|
|
|
Contentious Cases (Continuation)
b. Bolivia
Case of Ticona Estrada
887. This case concerns the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada starting on July 22, 1980, the day he was detained by an Army patrol in the vicinity of the Cala-Cala check point in Oruro, Bolivia, the fact that more than 27 years have passed and no one has ever been punished for the crime, and his next of kin have never been compensated for the damages caused by the loss of their loved one and the justice that has been so long denied.
888. On November 27, 2008 the Court issued its judgment. There, it decided: (i) to accept the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State; (ii) that the State violated Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2) and 4(1) of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1), and it also failed to comply with the obligations established in Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Renato Ticona Estrada; (iii) the State did not violate Article 3 of the American Convention; (iv) the State did not fail to comply with its obligations under Article XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; (v) the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) therein, as well as the obligation undertaken under Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons to the detriment of five family members; (vi) the State violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Honoria Estrada de Ticona, César Ticona Olivares, Hugo Ticona Estrada, and five family members; (vii) the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Hugo Ticona Estrada; (viii) the State failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles I(d) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, in relation to Article 2 of the American Convention. The Court also determined the reparations that it deemed convenient. The text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_191_ing.pdf
Case of Trujillo Oroza
889. This case concerns the forced disappearance of Mr. José Carlos Trujillo Oroza starting on December 23, 1971, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The full text of the judgment in this case is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_64_ing.pdf.
890. In 2008, the State did not send the Court any report on the progress made on compliance with the judgment delivered in this case. According to the Court’s most recent order in the matter, issued on November 21, 2007, the State has fulfilled that provision of the judgment that called for criminalization of forced disappearance in Bolivia’s legal system. The State has yet to comply with its obligation to locate the victim’s remains and deliver them to his next of kin, and to investigate the crime and identify and punish all those responsible. The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/trujillo_21_11_07_ing.pdf.
d. Brazil
Case of Ximenes Lopes
891. On October 1, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case No. 12,237, Damião Ximenes Lopes. The case was brought against the Brazilian State for the inhumane and degrading conditions under which Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes, a person with mental illness, was hospitalized in a health care facility called the Casa de Repouso Guararapes (Guararapes Rest Home) operated under Brazil’s Uniform Health System; the beatings and attacks he sustained at the hands of employees of the rest home; his death while undergoing psychiatric treatment there, and the failure to investigate his case and provide judicial guarantees, as a result of which no one has ever been made to answer for the crimes committed.
892. On July 4, 2006, the Court issued its judgment on the merits and reparations in this case. It accepted the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility and held that Brazil had violated Mr. Ximenes Lopes’ right to life and his right to humane treatment, protected under Articles 4(1), 5(1), and 5(2) of the American Convention; his family’s right to humane treatment, protected under Article 5 of the Convention; the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection afforded by articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in the case of Mrs. Albertina Viana Lopes and Mrs. Irene Ximenes Lopes Miranda, all this in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. In that judgment, the Court set out the forms of reparations it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_149_ing.pdf.
893. In its Order of May 02, 2008, the Court decided that it will continue to monitor the compliance with the State's duties to: (i) secure, within a reasonable time, that the domestic proceedings instituted in order to investigate and punish those responsible for the events in the instant case be operative; and (ii) continue developing an educational and training program for staff in health care, psychiatry, nursing, nurse aides and for any person involved in mental health services, in particular, covering the principles that should govern treatment for patients with mental illness, according to international standards and the provisions of the judgment. The text of the Order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ximenes_02_05_08_ing.pdf
894. In September 2008, the Court forwarded to the Commission and to the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, the State’s second report on compliance with the judgment on merits and reparations. On November 25, 2008, the Court forwarded to the State and to the Commission the comments submitted by the representatives. Thereafter, the Commission presented its own comments on the State’s report.
Case of Arley Escher et al. (tapping of social organizations’ phone lines)
895. On December 20, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Federative Republic of Brazil in case 12,353, alleging the State’s responsibility in the violation of articles 11, 16, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.
896. This case involves the wiretapping and illegal monitoring of the telephone lines of Arley José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral, Celso Aghinoni, and Eduardo Aghinoni, members of two social organizations – the Community Association of Rural Workers (ADECON) and the Conciliaçao Avante Agricultural Cooperative (COANA), associated with the Landless Workers Movement, which promotes agrarian reform in Brazil. The wiretapping and phone monitoring were done between April and June 1999 by the Paraná State Military Police. The case also involves the illegal recording and broadcasting, in the public media, of several conversations between the victims and the sectors they represent, and the denial of justice and of adequate reparations to the victims.
897. By an order dated October 8, 2008, the Court convened a public hearing on the preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, which was held on December 3, 2008, during the Court’s XXXVII special session, which it held in Mexico City. Participating in the hearing were the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their families, and the Brazilian State. The parties are to present their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence by no later than January 19, 2009.
898.
The
application is available at the following link:
http://www.cidh.org/demandas/12.353%20Arley%20Escher%20y%20otros%20Brasil%2020%
Case of Sétimo Garibaldi
899. On December 24, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court against the Federative Republic of Brazil in case No. 12,478, Sétimo Garibaldi. The Commission alleged the State’s failure to fulfill its duty to investigate and punish the murder of Mr. Sétimo Garibaldi. The murder took place on November 27, 1998, when a group of some twenty gunmen carried out the extrajudicial eviction of landless workers’ families living on the land of a hacienda located in Querência do Norte municipality, in the state of Paraná. The incident was reported to the police, and a police investigation was opened but then closed without the obstacles and mechanisms that maintained impunity in the case being removed, and without sufficient judicial guarantees having been afforded to prosecute the case or provide adequate reparations to Mr. Garibaldi’s next of kin.
900. Since the murder of Mr. Sétimo Garibaldi predates Brazil’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the facts in the application upon which the IACHR’s legal claims and consequent requests for reparation measures are based address actions and omissions that took place following the date on which that jurisdiction was accepted. They also concern the Brazilian State’s failure to abide by its duty to conduct an effective and proper investigation into Mr. Sétimo Garibaldi’s death and its obligation to provide an effective remedy to punish those accused of the extrajudicial execution. In its application, the Commission asked the Court to rule on the State’s international responsibility in failing to meet its international obligations by violating articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, and in failing to fulfill the general obligation it undertook to respect and ensure human rights (Article 1(1)) and its obligation to ensure domestic legal effects (Article 2), in consideration also of the federal clause contained in Article 28 of the Convention.
901. On December 16, 2008, the Commission received a communication from the Court informing it that the public hearing in the case would be held during the Court’s XXXIX special session, slated for late April 2009, in Santiago, Chile.
e. Chile
Case of Almonacid-Arellano
902. This case concerns the failure to investigate the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano, and the failure to punish those responsible for his extrajudicial execution by invoking the Amnesty Law enacted in Chile by Decree Law No. 2,191 of 1978, and the failure to make adequate reparation to his next of kin. Mr. Almonacid-Arellano was executed on September 16, 1973, in Rancagua, Chile.
903. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the compliance with the Court’s September 26, 2006 judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs.
Case of Claude Reyes et al.
904. On July 8, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Chilean State, in case 12,108, Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero. In its application, the Commission alleged the state’s international responsibility for its refusal to allow access to public information and for not granting the victims an effective judicial remedy to contest a violation of the right of access to information.
905. On September 19, 2006, the Court held that the State had violated the rights to freedom of thought and expression, to a fair trial and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all in conjunction with article 1(1) and article 2 thereof. In the judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.doc.
906. On May 2, 2008, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance, concerning those points whose compliance was still pending. On June 10, the President decided to convene the parties for a private hearing to discuss those. The hearing was held in Montevideo, Uruguay, on August 14, 2008. On November 24, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it decided to close the case of Claude Reyes et al., inasmuch as the Chilean State had fully complied with the Judgment delivered by the Court on September 19, 2006. The full text of that order is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/reyes_24_11_08.pdf.
Case of Humberto Palamara Iribarne
907. On May 13, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Chile in the case of Palamara Iribarne, on the grounds that 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 delivered its judgment in the case, where it found that the State had violated the rights to freedom of thought and expression, private property, a fair trial, judicial protection, and personal liberty, protected under articles 13, 21, 8, 25, and 7 of the American Convention, in conjunction 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.doc.
908. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the matter of compliance with the November 22, 2005 judgment. On December 16, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order in which it decided to summon the parties to a private hearing on compliance with the judgment, to be held at the Court’s seat on January 20, 2009.
f. Colombia
Case of the 19 Merchants (Álvaro Lobo Pacheco et al.)
909. On January 24, 2001, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court against the Colombian State for the October 6, 1987 arrest, disappearance, and execution of the merchants Álvaro Lobo Pacheco, Gerson Rodríguez, Israel Pundor, Ángel Barrera, Antonio Florez Contreras, Carlos Arturo Riatiga, Víctor Ayala, Alirio Chaparro, Huber Pérez, Álvaro Camargo, Rubén Pineda, Gilberto Ortíz, Reinaldo Corso Vargas, Hernán Jáuregui, Juan Bautista, Alberto Gómez, and Luis Sauza; and of Juan Montero and Ferney Fernández on October 18, 1987. On July 5, 2004, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits and reparations of the case.
910. In 2008, the Commission submitted its periodic observations on the State’s compliance with the Court’s July 5, 2004 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs.
911. On November 26, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she summoned the Inter-American Commission, the State and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and beneficiaries of the provisional measures, for a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on January 20, 2009. The hearing will enable the Court to get information from the State on its compliance with the judgment delivered in this case; it will hear the comments of the Commission and of the representatives of the victims’ next of kin on the question of the State’s compliance with the judgment. It will also be an opportunity to compile information on the implementation and effectiveness of the provisional measures ordered in the case and on the State’s request that the order of provisional measures be lifted. The order in question is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/comerciantes_26_11_08.doc
Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana
912. On February 4, 2008, the Court held a private hearing on this case and on February 6, issued an order in which it declared that the State had complied with the payment of interest owed in arrears to Mrs. Ana Vitelma Ortiz, mother of María del Carmen Santana. It also declared that the monitoring of compliance procedure will remain open pending transfer of half the amount of reparations consisting of the certificate of deposit in United States dollars and its yield through its date of maturity, to the account that will be opened in the name of the minor Ingrid Carolina Caballero Martínez; the investment, in a new Certificate of Deposit in United States dollars, of the amount corresponding to half the reparations and yield from the CD that matured on September 1, 2004, in the name of the representatives of minor Iván Andrés Caballero Parra; investigation and punishment of those responsible for the disappearance and presumed death of the victims, the location of their remains and their delivery to the next of kin. The full text of this order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/caballero_06_02_08_ing.doc
Case of Escué Zapata
913. This case concerns the unlawful detention, torture and extrajudicial execution of indigenous leader Germán Escué Zapata, on the Jambaló reservation, in the Jambaló municipality, department of Cauca; the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating the facts, and the denial of justice to the victim’s next of kin.
914. After considering the evidence introduced by the parties, their arguments and the Colombian State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Inter-American Court delivered its judgment on the merits, reparations and costs on July 4, 2007. In its judgment, the Court found that the State had violated articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Court also set the reparations it deemed appropriate.
915. On November 1, 2007, the State filed an application with the Court seeking an interpretation of the judgment delivered on July 4, 2007, based on Article 67 of the Convention and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. In its application, the State requested clarification “of certain measures of reparation ordered by the Inter-American Court in its judgment, on the grounds of lack of clarity regarding execution.” The reparation measures at issue are those related to publication of the findings reached in the criminal proceedings, the creation of a fund for the development of the community, the measures ordered to ensure a higher education for Myriam Zapata Escué and payment of legal costs and expenses.
916. On May 5, 2008 the Court delivered its judgment in which it declared the application filed by the Colombian State seeking an interpretation of the Court’s judgment in this case to be admissible and resolved to determine the scope of the measures whose clarification was requested. The full text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_178_ing.doc.
Case of Las Palmeras
917. This case concerns the extrajudicial execution of six individuals on January 23, 1991, at Las Palmeras, municipality of Mocoa, in Colombia’s Putumayo department, and the subsequent denial of justice for the next-of-kin. The complete text of the merits judgment of December 6, 2001, is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_90_ing.pdf.
918. On August 4, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it held that the State had complied with various aspects of the judgment, but decided to hold open the monitoring procedure with respect to the following aspects whose compliance is still pending: a) steps taken to investigate the facts of the instant case, to identify and punish those responsible and to publish the results of the proceedings, and b) the necessary steps to identify N.N./Moisés, within a reasonable time, to locate, exhume, and deliver his remains to his next of kin, and to pay said next of kin the amount owed by the State. The State is instructed to submit a report on these matters by no later than January 12, 2009. The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/LasPalmeras_04_08_08_ing.doc
Case of La Granja and El Aro (Ituango Massacres)
919. On July 30 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Colombia in cases 12,050, La Granja, and 12,266, El Aro, alleging the State’s responsibility in the events of June 1996 and the events that began in October 1997, respectively, in the municipality of Ituango, department of Antioquia, involving violation of the right to life of 16 persons; the rights to life and personal liberty of one person; the rights to life, humane treatment, and liberty of two persons; and the property rights of six persons; as well as the failure to ensure proper protection and a fair trial to all these persons and their families and to safeguard the applicable rights of the child, all in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention.
920. On July 1, 2006, the Court accepted the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility for violation of the rights protected under articles 4 (the right to life), 7 (the right to personal liberty), 5 (the right to humane treatment), and 21 (the right to private property) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) (the obligation to respect rights) thereof. In its judgment, the Court set the measures of reparations it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_148_ing.doc.
921. On December 9, 2008, the Court sent the Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, the State’s report on its compliance with the judgment. As of the date of preparation of this report, the Commission was awaiting the comments of the representatives in order to be able to issue a more informed opinion as to compliance with the judgment issued in this case.
Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas
922. On November 14, 2008, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Colombia in case 12,531, Manuel Cepeda Vargas, for the State’s responsibility in the extrajudicial execution of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas –head of the National Directorate of the Colombian Communist Party and a prominent figure in the Unión Patriótica political party. The event occurred in Bogotá, on August 9, 1994. The application also cites the lack of due diligence in investigating the victim’s execution and punishing those responsible, and the lack of adequate reparations for the victim’s next of kin.
923. In the Commission’s view, the facts in this case constitute violations of the rights protected by articles 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 22, 23 and 25 of the Convention, and a failure to comply with the general obligation to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights, established in Article 1(1) of the Convention.
Case of the Mapiripán Massacre
924. This case involves the massacre that took place in the period from July 15 through 20, 1997, when some 100 members of the paramilitary Autodefensas Unidas of Colombia, with the cooperation and acquiescence of government agents, seized, tortured and murdered at least 49 civilians, destroyed the bodies, and dumped the remains into the Guaviare River in the municipality of Mapiripán, department of Meta.
925. In 2008, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the Court’s judgment on merits, reparations and costs, of March 7, 2005.
926. On November 26, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she summoned the Inter-American Commission, the Colombian State and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin, to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009. The hearing will be an opportunity for the Court to receive information from the State concerning its compliance with the judgment delivered in the contentious case. The Court will also hear the comments made by the Commission and by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin on the issue of compliance and reports on the implementation and effectiveness of the provisional measures ordered and whether the order for provisional measures should be lifted. The November 26 order is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/mapiripan_26_11_08.doc.
Case of the La Rochela Massacre
927. On March 10, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 11,995, La Rochela, alleging the Colombian State’s responsibility in the events of January 18, 1989, when a paramilitary group, with the support and acquiescence of state agents, extra judicially executed 12 individuals and violated the physical integrity of another three, all of whom were members of a Colombian judicial commission on a fact-finding mission in the village of La Rochela, Colombia.
928. The Court delivered its judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs on May 11, 2007. In that judgment, it decided to accept the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility and held that Colombia had violated all the victims’ rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty, protected under articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), and 7 of the American Convention; the next of kin’s right to humane treatment, protected under Article 5 of the Convention; and the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, provided under articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in the case of the surviving victims and the families of the deceased victims, all this in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. In its judgment, the Court also set the forms of reparation it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_163_ing.doc.
929. On September 3, 2007 the State filed a request for interpretation of the Judgment in relation to: (i) the compensation of some family members that had already been compensated at domestic level; (ii) the public release of the results of the criminal proceedings; (iii) what happens when a person is not appointed to receive the payment for expenses or when the family group does not come to an agreement on the matter. On January 28, 2008 the Court issued its judgment declaring the request admissible and, consequently, proceeded to clarify the meaning or the scope of the Judgment. The text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_175_ing.pdf
930. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments regarding the State’s compliance with the Court’s judgment on merits, reparations and costs.
Case of the “Pueblo Bello” Massacre (José Álvarez Blanco et al.)
931. This case concerns the torture and forced disappearance of 37 individuals and the torture and extrajudicial execution of another six. The events occurred in January 1990, and were the work of paramilitary groups, acting with the acquiescence of State agents, in the Colombian departments of Antioquia and Córdoba.
932. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the compliance with the Court’s instructions in its January 31, 2006 judgment on merits, reparations and costs.
933. On November 26, 2008, the President of the Court issued an Order in which she summoned the Commission, the State and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009. The hearing is being held for the Court to receive information from the State concerning its compliance with the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, and to hear the comments of the Commission and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin on the matter of compliance. The order convoking the hearing is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/bello_26_11_08.doc.
Case of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo et al.
934. This case concerns the murder of human rights defender Jesús María Valle Jaramillo; the arrest and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Mr. Valle Jaramillo, his sister Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Mr. Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, which preceded the murder; the failure to investigate the facts in the case and to punish those responsible; the failure to provide the victims and their next of kin with adequate compensation; and the forced displacement that Mr. Jaramillo Correa suffered in the wake of these events.
935. On November 30, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing on merits, reparations, and costs, held in San José, Costa Rica, on February 6-7, 2008. Participating were the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their families, and the Colombian State.
936. On March 10, 2008, the parties filed their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence and are currently awaiting issuance of the judgment in the case.
937. On November 27, 2008 the Court issued its judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs. There,
a) It accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility, and declared a violation of the following Articles: 7(1), 5(1), and 4(1), respectively, of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo; (ii) 7(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa; (iii) 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of 23 family members; (iv) 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the victim’s wife, his son and his 2 daughters; (v) 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of 25 family members.
b) The Court decided that the State violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca Inés Valle Jaramillo, Gonzalo de Jesús Jaramillo Correa, Juan Guillermo Valle Noreña, John Jairo Valle Noreña and Luz Adriana Valle Noreña.
c) The Court decided that it had not been proved that the State violated: (i) Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa; nor (ii) Articles 11(1), 11(2), 13 and 17 of the American Convention. The text is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_192_ing.pdf
Case of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler
938. This case concerns the detention and torture of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler, to force him to confess to the alleged commission of an offense of which the Colombian courts ultimately found him innocent.
939. In 2008, the Commission continued to present its periodic comments on the matter of the State’s compliance with the Court’s judgment on merits, reparations and costs, dated September 12, 2005.
940. On December 3, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she summoned the Commission, the State and the Representatives of the victim and his next-of-kin to a private hearing, to be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009. There, the Court will receive information from the State on its compliance with the judgment delivered in the contentious case; it will hear the comments that the Commission and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin have on this matter; and it will receive information on the implementation and effectiveness of the provisional measures and whether they can be lifted. The order convoking the hearing in question is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/gutierrez_03_12_08.doc.
g. Costa Rica
Case of the "La Nación" Newspaper (Herrera Ulloa)
941. On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on monitoring compliance with the judgment in question, in which it decided that it would keep open the proceeding for monitoring compliance of the State’s pending obligations, namely: to nullify the November 12, 1999 judgment of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José and all the measures ordered therein; to adjust 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 to pay the interest accrued for delay in the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement of expenses. The text is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_107_ing.pdf
942. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning the compliance with the Court’s July 2, 2004 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs.
h. Dominican Republic
Case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico
943. On July 11, 2003, the Commission filed its application in the case, which concerns the refusal of the State, through its Registry Office authorities, to issue birth certificates for the Yean and Bosico children, even though they were born within the State’s territory and despite the fact that the Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes the principle of jus soli to determine those who have a right to Dominican citizenship. The State thus obliged the alleged victims to endure a situation of continued illegality and social vulnerability, violations that are even more serious in the case of children, since the Dominican Republic denied the Yean and Bosico children their right to Dominican nationality and let them remain stateless persons for a long period of time.
944. The Court delivered its judgment in this case on September 8, 2005, where it held that there had been violations of the right of nationality, the right to equality before the law, the right to a name, the right to juridical personality, and the right to humane treatment protected under Article 5 of the Convention. The Court also specified the remedies it deemed pertinent. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_130_%20ing.doc
945. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered in the Court’s judgment of September 8, 2005. It said it was gratified by the fact that the State had complied with the pecuniary damages ordered in the judgment, and was waiting for the State’s future reports concerning compliance with the other obligations set out in the judgment.
i. Ecuador
Case of Acosta Calderón
946. On June 25, 2003 the Commission filed an application with the Court in the case of Rigoberto Acosta Calderón to have the Court find Ecuador responsible for violation of 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 delivered its judgment in the case, and held that the State had violated the victim’s rights to personal liberty, judicial protection, and a fair trial, protected under articles 7, 25, and 8, respectively, of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. The Court also held that the State failed to comply with its duty under Article 2 of the Convention, as regards Article 7. In its judgment, the Court set out the measures of reparation that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_129_ing.doc.
947. In 2006, the State submitted its first report on compliance with the judgment in this case. In August 2007, once the Commission had received the comments of the victim’s representatives, it forwarded its own comments on the matter of compliance with the reparations ordered in the Court’s June 24, 2005 judgment.
948. On February 7, 2008, the Inter-American Court ordered that the Acosta Calderón case be considered closed inasmuch as the State of Ecuador has complied with the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court on June 24, 2005. The full text of this order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/acosta_07_02_08_ing.doc
Case of Benavides Cevallos
949. On March 21, 1996, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, for the unlawful and arbitrary arrest, torture and murder of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos by agents of the State, who held her in secret, without a court order, court authorization or court supervision. The State agents involved and the government institutions with which they were associated then undertook a systematic campaign to deny these crimes and any responsibility on the State’s part.
950. The most recent order issued by the Court on the matter of compliance is dated November 27, 2003. There the Court resolved to inform the General Assembly of the Organization about the State’s failure to discharge its obligation of investigating and solving the victim’s forced disappearance. The full text of the judgment can be found at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_38_ing.doc.
951. In 2008, the State persisted in its pattern of not submitting the reports necessary to document compliance with its obligation of investigating, prosecuting and punishing those responsible for the human rights violations committed against Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, as required under operative paragraph four of the Court’s judgment of June 19, 1998.
Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez
952. On June 23, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,091, Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Iñiguez, for Ecuador’s international responsibility in the arbitrary detention of the two men in Guayaquil on November 15, 1997, and subsequent violations of their rights in the proceedings instituted against them, in which both men sustained material and moral damages. In light of the facts in the case, the Commission asked the Court to hold the Ecuadorian State internationally responsible for violating the victims’ rights under articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 21 (right to private property), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof (the 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.
953. On November 21, 2007, the Court delivered its judgment in the case. There, it accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility and held that Ecuador had violated 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, ex officio, 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 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary 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 owed to him for pecuniary damages. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_170_ing.doc
954. On November 26, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment on the State’s application seeking an interpretation of the judgment in this case. In its judgment of interpretation, it dismissed the State’s request on the grounds that it was inadmissible. The text of the judgment is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_189_esp.pdf. The Commission also continued to submit its comments on the information supplied by the parties regarding the progress made on compliance with the judgment delivered in this case.
Case of Cornejo et al.
955. On July 5, 2006 the Commission filed an application with the Court against Ecuador in case 12,406, Cornejo et al., in which it alleged that the State had failed to comply with its international obligations, to the detriment of Mrs. Carmen Susana Cornejo de Albán and Mr. Bismarck Wagner Albán Sánchez. For almost two decades, the two had sought justice and punishment of those responsible for the death of their daughter, Laura Susana Albán Cornejo, by compiling evidence related to her death and bringing medical malpractice suits against the physicians who treated her. In these legal proceedings, they did not enjoy the necessary guarantees or judicial protection.
956. On November 22, 2007, the Court delivered its judgment in the case, in which it accepted the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility for violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection. It also declared that Ecuador violated the right to humane treatment to the detriment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán Sánchez and that State had violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, all in conjunction with articles 5, 5(1) and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán Sánchez. In its judgment, the Court ordered the State to publish certain parts of the judgment; to fully divulge the rights of the patients, using the proper media and according to the existing legislation in Ecuador and international standards; to implement an education and training program for justice operators and health care professionals about the laws enacted by Ecuador in relation to patients’ rights and the penalties for violating them, and to pay the sum established for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and for costs and expenses. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_171_ing.doc
957.
On
August 5, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment on the application
filed by the representatives on January 19, 2008, seeking an
interpretation of the judgment on the merits, reparations and costs. In
the August 5 judgment, the Court denied the request for interpretation
on the grounds of inadmissibility. The text of the judgment is available
at:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_183_ing.doc
. The Commission continued to submit comments on the information
reported by the parties concerning compliance with the January 19, 2008
judgment delivered in this case. Case of Salvador Chiriboga
958. On December 12, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador, in case 12,054, Salvador Chiriboga, for the international responsibility the State incurred by its expropriation of a piece of property belonging to the Salvador Chiriboga brothers. The procedure used to expropriate the property stripped the brothers of the use and enjoyment of the property, without paying them the fair compensation to which they were entitled under Ecuadoran law and the American Convention. The Commission asked the Court to declare the State’s international responsibility for violation of articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 21 (right to private property) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, all in relation to its articles 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) thereof.
959. On May 6, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment on the preliminary objection and merits of the present case. There, the Court held that the State had violated the right to property protected under Article 21(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection provided under articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, all this in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María Salvador Chiriboga. It ordered that within six months from the date of notification of the judgment, the State and the representatives were to reach agreement on the amount and payment of the fair compensation owed for the expropriated property and any other measures to redress the violations established in the Judgment. That six-month time period has passed and the Commission does not know whether the parties were able to reach the agreement called for by the Court. The full text of the judgment in this case is at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_179_ing.doc
Case of Suárez Rosero
960. On December 22, 1995, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador, for the arrest and detention of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero in violation of a pre-existing law; the failure to bring Mr. Suárez before a judicial official promptly once he was in detention; the holding of Mr. Suárez in incommunicado detention for 36 days; the failure to respond adequately and effectively to his attempt to invoke the domestic judicial guarantees, and the State's failure to release him or show any intention of so doing, within a reasonable time, or to guarantee that he would be tried within an equally reasonable time to substantiate the charges brought against him.
961. On July 10, 2007, the Court adopted an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in question. In the order, it decided to keep the procedure open for monitoring compliance with the State’s pending obligations. It also instructed the State to set up 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 terms allowed by law and banking practices. It would also be monitoring for investigation of the case (here 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.
962. In 2008, the Commission filed its comments on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgments of November 12, 1997, and January 20, 1999.
Case of Tibi
963. On June 25, 2003, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador for the unlawful 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 prolonged preventive custody. The Inter-American Court delivered its judgment on the preliminary objections, merits, and reparations in this case on September 7, 2004.
964. On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on the status of compliance with the judgment in the case, in which it instructed the State to take all steps necessary for prompt and effective compliance with the points of its judgment that were still pending. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tibi_22_09_06_ing.doc
965. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the information reported by the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, and the information reported by the State of Ecuador. It noted how important it was that the binding judgments of the Court be honored within the time frame and in the manner established by the Court, and that the State should report the specific measures it takes to that end and to remedy the violations for which it was found responsible.
Case of Zambrano Vélez et al.
966. On July 24, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador in case 11,579, Zambrano Vélez et al., for its responsibility in the extrajudicial execution of Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo and José Miguel Caicedo in Guayaquil, during a joint operation of the Ecuadoran Marines, Air Force and Army on March 6, 1993, at a time when guarantees had been suspended in a manner that did not fit the exigencies of the situation. The facts were never investigated thereafter.
967. The Court delivered its judgment on the merits, reparations and costs on July 4, 2007. In it, it accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility and ruled that Ecuador had failed to comply with 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, established in articles 1(1), 2, 4, 8(1), and 25 of the Convention. It also ruled that the State had violated 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 reparation it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_166_ing.doc.
968. The IACHR is waiting to receive the State’s first report before issuing its own comments on the matter.
j. El Salvador
Case of García Prieto Giralt
969. This case concerns El Salvador’s international responsibility for actions and omissions in the investigation into the murder of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Giralt on June 10, 1994, in San Salvador, for the threats subsequently made against his family in connection with their role in the investigation, and for the failure to provide them with proper reparations. El Salvador accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 6, 1995. Thus, the violations that the Commission asked the Court to adjudge and declare are those that occurred subsequent to that date.
970.
The
Court delivered its judgment on November 20, 2007. The full text is
available at the following link:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_168_ing.doc.
There, it
971. On March 14, 2008, the State filed an application to request an interpretation of that judgment. On November 24, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment of interpretation in which it dismissed the State’s application as inadmissible. The parties are awaiting the State’s report on compliance with the Court’s judgment of November 20, 2007.
Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters
972. On June 14, 2003, the Inter-American Commission filed 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 various 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, decided the merits, reparations, and costs.
973. On July 3, 2007, the Court adopted an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in the case. There, it instructed the State to report the steps taken to carry out the following obligations: conduct an effective investigation of the facts of the case; identify and punish the guilty, and conduct a serious search for the victims; eliminate all obstacles and mechanisms that prevent compliance with the State’s obligations; ensure 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; create 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; provide, free of charge, the medical and psychological treatment needed by the victims’ relatives; create a web page to assist searches for the disappeared; publish those parts of the judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs ordered by the Court; and pay 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.doc.
974. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the information the State and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin supplied in connection with compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of March 1, 2005.
[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
