Annual Report 2003 - Chapter III

Myrna Mack Case[‡‡]

355. By resolution of November 30, 2002, the President of the Court convoked the representatives of the victims’ next-of-kin, the Inter-American Commission, and the Guatemalan State to a public hearing to be held on February 18, 19, and 20, 2003, for the purpose of taking the statements of the witnesses and the report by the expert witnesses offered by those representatives and the Commission, and their arguments and the State’s arguments with respect to the case. On February 17, 2003, Guatemala communicated to the Court that it “desists from the preliminary objections invoked on September 26, 2001,” and that it was “partially accepting the facts asserted by the petitioner so long as the petitioner affirms others that the Guatemalan State is not institutionally capable of accepting, as are all those of which the Commission rendered its own extensive interpretation....”

356. The Inter-American Commission stated that the partial recognition of responsibility by the State before the Court had already occurred before the Commission; that it was fundamental that a public hearing be held to analyze the merits, and that the Court should consider the scope of this partial and general recognition when issuing the judgment on the merits. The representatives of the victim’s next-of-kin asked that public hearing proceed.

357. On February 18, 2003, the Commission submitted its statements with respect to the “partial acceptance of facts and rights” by the State in a public hearing before the Court. The Court considered that the controversy between the parties concerning the scope of the State’s recognition of responsibility as to facts and rights continued, it deliberated in this respect, and the same day it ordered accepted, for all purposes, the abandonment by the State of the preliminary objections it had invoked; and it ordered that the public hearing convoked should go forward, as well as all other procedural acts related to the processing of the case with respect to the merits and reparations.

358. On February 18, 19, and 20, the Court held the public hearing at its headquarters, at which it heard the statements of the witnesses and the reports from the expert witnesses proposed by the representatives of the next-of-kin and the Inter-American Commission. The IACHR also presented its final arguments on the merits and on reparations.

359. On November 25, 2003, the Court issued its judgment on the merits and reparations, and,

taking note of the acquiescence of the State, in which it unconditionally acknowledged its international responsibility regarding the case, and having assessed the body of evidence, as set forth in paragraphs 111 to 116 of the instant Judgment,

DECLARES THAT:

unanimously,

1. that the State violated the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraphs 139 to 158 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

2. that the State violated the right to fair trial and to judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau, Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang and Ronald Chang Apuy, as set forth in paragraphs 165 to 218 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

3. that the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau, Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang and Ronald Chang Apuy, as set forth in paragraphs 224 to 233 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

4. that this Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparations, as set forth in paragraph 260 of the instant Judgment.

AND DECIDES THAT:

unanimously,

5. that the State must effectively investigate the facts of the instant case, with the aim of identifying, trying, and punishing all the direct perpetrators and accessories, and all others responsible for the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang, and for the cover-up of the extra-legal execution and other facts of the instant case, aside from the person who has already been punished for those facts; and that the results of the investigations must be made known to the public, as set forth in paragraphs 271 to 275 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

6. that the State must remove all de facto and legal obstacles and mechanisms that maintain impunity in the instant case, provide sufficient security measures to the judicial authorities, prosecutors, witnesses, legal operators, and to the next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang, and resort to all other means available to it so as to expedite the proceeding, as set forth in paragraphs 276 and 277 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

7. that the State must publish within three months of notification of the instant Judgment, at least once, in the official gazette “Diario Oficial” and in another national-circulation daily, the proven facts set forth in paragraphs 134; 134.1 to 134.8; 134.10 to 134.19; 134.26; 134.86 to 134.90; and 134.95 to 134.106, without the footnotes, and operative paragraphs 1 to 12, as set forth in paragraph 280 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

8. that the State must carry out a public act of acknowledgment of its responsibility in connection with the facts of this case and of amends to the memory of Myrna Mack Chang and to her next of kin, in the presence of the highest authorities of the State, as set forth in paragraph 278 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

9. that the State must publicly honor the memory of José Mérida Escobar, police investigator, in connection with the facts of the instant case, as set forth in paragraph 279 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

10. that the State must include, in the training courses for members of the armed forces and the police, as well as the security agencies, education regarding human rights and International Humanitarian Law, as set forth in paragraph 282 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

11. that the State must establish a scholarship, in the name of Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraph 285 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

12. that the State must name a well-known street or square in Guatemala City after Myrna Mack Chang, and place a plaque in her memory where she died, or nearby, with reference to the activities she carried out, as set forth in paragraph 286 of the instant Judgment.

by seven votes against one,

13. that the State must pay the total sum of US$266,000.00 (two hundred sixty-six thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as compensation for pecuniary damage, as set forth in paragraphs 252 to 254 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, as the daughter of Myrna Mack Chang, US$235,000.00 (two hundred thirty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 252 and 254 of the instant Judgment;

b) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 253.2 and 254 of the instant Judgment;

c) to Zoila Chang Lau, as the widow of Yam Mack Choy, US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 253.2 and 254 of the instant Judgment; and

d) to Helen Mack Chang, US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 253.1 and 254 of the instant Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

by seven votes against one,

14. that the State must pay the total sum of US$350,000.00 (three hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, as set forth in paragraphs 263 to 267 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, as the daughter of Myrna Mack Chang, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 263 and 267 of the instant Judgment;

b) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, US$110,000.00 (one hundred and ten thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.b, 266 and 267 of the instant Judgment;

c) to Zoila Chang Lau, as the widow of Yam Mack Choy, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.c and 267 of the instant Judgment;

d) to Zoila Chang Lau, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.c and 267 of the instant Judgment;

e) to Helen Mack Chang, US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.d and 267 of the instant Judgment; and

f) to Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang, Ronald Chang Apuy, and Vivian Mack Chang, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, to each of them, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.e, 264.f, 264.g and 267 of the instant Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

by seven votes against one,

15. that the State must pay the total sum of US$163,000.00 (one hundred and sixty-three thousand United States dollars) for legal costs and expenses, and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for future expenses, as set forth in paragraphs 291 and 292 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to the Myrna Mack Foundation, US$145,000.00 (one hundred and forty-five thousand United States dollars), and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), to cover the future expenses caused by steps to be taken in connection with the ongoing criminal proceeding to punish all those responsible for what happened to Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraphs 291.a and 292 of the instant Judgment;

b) to the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.b of the instant Judgment;

c) to the law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.c of the instant Judgment;

d) to the law firm Hogan & Hartson, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.d of the instant Judgment; and

e) to the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.e of the instant Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

unanimously,

16. that the State must pay the total amount of compensation ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the legal costs and expenses set forth in the instant Judgment, without any of its items being subject to currently existing or future taxes, levies or assessments.

unanimously,

17. that the State must comply with the measures of reparation ordered in the instant Judgment within a year of the date of its notification, as set forth in paragraph 293 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

18. that if the State were to be in arrears, it must pay interest on the amount owed based on the banking interest rate for arrearages in Guatemala, as set forth in paragraph 299 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

19. that the Court will monitor compliance with this Judgment and will close the instant case once the State has fully complied with its provisions. Within one year of notification of this Judgment, the State must submit to the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with it, as set forth in paragraph 300.

Maritza Urrutia Case

360. On February 20 and 21, 2003, the Court held a public hearing at its headquarters in which it heard the statements by the witnesses and the report by the expert witness proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim and her next-of-kin and the Inter-American Commission. The IACHR also presented its final oral arguments on the merits and reparations.

361. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued its judgment on the merits and reparations, by which it declared that:

1. That the State violated the right to personal liberty embodied in Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of paragraphs 63 to 77 of this judgment.

unanimously,

2. That the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and the obligations established in Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of paragraphs 84 to 98 of this judgment.

unanimously,

3. That the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and the obligations established in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of paragraphs 110 to 130 of this judgment.

unanimously,

4. That this judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation for the victim, in the terms of paragraph 178 of this judgment.

AND DECIDES THAT:

unanimously,

5. That the State shall investigate effectively the facts of this case, which resulted in the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and non-compliance with the obligations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; identify, prosecute and punish those responsible, and also publish the results of the respective investigations, in the terms of paragraph 177 of this judgment.

by six votes to one,

6. That the State shall pay a total of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in compensation for pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraph 160 of this judgment, distributed as follows:

a) To Maritza Urrutia, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraphs 158, 159(a) and 160 of this judgment;

b) To Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(b) and 160 of this judgment;

c) To María Pilar García de Urrutia, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(c) and 160 of this judgment;

d) To Edmundo Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(d) and 160 of this judgment; and

e) To Carolina Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(e) and 160 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting

by six votes to one,

7. That the State shall pay the sum of US$44,000.00 (forty-four thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraph 170 of this judgment, distributed as follows:

a) To Maritza Urrutia, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraphs 168 and 170 of this judgment;

b) To Fernando Sebastián Barrientos Urrutia, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(a) and 170 of this judgment;

c) To Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(b) and 170 of this judgment;

d) To María Pilar García de Urrutia, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(b) and 170 of this judgment;

e) To Edmundo Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(c) and 170 of this judgment; and

f) To Carolina Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(c) and 170 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting

by six votes to one,

8. That the State shall pay the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, for costs and expenses, in the terms of paragraph 184 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting

unanimously,

9. That the State shall pay the total amount of the compensation ordered for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses established in this judgment, and none of the components may be subject to any current or future tax or charge.

unanimously,

10. That the State shall comply with the measures of reparation ordered in this judgment within one year of notification of the judgment, in the terms of paragraph 185 of this judgment.

unanimously,

11. That, should the State delay in making the payments, it shall pay interest on the amount owed corresponding to bank interest on arrears in Guatemala, in the terms of paragraph 192 of this judgment.

unanimously,

12. That the Court shall monitor compliance with this judgment and shall close the instant case when the State has complied fully with the operative paragraphs. Within one years of notification of this judgment, the State shall provide the Court with a report on the measures taken to comply, in the terms of paragraph 193 of this judgment.

Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Concurring Opinion, Judge García Ramírez of his Reasoned Concurring Opinion, Judge De Roux Rengifo of his Separate Opinion, and Judge Martínez Gálvez of his Reasoned and Partially Dissenting Opinion, which are attached to this Judgment.

....

“Plan de Sánchez Massacre” Case

362. This case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court. It was referred to the Court was on July 31, 2002. During the year covered by this report, the Commission took no action on this case.

Carpio Nicolle Case[§§]

363. The case of Jorge Carpio et al. against Guatemala (Case 11.333) was submitted to the Court on June 13, 2003. The application has to do with the arbitrary execution of Jorge Carpio Nicolle (renowned Guatemalan journalist and politician), Juan Vicente Villacorta, Alejandro Ávila Guzmán, and Rigoberto Rivas González; and with the violation of the physical integrity of the minor Sidney Shaw, in relation to the events of July 3, 1993, in the department of Quiché, Guatemala, when his delegation was surrounded by more than 15 armed men who, after identifying him, shot him and his companions at point-blank range. More than 10 years after the assassination of Jorge Carpio Nicolle and his companions, the case is in impunity, and the IACHR referred the case for the Court to declare that the Guatemalan State has violated the human rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, 13, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument.

364. On November 26, 2003, the Court transmitted a communication by which it reported on the State’s request for an extension to answer the application and raise preliminary objections, and the denial of that request by the Court considering that the time for answering the application had already lapsed.

Molina Theissen Case

365. The case of the child Marco Antonio Molina Theissen against Guatemala (Case 12.101) was referred to the Court on July 3, 2003. The application refers to the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, a 14-year-old child who was kidnapped from his parents’ home by members of the Guatemalan Army on October 6, 1981, in retaliation for the escape of his sister Emma Guadalupe Molina Theissen the previous day from a military barracks where she had been arbitrarily detained and tortured. Since that date Marco Antonio remains disappeared. The victim’s next-of-kin presented successive motions for habeas corpus, which proved absolutely ineffective. None of the persons who participated in the detention and subsequent forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina were prosecuted or punished. The purpose of the application is for the Inter-American Court to declare the violation of the human rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, 7, 19, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument.

366. On November 11, 2003, the Inter-American Court transmitted to the IACHR the answer to the application submitted by the State. In its answer, the State invoked preliminary objections arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis and ratione materiae, and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. (The time granted by the Court for the Commission to present its written arguments was to lapse on January 12, 2004, and therefore is not covered by this report).

i. Honduras

Juan Humberto Sánchez Case

367. On March 3, 4, and 5, 2003, the Court heard, in a public hearing, from the witnesses and expert witnesses offered by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the victim and his next-of-kin, and the Honduran State, as well as their final oral arguments on the preliminary objections, merits, and reparations.

368. On June 7, 2003, the Court issued a judgment on the preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, in which unanimously decided:

1. to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the State.

AND DECLARES THAT:

2. the State violated the right to personal liberty protected by Article 7(1), Article 7(2) , Article 7(3) , Article 7(4) , Article 7(5) , Article 7(6) and the latter in combination with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, and the right to personal liberty protected by Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández.

3. the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, María Dominga Sánchez, Juan José Vijil Hernández, Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez, Julio Sánchez, Donatila Argueta Sánchez, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta.

4. the State violated the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez.

5. the State violated the rights to fair trial and to judicial protection protected by Articles 8 and 25, respectively, of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez and of his next of kin María Dominga Sánchez, Juan José Vijil Hernández, Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez, Julio Sánchez, Donatila Argueta Sánchez, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta.

6. the State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, set forth in Article 1(1) in combination with Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez. The State also failed to fulfill its obligation to respect rights, embodied in Article 1(1) in combination with Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández; and the State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, enshrined in Article 1(1) in combination with Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of María Dominga Sánchez, Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Julio Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez, Donatila Argueta Sánchez, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta.

7. the instant Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation to the victims in accordance with the explanation in paragraph 172 of the instant Judgment.

AND IT DECIDES THAT:

8. the State must pay the total sum of US$39,700.00 (thirty-nine thousand seven hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, as compensation for pecuniary damage, distributed as follows:

a) US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed among his daughters, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta; his companions, Donatila Argueta Sánchez and Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, and his parents, María Dominga Sánchez and Juan José Vijil Hernández, as successors to Juan Humberto Sánchez, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 164 and 167, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

b) to Donatila Argueta Sánchez, US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

c) US$8,200.00 (eight thousand two hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed equally between Juan José Vijil Hernández and María Dominga Sánchez, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

d) to Domitila Vijil Sánchez, US$1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

e) to Reina Isabel Sánchez, US$1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

9. the State must pay the total sum of US$245,000.00 (two hundred forty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, distributed as follows:

a) US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed among his daughters, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta; his companions, Donatila Argueta Sánchez and Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, and his parents, María Dominga Sánchez and Juan José Vijil Hernández, as successors of Juan Humberto Sánchez, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 164, 165, 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

b) to Juan José Vijil Hernández, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

c) to María Dominga Sánchez, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

d) to Donatila Argueta Sánchez, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

e) to Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

f) to Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

g) to Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

h) to each of the following: Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez and Julio Sánchez, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

10. the State must continue to effectively investigate the facts in the instant case under the terms set forth in paragraph 186 of the instant Judgment, to identify those responsible, both the direct perpetrators and the instigators, as well as possible accessories after the fact, and to punish them administratively and criminally as appropriate; the next of kin of the victim must have full access and capacity to act, at all stages and levels of said investigations, in accordance with domestic laws and the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights; and the results of said investigations must be made known to the public.

11. the State must provide the conditions required to transfer the mortal remains of Juan Humberto Sánchez to the place chosen by his next of kin, at no cost to them, as set forth in paragraph 187 of the instant Judgment.

12. the State must implement a record of detainees that enables control of legality of detentions, under the terms set forth in paragraph 189 of the instant Judgment.

13. the State must publicly acknowledge its responsibility regarding the facts in this case, and as amends to the victims it must publish in the official gazette Diario Oficial and in another national-circulation daily, once only, the operative part of this Judgment and the chapter pertaining to proven facts in this Judgment, under the terms set forth in paragraph 188 of the instant Judgment.

14. the State must pay the total sum of US$19,000.00 (nineteen thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency for legal costs and expenses, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 194, 195, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

15. compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and legal costs and expenses established in the instant Judgment may not be subject to currently existing or future taxes, levies or charges.

16. the State must comply with the measures of reparation ordered in the instant Judgment within six months of the date it is notified.

17. if the State were in arrears, it must pay interest on the amount owed, which will be the banking interest for arrears in Honduras.

18. the compensation ordered in favor of the girls, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez and Norma Iveth Sánchez, must be deposited by the State in their name in an investment at a solid Honduran banking institution, in United States dollars or their equivalent in Honduran currency, within six months time, and under the most favorable financial conditions allowed by banking practice and legislation, as set forth in paragraph 199 of this Judgment.

19. it will monitor compliance with this judgment and will close the instant case once the State has fully applied the provisions of the instant judgment. Within six months of the date when this Judgment is notified, the State must submit to the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with this Judgment, as set forth in paragraph 200 of this Judgment.

369. On October 8, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Court the transmittal of the request for interpretation submitted by the Honduran State in relation to the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations handed down in the case of Juan H. Sánchez on June 7, 2003. In its brief, the State requested the “interpretation of the ruling [and filed a] Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedures.”

370. On October 31, 2003, the Commission submitted its observations and indicated that in filling a request for interpretation of the judgment (“demanda de interpretación de sentencia”) and a special motion for reconsideration (“recurso excepcional de revisión”) the State is not seeking to have the Court interpret the meaning or scope of the ruling, as provided for by Articles 67 of the Convention and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, but rather it sought a review and reconsideration of the final and unappealable judgment that the Court handed down in due course. Based on the foregoing, and on its specific arguments to controvert what was argued by Honduras, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked the Court to reject the request for interpretation filed by the Honduran State and to require the Honduran State to comply immediately with all provisions of the judgment of June 7, 2003, in keeping with Article 68(1) of the American Convention.

371. On November 26, 2003, the Court issued an interpretation of the judgment in this case, in which it decided:

1. To reject as inadmissible the appeal for review of the judgment of June 7, 2003, filed by the State in the Juan Humberto Sánchez case.

2. To reject in toto as without grounds the State’s call for interpretation of the judgment of June 7, 2003, in the Juan Humberto Sánchez case, contained in the request.

3. To continue monitoring compliance with the judgment of June 7, 2003, as established in paragraphs 196 to 200 of this judgment.

Alfredo López Álvarez Case

372. On July 7, 2003, the IACHR presented the application in the case of Alfredo López Álvarez against Honduras (Case 12,387). The application refers to the violation, by the Honduran State, of Articles 5, 7, 8, 25, and 24, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 2 and 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, Garifuna, Honduran, by virtue of the arbitrary deprivation of his personal liberty beginning April 27, 1997, as the result of a set-up carried out because of his work as a social leader, and to stifle his activity as a Garifuna community leader.

j. Mexico

Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd Case

373. On January 30, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights referred an application to the Court against Mexico in relation to the Alfonso Martín del Campo case (Case 12.228). In the application, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the Mexican State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7, 8, 25, 5, and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and of Articles 6, 8, and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Mr. Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. The application has to do with the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and denial of justice that Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd has suffered and continues suffering. In addition, the Commission asked the State to make reparation for the consequences of the violations, and to compensate the alleged victim and his next-of-kin. Finally, it calls on the Court to order the State to pay the expenses and costs arising from pursuing the case domestically and before the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.

374. On May 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Inter-American Court the transmittal of the brief forwarded by the Mexican State in relation to the case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. In it, the State answered the application filed by the IACHR on January 30, 2003, and invoked preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court to take cognizance of the merits. In keeping with Article 36(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission presented its written arguments on the preliminary objections in question, and asked the Court to dismiss the first and second preliminary objections raised by the Mexican State, arguing that neither has any foundation.

k. Nicaragua

Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni Case[***]

375. On November 7, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received a request from the Inter-American Court to inform the Secretariat of the Court on compliance with operative paragraph 6 of the judgment handed down by the Court. On November 17, 2003, the IACHR submitted its observations, whereby it indicated that it recognized that the Nicaraguan State had taken steps to carry out that judgment. However, to date the lands of the Mayagna (Sumo) community of Awas Tingni had not been delimited, demarcated, and titled in keeping with what was stated in paragraphs 153 and 164 of the judgment, and in the provisional measures issued on the same matter on September 6, 2003, and so it ordered the measures deemed advisable to this end.

376. On November 19, 2003, the Inter-American Court transmitted a report to the IACHR on compliance with the judgment on reparations presented by the Nicaraguan State.

Yatama Case

377. The application in the Yatama case against Nicaragua (Case 12,388) was submitted to the Court on June 16, 2003. The application refers to the violation, by the Nicaraguan State, of Articles 23, 8, 25, 2, and 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the candidates for mayor, deputy mayor, and local council presented by the indigenous regional political party Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (YATAMA) for the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region and South Atlantic Autonomous Region, for failing to provide a remedy that would have enabled them to protect their right to participate and be elected in the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, and for failure to adopt legislative or other measures as necessary to uphold the rights established in the American Convention, in particular, for not including provisions in the electoral law to facilitate the political participation of the indigenous organizations in the elections of the autonomous regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, in keeping with customary law and the values, usages, and customs of the indigenous peoples who live there.

l. Panama

Baena Ricardo et. al. Case

378. On June 6, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the judgment in this case, by which it decided:

1. To maintain what was decided in the resolution of November 22, 2002, by which the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment of February 2, 2001 must be complied with in keeping with the order of the Court in that resolution on compliance with the judgment.

2. That the State must submit, no later than June 30, 2003, a detailed report in which it indicates all the progress in making the reparations ordered by the Court, in keeping with what was requested by the Court in ... the Resolution of November 22, 2002.

3. That, once the State remits said detailed report on compliance with the judgment, the victims or their legal representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights must submit their observations on that report within three months of its receipt, as indicated in ... the Resolution of November 22, 2002.

4. That it will continue supervising full compliance with the Judgment of February 2, 2001.

379. On August 13, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Court the transmission of a brief of observations on the resolution of the Inter-American Court of June 6, 2003 (calling into question the jurisdiction of the Court to supervise the implementation of its judgments) and a copy of a report on income and expenditures related to the Court’s judgment of February 2, 2001 in the Baena Ricardo et al. case. The Inter-American Commission presented some general observations that it considered pertinent and with whose justification it did not agree and reserved the right to submit, in keeping with operative paragraph 3 of the resolution of June 2003, its observations on the report that the State submitted in due course to the Court.

380. On November 28, 2003, the Court issued a judgment on jurisdiction in this case, in which it declared:

1. That the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is competence to monitor compliance with its decisions.

2. That, in the exercise of its competence to monitor compliance with its decisions, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is authorized to request the responsible States to submit reports on the steps they have taken to implement the measures of reparation ordered by the Court, to assess the said reports, and to issue instructions and orders on compliance with its judgments.

and decides

unanimously,

3. To reject as inadmissible the State’s questioning of the competence of the Court to monitor compliance with its judgments.

4. To continue monitoring full compliance with the judgment of February 2, 2001, in the Baena Ricardo et al. case.

...

m. Paraguay

Case of the “Panchito López” Center for the Re-education of Minors

381. This case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court; it was referred to it on May 20, 2002. During the year covered by this report, no action was taken by the Commission.

Ricardo Canese Case

382. This case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court; it was referred to the Court on June 12, 2002. During the year covered by this report, no action was taken by the Commission.

Yakye Axa Case

383. The Yakye Axa case against Paraguay (Case 12,313) was referred to the Inter-American Court on March 17, 2003. The facts of the application have to do with the ancestral property right of the Yakye Axa indigenous community of the Enxet-Lengua People and its members, considering that the community’s territorial claim has been pending since 1993, without any result, making it impossible for the community and its members to accede to the property rights in and possession of its territory, contributing to keeping the community in a vulnerable state with respect to food, medical care, and sanitation, constituting an ongoing threat to the survival of the community members and to the community’s integrity. The purpose of the application is for the Court to establish the violations committed by the State to the detriment of the indigenous community and its members in relation to Articles 21, 4, 8, and 25, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention.

n. Peru

Cesti Hurtado Case

384. This case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgments issued by the Court on September 29, 1999, and May 31, 2001. During the year covered by this report, the Commission sent the Court observations on compliance with the judgments referred to, and on the payment of the amount ordered for moral injury.

Cantoral Benavides Case

385. The Inter-American Commission presented the Court observations related to compliance with the judgment in this case, and therein reiterated its recognition of the State’s efforts during this time to comply with the judgment of the Court, and observed that there are still operative paragraphs that have met with partial compliance, accordingly it asked the Court, in keeping with the thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment of December 3, 2001, and in the use of its faculties, to continue supervising compliance with it, until such time as the Illustrious State fully complies with all the operative paragraphs thereof.

386. The operative paragraphs that have yet to meet with the compliance of the Peruvian State, and which it is important to highlight, include the one to nullify, in keeping with the means available under Peru’s domestic legislation, the conviction imposed on Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, and the one to undertake investigations into the facts, especially on the torture to which he was subjected when deprived of his liberty.

387. As regards the first point mentioned, while it is true that the State order that the police, judicial, and personal records of Luis Alberto Cantoral be expunged, to date the proceeding and the judgment imposed on him, which constituted the subject matter of the case before the Honorable Court, have not been declared null and void.

388. With respect to the investigations and proceedings that the State should carry out on the facts, the Commission has received information that on November 7, 2003, the prosecutorial office in the case had handed down a resolution in which it ordered that the record be archived, on considering that the crime of torture was not provided for, as such, in the 1993 Criminal Code, and that the public employees tried for those facts could only be tried for personal injuries and abuse of authority, which, given the time elapsed since then, would be prescribed. This decision repudiates the order of the Honorable Court and tends to foster impunity.

389. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the judgment in which it resolved:

1. That the State has complied with the payment order in favor of the next of kin of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos and commemoration of the name of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in accordance with the third operative paragraph of the judgment of the Court of June 19, 1998.

2. That the State has not yet complied with the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the human rights violations to the detriment of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in accordance with the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment of the Court of June 19, 1998.

3. To inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights, about the failure of the State of Ecuador to comply with its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish all those responsible for the human rights violations committed to the detriment of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, in the terms of the judgment of the Court of June 19, 1998.

...

Durand and Ugarte Case

390. This case is in the phase of supervising compliance with the judgments issued by the Court on August 16, 2000, and December 3, 2001. During the year covered by this report, the Commission sent the Court observations on compliance with those judgments. The Commission recognized the State’s efforts to comply with the fourth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations, but concluded that operative paragraphs 4(a) (on disseminating the content of the judgment in other media besides the official gazette), 4(c), and 4(d) had yet to be complied with. In this regard, the Commission asked that Court, in keeping with operative paragraph six of the judgment, and in the use of its powers, to continue supervising compliance with it, until such time as the State fully complies with all its operative paragraphs.

391. As for the criminal investigations that the State is to carry out to establish responsibility for those acts, the Commission recognized the fundamental contribution of the Final Report of the Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which considered this case among those selected as typical during the period of study and analysis of the violence in Peru. Nonetheless, based on the data and information provided, the Commission observed that the corpses of the victims of El Frontón have yet to be located and identified.

Castillo Páez Case

392. The Inter-American Commission presented its observations to the Court on compliance with the Judgment on Reparations in the Castillo Páez case of November 27, 1998, in keeping with the resolution issued by the Inter-American Court on November 27, 2002, and the communication of November 13, 2003, in which it requested that the IACHR provide its comments on compliance with the judgment. In those observations the IACHR asked the Court to urge the Peruvian State to adopt the provisions of domestic law needed to adequately criminalize the conduct of forced disappearance, in keeping with the decision of this Honorable Court and the commitment acquired by Peru as a result of having signed and ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; to urge the State to pursue the investigations and criminal proceedings without delay, in order to clarify the facts and the responsibility of the persons who violated the rights of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, and to adopt the pertinent measures to ensure the appearance before the state authorities of the persons who had been implicated; and to urge the State to report on the investigation into the loss of the record of the habeas corpus motion lodged at that time by the victim’s next-of-kin and on the steps taken to search for and recover the remains of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. Finally, the Commission asked the Court to continue supervising compliance with that judgment, until such time as the State fully complies with all aspects of the operative paragraphs.

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

1. That pursuant to considering seven of this order, the state has fully complied with points one and five of the order of the judgment on reparations delivered by this court on November 27, 1998 in relation to damages.

2. That it will keep open the proceedings on monitoring compliance with those points still not complied with in the instant case, pursuant to considering eight of this Order.

394. In that resolution, the Court decided:

3. To urge the State to take all necessary action to quickly make effective all reparations decreed in the November 3, 1997 and November 27, 1998 Judgments still unfulfilled, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To demand that the State submits a detailed report no later than April 1, 2004, indicating all action taken to effectively carry out an investigation of what occurred to Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez as well as of the location of his mortal remains, as pointed out in the considering eight of this Order.

5. Ask the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as the representatives of the victim’s next of kin, to submit their observations to the State report mentioned in the previous operative paragraph no later than two months from the date of submission.

6. Continue monitoring the compliance with Judgment on the merits delivered on November 13, 1997 and of the Judgment on reparations delivered on November 27, 1998 in the Castillo Páez Case.

...

Loayza Tamayo Case

395. The Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the third and fourth reports on compliance with the judgment on reparations in the Loayza Tamayo case, of November 27, 1998, in keeping with the resolution issued by the Inter-American Court on November 27, 2002. Therein, the IACHR asked the Court to urge the Peruvian State to pursue the investigations and criminal proceedings without delay so as to determine the facts and the responsibility of the persons who violated the rights of Ms. María Elena Loayza Tamayo, and requested that in the use of its powers, and in keeping with the tenth operative paragraph of the judgment, that it continue supervising compliance until such time as the State fully complies with all aspects of the operative paragraphs.

396. Of the operative paragraphs of the judgment that have yet to meet with compliance by the State, the Commission observed that María Elena Loayza Tamayo should be reinstated in the teaching positions she held when deprived of liberty, or similar ones that would not have a detrimental impact on the income and benefits she would have enjoyed had she continued to hold them.

397. Similarly, with respect to the duty of the State to adopt measures of domestic law in order to ensure that no adverse resolution issued in the proceeding to which the victim was subjected before the civilian jurisdiction will have any legal effect whatsoever. The Commission observed that of the information provided by the Illustrious State, it appears that the decision of the Honorable Court is not meeting with compliance, considering that by proceeding with a new trial, an effort is being made to revive the second trial and the judgment handed down in the civilian jurisdiction against María Elena Loayza Tamayo for the crime of terrorism, on ordering its nullity under the new legislation, which, as the Commission has stated, repudiates the decision of the Honorable Court in this case and endangers the victim’s juridical security. The Commission calls attention to the grave effects of that decision, which makes it possible to keep the victim under jurisdiction, even though she was absolved in due course by the Peruvian courts.

398. On November 27, 2003, the Inter-American Court resolved:

1. To urge the State to adopt all necessary measures to comply effectively and promptly with the judgment on reparations of November 27, 1998, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Loayza Tamayo case, as established in Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

2. To call upon the State to present to the Court by April 1, 2004, at the latest, a detailed report on the measures taken in order to comply with the ruling of the Court in the judgment on reparations of November 27, 1998, as indicated in the eighth considering paragraph of this order on compliance.

3. To call upon the representatives of the victim and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present their comments on the State’s report within two months of receiving it.

...

Neira Alegría Case

399. The Inter-American Commission submitted its observations on the reports on compliance with the judgment on reparations of September 19, 1996, in keeping with the resolution issued by the Inter-American Court on November 28, 2002, and the information provided by the Peruvian State in its communication of October 7, 2003. The IACHR asked the Court to require the Peruvian State to submit more detailed information on compliance with the fourth operative paragraph in its next report on compliance with the judgment on reparations in the Neira Alegría et al. case, and asked that, in the use of its powers and in keeping with the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations, it continue supervising compliance, until the State fully complies with all aspects of the operative paragraphs.

Barrios Altos Case

400. On June 17, September 25, and November 6, 2003, the Inter-American Commission submitted observations on the briefs presented by the Peruvian State to the Court regarding the steps taken for the purpose of complying with the orders of the Court in the judgment on reparations.

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

1. That, in accordance with the arrangements made by the parties in the reparations agreement, subsequently ratified by the Court in the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001, the manner in which the State must make the payment of the compensation corresponding to the beneficiaries who are minors is by depositing the compensation amounts in a trust fund “under the most favorable conditions according to Peruvian banking practices.”

2. That the State must defray any expenses arising from the trust fund. The State may not deduct any percentage of the compensation corresponding to the minors for the administrative or financial expenses incurred by the trust company, to the detriment of the capital deposited in the trust fund.

3. As stated in the fifteenth considering paragraph of this Order, the State has complied in full with the aspects indicated in subparagraph (a) of the second operative paragraph and the sixth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations delivered by the Court on November 30, 2001, as regards:

a) Payment of compensation to the following surviving victims: Natividad Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega and Alfonso Rodas Alvítez (or Albitres, Albites or Alvitrez) (subparagraph (a) of the second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001); and

b) Finding the next of kin of the victims Odar Mender Sifuentes Minez, Benedicta Yanque Churo and Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto, in order to grant them the reparations ordered with regard to the facts of this case (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001).

4. That, as stated in the fifteenth considering paragraph of this Order, the State has complied partially with the contents of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of the second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations delivered by the Court on November 30, 2001, in relation to payment of compensation to the following beneficiaries of the deceased victims (subparagraphs (b) and (c) of the second operative paragraph of the judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001): for the victim Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre to Luis Angel Tolentino Chumbipuma (son), Alfredo Roberto Tolentino Chumbipuma (son) and Rocío Victoria Obando Chumbipuma (daughter); for the victim Luis Alberto Díaz Astovilca to Caterin Díaz Ayarquispe (daughter), Virginia Ayarquispe Larico (companion), María Astovilca Tito de Díaz (mother) and Albino Díaz Flores (father); for the victim Octavio Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco to Félix Huamanyauri Nolazco (brother); for the victim Luis Antonio León Borja to Elizabeth Raquel Flores Huamán (companion), Estela Borja Rojas (mother) and Fausto León Ramírez (father); for the victim Filomeno León León to Severina León Luca (mother), Bernabé León León and Melania León León (the relationship was not indicated); for the victim Máximo León León to Maribel León Lunazco (daughter), Sully León Lunazco (son) and Eugenia Lunazco Andrade (wife); for the victim Lucio Quispe Huanaco to Sonia Martha Quispe Valle (daughter), Norma Haydee Quispe Valle (daughter), Walter Raúl Quispe Condori (son), Juan Fidel Quispe Condori (son), Amalia Condori Lara (wife) and Crisosta Valle Chacmana (companion); for the victim Teobaldo Ríos Lira to Isabel Estelita Ríos Pérez (niece); for the victim Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez to Rosa Rojas Borda (wife); for the victim Javier Manuel Ríos Rojas to Rosa Rojas Borda (mother); for the victim Alejandro Rosales Alejandro to Giovanna Rosales Capillo (daughter), Elías Cirilo Rosales Medina (or Caurino) (son), Gregoria Medina Caurino (wife) and Celestina Alejandro Cristóbal (mother); for the victim Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo to Leonarda Arquiñigo Huerta (mother), Gladys Sonia Rubina Arquiñigo (sister) and Virgilia Arquiñigo Huerta (aunt); and for the victim Odar Mender Sifuentes Minez to Teholulo Isidoro Sifuentes Ocampo (father) and Juliana Minez de Sifuentes (mother).

5. That it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the aspects pending fulfillment in the instant case, as indicated in the sixteenth considering paragraph of this Order.

402. In its resolution of November 28, 2003, the Inter-American Court also resolved:

6. To urge the State to adopt any necessary measures to comply promptly and effectively with the reparations ordered in the judgments of March 14 and November 30, 2001, which are pending fulfillment, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

7. To call upon the State to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by April 1, 2004, at the latest, a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to comply with the obligation to investigate the facts in order to identify those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in the judgment on merits, and also to publish the results of this investigation and punish those responsible, and to comply with the other reparations ordered by this Court that are pending fulfillment, as indicated in the sixteenth considering paragraph of this Order.

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

9. To continue monitoring the aspects of the judgment of March 14, 2001 (merits), and November 30, 2001(reparations) that are pending compliance.

...

Constitutional Court Case

403. This case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgment issued by the Court on January 31, 2001. During the year covered by this report, the Commission sent the Court observations on compliance with that judgment.

404. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the judgment, and it declared:

1. that in accordance with Considering seven of the instant Order, the State has fully complied with operative paragraph six of the Judgment on reparations issued by this Court on January 31, 2001 with respect to compensation for legal costs and expenses.

2. that the procedure to monitor compliance with the points mentioned in Considering eight of the instant Order will remain open.

405. On November 27, 2003, the Court also resolved:

3. To urge the State to adopt such measures as may be necessary to effectively and promptly comply with the reparations ordered in the January 31, 2001 judgment and whose compliance is still pending, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

4. To order the State to submit a detailed report, no later than April 1, 2004, in which it must specify the progress of investigations to identify the persons responsible for violation of the human rights of the victims in this case, and to punish them, as well as measures for payment of back salaries and other benefits that Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano are entitled to, pursuant to domestic legislation, as set forth in Considering eight of the instant Order.

5. To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as well as the victims to submit their observations to the report by the state mentioned in the previous operative paragraph within two months of the date it is received.

6. To continue monitoring compliance with the Judgment on the merits and on reparations issued on January 31, 2001 in the Case of the Constitutional Court.

...

Baruch Ivcher Bronstein Case

406. This case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgment issued by the Court on February 6, 2001. During the year covered by this report, the Commission sent the Court documentation on compliance with that judgment.

Castillo Petruzzi Case

407. This case is in the phase of supervision of compliance with the judgment issued by the Court on May 30, 1999. During the year covered by this report the Commission sent the Court documentation on compliance with that judgment.

Case of the “Five Pensioners” (Torres Benvenuto et. al.)

408. In the “Five Pensioners” case, submitted to the Court by the Inter-American Commission on December 4, 2001, the Court issued the judgment on the merits and reparations on February 28, 2003, in which it unanimously:

1. Declares that the State violated the right to property embodied in Article 21 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as stated in paragraphs 93 to 121 of this judgment, to the detriment of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez.

2. Declares that the State violated the right to judicial protection embodied in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as stated in paragraphs 125 to 141 of this judgment, to the detriment of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez.

3. Declares that the State failed to comply with the general obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the violations of the substantive rights indicated in the preceding operative paragraphs, as stated in paragraphs 161 to 168 of this judgment.

4. Declares that this judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation for the victims, as stated in paragraph 180 of this judgment.

5. Decides that the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property should be established under domestic legislation, by the competent national organs.

6. Decides that the State must conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judicial decisions delivered by the Peruvian courts during the applications for protective measures filed by the victims.

7. Decides that, as indicated in paragraph 190 of this judgment, in fairness, the State must pay the four victims and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra’s widow the amount of US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damage. The State must comply with the provisions of this operative paragraph within one year at the latest of notification of this judgment.

8. Decides that the State must pay the amount of US$13,000.00 (thirteen thousand United States dollars) for expenses and a total of US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars) for costs, as stated in paragraph 182 of this judgment.

9. Declares that the payments of compensation for non-pecuniary damage and for costs and expenses established in this judgment may not be subject to any current or future tax or charge.

10. Declares that the State must comply with this judgment within one year of receiving notification thereof.

11. Declares that, should the State fall in arrears with the payments, it must pay interest on the amount owed corresponding to bank interest on payments in arrear in Peru.

12. Decides that it will monitor compliance with this judgment and will consider the case closed when the State has complied fully with its provisions. Within one year from notification of the judgment, the State must provide the Court with a report on the measures taken to comply with this judgment, as stated in paragraph 186 above.

Lori Berenson Case

409. This case is in the preliminary phase of study by the Court, having been referred to the Court on July 19, 2002. During the year covered by this report, no action was taken by the Commission.

Case of the Brothers Gómez Paquiyauri

410. This case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court, having been referred to the Court on February 5, 2002. During the year covered by this report, the Commission took no action.

María Teresa de la Cruz Case

411. The case of María Teresa de la Cruz against Peru (Case 12.138) was presented to the Court on June 11, 2003. Ms. De La Cruz Flores was detained by members of the Police on charges of terrorism and tried by a “faceless-judge” court that sentenced her to 20 years in prison (Decree 25,475); that conviction was subsequently affirmed. The Constitutional Court of Peru, on January 3, 2003, handed down a judgment in which it declared the unconstitutionality of certain laws. The Peruvian government, in carrying out that pronouncement, ordered that the National Chamber on Terrorism (Sala Nacional de Terrorismo), progressively in a period not greater than 60 working days from the entry into force of the legislation, should annul at its own initiative, unless the defendant consented to it, the conviction and oral proceeding and declare, as the case may be, the nullity of the prosecutorial indictment in criminal proceedings for the crime of terrorism in the criminal jurisdiction before judges or prosecutors whose identities were kept secret. Even so, María Teresa De La Cruz Flores continues to be held as a convict, for the crime of terrorism. The IACHR asked the Court to rule on the violation of Articles 7, 8, 9, and 24, all in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention.

Acevedo Jaramillo et. al. Case (SITRAMUN)

412. On June 25, 2003, the Commission referred the application in the case of Acevedo Jaramillo Julio et al., members of the Municipal Workers Union of Lima (SITRAMUN) against the Republic of Peru (Case 12,084), for breach of the judgments handed down by Peruvian courts on behalf of the workers who are members of SITRAMUN. The IACHR asked the Court to establish the international responsibility of the Peruvian State, which has breached its international obligations established in Article 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of that instrument, for failing to carry out the judgments handed down by the judges of the city of Lima, the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (appellate), and the Constitutional Court of Peru by an amparo action, since 1997, in proceedings that recognized the rights of the workers of the municipality of Lima who are members of SITRAMUN.

o. Dominican Republic

Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Case

413. The case of the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico against the Dominican Republic (Case 12.189), the first case against this country, was referred to the Court on June 11, 2003, the purpose being for the Court to rule on the international responsibility of the State of the Dominican Republic considering that the Dominican authorities denied the girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi Dominican nationality even though they were born in Dominican territory and the Constitution establishes the principle of jus soli. In view of the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare the violation of the right to the recognition of juridical personality, the right to judicial guarantees, the rights of the child, the right to nationality, the right to equality before the law, and the right to judicial protection, established respectively at Articles 3, 8, 19, 20, 24, and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1 and 2 thereof.

p. Suriname

Moiwana Community Case

414. On December 20, 2002, the Inter-American Commission referred the case of the Moiwana Community against the Republic of Suriname to the consideration of the Court, in keeping with Article 51 of the American Convention, which arose from complaint 11.821, received at the Secretariat of the Commission on June 27, 1997, regarding the extrajudicial executions of more than 40 residents in the Maroon community of Moiwana, the intentional destruction of the inhabitants’ property by the soldiers of the Surinamese State, and the failure to investigate the facts and punish the persons responsible.

415. The Republic of Suriname accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in 1987, i.e. after the attack on the Moiwana Community; nonetheless, the State has denied justice with respect to its duty to investigate what happened in that attack up until the moment the case was referred to the jurisdiction of the Court.

416. The Commission asked the Court to declare violations of Articles 8, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention, and that it declare that the State of Suriname is obligated to make reparation for the consequences of those violations and compensate the victims and their next-of-kin, and to pay the expenses and costs they have incurred domestically and internationally in processing the case before the Commission and the Court.

q. Trinidad and Tobago

Winston Caesar Case

417. The case of Winston Caesar against Trinidad and Tobago (Case 12, 147) was referred to the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on February 26, 2003, as on January 10, 1992, Winston Caesar was convicted in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago for the crime of attempted rape. Mr. Caesar was sentenced to 20 years of prison with forced labor and to receive 15 lashes with the “nine-tail whip,” in keeping with Trinidadian law, which allows the imposition of corporal punishment. The Court of Appeals of Trinidad and Tobago affirmed his conviction and sentence in a decision of February 28, 1996. The State imposed this punishment on Mr. Caesar in a manner that violated his right not to be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, which was aggravated since the punishment was imposed after a criminal proceeding characterized by unwarranted delay and conditions of detention that do not satisfy the minimum standards of decency. The purpose of the application is for the Court to declare the violation of Articles 5(1), 5(2), 8(1), and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the breach of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention.

Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Case

418. On November 27, 2003, the Court found:

1. That, pursuant to the basic pacta sunt servanda principle, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the State has the duty to promptly comply with the June 21, 2002 Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. vs. Trinidad and Tobago Case.

2. That the State cannot elude its obligations issuing from the June 21, 2002 Judgment of the Court, despite having denounced the Convention, for which reason it must effectively comply with the Judgment pursuant to Article 78(2) of the Convention.

3. That to date, the State has not reported to the Court on compliance with the aforementioned Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

419. In addition, the Court ordered:

4. If the current situation persists, to report on it to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To urge the State to adopt such measures as may be necessary to effectively and promptly comply with said Judgment, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

...

r. Venezuela

Caracazo Case

420. On March 21, 2003, the Court transmitted to the IACHR the first report of the Venezuelan State on compliance with the judgment on reparations issued by that Court on August 20, 2002. On June 2, 2003, the IACHR presented its observations in this respect to the Court.

421. On December 9, 2003, the Commission received a report and attached documents from the Court produced by the Public Ministry on actions taken by the State to comply with the judgment handed down in August 2002, and Official Gazette No. 37,823, of December 4, 2003, which includes the Authorization of the National Assembly to decree an additional credit in the amount of eight billion nine hundred eighteen million eight hundred fourteen thousand six hundred bolivars (Bs. 8,918,814,600) to pay compensation to carry out the judgment in the case.

El Amparo Case

422. This case is in the phase of supervising compliance with the judgments issued by the Court on January 18, 1995, and September 14, 1996. During the year covered by this report, the Commission took no action related to this case.

3. Advisory opinions

Request for Advisory Opinion OC-18

423. On January 13, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted its written observations on the request for an advisory opinion on the deprivation of the enjoyment and exercise of certain labor rights of migrant workers, and its compatibility with the obligation of the American states to guarantee the principles of legal equality, non-discrimination, and equal and effective protection of the law enshrined in international instruments for the protection of human rights; the subordination and conditioning of the observance of the obligations imposed by international human rights law, including obligations erga omnes, in order to advance certain domestic policy objectives of an American state; as well as the character that the principles of legal equality, non-discrimination, and equal and effective protection of the law have attained in the context of the progressive development of international human rights law and its codification.

424. On January 16, 2003, the President of the Court called a public hearing for the purpose of hearing the oral arguments of several member states of the OAS as well as those of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in relation to the request for an advisory opinion.

425. During its 59th Regular Session, the Court deliberated and, on September 17, 2003, issued its Advisory Opinion 18. In this respect, the Court offered the following opinion:

...

1. That States have the general obligation to respect and ensure the fundamental rights. To this end, they must take affirmative action, avoid taking measures that limit or infringe a fundamental right, and eliminate measures and practices that restrict or violate a fundamental right.

2. That non-compliance by the State with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights, owing to any discriminatory treatment, gives rise to international responsibility.

3. That the principle of equality and non-discrimination is fundamental for the safeguard of human rights in both international law and domestic law.

4. That the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination forms part of general international law, because it is applicable to all States, regardless of whether or not they are a party to a specific international treaty. At the current stage of the development of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of jus cogens.

5. That the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination, which is of a peremptory nature, entails obligations erga omnes of protection that bind all States and generate effects with regard to third parties, including individuals.

6. That the general obligation to respect and guarantee human rights binds States, regardless of any circumstance or consideration, including the migratory status of a person.

7. That the right to due process of law must be recognized as one of the minimum guarantees that should be offered to any migrant, irrespective of his migratory status. The broad scope of the preservation of due process encompasses all matters and all persons, without any discrimination.

8. That the migratory status of a person cannot constitute a justification to deprive him of the enjoyment and exercise of human rights, including those of a labor-related nature. When assuming an employment relationship, the migrant acquires rights that must be recognized and ensured because he is an employee, irrespective of his regular or irregular status in the State where he is employed These rights are a result of the employment relationship.

9. That the State has the obligation to respect and guarantee the labor human rights of all workers, irrespective of their status as nationals or aliens, and not to tolerate situations of discrimination that are harmful to the latter in the employment relationships established between private individuals (employer-worker). The State must not allow private employers to violate the rights of workers, or the contractual relationship to violate minimum international standards.

10. That workers, being possessors of labor rights, must have all the appropriate means to exercise them. Undocumented migrant workers possess the same labor rights as other workers in the State where they are employed, and the latter must take the necessary measures to ensure that this is recognized and complied with in practice.

11. That States may not subordinate or condition observance of the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination to achieving their public policy goals, whatever these may be, including those of a migratory character.

[ Table of Contents| Previous | Next ]

[††] See supra Provisional Measures.

[‡‡] See supra Provisional Measures

[§§] See supra Provisional Measures.

[***] See supra Provisional Measures.