|
|
|
IACHR ANNUAL REPORT 2008 Contentious Cases (Continuation)
r. Peru
Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. (SITRAMUN)
1060. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s February 7, 2006 judgment. The case concerns the failure to comply with a series of judgments delivered between 1996 and 2000 on behalf of workers of the Lima municipal government who had been illegally laid off or fired. The judgments ordered that they be reinstated and paid their wages, bonuses, allowances, and other benefits. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_144_ing.doc.
Case of Baldeón García
1061. This case concerns the unlawful and arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial execution of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón García, by Peruvian Army troops on September 25, 1990.
1062. In 2008, 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 submitted.
1063. On February 7, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order instructing the Peruvian State to take all measures necessary to promptly and effectively carry out the items whose compliance is pending, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention. The order in question is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/baldeon_07_02_08_ing.doc.
Case of Barrios Altos
1064. On June 8, 2000, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, which concerns the extrajudicial execution of 15 individuals on November 3, 1999, in the neighborhood known as “Barrios Altos” in Lima, Peru, and the justice thereafter denied to their next of kin and the survivors by virtue of application of Law No. 26479, which granted a general amnesty to military, police, and civilian personnel in various cases, and Law No. 26492 which “clarifies the interpretation and scope of the amnesty granted by Law No. 26479.”
1065. The Court delivered its judgment on merits and reparations on March 14, 2001, in which it held that the Peruvian State had violated articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention, and that it had failed to comply with its obligations under articles 1 and 2 thereof by its passage and enactment of the amnesty laws. The Court ruled that those laws were incompatible with the American Convention and, consequently, did not have the force of law. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_75_ing.doc. 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 of interpretation can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_83_ing.doc.
1066. On September 22, 2005, the Court decided to keep open the monitoring procedure with respect to the measures of reparation whose implementation was still pending. In 2008, the Commission filed its comments on the compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its Judgments of March 14 and November 30, 2001. In those comments the Commission expressed concern over the failure to comply with some of the reparations not yet implemented.
1067.
On August 4, 2008, the Court issued an Order
where it decided that it
shall keep the monitoring of compliance proceedings open regarding the
points pending fulfillment in the instant case, to wit: a) payment of
the compensation owed to Mr. Martín León-Lunazco, son of victim Máximo
León-León; b) payment of the interest in arrears regarding the
compensations of beneficiaries Cristina Ríos-Rojas, daughter of deceased
victim Manuel Isaías Ríos-Pérez, and Rocío Genoveva Rosales-Capillo,
daughter of deceased victim Alejandro Rosales-Alejandro; c) the payment
of the amount of interest in arrears owed to Mrs. Maximina Pascuala
Alberto-Falero; d) the duty to investigate the facts to ascertain those
responsible for the violations of the human rights referred to in the
Judgment on the merits, as well as the public release of the results of
said investigation and the punishment of the responsible parties; e) the
health services provided; f) the educational services provided; g) the
progress in the inclusion of the “legal concept resulting most
convenient to typify the crime of extrajudicial killings”, and h) the
memorial monument to be erected. The text of the Order is available at
the following link:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/barrios_04_08_08_ing.pdf. Case of Cantoral Benavides
1068. This case concerns the unlawful 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.
1069. In 2008, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the Court’s December 3, 2001 judgment on merits, reparations and costs.
1070. On December 14, 2007, the President of the Court summoned the Commission, the victims’ representatives and the Peruvian State to a private hearing, to get up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the judgment on reparations. That hearing was held at the seat of the Court on February 1, 2008.
1071. On February 7, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order instructing the Peruvian State to adopt all measures necessary to promptly and effectively comply with the pending obligations under the Judgments on merits and reparations of August 18, 2000 and December 3, 2001, respectively, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Cantoral-Benavides, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The order in question is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cantoral_07_02_08_ing.doc.
Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz
1072. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s July 10, 2007 judgment in this case. The latter concerns the torture and extrajudicial execution of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz in Lima, Peru, on February 13, 1989, and the failure to investigate the crimes and punish those responsible. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_167_ing.pdf.
1073. On January 28, 2008, the Court delivered a judgment interpreting its judgment on the merits. In it, it determined the meaning and scope of paragraph 187 of that judgment. That paragraph concerned a measure of reparation it had ordered. The text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_176_ing.doc.
Case of Castillo Páez
1074. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments of November 3, 1997 and November 27, 1998. The case concerns the Peruvian National Police’s abduction and subsequent disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez as of October 20, 1990, and the State’s failure to investigate the case and punish those responsible.
1075. In the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance in this case, dated November 17, 2004, it found that the State had as of that date not complied with its obligations to investigate the case, identify and punish those responsible, and locate the mortal remains of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/castillo_17_11_04_ing.doc.
1076. According to the latest information supplied by the parties, a final judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2008, allegedly upheld the conviction of four members of Peru’s National Police, as the persons responsible for the victim’s forced disappearance.
Case of Castillo Petruzzi
1077. The Court delivered its judgment on reparations in this case on May 30, 1999. There, the Court declared the proceedings conducted against the victims in this case to be invalid and ordered the State to guarantee them a new trial. It also ordered the State to take the appropriate measures to amend Decrees Laws 25475 and 25659 and to ensure full enjoyment of the rights recognized in the American Convention to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, without exception. The text of the judgment on the merits is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_52_ing.doc.
1078. The State did not report any information in 2008 concerning its compliance with the Court’s judgment in this case.
Case of Cesti Hurtado
1079. On January 9, 1998, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case for prosecution of Mr. Cesti Hurtado in proceedings conducted in the military courts. He was arrested, detained, and sentenced, despite the fact that a writ of habeas corpus had been issued ordering that the victim be removed from military jurisdiction and that his personal liberty not be violated. The Court issued its judgment on the merits on September 29, 1999 and its judgment on reparations on May 31, 2001.
1080. On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in the case and instructed the State to adopt all measures necessary to promptly and duly comply with the Court’s orders in the Judgment on merits of September 29, 1999 and in the Judgment on reparations of May 31, 2001. It ordered the State to submit a detailed report specifying the measures adopted to pay interest on the amount ordered in the form of non-pecuniary damages, the investigation into the facts of the instant case and punishment of the perpetrators, the measures adopted to pay the pecuniary damages ordered, and any progress made in the annulment of the military proceedings and the consequences. The full text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cesti_22_09_06_ing.doc.
1081. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the information reported by the representatives and by the State concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of May 31, 2001. The Commission observed that no information had been provided on the matter of compliance and that a number of obligations incumbent upon the State had not been carried out subsequent to issuance of the judgments, after the time period for compliance had elapsed. It also pointed to the considerable effort the injured party has had to make to obtain reparations.
1082.
On
August 4, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it decided that the
Court will consider the general status of compliance with said Judgment
once it has received information regarding: a) payment of interest on
the amount of compensation for moral damage; b) annulment of the
military proceedings and the effects resulting therefrom; c) payment of
pecuniary damages; and d) investigation of the facts surrounding this
case and punishment of the perpetrators. The text is available at the
following link:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cesti_04_08_08_ing.pdf. Case of the Five Pensioners
1083. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgment of February 28, 2003. This case concerns 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”) when the pension system they had been living under until 1992 was changed and when the State failed to comply with the judgments handed down by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Peru, which upheld their claims.
1084. 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: to conduct the corresponding investigations and apply 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; to pay the four victims and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra’s widow the amount set for nonpecuniary damages; and to pay 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 law, 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.doc
1085. On December 3, 2008 the Court summoned the parties to a private hearing, which will be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009.
Case of De la Cruz Flores
1086. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with what the Court ordered in its November 18, 2004 judgment in this case. The latter concerns violation of the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, the right to personal liberty, the right to a fair trial in the case of Dr. María Teresa de la Cruz, and her right and her family’s right to humane treatment. The full text of the judgment of November 18, 2004, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_115_ing.pdf.
1087. On November 23, 2007, the Court issued an order in which it determined that the State had not yet complied with the following obligations: a) observance of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws and the non-retroactivity of the law and of the requirements of due process in the new proceeding brought against Ms. De La Cruz Flores; b) providing medical and psychological care to the victim through the State’s health services, including the supply of free medication; c) providing a grant to Ms. De La Cruz Flores for training and professional development; d) re-listing Ms. De La Cruz Flores in the respective retirement register, and e) publishing the section titled “Proven Facts” as well as operative paragraphs 1 to 3 of the declaratory part of the Judgment in the Official Gazette. The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cruz_23_11_07_ing.doc.
Case of Durand and Ugarte
1088. This case concerns the crushing of a riot in the prison known as “El Frontón” on June 19, 1986, and the failure to identify the dead bodies of Mr. Norberto Durand Ugarte and Mr. Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, two of the inmates. The text of the judgment on the merits can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_68_ing.doc.
1089. On August 5, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it found that the State had complied with parts of its judgment, but that the State had yet to comply with the following aspects of the Court’s judgment: a) Publication of the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000 in other media considered appropriate for this purpose; b) Provision of health care and interpersonal development services and psychological support to the beneficiaries, as well as support for the construction of a residence (operative paragraph three of the judgment); c) Investigation and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the facts, in accordance with the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000, and continuing to advance the investigation instituted through the 41st Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima for the murder of 30 persons, including Norberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera; and d) Continuation of concrete measures to find and identify the remains of Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, so as to deliver them to his next of kin, in accordance with the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000. The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/durand_05_08_08_ing.doc The Court asked the State to send a report by January 12, 2009.
Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas
1090. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments regarding compliance with the Court’s November 25, 2005 judgment in this case. The latter concerns the violation of the rights to personal liberty, a fair trial, judicial protection, the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, and humane treatment with respect to Messrs. Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas. The full text of the judgment of November 25, 2005, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_137_ing.doc.
1091.
According to the Court’s latest order monitoring compliance, which is
dated July 12, 2007, compliance with the following obligations is still
pending: a) the obligation to provide medical and psychological care to
Mr. Wilson García Asto through State health care services, including
free medications; b) the obligation to provide grants to Mr. Wilson
García Asto and Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas to afford them the
opportunity to receive professional training and refresher courses; c)
the obligation to pay Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas the sum set for
pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages and expenses and costs, and the
obligation to pay Marcos Ramírez Álvarez the amount set for
non-pecuniary damages; since they have now reached adulthood, they no
longer require trust funds; d) the obligation to publish in another
newspaper with nationwide circulation and just one time, the chapter on
the facts established in the Court’s judgment, without the corresponding
footnotes, and the operative part of the judgment. The full text of the
order is available at the following link:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/
Case of Gómez Palomino
1092. This case concerns the forced disappearance of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino as of July 9, 1992, in Lima Peru, and the failure to investigate the crime and punish those responsible for the violations committed against him. The full text of the November 22, 2005 judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_136_ing.doc.
1093.
According to the Court’s latest order monitoring compliance, which is
dated October 18, 2007, the State had not yet complied with the reports
requested by the Court, which would suggest that all the obligations
required under the judgment are still pending. The text is available at
the following link:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_18_10_07_ing.doc.
In November 2008, the State forwarded the requested report. The time
period for the parties to submit their comments has not yet expired. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers
1094. On February 5, 2002, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, for events that transpired in June 1991 when, during the course of two police operations, the brothers Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, aged 14 and 17, respectively, were arrested by the National Police and placed in the trunk of a patrol car; one hour after their arrest, their bodies, showing signs of torture, were admitted to the morgue. Their family was given no adequate redress. On July 8, 2004, the Court issued a judgment on merits and reparations in this case.
1095. On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in this case, instructing Peru to take all the steps necessary for prompt and effective implementation of the pending elements of its judgment, namely: effectively investigating the events to identify, prosecute, and punish all perpetrators of the violations committed against the victims; officially bestowing the names Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri on a school in the province of El Callao, in a public ceremony attended by the families of the victims; and creating a scholarship covering studies up to the university level for Nora Emely Gómez Peralta and facilitating her vital-records registration as daughter of Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh/or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_22_09_06_ing.doc .
1096. On May 3, 2008 the Court issued an Order where it decided that it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the following pending aspects: (a) The effective investigation of the facts of this case in order to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish all the authors of the violations committed to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri, and (b) The granting of a scholarship up to university level for Nora Emely Gómez Peralta. The text of the Order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_%2003_05_08_ing.pdf
1097. In 2008, the Commission filed its comments on the information reported by the representatives and by the State concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of July 8, 2004. The IACHR again expressed its concern over the lack of tangible progress and the delay in complying with the three obligations that, according to the order of September 22, 2006, were still pending.
Case of Huilca Tecse
1098. In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s orders in its judgment of March 3, 2005. The case concerns the extrajudicial execution of organized labor leader Pedro Huilca Tecse in Lima, Peru, on December 18, 1992, and the subsequent failure to investigate the crime and punish those responsible. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_121_ing.doc.
1099. According to the Court’s most recent order, dated February 7, 2008, the measures of reparation still pending include: the obligation to investigate, identify and punish the material and intellectual authors of Pedro Huilca Tecse’s execution; the obligation to establish a course or subject on human rights and labor law, called the “Pedro Huilca Chair”; the obligation to remember and applaud the work of Pedro Huilca Tecse for the trade union movement in Peru during the official celebrations of May 1 (Labor Day); the obligation to erect a bust in memory of Pedro Huilca Tecse, and the obligation to provide psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin. The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/huilca_%2007_02_08_ing.doc
Case of the Members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic
1100. On April 1, 2008, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Peruvian State in the case of the members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru (CGR). The case concerns the failure to comply with judgments delivered by Peru’s Constitutional Court on October 21, 1997 and January 26, 2001, which ordered “that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic shall pay the members of the plaintiff Association the wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses received by active employees of that institution who have posts that are the same as or similar or equivalent to the posts held by the discharged or retired staff members.” The case involved 273 members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General. In November 2002, the State ceased to readjust and renew their severance and retirement pension to keep pace with the salaries and wages, benefits and bonuses received by that institution’s active employees. In the wake of the Constitutional Court judgments, the State did not repay the pension adjustments withheld from April 1993 to October 2002.
1101. In its brief answering the application, the State filed a preliminary objection, in response to which the parties submitted their written observations. The Court has scheduled a public hearing to be held at the Court’s seat on January 21, 2009, where evidence will be taken and arguments heard.
Case of Ivcher Bronstein
1102. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of February 6, 2001, and in the Court’s most recent order of September 21, 2005. According to that order, still pending are the State’s obligations to investigate the incidents that led to the violations described in the judgment; to facilitate the victim’s efforts to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as the largest shareholder in Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A.; to pay compensation for moral damages; and to reimburse the costs and expenses incurred at the domestic and international venues.
1103. The Commission has expressed its concern over the State’s failure to fully comply with the Court’s judgment in this case, more than seven years after it was served notice of the judgment. The Commission asked the Court: as to the obligation to facilitate the victim’s efforts to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as the largest shareholder in the business, as he was on August 1, 1997, to order the State to take concrete steps to put a stop to any measures preventing Mr. Ivcher Bronstein from exercising and enjoying his rights as the major shareholder in the Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A.
Case of Juárez Cruzatt et al. "Miguel Castro Castro Prison"
1104. This case concerns events at the Miguel Castro Castro Prison in the city of Lima, May 6 to 9, 1992, during which at least 42 inmates lost their lives, 175 were injured, and another 322 were subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for various periods of time; the treatment subsequently given to the surviving victims at the various hospitals and detention centers to which they were taken; the failure to conduct a timely and thorough investigation; the destruction of evidence that was essential to shed light on the incident; and the denial of justice suffered by the victims and their next-of-kin.
1105. The members of the Court adopted the judgment in this case on November 25, 2006, by a unanimous vote of its members. In the judgment the Court declared Peru’s international responsibility for violation of the rights protected in articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof; Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women and articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the deceased and surviving victims of the “Mudanza 1” operation and of the next of kin described in paragraphs 336, 337, 340, 341 and 433(d) of the judgment and named in Annex 2 thereof.
1106. On May 11, 2007, the Inter-American Court notified the Inter-American Commission that the State and a group of victims had filed applications seeking an interpretation of the judgment. The Commission was given a deadline of August 1, 2007, to make whatever comments it deemed necessary.
1107. On August 2, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued a judgment in which it declared both applications admissible and, therefore, proceeded to clarify the meaning of the questioned points of the judgment. The judgment on interpretation is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_181_esp.doc.
1108. The State was to present its first report on compliance with the judgment in the month of June 2008. The Commission has still not received it.
Case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro
1109.
On
July 11, 2008, the IACHR filed an application with the Court against
Peru in case No. 11,385, Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro. The case concerns
the December 16, 1993 forced disappearance of 25-year-old student
Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro in Callao, at the hands of agents of the
State; the subsequent lack of due diligence in the investigation,
prosecution and punishment of those responsible; and the lack of
adequate reparation for the victim’s next of kin. In its report on the
merits, the Commission concluded that the Peruvian State is responsible
for violation of the rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal
liberty, to recognition of juridical personality, to a fair trial and to
judicial protection, all to the detriment of Mr. Anzualdo; it also found
that the State had violated the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial
and judicial protection to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin.
The text of the applications is available at:
http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.385%20Kenneth%20Ney%20
1110. Notification of the application was served and the Commission is awaiting convocation of the public hearing in this case.
Case of La Cantuta
1111. On February 14, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in the case of the human rights violations committed against Professor Hugo Muñoz Sánchez and the students Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa, and their families, as a result of the victims’ abduction from the Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University of Education in La Cantuta, Lima, in the early morning hours of July 18, 1992. Members of the Peruvian Army were involved: they abducted the victims, then caused them to disappear and summarily executed a number of them. No one has ever been made to answer for the facts in the case.
1112. On November 29, 2006, the Court delivered its judgment on merits and reparations in this case. It accepted the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility and held that Peru had violated the rights to life, to humane treatment, to judicial protection and a fair trial, protected under the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights and the obligation to ensure domestic legal effects. In its judgment the Court set the measures of reparation it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_162_ing.doc
1113. On November 30, 2007, the Court delivered a judgment interpreting its judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs. In that interpretation it determined the scope of various issues that the representatives of the victims and their next of kin had raised on March 20, 2007. On that occasion, the representatives had requested clarification of several points related to the identification and/or individualization of the victims’ next of kin in the case in question, regarding their consideration as beneficiaries of the measures of reparation established in the judgment. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the information reported by the State regarding compliance with the judgment.
Case of Loayza Tamayo
1114.
In
2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments
concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments of September 17, 1997,
and November 27, 1998. The case concerns the violation of María Elena
Loayza Tamayo’s rights to personal liberty, human treatment, a fair
trial and judicial protection starting on February 3, 1993, in Lima,
Peru. The judgments on merits and reparations issued by the Court in
this case are available at:
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos
1115. According to the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance with the judgments delivered in this case, dated February 6, 2008, the procedure remains open with respect to the State’s following pending obligations: reinstatement of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo in the teaching sector in public institutions, on the understanding that the amount of her salary and other benefits is to be equal to the remuneration she was receiving for these activities in the public and private sector at the time of her detention; guaranteeing her full retirement benefits, including those owed for the period transpired since the time of her detention; adoption of all domestic legal measures necessary to ensure that no adverse decision delivered in proceedings against Loayza-Tamayo in the civil courts has any effect whatsoever; adoption of the internal legal measures necessary to adapt Decree-Laws 25,475 (Crime of Terrorism) and 25,659 (Crime of Treason) to conform to the American Convention; and investigation of the facts of the instant case, identifying and punishing those responsible for those acts, and the adoption of all necessary domestic legal measures to ensure that this obligation is discharged. The full text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/loayza_06_02_08_ing.doc.
1116. At the hearing held at the Court’s seat on February 4, 2008, the Commission spoke to the points whose compliance is still pending. It noted in particular that the most recent development in criminal law is that members of the National Terrorism Directorate accused of committing the violations against the victim can no longer be subject to criminal prosecution. This is a deeply disturbing development and contrary to the State’s international obligations.
Case of Lori Berenson
1117. In 2008, the Commission submitted its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgment of November 25, 2004. The case concerns violation of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, judicial protection and freedom from ex post facto laws, all to the detriment of Lori Berenson. The full text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_119_ing.doc
1118. The Court’s most recent order in this case is dated September 22, 2006. The measures of reparation still pending include: having domestic legislation amended to conform to the standards of the American Convention; providing Mrs. Lori Berenson with adequate and specialized medical and psychological care; adapting detention conditions in the Yanamayo penal facility to conform to international standards, transferring those who cannot tolerate the altitude of the prison to other facilities, and reporting to the Court every six months. The text of the order monitoring compliance is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/lori_22_09_06_ing.doc.
Case of Neira Alegría
1119. This case concerns the crushing of the July 19, 1986 riot at the prison known as “El Frontón” and the failure to identify the bodies of Messrs. Víctor Neira Alegría, Edgar Edison Zenteno Escobar and William Jans Zenteno Escobar who were inmates at that prison. The text of the January 19, 1995 judgment on the merits is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_20_ing.doc
1120. The Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance with its judgment in this case is dated November 28, 2002. There the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its obligations to locate and identify the victims’ remains and hand them over to their next of kin. The full text of this order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/neira_28_11_02.doc .
1121. In 2008, the State again failed to file any report with the Court concerning any measures taken to comply with the Court’s judgment, despite repeated requests from the Court that it do so.
Constitutional Court Case
1122. The application the Commission filed with the Court in this case on July 2, 1999, concerns the removal of three justices of the Constitutional Court, by a majority vote of the Peruvian Congress. The justices were removed when the Court exercised its function of ensuring constitutionality and ruled that Law No. 26657 was unconstitutional because it allowed the President of Peru to seek a third term, in violation of Article 112 of the Constitution, which limits the presidential mandate to two consecutive five-year terms of office. The removal of the three justices left the Constitutional Court in pieces, with only four justices, thus legally unable to perform one of the Court’s key functions, which is to check the question of constitutionality when constitutionality challenges are filed. The people of Peru were thus left vulnerable and with no means of protection.
1123. On February 7, 2006, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in this case, in which it decided to keep the monitoring procedure open with respect to the State’s pending obligations, namely: to investigate to identify the persons responsible for the violations of human rights against the victims in the case and to punish them; to determine and pay the interest accrued on the back pay and other benefits owed to Messrs. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry, and Delia Revoredo Marsanoy, under the applicable domestic law most favorable to the victims and with the necessary guarantees of due process. The full text of this order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tribunal_07_02_06_ing.doc.
1124. On August 5, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it considered necessary that the State informs on the status of compliance with the determination and payment in full of the amounts corresponding to the interest accrued during the time the State incurred in arrears with respect to the payment of the back salaries and other benefits of Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano, as has been established in the operative paragraph five of the Judgment. In relation to the other aspects of the Judgment so delivered, the Court reserves the possibility of duly assess them in a possible public hearing to be convened to such end. The Order is available in the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tribunal_05_08_08_ing.pdf
1125. In 2008, the State provided no information on the status of compliance with the judgment delivered on January 31, 2001. The Commission has, therefore, been unable to prepare its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the Court’s judgment in this case.
Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees
1126. The Commission filed an application with the Court in this case on February 4, 2005. The case concerns the dismissal of 257 employees of the Peruvian National Congress, part of a group of 1117 workers dismissed by congressional resolutions on December 31, 1992.
1127. On November 24, 2006, the Inter-American Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations and declared that the State had violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection in the case of the dismissed congressional employees, all in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure rights and the duty to adopt domestic legal measures, set forth in the Convention. In the judgment, the Court set the measures of reparation it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be seen at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_158_ing.doc.
1128. In 2008, the Commission submitted its observations on the State’s first and second reports concerning compliance with the judgment.
s. Suriname
Case of the Moiwana Community
1129. This case concerns the State’s inadequate investigation into the attack on the village of Moiwana on November 29, 1986, its violent obstruction of justice, and the lengthy period of time that passed without the incident being cleared up or the guilty punished. The full text of the judgment of June 15, 2005, may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing1.doc. .
1130. According to the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance with the judgment delivered in this case, dated November 21, 2007, compliance with the following obligations is still pending: a) to implement the necessary measures to investigate the facts of the case, as well as to identify, prosecute, and eventually punish the responsible parties; b) to recover the remains of the Moiwana community members killed during the events of November 29, 1986, as soon as possible, and deliver them to the surviving community members; c) to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures necessary to ensure the property rights of the members of the Moiwana community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled, and to provide for the members’ use and enjoyment of those territories; d) to guarantee the safety of those community members who decide to return to Moiwana Village; e) to establish a community development fund; and f) to build a memorial in a suitable public location. The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/moiwana_21_11_07_ing.pdf.
Case of the Twelve Saramaka Clans
1131. This case concerns the failure to recognize the legal personality of the Saramaka people, the failure to recognize the communal property right of the members of the Saramaka people to the territory they have traditionally occupied and used, and the failure to provide the members of the Saramaka people with effective access to justice, as a community, for the protection of their fundamental rights.
1132. Based on the evidence offered by the parties during the proceedings in this case and the arguments they made, on November 28, 2007 the Inter-American Court delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the seven preliminary objections entered by the State and declared that Suriname had violated articles 3, 21 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. In that judgment, the Court established the reparations it deemed appropriate.
1133. On March 17, 2008, the State filed an application seeking an interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, delivered on November 28, 2007. In it the State requested an interpretation of the “meaning and scope” of several issues, which the Court summarized as follows:
a) with whom must the State consult to establish the mechanism that will guarantee the “effective participation” of the Saramaka people ordered in the Judgment;
b) to whom shall a “just compensation” be given when, for example, only part of the Saramaka territory is affected by concessions granted by the State; that is, whether it must be given to the individuals directly affected or to the Saramaka People as a whole;
c) to whom and for which development and investment activities affecting the Saramaka territory may the State grant concessions;
d) under what circumstances may the State execute a development and investment plan in Saramaka territory, particularly in relation to environmental and social impact assessments, and
e) whether the Court, in declaring a violation of the right to juridical personality recognized in Article 3 of the Convention, took into consideration the State’s arguments on that issue.
1134. On May 19, 2008, the representatives and the Commission presented their briefs on the State’s application seeking an interpretation.
1135.
On
August 12, 2008, the Inter-American Court delivered its judgment,
declaring the State’s application for an interpretation admissible and,
therefore, proceeding to clarify the meaning and scope of those aspects
of the judgment. The judgment on interpretation can be found at
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_185_ing.doc.
t. Trinidad and Tobago
Cases of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al.
1136. This case is the result of the joinder of the cases of Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al., which the Commission lodged with the Court as separate cases on May 25, 1999, February 22, 2000, and October 5, 2000, respectively, all against the government of Trinidad and Tobago. The case concerns the mandatory death penalty; the process for granting amnesties, pardons, and commutations of sentence in Trinidad and Tobago; the delays in the criminal prosecutions of some of the victims; the deficiencies in the treatment and detention conditions of some of the victims; the violations of due process prior to and during the trial and during the appeals phase; and, finally, the nonavailability of legal counsel to assist some of the victims in securing access to domestic remedies for claiming violation of their rights.
1137.
The
Court delivered its judgment on merits and reparations in the case on
June 21, 2002. The Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance is
dated November 27, 2003. In that order, the Court noted the State’s duty
to report, every six months, the measures adopted and the fact that it
had not complied with that requirement. It consequently resolved that
“if the current situation persists, to report it to the General Assembly
of the Organization of American States, pursuant to Article 65 of the
American Convention […] and Article 30 of the Statute of the
Inter-American Court.” The judgment and the order can be found at:
1138. Again in 2008, no information was forthcoming from the State regarding compliance with its obligations under the judgment in this case.
Case of Winston Caesar
1139. This case concerns violations of Mr. Winston Caesar’s rights to humane treatment and judicial protection. He had been convicted by a court in Trinidad and Tobago and sentenced to imprisonment at forced labor, and to 15 lashes with a cat o’nine tails. The Court’s March 11, 2005 judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_123_ing.doc.
1140. On November 21, 2007, the Court issued an order in which it found that the State had not complied with its obligation to report to the Court on the measures taken to comply with the judgment. The Court underscored that even though the State had renounced the American Convention, it nonetheless had an obligation to comply with the Court’s judgment. It requested a report by March 8, 2008. That report has not been received. The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Caesar_21_11_07_ing.doc
u. Venezuela
Case of El Amparo
1141. This case concerns the extrajudicial killing of 14 fishermen by police and military personnel on October 29, 1988, at Canal La Colorada in Venezuela, the subsequent failure to conduct an investigation and punish the guilty, and the violations committed with respect to two survivors. The complete text of the January 18, 2005 judgment on the merits is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_19_ing.pdf
1142. The Court’s most recent order is dated July 4, 2006. In it, the Court declared that the State had fully complied with the obligation to pay the accrued interest in the case. It also held that if, after ten years, the next-of-kin of Mr. Julio Pastor Ceballos did not claim the amounts kept in their name at the corresponding financial institution, those funds would be returned to the State, with the interest earned. It also found that the one obligation pending in the case was to continue with the investigation into the facts and to punish the guilty parties. The text of that order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/amparo_04_07_06_ing.pdf.
1143. In 2008, the State did not comply with its duty to report to the Court on those aspects whose compliance was pending, despite repeated requests to that effect.
Case of the Caracazo
1144. According to the most recent order, the State has still not complied with the following obligations:
a. investigating, identifying, and punishing, administratively and criminally, with all the conditions and characteristics set out in the judgment; b. finding, exhuming, and identifying the mortal remains of certain victims, and handing them over to their families; c. reporting, when burials have taken place, if the State assumed the costs thereof and took into account the locations chosen by the next-of-kin for the interment of the mortal remains of the individuals referred to in the second operative paragraph; d. taking the steps necessary to avoid recurrence of the circumstances and facts of the instant case; and, e. reimbursing the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) for costs and expenses.
1145. In 2008, the Inter-American Commission submitted its comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.
Case of the Disappeared of Vargas (Blanco Romero, Hernández Paz, and Rivas Fernández)
1146. On June 30, 2004, the Commission filed its application in this case with the Court because of events that took place in Vargas State, Venezuela, between December 21 and 23, 1999, when Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz, and José Francisco Rivas Fernández were arrested by and subsequently forcibly disappeared at the hands of state agents.
1147. On June 28, 2005, after the State admitted responsibility at a public hearing, the Court issued an order in which it accepted the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility, which put an end to the dispute in the case. On November 28 of that year, the Court handed down its judgment, ruling that the victims’ rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, and Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, had been violated and that the State had failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and in Articles I.a and I.b., X, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Court also ruled that there had been violations of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection, and of the obligation set out in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, with respect to the victims’ families. In its judgment, the Court 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_138_ing.pdf .
1148. In 2008, the Commission submitted comments concerning the information supplied by the parties. It underscored how important it is that the binding judgments of the Court be complied with in the time and manner set by the Court, and how imperative it was for the State to report the specific measures adopted to comply with the judgment and to refrain from making its own interpretations that seek to alter the judgment and the reparations owed.
Case of Francisco Usón Ramírez
1149. On July 25, 2008, the IACHR filed an application with the Court against Venezuela in case No. 12,554, Francisco Usón Ramírez. The facts concern a criminal case the State brought in the military court against retired General Francisco Usón Ramírez on charges of “slandering the National Armed Forces.” He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to five years and six months in prison, all for statements he had made on a television program on a controversy in the news at the time. In its report on the merits the Commission concluded that the Venezuelan State violated Mr. Francisco Usón Ramírez’ rights to free speech, personal liberty, a fair trial and judicial protection.
1150. Notification of the application was served and the Commission is currently awaiting convocation of the hearing in the present case.
Case of Luisiana Ríos et al. (RCTV)
1151. The Commission filed an application with the Court in this case on April 20, 2007. The case concerns multiple restrictions on freedom of expression in the case of journalists, personnel associated with news teams, employees and executives at RCTV television channel and the State’s failure to provide an adequate and effective response to the complaints filed by the victims in domestic venues. The restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression in this case can be summarized as follows: i) violence –occasionally resulting in physical injury- and acts of intimidation against members of the news teams investigating and reporting news in their journalism work outside the channel’s headquarters; ii) blocking access to official sources of information; iii) acts of violence targeted at RCTV property; and iv) threats from high-ranking government officials –even the President of the Republic- to close the channel, to revoke its operating license or not renew its designated air space, all because of its editorial position.
1152. On August 7, 2008, the Commission was present for the public hearing that the Court convened for this case. Three witnesses offered by the Commission, the victims’ representatives and the State were heard. The Court heard also final oral arguments on a preliminary objection and on the eventual merits, reparations and costs in the case.
Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia)
1153. This case concerns the events that transpired in the period from November 27 to 29, 1992, inside and near the Los Flores de Catia Judicial Detention Center, a prison facility located in the city of Caracas, specifically: the failure to take preventive measures to avert acts of violence and deal with emergencies inside that facility; the use of excessive force; the extrajudicial execution of a number of inmates; the subhuman prison conditions that were a root cause of the violence and danger at the prison at the time of the events in this case; the failure to conduct a swift and thorough investigation; the denial of justice to victims and their next of kin, and the lack of prison policies that meet international standards.
1154.
In 2008 the Commission submitted its
comments on compliance with the Court’s July 5, 2006 judgment on the
merits, reparations and costs, which has not been fully carried out. Case of Gabriela Perozo et al. (Globovisión)
1155. This case concerns a series of incidents, starting in 2001, involving harassment, persecution and aggression targeted at 44 individuals associated with the Globovisión television channel –including reporters, their technical teams, staff and executives- and the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating these incidents.
1156. On March 18, 2008, the President of the Court decided to convene a public hearing on a preliminary objection, and the merits, reparations and costs. The hearing was held during the Court’s LXXIX regular session, at the seat of the Court on May 7 and 8, 2008, and was attended by the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, and the Venezuelan State. On June 9, 2008, the parties filed their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence.
1157. The Commission is currently awaiting the judgment that the Court is to deliver in this case.
1158.
The
application is available at the following link:
http://www.cidh.org/demandas/12.442%20Globovision%20Venezuela%2012%
Case of Oscar Barreto Leiva
1159. On October 31, 2008, the Inter-American Commission filed an application against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case number 11,663, Oscar Barreto Leiva, for the State’s responsibility in the violation of the rights to a fair trial in the criminal proceedings in which Mr. Oscar Barreto Leiva was convicted of crimes against the public patrimony as a result of his tenure as Sectoral Director General of Administration and Services of the Ministry of the Secretariat of the Office of the Presidency of the Republic, and the consequent violations of the victim’s rights to personal liberty and judicial protection.
1160.
In
the Commission’s opinion, the facts in this case constitute violations
of the rights protected under articles 7, 8 and 25 of the American
Convention, and a failure to comply with the general obligation to
respect and ensure human rights, undertaken with Article 1(1) of the
Convention, and the obligation of domestic legal effects, set forth in
Article 2 of that instrument. The text of the applications is available
at:
http://www.cidh.org/demandas/11.663%20Barreto%20Leiva%2031%20oct%2008%20
Case of Reverón Trujillo
1161. On November 9, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case No. 12,565, María Cristina Reverón Trujillo. The case concerns Mrs. María Cristina Reverón Trujillo’s arbitrary dismissal from her post as 14th Provisional First-Instance Criminal Judge of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit on February 6, 2002, by the Judicial System’s Operations and Restructuring Commission, and the lack of an effective judicial recourse to provide adequate redress. Although she won her case in the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela on October 13, 2004, which declared her arbitrary dismissal null and void, that Court did not order her reinstatement in her position in the judiciary or in another post of a similar level and salary scale, or payment of her lost earnings and benefits. That decision was based on the fact that Venezuela’s judiciary was at the time undergoing a restructuring process in which it was agreed that all judicial positions –including those held by provisional judges like Mrs. Reverón Trujillo- were to be filled on the basis of competitive examinations. However, on the date that decision was made, no competitive examinations had been held or even announced. Consequently, in spite of having obtained a judicial ruling acknowledging that her dismissal was arbitrary, the nullification remedy was ineffective in providing Mrs. Reverón Trujillo with full redress for the violations the court confirmed.
1162. On September 24, 2008, the Court convened a public hearing in the case. Later, the date of the hearing was changed and it will now be held at the Court’s seat on January 23, 2009.
Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (First Court of Administrative Disputes)
1163. On November 29, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the State of Venezuela, in Case 12,489, Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, for its removal of judges on the First Court of Administrative Disputes on October 30, 2003, without observing the necessary guarantees of independence and impartiality and in a decision that failed to explain the “inexcusable judicial error” cited as the supposed grounds for their removal. The judges removed from the bench also never received an effective judicial response to the remedy they filed to challenge their removal.
1164. On August 5, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment, in which it found that the State had violated the victims’ rights under articles 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention. The Court ordered the reparations it deemed appropriate. The text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_182_ing.doc.
[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT] |
