|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IACHR 2006
CASE 11.725, Report 139/99, Carmelo Soria Espinoza (Chile)
162. On November 19, 1999, the Inter-American Commission made the following recommendations to the State of Chile:
1. Establish the liability of the persons identified as guilty of murdering Carmelo Soria Espinoza through a due judicial proceeding, so that the responsible parties are duly punished and the next-of-kin of the victim are effectively guaranteed the right to justice enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.
2. Comply with the provisions of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, to ensure that violations of the human rights of international officials subject to international protection, such as the murder of Carmelo Soria Espinoza in his capacity as an official of ECLAC, are duly investigated and the guilty parties are effectively punished. In the event that the Chilean State considers that is unable to comply with its obligation to punish the responsible parties, it must then accept the authority of the universal jurisdiction for that purpose.
3. Adapt its domestic legislation to the American Convention on Human Rights, by abrogating Decree Law No. 2191 issued in 1978, so that the human rights violations of the de facto military government against Carmelo Soria Espinoza may be investigated and punished.
4. Adopt the necessary measures to ensure that the next-of-kin of the victim receive adequate and timely reparations, that include full satisfaction for the violations of the human rights established herein, as well as payment of a fair compensation for material and nonmaterial damages, including pain and suffering.
163. On March 6, 2003, the IACHR published Report 19/03 which contains the compliance agreement reached by the parties in respect of Case 11.725. The relevant parts of that agreement are transcribed below:
To comply with the recommendations formulated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) in its Report 133/99 in the referenced case (Case No. 11.725), the Government of Chile submits the following proposal for compliance based on the criteria accepted by the Commission.
The proposal includes material and token measures that reflect the spirit and the actual capabilities of the Government to provide a satisfactory settlement to the affected party.
(…)
For its part, the family of Carmelo Soria Espinoza, has indicated its interest in considering as concluded the judicial proceedings initiated with a Chilean court against the State, for its extra-contractual liability in this case.
Objectives and scope of the proposal by the Government of Chile for compliance with the recommendations:
The proposal submitted by the Government of Chile to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is an agreement between the parties (government and petitioners) which has the following objectives:
- Bring international procedures to a definitive end, and specifically the measures adopted by the Commission to follow up on the recommendations contained in Report 133/99.
- Serve as a basis to put an end to the judicial complaint against the State for extra- contractual liability in the death of Carmelo Soria, known as "Soria con Fisco,” which was filed with the Fourth Civil Court of Santiago, as Case Nº C-2219-2000.
- Prevent future legal action from being brought against the Chilean State for State responsibility linked to action by its agents or for material or nonmaterial damages, including pain and suffering.
Elements of the proposal for compliance:
a) The family of Carmelo Soria Espinoza (hereinafter the petitioner) shall put a final end to the steps it has taken with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and it specifically states that all the recommendations contained in Report 133/99 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are considered as fulfilled.
b) The petitioner accepts the token reparations offered by the State of Chile, consisting in the following:
- A public declaration by the government of Chile recognizing the responsibility of the State for the action of its agents in the death of Carmelo Soria Espinoza;
- In the same declaration, it offers to erect a structure in memory of Carmelo Soria Espinoza, at a location in Santiago designated by his family.
c) The petitioner shall abandon the action filed with the Fourth Civil Court of Santiago against the State for its extra-contractual liability in the case “Soria con Fisco,” Case Record Nº C-2219-2000, indicating essentially that it agrees to put an end to the judicial proceedings initiated and that the reparations agreed before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will be the only ones demanded of the State and that, consequently, it will not pursue future judicial action against the State for its responsibility, either linked to the action of its agents or for material or nonmaterial damages, including pain and suffering. An authentic copy of the judicial decision providing for abandonment of the action shall be submitted to the Commission by the petitioner, in order to vouch for compliance with the agreed terms.
d) The Chilean State pledges to make a single payment of a total of one million five hundred thousand United States dollars, as compensation to the family of Carmelo Soria Espinoza; it will be made by means of an exgratia payment through the United Nations General Secretariat, by virtue of an Agreement to be concluded between the Government of Chile and the United Nations Organization.
e) The Government of Chile declares that Carmelo Soria Espinoza was an international official of the United Nations, assigned to the Economic Commission for Latin America, ECLA, as a high-ranking staff member of the Commission, in the capacity of superior international staff functionary.
f) The Government of Chile shall present a request to the Chilean Courts to reopen criminal proceedings to prosecute the persons responsible for causing the death of Carmelo Soria Espinoza.
The purpose of the proposals presented by the Government of Chile to comply with the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is to put an end to the current dispute between the Chilean State and the family of Carmelo Soria Espinoza, as expressed in Case Nº 11725.
The commitment signed by the petitioner, and addressed to the IACHR states as follows:
(…)
We are cognizant of the proposal for compliance with the recommendations of Report 133/99 submitted by the Government of Chile to this Commission, and we declare that we have read it in its entirety. The elements of the text are as follows:
a) The family of Carmelo Soria Espinoza (hereinafter the petitioner) shall terminate the action brought before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and expressly states that it considers that the recommendations contained in Report 133/99 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have been complied with.
b) The petitioner accepts the token reparations offered by the State of Chile, consisting in the following:
- A public declaration by the government of Chile recognizing the responsibility of the State for the action of its agents in the death of Carmelo Soria Espinoza;
- In the same declaration, it offers to erect a structure in memory of Carmelo Soria Espinoza, at a location in Santiago designated by his family.
c) The petitioner shall abandon the action filed with the Fourth Civil Court of Santiago against the State for its extra-contractual liability in the case “Soria con Fisco,” Case Record Nº C-2219-2000, indicating essentially that it agrees to put an end to the judicial proceedings initiated and that the reparations agreed before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will be the only ones demanded of the State and that, consequently, it will not pursue future judicial action against the State for its responsibility, either linked to the action of its agents or for material or nonmaterial damages, including pain and suffering. An authentic copy of the judicial decision providing for abandonment of the action shall be submitted to the Commission by the petitioner, in order to vouch for compliance with the agreed terms.
d) The Chilean State pledges to make a single payment of a total of one million five hundred thousand United States dollars, as compensation to the family of Carmelo Soria Espinoza; it will be made by means of an exgratia payment through the United Nations General Secretariat, by virtue of an Agreement to be concluded between the Government of Chile and the United Nations Organization.
e) The Government of Chile declares that Carmelo Soria Espinoza was an international official of the United Nations, assigned to the Economic Commission for Latin America, ECLA, as a high-ranking staff member of the Commission, in the capacity of superior international staff functionary.
f) The Government of Chile shall present a request to the Chilean Courts to reopen criminal proceedings to prosecute the persons responsible for causing the death of Carmelo Soria Espinoza.
With regard to this proposal, we declare our complete conformity with it and acceptance of it, since it complies with the recommendations of the Commission’s Report 133-99.
164. The Inter-American Commission pursued the exchange of information between the parties on compliance with the recommendations of Report 133/99, within the framework of the agreement cited above. The petitioners sent a communication dated January 22, 2007, in which they requested that the IACHR designate “a Commissioner or Special Reporter to travel to Chile and verify the status of compliance with the Agreement concluded between Chile and the UN on June 19, 2003, in accordance with the recommendations of Reports 133/99 and 19/03 of this Commission, since that agreement has been pending approval in the Senate since December 2005. Therefore, the State of Chile has not complied with its commitments to that organization as of this date.”
165. In response to the latest request for information from the IACHR, dated February 21, 2007, the State of Chile sent a communication in which it stated that “the relevant measures have been adopted to expedite compilation of the information requested by the government agencies with competence in this area.” The State adds:
Despite the foregoing, we would draw your attention to the fact that parliament is in its summer recess at the present time, and this is also true of a large part of the civil service, since the most important posts are under legal subrogation, which obviously entails an involuntary delay in receipt of the communications requested. The Commission is respectfully requested to bear this in mind, with respect to the 30 days granted to respond to its request.
166. Based on the available information, the Inter-American Commission takes note of the good will shown by the State, but it concludes that compliance with the recommendations contained in Report 133/99 is still pending.
PETITION 4617/02, Report N° 30/04, Mercedes Julia Huenteao Beroiza et al. (Chile)
167. On March 11, 2004, the Commission approved a friendly settlement procedure for the instant petition, in which the State pledged to adopt the following measures:
a) Constitutional recognition for the indigenous peoples in Chile, who have preserved their own ethnic and cultural manifestations that enrich their national identity, with a view to incorporating into the constitution principles that Chile adheres to in national and international spheres.
b) Ratification of ILO Convention No. 169 by Chile.
c) Strengthening of indigenous participation in the Indigenous Development Area of the Alto Bio Bio.
d) Establishment of mechanisms that ensure the participation of indigenous communities in management of the Ralco Forest Reserve.
2. Measures to strengthen the territorial and cultural Mapuche Pehuenche identity and mechanisms for participation in their own development.
a) Creation of a commune in the sector of the Alto Bío Bío.
b) Development of mechanisms that will make it possible to solve land disputes that affect indigenous communities in the sector of the Alto Bío Bío.
c) Strengthening of indigenous participation in the Indigenous Development Area of the Alto Bío Bío.
d) Agreement on mechanisms to ensure the participation of indigenous communities in management of the Ralco Forest Reserve.
a) Agreement on mechanisms to ensure that the indigenous communities are informed, heard, and given consideration in the monitoring and control of environmental obligations under the Ralco Hydro-electric Power Project.
b) Strengthening of the economic development of the Alto Bío Bío sector, to the benefit of the indigenous communities, through mechanisms that are acceptable for the complainants.
c) Agreement on mechanisms to facilitate and improve tourist development of the watersheds of the Alto Bío Bío, to the benefit of the indigenous communities.
d) Agreement on binding mechanisms for all government agencies to ensure that future mega-projects, and particularly hydro-electric power plants, are not developed on the indigenous lands of the Alto Bío Bío.
4. Agreement in a brief, immediate period of time, on measures pertaining to the court cases affecting indigenous leaders that have been heard in proceedings related to construction of the Ralco Hydro-Electric Power Plant.
5. Measures to meet the specific demands of the Mapuche Pehuenche families involved.
168. The IACHR requested information from both parties regarding the status of compliance with the aforesaid agreement. Within the established period, the Chilean State responded that it had adopted the necessary measures to obtain the information requested, and that it would be sent to the Inter-American Commission as soon as it had received it. No information was received from the petitioners.
169. The information available to the IACHR leads it to consider that the referenced agreement has been partially complied with, and it again urges both parties to continue a constructive dialogue with a view to ensuring adoption of the measures needed for full compliance with the agreement.
CASE 12.142, Report N° 90/05, Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña et al. (Chile)
170. On October 24, 2005, the IACHR adopted Report No. 90/05 on the merits of the referenced case and issued the following recommendation to the Chilean State:
Provide for adequate reparations to Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña for the consequences of the violations of the right to freedom of expression and the right to property, to the detriment of the journalist Alejandra Matus Acuña.
171. The
Inter-American Commission has not received information on compliance
with this recommendation from either the Chilean State or the
petitioners, as a result of which it considers it as pending. CASE 11.654, Report Nº 62/01, Río Frío Massacre (Colombia)
172. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR adopted Report No. 62/01 in case 11.654, dealing with the massacre of Riofrío. On that occasion the Commission issued three recommendations. First of all, the IACHR recommended that the State “conduct an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible.” In connection with that, in Note DDH/GOI 65055/3031 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated December 28, 2006, the State reiterated the information already furnished, indicating that the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in a judgment dated March 6, 2003, had ordered the annulment of all the proceedings before the military courts and had ordered the case sent to the regular justice system. It also reported that the Unit for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Office of the Prosecutor General had ordered, in a resolution dated September 2, 2005, that the investigation be conducted in tandem with the investigation being pursued by the Human Rights Sub-Unit of the city of Cali into the murders of Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo et al. It also reported that in a resolution of August 14, 2006, the head of the Central Criminal Analysis United had ordered the support of analysts in organizing the information gathered and in concluding the investigation of the incident that took place on October 5, 1993, in the municipality of Riofrío, Valle.
173. Secondly, the IACHR recommended taking “such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.” Information provided by the State indicates that the compensation payment provided for under the mechanism set out in Law 288/96 was made and therefore that this recommendation has been effectively met.
174. Thirdly, it recommended taking the steps necessary to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission 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 assessed in the IACHR’s general reports, and in the exercise of the Commission’s various conventional and statutory functions. The Commission concludes that the recommendations have been partially implemented.
CASE 11.710, Report Nº 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro (Colombia)
175. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR adopted Report No. 63/01 in case 11.710, dealing with the extrajudicial killing of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro. On that occasion the Commission issued three recommendations. In first place, the IACHR recommended that the state “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 21, 2006, in Note DDH/GOI 64988/3026 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State reported that the applicant’s lawyer had lodged an appeal for annulment with the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against the decision of the Military Criminal Court of March 22, 2002, that had acquitted the state agents involved in the case, and that the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had ruled on September 13, 2006, that the proceedings be annulled as of the deed of October 11, 1996, whereby the first-instance judge of the military justice system had ordered the committal hearing closed. It also reported that on that date, the proceedings were taken on by the office of the 11th Prosecutor of the Medellín Brigade, with which the case would remain before the military courts.
176. Secondly, the IACHR recommended adopting “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 repeated the information already submitted, indicating that the Committee of Ministers had determined, in resolution No. 2 of May 3, 2002, to issue a favorable decision for awarding compensation for damages to the victims’ relatives under the terms of Law 288/96, and that the resolution in question had been attached to the administrative proceedings being pursued by the Administrative Court of Antioquia, during which proceedings the National Army was declared administratively responsible for the facts of the instant case in a judgment dated November 16, 2004. The information indicates that judgment is currently before the appeals court and that a request has been made for the decision to be given precedence. The information made available to the IACHR does not indicate that the corresponding indemnification payments have been made.
177. Thirdly, it recommended taking the steps necessary to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission 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 assessed in the IACHR’s general reports, and in the exercise of the Commission’s various conventional and statutory functions. The Commission concludes that the recommendations are pending implementation.
CASE 11.712, Report Nº 64/01, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry (Colombia)
178. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR adopted Report No. 64/01 in case 11.712, dealing with the extrajudicial killing of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and others. On that occasion the Commission issued three recommendations. The first of these 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 21, 2006, in Note DDH/GO No. 65084/3044 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State again informed that on November 23, 2004, the Second Division Court of the National Army had resolved to acquit Maj. Hernán Bonilla Carrera Sanabria and the retired volunteer soldiers Manuel Bonilla Collazos and José Armando Cruz González of the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide. Later, the Superior Military Court resolved the appeal filed by the Judicial Attorney and military prosecutor, upholding the acquittal judgment in full. The Assistant Attorney General of the Nation was later asked to file review proceedings against the acquittal, but this suit was dismissed on the ground that “no overwhelming noncompliance of the Colombian State’s obligation to conduct a serious and impartial investigation” had been detected. The Commission notes that the proceedings were not transferred to the regular courts and that the trial concluded with the military courts’ acquittal of the members of the National Army. Consequently, it must conclude that this recommendation has not been implemented.
179. Secondly, the IACHR recommended adopting the measures necessary to redress the consequences of the violations committed against María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, as well as providing due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry. The information submitted by the State indicates that in a judgment dated October 29, 2004, the Relief Chamber for the Administrative Court of Norte de Santander and Cesar ruled that the Colombian State was administratively responsible for the death of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and for the injuries inflicted on María Fredesvinda Echeverry de Isaza and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and ordered that the victims and their next-of-kin be paid moral and material damages. The information furnished further indicates that this judgment was expanded on January 31, 2005, to include other charges upheld against the State, but the applicant had filed an appeal, which is still pending resolution. In addition, the State again reported that the Committee of Ministers had decided, in resolution No. 3 of May 3, 2002, to issue a favorable decision for awarding the corresponding compensation for damages to the victims and their next-of-kin. The State also reported that the conciliation hearing was held on September 28, 2006, and that the conciliation agreement is still pending the approval of the Council of State. The information made available to the IACHR does not indicate that the corresponding indemnification payments have been made.
180. Thirdly, it recommended taking the steps necessary to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission 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 assessed in the IACHR’s general reports, and in the exercise of the Commission’s various conventional and statutory functions. The Commission concludes that the recommendations have been partially implemented.
CASE 11.421, Report Nº 93/00, Edison Patricio Quishpe Alcívar (Ecuador)
181. In Report N° 93/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
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.
182. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Within the set deadline, the petitioners replied that “the State has implemented only the economic portion of the agreement as signed, and to date has carried out no judicial investigations or imposed any sort of punishment on those directly responsible for the violations committed by state agents.” No reply was received from the Ecuadorian State.
183. Based on the information available, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.439, Report Nº 94/00, Byron Roberto Cañaveral (Ecuador)
184. In Report N° 94/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
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.
185. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Within the set deadline, the petitioners replied that “the State has implemented only the economic portion of the agreement as signed, and to date has carried out no judicial investigations or imposed any sort of punishment on those directly responsible for the violations committed by state agents.” No reply was received from the Ecuadorian State.
186. Based on the information available, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.466, Report Nº 96/00, Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guamán (Ecuador)
187. In Report N° 96/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
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.
188. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.584, Report Nº 97/00, Carlos Juela Molina (Ecuador)
189. In Report N° 97/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
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.
190. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No reply was received from the Ecuadorian State. In contrast, the petitioners replied that “the State has implemented only the economic portion of the agreement as signed, and to date has carried out no judicial investigations or imposed any sort of punishment on those directly responsible for the violations committed by state agents.” The petitioners added:
The State issued a deed ruling that the criminal action against the accused had expired. In fact, the deed of statutory limitations issued by the police courts during the prosecution of the perpetrators of the violations committed against Carlos Juela Molina allowed the State to accept the filing lodged with the IACHR and, later, to sign the agreement.
191. Based on the information available, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.783, Report Nº 98/00, Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia (Ecuador)
192. In Report N° 98/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
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, 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.
193. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Within the set deadline, the petitioners replied that “the State has implemented only the economic portion of the agreement as signed, and to date has carried out no judicial investigations or imposed any sort of punishment on those directly responsible for the violations committed by state agents.” No reply was received from the Ecuadorian State.
194. Based on the information available, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.868, Report Nº 99/00, Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo (Ecuador)
195. The case was submitted to the friendly settlement procedure at the request of the parties. In the agreement clauses contained in the friendly settlement report, the Ecuadorian State undertook to:
SEVENTH. FREEDOM OF ACTION
… not to interfere in the constitutional and statutory rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of the Restrepo family, their sympathizers, and human rights organizations that join this cause for the purpose of commemorating the death of Carlos and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy or for other purposes related to this event. The National Police and Armed Forces shall guarantee these natural and juridical persons the free exercise of these guarantees, in keeping with Ecuadorian law.
196. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No reply was received from the Ecuadorian State. In contrast, the petitioners replied that problems with the implementation of this clause still remain, and that “the family and their supporters continue their peaceful public demonstrations in Quito and that, on occasions (albeit not always), the police has tried to interrupt them.” The family told the petitioners that they had complained to the police about that situation, and that Mr. Pedro Restrepo had sent letters to President Rafael Correa and, while he was still in office, to former president Alfredo Palacio. They also said:
We would like to use this opportunity to inform the Inter-American Commission about the State’s failure to meet two additional provisions of the friendly settlement agreement that the family believes are essential: (1) a new search for the bodies of the Restrepo brothers in Lake Yambo (“Sixth: New Search for the Restrepo brothers”), and (2) full disclosure regarding the facts related to the arbitrary arrest, torture, and murder of the Restrepo brothers, and about how those violations were covered up, and the full legal prosecution of all the parties involved (“Ninth: Punishment of Persons not Placed on Trial”).
197. Based on the information available, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.991, Report Nº 100/00, Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva (Ecuador)
198. In Report Nº 100/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
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.
199. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Within the set deadline, the petitioners replied that “the State has implemented only the economic portion of the agreement as signed, and to date has carried out no judicial investigations or imposed any sort of punishment on those directly responsible for the violations committed by state agents.” No reply was received from the Ecuadorian State.
200. Based on the information available, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.478, Report Nº 19/01, Juan Clímaco Cuellar et al. (Ecuador)
201. In Report Nº 19/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
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.
202. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.512, Report Nº 20/01, Lida Angela Riera Rodriguez (Ecuador)
203. In Report Nº 20/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
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.
204. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.605, Report Nº 21/01, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño (Ecuador)
205. In Report Nº 21/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$30,000 in compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceeding to punish the persons implicated in the alleged violation.
2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment to prosecute the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
206. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.779, Report Nº 22/01, José Patricio Reascos (Ecuador)
207. In Report Nº 22/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and the beginning of judicial proceedings to punish the persons implicated in the facts alleged.
2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
208. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.992, Report Nº 66/01, Dayra Maria Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador)
209. In Report Nº 66/01 of June 14, 2001, the IACHR extended the following recommendations to the Ecuadorian State:
1. Proceed to grant full reparations, which involves granting adequate compensation to Mrs. Dayra Maria Levoyer Jiménez.
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.
210. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with these recommendations. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid recommendations have been partially implemented.
CASE 11.441, Report Nº 104/01, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al. (Ecuador)
211. In Report Nº 104/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR decided:
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 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.
212. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.443, Report Nº 105/01, Washington Ayora Rodriguez (Ecuador)
213. In Report Nº 105/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR decided:
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.
214. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.450, Report Nº 106/01, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa (Ecuador)
215. In Report Nº 106/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
216. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.542, Report Nº 107/01, Angel Reiniero Vega Jiménez (Ecuador)
217. In Report Nº 107/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
218. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.574, Report Nº 108/01, Wilberto Samuel Manzanos (Ecuador)
219. In Report Nº 108/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
220. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. No replies were received from either within the set deadline. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
|
