|
|
|
Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR (Continuation)
CASE 11.654, Report N° 62/01, Ríofrío Massacre (Colombia)
211. In its April 6, 2001 Report N° 62/01, the Commission concluded that the Colombian State was responsible for violating the right to life of Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo, Miguel Antonio Ladino Ramírez, María Cenaida Ladino Ramírez, Carmen Emilia Ladino Ramírez, Julio César Ladino Ramírez, Lucely Colorado, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino, Celso Mario Molina, Rita Edelia de Molina, Ricardo Molina, Freddy Molina, Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, and Hugo Cedeño Lozano. Also, the State was responsible for failing to fulfill its special duty to protect two minors, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino and Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention. The Commission further concluded that the State of Colombia was responsible for violating the right to humane treatment, recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, of Hugo Cedeño Lozano, Miguel Ladino, Cenaida Ladino, Ricardo Molina Solarte, and Celso Mario Molina Sauza as well as for failing to fulfill its obligation to provide due judicial protection to the victims in the present case in accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Treaty.
212. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible.
2. Take steps to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.
3. Take steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.
213. In Note DDH/GOI 62910/3401 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated December 6, 2007, the State reiterated the information already furnished, indicating that the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in a judgment dated March 6, 2003, had ordered the annulment of all the proceedings before the military courts and had ordered the case sent to the regular justice system. It also reported that the Human Rights Unit and International Humanitarian Law of the Office of the Prosecutor General had ordered, in a resolution dated September 2, 2005, that the investigation be conducted in tandem with the investigation being pursued by the Human Rights Sub-Unit of the city of Cali into the murders of Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo et al. It also reported that in a resolution of August 14, 2006, the head of the Central Criminal Analysis Unit had ordered the assistance of analysts to organize the information gathered and conclude the investigation of the incident that took place on October 5, 1993, in the municipality of Riofrío, Valle.
214. Information provided by the State indicates that the compensation payment provided for under the mechanism set out in Law 288/96 was made and therefore that this recommendation has been effectively met.
215. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 11.710, Report N° 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada
González and Evelio Antonio
216. The Commission, in Report N° 63/01 of April 6, 2001, concluded that agents of the State extrajudicially executed Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro and that the State was therefore responsible for the violation of Article 4, to the detriment of Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro, 4 and 5, to the detriment of Carlos Manuel Prada González, and 8(1), 25, and 1(1) to the detriment of both victims and their next-of-kin.
217. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Carry out a full, impartial, and effective investigation within the ordinary jurisdiction with a view to judging and punishing those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro
2. Adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the victims’ next-of-kin receive adequate and timely reparations for the violations determined in the Report.
3. Take the steps necessary to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopt the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary penal justice system.
218. On December 7, 2007, in note DDH/GOI 693527/3402 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State again reported that the applicant’s lawyer had lodged an appeal for annulment with the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice against the decision of the Military Criminal Court of March 22, 2002, that had acquitted the state agents involved in the case, and that the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had ruled on September 13, 2006, that the proceedings be annulled as of the deed of October 11, 1996, whereby the first-instance judge of the military justice system had ordered the committal hearing closed. It also reported that on that date, the proceedings were taken on by the office of the 11th Prosecutor of the Medellín Brigade, with which the case would remain before the military courts.
219. The State repeated the information already submitted, indicating that the Committee of Ministers had determined, in resolution No. 2 of May 3, 2002, to issue a favorable decision for awarding compensation for damages to the victims’ relatives under the terms of Law 288/96, and that the resolution in question had been attached to the administrative proceedings being pursued by the Administrative Court of Antioquia, during which proceedings the National Army was declared administratively responsible for the facts of the instant case in a judgment dated November 16, 2004. The information indicates that judgment is currently before the appeals court and that a request has been made for the decision to be given precedence. The information made available to the IACHR does not indicate that the corresponding indemnification payments have been made.
220. The Commission concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.
CASE 11.712, Report N° 64/01, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry (Colombia)
221. In its April 6, 2001 Report N° 64/01, the Commission concluded that the Colombian State was responsible for violating the right to life of Mr. Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry established in Article 4 of the American Convention; the right to personal integrity of Mrs. María Fredesvinda Echeverry established in Article 5 of the American Convention; the right to humane treatment, and noncompliance with the obligation to adopt special measures of protection in relation to the minor Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, established in Articles 5 and 19 of the American Convention; as well as noncompliance with the obligation to provide due judicial protection for the victims in this case, in accordance with Articles 8 and 25, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Treaty.
222. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation before ordinary jurisdiction for the purpose of judging and sanctioning those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.
2. Adopt the measures necessary to redress the consequences of the violations committed against María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, as well as providing due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.
3. Take the steps necessary to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.
223. On December 5, 2007, in Note DDH/GOI 62578/3348 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State again reiterated that on November 23, 2004, the Second Division Court of the National Army had resolved to acquit Maj. Hernán Bonilla Carrera Sanabria and the retired volunteer soldiers Manuel Bonilla Collazos and José Armando Cruz González of the crimes of homicide and attempted homicide. Later, the Superior Military Court resolved the appeal filed by the Judicial Attorney and military prosecutor, upholding the acquittal judgment in full. The Assistant Attorney General of the Nation was later asked to file review proceedings against the acquittal, but this suit was dismissed on the ground that “no overwhelming noncompliance of the Colombian State’s obligation to conduct a serious and impartial investigation” had been detected. The Commission notes that the proceedings were not transferred to the regular courts and that the trial concluded with the military courts’ acquittal of the members of the National Army. Consequently, it must conclude that this recommendation has not been implemented.
224. The information submitted by the State indicates that in a judgment dated October 29, 2004, the Relief Chamber for the Administrative Court of Norte de Santander and Cesar ruled that the Colombian State was administratively responsible for the death of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and for the injuries inflicted on María Fredesvinda Echeverry de Isaza and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and ordered that the victims and their next-of-kin be paid moral and material damages. The information furnished further indicates that this judgment was expanded on January 31, 2005, to include other charges upheld against the State. Nonetheless, the applicant filed an appeal that concluded by decision of the State Council from April 13, 2007 in the approval of a conciliation agreement. The State further informed that by resolution of payment No. 2512, this conciliation was complied with the indemnification in favor of María Fredesvina Echeverri de Isaza and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón. Therefore, the information made available to the IACHR indicates that the corresponding indemnification payments have been made.
225. In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 10.205, Report N° 53/06, Germán Enrique Guerra Achuri (Colombia)
226. On March 8, 2006, at a working meeting held at IACHR headquarters, the parties formalized a friendly settlement agreement, which was approved by the IACHR in Report N° 53/06 on March 16, 2006.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to;
1. To make reparations for the material and moral damages sustained by Mr. Germán Enrique Guerra Achurri as a result of the incidents of February 8, 1988, at the La Perla estate workers’ camp, located in the municipality of Remedios, Antioquia Department, as a consequence of which Mr. Guerra Achurri lost a leg.
2. Request the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation to file an action seeking review of the January 23, 1995 ruling of the Military Criminal Court.
227. The State agreed In this regard, the State reported on December 4, 2007, in note DDH/GOI 62052/3306 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that in talks held on November 16, 2007, the parties agreed on the amount of compensation due to Mr. Guerra Achurri and his family from the State, and that they were waiting for the approval of the reconciliation agreement by the administrative judges of Antioquia in order for the corresponding payments to be made.
228. The State reports that on December 12, 2006, the Attorney General of the Nation lodged an application for review with the Criminal Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, decision on which is still pending.
229. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the recommendations have been partially implemented.
CASE 11.141, Report N° 105/05, Villatina Massacre (Colombia)
230. On July 29, 1998, the Colombian State publicly accepted its responsibility for the violent incidents that took place in the Villatina neighborhood of the city of Medellín on November 15, 1992, in which the children Johana Mazo Ramírez, Johny Alexander Cardona Ramírez, Ricardo Alexander Hernández, Giovanny Alberto Vallejo Restrepo, Oscar Andrés Ortiz Toro, Ángel Alberto Barón Miranda, Marlon Alberto Álvarez, and Nelson Dubán Flórez Villa were killed, along with the youth Mauricio Antonio Higuita Ramírez.
231. The IACHR adopted friendly settlement Report N° 105/05 in the case “Villatina Massacre”, signed by the petitioners and the State on July 29, 2002.
Under the terms of the agreement the State agreed to:
1. Recognize its responsibility.
2. Reparations for the damage caused to the victims and their families.
3. Adopt measures to ensure the right to justice.
232. On December 6, 2007, by means of note DDH/GOI 63045/3378 from the Directorate of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the State reiterated the information already submitted regarding compliance with the acknowledgement of responsibility, with the commitment of providing the victims’ families with redress, both individually and collectively, and with restoring the historical memory of the victims. Regarding the individual reparation measures, the State again reported that it compensated the victims’ next-of-kin by means of the reconciliation order of the Antioquia Administrative Tribunal of March 12, 1998, and by means of resolution 06/02 adopted under Law 288 of 1996.
233. Regarding the collective reparation measures, the State reported that it built a health center in the Villatina district, including a commemorative plaque on which its responsibility was acknowledged; that it refitted the San Francisco de Asís Primary School; and that it organized a nonconventional education project at a garment industry facility. Regarding the measures for the recovery of the victims’ historical memory, the State again gave information on the inauguration of a park monument in the city of Medellín on July 13, 2004, with a commemorative plaque acknowledging responsibility. The State also reported that it would send the IACHR up-to-date information about the status of the domestic proceedings being conducted in connection with the incident.
234. The State reported on the difficulties that had emerged in taking steps toward meeting the commitment of publishing and disseminating the friendly settlement agreement, since the victims’ families do not have legal representation.
235. The IACHR concludes that there has been partial compliance with the measures spelled out in the friendly settlement agreement.
CASE 12.476, Report N° 67/06, Oscar Elias Biscet et al. (Cuba)
236. In Report N° 67/06 of October 21, 2006, the IACHR concluded that the State was responsible for; a) violating Articles I, II, IV, VI, XX, XXI, XXII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration; b) violating Article V of the American Declaration; c) violating Article X of the American Declaration; and d) violating Article XVIII of the American Declaration; to the detriment of the persons indicated in the Report.
237. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State;
1. Order the immediate and unconditional release of the victims in this case, while overturning their convictions inasmuch as they were based on laws that impose unlawful restrictions on their human rights.
2. Adopt the measures necessary to adapt its laws, procedures and practices to international human rights laws. In particular, the Commission is recommending to the Cuban State that it repeal Law No. 88 and Article 91 of its Criminal Code, and that it initiate a process to amend its Constitution to ensure the independence of the judicial branch of government and the right to participate in government.
4. Redress the victims and their next of kin for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered as a result of the violations of the American Declaration herein established.
5. Adopt the measures necessary to prevent a recurrence of similar acts, in keeping with the State’s duty to respect and ensure human rights.
238. The IACHR was made aware, by means of information presented by the petitioners in November 2007, that fifty-nine victims, imprisoned in March and convicted in April 2003, were still in jail under conditions that have caused them serious health problems that they did not have prior to their detention, and that, in other cases, preexisting health problems have worsened. Of the fifty-nine prisoners, seven are hospitalized, with their lives in great danger. The petitioners reported that the prisoners remain in unclean conditions, are poorly fed, receive no medical or religious attention, and visits from their relatives are restricted.
239. On November 13, 2007, the IACHR received a communication in which the head of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., said: “I return, enclosed herewith, the referenced notes 12.476 […] of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.” In its reply the State said that: “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has no jurisdiction, nor the OAS moral authority, to analyze this or any other topic regarding Cuba.”
240. Based on the information furnished by the petitioners, the Commission concludes that compliance with the recommendations issued in the case at hand is still pending.
CASE 12.477, Report N° 68/06, Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo et al. (Cuba)
241. In Report N° 68/06 of October 21, 2006, the IACHR concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violating Articles XVII and XXVI of the American Declaration to the detriment of Messrs. Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla García and Jorge Luis Martínez Isaac, by not providing them with a fair trial; and b) violating Article 1 of the American Declaration, to the detriment of Messrs. Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán García, and Jorge Luis Martínez Isaac, by executing them on the basis of a sentence handed down in a proceeding that did not ensure due judicial guarantees.
242. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the state:
1. Adopt the measures necessary in order to adapt its laws, proceedings, and practices in line with international human rights law, especially those that relate to situations described in the present report. In particular, the Commission recommends the Cuban State reform its Constitution to ensure the independence of its judiciary.
2. Make reparations to the families of the victims for the material and psychological damages they have suffered by virtue of the violations of the American Declaration established here.
3. Adopt all measures necessary to ensure that similar events may not occur again, in accordance with the duty of the State to protect and guarantee human rights.
243. On November 13, 2007, the IACHR received a communication in which the head of the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, D.C., said: “I return, enclosed herewith, the referenced notes 12.477 […] of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.” In its reply the State said that: “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has no jurisdiction, nor the OAS moral authority, to analyze this or any other topic regarding Cuba.”
244. Based on the available information, the Commission believes that compliance with the recommendations set out in Report N° 68/06 is still pending.
CASE 11.421, Report N° 93/00, Edison Patricio Quishpe Alcívar (Ecuador)
245. In Report N° 93/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR reached the following conclusions:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$30,000 in compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in paying the compensation.
2. To urge the State to take the necessary measures to carry out the commitment to pursue civil and criminal proceedings and to seek to impose punishment on those persons who, in the performance of government functions or under the color of public authority, are considered to have participated in the alleged violation, and the payment of interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement, and in that context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
246. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by Ecuadorian State with respect to the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
247.
The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the
recommendations. CASE 11.439, Report N° 94/00, Byron Roberto Cañaveral (Ecuador)
248. In Report N° 94/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$7,000.00 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, or to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to carry out the pending commitment to bring civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against those persons who, in the performance of state functions, participated in the alleged violations, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the Ecuadorian State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on progress in carrying out the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.
249. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance to the compensation payment by the Ecuadorian State. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
250. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.445, Report N° 95/00, Ángelo Javier Ruales Paredes (Ecuador)
251. In its October 5, 2000 Report N° 95/00 the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the Ángelo Javier Ruales Paredes case.
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. Award Mr. Ángelo Javier Ruales Paredes lump-sum compensatory damages of fifteen thousand US dollars (US$15,000) or the equivalent in local currency.
2. Bring civil and criminal proceedings and pursue administrative sanctions against those persons who are alleged to have participated in the violation in the performance of State functions or under the color of public authority.
252. On October 15, 2001 the petitioners informed that the State had proceeded to pay the compensatory damage award, which completed the compliance with the friendly settlement agreement considering the State had previously punished the responsible parties.
253. The IACHR reiterates its conclusion of full compliance with the friendly settlement agreement.
CASE 11.466, Report N° 96/00, Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guamán (Ecuador)
254. In Report N° 96/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$25,000 as compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.
2. To urge the State to take the measures needed for carrying out the commitments still pending with respect to bringing to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, as to the performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
255. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance of the compensatory payment made by the Ecuadorian State. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
256. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.584, Report N° 97/00, Carlos Juela Molina (Ecuador)
257. In its Report N° 97/00 of October 5, 2000 the IACHR decided:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$15,000 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.
2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to comply with the pending commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
258. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with the compensatory payment. On November 7, 2007 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.
259. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.783, Report N° 98/00, Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia (Ecuador)
260. In Report N° 98/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$63,000 as compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violations alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
2. To urge the State to take the measures necessary to carry out the commitments pending with respect to bringing to trial and punishing the persons responsible for the violations alleged, and to paying interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
261. Paragraph 1 recognizes compliance by the Ecuadorian State with the compensation payment. On November 7, 2007 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.
262. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
CASE 11.868, Report N° 99/00, Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo (Ecuador)
263. The case was submitted to the friendly settlement procedure at the request of the parties. In the agreement clauses contained in the friendly settlement report, the Ecuadorian State undertook to:
SEVENTH. FREEDOM OF ACTION
… not to interfere in the constitutional and statutory rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of the Restrepo family, their sympathizers, and human rights organizations that join this cause for the purpose of commemorating the death of Carlos and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy or for other purposes related to this event. The National Police and Armed Forces shall guarantee these natural and juridical persons the free exercise of these guarantees, in keeping with Ecuadorian law.
264. On November 7, 2007 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.
265. The Commission considers that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially implemented.
CASE 11.991, Report N° 100/00, Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva (Ecuador)
266. In Report N° 100/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR decided:
1. To recognize that the State has made payment of the US$50,000 in compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
2. To urge the State to make the decisions needed to carry out the pending commitments to bring to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.
3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in that context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.
267. Paragraph 1 recognizes the Ecuadorian State’s compliance with the compensation payment. The IACHR requested both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement on November 7, 2007. No replies were received from either within the set deadline.
268. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the recommendations.
[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
