Annual Report 2003 - Chapter III

E. Petitions and cases the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had under consideration

1. Provisional measures

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

253. The following is a summary of the 23 provisional measures that the Commission requested and that the Court had under consideration during the period of time comprenhended by this report, listed according to the country with respect to which they were sought. As in the case of precautionary measures, the number of provisional measures requested of the States bears no relationship to the number of persons protected by virtue of their adoption.

a. Brazil

The Urso Branco Prison Case

254. On October 14, 2003, the Commission submitted to the Court its observations on the Brazilian State’s Fourth Report on the measures adopted to protect the life and safety of all persons detained at the Urso Branco Prison, pursuant to orders of the Inter-American Court of June 18, 2002 and August 19, 2002.

b. Colombia

Álvarez et al.

255. The Commission continued to submit to the Court its periodic observations on the Colombian State’s (thirtieth, thirty-first, thirty-second and thirty-third) reports on the measures adopted to protect the physical safety of the persons protected by the provisional measures the Court ordered and then extended on August 10, October 11, and November 12, 2000, and May 30, 2001, to protect members of the Association of Families and Relatives of Detained and Disappeared Persons in Colombia.

Caballero Delgado and Santana

256. The Commission continued to present to the Court its periodic observations on the reports submitted by the Colombian State (thirty-first, thirty-second, thirty-third and thirty-fourth) on the measures adopted to protect the physical safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures, in compliance with the Court’s order of June 3, 1999 (see, infra, contentious cases).

Giraldo Cardona

257. The Commission continued to present its periodic observations on the reports filed by Colombia (thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh) on the measures taken to protect the personal safety of Ms. Isleña Rey, Ms. Mariela Giraldo and her daughters, in compliance with the orders of the Inter-American Court dated September 30, 1999, October 28, 1996, February 5, 1997, June 17 and November 27, 1998

Clemente Teherán et al.

258. The Commission continued to present to the Court its observations on Colombia’s (twenty-ninth, thirtieth and thirty-first) reports on the measures taken to protect the personal safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures called for under the Court’s Order of August 12, 2000.

259. On December 1, 2003, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an order whereby it decided:

1. To lift and regard as terminated the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its orders of June 19, 1998, January 29, 1999, and August 12, 2000, on behalf of Rosember Clemente Teherán, Armando Mercado, Nilson Zurita, Edilberto Gaspar Rosario, Dorancel Ortiz, Leovigildo Castillo, Santiago Méndez, Zoila Riondo, Saúl Lucas, José Guillermo Carmona, Celedonio Padilla, Eudo Mejía Montalvo, Marcelino Suárez Lazaro, Fabio Antonio Guevara, José Luis Mendoza, Misael Suárez Estrada, Ingilberto M. Pérez, Martín Florez, Jacinto Ortíz Quintero, Juan Antonio Almanza Pacheco, José Carpio Beltrán and Luis Felipe Álvarez Polo.

2. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this order.

3. To close the file on provisional measures in this case.

Peace Community of San José de Apartadó

260. The Commission continued to present to the Court its observations on the Colombian State’s (thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth) reports on the measures adopted to protect the persons for whom provisional measures were ordered in the Court’s order of June 18, 2002.

The Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and families of the Curbaradó

261. Pursuant to Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, on March 5, 2003 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed a request with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights seeking provisional measures for the members of the Afro-Colombian communities that form the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and families of the Curbaradó, located in the municipality of Carmen del Darién, Department of the Chocó, Republic of Colombia. The IACHR requested the provisional measures so that Colombia would protect the lives of the members of the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and of the families of Curbaradó in the municipality of Carmen del Darién, their personal safety and their permanence within that collective territory.

262. On March 6, 2003, the Court issued an order calling for provisional measures, wherein it decided:

1. To order Colombia to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of all members of the communities on the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and the families of Curbaradó.

2. To order Colombia to investigate the facts that prompted the adoption of provisional measures, so as to identify the responsible parties and punish them accordingly.

3. To order Colombia to adopt all measures necessary to ensure that the persons protected by the [...] measures can continue to live in the communities in which they currently reside, without any form of intimidation or threat.

4. To order Colombia, in keeping with the American Convention on Human Rights, to provide special protection to the so-called “humanitarian refuge zones” established by the communities on the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and the families of Curbaradó, and to that end adopt the measures necessary for them to be able to receive all the humanitarian relief sent to them.

5. To order Colombia to guarantee the safety conditions necessary to enable persons belonging to the communities forming the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and the families of Curbaradó who have been forced to flee to jungle areas or elsewhere, to return to their homes or to the “humanitarian refuge zones” established by those communities.

6. To order Colombia to establish a mechanism allowing constant supervision and communication in the so-called “humanitarian refuge zones”, in keeping with the terms of the […] Order.

7. To order Colombia to allow the representatives appointed by the beneficiaries of the provisional measures to participate in the planning and implementation of the measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

8. To order Colombia, within 15 days of notification of the […] Order, to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the provisional measures adopted pursuant thereto.

9. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations within two weeks of the date of notification of the State’s report.

10. To order Colombia, subsequent to its first report […], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every 30 days, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations on the State’s reports within two weeks following the date of notification of the State’s respective reports.

(Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Concurring Opinion, as did Judges García Ramírez and Abreu Burelli of their Joint Concurring Opinion).

263. The Commission has presented to the Court its observations on the (first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth) reports filed by the Colombian State on the measures adopted to protect the personal safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures ordered, in compliance with the Court’s orders of August 12, 2000 and March 6, 2003.

c. Costa Rica

Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser (La Nación newspaper)

264. The Commission has submitted its periodic observations on Costa Rica’s reports concerning the measures adopted to refrain from including Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Costa Rican Judicial Register of Criminal Offenders until the organs of the inter-American system of human rights have arrived at a definitive decision on the case, as well as to suspend the order to publish the operative part of the judgment and to establish a connection between the newspaper articles and that operative section of the judgment, all pursuant to the Order of the Inter-American Court dated September 7, 2001. In the year covered by the present report, the Commission took no action in connection with the provisional measures.

265. On January 28, 2003, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Costa Rica concerning the newspaper “La Nación” (12.367). In that application, the IACHR asserts that Costa Rica violated the rights upheld in articles 13 (freedom of thought and expression) and 2 (obligation to adopt domestic legislative measures) of the American Convention on Human Rights, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, a journalist with La Nación newspaper, and Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser, that newspaper’s legal counsel (see contentious cases below).

d. Guatemala

Bámaca Velásquez

266. On February 21, 2003, the Court issued an order wherein it decided:

1. To ratify the December 20, 2002 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2. To order Guatemala to adopt forthwith the measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of José León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez, Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, Alberta Velásquez, Rudy López Velásquez and other members of the Bámaca Velásquez family who make their permanent home in Guatemala.

3. To order Guatemala to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to ensure that the persons protected under these provisional measures can continue to reside at their usual place of residence.

4. To order the State to allow the victims’ representatives to participate in the planning and implementation of the provisional measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To order the State to investigate the facts denounced that necessitated the […] measures, in order to determine who the responsible parties are and punish them.

6. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than March 10, 2003, on the measures it has adopted in compliance with the […] Order.

7. To order the victims’ representatives to present their observations on the State’s report within one week of receiving it and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within two weeks of the date of notification of the State’s report.

8. To order the State, subsequent to its first report […], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; to order the victims’ representatives to present their observations on the State’s reports within four weeks of their receipt, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within six weeks of being notified of the State’s respective reports.

267. On September 26, 2003, the President of the Court issued an order for urgent measures, wherein he decided:

1. To order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Emerita Mendoza, Wendy Pérez Álvarez, Sulni Madeli Pérez Álvarez, José Oswaldo Pérez Álvarez, Jacobo Álvarez, José Pioquinto Álvarez, Alez Javier Álvarez, Germán Aníbal de la Roca Mendoza, Kevin Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, Blanca Noelia Meléndez, Aron Álvarez Mendoza and his family and other members of the family of Mr. Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza who make their permanent residence in Guatemala.

2. To order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to ensure that the persons protected by these provisional measures can continue to live in their usual place of residence, with proper respect for their rights to life and the integrity of their person.

3. To order the State to allow the victims’ representatives to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of progress on the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

4. To order the State to investigate the claim that necessitated the present measures, in order to identify and punish those responsible.

5. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than October 10, 2003, the measures it has adopted in compliance with […] Order.

6. To order the victims’ representatives to report their observations on the State’s report within two weeks of its receipt and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within two weeks of receiving the State’s report.

7. To order the State, subsequent to its first report […], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; to order the victims’ representatives to present their observations on the State’s reports within four weeks of their receipt, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within one week of being notified of the State’s respective reports.

268. On November 20, 2003, the Inter-American Court issued an order for provisional measures wherein it resolved:

1. To ratify the September 26, 2003 order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2. To order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Emerita Mendoza, Wendy Pérez Álvarez, Sulni Madeli Pérez Álvarez, José Oswaldo Pérez Álvarez, Jacobo Álvarez, José Pioquinto Álvarez, Alez Javier Álvarez, Germán Aníbal de la Roca Mendoza, Kevin Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, Blanca Noelia Meléndez, Aron Álvarez Mendoza and his family and other members of the family of Mr. Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza who make their permanent residence in Guatemala, so as to avoid irreparable damage.

3. To order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to ensure that the persons protected by these provisional measures can continue to live in their usual place of residence, with full respect for their rights to life and safety.

4. To order the State to allow the victims’ representatives to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made with the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To order the State to investigate the facts reported in the complaint that gave rise to the […] measures so as to identify and punish those responsible.

6. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than December 9, 2003, on the measures adopted to comply with […] Order and the Court’s orders of August 28, 1998, September 5, 2001, and February 21, 2003.

7. To order the victims’ representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their observations on the State’s report within two weeks of its receipt.

8. To order the State, subsequent to its first report […], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the victims’ representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their observations on the State’s reports within four weeks and six weeks, respectively, of their receipt.

9. To notify the State, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the victims’ representatives and next of kin of this Order for provisional measures.

269. The Commission continued to present to the Court its periodic observations on the (twenty-second, twenty-third, twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth) reports filed by the Guatemalan State on the measures adopted to protect the physical safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures duly extended by the Court in its Orders of August 29, 1998, September 5, 2001 and November 20, 2003. (See contentious cases below).

Blake

270. On June 6, 2003, the Court issued an Order for Provisional Measures to the following effect:

1. To lift and regard as terminated the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court in its orders of September 22, 1995, April 18, 1997, August 18, 2000 and June 2, 2001, on behalf of Justo Victoriano Martínez Morales.

2. To order the State to maintain the measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Floridalma Rosalina López Molina, Víctor Hansel Morales López, Edgar Ibal Martínez López and Sylvia Patricia Martínez López.

3. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within 15 days of being notified of the […] Order, on the provisional measures it has adopted pursuant to the order.

4. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights every three months on the measures ordered by the Court to protect the life and personal safety of the persons named in that Order. Further, to order the beneficiaries of the measures and their representatives to present their observations on the State’s reports within four weeks of their receipt, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within six weeks of notification of the State’s respective reports.

271. The Commission continued to present to the Court its periodic observations on the Guatemalan State’s reports on the measures adopted to protect the physical safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures called for in the Court’s orders of April 18, 1997, August 18, 2000, June 2, 2001 and June 6, 2003. (See contentious cases below).

Carpio Nicolle

272. The Commission continued to present to the Court its periodic observations on the Guatemalan State’s (forty-seventh, forty-eighth, forty-ninth and fiftieth) reports on the measures adopted to protect the physical safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures, which the Court duly extended in its orders of September 19, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996, September 19, 1997, June 19, 1998, November 27, 1998, September 30, 1999 and September 5, 2001.

273. The case of Jorge Carpio et al. v. Guatemala (Case 11.333) was referred to the Court on June 13, 2003. The application concerns the arbitrary execution of Jorge Carpio Nicolle (a prominent journalist and Guatemalan politician), Juan Vicente Villacorta, Alejandro Avila Guzmán and Rigoberto Rivas González, and violation of the physical integrity of Sidney Shaw, a minor, as a result of events that transpired on July 3, 1993 in the department of El Quiché, Guatemala, when his entourage was surrounded by more than fifteen armed men; once the latter had identified him, they opened fire and killed him and those with him. More than ten years have passed since the extrajudicial execution of Jorge Carpio and his entourage, yet no one has ever been punished for the crime. The IACHR filed an application with the Court asking that it declare Guatemala in violation of the human rights recognized in articles 4, 5, 8, 13, 19 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (see contentious cases below).

Colotenango

274. The Commission continued to file its periodic observations with the Court concerning Guatemala’s reports on the measures adopted to protect the safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures, which the Court duly extended in its orders of December 1, 1994, May 18, 1995, February 1, 1996, September 10, 1996, April 16, 1997, May 31, 1997, September 19, 1997, May 31, 1997, November 27, 1998, June 3, 1999, February 2, 2000 and September 5, 2001.

Helen Mack et. al.

275. At the public hearing the Court held in the Mack Chang case on February 18, 19, and 20, 2003, the representatives of the victim’s next of kin alleged that a situation of extreme gravity and urgency existed that threatened the life and physical safety of the relatives of Myrna Mack Chang: Zoila Esperanza Chang Lau (mother); Marco Antonio Mack Chang (brother); Freddy Mack Chang (brother); Vivian Mack Chang (sister); Ronnie Mack Apuy (cousin); Lucrecia Hernández Mack (daughter) and the latter’s children. During the hearing, expert witness Iduvina Hernández stated that she herself could become the target of reprisals because of her testimony before the Inter-American Court. Therefore, in an order of February 21, 2003, the Court decided to extend the provisional measures ordered for the above-named persons, as follows:

1. To ratify the August 14, 2002 order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the August 26, 2002 Order of the Court.

2. To order the State to maintain the measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Helen Mack Chang, Viviana Salvatierra, América Morales Ruiz, Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, and the other members of the Myrna Mack Foundation.

3. To order the State to expand forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and safety of the relatives of Myrna Mack Chang: Zoila Esperanza Chang Lau (mother), Marco Antonio Mack Chang (brother), Freddy Mack Chang (brother), Vivian Mack Chang (sister), Ronnie Mack Apuy (cousin), Lucrecia Hernández Mack (daughter), and her daughter’s children.

4. To order the State to expand forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Iduvina Hernández.

5. To order the State to plan and implement the provisional measures by mutual agreement with the beneficiaries of those measures or their representatives and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

6. To order the State to report to the Court, within 15 days of being notified of the [...] Order, on the provisional measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s orders.

7. To order the representatives of the alleged victim’s next of kin to present their observations on the State’s report within one week of its receipt and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within two weeks of notification of the State’s report.

8. To order the State, subsequent to its first report [...], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; to order the representatives of the alleged victim’s next of kin to present their observations on the State’s reports within four weeks of receiving them; and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within six weeks of being notified of the State’s respective reports.

276. On April 25, 2003, the President of the Court issued an Order to the following effect:

1. To order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Jorge Guillermo Lemus Alvarado and his next of kin, so that the Court might examine the request for expansion of the provisional measures adopted in the case of Helen Mack et al.

2. To order the State to plan and implement the ordered measures by mutual agreement with their beneficiaries or their representatives and, in general, keep them informed of the progress regarding the measures.

3. To order the State to investigate the complaint that gave rise to the present measures so as to identify and punish the responsible parties.

4. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within 15 days of receiving notification of the [...] order, on the measures adopted to carry out the measures.

5. To order the beneficiaries of the measures or their representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their observations on the State’s report within two weeks of receiving it.

6. To order the State, subsequent to its first report [...], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the present measures, and to order the beneficiaries or their representatives to continue to present their observations on the State’s reports within four weeks of receiving them; to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within six weeks of notification of the State’s respective reports.

277. On June 6, 2003, the Court issued an order to expand the provisional measures ordered in the present case. It reads as follows:

1. To ratify the April 25, 2003 order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2. To order the State to expand forthwith the measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Jorge Guillermo Lemus Alvarado and his next of kin.

3. To order the State to maintain the measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Helen Mack Chang, Viviana Salvatierra, América Morales Ruiz, Luis Roberto Romero Rivera, and the other members of the Myrna Mack Foundation; Myrna Mack Chang’s next of kin: Zoila Esperanza Chang Lau (mother), Marco Antonio Mack Chang (brother), Freddy Mack Chang (brother), Vivian Mack Chang (sister), Ronnie Mack Apuy (cousin), Lucrecia Hernández Mack (daughter), the children of Lucrecia Hernández Mack, and Iduvina Hernández.

4. To order the State to plan and implement the ordered measures by mutual agreement with their beneficiaries or their representatives and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To order the State to investigate the denunciations that gave rise to the present measures so as to identify and punish those responsible.

6. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within 15 days of being notified of the [...] Order, on the provisional measures adopted pursuant thereto.

7. To order the beneficiaries of the measures and their representatives to present their observations on the State’s report within one week of receiving it and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within two weeks of being notified of the State’s report.

8. To order the State, subsequent to its first report [...], to continue to keep the Inter-American Court of Human Rights informed of the implementation of these measures in the report it was ordered to present every two months; to order the beneficiaries or their representatives to continue to present their observations on the State’s reports within four weeks of receiving them, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations within six weeks of notification of the State’s respective reports.

278. The Commission continued to present to the Court its periodic observations on Guatemala’s reports concerning the measures adopted to protect the physical safety of the persons covered by the provisional measures duly expanded by the Court. (See contentious cases below)

e. Haiti

Lysias Fleury

279. On March 13, 2003, the IACHR requested that the Court order provisional measures in the case of Lysias Fleury, to protect the life and personal safety of Mr. Fleury, a Haitian human rights attorney working with the Catholic Bishops’ National Commission on Justice and Peace. Mr. Fleury alleged that he had been arrested without a court order and then detained and severely beaten by police and civilians. He is constantly being threatened by the individuals who mistreated him for his work as a human rights attorney. On March 18, 2003, the President of the Court ordered urgent measures to protect Mr. Fleury’s life and personal safety. The order read as follows:

1. To order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Mr. Lysias Fleury.

2. To order the State to take steps to investigate the facts that necessitated the adoption of these provisional measures, so as to identify those responsible and punish them accordingly.

3. To order the State to allow the beneficiary of these measures to take part in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep him informed of the progress made in the execution of the measures ordered by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

4. To order the State to present a report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within 15 days of notification of the [...] Order, concerning the measures it has adopted to carry out the urgent measures herein ordered.

5. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the State’s report within two weeks of its notification.

6. To order the State, subsequent to first report [...], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every 30 days, on the urgent measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the State’s reports within two weeks of the date of notification of the State’s respective report.[†]

280. On June 7, 2003, the Court issued an order calling for provisional measures in the instant case. It read as follows:

1. To ratify the March 18, 2003 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2. To declare that the State has failed to effectively implement the measures ordered by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on March 18, 2003.

3. To order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Mr. Lysias Fleury.

4. To order the State to investigate the facts that necessitated the adoption of these provisional measures so as to identify and punish those responsible.

5. To order the State to allow the beneficiary of these measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep him informed of the progress made on execution of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

6. To order the State to continue to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every 30 days, on the provisional measures adopted and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the State’s reports within two weeks of being notified thereof.

281. On December 2, 2003, the Inter-American Court issued an Order on the Provisional Measures wherein it decided:

1. To reiterate that the State has failed to effectively implemented the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the instant case.

2. To declare that the State is in noncompliance with its obligation under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To declare that the State failed to comply with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the implementation of the provisional measures the Court ordered.

4. Should the current situation persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, concerning the State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To reiterate to the State that it must adopt forthwith such measures as are necessary to protect Mr. Lysias Fleury’s life and personal safety.

6. To again order the State to investigate the denounced facts that prompted the order to adopt provisional measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

7. To again order the State to allow the beneficiary of these measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, to keep him informed of the progress made in executing the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

8. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than January 20, 2004, on the provisional measures it has adopted in compliance with the present Order.

9. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the State’s report within two weeks of being notified thereof.

10. To order the State, after filing the report required under operative paragraph eight, to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the State’s reports within six weeks of being notified thereof.

[…]

f. Mexico

Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (PRODH) et. al.

282. The IACHR continued to present its periodic observations on Mexico’s (eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh) reports on the measures taken in the Centro de Derechos Humanos “Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez” (PRODH) et al Case. The provisional measures the Inter-American Court ordered on November 30, 2001, called for protection of attorneys Pilar Noriega García, Bárbara Zamora López and Leonel Rivero Rodríguez, and for the parents and siblings of Digna Ochoa y Plácido.

283. On December 9, 2003, the Inter-American Commission forwarded to the Court a letter received from the Centro PRODH wherein the members of that nongovernmental organization who were the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered by the Court, reported that “fortunately, for the last two years there have been no signals to indicate that members of the Centro PRODH are in [imminent danger]” and requested, by way of the Commission, that the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court be lifted exclusively in the case of the members of the PRODH.

284. Given the foregoing, and notwithstanding any developments that might alter the situation that the petitioners described, the Inter-American Commission petitioned the Court to lift the provisional measures. That request referred only to the members of the Centro PRODH and has no effect on the situation of the other persons protected by the provisional measures ordered by the Court.

José Francisco Gallardo

285. The Inter-American Commission continued to present to the Court its periodic observations on Mexico’s (eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh) reports on the measures adopted in the case of José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez.

g. Nicaragua

Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community

286. The Commission continued to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the situation of the Community for which the Court had ordered provisional measures in its September 6, 2002 Order. (See contentious cases below).

h. Dominican Republic

Expulsions of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian-Origin in the Dominican Republic

287. The Inter-American Commission continued to present to the Court its periodic observations on the Dominican Republic’s (twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth) reports on the measures called for in the Court’s Orders of August 18, 2000, November 12, 2000, and May 26, 2001.

i. Trinidad and Tobago

James et al.

288. The Commission continued reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the situation of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered by the Court in the James et al. Case. (See, below, Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case under contentious cases).

289. On December 2, 2003, the Inter-American Court issued an Order for Provisional Measures which reads as follows:

1. To find that the State has not complied with the duty established in Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights because it has not fulfilled the obligation to report on the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in favor of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Garcia, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, Denny Baptiste, Wilberforce Bernard, Naresh Boodram, Clarence Charles, Phillip Chotalal, George Constantine, Rodney Davis, Natasha De Leon, Mervyn Edmund, Alfred Frederick, Nigel Mark, Wayne Matthews, Steve Mungroo, Vijay Mungroo, Wilson Prince, Martin Reid, Noel Seepersad, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Keiron Thomas, Samuel Winchester, Peter Benjamin, Kevin Dial, Andrew Dottin, Anthony Johnson, Amir Mowlah, Allan Phillip, Krishendath Seepersad, Narine Sooklal, Mervyn Parris, Francis Mansingh, Balkissoon Roodal, Sheldon Roach, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal Ramnarace, and Takoor Ramcharan.

2. If the current situation were to persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States -applying Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights- on non-compliance of the State with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

3. To again order the State to maintain the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court in its June 14, 1998, August 29, 1998, May 25, 1999, May 27, 1999, September 25, 1999, August 16, 2000, November 24, 2000, November 26, 2001, and September 3, 2002 Orders to preserve the lives and physical integrity of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Garcia, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, Denny Baptiste, Wilberforce Bernard, Naresh Boodram, Clarence Charles, Phillip Chotalal, George Constantine, Rodney Davis, Natasha De Leon, Mervyn Edmund, Alfred Frederick, Nigel Mark, Wayne Matthews, Steve Mungroo, Vijay Mungroo, Wilson Prince, Martin Reid, Noel Seepersad, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Keiron Thomas, Samuel Winchester, Peter Benjamin, Kevin Dial, Andrew Dottin, Anthony Johnson, Amir Mowlah, Allan Phillip, Krishendath Seepersad, Narine Sooklal, Mervyn Parris, Francis Mansingh, Balkissoon Roodal, Sheldon Roach, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal Ramnarace, and Takoor Ramcharan.

4. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the provisional measures adopted to comply with the instant Order, no later than January 20, 2004.

5. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within two weeks of the date when it is notified of the report by the State, such observations as it may deem pertinent.

6. To order the State, subsequent to its communication described in operative paragraph four, to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights every two months, regarding the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations to said reports by the State within six weeks of the date when it receives those reports.

[…]

j. Venezuela

Liliana Ortega et. al.

290. On February 17, 2003, the Court held a public hearing where it heard testimony from Mrs. Liliana Ortega and the arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Venezuelan State regarding the provisional measures ordered. On February 21, 2003, the Court issued an Order wherein it decided:

1. To find that the State has not effectively implemented the Provisional Measures ordered by the Inter-American Court in its November 27, 2002 Order.

2. To again order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda Páez, Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano, Alicia de González and Carmen Alicia Mendoza.

3. To again order the State to allow the applicants to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

4. To again order the State to investigate the facts denounced, which gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

5. To order the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to take the necessary measures to create a suitable mechanism for coordinating and overseeing the measures in question, by March 22, 2003 at the latest.

6. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, by no later than March 1, 2003, on the measures adopted in compliance with the Court’s Order.

7. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within one week of being notified of the State’s report.

8. To order the State, subsequent to its communication of March 1, 2003, to continue to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.

[…]

291. On December 2, 2003, the Inter-American Court resolved:

1. To reiterate that the State has not effectively implemented the provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in the instant case.

2. To declare the State to be in noncompliance with its duty under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To declare that the State failed to comply with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on implementation of the measures the Court ordered.

4. Should the current situation persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, concerning a State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To again order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Liliana Ortega, Yris Medina Cova, Hilda (Gilda) Páez, Maritza Romero, Aura Liscano (Lizcano), Alicia de González and Carmen Alicia Mendoza.

6. To again order the State to allow the applicants to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

7. To remind the State that it is ordered to investigate the facts denounced that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

8. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than January 7, 2004, the measures adopted in compliance with the [...] Order.

9. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights the observations it deems pertinent on the State’s report, within 15 days of being notified of it.

10. To order the State, subsequent to the report referenced in operative paragraph eight, to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures it has adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to continue to file its observations on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.

11. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this Order [...].

292. During the Inter-American Court’s oversight of implementation of the measures ordered in the instant case, the Inter-American Commission has time and time again expressed deep concern over the fact that the State has done nothing more than repeat information already presented to the Court and has provided no information that would demonstrate effective implementation of the provisional measures the Court ordered. It has also underscored the importance of pressing for every measure necessary to fully protect the persons named by the Inter-American Court in its November 27, 2002 Order.

Luis Uzcátegui

293. On February 17, 2003, the Court held a public hearing to hear the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and the Venezuelan State regarding the provisional measures ordered. At that public hearing, the Commission entered a copy of a sworn statement made by Mr. Luis Uzcátegui. On February 20, 2003, the Court issued an Order wherein it decided:

1. To find that the State has failed to effectively implement the provisional measures that the Inter-American Court ordered in its November 27, 2002 Order.

2. To again order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez.

3. To again order the State to allow the applicants to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

4. To reiterate to the State that it is ordered to investigate the case that gave rise to the [...] measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

5. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures adopted in compliance with the [....] Order, by no later than February 28, 2003.

6. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights what it deems to be the pertinent observations on the State’s report, within one week of notification thereof.

7. To order the State that, subsequent to its communication of February 28, 2003, it continue to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures it has adopted; to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.

[…]

294. On December 2, 2003, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued an Order wherein it decided:

1. To reiterate that the State has not effectively implemented the various provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in the instant case.

2. To declare the State to be in noncompliance with its duty under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To declare that the State failed to comply with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on implementation of the Court-ordered measures.

4. Should the current situation persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, concerning a State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To again order the State to adopt forthwith the measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez.

6. To again order the State to allow the applicants to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the orders that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued.

7. To again order the State to investigate the facts denounced that gave rise to the [...] measures so as to identify and punish those responsible.

8. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than January 7, 2004, on the measures adopted in compliance with the [...] Order.

9. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its observations on the State’s report within 15 of being notified thereof.

10. To order the State that, subsequent to the report referenced in operative paragraph eight, it continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures it has adopted; and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.

11. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this order.

295. As the Inter-American Court is overseeing implementation of the measures ordered in the instant case, the Inter-American Commission has repeatedly told the Court how troubling it is that the State merely repeats information already reported to the Court and provides no information to show that it is effectively carrying out the provisional measures ordered by the Court. The Commission has also underscored how important it is that every measure be taken to ensure that Mr. Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez is fully protected.

Luisiana Ríos et. al.

296. The Court held a public hearing on February 17, 2003, where it heard statements by Armando Amaya and Luisiana Ríos, and the arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Venezuela regarding the provisional measures ordered. On February 20, 2003, the Court issued an Order wherein it resolved:

1. To find that the State has not effectively implemented the provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in its November 27, 2002 Order.

2. To again order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe.

3. To again order the State to allow the applicants to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered.

4. To again order the State to investigate the facts denounced, which gave rise to the [...] measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

5. To order the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to take, by no later than March 21, 2003, the necessary steps to create a suitable mechanism to coordinate and monitor the measures [...].

6. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than February 28, 2003, on the measures it has taken pursuant to the [...] Order.

7. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court its observations on the State’s report, within one week of notification thereof.

8. To order the State that, subsequent to its communication of February 28, 2003 [...], it continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.

[…]

297. The IACHR petitioned the Court to expand the provisional measures ordered for Luisiana Ríos et al. in the Court’s November 27, 2002 Order and later reiterated in a February 20, 2003 Order. The Commission was seeking protection of the life, safety and freedom of expression of Noé Pernía, a reporter with Radio Caracas Televisión, Carlos Colmenares, a cameraman with RCTV, and Pedro Nikken, an RCTV reporter. The precautionary measures adopted by the IACHR had had no effect in correcting the attacks on freedom of expression or the threats and assaults on the life and safety of the RCTV media personnel being protected; according to information the Commission had received, the three journalists had been physically assaulted while performing their functions.

298. On October 2, 2003, the President of the Inter-American Court issued an order wherein he decided:

1. To again order the State to adopt, without delay, all necessary measures to protect the life and personal safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe

2. To order the State to adopt, without delay, all necessary measures to protect the life, safety and freedom of expression of Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken.

3. To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of the protection measures to participate in their planning and application and, in general, keep them informed of the progress of the measures ordered.

4. To order the State to investigate the facts stated in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

5. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures taken to comply with the present Order, no later than October 16, 2003.

6. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its comments on the State’s report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within a week of being notified thereof.

7. To order the State, subsequent to its first report (supra, operative paragraph five), to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations to said reports within six weeks of receiving them.

8. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the present Order.

299. On November 21, 2003, the Inter-American Court decided:

1. To ratify the October 2, 2003 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2. To again order the State to adopt, without delay, all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe.

3. To order the State to adopt and maintain all measures necessary to protect the life, personal safety and freedom of expression of Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken, journalists with Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).

4. To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of these protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress regarding the measures ordered by the Court.

5. To order the State to investigate the facts stated in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

6. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures adopted to comply with this Order, no later than November 28, 2003.

7. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its observations on the State’s report, within one week of being notified thereof.

8. To order the State, subsequent to its first report [...], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations to the State’s reports within six weeks of being notified thereof.

9. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the [...] Order.

300. On December 2, 2003, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights adopted an Order to the following effect:

1. To reiterate that the State has not effectively implemented the various provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in case [...].

2. To declare the State to be in noncompliance with its duty under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To declare that the State did not comply with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on implementation of the measures the Court ordered.

4. Should the current situation persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, concerning a State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To again order the State to adopt, without delay, all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken.

6. To again order the State to allow the beneficiaries of these protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress regarding the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

7. To again order the State to investigate the facts stated in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

8. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures it has taken to comply with this order, no later than January 7, 2004.

9. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its comments on the State’s report, within 15 days of notification thereof.

10. To order the State, subsequent to its first report referenced in operative paragraph eight supra, to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations on the State’s reports within six weeks of their receipt.

11. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the [...] Order.

301. As the Inter-American Court is monitoring implementation of the measures ordered in the present case, the Commission has repeatedly conveyed to the Court its serious concern over the fact that the State has done nothing more than repeat information already presented to the Court and has provided no information to show actual compliance with the provisional measures the Court ordered. It has also underscored the needed to press for all measures necessary to fully protect the persons specifically named in the Court’s orders of November 27, 2002 and November 21, 2003.

Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez

302. In the case of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, the Commission sought provisional measures so that the Court would order the State to protect the life, personal safety and freedom of expression of journalists Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, who were the victims of an attempt on their lives in the early morning hours of June 27, 2003, while on their way to the TELEVEN television station for their daily show “La Entrevista”.

303. On July 30 2003, the Presidente of the Court resolved:

1. To order the State to adopt, without delay, all measures necessary to protect the life, personal safety and freedom of expression of journalists Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.

2. To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of the protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the measures ordered.

3. To order the State to investigate the facts reported in the complaint that gave rise to the present measures, in order to identify and punish those responsible.

4. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures it has taken to comply with this Order, no later than August 8, 2003.

5. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its observations on the State’s report within one week of notification thereof.

6. To order the State that, subsequent to its first report [...], it continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of their receipt.

304. On September 8, 2003, the Court issued an Order for Provisional Measures in the present case, wherein it resolved:

1. To ratify the July 30, 2003 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2. To order the State to adopt and maintain all measures needed to protect the life, personal safety, and freedom of expression of journalists Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.

3. To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of the protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the Court-ordered measures.

4. To order the State to investigate the facts reported in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

5. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by September 15, 2003 at the latest, on the measures it has taken to comply with the [...] Order.

6. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its observations on the State’s report within one week of notification thereof.

7. To order the State that, subsequent to its first report [...], it continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of their receipt.

8. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this Order.

305. On December 2, 2003, the Court issued another Order for Provisional Measures, wherein it decided:

1. To reiterate that the State has not effectively implemented the provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in the September 8, 2003 Order.

2. To declare the State to be in noncompliance with its duty under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To declare that the State has not yet complied with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on implementation of the measures the Court ordered.

4. Should the current situation persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, concerning a State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To reiterate to the State that it is required to effectively implement the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its September 8, 2003 Order for protection of the lives, personal safety and freedom of expression of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.

7. To again order the State to investigate the denunciations that prompted adoption of these provisional measures, in order to identify and punish those responsible.

8. To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures adopted pursuant to [...] Order, by no later than January 7, 2004.

9. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present the observations it deems pertinent on the State’s report, within 15 days of being notified thereof.

10. To order the State, subsequent to its first report (supra operative paragraph eight), to continue to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to continue to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of their receipt.

11. To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this Order.

[ Table of Contents| Previous | Next ]