IACHR Annual Report 2009

ANNUAL REPORT 2009

CHAPTER III

THE PETITION AND CASE SYSTEM

D. Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR

(continuation)

Case 11.654, Report No. 62/01, Ríofrío Massacre (Colombia)

243. In Report No. 62/01 of April 6, 2001, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the right to life, enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention, in the massacre perpetrated by State agents and members of paramilitary groups of the following persons: Miguel Enrique Ladino Largo, Miguel Antonio Ladino Ramírez, María Cenaida Ladino Ramírez, Carmen Emilia Ladino Ramírez, Julio Cesar Ladino Ramírez, Lucely Colorado, Dora Estela Gaviria Ladino, Celso Mario Molina, Rita Edelia de Molina, Ricardo Molina, Freddy Molina, Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar, and Hugo Cedeño Lozano. In addition, it concluded that the State was responsible for having breached its special duty of protection, under Article 19 of the American Convention, to the detriment of minors Dora Estella Gaviria Ladino and Luz Edelsy Tusarma Salazar. The Commission also concluded that the Colombian State was responsible for violating the right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, to the detriment of Hugo Cerdeño Lozano, Miguel Ladino, Cenaida Ladino, Ricardo Molina Solarte, and Celso Mario Molina Sauza, and of breaching its duty to provide effective judicial protection to the victims in this case under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same.

244. The IACHR made the following recommendations to the Colombian State:

1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible.

2. Take steps to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.

3. Take steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.

245. On December 4, 2009, the State reported that the proceedings had been reassigned to the Office of Special Prosecutor No. 48 of the International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, which is currently in the stage of collecting evidence as ordered by the investigating prosecutor.

246. The State submitted information on the implementation of policies regarding human rights and international humanitarian law to be applied to all members of the Security Forces, on measures taken to forward cases linked to possible human rights violations from military to ordinary justice, as well as on proposed legislation to reform military criminal justice that are currently in process in the Congress of the Republic. These legislative bills, the State said, were based on the parameters established by the Commission and the Court in their legal precedents. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

247. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the recommendations. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items that remain pending.

Case 11.710, Report No. 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada González, and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro (Colombia)

248. In Report No. 63/01 of April 6, 2001, the Commission established that the State was responsible for violating the American Convention at Articles 4, to the detriment of Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro; 4 and 5, to the detriment of Carlos Manuel Prada González; and 8(1), 25, and 1(1) to the detriment of both victims and their families. This was as the result of the extrajudicial execution, at the hands of state agents, of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro, and the failure to judicially clarify the incident.

249. The IACHR made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Carry out a full, impartial, and effective investigation within the ordinary jurisdiction with a view to judging and punishing those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro

2. Adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the victims’ next-of-kin receive adequate and timely reparations for the violations determined in the Report.

3. Take the steps necessary to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopt the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary penal justice system.

250. In a note received on December 4, 2009, the State reported that in consideration of Report 63/01 and the request forwarded by the Special Agent of the Office of the Inspector General of the Nation, there is currently an ongoing criminal investigation by the Office of Specialized Prosecutor No. 16 of the Unit of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Office of the Attorney General, under control number 4417 for the crime of homicide. The State also said that on December 23, 2008, a decision to file charges was issued against 15 persons, including measures to ensure their presence in court. This decision was confirmed by the Office of the Prosecutor No. 26 in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Bogotá, on June 12, 2009.

251. The State reported that Section Three of the Council of State handed down a judgment on March 26, 2009 ordering the State to indemnify the next of kin of Carlos Prada and Evelio Morales for non pecuniary damages and that the Ministry of Defense issued Decision No. 46014 of October 27, 2009, ordering the payment of damages.

252. The State also submitted information on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law policies to be applied to all members of the Security Forces, on measures aimed at transferring cases linked to possible human rights violations from the military courts to the regular courts, as well as proposed reforms to the military criminal justice system currently before the Congress of the Republic. It mentioned that those proposed reforms would be based on the parameters established by the Commission and the Court in their precedents. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

253. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the recommendations. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.712, Report No. 64/01, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry (Colombia)

254. In Report No. 64/01 of April 6, 2001, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating the right to life of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry, enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention; the right to human treatment of Ms. María Fredesvinda Echeverry, enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention; the right to humane treatment and the breach of the obligation to adopt special measures of protection with regard to the child Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, established in Articles 5 and 19 of the American Convention; as well as the breach of the duty to afford effective judicial protection to the victims of this case, in keeping with Articles 8 and 25, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. This case has to do with the responsibility of state agents for the death of Mr. Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry, the harm to the personal integrity of Ms. María Fredesvinda Echeverry and the child Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and the failure to clarify these events judicially.

255. The IACHR made the following recommendations to the Colombian State:

1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation before ordinary jurisdiction for the purpose of judging and sanctioning those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.

2. Adopt the measures necessary to redress the consequences of the violations committed against María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, as well as providing due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.

3. Take the steps necessary to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, as well as adopting the measures necessary to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.

256. The Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Relations reported that it reiterated to the Coordinator of Specialized Procurator Offices the request to study the possibility of carrying out an action of review in relation to that ruling, who responded to the request saying that a review action is legally inappropriate in the instant case. The Commission observes with concern that said proceeding, carried out under military criminal jurisdiction, which ended in the acquittal of the members of the National Army in the military criminal court, has yet to be transferred to the regular criminal courts.

257. The State reiterated that by Payment Resolution No. 2512 the conciliation agreement was carried out, as the payment of compensation was made to María Fredesvina Echeverri de Isaza and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón. The State submitted information on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law policies applicable to all members of the Security Forces, on measures to forward cases linked with possible human rights violations from military to ordinary justice, and on legislative proposals to reform military criminal justice that are currently in process in the Congress of the Republic. It added that these legislative bills were based on the parameters established by the Commission and the Court in their precedents. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

258. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the recommendations. Therefore, the Commission shall continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.141, Report No. 105/05, Villatina Massacre (Colombia)

259. On July 29, 2002, by Report No. 105/05[18], the Commission approved and recognized the partial implementation of a friendly settlement agreement signed on July 29, 1998, in the case known as the “Villatina Massacre.” In summary, the petition alleged the responsibility of state agents in the massacre of children Johana Mazo Ramírez, Johny Alexander Cardona Ramírez, Ricardo Alexander Hernández, Giovanny Alberto Vallejo Restrepo, Oscar Andrés Ortiz Toro, Ángel Alberto Barón Miranda, Marlon Alberto Álvarez, Nelson Dubán Flórez Villa, and the youth Mauricio Antonio Higuita Ramírez, perpetrated on November 15, 1992 in the Villatina neighborhood of the city of Medellín.

260. That friendly settlement agreement incorporates the terms of an agreement originally signed on May 27, 1998, in the course of an initial attempt to reach a friendly settlement in the matter. The agreement recognizes the responsibility of the State for the violation of the American Convention, the right to justice and individual reparation for the victims’ next-of-kin, as well as an element of social reparation with components related to health, education, and a productive project. In addition, it provides for erecting a monument in a park in the city of Medellín so as to recover the historical memory of the victims. The Commission observes that the operative part of the agreement reflects the recommendations of the Committee to Give Impetus to the Administration of Justice (Comité de Impulso para la Administración de Justicia) created in the context of the agreement originally signed on May 27, 1998.

261. In Report No. 105/05, the Commission highlighted the implementation by the State of a large part of the commitments assumed in the agreement, and it called on it to continue carrying out the rest of the commitments assumed, in particular the commitment to provide effective guarantees and judicial protection to the victims and their next-of-kin, as prescribed in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, by continuing the investigation into the facts so as to allow for the identification, prosecution, and sanction of the persons responsible.

262. The State, on December 14, 2009, reported with respect to the commitments pending implementation. It indicated that at present a preliminary investigation is under way in the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General, and that the office in charge ordered a series of measures be taken to make progress in determining the possible perpetrators and accomplices of the events that are the subject matter of the case. It also reported that the entities with jurisdiction are studying the possibility of presenting a complaint seeking a review of the proceedings that concluded favorably for the persons being investigated. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

263. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission shall continue to monitor pending items.

Case 10.205, Report No. 53/06, Germán Enrique Guerra Achuri (Colombia)

264. On March 16, 2006, by Report No. 53/06[19], the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the case of Germán Guerra Achuri. In summary, the petition alleged state responsibility in the events of February 8, 1988, at the workers’ encampment on the “La Perla” farm situated in the municipality of Remedios, Antioquia, as a result of which Mr. Guerra Achurri lost a leg.

265. In the friendly settlement agreement, the State undertook as follows:

1. To make reparations for the material and moral damages sustained by Mr. Germán Enrique Guerra Achurri as a result of the incidents of February 8, 1988, at the La Perla estate workers’ camp, located in the municipality of Remedios, Antioquia Department, as a consequence of which Mr. Guerra Achurri lost a leg.

2. Request the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation to file an action seeking review of the January 23, 1995 ruling of the Military Criminal Court.

266. The State reported on December 10, 2009, that by Resolution No. 3003 of July 15, 2008 payment for reparations was made to Mr. Guerra Achurri.

267. The State reiterated that the decision on the action for review is pending before the Chamber of Criminal Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

268. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the pending items.

Case 12.009, Report No. 43/08 Leydi Dayán Sánchez (Colombia)

269. On February 28, 2006, the Commission approved a report pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention by which it concluded that the State was responsible for violating the rights to life, judicial guarantees, rights of the child, and right to judicial protection, corresponding to Articles 4, 8, 19, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of the child Leydi Dayán Sánchez Tamayo, and that the State had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection corresponding to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of that international instrument, to the detriment of the next-of-kin of Leydi Dayán Sánchez Tamayo. This case has to do with the responsibility of state agents in the death of the child Leydi Dayán Sánchez Tamayo, which occurred on March 21, 1998, in Ciudad Kennedy, Bogotá, and the failure to clarify the facts of the case judicially.

270. With the approval of the referenced report, the Commission established a series of deadlines for the State to carry out the recommendation made therein in relation to truth, justice, and reparation. After considering the information provided by both parties and the actions carried out by the State in furtherance of the recommendations on promoting an action for review before the regular courts, the ceremonies to recover the historical memory of Leydi Dayán Sánchez, the trainings for the National Police on the use of firearms in keeping with the principles of necessity, exceptionality, and proportionality; and the payment of compensation to the victim’s next-of-kin, it decided to issue Report 43/08 pursuant to Article 51 of the American Convention, and to publish it.

271. In its Report, the Commission indicated that while the investigation that is currently under way before the regular courts had not yielded results, one should value the impetus given to the action for review, specifically, the decision of the Chamber of Criminal Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice, which declared the grounds for review that set aside the judgments of acquittal handed down by the military criminal courts based on the conclusion adopted in the Article 50 report, and ordered that the case be removed to the Office of the Attorney General so that a new investigation could be initiated before the regular courts. Nonetheless, given that the information provided by the State did not indicate that the review process had produced any results in relation to implementation of the recommendation on administration of justice, on July 23, 2008, by Report No. 43/08, the IACHR made the following recommendation to the State:

1. Carry out an impartial and effective investigation in the general jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those responsible for the death of Leydi Dayán Sánchez Tamayo.

272. By communication received December 11, 2009, the State reported that by a January 22, 2009 decision, the Office of the Prosecutor No. 49 in the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Bogotá overturned the October 31, 2008 decision definitively closing the investigation. The State maintained that the decision declaring the expiry of the statute of limitations delayed the normal course of the proceedings but that corrective measures had been taken and that to date the proceedings are in the judicial stage. It reported that at this time the criminal proceeding is under the Thirty-ninth Criminal Court of the Circuit of Bogotá and that a public hearing is pending. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

273. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the recommendation. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 12.448, Report No. 44/08 Sergio Emilio Cadena Antolinez (Colombia)

274. In Report No. 44/08 of July 23, 2008, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for violating the right to judicial protection of Sergio Emilio Cadena Antolinez, enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as the generic obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected, set out at Article 1(1) of that Convention. In addition, it concluded that as reparation had been made for the material harm caused Mr. Cadena Antolinez during the course of the processing of his case before the IACHR, there was no violation of Article 21, and that there were no violations of Articles 2 or 8 of the American Convention. This case has to do with the responsibility of the Colombian State for depriving access to an effective judicial remedy for determining the rights of Sergio Emilio Cadena Antolinez due to contempt of Judgment No. SU-1185/2001 of the Constitutional Court, issued November 13, 2001, by the Chamber for Labor Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice (a situation known as “choque de trenes,” or conflicting jurisdictional claims).

275. The Commission made the following recommendations to the State:

1. Adopt the necessary measures to avoid future violations of the right to judicial protection enshrined in the American Convention, pursuant to the obligation of prevention and guarantee of the fundamental rights recognized by the American Convention.

2. With respect to the non-pecuniary damage caused to Mr. Cadena Antolínez as a result of the violation of his right to judicial protection, it is the opinion of the Commission that the instant report constitutes in itself reparation.

276. On December 4, 2009, the State informed that the Constitutional Court reported on Decision 100 issued by its Full Chamber, establishing that, faced with the “train wreck,” the affected parties have two options: (i) to appear before any judge of the Republic for processing and decision, or (ii) to comply with the appropriate requirements and file a petition for constitutional protection with the General Secretariat of the Constitutional Court towards obtaining an eventual review. The State also reported that the Labor and Criminal Cassation Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice recently decided on their own authority to process and decide the petitions for constitutional protection filed against the judicial decisions of that body, and to forward the case file to the Constitutional Court for an eventual review of judicial decisions.

277. The State reported, in addition, that the Full Chamber of the Constitutional Court approved, in its December 3, 2008 session, an amendment to its Internal Rules of Procedure, adding a second paragraph to article 54 A. This paragraph establishes that once petitions for constitutional protection against judicial decisions taken by the Supreme Court and the Council of State have been selected, the petitions must be forwarded to the Full Chamber of the Constitutional Court, for it to determine whether or not it will perform a review based on the monthly report presented to it beginning in March 2009. It also said that the Constitutional Court issued decision 124 of March 25, 2009, adopting measures to resolve conflicts of jurisdiction among the courts.

278. The State reported that, based on its priority of jurisdiction, the Constitutional Court has intervened to enforce the orders issued by the Full Chamber or the Chambers for Constitutional Protection Review, as in the case of Sergio Emilio Cadena Antolínez.

279. It also reported that the Criminal and Labor Cassation Chambers of the Supreme Court of Justice on their own authority decided in 2008 to process and forward to the Constitutional Court those of their orders against which petitions for constitutional protection had been filed, for purposes of eventual review, in compliance with Decree 2591 of 1991 and article 86 of the Constitution. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

280. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been full compliance with its recommendations.

Petition 477-05, Report No. 82/08, X and Relatives (Colombia)

281. In its Report No. 82/08[20] of October 30, 2008, the Commission approved and recognized partial compliance with a friendly settlement agreement signed on July 19, 2007, during its 128^th regular session regarding Petition 477-05 X and Relatives. Briefly stated, the petition claimed that the State was responsible for failing to identify, capture, and prosecute all those responsible, including three members of the Colombian Army, who participated in the facts, for the sexual assault of which Ms. X was a victim. .

282. The friendly settlement agreement includes the terms of the agreement signed on July 19, 2007. In the agreement the State undertakes to pay pecuniary damages in compliance with Law 288 of 1996, as well as nonpecuniary damages including those related to health and education, a letter of apology for the acts of which Ms. X was a victim, and the commitment to adopt measures to ensure non-repetition. It also includes future action towards having the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation review the decision ordering the dismissal of the investigation, in order to continue with it and thus clarify the facts, and prosecute and punish those responsible.

283. In Report No. 82/08 the Commission underscored the State’s compliance with a considerable number of the commitments it had made in the agreement and recognized the efforts made by both parties to reach a solution. It also remarked that it would continue to monitor some items whose compliance remained pending.

284. The State submitted a report on December 11, 2009 with respect to its pending commitments. It said that in issuing Decision No. 5109 of November 25, 2009, it had complied with the agreement to reach an out of court settlement and an order had been issued to deposit the established amount in the current account of the petitioners.

285. The State reported that after the decision declaring that the statute of limitations had expired had been overturned, several procedures furthering the investigation have been carried out, such as the reception of uninterrogated testimony [versión libre] of two suspects and the issuance of an order for their detention on September 19, 2008. On October 21, 2008 the legal situation was resolved by issuing an arrest warrant for the two accused persons. The legal status of the case was resolved by an order for their preventive detention. On June 26 and July 6, 2009, the two suspects were formally charged. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

286. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the pending items.

Petition 401-05, Report No. 83/08, Jorge Antonio Barbosa Tarazona (Colombia)

287. On October 30, 2008, in its Report No. 83/08[21], the Commission approved and recognized partial compliance of a friendly settlement agreement signed on September 22, 2006 regarding Petition 401-05 of Jorge Antonio Barbosa Tarazona. Briefly stated, the petition claimed that agents of the State were responsible for the disappearance of Jorge Antonio Barbosa Tarazona on October 13, 1992 in the Department of Magdalena, and that the judicial authorities were unjustifiably delayed in investigating, prosecuting, and punishing those allegedly responsible.

288. The aforementioned friendly settlement includes the terms of the agreement signed on September 22, 2006. It recognizes the responsibility of the State for the facts of the petition, for pecuniary damages to be paid to the victim’s next of kin, as well as non-pecuniary damages including components related to health and education, the presenting of a plaque to the memory of Jorge Antonio Barbosa Tarazona and formal document with the same content, signed by an officer of the Ministry of National Defense. The agreement also includes the undertaking of judicial action towards the identification of those responsible for the disappearance and subsequent death of Jorge Antonio Barbosa Tarazona and for the search of the victim’s remains.

289. In its Report No. 83/08 the Commission underscored the State’s compliance with the commitments made in the agreement and recognized efforts made by the Republic of Colombia and the next of kin of Jorge Antonio Barbosa to reach a friendly settlement. The Commission also stated that it will give a special follow-up to compliance with the commitments related to the clarification of the facts, the recovery of the victim’s remains, and the prosecution and punishment of those responsible.

290. The State submitted a report on December 11, 2009 regarding pending commitments. It indicated that once the agreement had been authorized, steps were initiated pursuant to Law 288 of 1996 and that Decision No. 01 was issued in December 2008, issuance of which the petitioner was notified on February 4, 2009. It reported that the Ministry of Defense is currently coordinating with the victims’ representatives to celebrate a conciliation hearing.

291. The State reported that the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation continues to investigate the facts, that several suspects have been found, and that there have been convictions. It further reported, regarding the proceedings that had been closed and the final judgment handed down by military criminal justice, that a petition for review had been filed before the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which was accepted on March 30, 2009. The petitioners did not respond to the request for information.

292. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 12.476, Report No. 67/06, Oscar Elias Biscet et al. (Cuba)

293. In Report No. 67/06 of October 21, 2006, the IACHR concluded that the Cuban State was responsible for violations of Articles I (right to life, liberty, personal security), II (right to equality before the law), IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression, and dissemination), V (right to protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life), VI (right to a family and to protection thereof), IX (right to inviolability of the home), X (right to the inviolability and transmission of correspondence), XI (right to preservation of health and well-being), XVIII (right to justice), XX, (right to vote and to participate in government), XXI (right of assembly), XXII (right of association), XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest), and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration, to the detriment of Messrs. Nelson Alberto Aguiar Ramírez, Osvaldo Alfonso Valdés, Pedro Pablo Álvarez Ramo, Pedro Argüelles Morán, Víctor Rolando Arroyo Carmona, Mijail Bárzaga Lugo, Oscar Elías Biscet González, Margarito Broche Espinosa, Marcelo Cano Rodríguez, Juan Roberto de Miranda Hernández, Carmelo Agustín Díaz Fernández, Eduardo Díaz Fleitas, Antonio Ramón Díaz Sánchez, Alfredo Rodolfo Domínguez Batista, Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe, Alfredo Felipe Fuentes, Efrén Fernández Fernández, Juan Adolfo Fernández Saínz, José Daniel Ferrer García, Luís Enrique Ferrer García, Orlando Fundora Álvarez, Próspero Gaínza Agüero, Miguel Galbán Gutiérrez, Julio César Gálvez Rodríguez, Edel José García Díaz, José Luís García Paneque, Ricardo Severino González Alfonso, Diosdado González Marrero, Léster González Pentón, Alejandro González Raga, Jorge Luís González Tanquero, Leonel Grave de Peralta, Iván Hernández Carrillo, Normando Hernández González, Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, Regis Iglesias Ramírez, José Ubaldo Izquierdo Hernández, Reynaldo Miguel Labrada Peña, Librado Ricardo Linares García, Marcelo Manuel López Bañobre, José Miguel Martínez Hernández, Héctor Maseda Gutiérrez, Mario Enrique Mayo Hernández, Luís Milán Fernández, Rafael Millet Leyva, Nelson Moline Espino, Ángel Moya Acosta, Jesús Mustafá Felipe, Félix Navarro Rodríguez, Jorge Olivera Castillo, Pablo Pacheco Ávila, Héctor Palacios Ruiz, Arturo Pérez de Alejo Rodríguez, Omar Pernet Hernández, Horacio Julio Piña Borrego, Fabio Prieto Llorente, Alfredo Manuel Pulido López, José Gabriel Ramón Castillo, Arnaldo Ramos Lauzurique, Blas Giraldo Reyes Rodríguez, Raúl Ramón Rivero Castañeda, Alexis Rodríguez Fernández, Omar Rodríguez Saludes, Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Omar Moisés Ruiz Hernández, Claro Sánchez Altarriba, Ariel Sigler Amaya, Guido Sigler Amaya, Miguel Sigler Amaya, Ricardo Enrique Silva Gual, Fidel Suárez Cruz, Manuel Ubals González, Julio Antonio Valdés Guevara, Miguel Valdés Tamayo, Héctor Raúl Valle Hernández, Manuel Vázquez Portal, Antonio Augusto Villareal Acosta, and Orlando Zapata Tamayo.

294. The international responsibility of the Cuban State derived from the events of March 2003, when there were massive detentions of human rights activists and independent journalists based on the argument that they had engaged in subversive, counterrevolutionary activities against the State and that they had disseminated illicit propaganda and information. Subsequently, all of them were tried in very summary proceedings, in which their rights to defense were violated, and they were convicted and subjected to prison terms ranging from six months to 28 years.

295. The Commission made the following recommendations to the Cuban State:

1. Order the immediate and unconditional release of the victims in this case, while overturning their convictions inasmuch as they were based on laws that impose unlawful restrictions on their human rights.

2. Adopt the measures necessary to adapt its laws, procedures and practices to international human rights laws. In particular, the Commission is recommending to the Cuban State that it repeal Law No. 88 and Article 91 of its Criminal Code, and that it initiate a process to amend its Constitution to ensure the independence of the judicial branch of government and the right to participate in government.

4. Redress the victims and their next of kin for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages suffered as a result of the violations of the American Declaration herein established.

5. Adopt the measures necessary to prevent a recurrence of similar acts, in keeping with the State’s duty to respect and ensure human rights.

296. On November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on the status of compliance with the recommendations made in the present case. The Cuban State did not submit any information.

297. The IACHR received information from the petitioners regarding the situation of the victims of Case 12.476 during the hearings held on the human rights situation in Cuba at its 137th Regular Session. According to information received by the IACHR, 21 victims of Case 12.476 had been released from jail on parole because they were suffering from severe diseases. Up to 2009, the following victims have been granted leave of absence from jail: 2004: Osvaldo Alfonso; Margarito Broche Espinosa; Carmelo Díaz Fernández; Oscar Espinosa Chepe; Orlando Fundadora Álvarez; Edel José García Díaz; Marcelo López Bañobre; Roberto de Miranda; Jorge Olivera Castillo; Raúl Rivero Castañeda; Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello; Julio Valdés Guevara; Miguel Valdés Tamayo (deceased January 10, 2007) and Manuel Vásquez Portal. 2005: Mario Enrique Mayo Hernández and Héctor Palacio Ruiz received leaves. 2008: José Gabriel Ramón Castillo, Pedro Pablo Álvarez, Alejandro González Raga and Omar Pernet. 2009: Nelson Alberto Aguiar Ramírez. Furthermore, Rafael Millet Leyva, who had never been tried, was released on December 19, 2006.

298. The Commission indicates its concern that most of the victims of case 12.476 continue to be in prison living in precarious conditions. Likewise, it was observed that 22 victims have been released because of severe health conditions or, as in the case of Mr. Millet Leyva, because they had never been tried.

299. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that compliance with the recommendations that were indicated continues to be pending. As a result, it shall continue to monitor its compliance.

Case 12.477, Report No. 68/06, Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo et al. (Cuba)

300. In Report No. 68/06 of October 21, 2006, the IACHR concluded that the Cuban State was responsible for: (1) violations of Articles XVIII and XXVI of the American Declaration to the detriment of Messrs. Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla García, and Jorge Luis Martínez Isaac; (2) violations of Article I of the American Declaration to the detriment of Messrs. Lorenzo Enrique Copello Castillo, Bárbaro Leodán Sevilla García, and Jorge Luis Martínez Isaac. The responsibility of the Cuban State derives from submitting the victims to very summary trials that did not guarantee respect for the procedural guarantees of a fair trial, and the subsequent execution of the victims on April 11, 2003, pursuant to a judgment handed down in a procedure that did not have the proper guarantees of protection.

301. The Commission made the following recommendations to the Cuban State:

1. Adopt the measures necessary in order to adapt its laws, proceedings, and practices in line with international human rights law, especially those that relate to situations described in the present report. In particular, the Commission recommends the Cuban State reform its Constitution to ensure the independence of its judiciary.

2. Make reparations to the families of the victims for the material and psychological damages they have suffered by virtue of the violations of the American Declaration established here.

3. Adopt all measures necessary to ensure that similar events may not occur again, in accordance with the duty of the State to protect and guarantee human rights.

302. On November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on the status of compliance with the recommendations made in the present case. The Cuban State did not submit any information. As for the petitioners, on December 3, 2009, they reported that there is no evidence that the Cuban State has complied with the recommendations made by the IACHR.

303. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that compliance with the recommendations that were indicated continues to be pending. As a result, it shall continue to monitor its compliance.

Case 11.421, Report No. 93/00, Edison Patricio Quishpe Alcívar (Ecuador)

304. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to life, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The incident that led to the agreement was the death of Edison Patricio Quishpe at a police station on September 7, 1992, after he had been arrested and subjected to torture and other forms of inhuman, cruel, and degrading treatment.

305. On October 5, 2000, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 93/00[22], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of a compensation in the amount of US$30,000, and decided:

2. To urge the State to take the necessary measures to carry out the commitment to pursue civil and criminal proceedings and to seek to impose punishment on those persons who, in the performance of government functions or under the color of public authority, are considered to have participated in the alleged violation, and the payment of interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement, and in that context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

306. In November 13, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. In response, the petitioners reported that no final judgment punishing those responsible for the facts of the case had yet been handed down. The State did not reply to the request for information.

307. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 11.439, Report No. 94/00, Byron Roberto Cañaveral (Ecuador)

308. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of Mr. Byron Roberto Cañaveral on May 26, 1993, at the hands of state agents who subjected him to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment.

309. On October 5, 2000[23], the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 94/00, in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$7,000, and decided:

2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to carry out the pending commitment to bring civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against those persons who, in the performance of state functions, participated in the alleged violations, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the Ecuadorian State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on progress in carrying out the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

310. The IACHR requested information from both parties regarding compliance with the pending items on November 13, 2009. The petitioners responded that the Ecuadorian State had not initiated civil, criminal or administrative proceedings to punish those responsible for the alleged facts. The State did not respond to the request for information.

311. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 11.466, Report No. 96/00, Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guamán (Ecuador)

312. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with a series of arrests of Mr. Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guamán that took place between 1993 and 1994 at the hands of state agents, who subjected him to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment.

313. On October 5, 2000, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 96/00[24], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of a compensation in the amount of US$25,000, and decided:

2. To urge the State to take the measures needed for carrying out the commitments still pending with respect to bringing to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, as to the performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

314. On November 13, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. The petitioners responded stating that the criminal action had prescribed because of the Police Judge’s failure to act, that he had been told by the Public Prosecution Service in 2001 that statutory limitations did not prevent prosecutors from taking repetition actions against the guilty. They also reported that they had no knowledge of any repetition actions or other civil or administrative steps taken in order to punish the perpetrators. The State did not respond to the request for information.

315. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 11.584, Report No. 97/00, Carlos Juela Molina (Ecuador)

316. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of the minor Carlos Juela Molina on December 21, 1989, by an agent of the State who subjected him to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment. The investigation of the police officer involved in the incident was taken up by the police criminal justice system, which sent the proceedings to the archive.

317. On October 5, 2000, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 97/00[25], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$15,000, and decided:

2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to comply with the pending commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

318. The IACHR requested information from both parties regarding compliance with pending items on November 11, 2009. The petitioners responded that the State has not initiated any new legal action for the punishment of those responsible of the alleged violation. They also maintained that the State has not punished the judge who caused the unjustified delay, as prescribed by Ecuadorian law. The State did not respond to the request for information.

319. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 11.783, Report No. 98/00, Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia (Ecuador)

320. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia, carried out without an arrest warrant on May 17, 1993. The victim was subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment at the time of her arrest, kept in preventive custody for four years, and then the charges against her were dismissed.

321. On October 5, 2000[26], the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 98/00, in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$63,000, and decided:

2. To urge the State to take the measures necessary to carry out the commitments pending with respect to bringing to trial and punishing the persons responsible for the violations alleged, and to paying interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

322. On November 10, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending; however, no replies were received.

323. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 11.868, Report No. 99/00, Carlos Santiago and Pedro Restrepo Arismendy
(Ecuador)

324. On May 14, 1998, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged that “the domestic judicial proceeding was characterized by unjustified delays, excessive technicalities, inefficiency, and denial of justice. The Ecuadorian State could not demonstrate that it was not its official agents who illegally and arbitrarily detained brothers Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy, to the point of torturing them and taking their lives, nor could it refute that those actions were at odds with the Constitution, with our country’s legal framework, and with respect to the international conventions that guarantee human rights.” The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages, to conduct a search for the bodies, and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the detention and subsequent disappearance of the brothers Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo on January 8, 1988, at the hands of officers of the National Police.

325. On October 5, 2000, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 99/00[27], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$2,000,000, and decided:

2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to comply with the commitments still pending to carry out the total, definitive, and complete search for the bodies of the two brothers, and the criminal trial of the persons considered to have participated in the torture, disappearance, and death of the Restrepo Arismendy brothers, as well as in covering up those acts.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with the settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report “periodically, upon request of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as to the performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.”

326. On November 10, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on the steps taken in compliance with the pending items; however, no replies were received.

327. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor the items pending.

Case 11.991, Report No. 100/00, Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva (Ecuador)

328. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, to equal protection, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva, detained without an arrest warrant on June 22, 1992. The victim was subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment, kept incommunicado for 33 days, and held in preventive custody for more than six years, after which he was released.

329. On October 5, 2000, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 100/00[28], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$50,000 ,and decided:

2. To urge the State to make the decisions needed to carry out the pending commitments to bring to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in that context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

330. On November 11, 2009, the IACHR requested information from both parties on the state of compliance with pending items. Within the established time period, information was received from the petitioners, who maintained that the State had not initiated any legal or administrative proceedings to investigate, identify, and punish the police officers, judges, and prosecutors responsible for the alleged violation. In addition, they reported that a decision by the National Court of Justice is still pending, regarding a cassation appeal against a judgment convicting Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva as a front man of the principal accused party. The petitioners claim that the judgment convicting Torres Cueva constitutes a violation of the friendly settlement agreement. The State did not respond to the request for information.

331. In consideration whereof, the the IACHR concludes that the State has only partially complied with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue monitoring the items pending.

Case 11.478, Report No. 19/01, Juan Clímaco Cuéllar et al. (Ecuador)

332. On June 25, 1998, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, to equal protection, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals the arrests of Froilán Cuéllar, José Otilio Chicangana, Juan Clímaco Cuéllar, Henry Machoa, Alejandro Aguinda, Demetrio Pianda, Leonel Aguinda, Carlos Enrique Cuéllar, Carmen Bolaños, Josué Bastidas, and Harold Paz, which were carried out without arrest warrants between December 18 and 21, 1993, by hooded members of the Army. The victims were kept incommunicado and subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment; they were then held in preventive custody for between one and four years, after which they were released.

333. On February 20, 2001 the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 19/01[29] in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$100,000 to each of the victims, and decided:

2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

334. On November 10, 2009, the IACHR requested information from both parties regarding compliance with the pending items, but received no responses.

335. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.512, Report No. 20/01, Lida Ángela Riera Rodríguez (Ecuador)

336. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals the duration of the preventive custody in which Lida Ángela Riera Rodríguez was held in her trial for abetting the crime of embezzlement. The victim was detained on January 7, 1992, on June 26, 1995, she was convicted to a two-year prison term as an as an accessory after the fact, when she had already been in custody for three years and six months.

337. On February 20, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 20/01[30], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$20,000 to the victim, and decided:

2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment regarding the trial of persons implicated in the facts alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, of its compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

338. On November 11, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. In their response the petitioners reported that the State had imposed no judicial or administrative sanctions on the perpetrators of the facts alleged before the Commission. The State did not respond to the request for information.

339. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.605, Report No. 21/01, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño (Ecuador)

340. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to life, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. This was in connection with the death of René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño, which took place on June 20, 1987, at the hands of a member of the Army.

341. On February 20, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 21/01[31], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of compensation damages in the amount of US$30,000 to the victim, and decided:

2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment to prosecute the persons implicated in the facts alleged.

342. On November 11, 2009 the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. The petitioners responded by reporting that the State had imposed no judicial or administrative sanctions on the person responsible for the facts alleged. The State did not respond to the request for information.

343. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.779, Report No. 22/01, José Patricio Reascos (Ecuador)

344. On June 11, 1999, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. This was in connection with the duration of the preventive custody in which José Patricio Reascos was held during his prosecution for narcotics use. The victim was detained on September 12, 1993, and, on September 16, 1997, he was sentenced to an 18-month prison term, when he had already been in custody for four years.

345. On February 20, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 22/01[32], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of indemnification in the amount of US$20,000 to the victim, and decided:

2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.

346. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR requested information from both parties regarding the state of compliance with pending items. The petitioners responded by saying that the State had not initiated any judicial or administrative proceeding towards the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the alleged facts. The State did not respond to the request for information.

347. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.992, Report No. 66/01, Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez (Ecuador)

348. In Report No. 66/01 of June 14, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the Ecuadorian State had violated, with respect to Mrs. Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez, the following rights enshrined in the American Convention: the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring those rights. This was in connection with the violations of physical integrity and the denial of liberty suffered by Mrs. Levoyer Jiménez, who was detained on June 21, 1992, without an arrest warrant, and kept incommunicado for 39 days, during which time she was subjected to psychological torture. She was held in custody without a conviction for more than five years, and finally all the charges against her were dismissed.

349. The Commission issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Proceed to grant full reparations, which involves granting adequate compensation to Mrs. Dayra Maria Levoyer Jimenez;

2. Order an investigation to determine responsibility for the violations detected by the Commission and eventually to punish the individuals responsible;

3. Take such steps as are necessary to reform habeas corpus legislation as indicated in the present report, as well as to enact such reforms with immediate effect.

350. On November 11, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. The petitioners responded by saying that to date, regarding recommendations 1 and 2, the State had not “begun a judicial or administrative investigation against the police officers, prosecutors, and judges who participated actively in the facts that were proven during the processing of the case before the IACHR that established that several of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention had been violated” and that neither had it taken any “steps to repair the harm suffered by the victim.” The State did not respond to the request for information.

351. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.441, Report No. 104/01, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al. (Ecuador)

352. On August 15, 2001, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, to equal protection, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with arrest of the Colombian citizens Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos, Luis Artemio Muñoz Arcos, José Morales Rivera, and Segundo Morales Bolaños, who were detained without an arrest warrant on August 26, 1993, by officers of the National Police. The victims were kept incommunicado and subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment.

353. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 104/01[33], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with paying each victim the amount of US$10,000 as indemnification, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by instituting judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreements, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.

354. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. The petitioners responded by saying that the State had not complied with the element requiring the commencement of a judicial or administrative proceeding to investigate, identify, and punish the police officers responsible for the facts alleged before the Commission. The State did not respond to the request for information.

355. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.443, Report No. 105/01, Washington Ayora Rodríguez (Ecuador)

356. On August 15, 2001, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of Washington Ayora Rodríguez, detained without an arrest warrant on February 14, 1994. The victim was kept incommunicado and subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment, after which he was released on the grounds that there was no motive for his arrest.

357. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 105/01[34], certifying that the victim had been paid compensatory damages in the amount of US$30,000, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it should fully implement the friendly settlement by beginning judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR, every three months, on the implementation of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

358. On October 11, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. The petitioners responded that “to date no sentence has been handed down to punish the perpetrators of the facts”. The State did not respond to the request for information.

359. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.450, Report No. 106/01, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa (Ecuador)

360. On August 15, 2001, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. This case deals with the death of Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa, which occurred on February 2, 1988, while he was in the custody of police officers, and with the failure of the courts to clear up the incident.

361. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 106/01[35], certifying that the amount of US$30,000 had been paid as compensatory damages to the victim’s next-of-kin and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

362. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. In response, the petitioners reported that the State had taken no action toward the imposing civil or administrative sanctions on the police officers responsible, nor had it investigated the actions of the police magistrates of the First District Court involved in acquitting the state agents involved. The State did not respond to the request for information.

363. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.542, Report No. 107/01, Ángel Reiniero Vega Jiménez (Ecuador)

364. On August 15, 2001, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. This case deals with the arrest of Ángel Reiniero Vega Jiménez, violently detained in his home by state agents without an arrest warrant on May 5, 1994. After being subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment, the victim died in a hospital. The charges against the officers involved were dismissed by the police criminal justice system.

365. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 107/01[36], certifying that the amount of US$30,000 had been paid as indemnification to the victim’s next-of-kin, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

366. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR requested information from both parties regarding compliance with the pending items. In their response, the petitioners reported that the Office of the Prosecutor has yet to file an appeal for the Police District Court to review in depth the case and overturn the previous acquittal. They maintain that the Office of the Attorney General has failed to comply with its prosecuting duty and hence the death of the victim has met with impunity. They furthermore affirm that the State has not initiated any civil or administrative proceedings to sanction those responsible. The State did not respond to the request for information.

367. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.574, Report No. 108/01, Wilberto Samuel Manzano (Ecuador)

368. On August 15, 2001, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to life, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. This case deals with the death of Wilberto Samuel Manzano as a result of the actions of state agents on May 11, 1991. The victim was wounded with a firearm and then illegally detained by police officers in civil clothing, following which he died in a hospital. The charges against the officers involved were dismissed by the police criminal justice system.

369. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 107/01[37], certifying that the amount of US$30,000 had been paid as compensatory damages to the victim’s next-of-kin, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

370. On November 16, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. The petitioners responded by saying that the State has not initiated legal proceedings against the judges that heard this unjustifiably delayed case over the course of five years. The State did not respond to the request for information.

371. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.632, Report No. 109/01, Vidal Segura Hurtado (Ecuador)

372. On August 15, 2001, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. This case deals with the arrest of Vidal Segura Hurtado, detained without an arrest warrant by officers of the National Police in civilian clothing on April 8, 1993. The victim was subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment; he was then executed and his body was found on May 8, 1993, on the beltway surrounding the city of Guayaquil.

373. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 109/01[38], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of compensatory damages in the amount of US$30,000 to the victim’s next-of-kin, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

374. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. In response, the petitioners reported that the State had begun no criminal or administrative investigation with a view to punishing the police officers responsible for Vidal Segura Hurtado’s murder. The State submitted no information.

375. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 12.007, Report No. 110/01, Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez (Ecuador)

376. On August 15, 2001, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez, detained without an arrest warrant on September 18, 1996. After he had been held for ten months, the preventive custody order was canceled and a dismissal order was issued; however, the victim remained in detention.

377. On October 11, 2001, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 110/01[39], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with paying the victim the amount of US$20,000 as compensatory damages, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must fully implement the friendly settlement agreement, bringing judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

378. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR requested both parties to report on the state of compliance with pending items. The petitioners responded saying that the State had not initiated any criminal or administrative investigation to punish the police officers responsible for the murder of Vidal Segura Hurtado. The State did not respond to the request for information.

379. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 11.515, Report No. 63/03, Bolívar Franco Camacho Arboleda (Ecuador)

380. On July 17, 2002, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the duration of the preventive custody in which Bolívar Franco Camacho Arboleda was held during his trial for illegal possession of cocaine. The victim was placed in detention on October 7, 1989. On January 24, 1995, he was acquitted and, in February 1995, he was released, after he had been imprisoned for more than five years (63 months).

381. On October 10, 2003, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 63/03[40], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with paying the victim the amount of US$30,000 as compensatory damages, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.

3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

382. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. In response, the petitioners reported that the State had not initiated any legal or administrative proceedings to investigate, identify, and punish the police officers, judges, and prosecutors responsible for the facts alleged before the IACHR. The State did not respond to the request for information.

383. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 12.188, Report No. 64/03, Joffre José Valencia Mero, Priscila Zoreida Valencia Sánchez, Rocío Valencia Sánchez (Ecuador)

384. On November 12, 2002, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of Joffre José Valencia Mero, Priscila Zoreida Valencia Sánchez, and Rocío Valencia Sánchez, detained without an arrest warrant by police officers on March 19, 1993. On March 28, 1993, the victims were placed in preventive custody as part of their prosecution for the crimes of drug trafficking and asset laundering. The victims were kept in preventive custody for more than five years, following which they were acquitted.

385. On October 10, 2003, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 64/03[41], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with paying each victim the amount of US$25,000 as indemnification, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the Friendly Settlement Agreement by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.

3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlement; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the IACHR on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.

386. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. In response, the petitioners reported that the State had not yet initiated any civil, criminal or administrative actions to punish the police officers, judges, and prosecutors responsible for the facts alleged. The State did not respond to the request for information.

387. In consideration whereof, the IACHR concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 12.394, Report No. 65/03, Joaquín Hernández Alvarado, Marlon Loor
Argote, and Hugo Lara Pinos (Ecuador)

388. On November 26 and December 16, 2002, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. This case deals with the firearm attack on the vehicle carrying Joaquín Hernández Alvarado, Marlon Loor Argote, and Hugo Lara Pinos on May 22, 1999, perpetrated by officers of the National Police. Following the attack the victims were taken into custody, without arrest warrants, and subjected to torture and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment; they were later released, on the grounds that the attack and arrest were the result of a “police error.”

389. On October 10, 2003, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 65/03[42], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with paying compensation in the amounts of US$100,000 to Mr. Hernández, US$300,000 to Mr. Loor, and US$50,000 to Mr. Lara, and decided:

2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreements by initiating judicial proceedings against the persons involved in the alleged violations.

3. To continue with its monitoring and supervision of compliance with each and every point in the friendly settlements; and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Attorney General, of its commitment to report every three months to the Commission on compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.

390. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending, but received no response.

391. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Petition 12.205, Report No. 44/06, José René Castro Galarza (Ecuador)

392. On October 10, 2005, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the general obligation of respecting and ensuring rights, the right to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, and the duty of adopting domestic legal provisions, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty.

393. This case deals with the duration of the preventive custody in which José René Castro Galarza was held during his prosecution for drug trafficking, acting as a front, and illegal enrichment. The victim was detained, without an arrest warrant, on June 26, 1992. He was then kept incommunicado for 34 days. On November 22, 1996, the illegal enrichment charges against the victim were dismissed; on March 23, 1998, the fronting charges were dismissed; and he was sentenced to an eight-year prison term for drug trafficking, which was reduced to six years on September 15, 1997. The victim was kept in prison even though he had been in custody for six years, and he was released on June 16, 1998.

394. On March 15, 2006, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 44/06[43], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of compensatory damages to the victim in the amount of US$80,000; in addition, it said would continue to follow up on and monitor all the points in the friendly settlement agreement and, in that context, reminded the parties of their commitment to keep the IACHR apprised regarding its implementation.

395. On November 12, 2009, the IACHR asked both parties to report on compliance with the items still pending. In response, the petitioners indicated that the State had not initiated any action to punish those responsible for violations of the American Convention, nor had it carried out all necessary reparations measures such as lifting the prohibition against transferring ownership of the property of the alleged victim. The State did not respond to the request for information.

396. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Petition 12.207, Report No. 45/06, Lisandro Ramiro Montero Masache (Ecuador)

397. On September 20, 2005, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the general obligation of respecting and ensuring rights and the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the arrest of Lisandro Ramiro Montero Masache, detained without an arrest warrant on June 19, 1992. The victim was held in preventive custody for more than five years, following which the charges were dismissed.

398. On March 15, 2006, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 45/06[44], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of compensation to the victim in the amount of US$60,000; in addition, it said would continue to follow up on and monitor all the points in the friendly settlement agreement and, in that context, reminded the parties of their commitment to keep the IACHR apprised regarding its implementation.

399. On November 13, 2009, the IACHR requested both parties to report on the state of compliance with the pending items. In their response, the petitioners indicated that the State had not initiated any real action to punish all those responsible, nor have, in practice, restrictions been lifted in the Property Registry. The State did not respond to the request for information.

400. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Case 12.238, Report No. 46/06, Myriam Larrea Pintado (Ecuador)

401. Following the adoption of Admissibility Report No. 8/05, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement on February 23, 2005. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the general obligation of respecting and ensuring rights and the right to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages, to remove her name from the public criminal records, to publish its acknowledgment of responsibility, and to prosecute the guilty. The case deals with the duration of the preventive custody in which Myriam Larrea Pintado was held during her prosecution for an alleged fraudulent transfer of property. The victim was imprisoned from November 11, 1992, to May 6, 1994, and was acquitted on October 31, 1994.

402. On March 15, 2006, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 46/06[45], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of compensatory damages to the victim in the amount of US$275,000; in addition, it said would continue to follow up on and monitor all the points in the friendly settlement agreement and, in that context, reminded the parties of their commitment to keep the IACHR apprised regarding its implementation.

403. On November 13, 2009 the IACHR requested both parties to report on the compliance measures adopted, but received no response.

404. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

Petition 533-01, Report No. 47/06, Fausto Mendoza Giler and Diógenes Mendoza Bravo (Ecuador)

405. On September 20, 2005, through the good offices of the Commission, the parties reached a friendly settlement agreement. In that agreement, the Ecuadorian State acknowledged its responsibility for violating, through the actions of its state agents, the general obligation of respecting and ensuring rights and the right to life, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights. The State also agreed to pay compensatory damages and to prosecute the guilty.

406. This case deals with the arrest of Fausto Mendoza Giler and Diógenes Mendoza Bravo on March 19, 2000, by members of the Special Operations Group (GOE) of the police. The victims were beaten, following which Fausto Fabricio Mendoza died. Diógenes Mendoza Bravo lodged a private suit against the police officers involved in the arrest and, on July 20, 2000, a generalized trial commencement deed was adopted in which none of those officers was named.

407. On March 15, 2006, the IACHR adopted Friendly Settlement Report No. 47/06[46], in which it acknowledged that the State had complied with the payment of compensatory damages to the victim in the amount of US$300,000; in addition, it said would continue to follow up on and monitor all the points in the friendly settlement agreement and, in that context, reminded the parties of their commitment to keep the IACHR apprised regarding its implementation.

408. On November 16, 2009, the IACHR requested both parties to report on the state of compliance with the pending items, but received no response.

409. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that there has been partial compliance with the friendly settlement agreement. Therefore, the Commission will continue to monitor pending items.

[Table of Contents | Previous | Next]

[18] Report No. 105/05, Case 11.141, Villatina Massacre, Colombia, October 27, 2005, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2005eng/Colombia11141.eng.htm.

[19] Report No. 53/06, Case 10.205, Germán Enrique Guerra Achuri, Colombia, March 16, 2006, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006eng/COLOMBIA.10205eng.htm

[20] Report No. 82/08, Petition 477-05, X and Family, Colombia, October 30, 2008, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2008eng/Colombia477-05.eng.htm.

[21] Report No. 83/08, Petition 421-05, Jorge Antonio Barbosa Tarazona, Colombia, October 30, 2008, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2008eng/Colombia401-05.eng.htm

[22] Report No. 93/00, Case 11.421, Edinson Patricio Quishpe Alcívar, Ecuador, October 5, 2000, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/CapituloIII/Sol.Ami/Ecuador11.421.htm

[23] Report No. 94/00, Case 11.439, Byron Roberto Cañaveral, Ecuador, October 5, 2000, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.439.htm

[24] Report No. 96/00, Case 11.466, Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guzmán, Ecuador, October 5, 2000, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/CapituloIII/Sol.Ami/Ecuador11.466.htm

[25] Report No. 97/00, Case 11.584, Carlos Juela Molina, Ecuador, October 5, 2000, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000sp/CapituloIII/Sol.Ami/Ecuador11.584.htm

[26] Report No. 98/00, Case 11.783, Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia, Ecuador, October 5, 2000, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.783.htm

[27] Report No. 99/00, Case 11.868, Carlos Santiago and Pedro Restrepo Arismendy, Ecuador, October 5, 2000, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.868.htm

[28] Report No. 100/00, Case 11.991, Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva, October 5, 2000, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.991.htm

[29] Report No. 19/01, Case 11.478, Juan Clímaco Cuéllar et al., Ecuador, Februaro 20, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.478.htm

[30] Report No. 20/01, Case 11.512, Lida Ángela Riera Rodríguez, Ecuador, February 20, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.512.htm

[31] Report No. 21/01, Case 11.605, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño, Ecuador, February 20, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.605.htm

[32] Report No. 22/01, Case 11.779, José Paticio Reascos, Ecuador, February 20, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2000eng/ChapterIII/Friendly/Ecuador11.779.htm

[33] Report No. 104/01, Case 11.441, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al., October 11, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001eng/Ecuador11441.htm

[34] Report No. 105/01, Case 11.443, Washington Ayora Rodríguez, October 11, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001eng/Ecuador11443.htm

[35] Report No. 106/01, Case 11.450, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa, October 11, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001eng/Ecuador11450.htm

[36] Report No. 107/01, Case 11.542, Ángel Reiniero Vega Jiménez, October 11, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001eng/Ecuador11542.htm

[37] Report No. 108/01, Case 11.574, Wilberto Samuel Manzano, October 11, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001eng/Ecuador11574.htm

[38] Report No. 109/01, Case 11.632, Vidal Segura Hurtado, October 11, 2001, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001eng/Ecuador11632.htm

[39] Report No. 110/01, Caso 12.007, Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez, October 11, 2001, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001sp/Ecuador12007.htm

[40] Report No. 63/03, Case 11.515, Bolívar Franco Camacho Arboleda, October 10, 2003, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2003eng/Ecuador.11515.htm

[41] Report No. 64/03, Case 12.188, Joffre José Valencia Mero, Priscila Zoreida Valencia Sánchez, Rocío Valencia Sánchez, October 10, 2003,available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2003sp/Ecuador.12188.htm

[42] Report No. 65/03, Case 12.394, Joaquín Hernández Alvarado, Marlon Loor Argote and Hugo Lara Pinos, October 10, 2003, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2003eng/Ecuador.12394.htm

[43] Report No. 44/06, Case 12.205, José René Castro Galarza, March 15, 2006, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006eng/ECUADOR.12205eng.htm

[44] Report No. 45/06, Case 12.207, Lizandro Ramiro Montero Masache, March 15, 2006, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006eng/ECUADOR.12207eng.htm

[45] Report No. 46/06, Case 12.238, Myriam Larrea Pintado, March 15, 2006, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006eng/ECUADOR.12238eng.htm

[46] Report No. 47/06, Petition 533-01, Fausto Mendoza Giler et al., March 15, 2006, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006eng/Ecuador533.01eng.htm.