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 12.028, Report N° 47/01, Donnason Knights (Grenada)

410. In Report N° 47/01 dated April 4, 2001, the Commission concluded the State was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Knights’ rights under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1), in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by sentencing Mr. Knights to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating Mr. Knights’ rights under Article 4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Knights’ with an effective right to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating Mr. Knights' rights under Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, because of Mr. Knights’ conditions of detention; and d) violating Mr. Knights’ rights under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to make legal aid available to him to pursue a Constitutional Motion.

411. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Grant Mr. Knights an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.

2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5, and 8, and in particular, to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law.

3. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the American Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Grenada.

4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the American Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the American Convention are given effect in Grenada in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.

5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) and Article 5(2) of the American Convention in respect of the victim’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.

412. On December 23, 2002, the petitioner wrote to the Commission and reported of the following: On May 2001, Anslem B. Clouden, Attorney-at-Law had written to the Attorney General of Grenada requesting adoption of the necessary measures in compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. To date, as far as we are aware, there has been no response from the Attorney General, and Mr. Knights remains on death row, and we are unaware of any legislative measures, or any measures being adopted in relation to conditions of detention. In March 2002, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered landmark decisions in 3 cases, Patrick Reyes, Peter Hughes & Bertil Fox. They declared that the mandatory death penalty imposed on all those convicted of murder in the Eastern Caribbean and Belize is unconstitutional. The effect of this decision means that Mr. Knights’ sentence will have to be reviewed as he was automatically sentenced to death upon conviction. Mr. Knights will now have an opportunity to place before the courts mitigating circumstances as to why the death penalty may not be appropriate in his case. Whilst the adoption of new legislative measures were as a result of the appeal to the Privy Council in the trilogy of cases mentioned above, and, not as a result of the Commission’s recommendations in this case, the views of the Commission in relation to the mandatory issue were an important aspect of the arguments before the courts. The Commission’s recommendations and its decisions have played an instrumental role in these decisions.” Based on these considerations, the IACHR presumes that the Government of Grenada has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

413. By communications of November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report N° 47/01, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. To date, the Commission has not received any response from the State.

414. By letters of January 10, 2005, the Petitioners reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The Petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence. The petitioners stated that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death; they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.

415. The petitioners submitted that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission.

416. On November 2, 2007 and on November 5, 2008 the Commission wrote to both the State and the petitioners and requested updated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report N° 47/01. The request made in 2007 was not responded by either party, but on January 6, 2009 the petitioners forwarded a communication in response to the most recent request. Among other considerations, the petitioners mention that by February 2008 the State of Grenada “had still failed to quash and reconsider the sentences of those sentenced to the mandatory death penalty (including Donnason Knights)”. As a result of the delay in providing Mr. Knights with a remedy, the petitioners had to request the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the quashing of the death sentence followed by an individualized sentence hearing. On June 11 2008 the Privy Council quashed the mandatory death sentence and ordered the case to be sent back to the Supreme Court of Grenada for the appropriate sentence. The petitioners add that the mandatory death penalty is clearly unconstitutional in Grenada by virtue of the jurisprudence of the Privy Council, whereby the law of that country has been brought into conformity with the American Convention on Human Rights. However, they submit that Grenada failed to grant Mr. Knights a remedy in relation to the mandatory death penalty, since his death sentence was quashed as a result of his own petition to the Privy Council. Finally, the petitioners mention that they “have requested further information on the present conditions of confinement on death row in Grenada” and that they would forward it to the IACHR as soon as they received it.

417. The Commission observes that the legal situation of Mr. Knights has improved substantially in 2008 by virtue of the actions filed by his representatives, in partial compliance with the recommendations issued in the report on his case. However, there is no information on legal recourses established to guarantee the rights that were violated in this case, or on the measures taken to ensure Mr. Knights’ right to humane treatment in Grenada.

418. On November 12, 2009 the Commission again requested both parties updated information concerning compliance with the Recommendations in Report N° 47/01. Neither party responded within that time period.

419. The IACHR concludes that there is partial compliance with its recommendations in this case. Accordingly, the IACHR will continue to monitor the items still pending compliance.

Case 11.765, Report N° 55/02, Paul Lallion (Grenada)

420. In Report N° 55/02 dated October 21, 2003, the IACHR concluded that the State of Grenada was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1), in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by sentencing Mr. Lallion to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Article 4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Lallion with an effective remedy to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, because of its failure to respect Mr. Lallion's right to physical, mental, and moral integrity by confining him in inhumane conditions of detention; d) for violating Mr. Lallion's rights under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to make legal aid available to Mr. Lallion to pursue a Constitutional Motion; and e) violating Mr. Lallion's right to personal liberty as provided by Article 7(2), 7(4), and 7(5) of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention by failing to protect his right to personal liberty, and to be brought promptly before a judicial officer.

421. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Grant Mr. Lallion an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.

5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.

6. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to personal liberty under Article 7(2), Article 7(4), and 7(5) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Lallion is given effect in Grenada.

422. By letters of January 10, 2005, the petitioners reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.

423. The petitioners stated that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death; they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the Petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.

424. The petitioners submitted that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. To date the Commission has not received any information from the State.

425. On November 2, 2007 and November 5, 2008, the Commission wrote to both the State and the petitioners and requested up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report N° 55/02. The request made in 2007 was not responded by either party, but on January 6, 2009 the petitioners forwarded a communication in response to the most recent request. Among other considerations, the petitioners mention that by February 2008 the State of Grenada “had still failed to quash and reconsider the sentences of those sentenced to the mandatory death penalty (including Paul Lallion)”. As a result of the delay in providing Mr. Jacob with a remedy, the petitioners had to request the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the quashing of the death sentence followed by an individualized sentence hearing. On June 11 2008 the Privy Council quashed the mandatory death sentence and ordered the case to be sent back to the Supreme Court of Grenada for the appropriate sentence. The petitioners add that the mandatory death penalty is clearly unconstitutional in Grenada by virtue of the jurisprudence of the Privy Council, whereby the law of that country has been brought into conformity with the American Convention on Human Rights. However, they submit that Grenada failed to grant Mr. Lallion a remedy in relation to the mandatory death penalty, since his death sentence was quashed as a result of his own petition to the Privy Council. Finally, the petitioners mention that they “have requested further information on the present conditions of confinement on death row in Grenada” and that they would forward it to the IACHR as soon as they received it.

426. The Commission observes that the legal situation of Mr. Lallion has improved substantially in 2008 by virtue of the actions filed by his representatives, in partial compliance with the recommendations issued in the report on his case. However, there is no information on legal recourses established to guarantee the rights that were violated in this case, or on the measures taken to ensure Mr. Lallion’s right to humane treatment in Grenada.

427. On November 12, 2009 the Commission again requested both parties updated information concerning compliance with the recommendations in Report N° 55/02. Neither party responded within the one month time period established.

428. The IACHR concludes that there is partial compliance with its recommendations in this case. Accordingly, the IACHR will continue to monitor the items still pending compliance.

Case 12.158, Report N° 56/02 Benedict Jacob (Grenada)

429. In Report N° 56/02 dated October 21, 2003, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for: a) violating Mr. Jacob's rights under Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1), in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by sentencing Mr. Jacob to a mandatory death penalty; b) violating Mr. Jacob's rights under Article 4(6) of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, by failing to provide Mr. Jacob with an effective remedy to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence; c) violating Mr. Jacob's rights under Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, because of its failure to respect Mr. Jacob's rights to physical, mental, and moral integrity by confining him in inhumane conditions of detention; and d) violating Mr. Jacob's rights under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with a violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention, by failing to make legal aid available to him to pursue a Constitutional Motion.

430. The IACHR issued the following recommendations to the State:

1. Grant Mr. Jacob an effective remedy which includes commutation of sentence and compensation.

5. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to humane treatment under Article 5(1) of the American Convention in respect of Mr. Jacob’s conditions of detention is given effect in Grenada.

431. By letters of January 10, 2005, the petitioners in Case 12.158 (Benedict Jacob) reported the Commission that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ruled in March 2002, that the mandatory death penalty was unconstitutional for certain Caribbean countries, including Grenada. The petitioners added that all of the alleged victims remain on death row, awaiting judicial hearings to allow the Grenadian courts to re-sentence the alleged victims after hearing submission in mitigation of sentence.

432. The petitioners stated that it is unlikely that any of the alleged victims will be re-sentenced to death, as they have all been on death row for a period in excess of five years. According to the petitioners, execution of the alleged victims would, in these circumstances, be unconstitutional.

433. Finally, the petitioners submitted that apart from the judicial abolition of the mandatory death penalty, Grenada has not taken any steps to comply with the recommendations of the Commission. The IACHR has not received any information from the State.

434. On November 2, 2007 and on November 5, 2008 the Commission wrote to both the State and the petitioners and requested updated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report N° 55/02. The request made in 2007 was not responded by either party, but on January 6, 2009 the petitioners forwarded a communication in response to the most recent request. Among other considerations, the petitioners mention that by February 2008 the State of Grenada “had still failed to quash and reconsider the sentences of those sentenced to the mandatory death penalty (including Benedict Jacob)”. As a result of the delay in providing Mr. Jacob with a remedy, the petitioners had to request the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the quashing of the death sentence followed by an individualized sentence hearing. On June 11 2008 the Privy Council quashed the mandatory death sentence and ordered the case to be sent back to the Supreme Court of Grenada for the appropriate sentence. The petitioners add that the mandatory death penalty is clearly unconstitutional in Grenada by virtue of the jurisprudence of the Privy Council, whereby the law of that country has been brought into conformity with the American Convention on Human Rights. However, they submit that Grenada failed to grant Mr. Jacob a remedy in relation to the mandatory death penalty, since his death sentence was quashed as a result of his own petition to the Privy Council. Finally, the petitioners mention that they “have requested further information on the present conditions of confinement on death row in Grenada” and that they would forward it to the IACHR as soon as they received it.

435. The Commission observes that the legal situation of Mr. Jacob has improved substantially in 2008 by virtue of the actions filed by his representatives, in partial compliance with the recommendations issued in the report on his case. However, there is no information on legal recourses established to guarantee the rights that were violated in this case, or on the measures taken to ensure Mr. Jacob’s right to humane treatment in Grenada.

436. On November 12, 2009 the Commission again requested both parties for updated information concerning compliance with the Recommendations in Report N° 56/02, and set a one month period to that effect. Neither party responded within that time period.

437. The IACHR concludes that there is partial compliance with its recommendations in this case. Accordingly, the IACHR will continue to monitor the items still pending compliance.

Case 11.625, Report No. 4/01, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala)

438. In Report No. 4/01 of January 19, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State was responsible for having violated the rights of María Eugenia Morales de Sierra to equal protection, respect for her family life, and respect for her private life, established at Articles 24, 17, and 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to the title and section 1 of Article 110 and Article 317(4), and that accordingly the State was responsible for breaching the obligation imposed by Article 1 to respect and ensure those rights enshrined in the Convention, as well as the obligation imposed on it by Article 2 to adopt legislation and other measures necessary for upholding those rights of the victim.

439. The Commission made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:

1. Adapt the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code to balance the legal recognition of the reciprocal duties of women and men in marriage and take the legislative and other measures necessary to amend Article 317 of the Civil Code so as to bring national law into conformity with the norms of the American Convention and give full effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed to María Eugenia Morales de Sierra therein.

2. Redress and adequately compensate María Eugenia Morales de Sierra for the damages done by the violations established in this Report.

440. On March 3, 2006, the petitioners and the Guatemalan State signed an “Agreement for Specific Compliance with Recommendations” for the purpose of formalizing the obligations of the State. In that agreement, María Eugenia Morales de Sierra expressly waived the economic reparation that the IACHR recommended be paid to her in her status as victim because “her struggle consists of uplifting the dignity of women.”

441. On November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on the status of compliance with the recommendations.

442. During 2009, the State reported that, in November 2008, it had fulfilled its commitment to publish one thousand copies of the academic textbook entitled “World Vision of the Mayas and Women: Contributions from the Perspective of an Ajq’ij (La Cosmovlsión Maya y las Mujeres: Aportes desde el punto de vista de una ajq^'ij). In addition, it reported that, on April 23, 2009, a public ceremony took place to officially deliver this academic textbook and there was a public presentation of the María Eugenia Morales Aceña de Sierra Foundation for Dignity (Fundación para la Dignidad María Eugenia Morales Aceña de Sierra). Furthermore, it reported that the invitation to the specific national academic contest for women took place on April 6, 2009 as a result of the publication of Ministerial Agreement No. 240-2009 in the Official Register (Diario Oficial). It also indicated that, to disseminate the invitation to the contest, a press conference was held on June 9, 2009 and advertising materials were distributed to 334 municipalities in the country and universities.

443. As for the petitioners, this year, they have submitted information agreeing with the State regarding the aspects that were complied with. In addition, they indicated that compliance with some of the commitments made between the parties in the Agreement on Specific Compliance with Recommendations signed on March 3, 2006 is still pending. Finally, they indicated that the State of Guatemala must adopt legislative and other kinds of measures that might be necessary to amend, repeal or invalidate the internal regulatory framework that is not in keeping with the American Convention and full respect for the rights and liberties of women in Guatemala.

444. The Commission observes that, to date, Article 317 of the Civil Code has not been amended.

445. Because of this, the IACHR concludes that the Guatemalan State has partially complied with the recommendations indicated. As a result, it shall continue monitoring the items that are pending.

Case 9207, Report No. 58/01, Oscar Manuel Gramajo López (Guatemala)

446. In Report No. 58/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State had violated the rights of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López to life (Article 4), humane treatment (Article 5), personal liberty (Article 7), and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25), in conjunction with the obligation to ensure the rights protected in the Convention, established at its Article 1(1). According to the antecedents, on November 17, 1980, Oscar Manuel Gramajo López and three companions were detained by members of the National Police, who had the help of members of the Treasury Police and some members of the military. The detention took place in circumstances in which the victim and his friends were in the home of one of the latter, listening to the radio with the volume turned all the way up, having a few drinks, when a neighbor reported them to the police because of the noise they were making.

447. In Report No. 58/01 the Commission made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:

1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation of the facts reported to determine the circumstances and fate of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López, which would establish the identity of those responsible for his disappearance and punish them in accordance with due process of law.

2. Adopt measures for full reparation of the violations determined, including: steps to locate the remains of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López; the necessary arrangements to accommodate the family’s wishes in respect of his final resting place; and proper and timely reparations for the victim’s family.

448. On November 12, 2009, the Commission requested updated information to the parties on the status of implementation of the recommendations issued in this case.

449. On December 11, 2009, the State reported that, to comply with the first recommendation of the IACHR, the Attorney General’s Office of the Human Rights Section (Fiscalía de Sección de Derechos Humanos) filed a request for personal appearance for the benefit of Oscar Manuel Gramajo López before the Supreme Court of Justice, which is the authority that, after the corresponding proceedings, declared that the request was inadmissible. The State added that the District Attorney’s Office requested records from the following institutions: Superintendency of Tax Administration; General Directorate for Migration; Registry of Citizens of the Supreme Electoral Court); Traffic Department of the National Civilian Police Force; General Directorate of the Penitentiary System; and National Registry of Persons, which reported that Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López does not appear in their records. It also indicated that the Historical Archives Section of the National Civilian Police Force reported the name of the person who was the Head of the First Corps of the National Police Force in 1980. It also indicated that the Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office reported that, in the Unified Registry for the Special Cases of Forced Disappearance and Other Forms of Disappearance, the only information that appears on the victims has been provided by COPREDEH. It also indicated that the Criminal Investigation Department submitted a report on the investigation that was conducted, which indicated that it was impossible to carry out actions because nothing is known about the place of origin of the victim which would make it possible to locate friends, relatives or coworkers and/or fellow students who would be able to provide background information. Furthermore, it reported that the Minister of Education submitted a report indicating that an investigation had been conducted in the units of the Ministry but that the data that were provided were insufficient to check whether the victim had been a student or not. Furthermore, it indicated that the Minister of National of Defense was requested to present a report containing the names and work record of the persons who held the positions of Commander of the Justo Rufino Barrios General Headquarters, Commander of the Military Zone with headquarters in Huehuetenango, and Commander of the Military Zone with headquarters in Petén during 1980. Regarding this, he indicated that the Ministry of National Defense requested a court order to provide what was required and, when this order has been received, it would be processing this request.

450. The State also reported that it submitted letters to Guatemalan nongovernmental organizations, asking them if they had information about the disappearance of Mr. Oscar Manuel Gramajo López and that it was looking forward to a response to this request.

451. Regarding the second recommendation made by IACHR, the State reported that it has continued taking steps to locate the relatives of the victim for the purpose of reaching a reparations agreement. Nevertheless, it indicated that all the steps taken have been of no use. Regarding this, it repeated the request for information on the relatives of the victim to ensure compliance with the recommendations.

452. The petitioners have not submitted information to the IACHR since the year 2001.

453. The Commission appreciates the efforts made by the Guatemalan State to comply with the recommendations of Report on the Merits No. 58/01. At the same time, it observes that, in the present case, the relatives of the victim or their representatives need to provide certain information that would enable the State to make progress in complying with the recommendations. Accordingly, the IACHR will continue to monitor the item still pending compliance.

454. Because of the above, the IACHR concludes that the State has partially complied with the recommendations that were indicated.

Case 10.626 Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez; Case 10.627 Pedro Tau Cac; Case 11.198(A) José María Ixcaya Pixtay et al.; Case 10.799 Catalino Chochoy et al.; Case 10.751 Juan Galicia Hernández et al.; and Case 10.901 Antulio Delgado, Report No. 59/01 Remigio Domingo Morales et al. (Guatemala)

455. In Report No. 59/01 of April 7, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State was responsible for violating the following rights: (a) the right to life, to the detriment of Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac, José María Ixcaya Pictay, José Vicente García, Mateo Sarat Ixcoy, Celestino Julaj Vicente, Miguel Calel, Pedro Raguez, Pablo Ajiataz, Manuel Ajiataz Chivalán, Catrino Chanchavac Larios, Miguel Tiu Imul, Camilo Ajquí Gimon, and Juan Tzunux Us, as established at Article 4 of the American Convention; (b) the right to personal liberty in the case of Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac, and Camilo Ajqui Gimon, as established at Article 7 of the American Convention; (c) right to humane treatment, to the detriment of Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales, Rafael Sánchez, Pedro Tau Cac, and Camilo Ajqui Gimon, as established at Article 5 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; in addition, in the case of the attempts to extrajudicially execute Messrs. Catalino Chochoy, José Corino, Abelino Baycaj, Antulio Delgado, Juan Galicia Hernández, Andrés Abelino Galicia Gutiérrez, and Orlando Adelso Galicia Gutiérrez, the Commission concluded that the Guatemalan State was responsible for violating the right to humane treatment, as established at Article 5 of the American Convention; (d) the rights of the child in the case of children Rafael Sánchez and Andrés Abelicio Galicia Gutiérrez, as established at Article 19 of the American Convention; (e) judicial guarantees and judicial protection, to the detriment of all the victims, both those extrajudicially executed and those who suffered attempted extrajudicial execution, as established at Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. (f) In addition, the IACHR considered the Guatemalan State responsible in all cases for having breached the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention on Human Rights, as established at Article 1 thereof.

456. According to the background information, the IACHR determined that each of cases 10,626; 10,627; 11,198(A); 10,799; 10,751; and 10,901 referred to complaints in which it was indicated that the alleged material perpetrators of the various human rights violations were the Civil Self-Defense Patrols (PAC) or the Military Commissioners, and after considering the nature of the operations of the PAC and the Military Commissioners, the chronological framework of the various complaints, and the modus operandi used in each of the facts alleged, the Commission decided, in keeping with Article 40 of its Regulations in force at the time, to join the cases and refer to them in a single report.

457. In Report No. 59/01, the Commission made the following recommendations to the States:

1. That it conduct a thorough, impartial and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and attempted extrajudicial executions of each victim and the attendant violations, and punish those responsible.

2. That it takes the necessary measures so that the next-of-kin of the victims of the extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.

3. That it takes the necessary measures so that the victims of the attempted extrajudicial executions might receive adequate and prompt compensation for the violations herein established.

4. That it effectively prevents a resurgence and reorganization of the Self-defense Civil Patrols.

5. That in Guatemala the principles established in the United Nations “Declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups and institutions to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms” be promoted and that the necessary measures be taken to ensure that the right of those who work to secure respect for fundamental rights is respected and that their life and personal integrity are protected.

458. On November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on compliance with the recommendations contained in Report No. 59/01. Below, reference shall be made to compliance with the recommendations for each one of the cases joined in Report No. 59/01 in conformity with the information available up to the time of the drafting of the present report.

Case 10.626 Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez (Guatemala)

459. The Inter-American Commission, by resolution 1/06 of April 24, 2006, resolved to rectify Report No. 59/01, published and approved on April 7, 2001, so as to declare that on June 28, 1990, Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez were detained by members of the Civil Self-Defense Patrols, and that same day were taken to the Hospital at Huehuetenango to receive care for multiple blunt cutting wounds; both were discharged from the hospital on July 3, 1990. That resolution found that the State violated the right to humane treatment to the detriment of Messrs. Remigio Domingo Morales and Rafael Sánchez.

Case 10.627 Pedro Tiu Cac (Guatemala)

460. According to the background information in Case 10.627, on July 2, 1990, in the village of Chiop, Santa María Chiquimula, Totonicapán, Pedro Tiu Cac, a Mayan indigenous man, member of the “Runujel Junam” Council of Ethnic Communities, was attacked while engaged in agricultural work by men in civilian dress, presumably members of the PAC, who detained him and took him to an unknown location. A few days later his corpse was found in a clearing, with signs of torture.

461. On February 18, 2005, the petitioners and the Guatemalan State signed an “Agreement on Compliance with Recommendations” for the purpose of formalizing the State’s obligations with respect to compliance with the IACHR’s recommendations set out in Report on the Merits No. 59/01. In that agreement, the State recognized its institutional responsibility for the violation of the rights to life, personal liberty, humane treatment, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, and for breaching its obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention, to the detriment of Pedro Tiu Cac. In addition, the State recognized that the years from 1990 to 1992 were marked by systematic violations of the right to life in the form of forced executions and attacks on physical integrity perpetrated by state agents.

462. As regards reparations, the State recognized that the acceptance of international responsibility for the violations of the victim’s human rights implied the responsibility to pay fair compensation to the petitioners, following the parameters established by domestic and international law. Moreover, the State undertook to make public its recognition of institutional responsibility for the violations of human rights to the detriment of Pedro Tiu Cac, and to publicly apologize to his next-of-kin in a public ceremony. The State also undertook to adopt measures to honor the victim’s memory. On December 9, 2005, the parties signed an agreement on economic compensation.

463. On the measures to make reparation and restore dignity, in 2005 the State made payment of the compensation agreed upon to the victim’s next-of-kin, and on December 21, 2006, the State reported that, at the request of the victim’s next-of-kin, the apologies were made to the family members in private. On July 29, 2007, a ceremony was held placing and unveiling a plaque commemorating Mr. Pedro Tiu Cac at the parish church of the Municipality of Santa María de Chiquimula, department of Totonicapán.

464. Regarding the first recommendation about conducting a complete, impartial and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial execution of the victim and to punish those responsible, the State pointed out on May 4, 2009 that, at a meeting held on March 3, 2009, the prosecutors of the District Attorney’s Office were informed about the request of the petitioners to coordinate a timetable for the presentation of the next-of-kin of the victims with prosecutors in charge of the investigation, as well as for the taking of statements or the extension of the latter.

465. The State specified that payment to one of the victim’s next-of-kin is still pending, since inheritance proceedings had started because of his death. It indicated that, regarding this, a meeting had been coordinated with the petitioners, the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation and the attorney in charge of the above-mentioned proceedings.

Case 11.198(A) José María Ixcaya Pixtay et al. (Guatemala)

466. In Case 11,198(A) a total of 12 extrajudicial executions were alleged, said to have occurred in 1990 and 1991 in different parts of Guatemala, and in every case members of the PAC or Military Commission were accused of being the direct perpetrators. On February 18, 2005, the petitioners and the Guatemalan State signed an “Agreement on Compliance with Recommendations” for the purpose of formalizing the obligations of the State with respect to carrying out the recommendations of the IACHR set forth in Report on the Merits No. 59/01. In that agreement, the State recognized its institutional responsibility for violations of the right to life, the right to personal liberty, the right to humane treatment, and judicial guarantee and judicial protection, and for not having carried out the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention, to the detriment of José María Ixcaya Pixtay, José Vicente García, Mateo Sarat Ixcoy, Celestino Julaj Vicente, Miguel Tzoy Calel, Pedro Raguez, Pablo Ajiataz, Manuel Ajiataz Chivalan, Catrino Chanchavac Larios, Miguel Tiu Imul, Camilo Ajquí Gimon, and Juan Tzunux Us. In addition, the State recognized that the years 1990 to 1992 were marked by systematic violations of the right to life in the form of forced executions and attacks on physical integrity perpetrated by state agents.

467. Based on the information provided by the parties, it appears that the State has made economic reparation to the victims’ next-of-kin, yet reparation has not yet been made to the following family members of the victims: Camila Ixcoy Julat, Catarina Ixcoy Ixchop, and José Sarat Tzum. In relation to the measures to restore dignity, a commemorative plaque with respect to Miguel Tiu Imul has yet to be delivered.

468. Regarding the recommendation to conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial execution of the victim and punish those responsible, the State indicated on May 4, 2009 that, a meeting was held on March 3, 2009 with the staff of the District Attorney’s Office to address case 11.198, among others. It indicated that, at this meeting, the prosecutors of the District Attorney’s Office were informed about the request of the petitioners to coordinate a timetable for the presentation of the next-of-kin of the victims with the prosecutors in charge of the investigation, as well as the taking of statements or the extension of these statements.

469. In the same communication, the State indicated that, on April 21, 2009, a memorial plaque was installed in a plot of land belonging to the next-of-kin, located in the village of La Montaña, Parraxtut, El Quiché, with the unveiling of the plaque scheduled to take place later. As for financial compensation, the State specified that payment to three relatives was still pending, since inheritance proceedings had been filed as a result of the decease of the respective victims. He indicated that a meeting had been coordinated with the petitioners, the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Nation and the attorney in charge of the above-mentioned proceedings.

470. Regarding the measures to restore the dignity of Juan Tzun Us and Camilo Ajqui Gimón, the State indicated that the petitioners had not submitted a dignity restoration proposal. As for contacting the next-of-kin of the victims, it pointed out that, without detriment to the eventual identification of the groups of relatives, on the basis of the data provided by the representatives, as yet there is no specific budget allocation for the payment of financial reparation.

Case 10.799 Catalino Chochoy et al. (Guatemala)

471. It appears in Report 59/01 that on January 31, 1991, in the municipality of Santo Domingo Xenacoj, department of Sacatepéquez, a military commissioner and armed men in civilian dress who were driving in vehicles with tinted glass grievously wounded, with firearms, agricultural workers Messrs. Catalino Chochoy, José Corino Teshen, and Abelino Baycaj when they attempted to forcibly recruit them for military service. Once wounded, they were immediately taken to the hospital in Antigua, Guatemala, by family and friends. According to the complaint, these facts were made know to the respective court and the local press.

472. At the request of the Commission, on December 27, 2006, the State reported that it had not been possible to contact the petitioners to reach an agreement on reparation, and thereby carry out the recommendations in Report No. 59/01.

473. In 2008 and 2009, the IACHR did not receive any information from the parties. The IACHR hopes that the State shall continue making the efforts needed to locate the next-of-kin of the victims for the purpose of providing them adequate reparation. It also expects the State to report about the progress made in investigating the facts that led to the complaint.

Case 10.751 Juan Galicia Hernández et al. (Guatemala)

474. The facts alleged indicate that on November 25, 1990, in the hamlet of El Chiltepe, village of Buenos Aires, department of Jutiapa, Mr. Juan Galicia Hernández, along with his sons Andrés Abelino Galicia Gutiérrez (22 years) and Orlando Galicia Gutiérrez (15 years) were attacked with firearms while engaged in agricultural work by a group of men in civilian dress who belonged to the PAC, and suffered critical injuries. This group of men subsequently searched the home of the Galicia Gutiérrez family. The wounded were taken in due course to the regional hospital at Cuilapa, Santa Rosa, by family members and friends. The facts were reported to the corresponding authorities and the press.

475. The State has not provided updated information regarding compliance with the recommendation to investigate.

476. Regarding reparation, the State repeated that it has not been possible to contact the petitioners for the purpose of reaching a reparation agreement to comply with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 59/01.

Case 10.901 Antulio Delgado (Guatemala)

477. The facts alleged indicate that on May 29, 1991, in San Rafael Pie de la Cuesta, San Marcos, Mr. Antulio Delgado was at home and was attacked by firearms by military commissioners, as a result of which he was seriously injured. He was immediately taken by family members to the Hospital at San Marcos. The day before the facts the victim had been released by judicial resolution after the same military commissioner who tried to execute him had detained and imprisoned him. The facts were reported to the corresponding authorities and the press.

478. The State has not provided updated information on the recommendation to investigate.

479. Regarding reparation, the State repeated that it has not been possible to contact the petitioners to reach a reparation agreement and comply with the recommendations to provide reparation as set forth in Report No. 59/01.

480. Because of the above, the IACHR concludes that the State has partially complied with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 59/01, which includes cases 10.626; 10.627; 11.198(A); 10.799; 10.751; and 10.901. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Case 9111, Report No. 60/01, Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo et al.
(Guatemala)

481. In Report on the Merits No. 60/01 of April 4, 2001, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State had violated the rights of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández to life (Article 4), humane treatment (Article 5), personal liberty (Article 7), judicial guarantees (Article 8), and judicial protection (Article 25), all in conjunction with the obligation to ensure the rights protected in the Convention, as established in Article 1(1) of the same Convention. These violations occurred as a result of the detention and subsequent forced disappearance of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández at the hands of agents of the Guatemalan State on September 25, 1982, in the case of Ms. Solares Castillo; and on November 21, 1982, in the case of Ms. López Rodríguez and Ms. Hernández.

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

1. Conduct an impartial and effective investigation into the facts of this complaint to determine the whereabouts and condition of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, to identify the persons responsible for their disappearance, and to punish them in accordance with the rules of due legal process.

2. Take steps to make full amends for the proven violations, including measures to locate the remains of Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo, María Ana López Rodríguez, and Luz Leticia Hernández, the arrangements necessary to fulfill their families’ wishes regarding the final resting place of their remains, and adequate and timely compensation for the victims’ relatives.

483. On November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report No. 60/01.

484. On December 7, 2009, the State reported that, on December 19, 2007, it had signed a Compliance Agreement to carry out the recommendations made in the present case with the representative of the Solares Castillo family and that the two other families did not accept the proposal for financial compensation submitted by the State. The State reported that the items of the agreement signed with Ms. María Olimpia Castillo widow of Solares, included a ceremony paying tribute to Ileana del Rosario, scheduled for December 12, 2008, as well as various measures to honor the memory of the victim, among which there is the installation of memorial plaque in her honor and the printing of 5,000 copies of an executive summary of the case. The agreement also includes the State’s commitment to undertake the relevant steps to include the issues of the armed conflict and peace-making process in the contents of social studies as a subject taught in primary and basic education. The Agreement also included financial compensation.

485. Regarding these commitments, the State reported that it had fulfilled its obligation to hold a ceremony unveiling the memorial plaque, which took place on December 12, 2008 in the Town Park of Casillas, Santa Rosa, which was presided over by a several state authorities, among whom Mr. Mynor Morales, Department Governor; Felipe Rojas Rodríguez, Mayor; Ruth del Valle Cóbar, President of COPREDEH; Lorena Pereira, Executive Director of COPREDEH; and Julieta Solares Solares, representative of the Solares Castillo family.

486. It also indicated that, during the above-mentioned ceremony for unveiling the plaque, the President of COPREDEH extended apologies to the family for the violations against Ileana Solares and delivered a letter of public apologies signed by the President of the Republic of Guatemala, Mr. Álvaro Colom Caballeros, and an enlarged portrait of the victim to be located in city hall.

487. Furthermore, the State indicated that the Solares family indicated their wish that the biography and executive summary of the case be distributed and reproduced electronically, for which purpose 50 to 100 copies were requested. The State accepted the request and, on September 22, 2009, it delivered 100 copies to the family’s representative. It also indicated that steps had been taken with the Ministry of Education to include the issues requested in the program of studies, which were included, thus complying with what had been agreed on.

488. As for financial reparation, it was reported that this had been complied with partially and that it is expected that full compliance will take place by December 2009. The State added that the amount referred to for financial compensation included payment pertaining to the percentage involved for the three academic scholarships, which is a commitment that was agreed to be effectively fulfilled with two payments. Finally, regarding the establishment of the Foundation, it reported that compliance with the commitment is still pending until the Solares family submits the required documents.

489. Regarding the next-of-kin of Ana María López and Luz Leticia Hernández, the State specified that, alongside the proceedings for granting the mandate to COPREDEH for signing the Agreements to Comply with the Recommendations of the cases of María Ana López Rodríguez and Luz Leticia Hernández, working meetings have been held with the representatives of these families and the Mutual Support Group (Grupo de Apoyo Mutuo—GAM).

490. As a result of the above, the Commission concludes that the above-mentioned recommendations have been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor items that are pending. Furthermore, on this occasion, the IACHR once again calls upon the Guatemalan State to make progress in investigating the present case, as well as to fully implement the reparation measures for all victims.

Case 11.382, Report No. 57/02, Workers at the Hacienda San Juan, Finca “La Exacta” (Guatemala)

491. In Report No. 57/02, of October 21, 2002, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State had failed to carry out the obligations imposed on it by Article 1(1) of the Convention, and had violated, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, the right to life, enshrined at Article 4 of the Convention, as regards Efraín Recinos Gómez, Basilio Guzmán Juárez, and Diego Orozco; the right to humane treatment, enshrined in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Diego Orozco, the whole group of workers/occupants and their families, who suffered the attack of August 24, 1994, and especially the 11 persons who suffered grievous injuries: Pedro Carreto Loayes, Efraín Guzmán Lucero, Ignacio Carreto Loayes, Daniel Pérez Guzmán, Marcelino López, José Juárez Quinil, Hugo René Jiménez López, Luciano Lorenzo Pérez, Felix Orozco Huinil, Pedro García Guzmán, and Genaro López Rodas; the right of freedom of association, enshrined in Article 16 of the Convention, in relation to the workers at the La Exacta farm who organized a labor organization to put forth their labor demands to the landowners and administrators of the La Exacta farm, and to the Guatemalan courts, and who they suffered reprisals for this reason; the right of the child to special protection stipulated in Article 19 of the Convention, as regards the minors who were present during the August 24, 1994 incursion; the right to due process and judicial protection, protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to the organized workers who sought access to judicial remedies in relation to their labor demands, and in relation to the victims of the events of August 24, 1994, and their family members who sought justice in relation to those events. In addition, it concluded that the Guatemalan State had violated Articles 1, 2, and 6 of the Convention on Torture in relation to the torture suffered by Diego Orozco.

492. The Commission made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:

1. That it begins a prompt, impartial and effective investigation of the events that took place on August 24, 1994 to be able to detail, in an official report, the circumstances of and responsibility for the use of excessive force on that date.

2. That it takes the necessary steps to subject the persons responsible for the acts of August 24, 1994 to the appropriate judicial proceedings, which should be based on a full and effective investigation of the case.

3. That it makes reparations for the consequences of the violations of the rights listed, including the payment of fair compensation to the victims or their families.

4. That it takes the necessary measures to ensure that violations of the type that took place in this case do not recur in future.

493. By means of a communication dated 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.

494. As for the State, it reported that, through COPREDEH, it has set up the Labor Justice Working Forum (Mesa de Trabajo Justicia Laboral) which shall be tackling the issues involving justice that are currently affecting all the farm laborers and rural areas in the country. It specified that this Labor Justice Forum was set up at the request of the representatives of the Inter-Diocese Land Pastorship (Pastoral de la Tierra Interdiocesana), who are representing various farm worker groups. Nevertheless, the first general meeting was held on February 18, 2009, which was attended by various State institutions and representatives of the Inter-Diocese Land Pastorship, as well as one of the cases of the farm workers of Guatemala.

495. In addition, the State indicated that the Labor Forum is scheduled to meet once a month at which time concrete proposals and requests shall be made for State representatives regarding drafting public policies that provide solutions to farm problems, proposals for amending labor laws and other related solutions to be submitted to the President of the Republic for his consideration and then to be submitted as a draft bill of law to the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala. It stated that this Forum intends “to be a forum for dialogue between workers and the State to improve general labor conditions.”

496. As for the granting of housing, the State indicated that, on December 15, 2008, it signed a cooperation agreement for building housing and that, at present, it is waiting for the documentation to be provided by the petitioners to continue with the building of 96 housing units for the beneficiary families in the present case.

497. Furthermore, it indicated that, on February 24, 2009, a meeting was held with the representatives of the National Fund for Peace (Fondo Nacional para la Paz—FONAPAZ) for the purpose of establishing the procedures that are needed to ensure compliance with the request for reparation and the building of schools, which was proposed in the draft compliance agreement sent by the representatives of the petitioners.

498. In short, the State indicated that it has not ceased in its efforts to ensure compliance with the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission and that, at present, it is continuing all possible efforts to ensure that a specific compliance agreement is signed, while conducting all the corresponding consultations with State institutions to determine the viability of meeting the requests made by the petitioners.

499. In its communication of December 7, 2009, the petitioners indicated that, to date, no progress had been made in investigating the incidents that took place on August 24, 1994. Regarding the Labor Justice Forum, they indicated that they had not participated in this forum, but that they were waiting for information from the State regarding the progress made regarding it.

500. Regarding the other reparations set forth in the agreement signed on October 24, 2003, among others, the building of a monument restoring the dignity of and rendering tribute to the victims, the granting of housing, as well as clean water services, ongoing staff and budget resources for teachers, they indicated they can be found in a draft Specific Compliance Agreement, whose signing is still pending. Nevertheless, they report that, in 2008, an agreement was signed to build the housing as pledged between COPREDEH and FOGUAVI, with the extension of the time-limits for compliance currently being discussed, because as there are 96 beneficiaries in this case difficulties have emerged with respect to determining those aspects related to requirements requested for building.

501. Finally, the petitioners repeated their observation that, to date, no measure has been taken to guarantee that the violations that took place because of the absence of suitable investigation, trial, and punishment of those criminally responsible, as well as the absence of any labor-related measures to govern labor relationships and impose penalties for incidents like those that occurred in this case, shall not occur again.

502. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the recommendations as indicated were partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Case 11.312, Report on Friendly Settlement No. 66/03, Emilio Tec Pop (Guatemala)

503. On October 10, 2003, by Report 66/03, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the case of Emilio Tec Pop. In summary, the petitioners had alleged that on January 31, 1994, Emilio Tec Pop, 16 years of age, was heading from the municipality of Estor, department of Izabal, to the departmental capital of Cobán, Alta Verapaz, and in the early morning hours was detained by unknown individuals. Thirty-two days later, on March 3, 1994, the authorities from the military garrison at Estor handed Emilio Tec Pop over to his family members. The petitioners in this case stated that he was detained against his will and physically and psychologically abused; the solders are alleged to have threatened to kill Emilio, they beat him and cut up his hands with a knife.

504. Through this agreement the State undertook to:

a. Pay compensation.

b. To provide seed capital in the form of basic grains to Emilio Tec Pop with the aim of improving his standard of living.

c. Take steps to get the investigation into these events back on course and to be able to punish those responsible.

505. By means of a communication dated November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on the status of compliance with the agreements that were signed with the State in the present case.

506. By means of a communication dated December 11, 2009, the State indicated that it has complied with the aspect referring to acknowledgment of international responsibility for the acts that were perpetrated, as provided for in section III of the Friendly Settlement Agreement and that, regarding financial reparation, the equivalent of US$2,000.00 has been delivered, as indicated in the above-mentioned agreement.

507. As for the above-mentioned communication, it pointed out that, regarding the still pending matter of the investigation of the facts, it has requested the District Attorney’s Office to provide updated information on the allegedly illegal arrest of the victim Emilio Tec Pop, which states that it shall be transmitted in due time to the IACHR. It also added that it should be stressed that it has information that Mr. Emilio Tec Pop filed a complaint on November 13, 2006 about a legal situation other than the settlement agreement that has been signed.

508. With respect to the commitment of providing seed capital and basic grains to improve the quality of life of Mr. Manuel Emilio Tec Pop, the State reported that, on November 21, 2005, steps were taken to organize with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación—MAGA) a visit with Mr. Emilio Tec Pop, for the purpose of providing him with the basic grains that were deemed necessary. Nevertheless, it was indicated that the legal representatives reported that they were not sure where the place of residence of Mr. Tec Pop was located. Regarding this, it reported that COPREDEH undertook actions for its location, with the support of the municipalities of the Department of Petén and the radio broadcasting stations of the locality, but without any positive results.

509. It added that, to date, there is no knowledge about the location of Emilio Tec Pop, as he has not shown up or contacted the staff of COPREDEH; and that the representatives in this case have not informed the State or the Commission about the whereabouts of Mr. Tec Pop to coordinate fulfillment of the above-mentioned commitment. In this regard, the State alleges that, in the present case, approximately more than four years have elapsed without the legal representative or the State being able to contact Mr. Emilio Tec Pop, and because of this, in conformity with the provisions of Article 48, paragraph b) of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30, paragraph 6) of the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as because of the absence, lack of interest and communication on the part of Emilio Tec Pop with his legal representatives and State institutions, it requested the Commission to file case No. 11.312 Emilio Tec Pop.

510. As for the petitioners, in a communication dated December 7, 2009, they indicated they had no information about any progress in the investigation of the case. They pointed out that the latest information submitted by the State indicates that the case is currently being investigated by the First Chamber of the Criminal Court of Izabal under proceedings No. 325-94. They added that, in the state’s report, reference is made to a report submitted by Mr. Emilio Tec Pop on November 13, 2006 to the Justice of the Peace Court of the municipality of San Juan Chamelco in Alta Verapaz, but that these incidents had nothing to do with the acts perpetrated against him.

511. They pointed out that another aspect that continues to be unfulfilled is the one referring to the granting of seed capital and basic grains improve his quality of living. Regarding this, they indicated that it is important for the Guatemalan State to once again attempt to locate Mr. Manuel Emilio Tec Pop, because to date his whereabouts are unknown and that, in addition, for this purpose it is essential to learn about the steps taken by the State to locate him to determine whether all possible measures to locate him have truly been exhausted. They proposed that these steps to locate him should also take place in Alta Verapaz in view of the information transferred by the State in June 2009 on a complaint filed by Mr. Tec Pop with the Justice of the Peace Court of San Juan Chamelco.

512. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Case 11.766, Report No. 67/03, Irma Flaquer (Guatemala)

513. On October 10, 2003, by report No. 67/03, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the case of Irma Flaquer. By way of background, on October 16, 1980, journalist Irma Flaquer Azurdia was kidnapped while driving in a vehicle accompanied by her son Fernando Valle Flaquer in Guatemala City. In the incident Fernando Valle Flaquer was injured; he subsequently died at the Hospital General San Juan de Dios. As of that same date, the whereabouts of Irma Flaquer have not been known. The petitioners also argue that during the investigation of the case by the Guatemalan authorities, it was noted that while the government of that period formally lamented Flaquer’s presumed death, there were few official efforts to investigate the incident. In addition, the minimal efforts made in the official investigation were excused by an amnesty law that in 1985 granted a general pardon, diluting both the responsibility and the participation of some sector of the state apparatus.

514. By means of the friendly settlement agreement, the State recognized its institutional responsibility for the facts of the case and recognized the need “to continue with and vigorously reinforce administrative and legal measures aimed at identifying those responsible, determining the whereabouts of the victim and applying the appropriate criminal and civil punishment.” In addition, at the third item in that agreement, the State undertook to study the petitions put forth by the petitioners as reparations, which consisted of the following points:

(a) Establishment of a committee to expedite the judicial proceeding composed of two representatives each from COPREDEH and IPS;

(b) Establishment of a scholarship for the study of journalism;

(c) Erection of a monument to journalists who sacrifice their lives for the right to freedom of expression, symbolized in the person of Irma Marina Flaquer Azurdia;

(d) Designation of a wing of a public library as a repository for all material related to the works of the journalist in question;

(e) Naming of a public street after her;

(f) Establishment of a university chair in journalism history;

(g) Writing of letters to the relatives asking for forgiveness;

(h) Organization of a course for the training and social rehabilitation of inmates in the Women's Correctional Centre (COF);

(i) Compilation and publication of a book containing a selection of the best columns, writings and Articles of the disappeared journalist;

(j) Production of a documentary;

(k) Holding of a public ceremony to honor her memory.

515. In conformity with the friendly solution agreement, the parties agreed to “establish an Impetus Commission” and set March 19, 2001 as the date for starting activities, after a public ceremony to be held in the city of Fortaleza, Brazil, in the framework of the half-yearly meeting of the Inter-American Press Association (Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa—SIP). As of that date and in the subsequent 30 days, the State and the petitioners agreed that the Commission must begin the task and process of investigating the case of Irma Marina Flaquer Azurdia, as well as set up a timetable and calendar of activities for restoring the dignity of the missing journalist, previously setting the date, that is, September 5, 2001, which is the birth date of the missing journalist, to hold a public ceremony with the parties involved in Guatemala City.

516. In the Friendly Settlement Report, the Commission indicated that it had been informed about the satisfaction of the petitioners regarding the SIP for compliance with the large majority of the items of the agreement. Nevertheless, compliance with the following was still pending: a) creation of a scholarship for journalism studies; b) establishment of a university chair on the history of journalism, and c) presentation of a letter extending apologies to next-of-kin. The State’s obligation to investigate the forced disappearance of the journalist Irma Flaquer Azurdia and the extrajudicial execution of Fernando Valle Flaquer is still pending.

517. By means of a communication dated November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on compliance with the items of the agreement that are still pending in the present case.

518. On March 23, 2009, the State of Guatemala reported that it had complied with the commitment regarding the delivery of a Letter of Apology to the next-of-kin of Irma Flaquer and that it is taking steps to meet the requirement of providing a scholarship to study journalism, as well as to investigate, bring to trial, and punish those responsible.

519. Concretely, the State reported that, on January 15, 2009, at the National Palace of Culture, the State of Guatemala, through Mr. Orlando Blanco, Secretary for Peace, and Ms. Ruth del Valle Cóbar, Chair of the Presidential Commission to Coordinate the Human Rights Policy of the Executive Branch of Government (Comisión Presidencial Coordinadora de la Política del Ejecutivo en Materia de Derechos Humanos—COPREDEH), appointed by the Constitutional President of the Republic of Guatemala, held the ceremony to deliver the Letter of Apologies to the next-of-kin of Irma Flaquer. During the ceremony of the letter of apologies, the updated documentary on Irma Flaquer was projected as part the effort to restore the dignity of and render tribute to the journalist.

520. In addition, the State submitted information about the latest steps taken in the investigation conducted by the District Attorney’s office and specified that it is in the process of drafting a proposal to create the Irma Flaquer scholarship, for which a consensus must be reached with the School of Communication Sciences of the University of San Carlos de Guatemala and then submit it to the International Cooperation Unit of the University of San Carlos de Guatemala. In this regard, it indicated that it shall report on the progress made for fulfilling the commitment. It also pointed out that, in the course on History of Journalism of the Communication Science School of the University San Carlos de Guatemala, a specific section was included on Irma Flaquer.

521. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue monitoring the items that are pending.

Case 11.197, Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement No. 68/03, Community of San Vicente de los Cimientos (Guatemala)

522. On October 10, 2003, by Report No. 68/03, the Commission approved a friendly settlement report in the case of the “Community of San Vicente de los Cimientos.” In summary, on August 24, 1993, the Centro para la Acción Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH) and the Consejo de Comunidades Étnicas Runujel Junam (CERJ), in representation of 233 indigenous families, filed a complaint with the IACHR in which they alleged that during the armed conflict the sector called Los Cimientos, located in Chajul, department of Quiché, where 672 indigenous families lived who were the owners in the sector, was invaded in 1981 by the Guatemalan Army, which established a garrison in the area. After threats of bombardment of the community and the assassination of two community members, the community of Los Cimientos was forced to abandon its lands in February 1982, leaving behind harvests of corn, beans, and coffee, and animals. One month after they fled, some families returned to the place, and found their homes had been burned and their belongings stolen. Subsequently, the community of Los Cimientos was expelled once again in 1994. On June 25, 2001, the community was violently evicted from their lands, of which they were the legal owners, by neighbors and other persons, apparently supported by the Government.

523. In this agreement the State committed to:

1. Purchase, on behalf of all the members of the Los Cimientos Quiché community comprising the civic association “Community Association of Residents of Los Cimientos Xetzununchaj,” the San Vicente Osuna estate, and its annex, the Las Delicias estate, which are adjacent to each other and are located in the municipality of Siquinalá, Escuintla department.

2. he community of Los Cimientos, through the Community Association of Residents of Los Cimientos Xetzununchaj civic association, and the Government, shall identify and negotiate, within sixty days following the settlement of the community, urgent projects to reactivate its productive, economic, and social capacities, with a view to fostering the community’s development and wellbeing, and in consideration of the agrological study carried out and the record of the landmarks and limits of the San Vicente Osuna estate and its annex, the Las Delicias estate.

3. The individual land owners, land holders, and assigns of the estates comprising the Los Cimientos community, as a part of the commitments arising from the government’s purchase on their behalf of the estates known as San Vicente Osuna and its annex, the Las Delicias estate, shall cede their current rights of ownership, holding, and inheritance to the Land Fund, in compliance with the provisions of Article 8(h) of the Land Fund Law, Decree No. 24-99.

4. The State shall be responsible for relocating the 233 families of the community of Los Cimientos, Quiché, together with their property, from the village of Batzulá Churrancho, Santa María Cunén municipality, Quiché department, to the San Vicente Osuna estate and its annex, the Las Delicias estate, located in Siquinalá municipality, Escuintla department.

5. The government shall provide the resources necessary to feed the 233 families during their transfer to and settlement in their new homes, and it shall accompany them with a duly equipped mobile unit for the duration of the transfer and until such time as a formal health facility is established in their settlement, in order to cater for any emergency that may arise.

6. For the community’s location and resettlement, the government of the Republic will provide humanitarian assistance, minimal housing, and basic services.

7. The government of Guatemala agrees to organize the creation of a promotion committee that will be responsible for monitoring progress with the legal proceedings initiated against the individuals involved in the events of June 25, 2001, perpetrated against the owners of the Los Cimientos and Xetzununchaj estates.

524. By means of a communication dated December 17, 2009, with respect to the commitment to grant housing, the State indicated that, in the course of 2009, the petitioners have brought together the requirements requested by FOGUAVI for building housing. Likewise, it specified that, by virtue of the cooperation agreement between COPREDEH and the Guatemalan Fund for Housing signed for one year, working meetings have been held with the new officers of FOGUAVI to inform them about the State’s commitment to grant housing to the victims of the present case and to request them to extend the deadline for providing housing and that a positive response has been received from FOGUAVI. It indicated that the representatives of the case must now send their personal information (identity card numbers) so that FOGUAVI can carry out the corresponding socioeconomic studies.

525. Regarding the transfer of rights, the State reported that COPREDEH is in the process of setting up the files pertaining to each person and that all that is missing is the incorporation of the certification of some fiscal registration records, which have been requested from the Department of Real Estate Survey and Appraisal. It was specified that, once the files are complete, they shall be remitted to the Agrarian Affairs Secretariat, so as to draw up the unilateral donation title deed by the petitioners for the benefit of the State of Guatemala.

526. Regarding the investigation, they indicated that the District Attorney’s Office was requested to provide information on the progress of the investigation of the facts in the present case, which shall be remitted once it is available.

527. Finally, the State indicated that conversations continue between the legal representative of the petitioners and COPREDEH to sign the specific compliance agreement, where setting the deadline for compliance with outstanding commitments is still pending.

528. By means of a communication dated December 2, 2009, the petitioners indicated that, in 2007, an inter-agency forum was set up with representatives from various State institutions to work on integral compliance with the signed agreement. They also indicated that, prior to the establishment of this forum, representatives from these institutions went with CALDH and COPREDEH to visit the community for the purpose of learning about the situation of its inhabitants. They indicated that, as a result of this visit, it was possible to concretely identify those compliance aspects that are still pending, establishing within this same process the need to create a “Specific Agreement” that would delimit more clearly the agreements that were signed, since what was initially agreed upon was very general. Regarding this, the petitioners specified that, to date, the signing of this Specific Agreement is still pending and it is hoped that progress shall be made the first quarter of 2010, not only in terms of the signing of this specific agreement but also regarding compliance with pending aspects, especially with regard to continuation.

529. First of all, regarding the item on production projects, where it is established that they should be negotiated urgently, within 60 days after settlement of the community, they indicated that to date this commitment has not been fulfilled. They pointed out that this is one of the most important aspects, because the land’s production capacity is not being taken advantage of, which would also benefit to some extent the food and economic situation of the beneficiaries.

530. Regarding the processes for the transfer of land ownership, possession and inheritance rights in Quiché, they indicated that the community dwellers of San Vicente Los Cimientos are completely ready to fulfill the above-mentioned commitment, but the process has been slow, which has made it impossible for them to make any progress and to gain access to the projects offered by international organizations.

531. Regarding the investigation of the incidents and those responsible, they indicated that to date no progress has been made in this process. They specified that, although two meetings were held with the District Attorney’s Office in 2007, to date neither the representatives or the community have been informed about the steps that have been taken to comply with this aspect.

532. In addition, they indicated that the State reported in June 2009 that the file on the facts has been identified as MP/2001/52118 and that it is now in the First Chamber of the Court for Crime, Drug Activities and Environmental Offenses of El Quiché. They specified that, in the same report, there is a court order for the arrest of one of those charged, but to date it is not known whether it has been implemented or not.

533. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue monitoring the items that are pending.

Petition 9168, Report No. 29/04, Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz (Guatemala)

534. On March 11, 2004, by Report 29/04, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the petition of “Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz.” In this matter, on August 12, 1983, Mr. Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz was detained while driving between Teculutan and Guatemala City; his whereabouts are unknown to this day. On August 18, 1983, the IACHR received a petition submitted by Ms. Blanca Vargas de Rosal, alleging that the Guatemalan State was responsible for the forced disappearance of her husband.

535. In the agreement, the State recognized its institutional responsibility for breaching its obligation, under Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention, in addition to Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, and 25. In addition, it stated that the main basis for reaching a friendly settlement was the search for the truth and the administration of justice, restoring dignity to the victim, reparations resulting from the violation of the victim’s human rights, and strengthening the regional human rights system.

536. On February 15, 2006, Ms. Blanca Vargas de Rosal reported that the only commitment carried out by the State was economic reparation; the commitments regarding education, actions to restore the victim’s name, housing, investigation, and justice were still pending.

537. By means of a communication dated November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on the status of compliance with the items of the agreement that were still pending in the present case.

538. By means of a communication dated December 10, 2009, the State reported on the granting of scholarships, which it was ready to comply with since the signing of the Friendly Settlement Agreement but that the corresponding procedures never started because the beneficiaries of the scholarships had not provided the information required for this purpose within the time-limits that were set. Despite this, it referred to the fact that, on November 6, 2009, a Commitment Document between the Parties was signed at IACHR headquarters at a working meeting of the 137th Regular Session of the IACHR, for the purpose of agreeing upon the way to fulfill the commitment involving the scholarship so that María Luisa Rosal Vargas could study. The State pledged to grant a scholarship to María Luisa Rosal Vargas "...for the master’s degree program in agricultural economics or in political science at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, including relevant courses to learn the French language.” It specified that, since Jorge Alberto Rosal Vargas did not attend that meeting, the State confined itself to ratifying its commitment to providing education, indicating that, to carry out the corresponding steps, the interested party should contact COPREDEH as quickly as possible.

539. With respect to granting a plot of land to Ms. Blanca Elvira Vargas Cordón de Rosal, the State indicated that it took the respective steps to grant Ms. Vargas the land indicated in the agreement, checking that it was registered in the Ministries of Labor and Social Security, Public Finance and Education since October 13, 2003. Because of this, it specified that the farm that was indicated was already awarded to the above-mentioned entities two months before the signing of the Friendly Settlement Agreement, which prevented it from being granted. Furthermore, it indicated that the Ministry of Public Finance reported on February 8, 2005 that the donation of State assets is not authorized by law, that usufruct is only for the benefit of decentralized State entities and legal entities that carry out social welfare projects and that it is not possible to grant usufruct to individual persons to meet their specific interests or needs.

540. Nevertheless, in follow-up to this commitment, it indicated that the Cadastre Information Registry submitted a Report on the Results of the Commercial Appraisal of the plot described above owned by the State, and in this appraisal it was indicated that area equivalent to 2 hectares is a rural farm close to the city which was appraised at an average value of Q 6.00 per square meter. The State indicated that this appraisal was requested for the purpose of giving Ms. Rosal Vargas the equivalent amount of the price of the farm, but that this offer was rejected because of the amount offered.

541. In this regard, the State indicated that, at the working meeting held on November 4, 2009, it was agreed to look for other possible state-owned plots of land in another municipality of Guatemala or conduct a commercial appraisal that would make it possible to establish another financial value, which proposal was accepted by the petitioner. The State concluded that it felt that this commitment was not possible to fulfill from the start, because the State has special programs to grant housing and/or plots of land for crops to low-income persons such as the Unit for the Development of People’s Housing, the Guatemalan Fund for Housing, and the National Land Fund, but none of these programs has the capacity to endow one single person with an area equivalent to two hectares, as a result of which they shall continue looking for and proposing options for the family.

542. As for the investigation of the facts, the State of Guatemala expressed its commitment to reactivate the investigation of the facts by the District Attorney’s Office. Immediately thereafter, the State submitted concrete information with respect to the hypothesis of the investigation and the last proceedings being carried out in the process. Regarding them, it is worth highlighting that the District Attorney’s Office, in its last report of 2009, reported that, in the investigation of the forced disappearance of Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz y Paz, three allegedly responsible persons have been identified. It was also indicated that the Forensic Anthropology Foundation of Guatemala (Fundación de Antropología Forense de Guatemala—FAFG) took DNA samples from the next-of-kin of the victim and that the samples remained in the databank for the purpose of comparison with bone samples that can be retrieved from the disinterments made by the FAFG. In addition, it was indicated that, to obligate the Ministry of Defense to report on the creation of the Detachment of Santa Ana Berlín and the name of its commanders, a court order was requested from the unit overseeing the investigation because of its refusal to do so without this order. Finally, the State provided a detailed account of the facts as determined to date in the investigation and the steps that are expected to be taken over the medium term.

543. In conclusion, the State indicated that the steps needed to ensure fulfillment of the commitments made in the present case have been taken and that it is satisfied at being “in good standing with respect to the provision of financial compensation for the petitioners, to have complied with the designation of a public institution named "Ing. Ag. Jorge Alberto Rosal Paz y Paz", and to have reactivated the investigation on the incidents that took place.”

544. The commission appreciates the commitments made by the State in the context of the working meeting held at the 137^th Regular Session of the IACHR with respect to the state’s commitment to grant scholarships for study abroad.

545. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Petition 133-04, Report No. 99/05, José Miguel Mérida Escobar (Guatemala)

546. On October 27, 2005, by Report No. 99/05, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the petition in the matter of “José Mérida Escobar.” In summary, on February 19, 2004, the IACHR received a petition submitted by Amanda Gertrudis Escobar Ruiz, Fernando Nicolás Mérida Fernández, Amparo Antonieta Mérida Escobar, Rosmel Omar Mérida Escobar, Ever Obdulio Mérida Escobar, William Ramírez Fernández, Nadezhda Vásquez Cucho, and Helen Mack Chan alleging that the Guatemalan State was responsible for the extrajudicial execution of José Miguel Mérida Escobar on August 5, 1991. According to the petition, Mr. Mérida Escobar worked as Chief of the Homicide Section of the Department of Criminological Investigations of the National Police, and was in charge of the criminal investigation into the assassination of anthropologist Myrna Mack Chang. In the context of this criminal investigation, on September 29, 1990, he concluded that the main suspect in the assassination of Myrna Mack Chang was a member of the Security Department of the Presidential High Command of the Guatemalan Army. On August 5, 1991, Mr. Mérida Escobar was assassinated with gunshot wounds to the head, neck, left torso, and left arm; he died instantly.

547. In the friendly settlement agreement, the State recognized its international responsibility for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. Among the main commitments assumed in friendly settlement agreement No. 99/05 are:

− To take steps to ensure that the Ministerio Público conducts a serious and effective investigation.

− To make appropriate arrangements to establish a fellowship for police studies abroad.

− To look into the feasibility of drawing up a letter of recognition of the international responsibility of the State of Guatemala for the extrajudicial execution of José Miguel Mérida Escobar, which will be circulated to international organizations by way of the Official Gazette and the Internet.

− To take the relevant steps for the placement of a plaque in honor of police investigator José Miguel Mérida Escobar at the facilities of the Palace of the Civil National Police, in memory of José Miguel Mérida Escobar.

− To ensure that the appropriate authorities will take steps to determine the viability of changing the name of the Santa Luisa district in the Municipality of San José del Golfo, department of Guatemala, to the name of José Miguel Mérida Escobar.

− To take steps to ensure that the Executive Agency provides a life pension to the parents of José Miguel Mérida Escobar, Amanda Gertrudis Escobar Ruiz, and Fernando Nicolás Mérida Hernández, and a pension to his youngest son, Edilsar Omar Mérida Alvarado, until he completes his advanced technical studies.

− To take the relevant steps to ensure that the Ministry of Public Health provide for psychological treatment for Mrs. Rosa Amalia López, the widow of the victim, and for the youngest of his sons, Edilsar Omar Mérida Alvarado.

− The Government of the Republic pledges to take the relevant steps to ensure that the Ministry of Education arranges for a scholarship to be granted to the youngest son of the victim, Edilsar Omar Mérida Alvarado.

548. On December 21, 2006, the State reported that on November 30, 2006, the ceremony was held in which a plaque in memory of José Mérida Escobar was unveiled at the new headquarters of the National Civilian Police that was attended, on behalf of the State, by the Director General of the National Civilian Police and the President of COPREDEH. In addition, it reported that the municipality of San José del Golfo approved, by act No. 59-2006, naming the street where the victim lived with his family after him (José Miguel Mérida Escobar). With respect to the institution of the “José Miguel Mérida Escobar” scholarship, the State indicated that its regulation is pending approval. Finally, the State indicated that the victim’s younger child, Edilsar Omar Mérida Alvarado, would be hired as of January through the “My First Job” program.

549. On December 6, 2007, the State reported that it continues following up on the commitments related to granting a lifetime pension to the victims’ parents, as well as the creation of a scholarship for police studies named after Commissioner José Miguel Mérida Escobar.

550. By means of a communication dated November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement in Report No. 99/05. The parties did not respond within the time-limits stipulated to present the information required.

551. Nevertheless, it must be indicated that, by means of a communication dated April 22, 2009, the State requested the Commission to take into account the material and legal obstacles that had been encountered regarding compliance with the commitments made in the friendly settlement agreement, which led to an involuntary delay in the process of fulfilling these commitments. Despite this, the State repeated its willingness to comply.

552. As for the scholarships, the State reported that, on April 3, 2009, it held a meeting with representatives of the Planning and Programming Secretariat of the Office of the President of the Republic (SEGEPLAN) and the Ministry of Governance, where the topic of instating the scholarship was addressed and it was first proposed to review the commitment that was made and the actions that had been taken up until then.

553. Regarding the meeting that was held, SEGEPLAN submitted a report involving a series of observations to be considered by the competent bodies prior to establishing the scholarship, which had not been considered at the time the friendly settlement agreement was signed by the parties. Among them, there is no indication of the level of studies being supported by the scholarship or the period of time for which it is to be granted or the specific fund allocation to cover the cost of the scholarship (whether it is partial or total) or identification of the area of studies for which training shall be provided, etc. In this regard, the State reported that, at present, the institutions involved referred to the need to conduct a feasibility study for the commitment as currently agreed upon or to envisage the possibility of making a new proposal for the present commitment as applicable to the concrete reality of the National Civilian Police Force and its staff.

554. Regarding the granting of a lifetime pension, the State pointed out that, on February 4, 2009, COPREDEH was notified of the legal opinion appearing in file No 2006-3329 regarding the request for a lifetime pension for the benefit of the parents of Mr. José Miguel Mérida Escobar. It indicated that, in this opinion, the General Legal Counsel Department and the Consultative Corps of the General Secretariat of the Office of the President, by virtue of its internal regulatory framework, ruled that this request should be denied.

555. As a result, the State indicated that COPREDEH submitted a request to the General Prosecutor of the Nation so that he could identify and agree on an alternative way to fulfill the commitments made in the friendly settlement agreement which have not been feasible because of material and legal obstacles. If authorized, it indicated that this proposal would be submitted to the next-of-kin of Mr. José Miguel Mérida Escobar, so they could express their agreement with the form of compliance, as well as to the Commission as the body overseeing the friendly settlement agreements that were signed until they are fully complied with.

556. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the friendly settlement agreement has been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Case 10.855, Report on Friendly Settlement Agreement No. 100/05, Pedro García Chuc (Guatemala)

557. In Report No. 5/00 of February 24, 2000, the Commission concluded that the Guatemalan State was internationally responsible for the arbitrary execution of Mr. Pedro García Chuc and the violation of his rights to life, judicial protection, and judicial guarantees, among other rights enshrined in the American Convention. In this case, on March 5, 1991, at kilometer 135 of the route to the Western region, department of Sololá, several members of the state security forces captured Mr. García Chuc in the early morning hours. Two days later, the victim’s corpse was located at the same place where he was captured, with several gunshot wounds. It is presumed that the extrajudicial execution was due to his work as president of the Cooperativa San Juan Argueta R.L., as well as his active participation in obtaining benefits for his community. The petition was presented by the victim’s next-of-kin, and was one of a total of 46 petitions received by the Commission in 1990 and 1991 in which the State was allegedly responsible for the extrajudicial execution of a total of 71 men, women, and children, including Mr. García Chuc. After processing the cases before the IACHR, the Commission decided, in keeping with Article 40 of its Regulations, to join those cases and resolve them together.

558. In that report, the IACHR recommended to the Guatemalan State that it:

1. Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and related violations in the cases of the victims named in section VII, and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Guatemalan law.

2. Adopt the measures necessary for the family members of the victims identified in paragraph 289 to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.

559. On April 13, 2000, the Guatemalan State issued a formal statement in which it recognized its international responsibility for breaching Article 1(1) of the American Convention, accepted the facts set forth in Report No. 5/00 of the Commission, and undertook to make reparation to the victims’ next-of-kin, based on the principles and criteria established in the inter-American human rights system. It also undertook to promote investigations into the facts, and, to the extent possible to prosecute the persons responsible. Finally, it undertook to report on progress in carrying out its obligations. On that same date the IACHR published Report No. 39/00.

560. On February 18, 2005, the State and the petitioners signed an “Agreement on Implementation of Recommendations. Case 10,855. Pedro José García Chuc,” and on July 19, 2005, they signed an agreement on compensation.

561. By means of a communication dated November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement appearing in Report No. 100/05.

562. By means of a communication dated December 11, 2009, the State reported that, with respect to the real estate property for the operation of the Indigenous Association for Business Development (Asociación Indígena para el Desarrollo Empresarial—ASINDE), the Department for State Assets had informed that the urban farm registered in the Second Property Registry with number 11.748, page 248 of ledger 38 of the Assets of the Nation, which is owned by the State of Guatemala, located in street 10 and avenue 22, in the canton of Democracia, zone 3, in the municipality and department of Quetzaltenango, shall be given for usufruct by the ASINDE Association, because it was determined that it meets all the requirements of the Association. It was specified that the above-mentioned Department of State Assets had also reported that the file is still in the stage of submitting the draft government agreement and explanation of reasons for signing by the Minister of Public Finance so that it can thereafter be sent to the Consultative Corps of the General Secretariat of the Office of the President of the Republic for final approval.

563. As for technical training for the families García Yax and García Chuc, the State indicated that it has requested support from the Training and Productivity Technical Institute (Instituto Técnico de Capacitación y Productividad—INTECAP), whose principal goal is to train and certify workers and persons so they can enter the labor market, as well as provide technical and technological assistance in all economic activities and contribute to the country’s competitiveness and development. It specified that, according to the information provided by the representatives and petitioners in the case, Mr. Walter Rolando García Yax shall be the person representing the García Yax family and shall establish contact with the staff of INTECAP in Quetzaltenango; and that he had reported to the State about the concrete issues regarding which the members of the ASINDE Association would be interested in being trained by INTECAP, which was reported in due time to the institution in charge.

564. In addition, by means of a communication of December 7, 2009, regarding the investigation of the facts, the petitioners indicated that it is the State’s duty to learn about the circumstances of the progress made in the file of the investigation, because since the date the file was identified until the present date, one year nine months have elapsed without any further information about progress in the investigation.

565. Regarding the granting of the real estate property, the petitioners indicated that the State has reported about the property that can be granted for the operation of the Association. Nevertheless, they pointed out that this property, according to the next-of-kin of the victim who visited the place, has no building whatsoever, so that it is necessary to urgently resolve this inconvenience so that the Association can benefit from adequate facilities for its functioning. They also indicated that the next-of-kin have sent their proposals and requirements for technical training to the State.

566. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the State has partially complied with the friendly settlement agreement. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Case 11.171, Report No. 69/06, Tomas Lares Cipriano (Guatemala)

567. In Report No. 69/06 of October 21, 2006, the IACHR concluded that the Guatemalan State was responsible for: (a) the violation of the human right to life in keeping with Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, due to the extrajudicial execution, by state agents, on April 3, 1993, of Tomas Lares Cipriano; (b) the violation of the human rights to humane treatment, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, enshrined at Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, for the events that occurred April 3, 1993, and their consequences of impunity, to the detriment of Tomas Lares Cipriano and his next-of-kin; and (c) consequently, for the breach of the obligation to respect the human rights and guarantees, imposed by Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The victim, Tomás Lares Cipriano, was a farmer, 55 years of age, a member of the Consejo de Comunidades Étnicas "Runujel Junam" (CERJ), and of the Comité de Unidad Campesina (CUC). As an active community leader in his town, Chorraxá Joyabaj, El Quiché, he had organized numerous demonstrations against the presence of the army in his zone, and against the apparently voluntary but in fact compulsory service by the campesino farmers in the so-called Civilian Self-Defense Patrols (PAC). In addition, he had filed numerous complaints in relation to the threats against the local population by the Military Commissioners who acted as civilian agents of the army, patrol chiefs, and, on occasion, as soldiers. On April 30 of that same year, Tomas Lares Cipriano was ambushed and assassinated by Santos Chich Us, Leonel Olgadez, Catarino Juárez, Diego Granillo Juárez, Santos Tzit, and Gaspar López Chiquiaj, members of the PAC.

568. The IACHR made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:

1. To carry out a complete, impartial and effective investigation of the events reported, to judge and punish all those responsible, either as abettors or perpetrators, for human rights violations with prejudice to Tomás Lares Cipriano and his family members.

2. To make reparation for the violation of the aforementioned rights as established in paragraph 128 of this report.

3. To effectively prevent the resurgence and reorganization of the Civil Self-defense Patrols.

4. To adopt the necessary measures to avoid similar events in the future, pursuant to the duty of prevention and guarantee of fundamental human rights, recognized by the American Convention.

569. On November 12, 2009, the Commission requested the parties to provide updated information on the status of compliance with the recommendations issued in its Report No. 69/06. The parties did not reply within the time-limits set to provide the requested information.

570. Despite this, it must be stressed that the State pointed out that it was impossible to comply with the second recommendation because the next-of-kin of the victim were not interested in signing a recommendation compliance agreement or to receive any financial compensation. Regarding this, the State indicated that the absence of an agreement with the next-of-kin of the victim prevents compliance with the recommendations made in this case; nevertheless, it reiterated its position to comply with these recommendations.

571. Regarding this, the Commission reiterates that the first, third and fourth recommendations of Report No. 69/06 can and must be complied with by the State, even when it cannot benefit from the participation or acquiescence of the next-of-kin of the victim. Regarding the second recommendation, the State is urged to establish a special fund to provide reparations to the next-of-kin of the victim in case they accept these reparations in the future.

572. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the recommendations have been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Case 11.658, Report No. 80/07, Martín Pelicó Coxic (Guatemala)

573. In Report No. 48/03 of October 8, 2003, the IACHR concluded that the Republic of Guatemala was responsible for: (1) violating Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Martín Pelicó Coxic, in relation to Article 1(1) of said instrument; (2) violating Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Martín Pelicó Coxic and his next-of-kin. The Commission determined that the responsibility of the Guatemalan State emanated from the extrajudicial execution perpetrated on June 27, 1995, by state agents, of Mr. Martín Pelicó Coxic, a Mayan indigenous member of an organization for the defense of the human rights of the Maya people, as well as the injuries inflicted on the victim and his next-of-kin by virtue of the facts mentioned and the subsequent impunity for the crime.

574. The Commission made the following recommendations to the Guatemalan State:

1. Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation of the reported events leading to the prosecution and punishment of the material and intellectual authors of the human rights violations committed to the detriment of Martín Pelicó Coxic and his next of kin.

2. Effectively prevent the reemergence and reorganization of the Civil Self-defense Patrols.

3. Promote in Guatemala the principles set forth in the United Nations “Declaration of the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups, and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” and take the necessary measures to ensure respect for the freedom of expression of those who have undertaken to work for the respect of fundamental rights and to protect their lives and personal integrity.

4. Adopt all necessary measures to prevent the recurrence of similar acts, in accordance with the responsibility to prevent and to guarantee the fundamental rights recognized in the American Convention.”

5. Comply with the obligations still pending in the area of reparations to the victim’s next of kin.

575. After this report, the parties of the present case, on July 19, 2005, entered into an Agreement to Comply with the Recommendations of Report No. 48/03. The IACHR has been able to appreciate with satisfaction the major progress achieved in complying with the recommendations that were made, because of which, on October 26, 2006, at its 126^th Regular Session, the Commission decided to not submit the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and rather to follow up on compliance with the recommendations by means of the mechanism enshrined in Article 51 of the American Convention.

576. For this purpose, on March 8, 2007, Report No. 12/07 (Article 51 Report), where the IACHR repeated its recommendations to the State of Guatemala and also recommended that the obligations that are pending with respect to reparations for the next-of-kin of the victim should be complied with, was adopted.

577. Finally, on October 15, 2007, the IACHR approved Report No. 80/07, which provides for the publication of the previously mentioned reports. On this occasion, once again the Commission expressed its satisfaction at fulfillment of most of the commitments made in the Agreement to Comply with the Recommendations of Report No. 48/03, but it also reiterated to the State of Guatemala recommendations two and three as set forth in Report No. 12/07 and recommended that the investigation of the facts that were reported be completed impartially and effectively investigated to bring to trial and punish the principal offenders and accessories who violated the human rights against Martín Pelicó Coxic and his next-of-kin.

578. By means of a communication dated November 12, 2009, the IACHR requested the parties to provide updated information on the status of compliance with the recommendations made for the present case.

579. The State of Guatemala reported to the Commission that, on July 18, 2007, the Court of Criminal Sentencing issued a ruling acquitting Pedro Acabal Chaperón, who had been charged with the homicide of Mr. Martín Pelicó Coxic. By means of a communication received on July 13, 2009, the State stressed, regarding the investigation, trial and punishment of those responsible, that the corresponding investigation had been conducted and that a trial had been held, in conformity with due process of law, where the injured party filed a petition for total withdrawal of both criminal and civil proceedings against the accused Pedro Acabal Chaperón, which led to a ruling of acquittal in the case (…)”.

580. By means of a communication dated November 20, 2009, the petitioners argued that even though the State of Guatemala had taken substantive steps towards full compliance with the IACHR recommendations, some items were still pending. In particular, they pointed out that the State of Guatemala has to investigate the violations that occurred in a complete and exhaustive manner. Also, theye refered to the situation of the implementation of the study scholarships offered to the beneficiaries.

581. Because of the above, the Commission concludes that the recommendations have been partially complied with. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor the items that are pending.

Case 12.264, Report N° 1/06, Franz Britton (Guyana)

582. In Report N° 1/06, dated February 28, 2006 the Commission concluded that agents of the State security forces abducted and/or detained Franz Britton and that during the following six years his whereabouts have not been identified and that, as a result, Guyana violated the rights of Franz Britton to life, liberty, personal liberty, judicial protection, arbitrary arrest and due process of law, all recognized, respectively, in Articles I, XVIII, XXV, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration.

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

1. Carry out a serious, impartial and effective investigation by means of the competent organs, to establish the whereabouts of Franz Britton and to identify those responsible for his detention-disappearance, and, by means of appropriate criminal proceedings, to punish those responsible for such grave acts in accordance with the law.

2. Adopt the necessary legislative or other measures to prevent the recurrence of such events and provide, in all cases, the required due process and effective means of establishing the whereabouts and fate of anyone held in State custody.

3. Adopt measures to make full reparation for the proven violations, including taking steps to locate the remains of Franz Britton and to inform the family of their whereabouts; making the arrangements necessary to facilitate the wishes of his family as to an appropriate final resting place; and providing reparations for the relatives of Franz Britton including moral and material damages in compensation for the suffering occasioned by Mr. Britton’s disappearance and not knowing his fate.

584. On November 2, 2007; November 4, 2008; and November 12, 2009 the Commission requested up-to-date information from the State and the petitioner regarding the compliance with the recommendations issued in this case. The Commission did not receive a response within the specified timeframe from either party.

585. Based on the information available, the Commission considers that compliance with the recommendations is pending. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor its compliance.

Case 12.504, Report 81/07 Daniel and Kornel Vaux (Guyana)

586. In Report 81/07 of October 15, 2007 the IACHR concluded that the State of Guyana is responsible for the infliction of violence by police officers on brothers Daniel and Kornel Vaux while in their custody; and for failing to accord a fair trial to the Vaux brothers, particularly in the treatment of the confession evidence by the courts of that country, which prevented them from fully contesting the voluntariness of the confession evidence tendered by the prosecution. Accordingly, the IACHR concluded that the State of Guyana violated the rights of the Vaux brothers under Articles XVIII, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; and that execution of the Vaux brothers based upon the criminal proceedings for which they are presently convicted and sentenced would be contrary to Article I of the American Declaration.

587. On the basis of its recommendations, the IACHR recommended to the State that it:

1. Grant an effective remedy, which includes compensation for the maltreatment inflicted on the Vaux brothers; a re-trial of the charges against the Vaux brothers in accordance with the fair trial protections under the American Declaration, or failing that, an appropriate remission or commutation of sentence.

2. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that criminal defendants are afforded access to evidence under the control of the State that they might reasonably require necessary to challenge the voluntariness of confession evidence.

3. Undertake an investigation to identify the direct perpetrators of the beatings inflicted on Daniel Vaux and Kornel Vaux while in custody to extract confessions and to apply the proper punishment under law;

4. Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that any confession of guilt by an accused is valid only if it is given in an environment free from coercion of any kind, in accordance with Article XXV of the American Declaration.

588. On November 12, 2009 the Inter-American Commission requested information from both parties about compliance with the recommendations set forth in aforementioned report, and established a one month deadline to that effect. The IACHR did not receive any responses from either party to these communications within the deadline. Based on these considerations, the Commission concludes that compliance with the aforementioned recommendations remains pending. As a result, the Commission shall continue to monitor its compliance.

[Table of Contents | Previous | Next]