAVI authorities, who explained to the representatives of the La Exacta Union the procedures that needed to be followed to get the financing that FOGUAVI was lending. In the note of December 12, 2003, the petitioners reported that the fourth recommendation had not been carried out; indeed, the National Civil Police continued and even stepped up the use of force and violence against civilians.

180. For all these reasons, the Commission considers that the State is in partial compliance with the recommendations made.

Case 11.335 - Report Nº 78/02 Guy Malary, (Haiti)

181. In Report Nº 78/02 of December 27, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Haitian State:

a) Carry out a full, prompt, impartial, and effective investigation within the Haitian ordinary criminal jurisdiction in order to establish the responsibility of the authors of the violation of the right to life of Mr. Guy Malary and punish all those responsible.

b) Provide full reparation to the next-of-kin of the victim, inter alia, the payment of just compensation.

c) Adopt the measures necessary to carry out programs targeting the competent judicial authorities responsible for judicial investigations and auxiliary proceedings, in order for them to conduct criminal proceedings in the accordance with international instruments on human rights.

182. To date, the Haitian State has not reported on its compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above. The petitioners reported that Haiti had not taken steps to comply with the said recommendations, that it has not yet carried out an impartial or effective investigation into Mr Malary´s death, brought those responsible to justice, nor provided for reparation to the next-of-kin of the victim. Thus, the IACHR concludes that the recommendations are pending of implementation

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

183. In Report Nº 49/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

1. Grant the victims an effective remedy which included commutation of their death sentences 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, in particular 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 Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica;

4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the victims' rights to humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, particularly in relation to their conditions of detention, are given effect in Jamaica;

5. 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 Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.

184. In a letter dated December 19, 2003, the representatives of Dalton Daley, Milton Montique and Leroy Lamey confirmed that the death sentences of Messrs. Daley, Montique and Lamey were commuted to terms of life imprisonment, in compliance with the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Pratt and Morgan, finding that it would be unconstitutional for a prisoner to be held under sentence of death for a period in excess of five years. The representatives also indicated that the death sentences were not commuted as a result of the Commission’s recommendations, and that as far as they were aware, the State had not complied with the recommendations contained in Report Nº 49/01. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the Commission’s first recommendation.

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

185. In Report Nº 50/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

1. Grant the victim an effective remedy, which included compensation;

2. Conduct thorough and impartial investigations into the facts of the pertinent incidents denounced by the Petitioners in order to determine and attribute responsibility to those accountable for the violations concerned and undertake appropriate remedial measures;

3. Review its practices and procedures to ensure that officials involved in the incarceration and supervision of persons imprisoned in Jamaica are provided with appropriate training concerning the standards of humane treatment of such persons, including restrictions on the use of force against such persons; and

4. Review its practices and procedures to ensure that complaints made by prisoners concerning alleged mistreatment by prison officials and other conditions of their detention are properly investigated and resolved.

186. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 50/01. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

Case 12.183 - Report Nº 127/01, Joseph Thomas (Jamaica)

187. In Report Nº 127/01 dated December 3, 2001, the Commission recommended that the State:

1. Grant the victim an effective remedy, which included a re-trial in accordance with the due process protections prescribed under Article 8 of the Convention or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, his release, and compensation;

2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in contravention of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including and in particular Articles 4, 5 and 8;

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

4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which the victim is held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention.

188. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 127/01. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

Case 12.275 - Report Nº 58/02 Denton Aitken, (Jamaica)

189. In Report Nº 58/02 dated October 21, 2002, the Commission recommended that t the State:

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

4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which Mr. Aitken is held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention.

5. 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 Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions in accordance with the Commission’s analysis in this report.

190. In a letter dated December 19, 2003, Mr. Aitken’s representatives informed the Commission that on July 9, 2003, they received confirmation from the Governor General of Jamaica that Mr. Aitken’s death sentence had been commuted to a term of life imprisonment in accordance with the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Pratt and Morgan. The representatives also indicated that Mr. Aitken’s death sentence was not commuted as a direct result of the recommendations contained in Report Nº 58/02. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the Commission’s first recommendation.

Case 12.347 - Report Nº 76/02 Dave Sewell, (Jamaica)

191. In Report Nº 76/02 dated December 27, 2003, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Grant Mr. Sewell an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence in relation to the mandatory death sentence imposed upon Mr. Sewell, and compensation in respect of the remaining violations of Mr. Sewell’s rights under the American Convention as concluded above.

3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which Mr. Sewell is held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention.

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 Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions in accordance with the Commission’s analysis in this report.

192. In a letter dated December 19, 2003, Mr. Sewell’s representatives informed the Commission that on July 9, 2003, they received confirmation from the Governor General of Jamaica that Mr. Sewell’s death sentence had been commuted to a term of life imprisonment in accordance with the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Pratt and Morgan. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the Commission’s first recommendation.

Case 11.565 - Report Nº 53/01, González Pérez Sisters (Mexico)

193. On April 4, 2001 the Inter-American Commission approved Report Nº 53/01 on the Case under reference, in which it made the following recommendations:

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

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

194. During 2003, the Mexican state and the petitioners continued to report to the IACHR on the measures adopted to fulfill the recommendations of Report 53/01. The information pertained chiefly to meetings held in Mexico among the petitioners, representatives of the Mexican state, and the victims. On October 31, 2003, the Commission sent a communication to the state and to the petitioners, requesting updated information on the fulfillment of these recommendations.

195. In response, the state sent a communication on December 5, 2003, in which it summarized steps taken since the publication of Report No. 53/01 and provided explanations concerning the participation of government officials in the meetings held in Mexico. It also gave its version of the proceedings carried out in San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, with the petitioners present. Finally, the Mexican state reaffirmed its “commitment and intent to continue working together with the petitioners to investigate the facts in this case.” On December 10, 2003, the state sent a further communication with a copy of the agreement signed by the parties on May 7, 2003.

196. The state’s additional observations were sent to the petitioners on December 10, 2003. However, as of December 31, 2003, no reply to the request for information issued by the Commission on October 31, 2003, had been received from the petitioners.

197. On the basis of the information received from both parties, and in meetings held on the follow-up to Report No. 53/01, the Commission has concluded that the fulfillment of the recommendations remains pending. Nevertheless, it wishes to reaffirm that it values the notable and constructive efforts both parties have made and continue to make toward that objective.

Case 11.808 - Report Nº 107/00, Valentín Carrillo Saldaña (Mexico)

198. In Report Nº 107/00 the Commission approved the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties on March 1, 1999, as well as the agreement for implementation of the friendly settlement signed on December 2, 1999. In that Report it decided:

1. To monitor those provisions of the Agreement that have not been fully implemented.

2. To certify the delivery of the benefits to the family of Valentín Carrillo Saldaña, when such deliveries take place.

199. The State indicated that Mr. Aviña Gutiérrez continued to serve his sentence of 20 years imprisonment in the Military Prison assigned to the Third Military Region of the Secretariat of National Defense, by virtue of the dismissal of the application for judicial review [amparo] of his sentence under military justice. Regarding the payment schooling and monthly stipends for the family members of Valentín Carrillo Saldaña, the State reported on the amounts paid to Mrs. María Elena Chaparro, Saldaña’s widow. The IACHR received no information from the petitioners, therefore it considers that the State has complied in good faith with the commitments made in the friendly settlement agreement on which Report 107/00 was based.

Case 11.381 - Report N° 100/01, Milton García Fajardo (Nicaragua)

200. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR approved Report Nº 100/01 on the above-mentioned case, and made the following recommendations:

1. To conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to establish the criminal responsibility of the persons who inflicted the injuries caused to the detriment of Milton García Fajardo, Cristóbal Ruiz Lazo, Ramón Roa Parajón, Leonel Arguello Luna, César Chavarría Vargas, Francisco Obregón García, Aníbal Reyes Pérez, Mario Sánchez Paz, Frank Cortés, Arnoldo José Cardoza, Leonardo Solis, René Varela and Orlando Vilchez Florez, and to punish those responsible in accordance with Nicaraguan law.

2. To adopt the measures necessary to enable the 142 customs workers who lodged this petition to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations of their human rights established herein.

201. Based on the information presented by both parties and the meetings held to follow up on Report N° 100/01, the IACHR considers that compliance with the recommendations is still pending, although it appreciates the considerable efforts that have been and continue to be made by both parties to make constructive progress towards achieving the objective.

Case 11.506 - Report Nº 77/02 Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor Dos Santos, (Paraguay)

202. In Report Nº 77/02 dated December 27, 2002 the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Paraguayan State:

1. Make full reparation to Mr. Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro, which includes appropriate compensation.

2. Make full reparation to Mr. José Víctor Dos Santos, which includes appropriate compensation.

3. Such reparation should be commensurate with the harm done, which implies that compensation should be greater for Mr. José Víctor Dos Santos, given that he spent eight years in prison, with no legal justification for his detention.

4. Order an investigation to determine who was responsible for the violations ascertained by the Commission and punish them.

5. Take the necessary steps to prevent such violations from recurring.

203. The State reported that it had requested information from the Paraguayan Supreme Court concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. The petitioners presented no information on the matter. The Commission therefore concludes that the recommendations have not yet been fulfilled.

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

204. In Report Nº 111/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

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

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

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

205. The State reported on the investigation instituted into the kidnapping and disappearance of Pedro López Gonzáles, the case known as the “Kidnapping and disappearance of the members of the human settlements of ‘La Huaca’, ‘Javier Heraud’ and ‘San Carlos’ in the Santa District of Chimbote Province, Department of Ancash.” This case concerns events alleged to have occurred in the very early morning hours of May 2, 2002, when a group of subjects, military by appearance, armed and traveling in four double-cabin pick-up trucks, arrived at the human settlements of “La Huaca”, “Javier Heraud” and “San Carlos” in the Santa District. They searched a number of houses and “kidnapped” a number of people, among them Pedro López Gonzáles. They took them away in the pick-up trucks, heading in the direction of Trujillo. These people have still not been found and are presumed executed, with their bodies buried nearby.

206. On September 10, 2002, the Provincial Anti-Corruption Public Prosecutor’s Office on Matters of Human Rights ordered that the proceedings conducted on this case be separated from the main investigation. This case was registered as number 016-2002. On December 30, 2002, the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor’s Office brought a formal criminal complaint. On February 14, 2002, the Second Special Criminal Court ordered examining proceedings in Case No. 001-2003 against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres, Nicolás Hermosa Ríos, Juan Nolberto Rivero Lazo, Santiago Enrique Martin Rivas Carlos Eliseo Pichilingue Guevara, Jorge Enrique Ortiz Mantas, Carlos Luis Caballero Zegarra Ballón, Hugo Coral Goycochea, José Alarcón Gonzáles, Jesús Antonio Sosa Saavedra, Angel Arturo Pino Díaz, Gabriel Orlando Vera Navarrete, Rolando Javier Meneses Montes de Oca, Julio Chuqui Aguirre, Wilmer Yarleque Ordinola, Angel Sauni Pomaya, Hercules Gomez Casanova, Pedro Guillermo Suppo Sánchez, and Jorge Fung Pineda, on charges of qualified (aggravated) homicide and aggravated kidnapping.

207. On July 10, 2003, the end of the time period for the examining phase of the proceedings, a prosecutorial brief was submitted requesting that the examining phase be extended by another sixty days, in order to conduct all procedures ordered by the Prosecution. On November 3, 2003, the case file was sent to the Attorney General’s Office for the opinion required by law.

208. The information supplied by the petitioners about the investigations and proceedings conducted tallies with the information supplied by the State. They pointed out that proceedings have been instituted against Julio Rolando Salazar Monroe, Víctor Raúl Silva Mendoza, Federico Navarro Pérez, Carlos Indacochea Ballón, Alberto Pinto Cárdenas, Luis Cubas Porta, Nelson Carvajal García and Estela Cárdenas Díaz, who are charged with being accomplices in the crime of qualified homicide and aggravated kidnapping. The case is being heard in the First Specialized Criminal Law Court. Thus far, no one has been convicted and the disappeared have never been found.

209. The petitioners have said time and time again that the necessary measures have not been taken to repeal laws 26479 and 25492, whose effect is to impair the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for these events, although the investigations that were closed under these laws were reopened when the State forwarded the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos Case to the domestic courts.

210. As for recommendations 2 and 3, the petitioners observed that the State had thus far offered not even symbolic reparation, much less material compensation or civil damages. They also reported that as a result of the joint press release that the Peruvian State and the IACHR signed in February 2001, an inter-institutional task force was created to present a proposal for non-monetary reparations. However, although the final proposal was presented in May of this year, the State has thus far failed to execute the plan.

211. The IACHR observes that the report issued in May 2003 by the Inter-institutional Task Force created as a result of the agreements that the State and the Commission signed in 2001, contains a proposal for a plan for reparations for the victims of this and other cases in which the State has acknowledged its responsibility, and for the creation of an Executive Secretariat charged with coordinating those non-monetary reparations. From the information made available to it, the Commission concludes that no headway has been made on that plan’s implementation or on the creation of the Executive Secretariat, which is essential in order to carry out the pertinent recommendations made in the report being evaluated.

212. The Commission believes that thus far, the Peruvian State is only in partial compliance with the recommendations contained in the report.

Case 11.099 - Report N° 112/00, Yone Cruz Ocalio (Peru)

213. In Report Nº 112/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

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

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

214. By note dated December 12, 2003, the Government of Peru informed the Commission that the Leoncio Prado-Aucayuca Mixed Law Specialized Provincial Prosecutor’s Office was heading up an investigation into the events. The inquiries assigned to the police force in Tingo María had been expanded.

215. The Commission notes that the parties have presented no information concerning recommendations 1 and 3 of that report, which suggests that the recommendations have still not been carried out.

216. The IACHR observes that the report issued in May 2003 by the Inter-institutional Task Force created as a result of the agreements that the Peruvian State and the Commission signed in a joint press release in 2001 contains a proposal for a reparations plan for the victims of this and other cases in which the State acknowledged responsibility, and for creation of an Executive Secretariat charged with coordinating those non-monetary reparations. Based on the information it has available, the Commission believes that no progress has been made toward implementing the plan and establishing the Executive Secretariat, which is essential in order to comply with the recommendations in this area of the report under evaluation.

217. The Commission therefore considers that thus far the Peruvian State has only partially complied with the recommendations contained in the report.

Case 11.800 - Report N° 110/00, César Cabrejos Bernuy (Peru)

218. In Report Nº 110/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

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

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

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

219. The Peruvian government reported that by Resolution No. 0716-2001-IN/PNP, dated Jul 10, 2001, Peruvian National Police Colonel Cabrejos Bernuy was reinstated into active service effective that date, but was not entitled to any financial reimbursement for the period he was in retirement or to have that period counted as time served.

220. In response to that decision, the petitioner filed for reconsideration of that part of the ruling that held his time in retirement was not to be counted toward his years in service. The omission was corrected by Supreme Resolution No. 1158-2001-IN/PNP of November 13, 2001, which upheld his appeal. Therefore, the time of period he was in retirement–from March 26, 1997 to July 10, 2001-was counted toward his time in service. Similarly, by resolution No. 1399-2001-IN/PNP, dated December 14, 2001, and in accordance with legislative decree 745 of November 13, 1991, Mr. Cabrejos Bernuy was ordered into retirement by virtue of a re-staffing of the officers’ corps. The Commission therefore considers that the State has complied with its recommendations.

221. In his response, the petitioner confirms the information supplied by the State, but adds that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations because the victim has received no compensation whatever for the salary and other benefits lost during the period he was in retirement; he further asserts that no investigation was conducted to determine who was responsible for the violations of which he was victim; instead, he was in active service for only a few months and then put into retirement again.

222. The Commission considers that some progress has been made toward full compliance with the Commission’s recommendations inasmuch as Colonel César Cabrejos Bernuy was reinstated with the same rank and ultimately the time he spent in retirement was counted toward his years of service. The fact that he was later ordered into retirement owing to a re-staffing of the officers’ corps would appear to be an exercise of the State’s discretionary authority since, according to the information provided, there would appear to be no other motive for so ordering.

223. The Commission also considers that the State still has to pay Colonel César Cabrejos the salary and benefits he did not receive during that initial period of retirement and must conduct an investigation into the facts that caused the violation of the victim’s rights.

224. The reparations established by the Commission in the report under discussion in this follow-up are a package, as the victim in this case must receive any salary and benefits he should have received during the period he was separated from his post by agents of the State who violated his rights. Similarly, an official investigation and punishment of those officials who caused this situation are necessary as a guarantee that such practices will not recur.

225. The Commission therefore finds that thus far the Peruvian State is only in partial compliance with the recommendations made in the report.

Cases 10.247 and others - Report Nº101/01 - Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal et. al. (Peru)

226. In Report Nº 101/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

1. Void any judicial decision, internal measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the summary executions and forced disappearance of the victims indicated at paragraph 252. In this regard, the State should also repeal Laws Nº 26,479 and 26,492.

2. Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances of the victims and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Peruvian legislation.

3. Adopt the measures necessary for the victim’s families to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations established herein.

4. Accede to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

227. By a communication dated December 11, 2003, the State reported that investigations were then underway into all the cases covered in Report Nº 101/01, itemized as follows:

1) Case 10.247, Pasache Vidal Miguel: Lima’s Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Burial Sites has had this case under investigation since November 2002.

2) Case 10.431, Tineo Sandoval Víctor: The La Mar Mixed Law Provincial Prosecutor’s Office is conducting an investigation into this case.

3) Case 10.472, Valer Munaylla Walter: Huamanga’s Second Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has had this case under investigation since January 2003.

4) Case 10.564, Sangama Panalfo Luis Alberto et al.: The Padre Abad Mixed Law Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has had this case under investigation since March 2003.

5) Case 10.744, Torres Quispe Arturo: The Huanta Mixed-Law Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has had this case under investigation since August 2002.

6) Case 10.805, Loli Mauricio Nilton Adelmo et al.: Lima’s Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Grave Sites has this case under investigation.

7) Case 10.878, Javier Ipanaque Marcelo et al.: The Office of the Fifth Special Prosecutor for Human Rights Cases (Fujimori-Montesinos era) has this case under investigation.

8) Case 10.947, Marín Gallegos Guillermo et al.: This case is under investigation by the Aucayacu-Huanuco Mixed Law Provincial Prosecutor’s Office.

9) Case 11.035, Cajacuri Roca Leon: As of the present, one investigation is underway with the Tarma Mixed Law Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, and another with the Lima Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Grave Sites.

10) Case 11.051, Medina Puma Adrian: The Lima Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Grave Sites has this case under investigation.

11) Case 11.088, Inca Ñaupa Amadeo et al.: The Office of the Huancasancos Mixed Law Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has this case under investigation.

12) Case 11.126, Vílchez Simeón César Teobaldo: The Huancayo Office of the Fourth Provincial Prosecutor has had this case under investigation since October 2002

13) Case 11.161, Chipana Huaylla Pascual et al.: The Fajardo-Ayacucho Mixed Law Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has this case under investigation.

14) Case 11.179, Esteban Romero León et al.: Huancayo’s Fourth Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has had this case under investigation since September 2002.

15) Case 11.200, Nuñez Quispe Camilo et al.: The Huancayo Fourth Provincial Prosecutor’s Office has been investigating this case since August 2002.

16) Case 11.292, Chávez Ruíz Jessica Rosa et al.: Proceedings are underway in the First Criminal Chamber of the La Libertad Superior Court. The new trial that the Supreme Court had to order owing to the removal of judges is still in progress; a trial where the defendants are accused of simple homicide is still pending, and no warrant has been issued to take the accused into custody.

17) Case 11.680, Carbajal Quispe Moises: A case of qualified homicide is currently before the Abancay Second Criminal Law Court where the defendants are the heads of the Santa Rosa military base at Abancay: José Delgado Bejarano and José Miguel Méndez Canales. No arrest warrants have been issued for anyone else.

18) Case 11.064, Cosme Ureta Peter: The Huancayo Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Grave Sites has this case under investigation.

228. For their part, the petitioners supplied information that matched that provided by the State, with the following additional comments:

1) As of the present, the investigation into Case 11,035, Cajacuri Roca León, has not gotten underway, although the case file was referred to the Jauja Prosecutor’s Office.

2) The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights (Fujimori-Montesinos era) has Case 11,057, Ventocilla Rojas Rafael et al., under investigation.

3) Regarding Case 11,132, Galván Montero Edith, the petitioners have indicated that the Lima Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Grave Sites has this case under investigation.

229. The petitioners have also reiterated that internal measures have not been taken to repeal laws 26479 and 25492, which obstruct the investigation, prosecution and punishment of the individuals at fault in this case, even though the investigations that had been closed under these laws were reopened when the State notified the domestic courts of the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos Case.

230. Most of these investigations are being conducted by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Grave Sites with nationwide jurisdiction. It coordinates with its local counterparts in Huamanga in Ayacucho, Huancavelica and Huancayo in Junín. In practice, however, these provincial prosecutor’s offices still have to try other types of cases as well, which means that they cannot devote themselves exclusively to cases involving human rights violations.

231. In these investigations, the Attorney General’s Office has reported the Defense Ministry’s refusal to allow access to documents relating to the facts under investigation or to give the real names of the military troops involved in the events. This makes the investigation that much more difficult.

232. On the occasion of the follow-up report on the recommendations for 2002, the State reported ratification of the Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted in Belem do Pará, Brazil, on June 9, 1994, and creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

233. States that have ratified that Convention have pledged to take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in the Convention. However, the Peruvian Government has not specified what types of measures it has adopted, especially measures to bring the definition of the crime of forced disappearance criminalized in Article 320 of the Criminal Code in line with the definition and scope set out in the Convention.

234. The IACHR has followed closely the activities that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission carried out during its mandate and the Final Report presented on August 28, 2003 to the Peruvian public, to the President of the Republic and to the representatives of the legislative and judicial branches of government. The Report evaluates the acts of violence during the eighties and nineties and the grave human rights violations committed by subversive groups and State agents. It also makes a number of general recommendations, among them the following: reparations for victims and the need to improve the system for the administration of justice. Recommendations like these go very much to the question of the Peruvian State’s compliance with the recommendations made in the report under evaluation.

235. The Commission notes that the parties provided no information regarding recommendations 1 and 3 of that report, which leads it to presume that the recommendations have not yet been carried out.

236. The Commission notes that the report issued in May 2003 by the Inter-institutional Task Force created as a result of the agreements included in the Joint Press Release that Peru and the Commission signed in 2001 contains the proposed reparations plan for the victims of this and other cases where the State accepted its responsibility and for creation of an Executive Secretariat charged with coordinating those non-monetary reparations. Based on the information it has available, the Commission concludes that no progress has been made toward implementation of that plan or installation of the Executive Secretariat, which is essential to carry out the recommendations that the report made in this area.

237. The Commission therefore considers that thus far Peru is only in partial compliance with the recommendations contained in the report.

Case 12.035 – Report Nº 75/02(bis), Pablo Ignacio Livia Robles (Peru)

238. On December 3, 2002, the IACHR adopted Report 75/02(bis) on the friendly settlement between the petitioner and the Peruvian State and made the following recommendations:

1. To approve the terms of the friendly settlement agreement that the parties signed on July 25, 2002.

2. To continue to monitor and supervise each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement; accordingly, to remind the parties of their obligation to report to the IACHR every three months on the performance of this friendly settlement.

3. To make the present report public and include it in the Commission’s annual report to the OAS General Assembly.

239. On October 27, 2003, a note was received from the petitioner indicating that, by means of the resolutions dated January 17 and February 19, 2003, a decision had been made to restore him to his post as Principal Provincial Prosecutor of Lima, but that said resolutions had also restricted recognition of the years of service during which he was unemployed solely for pensionable purposes, which disregarded the point of the friendly settlement agreement. He therefore requested that the State correct said resolutions.

240. That note was forwarded to the State, which, in a note dated January 4, 2004, indicated that the resolutions dated January 17 and February 19, 2003, had not only reinstated Mr. Pablo Livia Robles but had also added the years during which he was unemployed to the computation of his years of service. That, under the third clause of the friendly settlement agreement, the victim was to be paid the sum of twenty thousand U.S. dollars ($20,000.00) as compensation, including material and moral damages and lucrum cessans, as overall compensation, which also included the remuneration that the petitioner had not received during his years of unemployment.

241. For the foregoing reasons, in view of the information available and the terms of the agreement, the IACHR considers that the Peruvian State has complied with the provisions of the friendly settlement dealt with in the referenced report.

Case 9903 - Report Nº 51/01, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. (United States)

242. In Report Nº 51/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

1. Convene reviews as soon as is practicable in respect of all of the Petitioners who remained in the State’s custody, to ascertain the legality of their detentions in accordance with the applicable norms of the American Declaration, in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by the Commission’s analysis in the report; and

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that all aliens who are detained under the authority and control of the State, including aliens who are considered “excludable” under the State’s immigration laws, are afforded full protection of all of the rights established in the American Declaration, including in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by the Commission’s analysis in its report.

243. In a communication dated December 19, 2003, the State indicated that it did not intend to observe the Commission’s recommendations, based upon the State’s previous submissions in the case, a summary of which has been posted on the Commission’s website. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

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

244. In Report Nº 52/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

1. Provide Mr. Garza with an effective remedy, which included commutation of sentence; and

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that persons who are accused of capital crimes are tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the Declaration, and in particular by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital trials.

245. In a communication dated December 19, 2003, the State indicated that it did not intend to observe the Commission’s recommendations, based upon the State’s previous submissions in the case, a summary of which has been posted on the Commission’s website. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

Case 11.753 - Report Nº 52/02 Ramón Martinez Villareal, (United States)

246. In Report Nº 52/02 dated October 10, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations:

1. Provide Mr. Martinez Villareal with an effective remedy, which includes a re-trial in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections prescribed under Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, Mr. Martinez Villareal’s release.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that foreign nationals who are arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or are detained in any other manner in the United States are informed without delay of their right to consular assistance and that, with his or her concurrence, the appropriate consulate is informed without delay of the foreign national’s circumstances, in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections enshrined in Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration.

247. In a note dated December 19, 2003, the State informed the Commission that on September 20, 2002, the Superior Court of Pinal County, Arizona ordered that Mr. Martinez Villareal’s death sentence be vacated and that he continue to be held in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections pending re-sentencing. The Court’s order was based upon a stipulation by the parties to the proceeding that Mr. Martinez Villareal suffers from mental retardation to such a degree that the sentences of death previously imposed on him must be vacated in accordance with the October 1, 2001 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Atkins v. Virginia, 534 U.S. 809 (2001). The State also indicated that under no circumstances can the death sentence be re-imposed on Mr. Martinez Villareal and that the remaining issue on sentencing is whether consecutive or concurrent sentences for his two murder convictions will be imposed. Also according to the State, proceedings are ongoing before the courts in Arizona to determine Mr. Martinez Villareal’s competence to undergo re-sentencing proceedings. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the Commission’s first recommendation.

Case 12.285- Report Nº 62/02 Michael Domingues, (United States)

248. In Report Nº 62/02 dated October 22, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations:

1. Provide Michael Domingues with an effective remedy, which includes commutation of sentence.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time their crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.

249. In a letter dated December 17, 2003, the Petitioner informed the Commission that he had received no information from the United States government or the State of Nevada indicating that they are complying or attempting to comply with the Commission’s recommendations and that Mr. Domingues is still on death row in the State of Nevada awaiting his execution. In a communication dated December 19, 2003, the State indicated that it did not intend to observe the Commission’s recommendations, based upon the State’s previous submissions in the case, a summary of which has been posted on the Commission’s website. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

Case 11.140 - Report Nº 75/02 Mary and Carrie Dann, United States

250. In Report Nº 75/02 dated December 27, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations:

1. Provide Mary and Carrie Dann with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to ensure respect for the Danns’ right to property in accordance with Articles II, XVIII and XXIII of the American Declaration in connection with their claims to property rights in the Western Shoshone ancestral lands.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that the property rights of indigenous persons are determined in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles II, XVIII and XXIII of the Declaration.

251. In a communication dated December 19, 2003, the State indicated that it did not intend to observe the Commission’s recommendations, based upon the State’s previous submissions in the case, a summary of which has been posted on the Commission’s website. In a letter dated January 22, 2004, the Petitioners informed the Commission that the United States had failed in every respect to comply with both of the Commission’s recommendations. The Petitioners cited the State’s formal response to the Commissions’ report and claimed that the government has declined to enter into negotiations with the Danns to resolve the issues. The Petitioners also alleged that the United States’ non-compliance has been manifested in certain initiatives undertaken by the government. In this respect, the Petitioners have claimed that notwithstanding the findings in the Commission’s report, the executive and legislative branches of the United States government are attempting to distribute the Indian Claims Commission judgment award concerning the Western Shoshone lands, through legislation that is nearing passage by Congress. The Petitioners have also claimed that the United States government has authorized ever-expanding gold-mining, geothermal energy and nuclear waste development on the disputed lands and is causing serious environmental harm while threatening to cause even greater environment harm, including the destruction of sacred sites of the Western Shoshone. In addition, the Petitioners have asserted that throughout litigation of the case, the United States has repeatedly taken direct action against the disputed lands, resources and personal property of the Danns, by demanding that the Danns and other Western Shoshone pay massive grazing fees for “trespass” of their livestock, by threatening to impound livestock, and by actually seizing and selling at auction much of the Danns’ livestock without any compensation to the Danns. According to the Petitioners, the failure of the United States to comply with the Commission’s recommendations violates international commitments that the United States has made repeatedly and recently and suggests that the United States’ policy of exceptionalism in human rights has prevailed over the conflicting policy of respect for high-minded human rights commitments. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

[ Table of Contents| Previous | Next ]