|
|
|
...continuation (Chapter III)
Case 11.771 - Report Nº 61/01, Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo (Chile)
92. On April 16, 2001, the IACHR conveyed the following recommendations to the Chilean State:
1. Establish responsibility for the murder of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo by due process of law, so that the guilty may be duly punished.
2. Adapt its domestic legislation to the provisions of the American Convention, in such a way as to leave Decree-Law N° 2191 of 1978 without effect.
3. To take the steps necessary for the members of the victim’s family to receive adequate and timely compensation, including full reparations for the human rights violations described herein as well as payment of fair compensation for physical and nonphysical damages, including moral damages.
93. On November 8, 2004, the Commission requested information from both parties regarding the status of compliance with the recommendations. The Commission received information from the State by note dated February 1, 2005.
94. In its reply the State provided the following information regarding compliance with the three recommendations:
1. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court decided not to apply the Amnesty Decree Law in a judgment handed down in the case of the disappearance of Miguel Angel Sandoval. The State of Chile is taking the relevant steps so that, through the Ministry of Interior’s Human Rights Program, the judicial investigation into the Samuel Catalán Lincoleo’s disappearance are not exhausted or interrupted until the circumstances surrounding his arrest and subsequent disappearance are established, and the relevant responsibilities and punishments are determined, thus complying with the recommendation issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requiring that responsibility for the victim’s murder be established by due process of law so that the guilty may be duly punished.
2. With respect to repealing the Amnesty Decree Law, No. 2191, reference was made to the problems that exist with amending or abrogating it. Nevertheless, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has given indications of a clear tendency toward setting new guidelines in interpretation and enforcement of that Decree Law. The State copied some of the “whereas” clauses from the ruling of November 17, 2004, on account of their relevance and importance to the investigations into human rights violations that are currently being processed by the Chilean courts.
3. With reference to the reparations extended to Mr. Samuel Catalán Lincoleo’s family, the State notes that Law 19.123, which created the National Reparation and Reconciliation Corporation also established economic benefits in the fields of health, education, and exemption from military service for certain family members identified therein.
95. In this particular case, his son, Samuel Catalán Albarrán, received a reparations pension until his 25th birthday; Mrs. Adriana Albarrán Contreras, the partner of the victim and mother of his above-mentioned son, is currently receiving a pension and will do so for the rest of her life.
96. In addition, through the Interior Ministry’s Human Rights Program, a paternity suit was pursued on behalf of the victim’s extramarital daughter, Miss. Elena Bucarey Bucarey. Judgment in this matter was recently issued, awarding her a reparations payment, to be made retroactive and to be paid to her until she turns 25. She is also entitled to the health and education benefits.
97. The reparations pensions created by Law 19.123 are compensatory in nature, intended to make redress for the harm caused; they have been rejected by none of the identified beneficiaries but rather have been and continue to be paid out in accordance with the governing legal provisions.
98. To date the family of Samuel Catalán Lincoleo has not filed civil suit for compensation against the Chilean treasury and consequently has not invoked the civil action provided for by domestic law.
99. Finally, it must be noted that Law 19.123 was amended by Law No. 19.980, published in the Official Journal on November 9, 2004, which established the following new forms of compensation in connection with reparations pensions:
-An increase, as of the first of the next month following publication of the Law, of 50% in the amount of the monthly reparations pensions. This modification applies automatically for all current beneficiaries including, as already noted, Mrs. Adriana Albarrán Contreras.
-An increase of 15%, for a total of 40% in the compensatory benefit payable to the mother or father of the beneficiary’s extramarital children.
-For the purposes of Law 19.123, the rights are recognized of all mothers of extramarital children who have pursued recognition formalities before the civil courts, with which they are entitled to reparations pensions. That is the situation of the mother of Miss. Elena Bucarey Bucarey.
With regard to the Reparations Payment for children:
-A reparations payment of $10,000,000 (approximately USD $17,500) shall be made, on one single occasion, to each of the children of the beneficiary who never received the monthly reparations pension, and of the corresponding difference to those who formerly received it but who ceased to do so upon reaching the age of 25.
100. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the recommendations made by the Commission.
Case 11.715 - Report Nº 32/02, Juan Manuel Contreras San Martín et. al. (Chile)
101. On March 12, 2002, the Commission approved a friendly settlement report in the present case, through which it recognizes the agreement of the State to comply with the following measures for reparation:
To award to Messrs. Juan Manuel Contreras San Martín, José Alfredo Soto Ruz and Víctor Eduardo Osses Conejeros, a discretional annuity of three minimum wages each;
To provide to them free of charge adequate training in skills and trades in accordance with their expectations, aptitudes and possibilities, through the office of the National Training and Employment Service (SENCE in its Spanish initials) in the region where they live, in order to enable them to increase their financial incomes and enhance their quality of life;
To publicly provide reparation to the victims before their community by means by an act of the Regional Government duly disseminated by the mass media, designed to restore their reputation and honor that had been certainly damaged by the judicial decisions that once harmed them.
102. In the same report, the Commission took note of the fulfillment of these promises, and recommended that the State carry out studies and relevant legislative initiatives in keeping with the norms for indemnification for judicial error.
103. On November 8, 2004, the Commission requested to the parties to submit information on the status of compliance with its recommendations. The Commission received information from the petitioners dated January 20, 2005. The petitioners informed the Commission “que respecto del cumplimiento de las condiciones adoptas en el contexto de dichas soluciones amistosas el Estado de Chile ha dado fiel ejecución a las mismas”.
104. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the State has complied with the recommendations made by the Commission.
Case 12.046 - Report Nº 33/02, Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos (Chile)
105. On March 12, 2002, the Commission approved a friendly settlement in the case of Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos. In this agreement, the State pledged to:
1. Scholarship
… The Government undertakes to award a special scholarship of 1.24 Monthly Tax Units (UTM) to Mrs. Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos while she is enrolled in higher education. …
2. Symbolic redress
… The Government would publicize the compensatory measures by means of an official communication on the matter, to be issued jointly with regional authorities, recognizing that rights of the petitioner enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights–freedom from arbitrary or abusive interference with her private life and equal protection of the law–were violated when her enrollment was not renewed and she was obliged to leave the educational establishment where she was pursuing her studies, “Andrés Bello” school in Coquimbo, a private school subsidized with co-financing, for the sole reason that she had become pregnant. In addition, steps would be taken to disseminate recent legislation (Law Nº 19,688), amending the Education Act, which contains provisions on the rights of pregnant students or nursing mothers to have access to educational establishments.
106. The Commission, upon approving the settlement, established a deadline of three months, for the Chilean State to report about the compliance with the measures agreed upon.
107. The Commission received reports from the State on July 18, and November 21, 2002. In their latter report, the State informed:
That on April 18, 2002, in the Intendance of Coquimbo’s IV Region, headquarters for the regional government, the Chilean State gave full compliance with the friendly settlement agreement, by way of a public act of amends to the petitioner, which included the symbolic presentation of the President of the Republic scholarship, effective March of the current year, and throughout her higher education.
…
that the petitioner Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos is receiving [the scholarship]…since March of the current year, for an average monthly sum of $ 35,000 (approximate equivalent of US $50).
108. This communication was transmitted to the petitioner on December 12, 2002, with a deadline of two months to present observations on the compliance of these recommendations. The petitioner did not respond to this request.
109. On November 8, 2004, the Commission requested the parties to submit information on the status of compliance with its recommendations. The Commission received information from the petitioners dated January 20, 2005. The petitioners informed the Commission “que respecto del cumplimiento de las condiciones adoptas en el contexto de dichas soluciones amistosas el Estado de Chile ha dado fiel ejecución a las mismas”.
110. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the State has complied with the recommendations made by the Commission. Case 11.654 - Report Nº 62/01, Río Frío Massacre (Colombia)
111. The Commission issued Report 62/01 on Case 11.654, on April 6, 2001. The case was about the Riofrío massacre. In that report, the Commission made three recommendations. First, the Commission recommended that Colombia conduct “an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the massacre.” On January 21, 2005 the petitioners indicated that the decision adopted on March 6, 2003 by the Criminal Law Chamber of Cassation of the Supreme Court declaring all proceedings in the military criminal justice system null and void and remanding the case to the National Director of Prosecutions “..has not been fully complied with and therefore the perpetrators remain unpunished.”
112. The Commission’s second recommendation was that Colombia take “such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.” From the information presented by the petitioners it can be inferred that the victims’ next of kin have received monetary compensation pursuant to the procedure established under Law 288/96 and that therefore the monetary aspect of the recommendations has been satisfied.
113. Thirdly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia take “the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention as well as the necessary measures to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.” The measures adopted by the State have been and will continue to be evaluated in the Commission’s general reports and in its exercise of its various convention-related and statutory functions.
Case 11.710 - Report Nº 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro (Colombia)
114. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR issued Report 63/01 on Case 11.710. This case concerned the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro. The Commission made three recommendations at that time. First, the IACHR recommended that Colombia “[C]arry out a full, impartial, and effective investigation within the ordinary jurisdiction with a view to judging and punishing those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro.” On December 30, 2004 the State reported by note DDH 67229 issued by the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that a special motion requesting that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court review the decision issued on March 22, 2002 by the Criminal Military Tribunal acquitting the State agents allegedly involved in the case has been filed and that it is currently pending before Procuraduria Delegada para la Casacion. The filing of this motion can be considered a positive step toward the future compliance with the recommendation.
115. Secondly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia adopt “the measures necessary to ensure that the victims’ next-of-kin receive adequate and timely reparations for the violations determined in the Report.” The State reiterated that by resolution of May 3, 2002, the Council of Ministers decided to rule in favor of moving forward with the corresponding damages to the victims’ next of kin, under Law 288/96. From the information provided it is unclear whether payment has been made to the victims’ next of kin.
116. Thirdly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia adopt “measures necessary to fully apply the case law developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by this Commission with respect to the investigation and adjudication of similar cases in the ordinary penal justice system.” The measures adopted by the State have been and will continue to be evaluated in the IACHR’s general reports and in the Commission’s exercise of its various convention-related and statutory functions.
Case 11.712 - Report Nº 64/01, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry (Colombia)
117. On April 6, 2001, the Commission released Report 64/01 on Case 11.712, which concerned the extrajudicial execution of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry et al. At the time, the Commission made three recommendations. First, that Colombia conduct “an impartial and effective investigation before ordinary jurisdiction for the purpose of judging and sanctioning those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.” On December 30, 2004 the State reported by Note DDH 47897 from the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that it was still gathering information on compliance with this recommendation. For their part, on February 3, 2005 the petitioners indicated that the judicial process is still pending before the military courts and that it has not been transferred to the ordinary jurisdiction in view of the fact that the request filed in that regard by the Public Ministry (colision de competencia) was rejected on December 27, 2002 and such decision confirmed on March 7, 2003. Therefore, no progress has been made toward compliance with this recommendation.
118. Secondly, the Commission recommended that Colombia adopt the measures necessary for reparation of the consequences of violations committed to the detriment of María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and provide due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza. The State reported that by a resolution dated May 3, 2002, the Committee of Ministers had decided to rule in favor of moving forward with payment of compensation to victims and their next of kin, without indicating any details on actual payment. The petitioners, for their part, indicated that there had been no payment of compensation or other type of reparation to the victims.
119. Thirdly, it recommended that Colombia adopt the measures necessary to avoid similar events from occurring in the future, in conformance with the obligation of preventing and guaranteeing the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, and adopt the necessary measures for full compliance with the doctrine developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by the Commission in the investigation and judgment of similar cases by ordinary criminal justice. The measures adopted by the State have been and will continue to be evaluated in the Commission’s general reports, and as the Commission discharges its various functions under conventions and by statute.
Case 11.421 - Report Nº 93/00, Edison Patricio Quishpe Alcívar (Ecuador)
120. In Report Nº 93/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$30,000 in compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in paying the compensation.
2. To urge the State to take the necessary measures to carry out the commitment to pursue civil and criminal proceedings and to seek to impose punishment on those persons who, in the performance of government functions or under the color of public authority, are considered to have participated in the alleged violation, and the payment of interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement, and in that context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
121. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that thus far they have no information on judicial proceedings undertaken by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of those directly responsible for the violations that were alleged to the IACHR.
Case 11.439 - Report Nº 94/00, Byron Roberto Cañaveral (Ecuador)
122. In Report Nº 94/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$7,000.00 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, or to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to carry out the pending commitment to bring civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against those persons who, in the performance of state functions, participated in the alleged violations, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the Ecuadorian State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on progress in carrying out the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
123. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that thus far they have no information on judicial proceedings taken by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of those directly responsible for the violations that were alleged to the IACHR.
Case 11.445 - Report Nº 95/00, Angelo Javier Ruales Paredes (Ecuador)
124. In Report Nº 95/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To acknowledge that the State punished those responsible for the violation but has failed to pay the US$15,000 in compensation.
2. To urge the State to take the necessary steps to fulfill the pending commitment regarding payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with the friendly settlement agreement and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed (by the State) under this friendly settlement.
125. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that on January 15, 2001 the State paid the corresponding compensatory damages to the victim, thus fully completing its obligation pursuant to the friendly settlement agreement, since it had previously punished the perpetrators.
Case 11.466 - Report Nº 96/00, Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guamán (Ecuador)
126. In Report Nº 96/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$25,000 as compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.
2. To urge the State to take the measures needed for carrying out the commitments still pending with respect to bringing to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, as to the performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
127. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph.
128. The petitioners reported that the State failed to punish the perpetrators of the crime, because the Second Judge of the First District of the National Police ruled on April 28, 1999 that the statute of limitations had expired for the defendants, a decision that was upheld by the First District Court of the Police. Based on these decisions, the Attorney General, in official letter No. 1064 of March 9, 2001, notified the petitioners that in view of the statute of limitations and an express Constitutional prohibition there could be no new trial of the perpetrators, but this would not preclude the Prosecutor’s Office from initiating repetition proceedings against them. They also reported that so far they had no information on proceedings initiated by the State to exercise the right of repetition expressed by the Prosecutor’s Office, nor on civil or administrative proceedings initiated against the perpetrators. In February 1999, by signing the friendly settlement agreement, the State promised to punish the responsible parties and conclude the criminal proceedings that began in 1993 in the police court. Two months after that agreement the State ruled that the statute of limitations had expired for the defendants, so the offense remained unpunished, indicating that the State fails to comply with the human rights commitments assumed in the international sphere. The petitioners added that they are not aware of any actions by the State to punish the police judges who were seized of the criminal case for torture, and whose negligence in the administration of justice resulted in impunity for the crime.
Case 11.584 - Report Nº 97/00, Carlos Juela Molina (Ecuador)
129. In Report Nº 97/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$15,000 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.
2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to comply with the pending commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
130. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State has not yet ruled on the civil or administrative liability of the responsible party, or on the proceedings initiated against the police judge whose delay in processing the case contributed to the crime remaining unpunished. Case 11.783 - Report Nº 98/00 - Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia (Ecuador)
131. In Report Nº 98/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$63,000 as compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violations alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
2. To urge the State to take the measures necessary to carry out the commitments pending with respect to bringing to trial and punishing the persons responsible for the violations alleged, and to paying interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
132. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that more than three years have elapsed since the signing of the friendly settlement agreement and the State promised civil, criminal, or administrative trial and punishment for the police, prosecutors, and judges who committed the violations alleged, but so far there has been no judicial decision in this regard.
Case 11.868 - Report Nº 99/00 - Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo (Ecuador)
133. In the friendly settlement reached by the state of Ecuador and Mr. Pedro Restrepo, father of the minor children Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy, with respect to complaint No. 11.868, the state undertook to:
SEVENTH - FREEDOM OF ACTION
The Ecuadorian State undertakes not to interfere in the constitutional and statutory rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of the Restrepo family, their sympathizers, and human rights organizations that join this cause for the purpose of commemorating the death of Carlos and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy or for other purposes related to this event. The National Police and Armed Forces shall guarantee these natural and juridical persons the free exercise of these guarantees, in keeping with Ecuadorian law.
134.
Thus far the
Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR
recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners
reported that to date they have no information on judicial proceedings
initiated by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment
of the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR, nor on the
search for the bodies. Case 11.991 - Report Nº 100/00, Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva (Ecuador)
135. In Report Nº 100/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of the US$50,000 in compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
2. To urge the State to make the decisions needed to carry out the pending commitments to bring to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in that context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
136. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that they have no knowledge of any proceedings begun by the State to punish the police, prosecutors, and judges who participated directly or indirectly in the violations alleged to the Commission.
Case 11.478 - Report Nº 19/01, Juan Clímaco Cuellar et al. (Ecuador)
137. In Report Nº 19/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$100,000 as compensation to each of the victims of the situations alleged, and to note the lack of compliance with respect to the punishment of the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and with respect to the payment of interest for the delay in payment of the above-noted sum.
2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
138. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners report that thus far they have no information on any judicial proceedings initiated by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR. Case 11.512 - Report Nº 20/01, Lida Angela Riera Rodriguez (Ecuador)
139. In Report Nº 20/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceedings with respect to the sanction of the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment regarding the trial of persons implicated in the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, of its compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
140. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that thus far they have no knowledge of any civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings initiated by the State to try and punish those directly and indirectly responsible for the violations alleged. They also said that more than three years have elapsed since the State promised to prosecute and punish the responsible police, prosecutors, and judges, but thus far there has been no sentence in this regard.
Case 11.605 - Report Nº 21/01, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño (Ecuador)
141. In Report Nº 21/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of $US30,000 in compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceeding to punish the persons implicated in the alleged violation.
2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment to prosecute the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
142.
To date the Ecuadorian
State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations
transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that
they have no knowledge of any current civil, criminal, or administrative
sentence against the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the
IACHR.
Case 11.779 - Report Nº 22/01, José Patricio Reascos (Ecuador)
143. In Report Nº 22/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and the beginning of judicial proceedings to punish the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
144. So far the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information about any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding initiated by the State to prosecute and punish those directly or indirectly responsible for the violations alleged. They also reported that three years have gone by since the State promised to prosecute and punish the responsible police, prosecutors, and judges, but thus far there has been no such sentence.
Case 11.441 - Report Nº 104/01, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al. (Ecuador)
145. In Report Nº 104/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To certify that the State has complied with the commitment to pay US$10,000 to each victim in this case, as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by instituting judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreements, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.
146.
To date, the
Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR
recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners
reported that thus far they have no knowledge of any judicial
proceedings initiated by the State for civil, criminal, or
administrative punishment of the perpetrators of the violations alleged
to the IACHR.
Case 11.443 - Report Nº 105/01, Washington Ayora Rodriguez (Ecuador)
147. In Report Nº 105/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case, as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it should fully implement the friendly settlement by beginning judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR, every three months, on the implementation of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
148. Thus far the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the above paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information on judicial proceedings undertaken by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR.
Case 11.450 - Report Nº 106/01, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa (Ecuador)
149. In Report Nº 106/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
150.
To date, the
Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR
recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners
report there has been no trial of the alleged perpetrators.
Case 11.542 - Report Nº 107/01, Angel Reiniero Vega Jiménez (Ecuador)
151. In Report Nº 107/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
152. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that the Criminal Court of the National Police acquitted the accused police officers, for which the facts were changed.
Case 11.574 - Report Nº 108/01, Wilberto Samuel Manzanos (Ecuador)
153. In Report Nº 108/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
154. Thus far, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that as reflected in the case record the police court acquitted the perpetrator in his criminal trial for homicide. They reported that they have no knowledge that the State has initiated any legal proceedings against the judges whose negligence for five years in processing the case violated the parties’ right to a verdict within a reasonable period of time. Case 11.632 - Report Nº 109/01, Vidal Segura Hurtado (Ecuador)
155. In Report Nº 109/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
156. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State has thus far not initiated any actions to start civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings against the perpetrators and to sentence them to the appropriate punishment.
Case 12.007 - Report Nº 110/01, Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez (Ecuador)
157. In Report Nº 110/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$20,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
158. The Ecuadorian State has reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations, indicating that Mr. Andrade Benítez has no criminal record. The petitioners reported that the payment of US$20,000.00 was made, but the State has failed to initiate any judicial proceedings against the persons implicated. Therefore, the Commission considers there has been partial compliance with the applicable recommendations.
Case 11.992 - Report Nº 66/01, Dayra Maria Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador)
159. In Report Nº 66/01 of June 14, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:
1. Proceed to grant full reparations, which involves granting adequate compensation to Mrs. Dayra Maria Levoyer Jimenez;
2. Order an investigation to determine responsibility for the violations detected by the Commission and eventually to punish the individuals responsible;
3. Take such steps as are necessary to reform habeas corpus legislation as indicated in the present report, as well as to enact such reforms with immediate effect.
160. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the above paragraph. The petitioners reported that as regards the first recommendation, the Ecuadorian State has not taken any steps to compensate the victim for damages, nor has it adopted any mechanism to provide the respective compensation. On the second recommendation, the petitioners reported that there is no judicial proceeding underway to investigate the direct responsibility of those who took part in various violations established by the Commission. As for the third recommendation, the petitioners reported that the Ecuadorian State has also failed to take any steps to reform habeas corpus legislation, because the Congress does not have any bills for Constitutional reform in this area.
Case 11.515 - Report Nº 63/03 - Bolívar Franco Camacho Arboleda (Ecuador)
161. In Report Nº 63/03, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian State:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to pay US $30,000 dollars to the victim by way of compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
162. To date, neither the Ecuadorian State nor the petitioners have reported on the compliance with the recommendations made by the IACHR that are transcribed in the preceding paragraph. Case 12.188 - Report Nº 64/03 - Joffre José Valencia Mero, Priscila Zoreida Valencia Sánchez, Rocio Valencia Sánchez (Ecuador)
163. In Report Nº 64/03, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian State:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to make compensation payments in the amount of USD $25,000 to each of the three victims in this case.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the Friendly Settlement Agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.
164. Thus far, neither the Ecuadorian State nor the petitioners have reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations that are transcribed in the previous paragraph.
Case 12.394 - Report Nº 65/03 - Joaquín Hernández Alvarado, Marlon Loor Argote and Hugo Lara Pinos (Ecuador)
165. In Report Nº 65/03, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian State:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to make compensation payments in the amounts of US $100,000.00 to Mr. Hernández, US $300,000.00 to Mr. Loor, and US $50,000.00 to Mr. Lara.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreements by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlements; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the Commission on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.
166. To date, neither the Ecuadorian State nor the petitioners have reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations that are transcribed in the preceding paragraph.
Case 12.028 – Report Nº 47/01, Donnason Knights (Grenada)
167. In Report Nº 47/01 dated April 4, 2001, the Commission recommended that the State:
1. Grant Mr. Knights an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation. 2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the American Convention in respect of the victim’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
168. The State has not informed the Commission as to its compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 47/01. On December 23, 2002, the Petitioner wrote to the Commission and informed of the following: On May 2001, Anslem B. Clouden, Attorney-at-Law had written to the Attorney General of Grenada requesting adoption of the necessary measures in compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. To date, as far as we are aware, there has been no response from the Attorney General, and Mr. Knights remains on death row, and we are unaware of any legislative measures, or any measures being adopted in relation to conditions of detention. In March 2002, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered landmark decisions in 3 cases, Patrick Reyes, Peter Hughes & Bertil Fox. They declared that the mandatory death penalty imposed on all those convicted of murder in the Eastern Caribbean and Belize unconstitutional. The effect of this decision means that Mr. Knights’ sentence will have to be reviewed as he was automatically sentenced to death upon conviction. Mr. Knights will now have an opportunity to place before the courts mitigating circumstances as to why the death penalty may not be appropriate in his case. Whilst the adoption of new legislative measures were as a result of the appeal to the Privy Council in the trilogy of cases mentioned above, and, not as a result of the Commission’s recommendations in this case, the views of the Commission in relation to the mandatory issue were an important aspect of the arguments before the courts. The Commission’s recommendations, and its decisions have played an instrumental role in these decisions." Based on these considerations, the IACHR presumes that the Government of Grenada has not comply with the Commission's recommendations.
169. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 47/01, pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
170. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners in Case 12.028 (Donnason Knights)informed the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
171. The Petitioners state that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
172. Finally, the Petitioners submit that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission.
Case 11.765 - Report Nº 55/02 Paul Lallion, (Grenada)173. In Report Nº 55/02 dated October 21, 2003, the IACHR recommended that the State:
1. Grant Mr. Lallion an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law in Grenada.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion's conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
6. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to personal liberty under Article 7(2), Article 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion is given effect in Grenada.
174. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.
175. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 55/02, pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
176. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners in Case 11.765 (Paul Lallion) informed the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
177. The Petitioners state that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
178. Finally, the Petitioners submit that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission.
Case 12.158 - Report Nº 56/02 Benedict Jacob, (Grenada) 179. In Report Nº 56/02 dated October 21, 2003, the Commission recommended that the State:
1. Grant Mr. Jacob an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law in Grenada.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Jacob's conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
180. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.
181. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 56/02, pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
182. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners in Case 12.158 (Benedict Jacob) informed the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
183. The Petitioners state that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
184. Finally, the Petitioners submit that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission.
Case 10.586 – Report Nº 39/00, Pedro García Choc et. al. (Guatemala)
185. In Report Nº 39/00 of April 13, 2000, the Commission recommended that the Guatemalan State:
1. Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and related violations in the cases of the victims named in section VII, and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Guatemalan law.
2. To adopt the measures necessary for the family members of the victims identified in paragraph 287 to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.
186. The information on record indicates that the Government signed the “Commitment of the Government of the Republic of Guatemala in compliance with the recommendations issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its Report 5/00 (case 10,586 et al.),” whereby it acknowledged institutional responsibility for the failure to comply with Article 1 of the American Convention, acknowledged the facts recounted in the report, pledged to make every effort possible to find the victims’ next of kin so that they might receive just compensation, pledged to conduct investigations into the facts and to punish those responsible, and pledged to report to the Commission every four months on the measures taken to comply with those points.
187. In a note of December 3, 2003, the CALDH said that in light of the major commitment assumed by the Guatemalan State, on November 8, 2002, the petitioners sent COPREDEH a proposal for reparations in the García Chuc case. Both the IACHR and the petitioners submitted various requests for information regarding implementation of the recommendations contained in Report 39/00, but no replies from the State were received.
188. At a working meeting held with the parties, at both the 119th and 121st Sessions, the parties discussed the terms for reaching a compliance agreement and, on the latter occasion, the petitioners submitted a new, more complete proposal for redress. This new proposal includes: (a) a public apology, by the president, in Guatemala City; (b) recovery of the victim’s memory: they request that a plaque be placed at the cooperative he founded; (c) investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible; and (d) economic reparations. The State accepted the proposal made by the petitioners. The Commission has information indicating that the parties agreed to sign a compliance agreement in early 2005. Case 11.625 - Report Nº 4/01, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala)
189. In Report Nº 4/01 of January 19, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
1. Adapt the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to balance the legal recognition of the reciprocal duties of women and men in marriage and take the legislative and other measures necessary to amend Article 317 of the Civil Code so as to bring national law into conformity with the norms of the American Convention and give full effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed to María Eugenia Morales de Sierra therein.
2. Redress and adequately compensate María Eugenia Morales de Sierra for the harm done by the violations established in this Report.
190. On December 19, 2003, Guatemala sent the Commission a note in which it reported that in connection with the first recommendation, on March 13, 2001 the Presidential Steering Committee for Executive Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) submitted a draft bill to the General Secretariat of the Republic for amendment of Article 317, paragraph 4 of Decree Law 106 (Civil Code). The Guatemalan Government stated that COPREDEH officials and Mrs. María Eugenia Morales together visited the Congressional Commission on Women to lobby for the bill and as of the date of its report, the bill had already gone to the Commission on Legislation and Constitutional Provisions, for analysis, observations and subsequent presentation to the full Congress of the Republic.
191. In March 2003, the State presented a reparations proposal to the victim, which the latter rejected as it did not address her claims concerning the nature and scope of the programs to provide training and raise awareness about women’s rights which she had requested in lieu of the adequate compensation that the Commission ordered on her behalf. The State indicated that COPREDEH was coordinating with other government institutions to launch a nationwide campaign to promote and disseminate women’s rights. In their note of December 19, 2003, the petitioners concluded that thus far the State of Guatemala had not complied with either of the two Commission recommendations cited above.
192. In a note sent to the Commission on March 5, 2004, the petitioners set out the following reparations claims: (a) amend Article 317(4) of the Guatemalan Civil Code; (b) promote all actions necessary to ensure women’s enjoyment of their human rights; In connection with this, the State had proposed creating a foundation to pursue that line of action; this was accepted by Mrs. Morales, who then suggested that it be called DIGNIDAD (“Dignity”); (c) support efforts for the implementation of a permanent public policy to promote, develop, and publicize the rights of women, with the aim of raising awareness about, mainstreaming, and disseminating women’s rights; (d) work for increased budgets for the national agencies responsible for educating about, promoting, and protecting women’s rights, to enable them to better perform their functions; and (e) launch a nationwide publicity campaign, also in the main Mayan languages, regarding the amendments to the Civil Code. This campaign was to include radio and television.
193. During the IACHR’s 121 Session, a working meeting was held with the parties, at which the Government agreed to submit the bill to Congress but that, because of the separation of powers, it could not promise that the bill would be passed by the legislature. It would also draw up, within the following two weeks, an agreement for the parties to sign.
194. In communications of November 4, 2004, the IACHR contacted both the State and the petitioners in order to request up-to-date information on compliance with the recommendations set out in Report 4/01. On December 3, 2004, the Government presented a report on compliance with the recommendations, indicating that the Guatemalan State had duly amended Articles 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 131, 133, and 255 of the Civil Code, with respect to establishing equal rights between men and women, with the exception of Article 317 thereof, in spite of the efforts made to secure approval for its amendment, in compliance with the recommendations set out by the IACHR in Report 86/98. The Government said that it hoped to work toward this amendment again, as it had been doing for the past four years, by signing the compliance agreement, which it was to promote at the Congressional Commission on Women and Children and which had already incorporated the comments offered by Mrs. María Eugenia Morales de Sierra. In turn, in a submission of January 17, 2005, the petitioners said that although most of the articles of the Civil Code that had been challenged as being discriminatory in this case had been amended, that was not true of Article 317; and that this was in spite of the executive’s power to send Congress a bill addressing the issue. With respect to the agreement on compliance with the recommendations, the petitioners note that two years have gone by without the State officially presenting a proposal for implementing the IACHR’s recommendations for the petitioners to offer their comments thereon.
195. The Commission notes that the parties have made efforts to reach a compliance agreement, the advanced negotiation of which is pending a final review by both sides. Noting the efforts invested in this process and the major legislative changes to which it has given rise, the Commission urges the parties to conclude the negotiations. It also calls on the Guatemalan Government to use the powers granted to it by Article 174 of the Constitution and submit to the Congress of the Republic a bill containing an amendment text for Article 317 of the Civil Code.
Case 9207 - Report Nº 58/01, Oscar Manuel Gramajo López (Guatemala)
196. In Report Nº 58/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan state:
a. Conduct and impartial and effective investigation of the facts reported to determine the circumstances and fate of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López, which would establish the identity of those responsible for his disappearance and punish them in accordance with due process of law.
b. Adopt measures for full reparation of the violations determined, including: steps to locate the remains of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López; the necessary arrangements to accommodate the family’s wishes in respect of his final resting place; and proper and timely reparations for the victim’s family.
197. By a note dated April 4, 2002, the Guatemalan State informed the Commission that in the case of the first recommendation, the Government had sent a report to the Attorney General’s Office so that it might conduct the necessary investigation. It also reported that the case had also been sent to COPREDEH’s Missing Persons Unit, which began inquiries to locate case-related information and Mr. Gramajo López’ next of kin. As for the second recommendation, the Government said that it was willing to include this case within the National Reparations that will be discussed with civil society. Although it requested follow-up information from the parties, the Commission has no current data on compliance with the recommendations made in its report.
198. In a communicaciotn of December 3, 2004, the State said it did not have contact details for the petitioners – an issue of crucial importance if it is to proceed to redress the established violations in accordance with the IACHR’s recommendations – and asked the Commission to convey to the petitioner the State’s disposition toward compliance in this case. The State also said it would take the steps necessary to identify the current status of the internal investigation into this case, since it did not at that time have sufficient information to indicate whether or not an investigation had been opened because the victim’s family had not filed a complaint regarding the matter out of fear of reprisals.
Case 9111 - Report Nº 60/01, Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo et. al. (Guatemala)
199. In Report Nº 60/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
a. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the facts of this complaint to determine the whereabouts and condition of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, to identify the persons responsible for their disappearance, and to punish them in accordance with the rules of due legal process.
b. Take steps to make full amends for the proven violations, including measures to locate the remains of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, the arrangements necessary to fulfill their families’ wishes regarding the final resting place of their remains, and adequate and timely compensation for the victims’ relatives.
200. In a note of April 4, 2002, the Guatemalan State told the Commission, in connection with the first recommendation, that it had sent the Public Prosecution Service (MP) a report for it to conduct the corresponding investigation. It also reported that the case had been transferred to the Disappeared Persons Search Unit, an agency of the COPREDEH. The Unit located the family of Mrs. Ileana del Rosario Solares and held two meetings with them, at which they were informed of the Government’s intent to comply with the IACHR’s recommendations. The relatives agreed to contact the families of the other victims in order to identify forms of economic redress. As regards the second recommendation, the Government of Guatemala expressed its willingness for the case to be dealt with under the National Reparations Program that is to be discussed with civil society. In that communication, the Government agreed to refer the case to the Secretariat for Peace for the appropriate follow-up.
201. In a communication of December 3, 2004, responding to the Commission’s November 4 request for information on compliance with the recommendations, the State said that the Public Prosecution Service had examined the incidents that gave rise to the investigation and accordingly had carried out investigations to locate the two alleged former officers of the National Civil Police (PNC) who are presumed to have information relating to the case. It also said that the Public Prosecution Service had tried to obtain information about the case from one of the victim’s siblings, currently residing outside the country. COPREDEH will pursue the necessary formalities with the Interior Ministry to find out whether the alleged perpetrators were PNC officers and, if they were, for the ministry to furnish the details necessary to locate them, so that information can be incorporated into the investigation.
202. The State also reported that it has no contact with the petitioners in the case – an issue of crucial importance if it is to proceed to redress the established violations in accordance with the IACHR’s recommendations.
Case 11.382- Report Nº 57/02 Finca “La Exacta”, (Guatemala)
203. In Report Nº 57/02 dated October 21, 2002, the IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
1. That it begin a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of the events that took place on August 24, 1994 to be able to detail, in an official report, the circumstances of and responsibility for the use of excessive force on that date.
2. That it take the necessary steps to subject the persons responsible for the acts of August 24, 1994 to the appropriate judicial proceedings, which should be based on a full and effective investigation of the case.
3. That it make reparations for the consequences of the violations of the rights listed, including the payment of fair compensation to the victims or their families.
4. That it take the necessary measures to ensure that violations of the type that took place in this case do not recur in future.
204. In March 2003, leaders from the Finca La Exacta, representatives of the Unidad Nacional de Sindicatos de Trabajadores de Guatemala [National Federation of Guatemalan Labor Unions] (UNSITRAGUA) and representatives from the Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos [Center for Legal Action on Human Rights] (CALDH) entered into talks with the Presidential Steering Committee for Executive Human Rights Policy (COPREDEH) to work out a way for the State to adequately comply with the recommendations made in the report issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
205. On June 9, 2003, the parties signed an “Agreement on Terms for the Guatemalan Government’s Compliance with the Recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Finca La Exacta and/or Finca San Juan del Horizonte Case,” prioritizing economic compensation of the victims. The agreement also addressed other forms of reparation and the administration of justice in criminal and labor-related matters. An economic compensation agreement was signed on October 24, 2003.
206. By note of December 12, 2003, the petitioners reported that as of then the State had not yet complied with either the first recommendation. However, because it was included within the framework of the negotiation agreement with the government, the State’s political will to comply is expected. Furthermore, the petitioners expressed that the agreement has at no moment constituted an obstacle for the State to realize, in fulfillment of the law, the necessary investigations.
207. In this same communication, the petitioners indicated that the State has not complied with second recommendation. Nonetheless, it was included within the framework of the negotiation agreement with the government, and the petitioners expect the political will of the State to fulfill it.
208. As for the third recommendation, an “Agreement on Economic Reparations in the Finca La Exacta Case, IACHR 11.382” and an “Addendum to the Agreement on Economic Reparations” were concluded on October 24, 2003, which earmark funds as follows:
1. One hundred sixty thousand quetzales (Q. 160,000.00) to be divided into equal parts and distributed to each of the families of the four persons who died in the eviction operation that the National Police carried out at the Finca La Exacta on August 24, 1994.
2. Fifty-five thousand quetzales (Q 55,000.00) to be divided into equal parts and distributed to each of the eleven persons injured in the eviction that the National Police conducted at the Finca La Exacta on August 24, 1994.
3. Seven hundred thirty-five thousand quetzales (Q 735,000.00) to the families of the workers on the Finca La Exacta, including the families of the dead and injured covered in paragraphs 1 and 2 supra, to enable all those families to purchase a piece of land to live on.”
209. According to the petitioners, the amount paid by the government differed greatly from the original claims, taking into consideration, first and foremost, their negative employment situation since they have been denied access to work on this farm and neighboring farms. Notwithstanding this, the petitioners indicated that the Government has started to take steps towards the construction of a monument that is mentioned in the agreement, and realized a meeting with the authorities of FOGUAVI, whom explained to the representatives of the union La Exacta the necessary proceedings to access the financing this company offers.
210. In the December 12, 2003, communication, the petitioners indicated that there has not been compliance with the fourth recommendation, and that as a matter of fact the National Civil Police continued and augmented the use of force and violence against civilians.
211. In communications of November 4, 2004, the IACHR contacted both the State and the petitioners in order to request up-to-date information on compliance with the recommendations set out in Report No. 57/02. In a note of November 15, 2004, the Guatemalan State informed the IACHR that in compliance with the aforesaid agreement, it had distributed the amount of nine hundred and fifty thousand quetzales (GTQ 950,000.00) as economic reparations and that these funds were deposited into a bank account in the name of the Hacienda San Juan El Horizonte Workers’ Union, and that it had handed over to each of the eleven wounded individuals the amount of five thousand quetzales (GTQ 5,000.00) and to the families of each of the four dead the amount of forty thousand quetzales (GTQ 40,000.00), giving a total of two hundred and fifteen thousand quetzales (GTQ 215,000.00). The State said that the remaining seven hundred and thirty-five thousand quetzales (GTQ 735,000.00) would be used to buy a plot of land to resolve the housing situation of the victims’ families, to be handed over when the beneficiaries finalize the land purchase operation. The State stressed that the economic compensation agreed on was the result of the mutual agreement reached by the parties in the negotiations for this case; it was accepted by the beneficiaries, each of whom, individually, handed over to the State a deed of conclusion of compliance.
212. As regards the investigation of the facts and steps toward bringing the guilty to justice, the Government noted that the First Instance Court for Criminal and Environmental Offenses of Coatepeque, Quetzaltenango department, had ordered the provisional closure of proceedings and that, as evidence for the case to be reopened, the public prosecutor had submitted statements from five individuals. Finally, the State said that in accordance with the above, the Public Prosecution Service requested that the proceedings be reopened and that the suspects be legally reassociated with the trial through investigation formalities and the corresponding arrest warrant.
213. The Commission appreciates the information furnished by the State with respect to the partial compensation payment agreed on with the petitioners and it encourages it to continue complying with the other points in the agreement it signed with the petitioners. As regards the judicial proceedings, the IACHR will be monitoring the results of the steps taken by the Public Prosecution Service in the case at hand.
[ TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | CONTINUED... ] |
