...CONTINUATION

CASES 11.286, Aluísio Cavalcante et al., 11.407, Clarival Xavier Coutrim, 11.406, Celso Bonfim de Lima, 11.416, Marcos Almeida Ferreira, 11.413, Delton Gomes da Mota, 11.417, Marcos de Assis Ruben, 11.412, Wanderlei Galati, and 11.415 Carlos Eduardo Gomes Ribeiro, Report Nº 55/01 (Brazil)

67. In Report Nº 55/01 of April 16, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Brazilian State:

1. That it carry out a serious, impartial, and effective investigation into the facts and circumstances of the deaths of Aluísio Cavalcanti, Clarival Xavier Coutrim, Delton Gomes da Mota, Marcos de Assis Ruben, and Wanderlei Galati, and of the assaults on and attempted homicides of Cláudio Aparecido de Moraes, Celso Bonfim de Lima, Marcos Almeida Ferreira, and Carlos Eduardo Gomes Ribeiro, and that it duly prosecute and punish the persons responsible.

2. That such investigation include the possible omissions, negligence, and obstructions of justice that may have resulted from the failure to convict the persons responsible in a final judgment, including the possible negligence and mistakes of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and of the members of the judiciary who may have decided to waive or reduce the corresponding sentences.

3. That the necessary measures be taken to conclude, as soon as possible and in the most absolute legality, the judicial and administrative proceedings regarding the persons involved in the above-noted violations.

4. That the Brazilian State makes reparation for the consequences of the violations of the rights of the victims and their families or those who hold the right for the harm suffered, described in this report.

5. That the necessary measures be taken to abolish the jurisdiction of the military justice system over criminal offenses committed by police against civilians, as proposed by the original bill, introduced in due course, to repeal Article 9(f) of the Military Criminal Code, and to approve, to take its place, the single paragraph proposed in that bill 27.

6. That the Brazilian State take measures to establish a system of external and internal supervision of the military police of São Paulo that is independent, impartial, and effective.

7. That the Brazilian State present the Commission, within 60 days of transmittal of this report, a report on compliance with the recommendations, for the purpose of applying the provision at Article 51.1 of the American Convention.

68. The State failed to submit any information on compliance with the aforementioned recommendations of the IACHR. The petitioners, for their part, reiterated the information on implementation that they had previously submitted, which the IACHR summarized in its 2003 Annual Report as follows:

-        Case 11.286 (Aluísio Cavalcante): The petitioners commented that only three military police stood trial on June 12, 2003, and all three were acquitted. The Public Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision, but the appeal may not be decided for another three years.

-        Case 11.406 (Celso Bonfim de Lima): The petitioners stated that the military police officer who shot the victim was convicted but not thrown off the force. Indeed, he never served any time either, because the sentence he was given was so light that the statute of limitations had already expired. The petitioners added that the ruling on the suit for damages was in the petitioners’ favor and called for payment of a monthly allowance. While the monthly allowance is being paid, the amount owed for the period from the time the events occurred to the date on which payment of the allowance began is still due and payable.

-        Case 11.407 (Clarival Xavier Coutrim): The petitioners pointed out that the defendants were acquitted by the military tribunal that presided over their case. They added that the court disallowed compensation. While that decision has been appealed, no ruling has as yet been delivered.

-        Case 11.412 (Wanderlei Galati): The petitioners reported that the military police officer who shot the victim was tried and convicted, but the sentence he was given was so light that it was barred by statute of limitations. The result was that the guilty person served no sentence at all. The petitioners also reported that the ruling on the suit seeking damages was in the petitioners’ favor and the victim’s mother was compensated.

-        Case 11.413 (Delton Gomes da Mota): The petitioners reported that the trial of the accused military police officers is pending, but no trial date has been set. The petitioners also reported that they are awaiting the outcome before suing for damages.

-        Case 11.415 (Carlos Eduardo Gomes Ribeiro): The petitioners observed that the military police officer who shot the victim did not serve any time, as the statute of limitations had expired. His only punishment was an administrative sanction from the Police. They added that the suit seeking compensation is moving forward.

-         Case 11.416 (Marcos Almeida Ferreira): The petitioners noted that the military policeman who shot the victim was convicted, but served no time because the statute of limitations had expired. Nor was he expelled from the police force. They added that the suit seeking damages was declared admissible and a monthly allowance was ordered. While the monthly payment is being received, the amount owed for the period from the date of the events to the date on which payment of the monthly compensatory allowance began has not yet been paid.

-         Case 11.417 (Marcos de Assis Ruben): The petitioners reported that the ruling was that the case against the accused was inadmissible. No decision on the appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor’s Office has as yet been delivered.

69. The Commission, therefore, concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.

CASE 11.517, Report Nº 23/02, Diniz Bento Da Silva (Brazil)

70. In Report Nº 23/02 dated February 28, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Brazilian state:

1. Conduct a serious, effective, and impartial investigation through the ordinary justice system to determine and punish those responsible for the death of Diniz Bento da Silva, punish those responsible for the irregularities in the investigation by the military police, as well as those responsible for the unjustifiable delay in conducting the civil investigation, in accordance with Brazilian law.

2. Take the necessary steps to ensure that the victim’s family receives adequate compensation for the violations established herein.

3. Take steps to prevent a repetition of such events and, in particular, to prevent confrontations with rural workers over land disputes, and to negotiate the peaceful settlement of these disputes.

71. The State failed to submit any information on compliance with the aforementioned recommendations of the IACHR. The petitioners, for their part, said, with respect to recommendation 1 (supra), that more than 11 years after the demise of Diniz Bento da Silva, the police investigation is still under evaluation by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and that no progress has been made. The petitioners say that under the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure the maximum time limit for the conclusion of a police investigation is 30 days. As regards recommendation 2 (supra), the petitioners mentioned that the family of the victim has received no reparations despite the fact that a final decision was issued ordering the State of Paraná to pay. With respect to recommendation 3 (supra), the petitioners said that the problem of violence in rural parts of Brazil is becoming increasingly serious. They mentioned that the from January to August 2005 the Comisao Pastoral da Terra (CPT) recorded 794 conflicts in rural areas, which involved approximately 615,260 people, and produced the alarming figures of 28 fatalities and 114 death threats. They added that training of private militias in rural zones has been on the increase, and impunity continues to be a contributing factor to violence in rural parts.

72. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, the Commission concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.

CASE 10.301, Report Nº 40/03, Parque São Lucas (Brazil)

73. In Report Nº 40/03 of 8 October 2003, the IACHR recommended the following to the Brazilian Government:

1. that it adopt the legislative measures needed to transfer to the regular criminal courts the trial of common crimes committed by military police officers in the performance of their public order functions.

2. that use of the cells designed for solitary confinement (celas fortes) be discontinued.

3. that it punish, in keeping with the gravity of the crimes committed, the civilian and military police officers involved in the facts that gave rise to the instant case.

4. in those cases in which it has not done so, that it pay fair and adequate compensation to the victims’ next-of-kin for the harm caused as a result of the breaches of the above-mentioned provisions.

74. In the same report, the Commission examined the degree of compliance of such recommendations, as follows:

92. In this respect, the Commission considers that the recommendation that Brazil “adopt the legislative measures needed to transfer to the regular criminal courts the trial of common crimes committed by military police in the performance of their public order functions” has met with partial compliance. In effect, the IACHR reiterates that although Law No. 9,299/96 represents major progress in this respect, it is insufficient, as it merely transfers to the regular courts crimes against life committed by military police in the performance of their functions, and keeps jurisdiction over all other crimes committed by members of the Military Police under the Military Police.

93. With respect to the recommendation that “use of the cells designed for solitary confinement (celas fortes) be discontinued,” the Commission reiterates that this recommendation has not yet met with compliance.

94. As regards the recommendation that the state “punish, in keeping with the gravity of the crimes committed, the civilian and military police officers involved in the facts that gave rise to the instant case,” the Commission observes that according to the information provided by Brazil on March 10, 2003, a criminal proceeding was begun in 1989 against 32 people in relation to the facts of the present case: José Ribeiro (jailer); Celso José da Cruz (police investigator); Carlos Eduardo de Vasconcelos (police officer); and 29 military police officers.

95. From that information, it also appears that José Ribeiro was convicted through a final and firm judgment, and sentenced to a prison term of 45 years and six months, and that he is serving the sentence in a São Paulo prison. Celso José da Cruz and Carlos Eduardo de Vasconcelos were acquitted, and the respective decisions were appealed, and are now awaiting a decision by the Court of Justice (Tribunal de Justiça) of São Paulo. Both are free. Finally, and with respect to the 29 military police officers who were also accused of participating in the facts, it was decided not to try them, in a decision that was appealed by the Public Ministry, yet to date there has been no decision on that appeal. Accordingly, this recommendation has not met with full compliance.

96. As regards the recommendation that the Brazilian state, “in those cases in which it has not done so ... pay fair and adequate compensation to the victims’ next-of-kin,” the Commission observes that the government of the state of São Paulo published Decree 42,788 on January 8, 1998, authorizing the payment of compensation to the next-of-kin of the victims who died, for moral injury, and for an amount equivalent to 300 minimum salaries per dependent. In this respect, a working group was created within the Office of the Attorney General for the state, to identify the beneficiaries and the amount of compensation. The IACHR was informed that at the end of the work of that working group, the result was that compensation was paid to the next-of-kin of another seven victims, it was determined that there were no beneficiaries with respect to two victims; and, finally, that the next-of-kin of two of the victims had pursued judicial actions against the state for material and moral injury, and the state was awaiting the results of those proceedings before paying compensation.

75. The petitioners said with respect to recommendation 1 (supra), that the Government has proposed no further bills since the adoption of Law 9.299/96, and that such bills as do exist on this issue have made no headway in Congress. They added that pursuant to the aforementioned law, bodily harm, manslaughter, illegal imprisonment, torture, extortion, and other crimes committed by the military police remain under the jurisdiction of the Military Tribunals.

76. As regards recommendation 2 (supra), the petitioners requested the Commission to ask the Brazilian State to provide evidence that solitary confinement cells (“celas fortes”) have indeed been abolished. Furthermore, the petitioners mentioned that prison conditions for detainees at police districts in São Paulo have not changed since 1989, when the deaths at Police Precinct 42 occurred. They mentioned in this connection that there is still overcrowding, torture, appalling living and health conditions, and no medical attention.

77. With respect to recommendation 3 (supra), the petitioners mentioned certain progress in the criminal proceeding against Celso José da Cruz, who is at liberty. Finally, with regard to recommendation 4 (supra), they said that they do not have access to the final findings of the working group set up by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Furthermore, they requested the IACHR to recommend to the Brazilian State that it present information and documentary evidence on the final findings of the efforts to determine the identity of the beneficiaries and the amount in compensation.

78. The State, for its part, with respect to recommendation 1 (supra), said that it has been taking steps to transfer authority to try all crimes perpetrated by the military police against civilians to the general jurisdiction. The State said that the provision contained in the aforesaid Federal Law 9.299/96 was recently accorded constitutional rank. It added that as a next step it is organizing a training seminar on the workings of the military courts in Brazil. The seminar is to be held in the first half of 2006, in order to raise awareness about the issue among actors with a role to play in the international obligations of the State.

79. As regards recommendation 2 (supra), the State mentioned that, according to the government of the State of Sao Paulo, the project to deactivate solitary confinement cells (“celas fortes”) at police stations in the city of Sao Paulo is close to completion.

80. As to recommendation 3 (supra), the State reported that a disciplinary administrative proceeding was instituted, which resulted in the dismissal of two persons and the acquittal of three others. With respect to recommendation 4 (supra), the State submitted documents containing the findings of the working group created by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to determine the identity of the beneficiaries and the amount in compensation.

81. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.

CASE 11.289, Report Nº 95/03, José Pereira (Brazil)

82. On October 24, 2003, the IACHR published Report Nº 95/03, detailing the points contained in the friendly settlement agreement signed by both parties on September 18, 2003. This agreement set the following commitments for the State:

I. Recognition of Responsibility

1. The Brazilian State recognizes its international responsibility in relation to case 11.289, even though the perpetration of the violations is not attributed to state agents, since the state organs were not capable of preventing the occurrence of the grave practice of slave labor, nor of punishing the individual actors involved in the violations alleged.

2. The public recognition of the responsibility of the Brazilian State in relation to the violation of human rights will take place with the solemn act of creating the National Commission for the Eradication of Slave Labor – CONATRAE (created by Presidential Decree of July 31, 2003), which will take place on September 18, 2003.

3. The parties assume the commitment to keep under reserve the identity of the victim at the moment of the solemn act recognizing State responsibility and in public declarations about the case.

II. Trial and punishment of the individuals responsible

4. The Brazilian State assumes the commitment to continue with the efforts to carry out the judicial arrest warrants against the persons accused of the crimes committed against José Pereira. To this end, the Friendly Settlement Agreement will be forwarded to the Director-General of the Department of the Federal Police.

III. Pecuniary reparation

5. In order to compensate José Pereira for the material and moral damages suffered, the Brazilian State forwarded draft legislation to the National Congress. Law No. 10,706 of July 30, 2003 (copy attached), which was adopted urgently, and which provided for the payment of R$ 52,000 (fifty-two thousands reals) to the victim. The amount was paid to José Pereira by a bank order (No. 030B000027) of August 25, 2003.

6. The payment of the compensation described in the previous paragraph releases the Brazilian State of any further duty of reparation for José Pereira.

IV. Preventive measures

IV.1 Legislative changes

7. In order to improve the National Legislation aimed at prohibiting the practice of slave labor in Brazil, the Brazilian State undertakes to implement the actions and proposals for legislative changes contained in the National Plan for the Eradication of Slave Labor, drawn up by the Special Commission of the Council for the Defense of Human Rights, and initiated by the Government of Brazil on March 11, 2003.

8. The Brazilian State undertakes to make every effort to secure the legislative approval (i) of Proposed Law No. 2130-A, of 1996, which includes among the violations of the economic order the use of “unlawful means of reducing production costs such as the non-payment of labor and social taxes, exploitation of child, slave, or semi-slave labor”; and (ii) the version presented by the Deputy Zulaiê Cobra to take the place of the proposed law No. 5,693 of Deputy Nelson Pellegrino, which amends Article 149 of the Brazilian Criminal Code.

9. Finally, the Brazilian State undertook to defend the establishment of federal jurisdiction over the crime of reduction to conditions analogous to slavery, for the purpose of preventing impunity.

IV.2 Measures to Monitor and Repress Slave Labor

10. Considering that the legislative proposals will demand considerable time to be implemented insofar as they depend on the action of the National Congress, and that the gravity of the problem of the practice of slave labor requires that immediate measures be taken, the State undertakes from this moment to: (i) strengthen the Public Ministry of Labor; (ii) ensure immediate compliance with the existing legislation, by collecting administrative and judicial fines, investigating and pressing charges against the perpetrators of the practice of slave labor; (iii) strengthen the Mobile Group of the MTE; (iv) take steps along with the Judiciary and its representative entities to guarantee that the perpetrators of the crimes of slave labor are punished.

11. The Government undertakes to revoke, by the end of the year, by means of the appropriate administrative acts, the Cooperation Agreement signed between the owners of estates and authorities of the Ministry of Labor and Public Ministry of Labor, signed in February 2001, and which was denounced in this proceeding on February 28, 2001.

12. The Brazilian State undertakes to strengthen gradually the Division of Repression of Slave Labor and Security of Dignitaries (STESD), established under the Department of the Federal Police by means of Administrative ruling (Portaria)-MJ No. 1,016, of September 4, 2002, so as to give the Division adequate funds and human resources for the proper performance of the functions of the Federal Police in the actions to investigate reports of slave labor.

13. The Brazilian State undertakes to take initiatives vis-a-vis the Federal Public Ministry to highlight the importance of Federal Prosecutors according priority to participating in and accompanying the actions to perform inspections for slave labor.

IV.3. Measures to raise awareness of and opposition to slave labor

14. The Brazilian State will undertake a national campaign to raise awareness of and oppose slave labor, in October 2003, with a particular focus on the state of Pará. On this occasion, through the presence of the petitioners, publicity will be given to the terms of this Friendly Settlement Agreement. The campaign will be based on a communication plan that will include the preparation of informational materials geared to workers, inserting the issue in the media through the written press, and through radio and TV spots. In addition, various authorities are to make visits to the targeted areas.

15. The Brazilian State undertakes to evaluate the possibility of holding seminars on the eradication of slave labor in the state of Pará no later than the first half of 2004, with the presence of the Federal Public Ministry, ensuring that the petitioners are invited to participate.

83. The petitioners stated that the commitments in points I and III (supra) had been fully met. With respect to point II (supra), they stated that the accused remain fugitives, and that the State has made no effort to enforce the prison sentences imposed on them.

84. As regards point IV.1 (supra), the petitioners referred to each goal of the legislative reform contained in the national plan for eradication of slave labor. In this connection, they said that as of December 2005, among other bills, bill 2.667/2003 presented by Deputy Paulo Marinho was being examined by a committee in the House of Deputies. They added that no prompt measures were adopted to amend Law 5.889/73, which was a specific undertaking given in the framework of the friendly settlement agreement. They also mentioned the existence of other bills on these matters that were being studied in the House of Deputies.

85. The petitioners mentioned the delay in processing by the House of Deputies of, for example, constitutional amendment bill 438/01 and bill 2.022/1996. They added that, despite the fact that the budget to combat slave labor increased in 2004 and 2005, it was reduced in the 2006 budget. They also mentioned that new positions for labor prosecutors are being created and that two bills were adopted on the creation of labor tribunals. The petitioners added that the Brazilian State has failed to show diligence in defending the jurisdiction of the federal courts to try crimes of reduction to slavery-like conditions.

86. With respect to point IV.2 (supra), the petitioners mentioned that a troubling downward trend could be seen in attention given to complaints filed by civil society organizations, in particular the Comisao Pastoral da Terra (CPT). They added, for example that 135 land owners were discovered with slaves between January and November 2005, in spite of which only two of them were indicted in criminal proceedings. They also said that they had received no information regarding the revocation of the Cooperation Agreement signed between the owners of estates and authorities of the Ministry of Labor and Public Ministry of Labor. The petitioners added that insufficient human and budgetary resources were made available to ensure the proper participation of the Division of Repression of Slave Labor and Security of Dignitaries (STESD) of the Federal Police in measures to investigate reports of slave labor.

87. Finally, with respect to point IV.3 (supra), the petitioners reported that training workshops and seminars were held in Pará as part of the National Awareness Raising Campaign against Slave Labor.

88. In light of these comments, the IACHR concludes that the actions set out in the friendly settlement agreement have been partially complied with and, in accordance with the provisions of Report Nº 95/03, it will continue to monitor and supervise the terms of the friendly settlement.

CASE 11.556, Report Nº 32/04, Corumbiara (Brazil)

89. In Report 32/04 of March 11, 2004, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Brazilian State:

1. Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation into the events, by nonmilitary organs, to determine responsibility for the deaths, personal injuries, and other acts that occurred at Santa Elina ranch on August 9, 1995, and to punish all the material and intellectual authors, whether civilian or military.

2. Make adequate reparations to the victims specified in this report or to their next of kin, as appropriate, for the human rights violations determined in this report.

3. Adopt the necessary measures to prevent similar events from occurring in the future.

4. Amend Article 9 of the Military Criminal Code, Article 82 of the Code of Military Criminal Procedure, and any other domestic legal provisions that need to be amended in order to abolish the competence of the military police to investigate human rights violations committed by the military, and to transfer that competence to the civilian police.

90. The State failed to submit any information on compliance with the aforementioned recommendations of the IACHR. With respect to recommendation 1 (supra), the petitioners observed that there has been no progress in the judicial proceedings and that said recommendation was not complied with in full. In relation to recommendation 2 (supra), they said that, to date, the State has failed to contact any of the victims or their next-of-kin in order to provide compensation.

91. With respect to recommendation 3 (supra) the petitioners mentioned that while there are no recent records of new conflicts with the military police in the region where the events in the instant case occurred, the problem of violence in rural areas of Brazil is becoming ever more serious. They said that from January to August 2005, the Comisao Pastoral da Terra (CPT) recorded 794 conflicts in rural areas, which involved approximately 615,260 people, and produced the alarming figures of 28 fatalities and 114 death threats. They added that impunity continues to be a contributing factor to violence in rural parts.

92. As regards recommendation 4 (supra), the petitioners said that the Government has proposed no further bills since the adoption of Law 9.299/96, and that such bills as do exist on this issue have made no headway in Congress. They added that pursuant to the aforementioned law, bodily harm, manslaughter, illegal imprisonment, torture, extortion, and other crimes committed by the military police remain under the jurisdiction of the Military Tribunals.

93. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, the Commission concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.

CASE 11.634, Report Nº 33/04, Jailton Neri Da Fonseca (Brazil)

94. In Report 33/04 of March 11, 2004, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Brazilian State:

1. That it make full reparations, in consideration of both moral and material damages, to the next of kin of Jailton Neri da Fonseca, for the human rights violations determined in this report, and, more specifically, that it do the following:

2. Ensure a full, impartial, and effective investigation into the crime conducted by nonmilitary organs, with a view to establishing responsibility for the acts related to the detention and murder of Jailton Neri da Fonseca and punishing the responsible parties.

3. Pay the next of kin of Jailton Neri da Fonseca compensation computed in accordance with international standards, in an amount sufficient to make up for both the material damages and the moral damages suffered on the occasion of his murder. Such compensation, to be paid by the Brazilian State, should be computed in accordance with international standards, and should be in an amount sufficient to make up for both the material damages and the moral damages suffered by the next of kin of Jailton Neri da Fonseca on the occasion of his murder and other violations of his human rights referred to in this report.

4. Amend Article 9 of the Military Criminal Code and Article 82 of the Code of Military Criminal Procedure, in addition to any other domestic legal provisions that need to be amended to abolish the competence of the military police to investigate human rights violations committed by members of the military police, and transfer that competence to the civilian police.

5. Adopt and implement measures to educate officers of the justice system and members of the police to prevent acts involving racial discrimination in police operations, and in criminal investigations, proceedings, or sentencing.

6. Adopt and implement immediate measures to ensure observance of the rights established in the American Convention, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the other national and international standards on the matter, in order to ensure that the right to special protection of children is enforced in Brazil.

95. The State failed to submit any information on compliance with the aforementioned recommendations of the IACHR. With respect to recommendation 1 (supra), the petitioners observed that there has been no progress in the judicial proceedings and that said recommendation was not complied with. In relation to recommendation 2 (supra), they said that Mrs. María Santos Silva, the victim’s mother and only known surviving relative, has not received any kind of compensation.

96. With respect to recommendation 3 (supra) the petitioners said that that the Government has proposed no further bills since the adoption of Law 9.299/96, and that such bills as do exist on this issue have made no headway in Congress. They added that pursuant to the aforementioned law, bodily harm, manslaughter, illegal imprisonment, torture, extortion, and other crimes committed by the military police remain under the jurisdiction of the Military Tribunals.

97. As regards recommendations 4 and 5 (supra), the petitioners said that the proportion of deaths caused by the police in Brazil is extremely high and in some states constitutes a bigger problem than violence generated by organized crime. They added that more than 10% of murders in Rio de Janeiro are caused by the military and civilian police. They mentioned that a study carried out in the city of Rio de Janeiro showed that 64% of fatal victims of police violence are afrodescendants when only 34% of the city’s population is black. They added that the majority of victims are young black males aged 15 to 29, and that most showed signs of summary execution.

98. The petitioners mentioned that if there are indeed any government policies designed to reduce racial discrimination in police operations and ensure the rights of the child, then they have been totally ineffective.

99. Based on the information provided by the petitioners, the Commission concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.

CASE 11.771, Report Nº 61/01, Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo (Chile)

100. 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.

101. 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.

102. 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.

103. 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.

104. 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.

105. 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.

106. 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.

107. 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.

108. 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)

109. 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.

110. 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.

111. The Commission requested to the parties to submit information on the status of compliance with its recommendations. The Commission received information from the petitioners informing that the State had fully complied with all its commitments. The State has informed that it had complied faithfully.

112. 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)

113. 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.

114. 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.

115. 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).

116. 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.

117. The Commission requested the parties to submit information on the status of compliance with its recommendations. Both parties informed that all the commitments are complied with.

118. 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.

PETITION 4617/02, Report N° 30/04, Mercedes Julia Huenteao Beroiza et al. (Chile)

119. On March 11, 2004, the Commission adopted a friendly settlement report in the present petition. The State committed to adopt the following measures:

1. Measures to improve the legal institutions protecting the rights of indigenous peoples and their communities.

a) Constitutional recognition of the indigenous peoples that exist in Chile, who preserve unique ethnic and cultural expressions that enrich the national identity, in order to raise to constitutional rank principles to which Chile adheres at the national and international level.

b) Ratification by Chile of ILO Convention 169.

2. Measures designed to strengthen the territorial and cultural identity of the Mapuche Pehuenche people, as well as mechanisms for participation in their own development.

a) Creation of a municipality in the Upper Bío Bío sector

b) Agree on mechanisms to solve the land problems that affect the indigenous communities in the Upper Bío Bío sector.

c) Strengthen indigenous participation in the Upper Bío Bío Indigenous Development Area (ADI).

d) Agree on mechanisms designed to ensure the participation of indigenous communities in the management of the Ralco Forest Reserve.

3. Measures to foster development and environmental conservation in the Upper Bío Bío sector.

a) Agree on mechanisms to ensure that indigenous communities are informed, heard, and taken into consideration in follow-up and monitoring of the environmental obligations of the Ralco Hydroelectric Project.

b) Strengthen economic development in the Upper Bío Bío sector, in particular in its indigenous communities, through mechanisms that are acceptable to the petitioners.

c) Agree on mechanisms to facilitate and improve tourism development of the reservoirs in the Upper Bío Bío for the benefit of the indigenous communities.

d) Agree on binding mechanisms for all state organs to prevent the construction of future megaprojects, in particular hydroelectric projects, on indigenous lands in the Upper Bío Bío.

4. Agree, as soon as possible, on urgent measures with respect to the lawsuits against indigenous leaders who have been prosecuted for acts connected with the construction of the Ralco Plant.

5. Measures to satisfy the private demands of the Mapuche Pehuenche families concerned.

120. The State informed the Commission the different measures adopted to identify productive lands to be given to the families as well as the studies carried out to establish a Development plan for those lands. The State informed as well the technical assistance that is providing to the pehuenches families and the housing program to support them. The State signaled that despite several communications, the families did not attend some meeting making more difficult to implement the aforementioned programs.

121. Petitioners informed that several of the recommendations are still pending of full compliance.

122. The Commission considers that the present agreement has been partially complied with. The IACHR encourages both parties to continue with a constructive dialogue in order to adopt all the necessary measures to comply with all the recommendations.

CASE 11.654, Report Nº 62/01, Ríofrío Massacre (Colombia)

123. On April 6, 2001 the IACHR issued Report Nº 62/01 on Case 11.654 concerning the Riofrío massacre. At that time, the Commission made three recommendations. Its first recommendation was to “conduct an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the massacre.” In that connection, on December 5, 2005, the State, by means of Note DDH/GO 67025 from the Department of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said that the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in a judgment issued on March 6, 2003, ruled that all the proceedings in the military system of criminal justice were void and ordered that the case be referred to the Director of National Prosecutions. Furthermore, the State informed the Commission that the investigation being conducted by the Unit for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of Cali into the murder of Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo and others, had made progress and identified one of the alleged one of the material perpetrators of the of the massacre.

124. Secondly, the IACHR recommended that the State “take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.” According to information provided by the State the Commission surmises that the compensation provided for under Law 288/96 has been paid and, therefore, that the recommendation has been complied with.

125. The third recommendation was to “take the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and to 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 by the IACHR in its general reports and in the course of performing its various functions under the Convention and its Statutes.

CASE 11.710, Report Nº 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro (Colombia)

126. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR issued Report Nº 63/01 on Case 11.710 concerning the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro, and made three recommendations. Its first recommendation was to “carry 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 7, 2005, the State, by means of Note DDH/GO 67023 from the Department of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, informed that lawyer for the civilian party had filed a cassation appeal with the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against the judgment of the Military Criminal Tribunal of March 22, 2002, which acquitted the agents of the State involved in the acts in the case. The State added that the case has been pending a decision from the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice since September 16, 2005.

127. The IACHR’s second recommendation was to “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 reported that the Committee of Ministers had decided on May 3, 2002 in favor of offering the corresponding compensation to the families of the victims under Law 288/96. The State also informed that said decision was attached to the administrative contentious proceeding at the Administrative Tribunal of Antioquia. In a judgment of November 26, 2004, said Tribunal found the National Army administratively liable for the acts in the instant case. According to the information provided that judgment is under appeal and there is nothing in that information to suggest that the appropriate compensation has been paid.

128. The third recommendation was to “take the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and to guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, and to adopt 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 by the IACHR in its general reports and in the course of performing its various functions under the Convention and its Statutes.

CASE 11.712, Report Nº 64/01, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry (Colombia)

129. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR issued Report Nº 64/01 on Case 11.712 concerning the extrajudicial execution of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and another person and made three recommendations. Its first recommendation was to “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 4, 2005, the State, by means of Note DDH/GO 67020 from the Department of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, informed the Commission that the Second Divisional Court of the National Army decided to acquit Major Mayor Hernán Bonilla Carrera Sanabria and retired army volunteers Manuel Bonilla Collazos and José Armando Cruz González of the charges of murder and attempted murder. The Superior Military Tribunal subsequently issued a ruling on the appeal filed by the Judicial Prosecutor and the Military Prosecutor ratifying the acquittal ruling in full. The Commission notes that the case was not transferred to the ordinary criminal jurisdiction given that the proceeding concluded with the acquittal of the members of the National Army in the military criminal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the IACHR must conclude that the State has not complied with this recommendation. However, the Commission notes that the Vice Attorney General has reportedly been requested to seek a review of the decision to acquit. Nonetheless, it was not made clear if the Office of the Attorney General had instituted the appropriate proceedings.

130. The second recommendation was to adopt the measures necessary for redress for the consequences of violations committed to the detriment of María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, as well as providing due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry. Based on the information provided by the State, the IACHR notes that in a judgment of October 29, 2004, the Overflow Court for the Administrative Tribunals of North Santander and Cesar found the Colombian Nation administratively liable for the death of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and for the injuries sustained by María Fredesvinda Echeverri de Isaza and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and awarded reparation for emotional and material damages in favor of the victims and their next of kin. Based on the information provided, complementing said judgment was complemented on January 31, 2005, with the inclusion of two convictions secured by the Nation. However, the plaintiff has reportedly filed an appeal, which is pending a decision. Furthermore, the State reiterated that the Committee of Ministers had decided on May 3, 2002 in favor of offering the corresponding compensation to the victims and their relatives. For their part, the petitioners mentioned that the victims and their next of kin had yet to receive any reparation and compensation.

131. The third recommendation was to adopt the measures necessary to avoid similar events from occurring in the future, in compliance with the obligation to prevent and to guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the necessary measures for full compliance with the doctrine developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by this 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 by the IACHR in its general reports and in the course of performing its various functions under the Convention and its Statutes.

CASE 11.421, Report Nº 93/00, Edison Patricio Quishpe Alcívar (Ecuador)

132. In Report Nº 93/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

133. 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 10 years have elapsed since criminal proceedings begun to prosecute those directly responsible for the violations that were alleged to the IACHR without a final decision.

CASE 11.439, Report Nº 94/00, Byron Roberto Cañaveral (Ecuador)

134. In Report Nº 94/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

135. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State had no begun any civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to punish those directly responsible for the violations that were alleged to the IACHR.

CASE 11.445, Report Nº 95/00, Angelo Javier Ruales Paredes (Ecuador)

136. In Report Nº 95/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

137. 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)

138. In Report Nº 96/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

139. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph.

140. 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)

141. In Report Nº 97/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

142. 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)

143. In Report Nº 98/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

144. 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)

145. 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 0sympathizers, 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.

146. 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)

147. In Report Nº 100/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

148. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State had on conducted any proceedings to investigate, identify and punish the police, prosecutors, and judges who participated directly or indirectly in the violations alleged to the Commission. The petitioners argue that the State can not allege in the future the application of the statute of limitations in order to avoid the sanction of those responsible.

CASE 11.478, Report Nº 19/01, Juan Clímaco Cuellar et al. (Ecuador)

149. In Report Nº 19/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

150. The State informed to the Commission that the criminal process has been conducted in conformity with Ecuadorian law. The State maintains that the fact that the case was provisionally closed does not mean that there is a violation of the duty to prosecute and punish those responsible. The duty to investigate is a obligation of means and not result. The petitioners for its part consider that the case remains in impunity and that there is no real will to identify and punish those responsible for the violations alleged before the Commission. To the extent that the case remains in impunity the Commission considers that there is only partial compliance with the agreement.

CASE 11.512, Report Nº 20/01, Lida Angela Riera Rodriguez (Ecuador)

151. In Report Nº 20/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

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 State had not punished those directly and indirectly responsible for the violations alleged.

CASE 11.605, Report Nº 21/01, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño (Ecuador)

153. In Report Nº 21/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

154. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State has not imposed any criminal or administrative sanctions against the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR.

CASE 11.779, Report Nº 22/01, José Patricio Reascos (Ecuador)

155. In Report Nº 22/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

156. 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 four 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 11.992, Report Nº 66/01, Dayra Maria Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador)

157. In Report Nº 66/01 of June 14, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

158. 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. Petitioners informed as well that there is a criminal investigation still pending against the victim.

CASE 11.441, Report Nº 104/01, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al. (Ecuador)

159. In Report Nº 104/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

160. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State had no begun any investigations to identify and convict the police officers responsible for the violations alleged to the IACHR.

CASE 11.443, Report Nº 105/01, Washington Ayora Rodriguez (Ecuador)

161. In Report Nº 105/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian 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.

162. 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 there are no convictions against the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR.

CASE 11.450, Report Nº 106/01, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa (Ecuador)

163. In Report Nº 106/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian State:

1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.