Annual Report 2003 - Chapter III

2. Contentious cases

a. Argentina

Garrido and Baigorria Case

306. The Commission has continued presenting its observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on compliance with the judgments handed down, and it has asked the Court to urge the Argentine State to carry out the measures required for complying with the Court’s judgment on reparations in this case; and to order the State to submit a detailed report in which it expressly indicates the measures adopted to comply with what was required in its Resolution of November 27, 2002, i.e. to report on progress in complying with the reparations ordered.

307. On November 27, 2003, the Inter-American Court issued a resolution by which it declared:

1. That the State has complied with the provisions of the first and second operative paragraphs of the judgment on reparations delivered by this Court on August 27, 1998, as regards:

a) Payment of the amounts corresponding to the reparations to the next of kin of Adolfo Garrido and Raúl Baigorria, with the exception of the compensation corresponding to the natural children of Raúl Baigorria, as mentioned in the twelfth considering paragraph of this Order; and

b) Reimbursement of the costs in favor of the said next of kin of Messrs. Garrido and Baigorria and the fees in favor of the lawyers, Carlos Varela Álvarez y Diego Lavado, as mentioned in the eleventh considering paragraph of this Order.

2. That it will keep the procedure on monitoring compliance open with regard to the following elements that are pending compliance:

a) The tracing of the natural children of Raúl Baigorria and deposit of the compensation that corresponds to them for reparations, as mentioned in the eighth, ninth and tenth considering paragraphs of this Order; and

b) Investigation of the facts that led to the disappearance of Adolfo Garrido and Raúl Baigorria and punishment of those responsible, as mentioned in the thirteenth to sixteenth considering paragraphs of this Order.

308. In its resolution of November 27, 2003, the Court also decided:

3. To urge the State to adopt all necessary measures to comply promptly with the reparations ordered in the judgment of August 27, 1998, which are pending compliance, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To call upon the State to present a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the reparations ordered by this Court and that are pending compliance, as indicated in the second operative paragraph of this Order, by April 1, 2004, at the latest.

5. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its comments on the State’s report within two months of receiving it. Likewise, Diego Lavado and Carlos Varela Álvarez may transmit their comments on the State’s report through the Commission, if they consider this pertinent. Should new legal representatives of the victims’ next of kin have been appointed, they may submit their comments directly to the Court in the said period of two months.

6. To continue monitoring the aspects that are pending compliance of the judgment on reparations of August 27, 1998, as indicated in the second operative paragraph of this Order.

…

Cantos Case

309. This case is in the phase established by the Court for the State to comply with the judgment issued by the Court on November 28, 2002. During the year covered by this report, no action was taken by the Commission.

Bulacio Case

310. On March 3, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the representatives of the victim and his next-of-kin, and the Argentine State submitted to the Court a friendly settlement agreement, and asked the Court to make a pronouncement on the matter. The first clause of that agreement establishes:

The agreement entered into on February 26, 2003 ... has put an end to the dispute on the merits in this matter and on all questions of fact....

A consensus-based settlement was reached on all the disputed issues addressed in the litigation....

That agreement expressed the political decision of the Argentine Government, as well as the will of the petitioners, to put an end to the dispute, delimiting the issues that are submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and which should be addressed by the final resolution.

In view of the foregoing, the case was delimited to establishing economic reparations on behalf of the family of Walter David Bulacio and the non-pecuniary issues....

311. On March 6, 2003, the Court heard, in a public hearing, an interpretation of the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties, and issued a resolution in which it resolved “to continue the public hearing of the case with respect to reparations.” At the hearing called by the President of the Court the Inter-American Commission presented the witness and expert witnesses offered, as well as its final oral arguments on the reparations phase in relation to this case. On July 4, 2003, the IACHR filed its final written arguments with the Court.

312. On September 18, 2003, the Court issued a Judgment on the merits and on reparations in this case, in which it unanimously:

DECIDES:

...

1. to admit the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State.

2. to approve the February 26, 2003 agreement, under the terms of the instant Judgment, on the merits and some aspects of reparations, and the March 6, 2003 explanatory document regarding that agreement, both of them signed by the State, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the next of kin of the victim and their legal representatives.

DECLARES THAT:

3. pursuant to the terms of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State, it violated the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7 and 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio, and the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 also of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio and his next of kin, all the above in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms of paragraph 38 of the instant Judgment.

AND DECIDES THAT:

4. the State must continue and complete the investigation of all the facts of this case and punish those responsible for them; that the next of kin of the victim must have full access and be able to act, at all stages and levels of said investigations, pursuant to domestic legislation and the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights; and that the results of the investigations must be publicly disseminated, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 110 to 121 of the instant Judgment.

5. the State must guarantee non-recidivism of facts such as those of the instant case, adopting such legislative and any other measures as may be necessary to adjust the domestic legal system to international human rights provisions, and to make them fully effective, pursuant to Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the terms of paragraphs 122 to 144 of the instant Judgment.

6. the State must publish in the Daily Gazette, once only, chapter VI and the operative section of this Judgment, under the terms of paragraph 145 of this Judgment.

7. the State must pay the total sum of US$124,000.00 (one hundred and twenty-four United States dollars) or its equivalent in Argentinean currency, as compensation for pecuniary damage, distributed as follows:

a) US$110,000.00 (one hundred and ten thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Argentinean currency to be paid to Graciela Rosa Scavone under the terms of paragraphs 85, 87, 88, 89, 157 to 159 of the instant Judgment; and

b) US$14,000.00 (fourteen thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, to be distributed equally between María Ramona Armas de Bulacio and Lorena Beatriz Bulacio, under the terms of paragraphs 88 and 157 to 159 of the instant Judgment.

8. the State must pay the total sum of US$210,000.00 (two hundred ten thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, as compensation for non-pecuniary damages, distributed as follows:

a) US$114,333.00 (one hundred and fourteen thousand three hundred and thirty-three United States dollars), or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, to be paid to Graciela Rosa Scavone under the terms of paragraphs 95 to 104 and 157 to 159 of the instant Judgment;

b) US$44,333.00 (forty-four thousand three hundred and thirty-three United States dollars), or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, to be paid to María Ramona Armas de Bulacio under the terms of paragraphs 95 to 104 and 157 to 159 of the instant Judgment;

c) US$39,333.00 (thirty-nine thousand three hundred and thirty-three United States dollars), or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, to be paid to Lorena Beatriz Bulacio under the terms of paragraphs 95 to 104 and 157 to 159 of the instant Judgment; and

d) US$12,000.00 (twelve thousand United States dollars), or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, to be distributed in equal parts between the children Matías Emanuel and Tamara Florencia Bulacio under the terms of paragraphs 104, 157 to 160 of the instant Judgment.

9. the State must pay the total sum of US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars), or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, for legal costs and expenses, under the terms of paragraphs 152 and 157 to 159 of the instant Judgment.

10. the State must pay the compensations and the reimbursement of legal costs and expenses ordered in the instant Judgment within six months of the date it receives notice of this Judgment.

11. compensation for pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, and legal costs and expenses set forth in the instant Judgment cannot be subject to currently existing or future taxes, liens or levies.

12. if the State were to be in arrears, it must pay interest on the amount owed according to the interest rate for arrearages in the Argentinean banking system.

13. compensation ordered in favor of the children, Tamara Florencia and Matías Emanuel Bulacio, must be deposited by the State in their name in an investment fund at a solid Argentinean banking institution, in United States dollars or their equivalent in Argentinean currency, within six months, and under the most favorable financial conditions allowed by banking laws and practices while they are minors, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 160 of the instant Judgment.

14. it will oversee compliance with this Judgment and it will close the instant case once the State has fully complied with the provisions ordered in the instant ruling. Within six months of the date it receives notice of this Judgment, the State must submit a report to the Court on steps taken to comply with it, pursuant to the provisions set forth in paragraph 161 of this Judgment.

b. Bolivia

Trujillo Oroza Case

313. On October 1, 2003, the Court transmitted to the IACHR the first report of the Bolivian State on compliance with the judgment on reparations and costs handed down by the Court on February 27, 2002, in the Trujillo Oroza case.

314. On November 10, 2003, the Commission submitted its observations to the Court, and specified that the internal mechanisms created by the State to locate the mortal remains of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza had not yielded specific results, and therefore this point had not met with effective compliance by the State within a reasonable time; and Bolivia’s domestic legislation had not criminalized the forced disappearance of persons, constituting an ongoing breach of Article 2 of the American Convention and Article 3 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; that the systematic failure of the judicial apparatus of the Bolivian State to effectively investigate the facts and the latent possibility of the criminal action in the case being prescribed in Bolivia due to the passage of time continued to operate such that the direct perpetrators and masterminds of the forced disappearance of the victim remain free, frustrating knowledge of the truth and the attainment of justice; that it expected that the courses given to members of the armed forces and police would be implemented when the authorities had to confront disturbances of the public order using methods respectful of fundamental human rights, and that it observed that the State was still taking steps to name an educational center in the city of Santa Cruz after José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, more than one-and-a-half years after the judgment on reparations was handed down by the Court, which was more than a reasonable time.

315. In addition, the Commission indicated that the State had complied with the publication in the Official Gazette of the judgment on the merits handed down on January 26, 2000; that the State complied with the payments ordered by the Court for non-material damages and that all that remained to be paid was the sum for “lost earnings of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza,” and that in terms of expenses and costs, the State paid the sum of US$5,400.00 to the victim’s mother, but that it had yet to pay an additional US$4,000.00.

c. Chile

“The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et. al.)

316. The Commission continued presenting observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on compliance with the judgment issued by the Court on February 5, 2001.

317. On November 28, 2003, the Inter-American Court issued a resolution by which it resolved:

1. To declare that the State of Chile has complied fully with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 5, 2001.

2. To consider “The Last Temptation of Christ” case closed and file the case dossier.

...

d. Colombia

Caballero Delgado and Santana Case [‡]

318. The Commission has continued submitting its observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on full compliance with the judgment on reparations handed down by the Inter-American Court in the Isidro Caballero Delgado and María del Carmen Santana Case, specifically with respect to the points on which there has not been compliance, in keeping with the Inter-American Court’s resolution of November 27, 2002.

319. On November 27, 2003, the Inter-American Court declared:

1. That the State has complied partially with the provisions of the first and second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations, as regards:

a) Payment of the amounts corresponding to reparations and reimbursement of the expenses of María Nodelia Parra Rodríguez, as mentioned in subparagraph (a) of the sixth considering paragraph of this Order; and

b) Payment of the amount corresponding to the reparations for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in favor of Ana Vitelma Ortiz, mother of María del Carmen Santana, except for the amount relating to interest on arrears, as mentioned in subparagraph (c) of the sixth considering paragraph of this Order.

2. That it will keep the proceeding on monitoring compliance in this case open, as regards the following matters that are pending compliance:

a) Payment of the interest accrued on arrears in favor of Ana Vitelma Ortiz, mother of María del Carmen Santana, as indicated in subparagraph (c) of the sixth considering paragraph of this Order;

b) Transfer of half the sum corresponding to the reparations invested in the term deposit certificate in United States dollars and the interest on this certificate at the date of its maturity, to the account to be opened in the name of the minor, Ingrid Carolina Caballero Martínez, who will attain her majority at that time, as indicated in subparagraph (b) of the sixth considering paragraph of this Order;

c) Investment in a new term deposit certificate in United States dollars of the sum corresponding to half the reparations and interest invested in the TDC that matures on September 1, 2004, in favor of the representatives of the minor, Iván Andrés Caballero Parra;

d) Investigation and punishment of those responsible for the disappearance and alleged death of the victims, as indicated in the eleventh and twelfth considering paragraph of this Order; and

e) Location of the victims’ remains and their delivery to the next of kin, as indicated in the fourteenth considering paragraph of this Order.

320. In that resolution, the Court also decided:

3. To urge the State to adopt all necessary measures to comply effectively and promptly with the judgments on merits of December 8, 1995, and on reparations of January 29, 1997, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Caballero Delgado and Santana case, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To call upon the State to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgments and, specifically, on the matters pending compliance, as indicated in the second operative paragraph of this Order, by April 1, 2004, at the latest.

5. To call upon the representative of the victims and their next of kin and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their comments on the State’s report mentioned in the preceding paragraph within two months of receiving it.

6. To continue monitoring the matters pending compliance of the judgments on merits of December 8, 1995, and on reparations of January 29, 1997.

...

Las Palmeras Case

321. On December 22, 2003, the Inter-American Court transmitted to the Commission a report submitted by the Colombian State regarding compliance with the judgment in this case. The IACHR has up until February 2, 2004 to submit its observations. During the year covered by this report, no action was taken by the Commission.

Case of the 19 Merchants (Álvaro Lobo Pacheco et. al.)

322. On March 25, 2003, the Inter-American Commission submitted its arguments to the Court in relation to reparations and costs in the case.

323. On April 22, 2003, the President of the Court issued a resolution admitting the written sworn statements of 12 of the victims’ family members who had been proposed by the Commission and asked that they be sent to the Court. On June 23, 2003, the Inter-American Commission presented the written sworn statements to the Court in response to the resolution issued by the President of the Court on April 22, 2003.

324. On July 2, 2003, the President of the Court issued a resolution by which he called the Inter-American Commission and the Colombian State to a public hearing on the merits and on reparations and costs.

325. On September 8, 2003, the Commission provided to the Court a copy of a communication from the victims’ representatives dated September 4, 2003, in which reference was made to the verification of the grounds for disqualification provided for at Article 19 of the Statute of the Honorable Court in relation to the participation of ad hoc Judge Rafael Nieto Navia in the proceeding in question. The Commission considered that as part of its obligations aimed an preserving the integrity of the inter-American system, it had the duty to draw the attention of the Court to the application of Article 19 of the Statute, based on the arguments presented by the victims’ representatives, so that it might decide on the matter before continuing with the proceeding. The request was forwarded with full respect and without any desire to call into question the personal and professional qualities of Mr. Rafael Nieto Navia.

326. On September 8, 2003, the Court issued a resolution by which it suspended the public hearing scheduled for September 15, 16, and 17, 2003, in the wake of the request made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and which was pending before the Court. In that resolution, the Court set a period of six weeks from its notification for the ad hoc judge appointed by the State to submit his observations.

327. On October 8, 2003, the Court transmitted to the Commission a communication by which the ad hoc judge reported that he was stepping down from his position in the case. On December 19, 2003, the Inter-American Court sent a communication to the IACHR concerning the designation of a new ad hoc judge in the case.

Mapiripán Case

328. On September 5, 2003, the Commission filed the application to the Court in the Mapiripán case against Colombia (Case 12,250). In its application, the Commission asked the Court to establish the international responsibility of the Colombian State, which has breached its international obligations, and, in so doing, has violated Articles 4, 5, 7, 8(1), and 25, in conjunction with Article (1) of the American Convention, considering that from July 15 to 20, 1997, approximately 100 members of the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, with the collaboration and acquiescence of agents of the Illustrious State, deprived of their liberty, tortured, and assassinated at least 49 civilians, after which they destroyed their bodies and cast the remains into the Guaviare river in the municipality of Mapiripán, department of Meta.

e. Costa Rica

Case of “La Nación” newspaper[§]

329. On January 28, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted to the Inter-American Court an application against the Costa Rican State in relation to the case of “La Nación” newspaper (Case 12,367), the facts of which refer mainly to the violations committed by the Costa Rican State on having convicted Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and having declared him to be responsible for four criminal offenses, for offensive publications constituting defamation, with all of the legal and practical effects thereof. Those effects include having entered the criminal conviction of Mauricio Herrera in the Judicial Registry of Criminals, having ordered that the link at “La Nación Digital,” on Internet, between the last name Przedborski and the articles written by Mauricio Herrera Ulloa be taken down, and having intimidated Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser to carry out the judgment, with the express warning of the possibility that he might be found to have committed the crime of disobedience of the judicial authority.

330. }The Commission considered in its application that those acts violate Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) (obligation to respect the rights) and 2 (duty to adapt domestic legislation) of the Convention. Accordingly, the Commission asked the Court, in keeping with Article 63 of the American Convention, to order the Costa Rican State to adopt the measures of reparation indicated in the application. (See supra Provisional Measures.)

331. On May 19, 2003, the Costa Rican State submitted a brief by which it filed preliminary objections in relation to this case. The preliminary objections of the Costa Rican State are based on the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth at Article 46 of the American Convention. The Inter-American Commission presented the Court its written arguments on the preliminary objections invoked by the State, in keeping with Article 36(4) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In this respect, the Commission argued that the preliminary objections invoked by Costa Rica should be rejected since they lack any legal or factual basis. The IACHR argued that the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, invoked by the State during the processing of the case before the Inter-American Court, should be rejected, since it is claiming that remedies should be exhausted that are not adequate or effective, for failure to raise the objection in timely fashion before the Commission, and because it ignores the fact that the Commission adopted an express decision on admissibility in Report No. 128/01 on this case.

f. Ecuador

Suárez Rosero Case

332. The Commission has continued to present its observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concerning compliance with the judgments handed down, and has asked the Court to urge the Ecuadoran State to complete the procedures necessary for establishing the trust in the name of the minor Micaela Suárez Ramadán, and that it request detailed information from the State on the measures adopted so as to ensure that the persons responsible for the violations established be individually identified, prosecuted, and punished.

333. On November 27, 2003, the Inter-American Court declared:

1. That the state has complied with the provisions of the first, second (subparagraphs (a) and (b)) and third operative paragraphs of the judgment on reparations delivered by the court on january 20, 1999, as regards:

a) non-enforcement of the fine imposed on rafael iván suárez rosero, as stated in subparagraph (a) of the sixth considering paragraph of this order;

b) elimination of the name of rafael iván suárez rosero from the register of criminal records of the national police and the register of the national council of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as stated in subparagraph (a) of the sixth considering paragraph of this order;

c) the payments ordered in favor of rafael iván suárez rosero and margarita ramadán burbano, as stated in subparagraph (b) of the sixth considering paragraph of this order; and

d) payment of the costs and expenses ordered in favor of alejandro ponce villacís and richard wilson, as stated in subparagraph (c) of the sixth considering paragraph of this order.

2. That it will keep the proceeding on monitoring compliance in this case open, as regards the following matters that are pending compliance:

a) the setting up of a trust fund in favor of the minor, micaela suárez ramadán, as indicated by this court in its judgment on reparations of january 20, 1999, in its judgment on interpretation of the judgment on reparations of may 29, 1999, and in its order of december 4, 2001, and in subparagraph (d) of the sixth considering paragraph of this order; and

b) the investigation and punishment of the persons responsible for the human rights violations declared by the court, as stated in subparagraph (e) of the sixth considering paragraph of this order.

334. In its resolution of November 27, 2003, the Court also resolved:

3. To urge the State to adopt all measures necessary for promptly making the reparations ordered in the judgments on the merits (November 12, 1997) and reparations (January 20, 1999) and that are still pending, in keeping with Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To require the State to present, no later than April 1, 2004, a detailed report in which it indicates all the measures adopted to make the reparations ordered by this Court that are still pending, as indicated in the second declarative paragraph of this Resolution.

5. To require of the representative of the victim and his next-of-kin and of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that they submit their observations on the State’s report mentioned in the previous operative paragraph within two months, counted from the date it is received.

6. To continue supervising the points pending compliance from the judgments on the merits of November 12, 1997, and on reparations, of January 20, 1999.

...

Benavides Cevallos Case

335. On September 9, 2003, the Court issued a Resolution on Compliance with the Judgment in this case, in which it decided:

1. That the State is under a duty to adopt all measures necessary to comply effectively and promptly with the judgment of June 19, 1998, handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Benavides Cevallos, under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

2. That the State should present to the Court, no later than October 18, 2003, a detailed report on the initiatives taken since the Court handed down its judgment to comply with what is ordered in its fourth operative paragraph.

3. That the representatives of the victim and her next-of-kin, as well as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, should present their observations on the State’s report mentioned in the previous operative paragraph within 15 days counted from the receipt of said report.

...

336. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued a new Resolution on Compliance with the Judgment in which it declared:

1. That the State has made the payment ordered to the next-of-kin of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in keeping with the third operative paragraph of the Court’s judgment of June 19, 1998.

2. That the State has yet to comply with the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish the persons responsible for the violations of the human rights of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in keeping with the fourth operative paragraph of the Judgment of June 19, 1998.

337. In its resolution of November 27, 2003, the Court resolved:

3. To report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights, on the non-compliance by the Ecuadoran State with its duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish all persons responsible for the human rights violations committed to the detriment of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in the terms of the judgment of the [Inter-American Court] of June 19, 1996.

...

Daniel David Tibi Case

338. On June 25, 2003, the IACHR presented the case of Daniel David Tibi (Case 12.124) to the Court. The purpose of presenting the application is for the Court to rule on the violation of Articles 7(2), (3), (4), and (5), 5(2), 8(2)(g), and 8(3), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d) and (e), 21(1) and (2), and 25, all in conjunction with the obligations imposed by Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. The foregoing all stems from Mr. Tibi having been arrested on September 27, 1995, without a judicial warrant by police officers in the city of Quito. He was then taken by airplane to the city of Guayaquil, where he was held in a cell and detained illegally for 28 months. The alleged victim states that he was totally innocent of the charges of which he was accused, and that he was tortured on several occasions–beaten, burned, and asphyxiated–to force him to confess to having participated in a drug-trafficking operation. Mr. Tibi was a merchant of precious stones, and as of the date of his arrest property appraised at one million French francs was seized which was not returned to him when he was released on January 2, 1998.

339. On October 28, 2003, the Ecuadoran State filed its answer to the application and alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies and lack of competence ratione materiae of the Inter-American Court to take cognizance of alleged violations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

340. On December 18, 2003, the Inter-American Commission filed its written arguments on the preliminary objections raised by the State in English, and on January 6, 2004, in Spanish, and indicated, inter alia, that in the case there was an unjustified delay in issuing a final judgment, which is why the petitioner was excepted from the provision on exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Rigoberto Acosta Calderón Case

341. On June 25, 2003, the Commission submitted the case of Rigoberto Acosta Calderón (Case 11.620) to the Court. The Commission’s objective is to obtain a ruling from the Court on the international responsibility of the Republic of Ecuador for the violation of the American Convention with respect to the criminal proceeding against Rigoberto Acosta Calderón, of Colombian nationality, who was arrested on November 15, 1989, by the Military Customs Police, on suspicion of drug-trafficking. During his detention, Mr. Acosta did not have access to an attorney during the preliminary inquiry by the military police, the court did not take his statement until he had been detained for two years, he was not notified of his right to consular assistance, and at no time during his trial on drug-trafficking charges did the alleged drugs appear. In particular, the Commission argued in the application that the State is responsible for violations of Articles 7(3) and (5), 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(d) and (e), 24, and 25 of the Convention, all in conjunction with the obligations imposed by Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention.

342. On November 24, 2003, the Ecuadoran State presented its answer to the Commission’s application after the time for doing so had lapsed, and on December 3, 2003, the Court informed it that it had been rejected.

g. El Salvador

Erlinda and Ernestina Serrano Cruz Case

343. The Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court the application in the case of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz (Case 12,132), the first case against El Salvador, on June 14, 2003. The Serrano Cruz girls were captured on June 2, 1982, by soldiers who were members of the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army during an operation in the municipality of San Antonio de la Cruz, department of Chalatenango. Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz were last seen when a helicopter from the Salvadoran Armed Forces transported them. Since then, and despite all the initiatives taken by the victims’ next-of-kin vis-a-vis the state authorities to determine their whereabouts, the Serrano Cruz sisters have been disappeared. The IACHR asked the Court to rule on the international responsibility of the Salvadoran State in relation to the violation of Article 1(1) in conjunction with Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, and 25 of the American Convention.

344. On October 31, 2003, the Salvadoran State presented the following preliminary objections: “Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis,” “Lack of jurisdiction by virtue of the terms on which the Salvadoran State accepted the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,” “Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae,” “inadmissibility of the application for obscurity and inconsistency between the purpose and the relief sought, on the one hand, and the body thereof, on the other,” “inconsistency between the claims of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and those of the representatives of the alleged victims,” and “objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies.” (The time given by the Court for the Commission to submit its written argument was to expire on January 16, 2004, and therefore is not covered by this report).

h. Guatemala

Paniagua Morales et. al. Case

345. This case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgments issued by the Court on March 8, 1998, and May 25, 2001. During the year covered by the present report, no action was taken by the Commission.

346. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued a Resolution on Compliance with the Judgment, in which it declared “that it will keep open the procedure for supervising compliance with the points indicated in the seventh considering paragraph of the ... Resolution” and resolved:

2. To exhort the State to adopt such measures as may be necessary to effectively and promptly comply with the reparations ordered in the March 8, 1998 Judgment on the merits and the May 25, 2001 Judgment on reparations, compliance with which is pending, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To order the State to submit a detailed report, no later than April 1, 2004, stating all measures adopted to investigate what happened to the victims in the instant case; the steps taken with respect to transfer of the mortal remains of Pablo Corado Barrientos and their subsequent burial at the place chosen by his next of kin; the legislative, administrative or other measures adopted to ensure the reliability and public nature of the detainee records; and the measures adopted for payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as for legal costs and expenses, in accordance with operative paragraphs one and five of the Judgment on reparations, and as set forth in Considering seven of the instant Order.

4. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as the victims or, if applicable, their next of kin and their representatives to submit their observations to the report by the State mentioned in the previous operative paragraph within two months of the date of receipt thereof.

5. To continue monitoring compliance with the March 8, 1998 Judgment on the merits and the May 25, 2001 Judgment on reparations in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case.

...

Blake Case[**]

347. On November 27, 2003, the Court declared:

1. That the state has complied with payment of the compensation ordered by the inter-american court of human rights to Richard Blake, Mary Blake, Richard Blake Jr. and Samuel Blake, all next of kin of the victim, as indicated in the sixth considering paragraph of this order.

2. That it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the aspect pending fulfillment in the instant case, in relation to the measures necessary to comply with the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all those responsible for the human rights violations, as indicated in the seventh considering paragraph of this order.

348. In its resolution of November 27, 2003, the Court also resolved:

3. To urge the State to adopt all necessary measures to comply promptly and effectively with the reparations ordered in the judgments of January 24, 1998, and January 22, 1999, which are pending compliance, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To call upon the State to present a detailed report, by April 1, 2004, at the latest indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the aspect ordered by this Court that is pending, as indicated in the seventh considering paragraph of this Order.

5. To call upon the representatives of the victim’s next of kin and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit their comments on the report of the State mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within two months of receiving it.

6. To continue monitoring compliance with the judgment on merits and reparations of January 24, 1998, and January 22, 1999, respectively.

...

Bámaca Velásquez Case[††]

349. The Commission continued presenting its observations to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights on compliance with the judgments issued by the Court on November 25, 2000, and February 22, 2002.

350. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued a Resolution on Compliance with the Judgment by which it declared:

1. Pursuant to Considering six herein, the State has fully complied with operative paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 of the Judgment on reparations delivered by this Tribunal on February 22, 2002 regarding damages.

2. That it shall keep the proceedings to comply with the pending paragraphs in the present case pursuant to considering seven and eight herein.

351. In that resolution the Court resolved:

3. To urge the State to adopt such measures as may be necessary to effectively and promptly comply with reparations in Judgments on November 25, 2000 and February 22, 2002 pending compliance, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To call upon the State to submit, on April 1, 2004, at the latest, a detailed report indicating steps for an effective investigation related to Mr. Bámaca Velásquez; take steps to find the mortal remains of Bámaca Velásquez, exhume, and deliver them to his next of kin, take steps to hold have a public event to recognize the liabilities for the facts of this case and the compensation of the victims, take legislative measures and any other steps to adapt the legal system to the international standards on human rights, and take steps to publish only one time in the Official Gazette and any other national newspaper the chapter related to the proven facts and operative paragraph of the Judgment on the merits delivered on November 25, 2000; pursuant to Considering seven and eight herein.

5. To call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as representatives of the victims and their next of kin to submit their observations of the State report mentioned in the previous operative paragraph within two months upon notice of submission of said report.

6. To continue overseeing the compliance with the Judgment on the merits delivered on November 25, 2000 and the Judgment on reparations delivered on February 22, 2002, in the Bámaca Velásquez Case.

...

Villagrán Morales et. al. Case (Streetchildren)

352. The Commission continued presenting its observations to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on compliance with the judgments issued by the Court on November 19, 1999, and May 26, 2001.

353. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the judgment by which it declared:

1. That the state has complied with the compensation ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage (first, second, third and fourth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of this court of may 26, 2001), except for the payment to gerardo adoriman villagrán morales, as indicated in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the ninth considering paragraph of this order; with the designation of an educational center with a name allusive to the young victims in this case and the placing in this center of a plaque with their names; with the payment of the costs and expenses ordered in favor of the representatives of the victims’ next of kin, and with the adoption of the necessary legislative measures to adapt guatemalan legislation to article 19 of the american convention (fifth, seventh and ninth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of this court of may 26, 2001), as indicated in subparagraphs (c), (d) and (e) of the ninth considering paragraph of this order

2. That it will keep the procedure on monitoring compliance in this case open, as regards the following elements:

a) Payment of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage ordered in favor of Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales;

b) The obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the human rights violations declared by the Court in the judgment of May 26, 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights; and

c) The provision of the resources and the adoption of the other measures needed for the transfer of the mortal remains of Henry Giovanni Contreras and their subsequent interment in the place chosen by his next of kin.

354. The Court also decided:

3. To call upon the representatives of the victim’s next of kin to submit a sworn statement or the equivalent by Ana María Contreras, the mother of Henry Giovanni Contreras, stating her position with regard to the measures taken by the State to comply with the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2001, by February 2, 2004, at the latest.

4. To call upon the State to present a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the matters ordered by this Court that are pending, as indicated in the tenth considering paragraph of this Order by April 1, 2004, at the latest.

5. To call upon the representatives of the victim’s next of kin and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their comments on the State’s report mentioned in the preceding operative paragraph within two months of receiving it.

6. To continue monitoring the matters pending compliance with the judgment on reparations of May 26, 2001.

...

[ Table of Contents| Previous | Next ]

[†] The official text is only in French.

[‡] See supra Provisional Measures

[§] See supra Provisional Measures

[**] See supra Provisional Measures.