ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IACHR 2007
 

Chapter III - Contentious Cases (Continuation)


 

f.          Chile

 

Case of Almonacid Arellano

 

786.    This case deals with the lack of investigation and punishment of the persons responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Almonacid Arellano, as a result of the application of Decree Law No. 2191, the Amnesty Law, enacted in Chile in 1978. Mr. Almonacid was executed on September 16, 1973, in the city of Rancagua, Chile.

 

787.    Over the course of 2007, the Commission continued to report periodically on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs of September 26, 2006.

 

Case of Claude Reyes et al.

 

788.           On July 8, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Chile in case 12.108, Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola, and Arturo Longton Guerrero, for its international responsibility in denying access to public information and failing to provide the victims with an appeal against that denial.

 

789.          On September 19, 2006, the Court ruled that the State had violated the rights to freedom of thought and expression, a fair trial, and judicial protection established in Articles 13, 8, and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment may be found at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.pdf.

 

790.          The Commission is awaiting the State’s report on the reparations ordered by the Court.

 

Case of Humberto Palamara Iribarne

 

791.          On May 13, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Chile in the case of Palamara Iribarne, because the State had confiscated the copies and galleys of the book Ética y Servicios de Inteligencia, had erased the book from the hard disc of Mr. Palamara’s personal computer, had banned its publication, and had found Mr. Palamara guilty of contempt. On November 22, 2005, the Court gave judgment in the case, concluding that the State did violate the rights of freedom of thought and expression, private property, to a fair trial, judicial protection, and personal liberty, enshrined in Articles 13, 21, 8, 25, and 7 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The full text of the judgment may be found at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_135_ing.pdf.

 

792.          During 2007, the Commission submitted it comments on the information regarding compliance with the judgment of November 22, 2005, presented by the State in January, August, and November 2007.

 

793.          On November 30, 2007, the Inter-American Court resolved to keep the supervisory procedure open with respect to the points still awaiting compliance, namely: taking all the necessary measures to annul and amend, within a reasonable period of time, any domestic provisions that are incompatible with the international standards regarding freedom of thought and expression; aligning, within a reasonable period of time, the domestic legal system with the international standards regarding criminal military jurisdiction, so that when it considers the existence of military criminal jurisdiction to be necessary, it must be restricted solely to military crimes committed by personnel on active service; and guaranteeing due process in the military criminal jurisdiction, and judicial protection regarding the actions of military authorities.

 

g.         Costa Rica

 

Case of La Nación newspaper (Herrera Ulloa)

 

794.     On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on compliance with this judgment, in which it resolved to keep the procedure open with respect to the State’s pending obligations, namely: nullifying the November 12, 1999, judgment of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José and all the measures it orders; adjusting its domestic legal system to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 2 thereof; and paying interest accrued on account of the payment of the compensation for non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement of expenses.

 

795.          In the same order, the Court instructed the Costa Rican State to submit, no later than January 19, 2007, an updated report on the status of its compliance with those pending obligations. The full text of the order may be found at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/herrera_%2022_09_06_ing.pdf.

 

796.          Over the course of 2007, the Commission continued to report periodically on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of July 2, 2004.

 

h.          Ecuador

 

Case of Acosta Calderón

 

797.     On June 25, 2003 the Commission brought before the Court the case of Rigoberto Acosta Calderón in order to secure a ruling on the international responsibility of the Republic of Ecuador for violating Articles 7, 8, 24, and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. On June 24, 2005, the Court gave judgment in the case, ruling that the Ecuadorian State did violate, with respect to the victim, the rights of personal liberty, judicial protection, and a fair trial as enshrined, respectively, in Articles 7, 25, and 8 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. The Court also determined that the State failed to meet the obligation established in Article 2 of the Convention, as regards Article 7. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_129_ing.pdf.

 

798.          During 2006, the State submitted its first report on compliance with the judgment in this case, and in August 2007, after the Commission had received comments from the injured party, the IACHR conveyed its observations on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in the judgment of June 24, 2005.

 

Benavides Cevallos Case

 

799.          On March 21, 1996 the Commission presented the Court with its application in this case, for the illegal and arbitrary arrest, torture, and murder of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos at the hands of state agents who kept her under clandestine arrest, without a court order, warrant, or judicial supervision, and who pursued a systematic campaign to deny those offenses and the responsibility of the State.

 

800.          The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated November 27, 2003. In it, the Court resolved to inform the General Assembly of the Organization about the State’s failure to discharge its obligation of investigating and clearing up the forced disappearance of the victim. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_129_esp.doc.

 

801.          During 2007, the State continued without submitting the reports necessary to document compliance with its obligation of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those individuals who perpetrated the violations of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos’s human rights, as ordered in the fourth operative paragraph of the Court’s judgment of June 19, 1998.

 

Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez

 

802.          On June 23, 2006, the Commission filed with the Court an application in case 12.091, Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Iñiguez, regarding the State of Ecuador’s international responsibility in their arbitrary detention in Guayaquil on November 15, 1997, and subsequent violations of their rights in the proceedings instituted against them, which resulted in material and moral damage to both. In light of the facts of the case, the Commission asked the Court to hold the Ecuadorian State internationally responsible for violating the victims’ rights under Articles 5 (Humane Treatment), 7 (Personal Liberty), 8 (Fair Trial), 21 (Private Property), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights). The Commission also asked for a finding that the State violated Article 2 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Lapo Iñiguez.

 

803.          On May 17, 2007, the Inter-American Commission attended the public hearing on the case held in Guatemala City. On that occasion, the State offered a partial admission of the alleged facts. The Inter-American Commission said the State’s admission was a positive step toward repairing the dignity of the victims and mitigating the damage caused. At the same time, the Commission noted that the State’s admission did not cover its responsibility for all the rights violations set out in the case at hand and it underscored the matters that were still in dispute.

 

804.          On November 21, 2007, the Court rendered its judgment in the case, accepting the State’s partial acknowledgement of its international responsibility and ruling that Ecuador did violate the rights to personal liberty, a fair trial, humane treatment, and private property of Messrs. Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Iñiguez. The Court also ordered the State to: immediately expunge the names of Messrs. Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Íñiguez from all public documents in which they still appear with criminal records; immediately inform the relevant private agencies that they must delete from their records all mention of Messrs. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez as the perpetrators of or suspects in the crime with which they were charged; publish the judgment; bring its laws into line with the American Convention; immediately adopt all the administrative and other measures necessary to expunge, on an ex officio basis, the criminal records of individuals acquitted of or dismissed from criminal charges, and implement the appropriate legislative measures to bring that about; and pay to Messrs. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez the compensation amounts for material and nonmaterial damages and for costs and expenses set out in paragraph 270 of the judgment. Finally, the Court ordered that the State and Mr. Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez must submit to an arbitration process to set the amounts due to him for material damages. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_170_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Cornejo et al.

 

805.          On July 5, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12.406, Cornejo et al., involving Ecuador’s international responsibility for failing to discharge its international obligations towards Mrs. Carmen Susana Cornejo de Albán and Mr. Bismarck Wagner Albán Sánchez, who in their efforts to address the death of their daughter, Laura Susana Albán Cornejo, have for almost two decades sought justice and the punishment of the perpetrators by collecting evidence about her death and filing medical malpractice lawsuits against her attending physicians, in the absence of due guarantees and judicial protection.

 

806.          On May 16, 2007, the Inter-American Commission attended the public hearing on the case held in Guatemala City. On that occasion, the State offered a partial admission of its violation of Articles 8 and 25 through the “negligence and omissions of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Fifth Criminal Judge of Pichincha by failing to pursue, on an ex officio basis and as an obligation incumbent on them, the extradition of Dr. Fabián Espinoza.” The Commission noted the State’s disposition and applauded its admission of responsibility; it noted, however, that the acknowledgement did not cover all the arguments presented by the IACHR and supported by documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence, and it identified the matters that were still in dispute.

 

807.          On November 22, 2007 the Court gave judgment in this case, accepting the partial admission of international responsibility made by the State for its violation of the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection, and ruling that Ecuador did violate the right to humane treatment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and of Bismarck Albán Sánchez and did violate the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 4, 5(1), and 1(1) thereof, with respect to Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán Sánchez. In its judgment the Court ordered the State to: publish certain extracts from the judgment; broadly disseminate the rights of patients, using appropriate media outlets and in consideration of the existing laws of Ecuador and international standards; implement a training program for officers of the judiciary and health professionals addressing the guidelines for patients’ rights that Ecuador has adopted and describing the penalties applicable for noncompliance; and pay the amount set as compensation for material and nonmaterial damages and for covering costs and expenses. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_171_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Salvador Chiriboga

 

808.          On December 12, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Ecuador in case 12.054, Salvador Chiriboga, regarding Ecuador’s international responsibility in the expropriation of a parcel of land belonging to the Salvador Chiriboga brothers through a procedure that deprived them of its use and enjoyment without the proper compensation established by Ecuadorian law and the American Convention on Human Rights. The IACHR asked the Court to hold the State internationally responsible for violating the victims’ rights under Articles 8 (Fair Trial), 21 (Private Property), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof.

 

809.          On October 19, 2007, the Inter-American Commission participated at the public hearing on the case, held in the city of Bogotá. On that occasion, the parties presented their positions before the Inter-American Court.

 

810.          The Commission is awaiting the Court’s decision in this case.

 

Suárez Rosero Case

 

811.          On December 22, 1995, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador for the arrest and detention of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero, in breach of a preexisting law; the failure to present Mr. Suárez before a judicial officer promptly after his arrest; his being kept incommunicado for 36 days; the failure to give an adequate and effective response to his attempts to invoke domestic judicial guarantees; the failure to release him within a reasonable time, or the State’s lack of willingness to do so; and the failure to ensure him that he would be heard, within a similar reasonable period, in the substantiation of the charges against him.

 

812.          During 2007, the Commission filed its comments on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgments of November 12, 1997, and January 20, 1999.

 

813.          On July 10, 2007, the Court adopted an order on compliance with this judgment, deciding to keep the procedure open as regards the State’s pending obligations and instructing the State to establish a trust on behalf of Micaela Suárez Ramadán (containing the amount owed, plus the corresponding interest) as promptly as possible, in a solvent national financial institution and under the most favorable financial conditions allowed by law and banking practices, and on the investigation of the facts of the case (regarding which the Court ordered the State to reopen the investigation and to ensure that all public agencies furnish the information sought by the judicial authorities). The full text of the order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/suarez_10_07_07_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Tibi

 

814.          On June 25, 2003, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador for illegal and arbitrary detention of Mr. Daniel David Tibi on September 27, 1995, the torture he suffered, and his inability to file a remedy against that torture or his excessively lengthy preventive custody during the time he was held. On September 7, 2004, the Inter-American Court issued its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations in this case. 

 

815.          On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in the case, instructing the State to take all the steps necessary for prompt and effective compliance with the points of its judgment that were still awaiting implementation. The full text of the order can be found at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tibi_22_09_06_ing.pdf.

 

816.          During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on the information presented by the victim’s representatives and family and by the State of Ecuador. It underscored the importance of full compliance with Court’s binding judgments within the timeframe and in the fashion stipulated by the Court, together with the need for the State to report on the specific measures adopted to that end and to remedy the violations in which it incurred.

 

Case of Zambrano Vélez et al.

 

817.          On July 24, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 11.579, Zambrano Vélez et al., asking it to hold the Republic of Ecuador internationally responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Messrs. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo, and José Miguel Caicedo during an operation of the Ecuadorian Army, Navy, and Armed Forces in Guayaquil on March 6, 1993, at a time when guarantees had been suspended in a fashion not in accordance with the relevant parameters, and the subsequent failure to investigate the matter.

 

818.          On May 15, 2007, the Inter-American Commission attended the public hearing on the case held in Guatemala City. On that occasion, the State offered a partial admission for its inappropriate use of the ability to suspend guarantees when a state of emergency has been decreed and for its failure to clear up the incident and conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation. The Commission noted its appreciation of the State’s admission.

 

819.          On July 4, 2007, the Court issued its judgment on merits, reparations and costs. In it, it resolved to accept the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility and ruled that Ecuador did fail to meet its obligations regarding the suspension of guarantees set out in Articles 27(1), 27(2), and 27(3) of the Convention, in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights and to adopt domestic legal effects with respect to the right to life, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 1(1), 2, 4, 8(1), and 25 thereof. It also ruled that the State did violate the victims’ right to life and their families’ right to a fair trial and to judicial protection. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_166_esp.doc.

 

i.          El Salvador

 

Case of García Prieto Giralt

 

820.          This case addresses the international responsibility of the Republic of El Salvador for the actions and omissions that occurred in the investigation into the murder of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Giralt on June 10, 1994, in San Salvador, in the threats subsequently made against his family in connection with their role in the investigation, and in the failure to provide them with due redress. Since El Salvador accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 6, 1995, the violations regarding which the Commission asked the Court to rule involve events that took place after that date.

 

821.          The public hearing in the case was held on January 25-26, 2007, and the Court issued judgment on November 29, 2007. The full text of the judgment may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_168_ing.pdf. In its judgment, the Court decided that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees, to judicial protection and to personal integrity of Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument to the detriment of Mr. José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Mrs. Gloria Giralt de García Prieto; as well as the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection protected in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument and the right to personal integrity of Article 5(1) of the American Convention for the lack of investigation of the threats and harassing suffered by Mr. José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Mrs. Gloria Giralt de García Prieto. The Court ordered measures of redress, including the State’s obligation to conclude the investigation into the murder of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto and the threats and harassing in a reasonable deadline.

 

Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters

 

822.          On June 14, 2003, the Inter-American Commission lodged an application with the Court against El Salvador in connection with the detention, abduction, and forced disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, then minor children of 7 and 3 years of age, respectively, who were captured by members of the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army during a military operation known as “Operation Clean-up” or “la Guinda de Mayo”, which took place in locations including the municipality of San Antonio de la Cruz, department of Chalatenango, from May 27 to June 9, 1982. On November 23, 2004, the Court issued a judgment on preliminary objections and, on March 1, 2005, ruled on the merits, reparations, and costs.

 

823.          During 2007, the Commission submitted its observations on the information presented by the State and by the representatives of the victims’ next-of-kind regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of March 1, 2005.

 

824.          On July 3, 2007, the Court adopted an order on the state of compliance with the judgment in the case, instructing the State to report on the steps taken to implement the following obligations: conducting an effective investigation of the facts of the case; identifying and punishing the guilty, and conducting a serious search for the victims; eliminating all obstacles and mechanisms that prevent compliance with the State’s obligations; ensuring the independence and impartiality of the members of the national commission charged with searching for people who disappeared as children during the internal conflict, with the participation of society; creating a genetic information system to obtain and store genetic data to assist in determining the identity and establishing the identification of disappeared children and their relatives; providing, free of charge, the medical and psychological treatment needed by the victims’ relatives; creating a web page to assist searches for disappearees; publishing those parts of the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs ordered by the Court; and paying costs and expenses. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/serrano_03_07_07_ing.pdf.

 

j.         Guatemala

 

Bámaca Velásquez Case

 

825.          During 2007, the Commission periodically submitted its comments regarding compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of February 22, 2002. It also noted the vital importance of investigating the victims’ whereabouts in forced disappearance cases, not only for the next-of-kin but for society as a whole, an obligation still pending compliance in this case.

 

826.          On December 13, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to convene a private hearing with the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the victims, and the Guatemalan State, to receive up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the reparations judgment. That hearing is to take place at the Court’s headquarters on February 1, 2008.

 

Blake Case

 

827.          The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated November 27, 2003. Still pending at that time were the State’s obligations to investigate, prosecute, and punish all those responsible for violating Nicholas Champan Blake’s human rights.

 

828.          A private hearing on the case was held on November 23, 2007. On November 27, 2007, the Court issued an order requiring the State to comply with the pending matters and to submit a report no later than April 1, 2008. The full text of that order is available at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/blake_27_11_07_ing.pdf.
 

Case of Carpio Nicolle et al.

 

829.          During 2007, the Commission periodically submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s orders as regards reparations contained in its judgment of November 22, 2004, In its comments to the Court, the Commission applauded the steps taken to pay the compensation and costs as ordered, but noted its concern regarding the lack of progress with implementing the other reparation measures ordered in the judgment.

 

Case of Fermín Ramírez

 

830.          This case deals with the imposition of the death penalty on Mr. Fermín Ramírez, who was denied the opportunity to exercise his right of defense as regards a change both in the charges brought against him and in his juridical classification, which took place when the Guatemalan judicial authorities handed down his conviction on March 6, 1998.

 

831.          Over the course of 2007, the Commission continued to report periodically on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of July 20, 2005.

 

Case of Maritza Urrutia

 

832.          This case deals with the illegal and arbitrary detention of Mrs. Maritza Urrutia on July 23, 1992, and her subsequent torture in a clandestine detention center, where she spent eight days and was forced to make a public statement prepared by her captors.

 

833.          The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated September 21, 2005. According to that order, still awaiting compliance are the State’s obligations to effectively investigate the events that gave rise to the violations of the American Convention and of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; to identify, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators; and to publicize the results of the investigation, all measures ordered by the Court in its judgment of November 27, 2003. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/urrutia_21_09_05.pdf.

 

834.          During 2007, the State merely reported that the case file was under investigation by the Attorney’s Office for Human Rights, as a result of which the Commission said that it is waiting for the State to furnish detailed and up-to-date information about its compliance with this obligation.

 

Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre

 

835.          On July 31, 2002, the Inter-American Commission submitted this case to the Court in consideration of the denial of justice and other acts of intimidation and discrimination against the survivors and families of the victims of the massacre of 268 individuals, mostly members of the indigenous Maya people, in the village of Plan de Sánchez, Rabinal municipality, department of Baja Verapaz, at the hands of members of the Guatemalan Army and civilian collaborators under the supervision of the Army on Sunday July 18, 1982. The Court handed down its judgments on the merits and on reparations on April 29, 2004, and November 19, 2004, respectively.

 

836.          During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments regarding the State’s reports on compliance and applauded the efforts made by the State to implement the terms of the reparations judgment. The Commission again underscored the importance of meeting the obligation of investigating the circumstances of the massacre and of the subsequent violations and to prosecute and punish the perpetrators.

 

837.          On November 28, 2007, the Inter-American Court resolved to keep the supervisory procedure in this case open with respect to the points still awaiting compliance, namely: investigating, identifying, and ultimately punishing the physical perpetrators and masterminds of the Plan de Sánchez massacre; disseminating the texts of the American Convention and of the judgments on the merits and on reparations and costs in the municipality of Rabinal, and handing over copies thereof to the victims; publishing extracts from the judgments and their corresponding translations into the Achi Maya language; paying the amounts ordered in the judgment for the maintenance of and improvement to the infrastructure of the commemorative chapel; providing suitable housing for the survivors from the village of Plan de Sánchez who so require; carrying out, in the affected communities, the following programs: (a) the study and dissemination of Maya Achi culture, through the Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages or another similar organization; (b) the maintenance of and improvements to the road network between those communities and the municipal seat at Rabinal; (c) the provision of a sewerage and drinking water system; and (d) the provision of teaching staff trained in intercultural and bilingual instruction for primary, secondary, and diversified education; paying the full compensation amount for material and nonmaterial damages, as well as costs and expenses. The Court also ordered the State to take all the steps necessary for prompt and effective compliance with the pending items, pursuant to Article 68.1 of the American Convention.

 

Case of Molina Theissen

 

838.          On July 4, 2003, the Commission lodged its application in this case with the Inter-American Court. The case addresses the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, a 14-year-old minor who was abducted from his parents’ home by members of the Guatemalan Army on October 6, 1981. The Court handed down its judgments on merits and reparations on May 4, 2004, and July 3, 2004, respectively.

 

839.          During 2007, the Commission submitted its observations on the information presented by the State and by the representatives of the victim’s family regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of July 3, 2004.

 

840.          On July 10, 2007, the Court adopted an order on the state of compliance with the judgment in the case, instructing the State to report on the steps taken to implement the following obligations: finding the mortal remains of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and delivering them to his next-of-kin; investigating the facts of the case so as to identify, prosecute, and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the victim’s disappearance; establishing a prompt procedure to obtain a declaration of absence and presumption of death in forced disappearance cases; and adopting such legislative, administrative, or other measures as may be necessary to create a genetic information system. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/molina_10_07_07%20ing.pdf.

 

Case of Myrna Mack

 

841.          The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated November 25, 2007. According to this order, the final point awaiting compliance by the State is the obligation of investigating the facts of the case in order to identify, prosecute, and punish all the physical perpetrators of, masterminds behind, and other persons responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Myrna Mack Chang and the cover-up of that extrajudicial killing and other elements in the case.

 

842.          During 2007, the Commission noted that in connection with the obligation of investigating the incident and identifying, prosecuting, and punishing those persons responsible for Myrna Mack’s murder, the warrant for the arrest of former colonel Juan Valencia Osorio, convicted as one of the individuals responsible for the murder, had not been served.

 

Case of Paniagua Morales et al.

 

843.          On October 29, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to convene a private hearing, to be attended by the Inter-American Commission, the victims’ representatives, and the Guatemalan State, to receive up-to-date information on compliance with the reparations and costs judgment of May 25, 2001. The meeting was held on November 23, 2007, in San José, Costa Rica; on that occasion, the Guatemalan State assumed a series of commitments toward implementing the reparation measures still pending.

 

844.          On November 27, 2007, the Court adopted a compliance order requiring the State to adopt all measures necessary for prompt compliance with the reparations still outstanding from the judgment of May 25, 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and ordering the State to submit, no later than February 4, 2008, a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to implement the reparations ordered by the Court for which compliance was still pending.

 

Case of Raxcacó Reyes

 

845.          This case involves the death sentence handed down against Mr. Raxcacó Reyes for committing an offense which, under Guatemalan law, was not punishable by that penalty when the country ratified the American Convention.

 

846.          During 2007, the Commission periodically continued to submit its comments on compliance with the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of September 15, 2005.

 

Case of Tiu Tojín

 

847.          On July 28, 2007, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Republic of Guatemala in case 10,686, alleging its responsibility in the violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligation established in Article 1(1) thereof.

 

848.          The case deals with the illegal arrest and forced disappearance of María Tiu Tojín and her one-month-old daughter, Josefa Tiu Tojín, on August 29, 1990, in Nebaj, Quiché department, the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating the incident, and the denial of justice to the family of the victims.

 

849.          In its application the Inter-American Commission stressed the importance and relevance of the efforts made by the Guatemalan State to implement the recommendations adopted by the Commission in its report on the merits No. 71/04 in this case and to meet the commitments acquired with the victims’ next-of-kin in an agreement signed on August 8, 2005. It noted, however, that in spite of the repeated extensions granted, several of the report’s recommendations and the reparation measures offered in the agreement – particularly those related to investigating the incident and locating the victims’ remains – had not been met.

 

Case of Villagrán Morales et al. (the Street Children Case)

 

850.     Over the course of 2007, the Commission periodically reported on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on reparations, and costs of May 26, 2001.

 

851.     On December 13, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to convene a private hearing with the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the victims, and the Guatemalan State, to receive up-to-date information on compliance with the reparations judgment. That hearing is to take place at the Court’s headquarters on February 1, 2008.

 

k.          Haiti

 

Case of Yvon Neptune

 

852.           On December 14, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Haiti in case 12.514, regarding its responsibility in the violation of Yvon Neptune’s rights under Articles 5 (Humane Treatment), 7 (Personal Liberty), 8 (Fair Trial), 9 (Ex Post Facto Laws), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. These violations result from Haiti’s failure to advise the victim in a timely and adequate fashion of the charges against him; to bring him without delay before a judge or other judicial official empowered by law to exercise judicial authority; to afford him an appeal to a competent court to examine the legality of his detention; to ensure his physical, mental, and moral integrity, and his right to be separated from inmates already convicted; to provide him with detention and treatment conditions consistent with international standards while he was in custody at the National Penitentiary; to give him adequate time and means to prepare his defense; and to refrain from accusing him of an act that was not a crime under Haitian law.

 

853.          The victim’s representatives have not lodged a brief containing their requests, arguments, and evidence, and the State of Haiti has not lodged a reply to the application.

 

854.          On August 30, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court adopted a resolution informing the parties of the Court’s decision not to hold a hearing on this case and ordering the submission of the testimony and expert evidence offered by the Inter-American Commission through statements given to a notary public. In that same resolution, the President ordered the parties to lodge their final claims no later than September 30, 2007.

 

855.          The Inter-American Commission, the victim’s representatives, and the State submitted their final claims on September 30, 2007.

 

856.          On November 29, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing to receive Mr. Yvon Neptune’s statement and the parties’ claims regarding certain specific topics indicated in the resolution whereby the hearing was called. That hearing is to take place in the city of San José, Costa Rica, on January 30, 2008, with the participation of the Commission, the victim’s representatives, and the Haitian State.
 

 [TABLE OF CONTENTS  |  PREVIOUSNEXT]