ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IACHR 2007

CHAPTER III - THE PETITION AND CASE SYSTEM

 Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR

(Continuation)

CASE 11.808, Report N° 107/00, Valentín Carrillo Saldaña (Mexico)

482.          In Report N° 107/00, the Commission approved the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties on March 1, 1999, along with the friendly conclusion agreement signed on December 2, 1999. In that report it decided:

1. To approve the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties on March 1, 1999, as well as the Agreement for Implementation of the Friendly Settlement signed on December 2, 1999.

2. To monitor those provisions of the Agreement that have not been fully implemented.

3. To certify the delivery of the benefits to the family of Valentín Carrillo Saldaña, when such deliveries take place.

483.          Based on the information previously received from the State and set out in its 2003 Annual Report, the Inter-American Commission believes that the commitments contained in the friendly settlement agreement and on which Report N° 107/00 was based have been implemented in good faith.

CASE 11.565, Report N° 53/01, González Pérez Sisters (Mexico)

484.          On April 4, 2001, the Inter-American Commission approved Report N° 53/01 on the referenced case, and concluded that the Mexican State violated the following rights of Delia Pérez de González and her daughters Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez, which are enshrined in the American Convention: the right to personal liberty (Article 7); the right to humane treatment and to privacy (Articles 5 and 11); the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25); and, in the case of Celia González Pérez, the rights of the child (Article 19); all in keeping with the general obligation set forth in Article 1(1) of that international instrument to respect and guarantee rights.  The Inter-American Commission also establishes that the Mexican State is responsible for violation of Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

485.          The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Conduct a full, impartial and effective investigation in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction of Mexico to determine the responsibility of all those involved in violating the human rights of Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez and Delia Pérez de González.

2. Provide adequate compensation to Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez and to Delia Pérez de González for the human rights violations established herein.

486.          On November 6, 2007, the IACHR asked both parties to report on the steps taken to implement those recommendations.

487.          On December 17, 2007, the State submitted a communication detailing the steps taken between July 2002 and December 2006, which have already been studied by the IACHR. In connection with that, the State notes that for 11 months, it has received no communication from the petitioners regarding the tasks still pending, such as taking expanded statements from Ana González Pérez and Delia González Pérez, showing the two of them the album containing photographs of military personnel, preparing an identikit image of the perpetrators of the attacks, etc.

488.          The State further notes that “on February 16, 2007, the authorities involved stated their willingness to continue with the pursuit of these formalities under a cooperation mechanism.” In the opinion of the Mexican State, the failure to make progress with implementing the recommendations is due to the lack of cooperation from the victims and their representatives.

489.          The State asked the IACHR to verify the time that had passed since the petitioners and their representatives had replied to their requests to set a date, time, place, and conditions for dealing with those formalities.

490.          The State reassured the IACHR of its commitment toward discharging the remaining formalities in accordance with the conditions set by the petitioners, and it asked the Commission to “accompany the joint review group” to that end. Likewise, the State asked the IACHR to contact the petitioners to set a date, time, and place to deal with those formalities, in conjunction with the working group. Once concluded, the prosecution service would be able to issue the corresponding determination and begin the redress procedure.

491.          On December 7, 2007, the petitioners asked the IACHR for a 15-day extension to comply with the additional comments on compliance with the recommendations issued by the Commission to Mexican State in Report 53/01; as of the date of the approval of this Annual Report, however, the petitioners had not provided the information requested.

492.          The Commission, therefore, concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.

            CASE 11.807, Report N° 69/03, José Alberto Guadarrama García (Mexico)

493.          On October 10, 2003, the Inter-American Commission approved Report N° 69/03 in the referenced case, in which it decided:

1. To approve the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties on October 30, 1998, as well as the final friendly settlement agreement signed on February 27, 2003.

2. To monitor the points in the agreement which have not been fully satisfied.

494.          During 2007, the IACHR continued to receive information from the parties regarding compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. On February 23, 2007, the petitioners sent the IACHR a note reporting that the item requiring the arrest of José Luis Velásquez Beltrán had not been implemented, and that there was insufficient information about the proceedings brought against other individuals involved in the facts of the case. That information was conveyed to the Mexican State on March 27, 2007.

495.          On the occasion of the working visit to Mexico made by the President of the IACHR and rapporteur for that country, a working meeting to follow up on the friendly settlement agreement was convened for April 12, 2007. The petitioners did not attend the meeting, but the authorities of the State presented a dossier of the actions undertaken to implement the friendly settlement agreement and requested that the IACHR close the case.

496.          On June 27, 2007, the Mexican State sent the IACHR a summary report of the steps taken to implement the friendly settlement agreement. It said it had pursued a “serious, complete, impartial, and effective” investigation that had led to the arrest and punishment of three individuals guilty of the murder of José Alberto Guadarrama García, and they consequently requested that the case be ruled concluded.

497.          In turn, by means of a communication dated August 24, 2007, the petitioners asked the Commission to continue monitoring the case since, in their opinion, not all the points of the agreement had been met. Specifically, the petitioners requested information about the investigation of the incident.

498.          On October 4, 2007, the State submitted its comments on the petitioners’ responses and again maintained it had fully complied with the agreement and requested that the case be closed.

499.          On November 6, 2007, the IACHR asked both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the friendly settlement agreement and conveyed the information furnished by the State in April 2007 to the petitioners. No additional information was received before the deadline.

500.          The Inter-American Commission notes that the points of the agreement dealing with a thorough investigation of the incident and the arrest and prosecution of those persons guilty of the violations of José Alberto Guadarrama García’s rights are still pending. The information furnished by the Mexican State since the adoption of the report, particularly that sent during 2007, reveals that it has made numerous efforts in that direction, resulting in the arrest and conviction of three of the perpetrators of those violations. The IACHR also notes that the State is persevering with its investigations and other actions to locate José Luis Velásquez Beltrán.

501.          The Commission concludes that the State has fully complied with the points of the agreement that the parties signed and contained in Report N° 69/03.

PETITION 388/01, Report N° 101/05, Alejandro Ortiz Ramírez (Mexico)

502.          In Report N° 101/05, the Commission approved the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties on December 7, 2004.

            Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:

1. Issue a communiqué publicly acknowledging its responsibility in the incidents that gave rise to the petition; and this communiqué shall be published in its gazette and on its webpage, and in different media outlets.

2. Process, before the Federal District Directorate for the Execution of Criminal Sanctions, the documentation supporting the definitive release of Mr. Alejandro Ortiz Ramírez, which he obtained on September 24, 2004.

3. Step up its joint efforts with the competent authorities to locate and apprehend the suspected murderer Santiago Rodríguez Mata.

4. Encourage a debate in the local legislature regarding the amendment of Articles 614 and 615 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the Federal District, regarding recognition of innocence in cases where statements obtained through torture constitute the sole evidence.

5. Through the office of the Assistant Attorney for Victim Attention and Community Services, it will provide psychotherapeutic help for Mr. Alejandro Ortiz Ramírez and his family in connection with the incidents described in the background section.

6. Include Mr. Alejandro Ortiz Ramirez’s case in the human rights curriculum taught to candidates for admission to the judicial police at its Professional Training Institute, thereby establishing an academic precedent in that institute’s study plans and teaching materials as a way to prevent a repetition of this incident.

7. Present Mr. Alejandro Ortiz Ramírez and his family with a home, 100% subsidized.

8. Present the minor children Alejandra, Martín, and Miguel Ortiz Breña, the progeny of Alejandro Ortiz Ramírez, with academic scholarships for their different academic levels and until they reach adult age, consisting of a monthly amount for each one of them, in accordance with the pre-established programs that exist for minors at risk from dropping out of school.

9. Present Anel Joana Ortiz Breña with two computer systems as a form of academic support.

503.          Based on the information previously received from the State and set out in its 2005 Annual Report, the Inter-American Commission believes that the commitments contained in the friendly settlement agreement and on which Report N° 101/05 was based have been implemented in good faith.

CASE 12.130, Report N° 2/06, Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán (Mexico)

504.          In Report N° 2/06, dated February 28, 2006, the Commission concluded that the Mexican State had incurred an international responsibility for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, in conjunction with the obligation to respect and ensure rights, pursuant to Articles 8, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention. 

505.          The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation in the Mexican general jurisdiction to determine the whereabouts of Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán; and, if it were determined that he was a victim of forced disappearance, to sanction all those responsible for such crime.

2. Provide adequate compensation to the relatives of the family of Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán for the human rights violations established herein.

506.          On November 6, 2007, the IACHR asked both parties to report on the steps taken to implement those recommendations. The petitioners did not respond to that request within the allotted timeframe, whereas the Government did so by means of a communication dated November 28, 2007. The State sent information containing a list of the federal and local authorities that participated in the investigation to locate Lt. Muñoz Guzmán.

507.          The State said that “these efforts have been carried out with the greatest diligence and devotion possible” but that, regrettably, Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán has to date not been located.

508.          Among the measures adopted by the authorities to locate Lt. Muñoz are the taking of 50 statements from persons of interest in Ciudad Juárez, Nuevo Casas Grandes, Tamaulipas, and Sonora, and searches at the military garrison where he was assigned, covering several hectares, and in areas adjacent to the military facility.

509.          As previously announced at the IACHR’s 127th regular session, the Mexican State also submitted, for consideration by the petitioners and the Commission, a work plan for continuing the investigations. This plan includes, inter alia, locating the bodies and/or incomplete sets of remains found between 1993 and 1995, which coincides with the date of Lt. Muñoz Guzmán’s disappearance; doing the same with the corpses found in the city of El Paso, Texas, Chihuahua; various measures for obtaining genetic information; requests for information from people who could have had contact with the victim; securing original documents with Lt. Miguel Orlando Muñoz Guzmán’s fingerprints, in order to search the records held in domestic and U.S. databases, while not discarding the possibility that he might be in the witness protection program.

510.          The Commission concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.

CASE 11.381, Report N° 100/01, Milton García Fajardo (Nicaragua)

511.          On October 11, 2001, the IACHR approved Report N° 100/01 and concluded that the Nicaraguan State had: a) violated the right to humane treatment contained in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Milton García Fajardo, Cristóbal Ruiz Lazo, Ramón Roa Parajón, Leonel Arguello Luna, César Chavarría Vargas, Francisco Obregón García, Aníbal Reyes Pérez, Mario Sánchez Paz, Frank Cortés, Arnoldo José Cardoza, Leonardo Solis, René Varela, and Orlando Vilchez Florez; and b) violated the rights of Milton García Fajardo and the 141 workers named as co-petitioners in the instant petition to a fair trial and to judicial protection, together with their economic, social and cultural rights, protected by Articles 8, 25, and 26, of the above-cited international instrument, in connection with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof.

512.           The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. To conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to establish the criminal responsibility of the persons who inflicted the injuries caused to the detriment of Milton García Fajardo, Cristóbal Ruiz Lazo, Ramón Roa Parajón, Leonel Arguello Luna, César Chavarría Vargas, Francisco Obregón García, Aníbal Reyes Pérez, Mario Sánchez Paz, Frank Cortés, Arnoldo José Cardoza, Leonardo Solis, René Varela and Orlando Vilchez Florez, and to punish those responsible in accordance with Nicaraguan law.

2. To adopt the measures necessary to enable the 142 customs workers who lodged this petition to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations of their human rights established herein.

513.          On November 27, 2006, the Commission requested the State and the petitioners, to submit information on the status of compliance with the recommendations. By letter dated December 20, 2006, the petitioners responded that the State has failed to comply with any of the agreements it assumed during the diverse working group meetings.

514.          At the Commission’s request, on December 13, 2007, the State reported that it had reached an agreement with 96% of the petitioners and victims, and that the agreement was being implemented. However, an agreement could not be reached with six petitioners since the compensation proposal submitted by those six was beyond the economic and social possibilities of the State.

515.          The Commission, therefore, concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.

CASE 11.506, Report N° 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor Dos Santos (Paraguay)

516.          The Commission, in Report N° 77/02, dated December 27, 2002, concluded that the Paraguayan State violated: a) to the detriment of Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor Dos Santos, the right to personal liberty and the right to a fair trial, enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the American Convention, insofar as the events occurring after August 24, 1989 are concerned; and  b)  to the detriment of Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor Dos Santos, the right to protection from arbitrary detention and the right to due process of law, established in Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, by reason of the events which took place prior to August 24, 1989. 

517.          The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Make full reparation to Mr. Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro, which includes appropriate compensation.

2. Make full reparation to Mr. José Víctor Dos Santos, which includes appropriate compensation.

3. Such reparation should be commensurate with the harm done, which implies that compensation should be greater for Mr. José Víctor Dos Santos, given that he spent eight years in prison, with no legal justification for his detention.

4. Order an investigation to determine who was responsible for the violations ascertained by the Commission and punish them.

5. Take the necessary steps to prevent such violations from recurring.

518.          The parties have not presented any information concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. Therefore, in keeping with the assessments contained in the Annual Reports for 2003, 2004 and 2006, the Commission concludes that the recommendations are still pending compliance.

CASE 11.800, Report N° 110/00, César Cabrejos Bernuy (Peru)

519.          In its Report N° 110/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR concluded that the Peruvian State had continually failed to comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, dated July 5, 1992, which ordered the reinstatement of Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy to his post as a colonel in the National Police of Peru, and thereby had violated Mr. Cabrejos Bernuy's right to judicial protection, enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention, and failed to fulfill its general duty to respect and ensure the rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction, enshrined in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 

520.          The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. To offer adequate compensation to Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy, pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention, including the moral aspect as well as the material one, for the violation of his human rights, and in particular,

2. To carry out the Judicial Order issued by the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 5, 1992, reinstating Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy in his position as Colonel in the National Police, paying him his salary and other remuneration owing to him but not paid since the date of his enforced retirement, and granting him all other benefits to which he is entitled as a Colonel of the Police, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension; or, as a second resort, to pay him the salary and other remuneration to which he would be entitled as a Colonel of the National Police, until he is of legal retirement age, paying also in this case his retroactive salary from the date of his forced retirement, and granting him all the other economic benefits to which, as a Colonel of the National Police, he is entitled, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension.

3. To conduct a full, impartial, and effective investigation of the facts, in order to establish responsibilities for the failure to carry out the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 5, 1992, and to pursue such criminal, administrative, and other procedures as necessary to apply the appropriate punishment to those responsible, as befits the gravity of the violations in question.

521.          Regarding observance of the recommendations, it is important to recall that, in its communication of December 3, 2003, the State of Peru reported that Supreme Resolutions No. 0716-2001-IN/PNP of July 10, 2001 and No. 1158-2001IN/PNP of November 13, 2001 ordered that Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy be rehired and credited for past service calculated as of his transfer to retirement, that is, from March 26, 1997 to July 10, 2001.

522.          In a communication dated November 1, 2007, the IACHR asked both parties to submit up-to-date information on the implementation of the aforesaid recommendations. Neither party presented the information requested before the deadline.[13]

523.          The IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State has partially complied with the recommendations contained in the report.

CASE 11.031, Report N° 111/00, Pedro Pablo López González et al. (Peru)

524.          In Report N° 111/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR concluded that the Peruvian State: a) through members of the National Police and Peruvian Navy, detained Messrs. Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez, and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More on May 2, 1992, at the human settlements of “La Huaca,” “Javier Heraud,” and “San Carlos,” located in the district and province of Santa, department of Ancash, and that it then proceeded in their disappearance; and b) therefore, the Peruvian State is responsible for the forced disappearance of the victims identified above, violating the following rights: the right to liberty (Article 7), the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to life (Article 4), the right to juridical personality (Article 3), and the right to an effective judicial remedy (Article 25) enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights.  In addition, the Peruvian State has breached its general obligation to respect and ensure the exercise of these rights set forth in the Convention, in the terms of Article 1(1) thereof. 

525.          The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

1. That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation.

2. That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More. Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492.

3. That it adopt the measures required for the family members of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established.

526.          In a communication dated November 1, 2007, the IACHR asked both parties to submit up-to-date information on the implementation of the aforesaid recommendations. Neither party presented the information requested before the deadline.[14]

527.          The IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State has partially complied with the recommendations contained in the report.

CASE 11.099, Report N° 112/00, Yone Cruz Ocalio (Peru)

528.          In Report N° 112/00 of December 4, 2000, the Commission concluded that: a) the Peruvian State, through members of the National Police, detained Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio on February 24, 1991, at the Tulumayo agricultural station, Aucayacu, province of Leoncio Prado, department of Huánuco, Peru, from which he was apparently taken to the Tulumayo military base, and later forced his disappearance; b)  accordingly, the Peruvian State is responsible for the forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio; c) consequently, Peru violated the right to liberty (Article 7), the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to life (Article 4), the right to juridical personality (Article 3), and the right to effective judicial recourse (Article 25), set forth in the American Convention on Human Rights; and d) the Peruvian State breached its general obligation to respect and ensure the exercise of these rights enshrined in the Convention, as set forth at Article 1(1) of the Convention.

529.          The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

1. That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation.

2. That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio. Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492.

3. That it adopt the measures required for the family members of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.

530.          First of all, regarding compliance with the second recommendation, the Government of Peru has stated on repeated occasions that its institutions have a policy, based on the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos Case, whereby amnesties cannot be validly argued to oppose investigations carried out to identify and subsequently prosecute those guilty of human rights violations. The Peruvian State therefore believes that the solution to the procedural obstacle posed by amnesty laws was duly established by those judgments from the Inter-American Court, which, pursuant to the Court’s orders, are applicable in any case in which such laws have been enforced.

531.          In a communication dated November 1, 2007, the IACHR asked both parties to submit up-to-date information on the implementation of the aforesaid recommendations. Neither party presented the information requested before the deadline.[15]

532.          The IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State has partially complied with the recommendations contained in the report.

CASE 10.247 et al., Report N° 101/01, Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal et al. (Peru)

533.          In Report N° 101/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the Peruvian State was responsible for: a) the violation of the right to life, the right to a fair trial, and the right to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention; b)  violating the right to personal liberty established at Article 7 of the American Convention; c) violating the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, and its duty to prevent and punish torture established in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; d)  violating the right to recognition as a person before the law, enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention; and e) the violation of the rights of the child established in Article 19 of the American Convention; to the detriment of the persons named in the Report.

534.          The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Void any judicial decision, internal measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the summary executions and forced disappearance of the victims indicated at paragraph 252. In this regard, the State should also repeal Laws No. 26,479 and 26,492.

2. Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances of the victims and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Peruvian legislation.

3. Adopt the measures necessary for the victim’s families to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations established herein.

4. Accede to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

535.          First of all, regarding compliance with the first recommendation – namely, to void any internal measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the violations – the Government of Peru has stated on repeated occasions that its institutions have a policy, based on the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos Case, whereby amnesties cannot be validly argued to oppose investigations carried out to identify and subsequently prosecute those guilty of human rights violations. The Peruvian State therefore believes that the solution to the procedural obstacle posed by amnesty laws was duly established by those judgments from the Inter-American Court, which, pursuant to the Court’s orders, are applicable in any case in which such laws have been enforced. Consequently, it has not examined the possibility of repealing those laws.

536.          In a communication dated November 1, 2007, the IACHR asked both parties to submit up-to-date information on the implementation of the aforesaid recommendations. Neither party presented the information requested before the deadline.[16]

537.          The IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State has partially complied with the recommendations contained in Report N° 101/01.

CASE 12.191, Report N° 71/03, María Mamérita Mestanza (Peru)

538.          On October 10, 2003, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in Report N° 71/03 in the case of María Mamérita Mestanza.

In the terms of the agreement, the Peruvian State:

1. Recognized its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 1.1, 4, 5, and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women in the harm done to victim María Mamérita Merstanza Chávez.

2. Promised to undertake a thorough investigation of the facts and apply legal punishments to any person determined to have participated in them, as eitherplanner, perpetrator, accessory, or in other capacity, even if they be civilian or military officials or employees of the government.  Report any ethical violations to the appropriate professional association so that it can apply sanctions to the medical personnel involved in these acts, as provided in its statutes.

3. Awarded one-time compensation to each of the beneficiaries of ten thousand U.S. dollars ($10,000.00) for reparation of moral injury, which totals eighty thousand U.S. dollars ($80,000.00); and pledge to compensate other damages as established in the agreement.

4. Awardedd a one-time payment to the beneficiaries of seven thousand U.S. dollars ($7,000.00) for psychological rehabilitation treatment they require as a result of the death of María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez, and to give the husband and children of María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez permanent health insurance with the Ministry of Health or other competent entity.

5. Pledged to give the victim’s children free primary and secondary education in public schools. The victim’s children will receive tuition-free university education for a single degree at state schools, provided they qualify for admission.

6. Awarded an additional payment of twenty thousand U.S. dollars ($20,000.00) to Mr. Jacinto Salazar Suárez to buy land or a house in the name of the children he had with Ms. María Mamérita Mestanza. 

7. Pledged to change laws and public policies on reproductive health and family planning, eliminating any discriminatory approach and respecting women’s autonomy.  The Peruvian State also promises to adopt and implement recommendations made by the Ombudsman concerning public policies on reproductive health and family planning, among which are those listed in the agreement.

539.          In Report N° 20-2007-JUS of February 12, 2007, the State submitted information on its compliance with clauses three, eleven, and eight of the friendly settlement agreement. In connection with clause three, the State reported: (i) the creation of a commission to investigate Mrs. Mamérita Mestanza’s death; (ii) the adoption, by the office of the Specialized Prosecutor for Human Rights, of a resolution dated January 16, 2007, filing criminal charges for crimes against life, the body, and health, willful homicide, and endangerment of a dependent with aggravating circumstances; and (iii) the commencement, by the Ministry of Health, of administrative disciplinary proceedings against the personnel involved in Mrs. Mestanza’s death.

540.          In connection with clause eleven, the State reported the approval of two ministerial resolutions, approving a sanitary directive (“Directive for the Evaluation of Obstetric and Neonatal Functions in Health Facilities”) and a “Guidance Manual for Sexual and Reproductive Health,” in December 2005 and March 2006, respectively. Finally, as regards the health insurance for Mrs. Mestanza’s widower and children (clause eight), the State noted in its report the adoption of a March 2006 decree that expanded the benefits “for the inhabitants of remote and marginalized inhabitants of Amazonia and the Andean Highlands, victims of social violence, and community health agents.”

541.          In a communication dated March 27, 2007, the State submitted Report N° 26-2007-JUS, complementing the aforesaid report. The report makes particular reference to compliance with clause eleven of the friendly settlement agreement, on public policies related to reproductive health and family planning; to clause four of the agreement, on compensation for Mrs. Mestanza’s husband and children (the beneficiaries); and to clauses eight and nine, on the provision of health and educational services for the beneficiaries. Specifically, the report states that the Ministry of Health has taken a series of actions under the “National Sanitary Strategy for Sexual and Reproductive Health,” including refresher workshops on contraceptive methods for reproductive health practitioners as well as other activities. In addition, the State reported that on January 4, 2006, the plot of land known as Yanatotora was purchased, and that in March 2007 it was registered as belonging to Mrs. Mestanza’s family.

542.          The State later sent Report 132-2007-JUS, dated September 12, 2007, on its compliance with clause three of the friendly settlement agreement (investigation of the incident and punishment of the guilty). The State thereby reported that in March 2004, it ordered the opening of an investigation to gather information and cast light on the incident; that as a part of those investigations, statements had been taken from several physicians at the La Encañada Health Center, including the center’s chief, from several doctors at the Cajamarca Regional Hospital, and from Mrs. Mestanza’s husband; that the office of the Specialized Prosecutor for Human Rights adopted a resolution on January 16, 2007, referring the proceedings to the senior prosecutor of the Cajamarca Judicial District to take action against a number of individuals allegedly involved in the incident and stressing the need for an investigation of the actions of the medical personnel who conducted the victim’s autopsy; that the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor for Offenses against Human Rights had ordered the joinder of the proceedings with complaint No. 18-2002, which is intended to clarify the goal of the Voluntary Surgical Contraception Program (AQV) at the national level and the alleged commission of crimes against humanity and genocide; and that the First Senior Specialized Prosecutor for Organized Crime resolved to partially admit the complaint lodged by the DEMUS organization against the resolution of January 16, 2007.

543.          Additionally, in a communication dated November 5, 2007, the State submitted Report 159-2007-JUS, on compliance with clause eleven (on public policies for reproductive health and family planning) and clause eight of the friendly settlement agreement. On that occasion, with respect to public policies, the State reported that between June 2004 and February 2007 it had adopted, inter alia, guides, plans, directives, and technical instructions for reproductive and sexual health, awareness of human rights, gender equality, and intercultural awareness in the health sector. Regarding the incorporation of the victim’s widower and children into the Comprehensive Health Insurance System, the State noted that since August 2004 they are covered by the Integral Health System at the La Encañada Health Center in Cajamarca province and entitled to all the benefits applicable under the relevant provisions.

544.          Finally, in a communication dated December 5, 2007, the State submitted Report N° 190-2007-JUS, containing information on the investigation of the incident and the prosecution of the guilty, complementing the details previously sent in Report N° 132-2007-JUS. The State indicated that by means of a resolution dated July 23, 2007, the Specialized Provincial Prosecutor for Offenses against Human Rights ordered the joinder of complaint 4-2004 with complaint 18-2002, investigating the possible commission of crimes against humanity, genocide, and others as a result of the Reproductive Health and Family Planning Program. It also reports that under a resolution dated September 19, 2007, it has proceeded to prepare a summary of the 25 volumes of the proceedings. Finally it states that various formalities have been ordered, along with the drafting of a Work Plan that includes a study of the social impact and repercussions of the use of contraceptive methods, with particular emphasis on vasectomies and tubal ligations.

545.          The petitioners, in contrast, submitted no information on compliance with the clauses of the friendly settlement agreement.

546.           The Commission holds that the friendly settlement agreement signed on August 26, 2003, has been partially implemented.