Annual Report 2006 - Chapter III

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IACHR 2006

CASE 9903, Report Nº 51/01, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. (United States)

398. In Report Nº 51/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

1. Convene reviews as soon as is practicable in respect of all of the Petitioners who remained in the State’s custody, to ascertain the legality of their detentions in accordance with the applicable norms of the American Declaration, in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as reported by the Commission’s analysis in the report; and

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that all aliens who are detained under the authority and control of the State, including aliens who are considered “excludable” under the State’s immigration laws, are afforded full protection of all of the rights established in the American Declaration, including in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as reported by the Commission’s analysis in its report.

399. In its 2005 Annual Report, the Commission indicated that based upon the State’s communication dated December 15, 2005, which informed the Commission that it disagreed with and declined the Commission’s recommendations and denied any violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man in light of the State’s previous responses in the case, which have been posted on the Commission’s web site at www.cidh.org, and based upon the Petitioner’s letter dated December 27, 2005, which advised the Commission that they had no information regarding the compliance by the United States with Report Nº 51/01, the Commission stated that it considered compliance with the Commission’s recommendations transcribed above as pending. By letter dated December 7, 2006, the Petitioners advised the Commission that they did not have observations regarding compliance by the United States with the recommendation set forth in Report N° 51/01. The State has not provided the Commission with updated information. Based upon the information available, therefore, the Commission considers compliance with the recommendations remains pending.

Case 12.243, Report N° 52/01, Juan Raul Garza (United States)

400. In Report N° 52/01 dated April 4, 2001, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide Mr. Garza with an effective remedy, which includes commutation of sentence; and

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that persons who are accused of capital crimes are tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the Declaration, and in particular by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital trials.

401. The Commission lacks updated information from the State and the Petitioner on compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report N° 52/01. Accordingly, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.

CASE 11.753, Report Nº 52/02, Ramon Martinez Villareal (United States)

402. In Report Nº 52/02 dated October 10, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide Mr. Martinez Villareal with an effective remedy, which includes a re-trial in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections prescribed under Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, Mr. Martinez Villareal’s release.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that foreign nationals who are arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or are detained in any other manner in the United States are informed without delay of their right to consular assistance and that, with his or her concurrence, the appropriate consulate is informed without delay of the foreign national’s circumstances, in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections enshrined in Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration.

403. In its 2005 Annual Report, the Commission stated that based upon the information available, it considered that there had been partial compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information since the publication of the 2005 Annual Report, and therefore reiterates its prior conclusion that the State has partially complied with the recommendations set forth in Report N° 52/02.

CASE 11.140, Report Nº 75/02, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States)

404. In Report Nº 75/02 dated December 27, 2002, the IACHR made the following recommendations:

1. Provide Mary and Carrie Dann with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to ensure respect for the Danns’ right to property in accordance with Articles II, XVIII and XXIII of the American Declaration in connection with their claims to property rights in the Western Shoshone ancestral lands.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that the property rights of indigenous persons are determined in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles II, XVIII and XXIII of the Declaration.

405. In a note dated January 18, 2006, the State informed the Commission that it disagreed with and declined the Commission’s recommendations in Report N° 75/02 based upon the State’s prior filings in the case, including the prior Response of the United States posted on the Commission’s website (www.cidh.org/resp.eng.htm). In a communication received September 14, 2006, the Petitioners stated that since the Commission issued Report N° 75/02 in December of 2002, new and continued violations of Western Shoshone human rights persist as the United States continued harassing Western Shoshone families with monetary fines and other collection notices; initiated sales of Western Shoshone ancestral lands; and proceeded with plans to permit cyanide heap leach gold mining, nuclear waste storage, geothermal and oil/gas leasing, military weapons testing, and water expropriation on Western Shoshone land. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that compliance with the Commission’s recommendations set forth in Report N° 75/02 is pending.

CASE 11.193, Report Nº 97/03, Shaka Sankofa (United States)

406. In Report Nº 97/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide the next-of-kin of Shaka Sankofa with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that violations similar to those in Mr. Sankofa’s case do not occur in future capital proceedings.

3. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.

407. In its 2005 Annual Report, the Commission stated that based upon the information available, it considered that there had been partial compliance with the Commission’s recommendations set forth in Report N° 97/03. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information since the publication of the 2005 Annual Report. As such, the Commission presumes that the compliance with the recommendations in Report N° 97/03 remains partial.

CASE 11.204, Report Nº 98/03, Statehood Solidarity Committee (United States)

408. In Report Nº 98/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

Provide the Petitioners with an effective remedy, which includes adopting the legislative or other measures necessary to guarantee to the Petitioners the effective right to participate, directly or through freely chosen representatives and in general conditions of equality, in their national legislature.

409. By note dated January 11, 2006, the State indicated that it disagreed with and declined the Commission’s recommendation and denied any violations of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man based upon its previous responses in the case. In a letter dated December 2, 2006, the Petitioners informed the Commission that the United States had failed to grant the residents of Washington, D.C representation in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives as recommended by the Commission. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that compliance with the Commission’s recommendation is pending.

CASE 11.331, Report Nº 99/03, Cesar Fierro (United States)

410. In Report Nº 99/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide Mr. Fierro with an effective remedy, which includes a re-trial in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections prescribed under Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, Mr. Fierro’s release.

411. In a note dated January 11, 2006, the State informed the Commission that it disagreed with and declined the recommendations of the Commission and continued to deny any violation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man based upon its prior responses in the case. In a letter dated December 13, 2006, the Petitioners informed the Commission that the State had not complied with the Commission’s recommendations in Report N° 99/03. According to the Petitioners, Mr. Fierro remains on death row in Texas and the United States has not re-tried or released Mr. Fierro, or provided any other remedy. The Petitioners also claimed that the United States made information available to local authorities about their obligation in regard to consular access. The Petitioners added, however, that since December 29, 2003, the United States had not reviewed its laws, procedures and practices in this regard. The Petitioners noted that some local authorities had adopted instructions to their personnel about consular access obligations but that actual implementation remains pending. Finally, the Petitioners stated that the United States failed to inform U.S. courts of their obligation to provide redress to foreign nationals who were not informed of their right of consular access but who were convicted of criminal charges. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report N° 99/03 remains pending.

CASE 12.240, Report Nº 100/03, Douglas Christopher Thomas (United States)

412. In Report Nº 100/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide the next-of-kin of Douglas Christopher Thomas with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.

413. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report N° 100/03. As such, the Commission reiterates its conclusion stated in its 2005 Annual Report that there has been partial compliance with the Commission’s recommendations.

CASE 12.412, Report Nº 101/03, Napoleon Beazley (United States)

414. In Report Nº 101/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide the next-of-kin of Napoleon Beazley with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.

415. In a letter dated January 9, 2006, the Petitioner informed the Commission that the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. (2005), which held that the application of the death sentence to individuals who were younger than eighteen years of age when they commit a capital crime is unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, has led to compliance by the State of Texas with the Commission’s recommendation N° 2. The Petitioner claimed, however, that neither the United States government nor the State of Texas had done anything to comply with the Commission’s recommendation No. 1. Based on the information above the Commission considers that the State has complied with Recommendation No. 2 set forth in Report N° 101/03. Compliance with recommendation No. 1 is still pending.

CASE 12.430, Report N° 1/05, Roberto Moreno Ramos, (United States)

416. In Report N° 1/05 dated January 28, 2005, the IACHR made the following recommendations:

1. Provide Mr. Moreno Ramos with an effective remedy, which includes a new sentencing hearing in accordance with the equality, due process and fair trial protections prescribed under Articles II, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration, including the right to competent legal representation.

3. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that defendants in capital proceedings are not denied the right to effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal to challenge the competency of their legal representation on the basis that the issue was not raised at an earlier stage of the process against them.

417. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations set forth in Report N° 1/05. As such, the Commission presumes that the recommendations are pending compliance.

CASE 12.439, Report Nº 25/05, Toronto Markkey Patterson (United States)

418. In Report Nº 25/05 dated March 7, 2005, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide the next-of-kin of Toronto Markkey Patterson with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.

2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.

419. Thus far, the parties have not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed above. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that there has been full compliance by the United States with the recommendation to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crimes was committed, were under 18 years of age. Therefore, based upon the information available, the Commission considers that there has been partial compliance with Recommendation No. 2 set forth in Report N° 25/05.

CASE 12.421, Report N° 91/05, Javier Suarez Medina (United States)

420. In Report N° 91/05 issued on October 24, 2005, the Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Provide the next-of-kin of Mr. Suarez Medina with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.

3. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that foreign nationals who are arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or are detained in any other manner in the United States are informed without delay of their right to consular assistance and that, with his or her concurrence, the appropriate consulate is informed without delay of the foreign national’s circumstances, in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections enshrined in Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration.

4. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that requests for precautionary measures granted by the Commission are implemented so as to preserve the Commission’s functions and mandate and to prevent irreparable harm to persons.

421. The parties have not provided the Commission with up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission, therefore, presumes that the recommendations in Report N° 91/05 are pending compliance.

[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT]