|
|
|
CASE 11.632, Report Nº 109/01, Vidal Segura Hurtado (Ecuador)
221. In Report Nº 109/01 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.
222. 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 12.007, Report Nº 110/01, Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez (Ecuador)
223. In Report Nº 110/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$20,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
224. 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 11.515, Report Nº 63/03, Bolívar Franco Camacho Arboleda (Ecuador)
225. In Report Nº 63/03, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to pay US $30,000 dollars to the victim by way of compensation.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
226. 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 12.188, Report Nº 64/03, Joffre José Valencia Mero, Priscila Zoreida Valencia Sánchez, Rocío Valencia Sánchez (Ecuador)
227. In Report Nº 64/03, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to make compensation payments in the amount of USD $25,000 to each of the three victims in this case.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the Friendly Settlement Agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.
228. 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 12.394, Report Nº 65/03, Joaquín Hernández Alvarado, Marlon Loor Argote and Hugo Lara Pinos (Ecuador)
229. In Report Nº 65/03, the IACHR decided:
1. To certify the State’s compliance with its commitment to make compensation payments in the amounts of US $100,000.00 to Mr. Hernández, US $300,000.00 to Mr. Loor, and US $50,000.00 to Mr. Lara.
2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreements by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.
3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlements; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the Commission on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.
230. To date, neither the Ecuadorian State nor the petitioners have submitted reports on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. The conclusion is that the aforesaid agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 12.028, Report Nº 47/01, Donnason Knights (Grenada)
231. In Report Nº 47/01 dated April 4, 2001, the Commission recommended that the State:
1. Grant Mr. Knights an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the American Convention in respect of the victim’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
232. The State has not reported the Commission as to its compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 47/01. On December 23, 2002, the Petitioner wrote to the Commission and reported of the following: On May 2001, Anslem B. Clouden, Attorney-at-Law had written to the Attorney General of Grenada requesting adoption of the necessary measures in compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. To date, as far as we are aware, there has been no response from the Attorney General, and Mr. Knights remains on death row, and we are unaware of any legislative measures, or any measures being adopted in relation to conditions of detention. In March 2002, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered landmark decisions in 3 cases, Patrick Reyes, Peter Hughes & Bertil Fox. They declared that the mandatory death penalty imposed on all those convicted of murder in the Eastern Caribbean and Belize is unconstitutional. The effect of this decision means that Mr. Knights’ sentence will have to be reviewed as he was automatically sentenced to death upon conviction. Mr. Knights will now have an opportunity to place before the courts mitigating circumstances as to why the death penalty may not be appropriate in his case. Whilst the adoption of new legislative measures were as a result of the appeal to the Privy Council in the trilogy of cases mentioned above, and, not as a result of the Commission’s recommendations in this case, the views of the Commission in relation to the mandatory issue were an important aspect of the arguments before the courts. The Commission’s recommendations, and its decisions have played an instrumental role in these decisions." Based on these considerations, the IACHR presumes that the Government of Grenada has not complied with the Commission's recommendations.
233. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report Nº 47/01, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
234. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners in Case 12.028 (Donnason Knights), reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
235. The Petitioners state that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
236. Finally, the Petitioners submit that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. To date the Commission has not received any information from the State.
CASE 11.765, Report Nº 55/02, Paul Lallion (Grenada)237. In Report Nº 55/02 dated October 21, 2003, the IACHR recommended that the State:
1. Grant Mr. Lallion an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law in Grenada.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion's conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
6. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to personal liberty under Article 7(2), Article 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion is given effect in Grenada.
238. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.
239. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 55/02, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
240. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners in Case 11.765 (Paul Lallion), reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
241. The Petitioners state that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
242. Finally, the Petitioners submit that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. To date the Commission has not received any information from the State.
CASE 12.158, Report Nº 56/02 Benedict Jacob (Grenada)
243. In Report Nº 56/02 dated October 21, 2003, the Commission recommended that the State:
1. Grant Mr. Jacob an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.
2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law in Grenada.
3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.
4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.
5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Jacob's conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.
244. The Commission lacks up-to-date information from the State and the petitioners on compliance with the recommendations. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.
245. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 56/02, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.
246. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners in Case 12.158 (Benedict Jacob) reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.
247. The Petitioners state that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.
248. Finally, the Petitioners submit that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. To date the Commission has not received any information from the State.
CASE 11.625, Report Nº 4/01, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala)
249. In Report Nº 4/01, dated January 19, 2001, the Commission made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
1. Adapt the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to balance the legal recognition of the reciprocal duties of women and men in marriage and take the legislative and other measures necessary to amend Article 317 of the Civil Code so as to bring national law into conformity with the norms of the American Convention and give full effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed to María Eugenia Morales de Sierra therein.
2. Redress and adequately compensate María Eugenia Morales de Sierra for the harm done by the violations established in this Report.
250. As for the recommendation that Article 317 of the Civil Code be amended, the Commission observes that no such amendment has been introduced. It therefore urges the State to take the measures necessary to comply with the Commission’s recommendation.
251. On March 3, 2007, the petitioners and the State of Guatemala signed an ”Agreement for Specific Compliance with Recommendations,” the purpose being to formalize the State’s obligations to comply with the Commission’s recommendations in Report No. 4/01. The agreement signed states that María Eugenia Morales de Sierra expressly waived the financial compensation that the IACHR had recommended she receive as a victim of human rights violations because “her cause was to win recognition of women’s dignity.” The Commission will continue to monitor the fulfillment of the commitments established in the aforesaid Agreement for Compliance.
CASE 9207, Report Nº 58/01, Oscar Manuel Gramajo López (Guatemala)
252. In Report Nº 58/01, dated April 4, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the State of Guatemala:
a. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation of the facts reported to determine the circumstances and fate of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López, which would establish the identity of those responsible for his disappearance and punish them in accordance with due process of law.
b. Adopt measures for full reparation of the violations determined, including: steps to locate the remains of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López; the necessary arrangements to accommodate the family’s wishes in respect of his final resting place; and proper and timely reparations for the victim’s family.
253. At the Commission’s request, on December 28, 2006 the State reported that it had been unable to contact the petitioners to reach a reparations agreement in furtherance of the recommendations made in the Commission’s Report Nº 58/01. The Commission expects that the State will continue to make the efforts necessary to locate the victim’s next-of-kin in order to make proper reparations.
CASE 10.626 Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez; CASE 10.627 Pedro Tau Cac; CASE 11.198(A) José María Ixcaya Pixtay et al.; CASE 10.799 Catalino Chochoy et al.; CASE 10.751 Juan Galicia Hernández et al., and CASE 10.901 Antulio Delgado - Report Nº 59/01 (Guatemala)
254. In Report Nº 59/01, dated April 7, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State was responsible for violating the following rights: (1) the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the American convention, in the cases of Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac, José María Ixcaya Pictay, José Vicente García, Mateo Sarat Ixcoy, Celestino Julaj Vicente, Miguel Calel, Pedro Raguez, Pablo Ajiataz, Manuel Ajiataz Chivalán, Catrino Chanchavac Larios, Miguel Tiu Imul, Camilo Ajquí Gimon and Juan Tzunux Us; (2) the right to personal liberty recognized in Article 7 of the American Convention, in the cases of Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac and Camilo Ajqui Gimon; (3) the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention and articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, in the cases of Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac and Camilo Ajqui Gimon, victims of extrajudicial execution, and the right to respect for one’s physical integrity, also recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, in the cases of Catalino Chochoy, José Corino, Abelino Baycaj, Antulio Delgado, Juan Galicia Hernández, Andrés Abelino Galicia Gutierrez and Orlando Adelso Galicia Gutiérrez, victims of attempted extrajudicial execution; (4) the rights of the child recognized in Article 19 of the American Convention, in the cases of minors Rafael Sánchez and Andrés Abelicio Galicia Gutiérrez; (5) the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, respectively, in the case of all the victims of extrajudicial and attempted extrajudicial execution; (6) in all these cases the State was also found responsible for failing to honor its obligation under Article 1.1 of the American Convention, which is the duty to respect and ensure the rights and freedoms that the Convention protects. Based on the analysis and conclusions set forth in the report, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:
1. That it conduct a thorough, impartial and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and attempted extrajudicial executions of each victim and the attendant violations, and punish those responsible.
2. That it takes the necessary measures so that the next-of-kin of the victims of the extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.
3. That it takes the necessary measures so that the victims of the attempted extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.
4. That it effectively prevents a resurgence and reorganization of the Self-defense Civil Patrols.
5. That in Guatemala the principles established in the United Nations “Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and institutions to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms” be promoted and that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that the right of those who work to secure respect for fundamental rights is respected and that their life and personal integrity are protected.
255. What follows is a description of the State’s compliance with the recommendations made in each of the cases joined in Report Nº 59/01.
Case 10.626, Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez (Guatemala)
256. In Resolution 1/06, dated April 24, 2006, the Inter-American Commission decided to correct Report N° 59/01, published and approved on April 7, 2001, to read that on June 28, 1990, Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez were detained by members of the Self-defense Civil Patrols and were taken that same day to the Huehuetenango Hospital for treatment of multiple blunt trauma wounds. The two were both released from the hospital on July 3, 1990. The resolution in question found that the State had violated the right to physical integrity of Mr. Remigio Domingo Morales and Mr. Rafael Sánchez.
Case 10.627, Pedro Tiu Cac (Guatemala)
257. Based on the background information on the case, on July 2, 1990, in the village of Chiop, Santa María Chiquimula, Totonicapán, Pedro Tiu Cac, a member of the Mayan indigenous community and a member of the Runujel Junam Ethnic Communities Council (CERJ), was attacked while doing farm work. His assailants were men in civilian dress–presumably members of the PAC-who detained him and took him to some unknown destination. Several days later, his corpse was found in a deserted area and bore signs of torture. On February 18, 2005, the petitioners and the State of Guatemala signed an “Agreement for Compliance with Recommendations” to formalize the State’s obligations with regard to compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in the Merits Report No. 59/01. In that agreement, the State acknowledged institutional responsibility for violation of the right to life, the right to personal liberty, the right to personal integrity, the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection, and for failure to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention, to the detriment of Pedro Tiu Cac. The State also acknowledged that 1990 to 1992 were years of systematic violations of the right to life in the form of forced executions and assaults against persons, perpetrated by agents of the State. On July 2, 1990, in the village of Chiop, Santa María Chiquimula, Totonicapán, Pedro Tiu Cac, a member of the indigenous Mayan community and the Runujem Junam Ethnic Communities Council was attacked while doing farm work. His assailants were men in civilian dress, believed to be members of the PAC. They detained Pedro Tiu Cac and took him to some unknown destination. Some days later his lifeless body was discovered in a deserted place and bore signs of torture.
258. As for the investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible, the State pledged to take the necessary measures to ensure that the Public Prosecutor’s Office conducts a responsible investigation into the facts denounced. On the matter of reparations, the State acknowledged that acceptance of international responsibility for the violations of the victim’s human rights meant that it had a responsibility to pay just compensation to the petitioners, as prescribed by domestic and international law. The State also pledged to publish its acknowledgement of institutional responsibility for the violations of Pedro Tiu Cac’s human rights and to make apologies to his next-of-kin in a public ceremony. The State pledged as well to take measures to honor the victim’s memory.
259. The Commission was told that in late December 2005, the State paid the victim’s next-of-kin the agreed compensation. On December 21, 2006, the State reported that, at the request of the victim’s next-of-kin, the State’s apologies were done privately.
260. The Commission appreciates the efforts made by the victims’ next-of-kin and their representatives. For years, they have been relentless in the pursuit of justice, both in the domestic courts and with the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. It appreciates also the steps taken by the Guatemalan State to comply with the recommendations made in Merits Report 59/01 with regard to the violations of Pedro Tiu Cac’s human rights.
261. The Commission must also underscore how important it is that the State fulfills its obligations to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts denounced, both as moral compensation for the victims and their next-of-kin and in fulfillment of the pledge that the events will not recur. In the case in question, the State of Guatemala has not fulfilled this obligation. Therefore, the Commission will continue to observe this important process in order to monitor the standing agreements.
Case 11.198(A), José María Ixcaya Pixtay et al. (Guatemala)
262. On February 18, 2005, the petitioners and the Guatemalan State signed an “Agreement for Compliance with Recommendations” in order to formalize the State’s obligations vis-à-vis fulfillment of the recommendations made by the IACHR in Merits Report 59/01. In the agreement, the Guatemalan State acknowledged its institutional responsibility for the violation of the right to life, the right to personal liberty, the right to personal integrity, the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection, and its failure to comply with its obligation to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights, to the detriment of José María Ixcaya Pixtay, José Vicente García, Mateo Sarat Ixcoy, Celestino Julaj Vicente, Miguel Tzoy Calel, Pedro Raguez, Pablo Ajiataz, Manuel Ajiataz Chivalan, Catrino Chanchavac Larios, Miguel Tiu Imul, Camilo Ajquí Gimon and Juan Tzunux Us. The State acknowledged that the period from 1990 to 1992 was marked by systematic violations of the right to life in the form of forced executions and assaults perpetrated by agents of the State.
263. From the information supplied by the parties the Commission has learned that the State has made economic reparations to the victims’ next-of-kin, save in the case of five petitioners where intestate succession had to be established for them to qualify to receive it. As for the measures to honor the victims’ memory, the State has yet to deliver the commemorative plaque for Miguel Tiu Imul. The Commission does appreciate the efforts made by the State to comply with the recommendations, and the efforts of the victims’ next-of-kin and their representatives.
264. However, the Commission has received no information as to the progress made to prosecute and punish those responsible. The Commission must insist that the State has an obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts denounced, both as moral compensation for the victims and their next-of-kin and to comply with its obligation to ensure that these events do not recur. In the case in question, the Guatemalan State has not fulfilled this obligation. The Commission will therefore continue to observe the State’s compliance with the Commission’s recommendations and monitor the pending agreements.
Case 10.799, Catalino Chochoy et al. (Guatemala)
265. At the Commission’s request, on December 27, 2006 the State reported that it had been unable to contact the petitioners to arrive at a reparations agreement and thereby comply with the recommendations made in Report Nº 59/01. On January 18, 2007, the IACHR forwarded the petitioners’ contact information to the State and expects the State to continue to make the necessary efforts to contact the victims’ next-of-kin in order to make adequate reparations.
Case 10.751, Juan Galicia Hernández et al. (Guatemala)
266. At the Commission’s request, on December 27, 2006 the State reported that it had been unable to contact the petitioners to arrive at a reparations agreement and thereby comply with the recommendations made in Report Nº 59/01. On January 18, 2007, the IACHR forwarded the petitioners’ contact information to the State and expects the State to continue to make the necessary efforts to contact the victims’ next-of-kin in order to make adequate compensation.
Case 10.901, Antulio Delgado (Guatemala)
267. The Commission has no information on the measures taken to comply with the recommendations on this case.
CASE 9111, Report Nº 60/01, Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo et al. (Guatemala)
268. In Report Nº 60/01, dated April 4, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the State of Guatemala:
a. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the facts of this complaint to determine the whereabouts and condition of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, to identify the persons responsible for their disappearance, and to punish them in accordance with the rules of due legal process.
b. Take steps to make full amends for the proven violations, including measures to locate the remains of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, the arrangements necessary to fulfill their families’ wishes regarding the final resting place of their remains, and adequate and timely compensation for the victims’ relatives.
269. The information that the parties provided indicates that the first recommendation has not yet been carried out. Thus far, neither the identity of those responsible for the victims’ disappearance nor the victims’ whereabouts has been established. In the case of the second point, the Commission was told of a meeting that the parties had on December 4, 2006, to draw up a proposed friendly settlement.
270. The Commission must also underscore how important it is that the State fulfills its obligations to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts denounced as moral compensation for the victims and their next-of-kin and the importance of fulfilling the guarantee that such events do not recur. In the case in question, the State of Guatemala has not fulfilled this obligation.
271. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor fulfillment of the recommendations made in this case.
CASE 11.382, Report Nº 57/02, The Workers on the Finca “La Exacta” (Guatemala)
272. In Report Nº 57/02, dated October 21, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:
1. That it begins a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of the events that took place on August 24, 1994 to be able to detail, in an official report, the circumstances of and responsibility for the use of excessive force on that date.
2. That it takes the necessary steps to subject the persons responsible for the acts of August 24, 1994 to the appropriate judicial proceedings, which should be based on a full and effective investigation of the case.
3. That it makes reparations for the consequences of the violations of the rights listed, including the payment of fair compensation to the victims or their families.
4. That it takes the necessary measures to ensure that violations of the type that took place in this case do not recur in future.
273. At the Commission’s request, on December 28, 2006 the State reported that the sum of seven hundred thirty-five thousand quetzals (735,000) was turned over for the purchase of a piece of land selected by the members of the San Juan El Horizonte Workers Union, Empresa La Exacta S.A. The State also reported that certain points of the Reparations Agreement that the parties concluded on October 23, 2003, have still to be negotiated.
274. The Commission appreciates the measures that the Guatemalan State has taken to comply with the recommendations made in Report No. 57/02 and urges it to comply with the other commitments undertaken in the agreement signed with the petitioners. The Commission reiterates that on the question of justice, it remains attentive to the outcome of the public prosecutor’s action on the case.
CASE 11.312, Report Nº 66/03, Emilio Tec Pop (Guatemala)
275. The background for this case is that in the early hours of January 31, 1994, Emilio Tec Pop, age 16, was traveling from El Estor, in the Department of lzabal, to the departmental capital of Cobán, in Alta Verapaz, when he was detained by unknown persons. Some 32 days later, on March 3 of that year, the authorities from El Estor military post returned the young man to his family. The petitioners in this case stated that the youth had been held against his will and was physically and mentally mistreated. The petitioners also reported that the soldiers threatened Emilio with death and stabbed him in the hands with a knife.
276. On June 16, 2003, the State signed a Friendly Settlement Agreement. One of the commitments the State made in that agreement was to acknowledge its institutional responsibility for the facts that occurred. It also pledged to pay compensation and to take steps to get the investigation into these events back on course and to be able to punish those responsible for the facts. As for the commitment to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, the State reported that the case is in the hands of the Izabal Prosecutor’s Office, case 52-94 of the El Estor Justice of Peace; the case was transferred to the current Criminal Court of First Instance of Izabal, classified as case 325-94. The State informed that there is a suspect and the case is now in the investigative phase. It also reported that steps had been taken with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock to honor the commitment to give Mr. Tec Pop an adequate amount of basic grain seed. However, the problem was that the State was uncertain about his present address. The Commission expects the State to continue its efforts to locate Mr. Tec Pop in order to honor the commitment it made in the Friendly Settlement Agreement.
277. The Commission appreciates the efforts made by the parties to arrive at and honor the Friendly Settlement and will continue to monitor those points that have not yet been fulfilled.
CASE 11.766, Report Nº 67/03, Irma Flaquer (Guatemala)
278. According to the background of this case, journalist Irma Flaquer Azurdia was driving her car in Guatemala City on October 16, 1980 when she was abducted. Also in the car was her son, Fernando Valle Flaquer, who was injured and later died at the Hospital General San Juan de Dios. Irma Flaquer’s whereabouts have been unknown since that day.
279. In Friendly Settlement Report 67/03, dated October 10, 2003, the Commission stated that it had been informed that the petitioners in the case –the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) - were satisfied with the implementation of the great majority of the points of the agreement. However, the following three points were still pending: (1) the establishment of a scholarship for the study of journalism; (2) the creation of a university chair on the history of journalism; and (3) the writing of a letter to family members asking for forgiveness.
280. On December 28, 2006, the State reported that the majority of the commitments undertaken in the friendly settlement agreement had been honored. The petitioners, for their part, pointed out that the State had to submit reports on the progress of the criminal investigation, although they acknowledged and were completely satisfied that the other points of the friendly settlement agreement had been fulfilled.
281. The Inter-American Commission has closely followed the development of this friendly settlement and greatly appreciates the efforts that the parties have made to achieve it. The Commission once again underscores how important it is that the State’s obligation to investigate, try and punish those responsible for the facts be fulfilled, that the victims and their next-of-kin be compensated and that the State guarantees that the facts in the case will never recur. The Commission will therefore continue to monitor developments in the judicial inquiry into the facts in this case. CASE 11.197, Report Nº 68/03, Community of San Vicente de Los Cimientos (Guatemala)
282. On August 24, 1993, the Human Rights Legal Action Center (CLADH) and the Runujel Junam Council of Ethnic Communities (CERJ) (hereinafter “the petitioners”), representing 233 indigenous families, lodged a petition with the Commission. There they alleged that during the armed conflict, the area known as Los Cimientos -located in El Chajul, Quiché department, and home to 672 indigenous families who were the owners of that tract- was invaded by the Guatemalan Army, which established a barracks there. Threatened with shelling and in the wake of the murder of two of its members, the people of Los Cimientos were forced to flee their land in February 1982, abandoning their livestock and their corn, bean, and coffee crops. One month after the exodus, a number of families returned to the place, only to find that their homes had been burned down and their belongings stolen. The Los Cimientos community was forced off its land again in 1994. On June 25, 2001, the community’s lands –of which it was the legal owner- were violently taken from them by neighbors and others, apparently with the Government’s support.
283. The parties signed a friendly settlement agreement in Guatemala City on September 11, 2002. The Commission approved the terms of that agreement on October 10, 2003.
284. On December 28th, 2006, the State reported that while most points in the agreement had been implemented, the formation of the promotion committee in charge of verifying the state of the legal procedures against the persons implicated in the facts of the case was still pending, although a work meeting between the petitioners, the State and members of the community had already taken place.
285. Again, the Commission greatly appreciates the efforts the parties have made to reach this friendly settlement and the readiness to comply demonstrated by the State in this agreement. The Commission will continue to follow up and monitor those points of the friendly settlement agreement whose implementation is still pending.
PETITION 9168, Report Nº 29/04, Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz (Guatemala)
286. The case file shows that on August 12, 1983, Mr. Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz was detained while driving between Teculutan and Guatemala City. To date, his whereabouts remain unknown. On August 18, 1983, the IACHR received a petition that his wife, Blanca Vargas de Rosal, brought against the Guatemalan State alleging her husband’s forced disappearance.
287. The parties signed a friendly settlement agreement in Guatemala City on January 9, 2004, the terms of which the IACHR approved on March 11, 2004. In the agreement the State acknowledged its institutional responsibility for failure to comply with its obligation under Article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the Convention and for its violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19 and 25 of that Convention. It further stated that the primary purpose of the agreement reached in this case was to get at the truth and ensure that justice is done, to honor the victim’s memory, make reparations for the violations of the victim’s rights and to strengthen the regional system for the protection of human rights.
288. In a note sent to the Commission on February 15, 2006, Mrs. Blanca Vargas de Rosal reported that the only commitment honored by the State was the one related to the payment of financial compensation. The commitments pertaining to education, measures to honor the victim’s memory, housing, investigation and justice had not been complied with.
289. On December 28, 2006, the State reported that on the question of investigation and prosecution, the case had been referred to the Office of the Prosecutor for Human Rights, which continued to take steps to comply with the obligations still pending from the friendly settlement agreement.
290. The Inter-American Commission has closely followed the progress made on this friendly settlement and appreciates the efforts the parties made to arrive at it. The Commission must once again stress how important it is that the State discharges its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the facts denounced, both as moral compensation for the victims and their next-of-kin and as a guarantee that the facts will not recur. In the instant case, the Guatemalan State has not fulfilled this obligation. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor for compliance with the recommendations and the points of the agreement that have not yet been fulfilled.
PETITION 133/04, Report Nº 99/05, José Miguel Mérida Escobar (Guatemala)
291. On January 19, 2004, the IACHR received a petition that Amanda Gertrudis Escobar Ruiz, Fernando Nicolás Mérida Fernández, Amparo Antonieta Mérida Escobar, Rosmel Omar Mérida Escobar, Ever Obdulio Mérida Escobar, William Ramírez Fernández, Nadezhda Vásquez Cucho and Helen Mack Chang brought against the Guatemalan State for the extrajudicial execution of José Miguel Mérida Escobar on August 5, 1991. The petition states that Mr. Mérida Escobar was serving as Chief of the Homicide Division of the Department of Criminological Investigation of the National Police. He was in charge of the investigation into the murder of anthropologist Myrna Mack Chang on September 29, 1990. He had concluded that the main suspect in the anthropologist’s murder was a member of the Security Department of the Presidential Staff of the Guatemalan Army. Mérida Escobar was killed on August 5, 1991, having been shot in the head, the neck, left torso and left arm. He died instantly.
292. On July 22, 2005, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement, which the Commission approved on October 27, 2005. In the agreement, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights protected in Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention.
293. On December 21, 2006, the State reported that the ceremony to unveil the plaque in memory of José Mérida Escobar took place at National Civil Police Headquarters on November 30, 2006. In attendance was the Director General of the National Civil Police, who was there to represent the State, and the Chairman of COPREDEH. It also reported that in Decree No. 59-2006, the municipality of San José el Golfo named the street where the victim and his family lived in his memory, so that it is now José Miguel Mérida Escobar Street. The State reported that the rules to govern the “José Miguel Mérida Escobar” scholarship are awaiting approval. Finally, the victim’s youngest son, Edilsar Omar Mérida Alvarado, would be hired, starting January, under the program “Mi Primer Empleo” [My First Job].
294. The Commission recognizes and appreciates the State’s demonstrated willingness to comply with this agreement and will continue to follow and supervise the points of the friendly settlement that are still pending.
CASE 10.855, Report Nº 100/05, Pedro García Chuc (Guatemala)
295. The case record shows that in the early hours of March 5, 1991, several members of the State security forces detained Mr. Pedro García Chuc at kilometer 135 of the Occidente road in the municipality of Sololá, in Sololá Department. Two days later, Mr. Pedro García Chuc’s corpse, which had sustained several bullet wounds, was found in the same spot where he was detained. It is assumed that the extrajudicial execution was due to his activities as President of the Cooperativa San Juan Argueta R.L., as well as his active participation in efforts to secure benefits for his community. On April 2, 1991, the Commission received a petition filed against the Guatemalan State by the family of Pedro García Chuc, alleging violation of Pedro José García Chuc’s right to life. Filed by the victim’s next-of-kin, the petition was one of 46 petitions that the Commission received between 1990 and 1991, wherein the State was denounced for the extrajudicial execution of a total of 71 men, women and children, one of whom was Mr. García Chuc. Once the cases were processed with the IACHR, the latter decided, pursuant to Article 40 of its Rules of Procedure, to join the cases and decide them as a group.
296. On February 24, 2000, the Commission adopted Report Nº 5/00, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, in which it found that Guatemala’s international responsibility had been engaged by the arbitrary execution of the victims whose cases were reported, involving violations of the rights to life, to a fair trial, to judicial protection and other rights all recognized in the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission recommended to the Guatemalan State that:
1. Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and related violations in the cases of the victims named in section VII, and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Guatemalan law;
2. Adopt the measures necessary for the family members of the victims identified in paragraph 289 to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.
297. The Guatemalan State issued a formal declaration on April 13, 2000, in which it acknowledged its international responsibility for noncompliance with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, acknowledged the version of the events that appeared in Commission Report Nº 5/00, and pledged to pay just compensation to the victims’ next-of-kin, based on the established principles and criteria within the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. It also pledged to push the investigations into the facts and, to the extent possible, to bring those responsible to trial. Finally, it pledged to report the progress it made toward fulfillment of its obligations. Published that same day was Report Nº 39/00, which contained both Report Nº 5/00 and the formal commitment, undertaken by the Guatemalan State.
298. On February 18, 2005, the State and the petitioners signed an “AGREEMENT CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN CASE 10,855 PEDRO JOSE GARCÍA CHUC” and on July 19, 2005, signed a reparations agreement.
299. Based on the information supplied by the parties thus far, the Commission observes that the measures to honor the victim’s memory have been carried out and the victim’s next-of-kin have been paid compensation. The Commission will continue to follow and supervise the pending points of the compliance agreement and the reparations agreement.
[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
