REPORT Nº 34/06
PETITION 875-03
ADMISSIBILITY
RITA IRENE WALD JARAMILLO ET AL.
PANAMA
March 14, 2006
I. SUMMARY
1. On October 22, 2003, the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”)
received a petition submitted by the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL), Edwin Leslie Wald Jaramillo, and Edwina
Mercedes Jaramillo (hereinafter “the petitioners”), alleging that the
State of Panama (hereinafter, “the State”) did violate Articles 2, 4, 5,
7, 8, 19, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in
conjunction with the obligations assumed by the State under Article 1.1
thereof, together with Articles I, II, and III of the Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter the
“Convention on Forced Disappearance”), through the forced disappearance
of Rita Irene Wald Jaramillo. With respect to the violation of Article 5
of the Convention, the victims are identified as being, in addition to
Rita Wald, her mother and her seven brothers and sisters.
2. The petitioners claim that on
March 27, 1977, Rita Wald, a native of the province of Chiriquí who was
studying at secondary school and was a student activist, was forcibly
disappeared and that, to date, her whereabouts remains unknown. The
petitioners claim that, as occurred in other cases under the military
regime that ruled Panama between 1968 and 1989, no effective
investigation was carried out.
3. The State reports on several
legal proceedings that were carried out and statements that were taken
in both a first investigation, conducted between 1977 and 1978, and in a
second investigation, which took place between 1990 and 1994. The State
describes the various errors committed during the preliminary
proceedings and the negligence of some of the officials involved in the
case. However, the State maintains that the proceedings are still at the
summary investigation phase, and so the remedies provided by domestic
law have not been exhausted.
4. After examining the parties’
positions in terms of the admissibility requirements set out in Article
46 of the American Convention, the Commission decides to declare this
case admissible as regards Articles 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 25 of the
American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations assumed by the
State under Article 1.1 thereof, and as regards Articles I, II, and III
of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. In
addition, it resolves to notify the parties of its decision and to
continue with its analysis of the merits, and it also decides to publish
this report.
II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
5. The original petition was
received by the Commission on October 22, 2003, and was recorded as No.
875/03. The victim was also named in a global case covering disappeared
persons in Panama, which was assigned No. 882/03. On February 22, 2005,
the petitioners told the Commission that in the case at hand the Truth
Commission did not represent the alleged victim and that her
representation had been assigned to her mother, Edwina Jaramillo, and
her brother Edwin Wald, in conjunction with CEJIL Mesoamérica. On
February 28, 2005, the Commission informed the General Director of
Panama’s Truth Commission that “it has proceeded to remove, from the
list of victims given by [the Truth Commission] in complaint No.
P-882/03, the name of Rita Wald Jaramillo.” On July 13, 2005, the
Commission conveyed the petition to the State, in compliance with
Article 30.3 of its Rules of Procedure, and it set a deadline of two
months for the State to reply. On September 14, 2005, the State
requested a 30-day extension for submitting its response to the
petition; it was given until October 14, 2005, in compliance with
Article 30.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. The State filed no
response within the extended deadline granted; it did, however, do so on
October 24, 2005, after the period of time provided for in the Rules of
Procedure. The Commission transmitted this response to the petitioners
on October 27, 2005.
III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Petitioners
6. The petition deals with the
forced disappearance of the minor child Rita Irene Wald Jaramillo on
March 27, 1977, at which time she was seventeen years of age. The
disappearance was allegedly carried out by officials of Panama’s
military regime as a reprisal for the minor’s role as an opposition
student leader.
7. The petition claims that between
the military coup d’état of General Omar Torrijos on October 11, 1968,
and the invasion by U.S. forces on December 20, 1989, Panama was under a
military dictatorship during which many serious human rights violations
were perpetrated. During that dictatorial regime, the officers of the
National Guard dissolved the National Assembly and appointed a
military-led Provisional Government Junta.
8. According to the petitioners,
during this period political activities were all but suppressed by a
hardline military regime that set about arbitrarily persecuting and
systematically detaining the dictatorial government’s opponents. One of
the most controversial issues during the regime was the ratification of
the Panama Canal Treaties (the Torrijos-Carter Treaties). In response to
the Government’s actions in connection with those treaties, groups of
students began a series of protests. The State consequently decided to
intimidate and repress the student movement.
9. It is also claimed that at this
time, while at secondary school, Rita Wald was a member of the
Democratic Student Society (Sociedad Estudiantil Democrática, SED).
At the time of her disappearance, she was studying at the Colegio José
Antonio Rendón in Panama City. The petition claims that she played an
active role in student politics at this school. It notes that Rita was
an active leader of the SED and was well known at the school for her
ideology of fighting for social justice, democracy, and equality, and
against the Canal Treaties.
10. The petition reports that
according to the investigation carried out by the Second Superior Court
of Justice following the return of democracy, it was common knowledge
that Rita had been attacked and had received threatening phone calls
because of political matters.
11. The petitioners report that on
Sunday, March 27, 1977, Rita left her home at around 5:00 pm to return a
car to a friend of hers, Mr. Emilio Garzola, a presenter on the Onda
Popular radio station. The petition relates that Mr. Garzola said
that Rita handed over the vehicle in the vicinity of Galerías Obarrio at
6:00 pm and then asked him to take her somewhere else, but that he
refused. Mr. Garzola said that Rita went toward the Vía España to catch
a taxi. Later, according to the petition, Rita called a friend, Reina
Isabel Jaén, at approximately 8:30 pm. According to this friend, Rita
called to say she had a friend who wanted to meet her; the girl
declined, and Rita wished her goodbye, saying “I’ll see you tomorrow.”
This call is the last that is known of Rita.
12. The petitioners report that
after Rita failed to return home, on Tuesday, March 29, 1977, her sister
Tania Wald Jaramillo reported the disappearance to the National
Investigations Department (DENI), which launched a judicial
investigation. They report that in the first statements taken by
officials of this authority, they were asked about the minor’s sexual
relations and whether she was sexually attractive. The petitioners claim
that such questions, totally unrelated to the context of a serious
investigation, were commonly asked during that period by the DENI and
the Prosecution Service. They argue that although Rita’s family did
everything they could to ensure an investigation was pursued,
on January 23, 1978, ten months later, the prosecutor’s office asked
that a provisional impersonal dismissal be issued on account of there
being no evidence to indicate whether the disappearance was forced or
voluntary.
13. The petition indicates that six
years later, on February 7, 1984, the disappeared minor’s brother Edwin
Wald asked the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation to reopen
the case. However, he received no reply. Subsequently, in January 1990,
Rita’s brother again tried to have the case reexamined, requesting that
the case file be reopened and that Cleto Hernández, Emilio Garzola, and
Lucho Gómez be investigated and statements taken from them. On April 17,
1990, the Second Superior Prosecutor formally requested that the Second
Superior Court reopen the case file, which duly took place the following
month.
14. According to the complaint, in
contrast to the sixty-three pages (including the protocolary texts) that
made up the initial investigation, the second phase of the investigation
covers more than six hundred additional pages. Statements were taken
from Manuel Noriega, Cleto Hernández, and Darío Arosemena. The
petitioners claim that some the statements and evidence collected during
this second phase in the proceedings indicate that Mr. Garzola, the last
person to speak with Rita, was a G-2 member and was conducting
intelligence work for the security forces. The petition states that Mr.
Garzola was summoned to appear, but that he gave no evidence because he
had left the country permanently for Czechoslovakia. It also claims that
on January 31, 1992, a request was made for the initiation of
proceedings against Emilio Garzola, Manuel Antonio Noriega, Cleto
Hernández, and Darío Arosemena. In spite of the evidence indicating a
relationship between Mr. Garzola and Rita Wald’s disappearance, on
September 13, 1994, the Second Superior Court of Justice provisionally
dismissed Messrs. Emilio Garzola and Luis Antonio Gómez from the
proceedings.
15. The petitioners say that in
2001, a set of human bones were found in clandestine graves and were
identified as the remains of disappearee Heliodoro Portugal.
Following this discovery, the Government of Panama set up a Truth
Commission to cast light on crimes committed by the dictatorship. On
April 18, 2002, Rita Wald’s case was included in the Commission’s final
report, which concluded that her disappearance and the lack of due
diligence in its investigation had been politically motivated.
16. By tolerating Rita Wald’s forced
disappearance and failing to locate her, the petitioners claim that the
Panamanian State incurred in international responsibility for violating
Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of
Persons and Articles 7, 5.1 and 5.2, 4.1, 8, 25, and 19 of the American
Convention.
17. With reference to Article 2 of the
American Convention, the petitioners say that the failure to adopt
appropriate legislative, administrative, judicial, or other measures to
safeguard the rights in question implies a violation of that Article. In
particular, they note that the failure to criminalize the offense of
forced disappearance, as established in the relevant Inter-American
Convention, meant that even after the Convention on Forced
Disappearances was ratified, the judiciary investigated forced
disappearances as if they were homicides.
B.
State
18. In its reply dated October 18,
2005, the State requested that the petition be ruled inadmissible. The
State reports on legal proceedings conducted as part of the
investigations in 1977 and the investigations carried out after 1990. In
particular, they refer to several of the statements that were taken in
connection with Rita Wald’s disappearance.
19. The State’s reply to the petition
sets out the following conclusions:
1. The
case documents show the background and student activism of RITA IRENE
WALD.
2. They
also show that at the time of her physical disappearance, the
authorities responsible for investigating the incident failed to
pursue the relevant formalities, omitting such basic elements as:
inspecting the vehicle that, by its owner’s admission, was occupied by
RITA prior to her disappearance; requesting a list of incoming calls
to the house of her friend REINA, who claims that RITA called her at
around 8:00 pm; taking a statement from EMILIO GARZOLA immediately
after the incident was reported; calling on her friends to give
statements; checking with the Canal Zone authorities to see if the
young woman had entered that area – access to the Canal Zone at that
time was restricted, so if RITA did enter the area, there would be
records of that.
3. It can
also be seen that those responsible for investigating the incident
manipulated and brought pressure to bear on the witnesses, so that the
case file would include aspects of the young disappearee’s private
life that were not germane to the investigation.
4.
Circumstantial evidence pointed to individuals who could have had an
interest or stood to benefit from RITA’s physical disappearance, but
they were not summoned to give timely statements.
5. The
veracity of the claims made by EMILIO GARZOLA when the case was
reopened was not verified.
6. No
statement was taken from LUIS ANTONIO GÓMEZ.
7. The
time that the investigation took and the number of prosecutors (five
in total) who handled it indicate the problems that the proceedings
encountered, since each new prosecutor meant new opinions, objectives,
plans, and results.
8.
Although MANUEL ANTONIO NORIEGA, CLETO HERNÁNDEZ, and DARÍO AROSEMENA
were identified as authorities at the time of RITA’s disappearance,
and they were associated with the failure to conduct an investigation,
no statements were ever taken from them.
9. The
other homicide detectives who supposedly participated in investigating
RITA’s physical disappearance were not called upon in order to clarify
whether or not they did in fact investigate this case and whether or
not their opinions differed from those of LESLIE LOAIZA who clearly,
and as indicated by the witnesses, did not adopt an impartial stance
vis-à-vis the investigation.
10. The
claims made by the witnesses against LESLIE LOAIZA, who they say was
in charge of the questioning, were not examined.
11. The
claims of CLETO HERNÁNDEZ that he did not participate in the
investigation were not confronted with the statements of LESLIE LOAIZA
and the witnesses who say that he did question them.
In light of the
above, the Panamanian State is pleased to inform the Honorable
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the case in question is
in the summary investigation phase, and so the remedies offered by
domestic jurisdiction have not been exhausted as described in Article
46.1.a of the Inter-American Convention (sic) on Human Rights and,
consequently, Article 31.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and so the instant petition
is deemed inadmissible.
IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY
A. Competence
1. Competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis,
and ratione
materiae of the Commission
20. The petitioners are entitled,
under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints with
the Commission. The petition names, as its alleged victim, an individual
person with respect to whom the Panamanian State had assumed the
commitment of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the
American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that
Panama signed the American Convention on November 22, 1969, and ratified
it on June 22, 1978. In addition, Panama ratified the Convention on the
Forced Disappearance of Persons on February 28, 1996, and that
instrument came into force on March 28, 1996. The Commission, therefore,
has competence, ratione personae, to examine the complaint.
21. The Commission has competence,
ratione loci, to deal with the petition since it alleges violations
of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the
territory of a state party thereto.
22. As regards its ratione
temporis competence to hear the petition, the Commission holds that
it describes an ongoing situation that has lasted for twenty-nine years,
which began when the minor child Rita Wald suffered a forced
disappearance on March 27, 1977, and the corresponding investigations
were allegedly hindered by agents of the State. In consideration
whereof, and bearing in mind that forced disappearance remains an
ongoing or permanent crime for as long as the victim’s whereabouts or
fate is not established,
the Inter-American Commission is competent to examine the violations of
human rights protected by the American Convention and the Convention on
Forced Disappearance of Persons identified by the petitioners.
23. In addition, and although no
such claim was made by the petitioners, the Commission has ratione
temporis competence to examine human rights violations arising from
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.
Thus, as provided for in Articles 23 and 50 of its Rules of Procedure,
the Commission is competent to examine and rule on alleged violations of
the American Declaration by the Panamanian States arising from incidents
occurring prior to the entry into force of the American Convention on
Human Rights.
24. In its Consultative Opinion on the
Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of
Man, the Inter-American Court stated that:
45. For the member
states of the Organization, the Declaration is the text that defines
the human rights referred to in the Charter. Moreover, Articles 1.2.b
and 20 of the Commission’s Statute define the competence of that body
with respect to the human rights enunciated in the Declaration, with
the result that to this extent the American Declaration is for these
States a source of international obligations related to the Charter of
the Organization.
46. For the States
Parties to the Convention, the specific source of their obligations
with respect to the protection of human rights is, in principle, the
Convention itself. It must be remembered, however, that, given the
provisions of Article 29.d, these States cannot escape the obligations
they have as members of the OAS under the Declaration, notwithstanding
the fact that the Convention is the governing instrument for the
States Parties thereto.
25. Accordingly, the American
Declaration has been taken to be a reference point for determining the
scope of the Commission’s reviews of human rights violations in contexts
where its competence for dealing with Convention violations is
restricted or nonexistent.
26. Consequently, the Commission
has ratione temporis competence to hear and decide on the instant
case under the American Declaration as regards the violations prior to
June 22, 1978, and under the American Convention as regards the
violations that took place after that date.
27. Finally, the Commission has
competence ratione materiae, since the petition describes
violations of human rights protected by the American Declaration, by the
American Convention, and by the Inter-American Convention on Forced
Disappearance of Persons.
2. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
28. Article 46.1.a of the Convention
requires that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and
exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of
international law.” Article 46.2.c of the Convention says that when
there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under
those remedies, the rule requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies
need not apply. The Commission’s practice has been to analyze, on a
prior basis and separately from the merits of the case, whether an
exception is applicable. As regards the distribution of the burden of
proof in determining compliance with this requirement, the Commission
again notes that when a state claims nonexhaustion, it must indicate the
resources still to be exhausted and their effectiveness. If the state
claiming nonexhaustion can prove the existence of specific domestic
remedies that should have been invoked, the petitioners must demonstrate
that those remedies were exhausted or that one of the exceptions
provided for in Article 46.2 of the Convention is applicable. In the
following paragraphs, the Commission will analyze whether the
requirement set out in Article 46.1.a of the Convention has been met, or
whether the exceptions contained in Article 46.2 apply.
29. In the case at hand, the
petitioners maintain that the ineffectiveness of the resources relieves
them from having to comply with the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as
provided for in Article 46.2.c of the Convention. The petitioners claim
that the investigation began with the report of Rita Wald’s
disappearance filed with the Homicide Division of the National
Investigations Department (DENI) on March 29, 1977. They hold that, to
date, there has been no exhaustive investigation of the incident and no
serious attempt to identify, prosecute, or punish the guilty or to make
amends to Rita’s family. They claim that following the dismissal of the
summary proceedings in 1994 and in spite of the different efforts made
by the family and the conclusions and recommendations of the Truth
Commission, the State has refused to take any further legal action in
connection with the case. The State maintains that domestic jurisdiction
has not been exhausted because the case is still at the summary
investigation phase and it recognizes the initial mistakes and
subsequent problems.
30. Upon analyzing the parties’
positions, the Commission notes that the minor child Rita Wald
disappeared 29 years ago, that an ongoing situation persists to date,
and that there has been no final judicial ruling regarding those guilty
for the incident or the whereabouts of her remains. Consequently, the
Commission believes that, prima facie, there has been an
unwarranted delay in discharging the criminal investigation of the
incident. The petitioners are therefore exempted from the requirement of
exhausting the remedies that domestic law provides, as described in
Article 46.2.c of the Convention. In the merits phase, the Commission
will analyze the effectiveness of this remedy and its effects vis-à-vis
Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.
3. Filing period
31. Article 46.1.b of the
Convention requires that petitions be “lodged within a period of six
months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights
was notified of the final judgment.” As provided for by Article 46.2 of
the Convention, the six-month period required in 46.1.b is not to be
applied in certain exceptional cases. The Commission notes that although
“the Convention’s requirements that domestic remedies be exhausted and
that the petition be lodged within six months following the judgment
exhausting domestic jurisdiction are independent,”
the exceptions set out in Article 46.2 of the American Convention are
common to both requirements.
32. In the case at hand, the exception
established in Article 46.2.c – “when there has been unwarranted delay”
– has already been examined by the Commission in its analysis of the
remedy exhaustion requirement set out in Article 46.1.a. Given the
circumstances analyzed, the Commission does not need to reexamine
whether or not this exception applies. Consequently, the Commission
concludes that the deadline of six months for submitting petitions is
not applicable, in accordance with Article 46.2.c of the American
Convention. Under the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, in those cases in
which the exceptions to the prior exhaustion requirement apply, the
petition must have been lodged within what the Commission considers a
reasonable time. In this specific situation, the Commission takes into
consideration the date on which the alleged violations occurred, the
context against which they took place, and the procedural steps taken by
the petitioners, and it concludes that the petition was lodged within a
reasonable delay.
4. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata
33. Nothing in the case file indicates
that the substance of the petition is pending in any other international
settlement proceeding or that it is substantially the same as any other
petition already examined by this Commission or another international
body. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of
the American Convention have been met.
5. Characterization of the alleged facts
34. At the admissibility stage, the
Commission must decide whether the stated facts could tend to establish
a human rights violation, as stipulated in Article 47.b of the American
Convention, and whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or is
“obviously out of order,” as stated in section (c) of that same Article.
35. The level of conviction
regarding those standards is different from that which applies in
deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must conduct a
prima facie assessment to examine whether the complaint entails an
apparent or potential violation of a right protected by the Convention
and not to establish the existence of such a violation. This examination
is a summary analysis, and does not imply prejudging the merits or
offering an advance opinion on them.
36. The Commission does not find the
petition to be “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order.”
Consequently, the Commission believes that, prima facie, the
petitioners have established the elements required by Article 47.b and
c.
37. Moreover, the Commission
believes that the forced disappearance of the minor child Rita Wald,
which occurred twenty-nine years ago apparently in reprisal for her
ideas and political activities,
together with the denial of justice that has characterized the case,
could tend to establish a violation of Articles I, XXV, and XXVI of the
American Declaration, Articles 1.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 25 of the
American Convention, and Articles I, II, and III of the Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.
V. CONCLUSIONS
31. Based on the foregoing
considerations of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the
case, the Commission concludes that the instant case satisfies the
admissibility requirements set out in Article 46 of the American
Convention.
THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS
DECIDES:
1. Declare the petition under
analysis admissible as regards Articles I, XXV, and XXVI of the American
Declaration, Articles 1.1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 25 of the American
Convention, and Articles I, II, and III of the Inter-American Convention
on Forced Disappearance of Persons.
2. To notify this decision to the
State and to the petitioners.
3. To begin its processing of the
merits of the case.
4. To publish this decision and to
include it in its Annual Report, to be presented to the General Assembly
of the OAS.
Done
and signed in the city of Washington, D.C., on the 14th day
of the month of March, 2006. (Signed): Evelio Fernández Arévalos,
President; Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro,
First Vice-President; Florentín Meléndez, Second Vice-President; Clare
K. Roberts, Freddy Gutiérrez, Paolo G. Carozza and Víctor E
Abramovich, Commissioners.
IACHR, Report No. 24/98,
Case 11.287, João Canuto de
Oliveira v. Brazil,
April 7, 1998; Report No. 9/00, Case 11.598, Alonso
Eugénio Da Silva v. Brazil, February 24, 2000; Report No. 33/01,
Case 11.552, Guerrilla del Araguaia – Julia Gomes Lund et al. v.
Brazil, March 6, 2001; Report No. 40/03, Case 10.301, 42nd
Police District – Parque São Lucas, São Paulo v. Brazil, October
8, 2003.
|