|
|
|
ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IACHR 2007
Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR (Continuation)
CASE 11.331, Report N° 99/03, Cesar Fierro (United States)
596. In Report N° 99/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission concluded that: a) the State was responsible for violations of Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration in the trial, conviction and sentencing to death of Cesar Fierro; and, b) should the State execute Mr. Fierro pursuant to the criminal proceedings at issue in this case, the State would perpetrate a grave and irreparable violation of the fundamental right to life under Article I of the American Declaration.
597. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Provide Mr. Fierro with an effective remedy, which includes a re-trial in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections prescribed under Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, Mr. Fierro’s release.
2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that foreign nationals who are arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or are detained in any other manner in the United States are informed without delay of their right to consular assistance and that, with his or her concurrence, the appropriate consulate is informed without delay of the foreign national’s circumstances, in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections enshrined in Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration.
598. In its 2006 Annual Report, the Commission concluded that compliance with its recommendations in this case was still pending. In a note dated March 6, 2007, the State reiterated that it disagreed with and declined the first recommendation of the Commission based upon its previous responses in this case. With regard to the second recommendation, the State declared that it is fully committed to meeting its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In this regard, it is conducting on-going efforts to improve compliance with the obligation to respect the right to consular assistance of detained foreign nationals. For instance, the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has carried out an aggressive program of awareness. In addition to that, the State affirmed that since 1998, the State Department had distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement agents over one thousand training videos, booklets and pocket cards regarding arrests and detention of foreign nationals; as well as had conducted over 350 training seminars on the right to consular assistance throughout the United States and its territories, and had created an online training course on the topic.
599. In a letter dated November 5, 2007, the Petitioners informed the Commission that the State had not complied with the Commission’s recommendations. In breach of the first recommendation, the Petitioners claim that Mr. Fierro has not been re-tried or released, and he remains on death row without an execution date currently scheduled. That is notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioners have further attempted to have the courts review Mr. Fierro’s conviction. In this regard, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals rejected Mr. Fierro’s subsequent application for post-conviction writ of Habeas Corpus, on March 7, 2007. A petition for a writ of certiorari was also filed on Mr. Fierro’s behalf in the Supreme Court of the United States on June 4, 2007, but the tribunal has yet to rule on this petition. According to the Petitioners, the victim’s prior conviction and the possibility of its judicial review, along with that of the other Mexican nationals named in the ICJ Case of Avena and Other Mexican Nationals v. the United States is also a matter of discussion in the context of a pending case in which the Supreme Court has already granted certiorari (Medellin v. Texas).
600. As regards the second recommendation, the Petitioners acknowledged that the United States made information available to local authorities about their obligation in regard to consular access. Nevertheless, the Petitioners argued that the United States had not reviewed its laws, procedures and practices in this regard. On the contrary, according to the Petitioners, the most recent formal advice issued by the Department of State on this matter remained that of 1999, in which it advised that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations was not intended to create a right of private judicial enforcement. The Petitioners claim that the State continues to argue that the Vienna Convention negates any right for a foreign national whose right to consular assistance is violated. The Petitioners emphasized that courts of the United States continue to refer to the aforementioned communication as an authoritative interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
601. Based upon the foregoing information provided by the parties, the Commission considers that there has been partial compliance with its second recommendation.
CASE 12.240, Report N° 100/03, Douglas Christopher Thomas (United States)
602. In Report N° 100/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission concluded that the State acted contrary to an international norm of jus cogens as reflected in Article I of the American Declaration by sentencing Douglas Christopher Thomas to the death penalty for crimes that he committed when he was 17 years of age, and executing him pursuant to that sentence.
603. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Provide the next-of-kin of Douglas Christopher Thomas with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.
2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.
604. In its 2006 Annual Report, the Commission stated that there had been partial compliance with its recommendations. In a note dated March 6, 2007, the United States maintained its previously stressed position of disagreement with the Commission’s first recommendation. With regard to the IACHR’s second recommendation, the State reminded the Commission of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons (125 S. Ct. 1183 [2005]), which held that imposing the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when the crime was committed was unconstitutional, since it violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments.
605. On November 19, 2007, the Petitioner acknowledged the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court in Roper v. Simmons. However, the Petitioner reiterated that the victim in this case was executed prior to that decision. In addition to that, the Petitioner stressed that the State has not complied with the Commission’s first recommendation.
606. In view of the above, the Commission declares that compliance with the recommendations in Report N° 100/03 remains partial. The Commission takes special note of the aforementioned Supreme Court sentence in Roper v. Simmons which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty to minors under the age of 18 at the time their crime was committed, in line with the Commission’s second recommendation.
CASE 12.412, Report N° 101/03, Napoleon Beazley (United States)
607. In Report N° 101/03 dated December 29, 2003, the Commission concluded that the State acted contrary to an international norm of jus cogens as reflected in Article I of the American Declaration by sentencing Napoleon Beazley to the death penalty for crimes that he committed when he was 17 years of age, and executing him pursuant to that sentence.
608. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Provide the next-of-kin of Napoleon Beazley with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.
2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.
609. In its 2006 Annual Report, the Commission considered that the State had partially complied with the recommendations in this case. In a letter dated March 6, 2007, the United States reiterated its previously stressed position of disagreement with the Commission’s first recommendation. With regard to the IACHR’s second recommendation, the State reminded the Commission of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons (125 S. Ct. 1183 [2005]), which held that imposing the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when the crime was committed was unconstitutional, since it violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. The Petitioner has not presented updated information regarding compliance.
610. On the basis of the available information, the Commission states that compliance with the recommendations in Report N° 101/03 remains partial. The Commission takes special note of the aforementioned Supreme Court sentence in Roper v. Simmons which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty to minors under the age of 18 at the time their crime was committed, in line with the Commission’s second recommendation.
CASE 12.430, Report N° 1/05 Roberto Moreno Ramos, (United States)
611. In Report N° 1/05 dated January 28, 2005, the IACHR concluded that: a) the State was responsible for violations of Articles II, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration in the criminal proceedings against Mr. Moreno Ramos; and, b) should the State execute Mr. Moreno Ramos pursuant to the criminal proceedings at issue in this case, the State would commit a grave and irreparable violation of the fundamental right to life under Article I of the American Declaration.
612. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Provide Mr. Moreno Ramos with an effective remedy, which includes a new sentencing hearing in accordance with the equality, due process and fair trial protections prescribed under Articles II, XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration, including the right to competent legal representation.
2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that foreign nationals who are arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or are detained in any other manner in the United States are informed without delay of their right to consular assistance and that, with his or her concurrence, the appropriate consulate is informed without delay of the foreign national’s circumstances, in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections enshrined in Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration.
3. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that defendants in capital proceedings are not denied the right to effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal to challenge the competency of their legal representation on the basis that the issue was not raised at an earlier stage of the process against them.
613. In its 2006 Annual Report, the Commission presumed that its recommendations in this case were pending compliance. In a letter dated March 6, 2007, the State reiterated that it disagreed with and declined the first and third recommendations of the Commission based upon its prior submissions in this case. As regards the second recommendation, the State declared that it is fully committed to meeting its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In this regard, it is conducting on-going efforts to improve compliance with the obligation to respect the right to consular assistance of detained foreign nationals. For instance, the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has carried out an aggressive program of awareness. In addition to that, the State affirmed that since 1998, the State Department had distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement agents over one thousand training videos, booklets and pocket cards regarding arrests and detention of foreign nationals; as well as had conducted over 350 training seminars on the right to consular assistance throughout the United States and its territories, and had created an online training course on the topic. The Petitioners have not provided the Commission with updated information regarding implementation of its recommendations.
614. Based upon the abovementioned information, the Commission considers that there has been partial compliance with its second recommendation.
CASE 12.439, Report N° 25/05, Toronto Markkey Patterson (United States)
615. In Report N° 25/05 dated March 7, 2005, the Commission concluded that the State acted contrary to an international norm of jus cogens as reflected in Article I of the American Declaration by sentencing Toronto Markkey Patterson to the death penalty for crimes that he committed when he was 17 years of age, and executing him pursuant to that sentence.
616. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Provide the next-of-kin of Toronto Markkey Patterson with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.
2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that capital punishment is not imposed upon persons who, at the time his or her crime was committed, were under 18 years of age.
617. In its 2006 Annual Report, the Commission considered that there had been partial compliance with its recommendations in this case. In a letter dated March 6, 2007, the United States reiterated its previous position of disagreement with the Commission’s first recommendation. With regard to the Commission’s second recommendation, the State reminded the Commission of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons (125 S. Ct. 1183 [2005]), which held that imposing the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when the crime was committed was unconstitutional, since it violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments. The Petitioner has not presented updated information regarding compliance.
618. Consequently, the Commission asserts that compliance in this case remains partial. In particular, the Commission takes note of the aforementioned Supreme Court sentence in Roper v. Simmons which prohibited the imposition of the death penalty to minors under the age of 18 at the time their crime was committed, in line with the Commission’s second recommendation.
CASE 12.421, Report N° 91/05, Javier Suarez Medina (United States)
619. In Report N° 91/05 issued on October 24, 2005, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violations of Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration in the trial, conviction and sentencing to death of Javier Suarez Medina, by permitting the introduction of evidence of an unadjudicated crime during Mr. Suarez Medina’s capital sentencing hearing and by failing to inform Mr. Suarez Medina of his right to consular notification and assistance; and b) violations of Article I, XXIV and XXVI of the American Declaration, by scheduling Mr. Suarez Medina’s execution on fourteen occasions pursuant to a death sentence that was imposed in contravention of Mr. Suarez Medina’s rights to due process and to a fair trial under Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration, and by executing Mr. Suarez Medina pursuant to that sentence on August 14, 2002 notwithstanding the existence of precautionary measures granted in his favor by this Commission.
620. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Provide the next-of-kin of Mr. Suarez Medina with an effective remedy, which includes compensation.
2. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that persons who are accused of capital crimes are tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the Declaration, and in particular by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital trials.
3. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that foreign nationals who are arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or are detained in any other manner in the United States are informed without delay of their right to consular assistance and that, with his or her concurrence, the appropriate consulate is informed without delay of the foreign national’s circumstances, in accordance with the due process and fair trial protections enshrined in Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration.
4. Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that requests for precautionary measures granted by the Commission are implemented so as to preserve the Commission’s functions and mandate and to prevent irreparable harm to persons.
621. In its 2006 Annual Report, the Commission presumed that the recommendations in Report N° 91/05 were pending compliance.
622. In its letter of March 6, 2007, the State reiterated that it disagreed with the first and second recommendations of the Commission for the reasons articulated in its previous submissions in this case. With respect to the Commission’s third recommendation, the State declared that it is fully committed to meeting its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In this regard, it is conducting on-going efforts to improve compliance with the obligation to respect the right to consular assistance of detained foreign nationals. For instance, the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs has carried out an aggressive program of awareness. In addition to that, the State affirmed that since 1998, the State Department had distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement agents over one thousand training videos, booklets and pocket cards regarding arrests and detention of foreign nationals; as well as had conducted over 350 training seminars on the right to consular assistance throughout the United States and its territories, and had created an online training course on the topic. The Petitioners have not provided the Commission with updated information regarding implementation of its recommendations. As regards the fourth recommendation, the State informed the Commission that it had mechanisms in place to allow for the expeditious transmittal of precautionary measures to the appropriate governmental authorities.
623. The Commission concludes that there is partial compliance with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 11.500, Report N° 124/06, Tomás Eduardo Cirio (Uruguay)
624. On February 27, 2006, the Inter-American Commission adopted Report N° 124/06 and concluded that: a) the Uruguayan State failed to comply with its obligation to respect and ensure the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, established previously by law (Article XXVI of the American Declaration) and the right to judicial protection (Article 25 of the American Convention), the right to freedom of expression (Article IV of the American Declaration), the right to dignity and honor (Article 5 of the Declaration and 11 of the Convention), the right to equality before the law (Article 24 of the Convention) and the right to compensation (article 10 of the Convention); and b) the Uruguayan State has failed to comply with its obligation to respect and ensure the human rights and guarantees imposed by Article 1(1) of the American Convention and to adopt the provisions in domestic law imposed by Article 2.
625. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:
1. Nullify forthwith and to rescind retroactively Executive Resolutions Nos. 46.202 and 46.204 of January 2, 1973, Ministry of Defense Resolution No. 6.540 of December 20, 1973, and the ruling of the Tribunal of Honor that harmed him. Restore all the rights, benefits, honors and other prerogatives pertaining to him as a retired member of the Armed Forces of Uruguay.
2. To adopt all necessary measures for reparation and compensation, so as to restore the honor and reputation of Mr. Tomás Eduardo Cirio.
3. To promote measures that lead to the adoption of domestic legislation in conformity with the norms of the American Convention with respect to freedom of expression and due process under military jurisdiction.
626. On November 8, 2007, the Commission asked the State and the petitioner to submit information on the current level of compliance with the recommendations.
627. In a letter dated December 4, 2007, the petitioner replied: “In a resolution dated December 28, 2005 (internal number 83.329), the executive branch revoked, with retroactive effect, resolutions Nos. 46.202 and 46.204 of January 2, 1973, which had upheld the illegitimate ruling of the Tribunal of Honor that cashiered me for a ‘most serious offense’ and suspended my employment, together with the Ministry of National Defense’s resolution No. 6542 of December 20, 1973, setting my suspension pay. In addition, the same resolution No. 83.329 ordered the restitution of all the ‘rights, benefits, honors, and other prerogatives’ due to me as a retired officer and annulled ‘the legal effects of my dismissal for a most serious offense’.” The ruling of the Tribunal of Honor was not repealed.
628. In a note dated December 6, 2007, the State reported that by means of executive resolution No. 83.329 of December 28, 2005, the resolution upholding the 1973 ruling of the Tribunal of Honor was voided of all effect, thus complying with the corresponding recommendation.
629. In his letter of December 4, 2007, the petitioner replied: “As moral redress I was given the highest rank in the Army effective February 1, 1986, through executive resolution No. 83.805 of September 4, 2006.”
630. In its note dated December 6, 2007, the State replied: “The redress extended to General Cirio entails the following: (a) he is given the rank of General as of the date on which he should have been promoted, taking into consideration for the count the years during which he was suspended, as if he were on active service (1973 to 1997): thus, that rank was given to him as of February 1, 1986; (b) increase his retirement pay at his current rank of General, by twenty-five percent; (c) pay him the planned compensation, which is twenty-four times the retirement payment corresponding to July 2005; (d) stipulate that he enjoys all the benefits and honors of his rank and military health care, and that the undue entries are to be expunged from his personnel record; The State clarified that the benefits arise from executive resolution No. 83.805 of September 4, 2006, published on the web page of the Office of the President of the Republic, personal notification of which was served on Gen. Cirio on September 12 of that same year, and which is consequently a definitive administrative act, given the General’s conformity and the obvious nonexistence of any admissible remedy.
631. The State clarified that “the compensation, consisting of twenty-four times his retirement pay, was accredited to him in accordance with the current regulations. Those payments were accepted and received by Gen. Cirio, together with the new retirement pay, without the beneficiary making any claim regarding the amounts paid. The figures contained in Resolution No. 83.805 – for the promotion, the new calculation of service time, the benefits of the rank and military health benefits, the expunging of the undue entries from his personnel record, and the reinstatement of his honor – concluded all litigation with Gen. Cirio. To illustrate the amounts referred to, note that the total received as compensation – equal to 24 times the retirement pay of July 2005 – totaled $498,819 (Uruguayan pesos) and the new calculation of updated retirement pay is $51,631 (Uruguayan pesos) a month.[18] As a comparison of the compensation and the efforts made by the Uruguayan State in reaching a friendly settlement with Gen. Cirio, the retirement pay he received prior to the agreement was $27,748 (Uruguayan pesos). “
632. In his letter of December 4, 2007, the petitioner replied: “The Ministry of National Defense has decided that since the Military Center is a civilian body (which has not prevented it from acting as if it were an agency of military, according to its interests), it cannot impose legal obligations on it as if it were a subordinate body. For that reason it merely expressed its disagreement with the communiqué issued by that Center in 1972.”
633. In its note of December 6, 2007, the State did not address the aspects of the legislative modifications.
634. In his letter dated December 4, 2007, the petitioner replied that he had no information on the matter.
635. In its note dated December 6, 2007, the State replied: “As regards the steps taken by the Uruguayan State to bring its domestic law into line with the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights regarding freedom of expression and due process under military jurisdiction, as was acknowledged in the Commission’s own report (No. 124/06), a commission was established within the Ministry of National Defense to analyze and offer suggestions on that question. Thus, the draft of the Defense Law – which has still not been presented to Parliament – proposes changes that would hold only members of the military responsible for such offenses, excluding common crimes, and it is planned that the national judiciary would have ordinary and military jurisdiction as described in Article 253 of the Constitution; this proposal is currently under study by the Institute of Constitutional Law of the University of the Republic.”
636. The Commission concludes that the State complied partially with the aforementioned recommendations.
CASE 12.555 (Petition 562-03), Report N° 110/06, Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta and Juan Víctor Galarza Mendiola (Venezuela)
637. On October 27, 2006, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the case of Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta and Juan Víctor Galarza Mendiola.
638. In accordance with the friendly settlement, the Venezuelan State accepted its international liability for the violation of the human rights of the Basque citizens Juan Víctor Galarza Mendiola and Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta, by virtue of having proceeded to deport them illegally and deliver them unlawfully to the Spanish State. Accordingly, the State of Venezuela recognizes the violation of the following articles of the American Convention: Right to Humane Treatment (Article 5), Right to Personal Liberty (Article 7), Right to a Fair Trial (Article 8), Right to Privacy (Article 11), Rights of the Family (Article 17), Freedom of Movement and Residence (Article 22.6 and 22.8), Right to Equal Protection (Article 24), and Right to Judicial Protection (Article 25), in accordance with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights referred to in Article 1.1 of the Convention. It also acknowledges its violation of Article 13 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (the person sought shall not be returned when there are grounds to believe that he will be subjected to torture or tried by special or ad hoc courts).
Under the terms of the agreement the State undertook to:
1. A commitment not to employ or have recourse to any method contrary to national or international law that bypasses legal mechanisms or procedures in an effort to secure the return of any foreigner. Based on the foregoing considerations, the State of Venezuela accepts that the procedures for expulsion will not be used in cases of those who have legal cases pending in their countries of origin and that it will try, with due respect for legal guarantees, the extradition requests that are filed in accordance with national laws and international regulations. In this connection, the government will refuse to return individuals to States where they might run the risk of torture, abusive treatment, due process violations, or where they might be persecuted on account of their ideology, race, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation.
2. Award compensation for pain and suffering and physical damage. In the case of Juan Víctor Galarza Mendiola, compensation will be in the amount of 50,000 (fifty thousand) euros, to be paid within no more than 90 days from the signing of this friendly settlement, with one 30-day extension, paid to his wife María José Ugalde and his daughter, Haizea Galarza. Failure to make payment within this time-frame will mean that the State has to pay interest on arrears. The amount of compensation for material damage as a result of foregone earnings as well as the indirect damage to Juan Víctor Galarza Mendiola and his family shall be 40,000 (forty thousand) euros, payable within no more than 90 days from the date on which this friendly settlement agreement is signed, with one 30-day extension. Failure to make payment within this time-frame will mean that the State has to pay interest on arrears. In the case of Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta and his companion, compensation for pain and suffering will be 75,000 (seventy-five thousand) euros, to be paid within a maximum of 90 days from the signing of this friendly settlement agreement, with one 30-day extension. Compensation for pain and suffering for his companion, María Aranzazu Plazaola Echaniz, will be in the amount of 25,000 (twenty-five thousand) euros. Nonpayment within this time-frame will mean that the State will have to pay moratory interest. The compensation for property damage reflecting the stoppage of business activity for the years spent in prison and for the years of his sentence that remain, as well as the indirect damage to Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta and his companion, will be in the amount of 93,000 (ninety-three thousand) euros, to be paid by no more than 90 days after the signing of the current friendly settlement agreement with one 30-day extension. Nonpayment within this time-frame will mean that the State will be liable for the payment of moratory interest. Reparations for pain and suffering and physical damage caused to Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta will be delivered to his companion, María Aranzazu Plazaola Echaniz, who shall be the sole person authorized to administer and use the amount awarded on behalf of her companion.
3. Guarantee a monthly pension of 750 (seven hundred and fifty euros ), adjusted each year by the CPI (Consumer Price Index) of her place of origin, for as long as her companion is deprived of his freedom. This amount shall be transferred on a monthly basis to a bank account that will be opened for the beneficiary in Spain.
4. The payment of compensation to all beneficiaries of the current friendly settlement will be tax-exempt (from present or future taxes or other assessments).
5. Ensure that the transfer of compensation payments to the rest of the world will be made at the official exchange rate in force on the date on which this friendly settlement is signed.
6. Take the following steps through the Venezuelan Consulate in Spain to guarantee the physical and mental integrity of Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta:
- Comply, to the best of its ability, with the appropriate formalities required by relevant Spanish authorities in order to ensure that Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta can serve out the remainder of his prison term in a correctional facility near to his place of origin, as is established by international regulations.
- Visit Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta at least twice a year in the prison where he is kept, in order to ascertain the conditions in which he is imprisoned, determine the state of his physical and psychological health and follow up on any complaint that he makes with regard to the behavior of prison officers. The appropriate State organization should give the petitioners and families a report about every visit, within thirty days of the visit.
- Defray all expenses for medical attention that the Spanish State does not cover for the entire period that he is deprived of his freedom.
7. Publish this friendly settlement agreement in the Official Gazette of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and in a national circulation newspaper.
639. In its Report 110/06, the Commission applauded the efforts made by both parties to reach the solution cited in the previous paragraphs but noted that the agreement signed by the parties referred to a series of issues that were beyond the Commission’s competence and/or were not covered by the case as presented to the Commission. The Commission therefore deemed it was necessary to state that the adopted report in no way implied a ruling on the individuals not named as victims in the case before the Commission, on the citizenship of Messrs. Juan Víctor Galarza Mendiola and Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta, or on the treatment they may have received in third countries not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.
640. On November 9, 2007, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the state of compliance with the agreement. On December 8, 2007, the petitioners sent a communication indicating that: (i) in the friendly agreement that was signed, the State expressly admitted having violated rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights with respect to the victims; (ii) the State failed to abide by each of its points by publicly declaring that it rejected it and publicly disavowing the agent of the State who had signed it, saying that she did not have the competence to enter into such a commitment; (iii) its lack of willingness to comply with the agreement was seen in the communications sent by the State to the IACHR on December 11, 2006, and August 7, 2007, in which the State expressly reported its position that it would not continue with the friendly settlement proceedings.
641. The Commission received no reply from the State. Based on the furnished information, the Commission concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending.
[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
