|
...CONTINUATION
j. Honduras
Alfredo López Álvarez Case
527. The Commission filed an application in the case of Alfredo López Álvarez v. Honduras (Case 12,387) on July 7, 2003. The application concerns the Honduran State’s violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 25 and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to its obligations under Articles 2 and 1.1 thereof, by having arbitrarily deprived Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, a Honduran citizen of Garifuno descent, of his personal liberty starting on April 27, 1997. The victim was framed because of his activities as a community leader and to prevent him from acting as a leader of the Garifuno community. The case is now in its intermediate phase. The Commission took no action on this case in 2004.
528. On June 28 and 29, 2005, the Court held a public hearing where the Commission presented its witnesses and expert, and made its final arguments on the merits and eventual reparations and costs.
529. The judgment in this case is still pending.
Cuatro Puntos Cardinales Case (Servellón García et al.)
530. On February 2, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,331, Marco Antonio Servellón García et al. ("Cuatro Puntos Cardinales"). The case was brought against the Honduran State for the illegal detention, torture and subsequent extrajudicial execution of Marco Antonio Servellón García (16), Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez (17), Diomedes Obed García (19) and Orlando Álvarez Ríos (32) by Honduran State agents, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, between September 15 and 17, 1995.
531. In its brief answering the application, the Honduran State neither contested the facts recounted in paragraphs 27 to 106 of the Commission’s application nor challenged the arguments that the victims’ next of kin and their representatives made in connection with those facts. The State thus conceded to those parts of the application that concerned these facts.
532. Neither did the State challenge certain facts depicting a climate of systematic violation of human rights with the State’s tolerance and acquiescence.
533. On August 16, 2005, the Commission filed its written pleadings on the nolo contendere entered by the State. In those pleadings, it wrote that the Honduran State’s acknowledgement of the facts and its acceptance of international responsibility in the present case was a positive contribution toward advancing this process. It therefore asked the Court to accept the State’s plea of nolo contendere with respect to those issues where it served to end the dispute as to the facts and the law in this case.
534. The Commission also noted, however, that the State had not outright conceded the claims made by the Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin. The Commission therefore expressed the view that the Court should decide some of the points still contested, and asked the Court to continue proceedings on the case and to adjudicate it in accordance with the law.
535. The Court’s judgment in this case is still pending.
Juan Humberto Sánchez Case
536. In 2005, the Commission filed its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On September 12, 2005, the Court issued an order on the matter of compliance.
537. In its latest order the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to
k. Nicaragua
Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case
538. The Judgment ordering reparations in this case was handed down on August 31, 2001. During 2005, the Commission noted to the Court that the State had not complied with the duties set forth in that Judgment and asked the Court to issue an order on compliance.
Yatama Case
539. The application in Case 12,388, Yatama v. Nicaragua, was filed with the Court on June 16, 2003, for the Nicaraguan State’s violations of Articles 23, 8, 25, 2 and 1.1 of the American Convention, with respect to the candidates that Yapti Tasba Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (YATAMA), an indigenous regional political party, put forward for the offices of mayor, deputy mayor and municipal councillors in the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region and the South Atlantic Autonomous Region. The application asserts that the State failed to provide a remedy that would have enabled them to protect their right to run and be elected in the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, and failed to adopt the legislative or other measures necessary to give effect to the rights enshrined in the American Convention – in particular, it failed to include provisions in the electoral law to facilitate political participation by indigenous organizations in elections in Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast Autonomous Region, in accordance with the customary law, values, uses, and customs of the indigenous peoples who inhabit that area.
540. On June 23, 2005, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits of the case. The Court began by dismissing the preliminary objections that the Nicaraguan State had entered and then declared that the following rights of the candidates nominated by Yatama to run in the 2000 municipal elections had been violated: the right to a hearing with due guarantees, the right to judicial protection, the right to participate in government, and the right to equal protection of the law, recognized, respectively in Articles 8.1, 25, 23 and 24 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.
541. In that same judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
l. Panama
Baena Ricardo et al. Case
442. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.
543. On November 28, 2005, the Court issued an order on the matter of compliance. In that order the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to:
m. Paraguay
“Panchito López” Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre Case
544. The Court delivered the Judgment on Reparations in this case on September 2, 2004. On December 19, 2005, the Commission commented to the Court that while in general the Paraguayan State had taken some administrative steps to comply with the operative points of the Judgment, only one of those points (concerning publication of the Judgment) had been fully complied with. From the State’s report on compliance with this Judgment the Commission concluded that the State had not take the necessary or suitable measures to comply with the bulk of the obligations emanating therefrom. The Commission found the non-compliance disturbing now that more than one year had passed since notification of the judgment, particularly given the gravity of the case and the number of operative paragraphs that were to have been carried out within a period of 15 days, six months or one year from the date the State was notified of the Judgment.
545. The Commission then asked the Court to demand that the State immediately comply with its obligations. The order from the Court on this matter is still pending.
Goiburú et al. Case
546. On 8 June 2005 the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court in cases 11,560, 11,665 and, 11.667 -Agustín Goiburú, Carlos José Mancuello, Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba. These cases were against the Paraguayan State, for the illegal and arbitrary detention and forced disappearance of Agustín Goiburú, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, and the brothers Rodolfo Feliciano and Benjamín de Jesús Ramírez Villalba in Paraguay, as of 1974 and 1977, and the partial impunity that persists in connection with these violations, since not all those responsible for them have been punished.
547. The summons to a public hearing is still pending.
Ricardo Canese Case
548. The Court delivered the Judgment on reparations in this case on August 31, 2004. On November 16, 2005, as a result of a report filed by the State, the Commission informed the Court that it was disturbed by the failure to comply with the Judgment in this case, as more than one year had passed since the State was notified of the judgment and the deadlines set for compliance had passed. The Commission also noted that from the State’s report, it was apparent that effective measures had not been taken to comply with all the obligations emanating from the Judgment.
549. The Court’s order on compliance is pending.
Sawhoyamaxa Case
550. On February 3, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,419, “The Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community of the Enxet-Lengua People and Its Members” v. Paraguay, for the latter’s failure to guarantee the Indigenous Community’s right to its ancestral property. In 1991, the Community set in motion procedures to recover a portion of its ancestral territory, yet to this day its territorial claim has not been satisfactorily resolved. The foregoing has meant that the Community has been denied ownership and possession of its territory; instead, given the Community’s way of life, the State’s inaction has kept the Community in a very perilous predicament, without enough food, medical care and sanitation, which has posed a constant threat to the very survival of the Community’s members and to the integrity of the Community itself.
551. The Court decided not to call a public hearing in this case. The Court’s judgment is pending.
Vargas Areco Case
552. On March 27, 2005 the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,300, Gerardo Vargas Areco. The case was brought against the Paraguayan State for its responsibility in the actions and omissions committed in the investigation into the murder of Gerardo Vargas Areco, age 16, on December 30, 1989, while he was performing his Compulsory Military Service in the Paraguayan Army. The case was also filed because of the State’s failure to adequately compensate his next of kin.
553. In its answer to the application, the Paraguayan State advised the Court that it was admitting to the points made in the application; in a brief of clarification, dated November 15, 2005, the State wrote that the written brief of pleadings, arguments and evidence did not square with the application filed by the Inter-American Commission.
554. On November 23, 2005, the Commission observed that under the American Convention’s provision regarding acceptance of the facts, the Paraguayan State’s acknowledgment of the facts amounted to an acknowledgment of international responsibility for violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Gerardo Vargas Areco’s next of kin, and is grounds for a ruling on the obligation to make full reparations and the types of reparation that are in order.
555. The Court’s judgment on this case is pending.
Yakye Axa Case
556. The application in the case of the Yakye Axa v. Paraguay was filed with the Inter-American Court on March 17, 2003. The facts recounted in the application concern the ancestral property rights of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community of the Enxet-Lengua people and its members. The State’s inaction has kept the Community in a very perilous predicament, without enough food, medical care and sanitation, which has posed a constant threat to the very survival of the Community’s members and to the integrity of the Community itself. The IACHR referred the case to the Court to establish the State’s violations of Articles 21, 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the indigenous community and its members.
557. On June 17, 2005, the Court delivered its Judgment on the case. There it found that the Paraguayan State had, through the facts in this case and to the detriment of the Yakye Axa Community, violated the right to a fair trial with due guarantees, the right to judicial protection, the right to property, and the right to life, recognized, respectively, in Articles 8.1, 25, 21 and 4 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.
558. At the same time, however, the Court held that it did not have sufficient evidence to find that the violation of the right to life of 16 members of the Community had been established.
559. In its judgment, the Court ordered the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the Judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
n. Peru
5 Pensioners Case
560. During 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic observations regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On September 12, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject of compliance.
561. In this most recent Court order, it found that the State had not yet complied with its obligations to
Acevedo Jaramillo et al. (SITRAMUN) Case
562. On June 25, 2003, the Commission filed an application against the Republic of Peru in the case of Acevedo Jaramillo Julio et al., members of the Lima Municipal Workers Union (SITRAMUN) (Case 12,084) alleging the State’s failure to comply with the rulings delivered by the domestic courts in favour of the members of SITRAMUN. In the application, the Commission asked the Court to declare the Peruvian State’s international responsibility for non-compliance with its international obligations under Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, by its failure to observe the rulings delivered by the Lima city judges, the Lima Superior Court of second instance and Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal on an action dating back to 197 in which constitutional guarantees are invoked. In these cases, the courts upheld the workers of the Municipality of Lima who were members of SITRAMUN.
563. In a public hearing held by the Court on September 20 and 21, 2005, the Commission presented its arguments on the preliminary objections, merits and reparations.
564. The judgment on this case is pending.
Barrios Altos Case
565. In 2005, the Commission filed its periodic observations on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.
566. On September 22, 2005, the Court issued an order on the matter of compliance. There, it held that the State had not yet complied with its obligations to
Baldeón García Case
567. On February 11, 2005, the Commission filed an application against the Peruvian State in case 11,767, Bernabé Baldeón García, for the State’s responsibility in the unlawful detention, cruel, unlawful and degrading treatment and extrajudicial execution of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón García in Pacchahuallhua, Independencia district, Vilcashuamán province, department of Ayacucho, between September 25 and 26, 1990, and the State’s subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating the facts and its denial of justice to the victim’s next of kin
568. The State submitted its answer to the application on July 22, 2005. There, it acknowledged international responsibility for the facts and for violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 1.1 of the American Convention. It also proposed to the victim’s next of kin that the two parties begin negotiations with a view to reaching a friendly settlement.
569. On September 2, 2005, the Commission asked the Court to accept the Peruvian State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility. It also asked the Court to declare that the dispute as to the facts and as to the violations of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 1.1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victim, and Articles 8, 5, 25 and 1.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin, had ended. In the event no friendly settlement could be reached, the Commission asked the Court to continue proceedings on the case and ultimately deliver a judgment on the Commission’s claims in the matter of reparations.
570. The Court decided not to hold a public hearing in this case. Final written arguments are pending. The Court has requested that they be submitted by 2006.
Cantoral Benavides Case
571. In 2005 the Commission presented its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On September 22, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject of compliance.
572. In this latest Court order, it finds that the State has yet to comply with its duties to
Castillo Páez Case
573. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the subject of compliance is dated November 17, 2004.
574. In that order the Court finds that the State has yet to fully comply with its duties to
Castillo Petruzzi Case
575. The Court delivered the judgment on reparations in this case on May 30, 1999. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the matter of compliance.
Cesti Hurtado Case
576. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the subject of compliance is dated November 17, 2004.
577. In that order, the Court finds that the State has not yet fully complied with its obligations to
De La Cruz Flores Case
578. The Judgment on reparations in this case was delivered on November 18, 2004.
579. On September 7, 2004, the Court forwarded a brief filed by the victim’s representative to report on compliance with the Judgment the Court delivered in this case, especially with regard to the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws recognized in Article 9 of the Convention in the context of the criminal case being prosecuted against Mrs. Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores. The representative pointed out that by virtue of the opinion given by the Superior Prosecutor, dated December 20, 2004, the order of the National Criminal Court for Crimes of Terrorism, and the order of the Fourth Supra-provincial Criminal Court for Crimes of Terrorism, dated January 26, 2005, Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores was to be tried for the crime of terrorism on the grounds of membership, referred to in Article 5 of Legislative Degree 25475.
580. Having received this information, on February 17, 2005 the Commission informed the Court that given these developments in the criminal case being prosecuted against Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores in the domestic courts, the violation of Article 9 of the Convention found by the Court had not been corrected, thus obstructing full compliance with the measures ordered by the Court in its judgment. As for the possibility of nullifying the final judgment of June 15, 2000, which had itself overturned the March 4, 1999 judgment that had convicted Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores and sentenced her to prison for 10 years for the crime of terrorism, the Commission was of the view that nullification of that June 15, 2000 judgment could engage the Peruvian State’s international responsibility yet again, this time for violation of the principle of the non-retroactivity of criminal law, to the detriment of the victim.
581. For these reasons, the Commission petitioned the Court to ask the Peruvian State to provide precise information on compliance with the Court’s judgment in this case, in terms of respecting rights and adopting domestic legislative measures to ensure that violations such as those found in the judgment do not recur in Peru and to ensure that in the new trial prosecuted against Mrs. Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, recognized in the American Convention, is observed.
Durand and Ugarte Case
582. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 27, 2002.
583. In this most recent order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to
García Asto and Ramírez Rojas Case
584. On June 22, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the State of Peru in case No. 12,413, Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas, in accordance with Article 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to find that the Peruvian State’s international responsibility had been engaged for its violations of Articles 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trail), and 9 (principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) thereof, by virtue of the Peruvian anti-terrorist legislation under which the alleged victims were tried and convicted, and their new trial in February 2003 under the amended law. The facts in this case also engaged Peru’s international responsibility for failure to comply with its duties under Article 2 of the American Convention.
585. The Court delivered its Judgment in this case on November 25, 2005. Given the State’s acceptance of facts that predated September 2000, the Court found that by the facts in this case, and to the detriment of Mr. Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas, the Peruvian State had violated the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, juridical guarantees, and judicial protection, recognized, respectively, in 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. The Court also concluded that the State had violated the right to humane treatment in the case of the victims’ next of kin, again in relation to Article 1.1 of the Convention. Finally, the Court held that the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, recognized in Article 9 of the Convention, was violated in the first trials to which the victims were subjected.
586. At the same time, the Court determined that it did not have sufficient evidence to establish that the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws had been violated in the second trials that the victims underwent.
587. In its Judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
Gómez Palomino Case
588. On September 13, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court, against the State of Peru, in case 11,062, for the forced disappearance of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino in Lima, Peru, on July 9, 1992, and for related facts, including the impunity that attended these violations. The Commission asked the Court to declare that the following Articles of the American Convention had been violated: 7 (right to personal liberty), 5 (right to humane treatment), 4 (right to life), 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection), all in relation to Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of the Convention.
589. On November 22, 2005, after the State acknowledged responsibility, the Court delivered its judgment in the case. There, it concluded that through the facts of the case and to the detriment of the victim, the State had violated the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty, recognized, respectively, in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. It also found that the State had violated, to the detriment of the victim and his next of kin, the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof; further, that the State had violated the next of kin’s right to humane treatment, recognized in Article 5 of the Convention. The Court also found that by its conduct, the State had violated its duty to adopt the domestic legislative measures necessary to guarantee the victim’s rights to life, to personal liberty and to humane treatment, under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention and Article 1.b of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.
590. In its judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
Gómez Paquiyauri Case
591. The Court delivered the Judgment ordering reparations in this case on July 8, 2004. Information from the State on the matter of compliance is still pending.
Huilca Tecse Case
592. The Court delivered its Judgment on the merits of this case on March 3, 2005. The case concerns the extrajudicial execution of a Peruvian labour leader, Mr. Pedro Huilca Tecse, on December 18, 1992. At the time of the events, the alleged victim was Secretary General of the General Confederation of Labour of Peru (hereinafter the “CGTP”) and was purportedly executed by members of the “Colina group, a death squadron with ties to the Peruvian Army Intelligence Service.” The application also alleged a failure to conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation into the facts.
593. In the judgment delivered, the Court accepted the State’s acknowledgment of the claims made by the Commission and the injured party, and therefore found violations of the rights recognized in Articles 4.1 (right to life) and 16 (freedom of association) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and a failure to comply with Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect rights), to the detriment of Mr. Pedro Huilca Tecse, as set forth in paragraphs 64 to 79 of the Judgment. It also found that the State had violated the rights recognized in Articles 8 (the right to due process) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and thus had failed to observe the duty set forth in Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Mr. Huilca Tecse: Mrs. Martha Flores Gutiérrez, the victim’s wife; their children, Pedro Humberto Huilca Gutiérrez, Flor de Maria Huilca Gutiérrez, Katiuska Tatiana Huilca Gutiérrez, José Carlos Huilca Flores, and Indira Isabel Huilca Flores, as well as Julio César Escobar Flores, who was the victim’s stepson and the son of Mrs. Martha Flores Gutiérrez, in the terms of paragraphs 80 to 83 of the Judgment.
594. In its judgment, the Court also decided to partially approve a reparations agreement that the State and the injured party had agreed upon and established the pertinent reparations. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
Ivcher Bronstein Case
595. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the matter of compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. Then, on September 21, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject.
596. In that order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to
Case of Juárez Cruzatt et al. (Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case)
597. On September 9, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Peru in case No. 11,015, Hugo Juárez Cruzatt et al., for the State’s responsibility in the events at the Miguel Castro Castro prison in Lima, May 6 to 9, 1992. In the course of those events, at least 42 inmates had been killed, 175 injured, and a further 322 subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for various lengths of time. The Inter-American Commission asked that the Court find that the Peruvian State had incurred international responsibility for its failure to abide by its international obligations by violating Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general duty to respect and ensure those rights, set forth in Articles 1.1 thereof. The violations were incurred by Peru’s failure to prevent firearms from entering the prison, by its excessive use of force, extrajudicial execution, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, its failure to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation, its destruction of evidence essential to solving the case, and the denial of justice to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin.
598. The Court sent the State notice of the application on 5 October 2005. The State’s answer to the application and to the brief of pleadings, arguments and evidence is still pending.
Loayza Tamayo Case
599. In 2005, the Commission filed its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On March 3, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject of compliance.
600. In its most recent order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to
Lori Berenson Case
601. The Court delivered its Judgment on Reparations in this case on November 25, 2004. In 2005, the State submitted a number of compliance-related reports. The Court requested that the Commission submit its comments on this subject by January 2006.
602. On March 2, 2005, the aggrieved party filed an application seeking an interpretation of the Court’s judgments on the merits and reparations. When consulted on the matter, the Commission expressed the view that the application did not satisfy the requirements that the Court had established in its jurisprudence for the admissibility of applications seeking interpretations of judgments. On June 23, 2005, the Court dismissed the application seeking an interpretation, on the grounds that it was inadmissible.
Neira Alegría Case
603. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic observations concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 28, 2002.
604. In its most recent order, the Court finds that the State has not yet complied with its duties to locate and identify the victims’ remains and deliver them to their next of kin.
Constitutional Court Case
605. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by The Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 17, 2004.
606. In that November 17, 2004 order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its obligations to
a. establish the identities of the persons responsible for the human rights violations committed against the victims in this case and punish them, and b. pay the salaries and other benefits that, under domestic law, are owed to Mr. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Mr. Guillermo Rey Terry and Ms. Delia Revoredo Marsano.
Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees
607. On February 4, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Peruvian State, in case 11,830, concerning the dismissal of 257 employees of Peru’s National Congress, who figured among the 1117 employees dismissed through congressional resolutions passed on December 31, 1992.
o. Dominican Republic
Case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico
608. On July 11, 2003, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Dominican Republic, in case 12,189, the first one ever brought to the Court against that country. The case is that of two young girls, Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. The Commission is asking the Court to find that the State’s international responsibility has been engaged by the fact that the Dominican authorities refused to grant Dominican citizenship to Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi even though they were born within the territory of the Dominican Republic and the Dominican Republic recognizes the principle of jus soli. In view of the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare a violation of the right to juridical personality, the right to a fair trial, the rights of the child, the right to nationality, the right to equality before the law, and the right to judicial protection, set forth respectively in Articles 3, 8, 19, 20, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 thereof.
609. The Court delivered its Judgment in the case on September 8, 2005. It began by dismissing the State’s three preliminary objections and went on to declare that the State had violated the right to nationality and the right to equality before the law, upheld in Articles 20 and 24 of the Convention, in relation to Article 19 and Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the two girls, Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico; it also found that the State had violated the right to juridical personality and the right to a name, recognized in Articles 3 and 18, respectively, in relation to Articles 19 and 1.1 of the Convention and to the detriment of the two young girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico; it also ruled that the State had violated the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Leonidas Oliven Yean, Tiramen Bosico Cofi and Teresa Tucent Mena.
610. In the Judgment, the Court decided the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.htmml.
p. Suriname
Moiwana Community Case
611. The Court delivered its judgment on the merits of the Moiwana Community Case on June 15, 2005. This case concerns a November 29, 1986 attack perpetrated by members of the Surinamese armed forces on the N’djuka Maroon community of Moiwana. The soldiers massacred more than 40 men, women and children and destroyed the community. Those who managed to escape presumably fled into the surrounding forests, and were later exiled or internally displaced. No proper investigation was ever done of the massacre and no one was either prosecuted or punished. The survivors were never able to return to their ancestral lands and therefore never able to resume their traditional way of life. For these reasons, the Commission pointed out, while the attack itself occurred prior to Suriname’s ratification of the American Convention and its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the alleged denial of justice and displacement occurred subsequent to the attack and were the centrepiece of the case brought to the Court in the application.
612. In its judgment, the Court found that the right to have one’s physical, mental and moral integrity respected, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to property, the right to a hearing with due guarantees, and the right to judicial protection, recognized, respectively, in Articles 5.1, 22, 21, 8.1 and 25 of the Convention had been violated, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof and to the detriment of the Moiwana Community.
613. In that judgment the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
q. Trinidad and Tobago
Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case
614. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.
615. The Court’s most recent compliance-related order in this case is dated November 27, 2003. In it, the Court finds that the State was ordered to report every six months on the measures adopted, in other words, on January 5 and July 5, 2003, but had failed to comply with that requirement. The Court decided, therefore, that if the situation persisted, it would inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States of that fact, pursuant to Article 65 of the Convention […] and Article 30 of the Statute of the Court.
Winston Caesar Case
616. On March 11, 2005, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits in this case, which concerns the sentence that the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago gave to the victim in the case, which was 20 years in prison at hard labour and 15 lashes with a cat-o-nine tails. Trinidad and Tobago’s Court of Appeal upheld the verdict and sentence, and 23 months after final confirmation of the verdict, Mr. Caesar’s flogging was inflicted.
617. In its Judgment, the Court found that the victim’s right to humane treatment and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 25 of the Convention, had been violated, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. It also concluded that the State had not abided by its duty under Article 2 of the Convention in relation to the aforementioned Articles 5.1 and 5.2.
618. Contrary to what the Commission had argued, however, the Court also decided that the State had not violated the right to a hearing with due guarantees, recognized in Article 8.1 of the Convention.
619. In its judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
r. Venezuela
El Caracazo Case
620. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 17, 2002.
621. In its latest order, the Court finds that the State has not yet complied with its obligations to
El Amparo Case
622. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in this case. The Court’s most recent compliance-related order is dated November 28, 2002.
623. In its most recent order in this case, the Court finds that the State has yet to comply with its obligations to
Case
of the Vargas Disappeared (Blanco Romero, Hernández Paz and
624. On June 30, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in cases 12,256, 12,258, and 12,307. The Commission asked the Court to declare that, by the events that began in Vargas State, Venezuela, between December 21 and 23, 1999, involving the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz, and José Francisco Rivas Fernández by State agents, the State had violated Articles 4.1 (right to life), 5.1 and 2 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8.1 (right to a hearing with due guarantees), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect rights), and Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
625. On June 28, 2005, after the State acknowledged the facts, the Court issued an order in which it decided to accept the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility, an acknowledgement that had ended the dispute over the facts in the case. The Court further decided to continue to process the case. On November 28 of that year, the Court issued a judgment in which it found that the victims’ rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to due process and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, had been violated and that the State had failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Articles I(a) and I(b), X and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Court also ruled that the rights to humane treatment, to due process and to judicial protection, protected under Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention had also been violated in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin, and the State’s obligation under Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
626. In its judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.
Retén de Catia Case (Montero Aranguren et al.)
627. On February 24, 2005, the Commission filed an application against the Venezuelan State in Case 11,699, Víctor Jesús Montero Aranguren et al. "Retén de Catia", for the State’s responsibility in the events that occurred in and around a prison called the "Retén e Internado Judicial de Los Flores de Catia", in the city of Caracas between November 27 and 29, 1992. The Commission’s contention was that the State was responsible for the failure to prevent acts of violence and respond to emergencies in the prison; for excessive use of force, for the extrajudicial execution of a number of inmates; for the subhuman conditions at the prison, conditions that were causal factors in the violence and sense of danger rampant in the prison at the time of the events; the failure to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation; the denial of justice to the victims and their next of kin; and the lack of prison policies that conformed to international standards.
628. The summons to the public hearing in this case is still pending.
|