|
|
|
Chapter III - Contentious Cases (Continuation)
k. Honduras
Case of Alfredo López Álvarez
857. On July 7, 2003, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Republic of Honduras for violations of the rights of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, a member of a Honduran Garifuna community. Mr. López Álvarez was arrested on April 27, 1997, and tried in criminal court, where he was acquitted on January 13, 2003. He was imprisoned for six and a half years before being released on August 26, 2003.
858. On February 1, 2006, the Court issued judgment in this case, ruling that Honduras did violate Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez’s rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, a fair trial, judicial protection, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law, together with the right of his next-of-kin to humane treatment, all in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the Convention. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_141_ing.pdf.
859. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on the information presented by the State and by the victim’s representatives and family. In those comments, it noted with satisfaction the State’s compliance with the compensation and publication obligations set out in the judgment, together with the importance of ensuring that all aspects of it are duly complied with and implemented. The Commission also said that for the inter-American system to assess full compliance with the judgment, it needed the requisite information about the actions and measures being taken by the State in investigating the facts of the case and in taking steps to improve the detention conditions of inmates at Honduran prisons.
Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez
860. On September 8, 2001, the Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court its application in this case, which deals with the abduction on July 11, 1992, of Juan Humberto Sánchez, his torture and execution, the ineffectiveness of the habeas corpus remedy lodged to determine his whereabouts until his body was found some days later, and the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of those crimes. The Court issued judgment on June 7, 2003.
861. On September 12, 2005, the Court adopted an order on compliance with the judgment. In it, the Court resolved to keep open the compliance monitoring procedure with regard to the obligations not fully discharged, namely: investigating, identifying, and punishing, through administrative and criminal justice channels, the direct perpetrators, instigators, and any accessories after the fact; providing the victim’s next-of-kin with access to the investigations and publishing the results thereof; transferring the mortal remains of Juan Humberto Sánchez to the place chosen by his family; implementing a register of detainees to enable the legality of detentions to be controlled; publishing the operative part of the judgment and the chapter pertaining to proven facts; paying the compensation amount ordered on behalf of the victim’s daughters; and paying the total amount ordered by the Court for material and nonmaterial damages and for costs and expenses, together with the applicable interest on arrears. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/juansa_12_09_051.pdf.
862. During 2007, the Commission periodically submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s orders. The Commission noted that the State had met most of the obligations set out in the judgment, and it underscored the importance of ensuring their complete and effective fulfillment and implementation and emphasized the items still pending, such as the investigation, identification, and punishment of the direct perpetrators and instigators, and the implementation of a register of detainees to control the legality of detentions in Honduras.
863. On November 21, 2007, the Court issued another order regarding compliance with the judgment, in which it declared that some of the reparation measures has been met in full and ordered the monitoring procedure to remain open as regards the items still pending, to wit: (a) paying Mr. Julio Sánchez the compensation amount for nonmaterial damages ordered; (b) conducting an effective investigation of the facts of the case, identifying the direct perpetrators, the instigators, and any accessories after the fact, and punishing them, through the appropriate administrative and criminal justice channels; and implementing a register of detainees to enable the legality of detentions to be controlled.
Case of Servellón García et al.
864. This case deals with the violation of the rights of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Orlando Álvarez Ríos, and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, who were detained between September 15 and 16, 1995, during an operation conducted by the Public Security Force of Honduras. The four young men were executed extrajudicially by agents of the State and, on September 17, 1995, their dead bodies were found outdoors in various parts of the city of Tegucigalpa, Honduras.
865. On September 21, 2006, the Court accepted the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility and ruled that Honduras did violate the victims’ rights to liberty, humane treatment, and life protected by Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), 5(1), 5(2), and 4(1) of the American Convention, and the right to humane treatment under Article 5.5, in connection with the rights of children established in Article 19, with respect to Marco Antonio Servellón García and Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, who were under 18 years of age; that it did violate their families’ right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention; that it did violate Articles 8(1), 8(2), 7(6), and 25(1) of the Convention; that it did violate the families’ right to a fair trial and judicial protection per Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention; all in connection with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring those rights enshrined in Article 1(1) thereof. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_152_ing.pdf.
866. On October 23, 2007, the State submitted its first report on compliance with the judgment.
l. Mexico
Case of Castañeda Gutman
867. On March 21, 2007, the Commission filed with the Court an application against the United Mexican States in case 12.535, for its responsibility arising from the violation of Article 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.
868. The case deals with the absence, under domestic law, of a simple and effective remedy for challenging the constitutionality of decisions affecting political rights and the consequent inability of Mr. Jorge Castañeda Gutman to register as an independent candidate in Mexico’s presidential election.
869. The victim’s representatives lodged their brief containing requests, arguments, and evidence with the Court on June 5, 2007. On September 11, 2007, the State submitted its reply to the application and filed ten preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Commission and the victim’s representatives responded to those objections on October 18 and 17, 2007, respectively.
870. On November 30, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, to be held in the city of San José, Costa Rica, on February 8, 2008, with the participation of the Commission, the victim’s representatives and family, and the Mexican State.
Campo Algodonero (González et al.)
871. On November 4, 2007, the Commission lodged with the Court its joindered application in cases 12.496, 12.497, 12.498, alleging the responsibility of the United Mexican States in the violation of Articles 4, 5, 8, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring human rights set out in Article 1(1) and the duty of adopting domestic legislative and other measures to give effect to the rights protected in the Convention set out in Article 2 thereof, and the violation of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence Against Women.
872. The case deals with the denial of justice in the disappearance and murder of Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez (two of whom were of minor age), in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; the absence of preventive policies in those cases, in spite of the authorities’ awareness of the existence, in the state of Chihuahua, of a pattern of violence against women and girls; the authorities’ failure to respond to the disappearances; the lack of due diligence in the murder investigations; and the failure to provide their families with appropriate redress.
n. Nicaragua
Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case
873. On June 4, 1998 the Commission lodged its application in this case with the Inter-American Court. This case deals with the lack of demarcation of the communal lands of the Awas Tingni Community, the failure to take effective measures to guarantee the community’s property rights over its ancestral lands and natural resources, and the granting of a concession on lands belonging to the community without its consent and without ensuring an effective legal action to hear the community’s ownership claims. The Court issued its judgment on merits and reparations on August 31, 2001.
874. During 2007, the Commission received comments from the representatives of the victims; however, it is still awaiting the information on compliance with the judgment that the State is required to submit in order for the Commission to comment thereon.
Yatama Case
875. On June 17, 2003, the Commission submitted to the Court a case involving the candidates for mayors, vice-mayors, and councilors presented by the regional indigenous political party Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (“YATAMA”) on account of their exclusion from participation in the municipal elections in the North Atlantic and South Atlantic Autonomous Regions under a resolution adopted by the Supreme Electoral Council. In the case, the State failed to provide a remedy to ensure those candidates’ right to participate and be elected in the municipal elections and further failed to adopt the legislative or other measures necessary to uphold those rights; in particular, it established no provisions in its electoral law to facilitate the political participation of indigenous organizations in the elections of the Autonomous Regions of Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast in accordance with the customary law, values, uses, and customs of the indigenous peoples who live there.
876. On June 23, 2005, the Court issued its judgment, ruling that the right to fair trial and judicial protection, political rights, and the right to equality before the law had been violated. On November 29, 2006, the Court issued an order instructing the State to take all the steps necessary for effective and prompt fulfillment of the Court’s orders that were still awaiting compliance. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/yatama_29_11_06_ing.pdf.
877.
During 2007, the Commission presented its comments on the information
submitted by the victims’ representatives and by the State regarding
compliance with the forms of redress ordered by the Court in its
judgment of June 23, 2005. o. Panama
Case of Baena Ricardo et al.
878. On January 16, 1998, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court for the events occurring as of December 6, 1990, and, particularly, as of December 14 of that year, the date on which Law No. 25 was enacted, under which 270 public employees who had participated in a labor demonstration were arbitrarily dismissed from their positions and accused of complicity in an attempted military coup. Following the workers’ arbitrary dismissal, a series of violations of their rights to due process and to judicial protection were committed in the processing of their complaints and lawsuits. The Inter-American Court issued its judgment on merits and reparations on February 2, 2001.
879. On November 28, 2005, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in which it resolved to keep the procedure open regarding the following obligations: to pay the 270 victims the amounts corresponding to salary arrears and other employment benefits due to them under law, payable to their heirs in the case of employees since deceased; and to reinstate the 270 victims in their jobs and, should that not be possible, to offer them employment options consistent with the terms, salary, and compensation they had when they were dismissed. Should this last also prove impossible, to pay the severance amounts provided under domestic labor law for termination of employment. Likewise, to pay to the heirs of dead victims the pension or retirement benefits to which they may be entitled as well as the compensation for moral damages established. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/baena_28_11_05.pdf.
880. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on the information furnished by the parties. In those comments, it reiterated the need for the State to present information on the implementation of effective measures toward full compliance with the judgment; on the specific details requested by the Court; and on the compatibility between its proposal and the standards set by the Inter-American Court in its 2001 judgment.
Case of Heliodoro Portugal
881. On January 23, 2007, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Republic of Panama in case 12,408, alleging its responsibility in the violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligation established in Article 1(1) thereof; in failing to meet the obligation established in Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; and in noncompliance with the obligations contained in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
882. The case deals with the forced disappearance and extrajudicial killing of Mr. Heliodoro Portugal, the failure to investigate the incident and to punish the guilty, and the failure to provide his next-of-kin with proper redress.
883. The victim’s representatives lodged their brief containing requests, arguments, and evidence with the Court on April 27, 2007. On June 26, 2007, the State submitted its reply to the application and filed three preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction. The Commission and the victim’s representatives responded to those objections on August 8 and 5, 2007, respectively.
884. On November 29, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, to be held in the city of San José, Costa Rica, on January 29-30, 2008, to be attended by the Commission, the representatives of the victim and his family, and the Panamanian State.
Case of Tristán Donoso
885. On August 28, 2007, the Inter-American Commission lodged with the Court its application in the case of Santander Tristán Donoso, alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Panama in making public a telephone conversation made by the lawyer Santander Tristán Donoso; in the subsequent filing of a criminal trial for crimes against honor as a reprisal for the complaints Mr. Tristán Donoso lodged regarding the incident; in the failure to investigate and punish the perpetrators; and in the failure to provide appropriate redress. In its application, the Commission asked the Court to rule that the Panamanian State did fail to meet its international obligations by violating Articles 8 (Fair Trial), 11 (Privacy), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring human rights contained in Article 1.1 of the Convention and of adopting domestic legal effects in compliance with Article 2 thereof.
886. Notice of the application was served, and the case is in the initial stages of processing.
p. Paraguay
Case of the Panchito López Juvenile Reeducation Institute
887. During 2007, the Commission periodically submitted its comments on the compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of September 2, 2004; in those comments, it noted the almost complete lack of implementation of the judgment’s orders.
888. On December 14, 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 Paraguayan State, to receive up-to-date information on progress with implementing the reparations judgment. That hearing is to take place at the Court’s headquarters on February 4, 2008.
Case of Goiburú et al.
889. This case deals with the illegal and arbitrary arrest, torture, and forced disappearance of Messrs. Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, and the brothers Rodolfo Feliciano and Benjamín de Jesús Ramírez Villalba, at the hands of agents of the Paraguayan State as of 1974 and 1977, and with the partial impunity still covering those incidents as a result of the failure to punish all the perpetrators.
890. On September 22, 2006, the Court accepted the recognition of international responsibility offered by the State and ruled that Paraguay did violate the right to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty enshrined in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), and 7 of the American Convention with respect to Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba, and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba, their families’ right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention, and the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention with respect to the victims and their next-of-kin, all in connection with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring those rights and freedoms set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. The Court also set out the reparation measures that the State must meet as a consequence of its international responsibility. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_153_ing.pdf.
891. On November 6, 2007, the State submitted its first report on compliance with the judgment.
Case of Ricardo Canese
892. This case involves the conviction of Mr. Ricardo Canese, and the restrictions placed on his ability to leave the country, as a result of statements he made while he was a candidate in the 1993 Paraguayan presidential election.
893. Over the course of 2007, the Commission periodically reported on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of August 31, 2004.
894. On December 14, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to convene a private hearing with the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the victim, and the Paraguayan 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 4, 2008.
Sawhoyamaxa Case
895. This case deals with the failure to guarantee the ancestral property rights of the Sawhoyamaxa Community and its members through the failure to satisfactorily resolve their land claim. This has meant the community and its members have been denied the ownership and possession of their lands and have been kept in a state of vulnerability vis-à-vis their food supply, medical care, and sanitation, posing a continuous threat to their survival and integrity.
896. Over the course of 2007, the Commission periodically reported on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of August 31, 2004.
897. On December 14, 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 Paraguayan 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 4, 2008.
Case of Vargas Areco
898. The case involves the failure to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators of the violations committed against the child Gerardo Vargas Areco, who was recruited for military service in the armed forces of Paraguay when he was 15 years of age and died on December 30, 1989, when shot in the back while trying to flee from his garrison.
899.
On September 26,
2006, the Court ruled that Paraguay did violate, with respect to Gerardo
Vargas Areco’s family, the duty of ensuring the rights enshrined in
Articles 4 and 5(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with
Article 1(1) thereof, as well as Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; the right enshrined in Article
5(1) of the American Convention; and the rights enshrined in Articles
8(1) and 25 of the American Convention; all in conjunction with Article
1(1) thereof, and as of March 26, 1993. In its judgment, the Court ruled
on other aspects of the case and established the necessary reparation
measures. The full text of the judgment can be found at:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_155_ing.pdf. 900. In November 2007, the State submitted its first report on compliance.
Yakye Axa Case
901. On March 17, 2003, the Commission lodged an application with the Court in this case due to the State’s failure to guarantee the ancestral property rights of the Yakye Axa indigenous community and its members, whose land claim had been pending processing since 1993 without a satisfactory resolution. This has kept the community and its members from securing ownership and possession of their lands and has kept them in state of vulnerability in terms of their nutritional, medical, and sanitation requirements, which poses a continuous threat to the survival of its members and the integrity of the community itself.
902. On June 17, 2005, the Court handed down judgment in the case, ruling that the community’s right to a fair trial and to judicial protection, to private property, and to life had been violated and establishing the applicable reparations. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf.
903. During 2007, the Commission periodically submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s reparations orders contained in its judgment of June 17, 2005. In its comments, the Commission applauded the State’s compliance with the recognition of its international responsibility and certain steps taken toward establishing the mechanisms ordered by the Court. However, it noted with concern the lack of detailed information specifically ordered by the Court about certain aspects of the measures ordered that are essential to the subsistence and wellbeing of the Yakye Axa Community. In that regard, it said that in addition to reporting on the points requiring immediate and regular compliance, the State must address the actions of the Implementation Committee, the provision of resources for the land acquisition fund and the community development fund, and the progress made in ensuring that the community has land on which to live and pursue their activities.
904. On December 14, 2007, the President of the Court issued an order calling the parties to a private hearing on February 4, 2008, to enable the Court to obtain information from the State on its compliance with the judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs handed down in this case, and to hear the comments of the Inter-American Commission and the victims’ representatives.
q. Peru
Case of the Five Pensioners
905. This case addresses the violation of the rights to private property and judicial protection of Messrs. Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez, and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (the “Five Pensioners”) through the modification of the pensions regime they had enjoyed under Peruvian law until 1992 and through the failure to abide by judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Peru upholding their rights.
906. The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated July 4, 2006. According to that order, the following points are still awaiting compliance in the case at hand: conducting the corresponding investigations and applying the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judicial decisions delivered by the Peruvian courts during the applications for protective measures filed by the victims; paying the four victims and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra’s widow the amount set for nonmaterial damages; and paying the amount set for expenses and costs. The Court also ruled that the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property should be established, under domestic legislation, by the competent national organs. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Pensionistas_04_07_06_ing.pdf.
907. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s reparations orders contained in its judgment of February 28, 2003. In those comments the Commission applauded the State’s payment of the amounts due for nonmaterial damages, costs, and expenses, but it noted its concern regarding the lack of compliance with the other applicable forms of redress.
Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. (SITRAMUN)
908. This case involves noncompliance with a series of judgments issued between 1996 and 2000 on behalf of workers of the Lima municipal government who had been illegally laid off or fired, ordering their reinstatement and the payment of wages, bonuses, allowances, and other benefits.
909. On February 7, 2006, the Court ruled that Peru did violate the right to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring rights and freedoms enshrined in Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to the persons named in the judgment. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_144_ing.pdf.
910. During 2007, the State submitted its first report on compliance, and the parties offered their comments on that report. The Commission applauded the State’s payment of the compensation amounts ordered for nonmaterial damages but noted its concern at the State’s failure to carry out the other measures ordered by the Court, in particular the effective execution of the amparo judgments that the Court identified as not having been implemented.
Case of Baldeón García
911. This case deals with the illegal and arbitrary detention, torture, and extrajudicial execution of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón García at the hands of Peruvian army personnel on September 25, 1990.
912. During 2007, the Commission continued to wait for the Peruvian State to submit a report on its compliance with the judgment of April 6, 2006; to date, no such report has been received.
Barrios Altos Case
913. On June 8, 2000, the Inter-American Commission lodged an application in this case with the Court, addressing the extrajudicial killing of 15 people on November 3, 1991, in the neighborhood of Lima, Peru, known as “Barrios Altos,” together with the subsequent denial of justice faced by their next-of-kin and the survivors on account of the application of Law No. 26479, which granted a general amnesty to military, police, and civil personnel in various cases, and Law No. 26492, which “clarifies the interpretation and scope of the amnesty granted by Law No. 26479.”
914. The Court handed down a judgment on merits and reparations on March 14, 2001, ruling that the Peruvian State did violate Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention, and that it did fail to abide by Articles 1 and 2 thereof, as a result of the passage and enactment of the amnesty laws. The Court ruled that those laws were incompatible with the American Convention and, consequently, were void of legal effect. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_75_ing.pdf. Subsequently, in a judgment on interpretation, the Court ruled that given “the kind of violation that the amnesty laws (Nos. 26479 and 26492) represented, the resolutions in the judgment on the merits of the Barrios Altos case would be of general applicability.” The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_83_ing.pdf.
915. On September 22, 2005, the Court resolved to maintain the monitoring procedure with respect to the forms of redress still awaiting implementation. During 2007, the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s reparations orders contained in its judgments of March 14 and November 30, 2001. In those comments the Commission noted its concern at the lack of compliance with some of the forms of redress still pending in the case.
Cantoral Benavides Case
916. This case deals with the illegal arrest of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides on February 6, 1993, followed by his arbitrary detention and imprisonment and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and the violation of due process and freedom from ex post facto laws because of those events.
917. Over the course of 2007, the Commission periodically reported on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of December 3, 2001.
918. On December 14, 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 Peruvian 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.
Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz
919. This case addresses the extrajudicial killing and torture of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz in Lima, Peru, on February 13, 1989, and the failure to investigate those incidents and punish the perpetrators.
920. On July 10, 2007, the Court issued a judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations in this case. In that judgment, the Court ruled that the Peruvian State did violate the rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, and to freedom of association, enshrined in Articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7, and 16 of the Convention, in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights set forth in Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz. It also ruled that the State did violate the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, and the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 4, 5, 7, and 1(1) thereof, with respect to the families of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz. In that judgment, the Court ordered the reparations and costs it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_167_ing.pdf.
921. On November 3, 2007, the State filed an application for interpretation of the judgment and, on December 10, 2007, the Commission submitted its comments requesting that the Court not proceed with the interpretation sought.
Castillo Páez Case
922. This case deals with the kidnapping and subsequent disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez at the hands of the Peruvian National Police on October 20, 1990, and the lack of investigation and punishment of the perpetrators. The text of the judgment on the merits can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_34_ing.pdf.
923. The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated November 17, 2004. According to that order, the State is still pending compliance with its obligation of investigating the facts of the case, identifying and punishing the perpetrators, and locating the mortal remains of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. The text of that order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/castillo_17_11_04.pdf.
924. In November 2007, the State submitted a report on its compliance with the judgment.
Castillo Petruzzi Case
925. The judgment ordering reparations in this case was rendered by the Court on May 30, 1999. In it, the Court ordered the State to invalidate the trial of the victims and ensure a new trial with full observance of due process, and to take appropriate steps to amend Decree Laws No. 25475 and 25659 and to guarantee all persons within its jurisdiction enjoyment of the rights protected by the American Convention, without exception. The text of the judgment on the merits can be consulted at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_52_ing.pdf.
926.
During 2007, the State sent the Court no information regarding its
compliance with the judgment in this case.
|
