ANNUAL REPORT 2009

 

CHAPTER III
 

THE PETITION AND CASE SYSTEM 

 

 

E.       Petitions and cases submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

 (continuation)

 

2.         Contentious Cases

 

a.          Argentina

 

Case of Bayarri

 

985.          On July 16, 2007, the Inter-American Commission submitted the case to the Court.  In its application, the IACHR asked the Court to determine that the State of Argentina had failed to comply with its international obligations by violating articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) in relation to Article 1.1 (the general obligation to respect human rights) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri, because he was unlawfully and arbitrarily arrested, tortured by police officers, deprived of liberty for nearly 13 years, and subsequently denied justice.

 

986.          On October 30, 2008, the Court dismissed the State’s preliminary objections and held that Argentina had violated, to the detriment of Mr. Bayarri, the rights recognized in articles 7.1, 7.2, and 7.5, 5.1 and 5.2, 8.1, 8.2, and 8.2.g, and 25, in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In the judgment it delivered, the Court set the reparations it deemed appropriate.

 

987.          As of the date of preparation of this report, the Commission had not yet received the State’s first report on compliance with the judgment.

 

988.          The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.280%20Bayarri%20Argentina%
2016%20julio%202007%20ESP.pdf

and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_187_ing.pdf .

 

Case of Bueno Alves

 

989.          On March 31, 2006, the IACHR filed an application with the Court in this case.  The application alleged that the State was responsible for violation of articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the duty to guarantee established in Article 1.1 of the same treaty, to the detriment of Juan Francisco Bueno Alves by virtue of the fact that he was tortured while in state custody and subsequently denied proper protection and a fair trial in the judicial system.

 

990.          On May 11, 2007, the Court delivered a judgment, in which it found that the State had violated articles 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 thereof and set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. 

 

991.          During 2009, the Commission submitted periodic observations on state compliance with the orders in the Court’s judgment.

 

992.          The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.425%20Bueno%20Alves%20Argentina%2031%20marzo
%202006%20ESP.pdf
and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_164_ing.pdf .

 

 Case of Bulacio

 

993.          On January 24, 2001, the Commission filed its application with the Court and asked it to declare the violation, to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio, of articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), and 19 (Rights of the Child), as well as articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) to his detriment and that of his next of kin, all in connection with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention, as a result of the detention, injuries, and death of Walter David Bulacio and the lack of punishment of the responsible parties.

 

994.          On September 18, 2003, the Court rendered its judgment, accepted the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State, and declared the violation of the rights established in articles 4, 5, 7, and 19 of the American Convention to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio, and the rights set forth in articles 8 and 25 of that convention to the detriment of Walter David Bulacio and his next of kin, all the above in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention.  In that judgment the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. 

 

995.          In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in the judgment delivered on September 18, 2003, specifically concerning the investigations pending at the domestic level, the punishment of those responsible for the acts committed in this case, and on the adoption of legislative or any other measures necessary to bring the domestic legal system in line with international human rights provisions and to make them fully effective as a means of guaranteeing that such violations do not recur. 

 

996.          The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/bulacio/demanda.pdf and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_100_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Cantos

 

997.          On March 10, 1999, the Commission submitted its application to the Court.  In it the Commission alleged that the Argentine State violated and was continuing to violate articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), and 21 (Right to Property) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of that instrument to the detriment of José María Cantos, because of the searches and seizure of documents related to his business, the consequences of these acts, and the subsequent denial of justice.

 

998.          On September 7, 2001, the Court delivered a judgment on preliminary exceptions and on November 28, 2002, its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs in the case. In the latter, the Court found the violation of articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of José María Cantos.  The Court also set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. 

 

999.          In 2009 the Commission continued to present its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the measures ordered by the Court in its November 28, 2002 judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs.  On July 6, 2009 the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment, in which it decided to keep open the proceeding for monitoring the judgment until the State complies fully with its obligations. The text of that order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cantos_06_07_09_ing.pdf.

 

1000.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/cantos/demanda.PDF and the text of the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_97_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Garrido and Baigorria

 

1001.      The Commission submitted this case to the Inter-American Court on May 29, 1995.  In its application the IACHR alleged that the State was responsible for the disappearances of Raúl Baigorria and Adolfo Garrido, and therefore had violated articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), all in relation to Article 1.1 of the Convention.  In addition, the IACHR alleged the violation of articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin.

 

1002.      On February 2, 1996, the Court rendered its judgment on merits, in which it took note of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility and found the violation of the articles cited by the Commission.  On August 27, 1998 the Court rendered its judgment on reparations and costs.

 

1003.      In December 2009 the IACHR received the State’s report on compliance with the judgment. It will present its comments within the established period.

 

1004.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/Garrido/demanda.pdf and the text of the Court’s judgments is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_26_ing.pdf
and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_39_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Kimel

 

1005.      On April 10, 2007, the IACHR filed an application with the Court in which it alleged that the Argentine State failed to fulfill its international obligations as a result of the violation of articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights and the obligation to bring domestic law into conformity as established in articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention to the detriment of Eduardo Kimel. The application deals with the one-year suspended prison sentence and payment of damages imposed on journalist and author Eduardo Kimel, in a libel action filed by a former judge criticized in one of the author’s books for his action in the investigation of a massacre committed during the military dictatorship.

 

1006.      On May 2, 2008 the Court rendered a judgment in which it found a violation of the rights established in articles 8.1, 13.1, and 13.2 and 9 of the American Convention, in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 of that treaty, to the detriment of Eduardo Kimel.  The Court therefore ordered various reparation measures.

 

1007.      In 2009 the Commission submitted comments on information that the State presented on compliance with the judgment. 

 

1008.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.450%20Eduardo%20Kimel%20Argentina%2010%
20abril%202007%20ENG.pdf and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_177_ing.pdf.

 

b.         Barbados

 

Case of Boyce et al.

 

1009.      On June 23, 2006, the Commission filed a petition with the Court, alleging the international responsibility of the State of Barbados for mandatory application of the death penalty and violation of articles 4 .1 and 4.2 (Right to Life), 5.1 and 5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment) , and 8 (Right to Judicial Protection), in connection with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and Article 2 (duty to adopt provisions in domestic law) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Fredrick Benjamin Atkins, and Michael Huggins.

 

1010.      On November 20, 2007 the Court rendered its judgment, in which it found the violation of articles 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, and 25.1, in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. The Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.

 

1011.      In 2009 the Commission submitted comments on compliance with the orders in the Court’s judgment. 

 

1012.      The text of the application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.480%20Lennox%20Boyce%20et%20al%20Barbados
%2014%20dec%202006%20ENG.pdf
and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_169_ing.pdf.

 

Case Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan

 

1013.      On October 31, 2008 the Commission filed an application against the State of Barbados and sought provisional measures from the Court to protect the victim’s life and physical integrity.  The case concerns the mandatory application of the death penalty that the Supreme Court of Barbados ordered in 2005 against Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan.  In its application, the IACHR argued the violation of articles 4.1 and 4.2 (Right to Life), 5.1 and 5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 8.1 (Right to a Fair Trial) in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention to the detriment of the victim. 

 

1014.      On July 1, 2009, the IACHR participated in a public hearing on the case during the Court’s LXXXIII regular session, and on September 24, 2009 the Court rendered its judgment.  In it, the Court found violation of articles 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 25.1, 8.1, 8.2.c, and 8.2.f of the American Convention in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, and set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.

 

1015.      The text of the application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.645%20Cadogan%20Barbados%2031%
20oct%2008%20ENG.pdf
and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_204_ing.pdf.

 

c.         Bolivia

 

Case of Ibsen

 

1016.      On May 12, 2009, the IACHR filed an application in the case, which involves the forced disappearance of Rainer Ibsen in 1971 and his father José Luís Ibsen in 1973.  The Bolivian State has not conducted a serious and diligent investigation, the facts have not yet been clarified, the responsible parties have not been punished, and no reparations have been ordered for the next of kin. In its application, the IACHR asked the Court to find that the State of Bolivia had failed to comply with its international obligations by violating articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) in connection with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention, and articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luís Ibsen Peña.  The Commission also alleged the violation of articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention in connection with article 1.1 thereof to the detriment of the next of kin of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luís Ibsen Peña, and failure to comply with the obligation established in articles III and IV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

 

1017.      In July 2009 the Court notified the parties of the application and in November 2009 the IACHR received the written requests, arguments, and evidence submitted by the victim’s representatives.  At the time of preparation of this report, the IACHR is awaiting the State’s response to the application.

 

1018.      The text of the application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.529%20Rainer%20Ibsen%20Cardenas%20y%20Jose%20Luis
%20Ibsen%20Peña%20Bolivia%2012%20mayo%2009%20ENG.pdf.

 

Case of Ticona Estrada

 

1019.      On August 8, 2007, the IACHR filed an application with the Court in the case involving the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada starting on July 22, 1980, the impunity surrounding these facts, and the lack of appropriate reparations.  The IACHR argued the violation of articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) in connection with Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention, and articles I, III, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Renato Ticona Estrada.  The IACHR also alleged violation of articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention in connection with article 1.1 thereof to the detriment of the next of kin of Renato Ticona Estrada and failure to comply with the obligation contained in Article 2 (duty to adopt provisions of domestic law) of the American Convention and articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

 

1020.      On November 27, 2008, the Court rendered its judgment in the case, in which it accepted the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State and determined that the State violated articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7, 8.1, and 25 of the American Convention and failed to comply with the obligations established in article I.a, I.b, I.d, and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. The Court also set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.  The State filed an application for interpretation of the judgment, the IACHR presented its comments thereon, and the Court ruled on it on July 1, 2009.

 

1021.      In 2009 the Commission has received information from the State and the victims’ representatives on some aspects of compliance with the judgment.

 

1022.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.527%20Renato%20Ticona%20Estrada%20Bolivia
%208%20agosto%202007%20ESP.pdf
and the text of the Court’s judgments is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_191_ing.pdf and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_199_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

 

Case Trujillo Oroza

 

1023.      On June 9, 1999, the IACHR submitted its application in this case.  The IACHR alleged violation of articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) in connection with articles 2 (duty to adopt provisions of domestic law), 4 (Right to Life), 5.1 and 5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 8.1 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention for the disappearance of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and for failure to conduct an exhaustive investigation to locate the victim, identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, and ensure that the next of kin have the truth and appropriate reparation. 

 

1024.      The Inter-American Court rendered its judgment on merits on January 26, 2000.  In it, the Court accepted the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility and declared that it violated the rights alleged by the Commission.  Subsequently, on February 27, 2002, the Court issued its judgment on reparations and costs in the case. 

 

1025.      In 2009 the IACHR submitted comments on the reports presented by the State and the representatives on compliance with the judgment.  On October 1, 2009, the IACHR took part in a private hearing on compliance, and on November 16 the Court issued an order requesting the State to take immediately all necessary measures for the effective and timely compliance with the pending points.

 

1026.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/trujillo/demanda.PDF, and the text of the Court’s judgments is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_64_ing.pdf and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_92_ing.pdf.  The text of the order on compliance with the judgment is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/trujillo_16_11_09.pdf.

 

d.         Brasil

 

Case of Arley et al.(tapping of social organizations’ phone lines)

 

1027.      On December 20, 2007 the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Federative Republic of Brazil, alleging the State’s responsibility in the violation of articles 11 (Right to Privacy), 16 (Freedom of Association), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth in articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.  This case involves the wiretapping and illegal monitoring of the telephone lines of Arley José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral, Celso Aghinoni, and Eduardo Aghinoni, members of two social organizations – the Community Association of Rural Workers (ADECON) and the Conciliaçao Avante Agricultural Cooperative (COANA), associated with the Landless Workers Movement, which promotes agrarian reform in Brazil.  The wiretapping and phone monitoring were done between April and June 1999 by the Paraná State Military Police.  The case also involves the illegal recording and broadcasting, in the public media, of several conversations between the victims and the sectors they represent, and the denial of justice and of adequate reparations to the victims..

 

1028.      On July 6, 2009, the Court rendered its judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations, and costs, in which it found the violation of articles 11, 16, 8, and 25 of the Convention in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 thereof and set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.    The State lodged an application for interpretation of the judgment, the IACHR submitted its comments, and the Court issued its ruling on November 20, 2009.

 

1029.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.org/demandas/12.353%20Arley%20Escher%20y%20otros%20Brasil%2020%
20diciembre%202007%20ESP.pdf
and the text of the Court’s judgments is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_200_ing.pdf and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_208_esp.pdf (in Spanish)

 

Case of the Araguaia Guerrillas

 

1030.      The Inter-American Commission filed an application on March 26, 2009, in the case of Julia Gomes Lund et al (Araguaia Guerrillas). This involves the arbitrary arrest, torture, and forced disappearance of 70 persons, including members of the Brazilian Communist Party and peasants of the region, as a result of operations carried out between 1972 and 1975 by the Brazilian Army to wipe out the Araguaia Guerrillas, in the context of Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-1985).  The case also involves the Amnesty Law (Law No 6.683/79), enacted by the military government in Brazil, on the basis of which the State did not conduct a criminal investigation to prosecute and punish the persons responsible for the forced disappearance of 70 persons and the extrajudicial execution of Maria Lucia Petit da Silva, whose body was found and identified on May 14, 1996. In addition, the case deals with the permanent sealing of official files on specific subjects, which was introduced in Law 11.111 of May 5, 2005. In its application to the Court, the IACHR alleged violation of articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) in connection with article 1.1, all of the American Convention.

 

1031.      In May 2009, the Court notified the parties of the application, and in August 2009, the IACHR received the written requests, arguments, and evidence submitted by the victims’ representatives.  As of the preparation of this report, the IACHR is awaiting the State’s response to the application.

 

1032.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.552%20Guerrilha%20de%20Araguaia%20Brasil%2026mar
09%20ESP.pdf.

 

Case of Sétimo Garibaldi

 

1033.      On December 24, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court against the Federative Republic of Brazil in case No. 12,478, Sétimo Garibaldi.  The Commission alleged the State’s failure to fulfill its duty to investigate and punish the murder of Mr. Sétimo Garibaldi. The murder took place on November 27, 1998, when a group of some twenty gunmen carried out the extrajudicial eviction of landless workers’ families living on the land of a hacienda located in Querência do Norte municipality, in the state of Paraná. The incident was reported to the police, and a police investigation was opened but then closed without the obstacles and mechanisms that maintained impunity in the case being removed, and without sufficient judicial guarantees having been afforded to prosecute the case or provide adequate reparations to Mr. Garibaldi’s next of kin.  In its application, the Commission asked the Court to rule on the State’s international responsibility in failing to meet its international obligations by violating articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, and in failing to fulfill the general obligation it undertook to respect and ensure human rights (Article 1(1)) and its obligation to ensure domestic legal effects (Article 2), in consideration also of the federal clause contained in Article 28 of the Convention.

 

1034.      On April 29 and 30, 2009, the IACHR took part in the public hearing of the case during the Court’s XXXIX special session in Santiago, Chile, and on September 23, 2009, the court rendered its judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations, and costs. In it, the Court declared the violation of articles 8 and 25 in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention and set the reparations it deemed appropriate..

 

1035.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.478%20Setimo%20Garibaldi%20Brasil%2024
%20diciembre%202007%20ESP.pdf
and the judgment (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_203_esp.pdf.

 

Case of Ximenes Lopes

 

1036.      On October 1, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court in the case involving the inhumane and degrading conditions of hospitalization of Damião Ximenes Lopes—a person with mental illness—in a health care facility operated under Brazil’s Uniform Health System, the beatings and attacks he sustained from employees of the rest home, his death while undergoing psychiatric treatment there, and the failure to investigate his case and provide judicial guarantees, as a result of which no one has ever been made to answer for the crimes committed.  In its application, the IACHR asked the Court to find the Brazilian State’s international responsibility for the violation of articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights established in Article 1.1 of that treaty.

 

1037.      On July 4,  2006, the Court issued its judgment on merits and reparations in this case. It accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility and held that Brazil violated articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, and 25.1 of the Convention in connection with the provisions of articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.  The Court also set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. 

 

1038.      In 2009 the IACHR submitted its comments on the reports by the State and the representatives on compliance with the judgment. 

 

1039.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.237%20Ximenes%20Lopez%20Brasil%201oct04.pdf and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_149_ing.doc.

 

e.         Colombia

 

Case of the 19 Tradesmen (Álvaro Lobo Pacheco et al.)

 

1040.      On January 24, 2001, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court against the Colombian State for the October 6, 1987 arrest, disappearance, and execution of the merchants Álvaro Lobo Pacheco, Gerson Rodríguez, Israel Pundor, Ángel Barrera, Antonio Florez Contreras, Carlos Arturo Riatiga, Víctor Ayala, Alirio Chaparro, Huber Pérez, Álvaro Camargo, Rubén Pineda, Gilberto Ortíz, Reinaldo Corso Vargas, Hernán Jáuregui, Juan Bautista, Alberto Gómez, and Luis Sauza; and of Juan Montero and Ferney Fernández on October 18, 1987.  In its application, the Commission alleged the violation of articles 4 and 7 of the American Convention for the arrest, disappearance, and execution of the 19 merchants, and the violation of articles 5, 8.1, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin.  Finally, it asked the Court to find that Colombia had failed to comply with the provisions of Article 1.1 of that treaty, in connection with the last two articles cited. On July 5, 2004, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits and reparations of the case.

 

1041.      The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/comerciantes/demanda.pdf and the text of the Court’s judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_109_ing.pdf

 

1042.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its periodic observations on the State’s compliance with the Court’s July 5, 2004 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs..

 

1043.      A private hearing was held on January 20, 2009, during the Court’s LXXXII regular session at its headquarters.  On July 8, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/comerciantes_08_07_09.pdf

 

Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana

 

1044.      On December 24, 1992, the Commission filed an application with the Court in a case against Colombia that originated on April 4, 1989, with a request for urgent action sent on that date to the Commission and a petition received by the Commission’s Secretariat the following day. The Commission alleged the violation of articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, in connection with Article 1.1, to the detriment of Isidro Caballero Delgado and María del Carmen Santana.  It also alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

 

1045.      On December 8, 1995 the Court rendered its judgment on the merits, in which it declared that the State was responsible for the violation of articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention to the detriment of the victims.  However, it found that the State was not responsible for the violation of articles 8, 25, and 2. The judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_22_ing.pdf

 

1046.      On November 17, 2009, the Court adopted a resolution of compliance with the judgment, in which it said the State had complied with some operative points of the judgment and decided to keep the monitoring proceeding open for a) investigation and punishment of the persons responsible for the disappearance and presumed death of the victims, and b) location of the victims’ remains and their delivery to the next of kin. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/caballero_17_11_09.pdf

 

 Case of Escué Zapata

 

1047.      On May 16, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Colombia for the unlawful detention, torture, and extrajudicial execution of indigenous leader Germán Escué Zapata, which took place on February 1, 1988, on the Jambaló reservation in the Jambaló municipality, department of Cauca; the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating the facts; and the denial of justice to the victim’s next of kin. The Commission alleged that the State was responsible for the violation of articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention in connection with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Germán Escué Zapata; for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin; and for the violation of the rights established in articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1, to the detriment of the victim and his next of kin.

 

1048.      After considering the evidence introduced by the parties, their arguments and the Colombian State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Inter-American Court delivered its judgment on the merits, reparations and costs on July 4, 2007.  In its judgment, the Court found that the State had violated articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof.  The Court also set the reparations it deemed appropriate.

 

 

1049.      On November 1, 2007, the State filed an application with the Court seeking an interpretation of the judgment delivered on July 4, 2007, based on Article 67 of the Convention and Article 59 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.  In its application, the State requested clarification “of certain measures of reparation ordered by the Inter-American Court in its judgment, on the grounds of lack of clarity regarding execution.” The reparation measures at issue are those related to publication of the findings reached in the criminal proceedings, the creation of a fund for the development of the community, the measures ordered to ensure a higher education for Myriam Zapata Escué and payment of legal costs and expenses. 

 

1050.      On May 5, 2008 the Court delivered its judgment in which it declared the application filed by the Colombian State seeking an interpretation of the Court’s judgment in this case to be admissible and resolved to determine the scope of the measures whose clarification was requested.  The full text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_178_ing.doc. In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s orders in its judgment.

 

Case of Las Palmeras

 

1051.      On July 6, 1998 the Commission filed an application with the Court concerning the extrajudicial execution of six individuals on January 23, 1991, at Las Palmeras, municipality of Mocoa, in Colombia’s Putumayo department, and the subsequent denial of justice for the next of kin. The Commission alleged, inter alia, the violation of articles 4, 8, 25, and 1.1 of the American Convention. 

 

1052.      In the Court’s judgment, it declared the State responsible for the violation of articles 4, 8, and 25 and 1.1 of the Convention. The text of the Court’s judgment of December 6, 2001 is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_90_ing.pdf .

 

1053.      On December 7, 2009 the Court summoned the parties to a private hearing at the Court’s headquarters on January 29, 2010, to get information from the State on compliance with the provisions of the judgment in this case and to hear the observations of the Commission and the victims’ representatives. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/LasPalmeras_07_12_09.pdf .

 

Case of La Granja and El Aro (Ituango Massacre)

 

1054.      On July 30 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Colombia in cases 12,050, La Granja, and 12,266, El Aro, alleging the State’s responsibility in the events of June 1996 and the events that began in October 1997, respectively, in the municipality of Ituango, department of Antioquia, involving violation of the right to life of 16 persons; the rights to life and personal liberty of one person; the rights to life, humane treatment, and liberty of two persons; and the property rights of six persons; as well as the failure to ensure proper protection and a fair trial to all these persons and their families and to safeguard the applicable rights of the child, all in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention.

 

1055.      On July 1, 2006, the Court accepted the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility for violation of the rights protected under articles 4 (the right to life), 7 (the right to personal liberty), 5 (the right to humane treatment), and 21 (the right to private property) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) (the obligation to respect rights) thereof.  In its judgment, the Court set the measures of reparations it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_148_ing.doc.

 

1056.      On July 7, 2009 the Court issued an order on monitoring  compliance, in which it kept the proceeding open as regards: payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; due diligence to bring justice in the case; proper treatment for the next of kin of the executed victims; the actions necessary to ensure security so that the former residents of El Aro and La Granja that were displaced can return to El Aro or La Granja if they so desire; the public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility; implementation of a housing program to provide adequate housing to surviving victims who lost their houses and so request; placement of a plaque in a public location; and publication in the official gazette. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ituango_07_07_09.pdf

 

Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas

 

1057.      On November 14, 2008, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Colombia in case 12,531, Manuel Cepeda Vargas, for the State’s responsibility in the extrajudicial execution of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas –head of the National Directorate of the Colombian Communist Party and a prominent figure in the Unión Patriótica political party.  The event occurred in Bogotá, on August 9, 1994.  The application also cites the lack of due diligence in investigating the victim’s execution and punishing those responsible, and the lack of adequate reparations for the victim’s next of kin.

 

1058.      In the Commission’s view, the facts in this case constitute violations of the rights protected by articles 4, 5, 8, 11, 13, 16, 22, 23 and 25 of the Convention, and a failure to comply with the general obligation to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights, established in Article 1(1) of the Convention. The text of the application is available at the following link:: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.531%20Manuel%20Cepeda%20Vargas%20
Colombia%2014%20nov%2008%20INGLES.pdf

 

 Case of the Mapiripán Massacre

 

1059.      On September 5, 2003, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case against Colombia, alleging the State’s international responsibility in the massacre that took place in the period from July 15 through 20, 1997, when some 100 members of the paramilitary Autodefensas Unidas of Colombia, with the cooperation and acquiescence of government agents, seized, tortured and murdered at least 49 civilians, destroyed the bodies, and dumped the remains into the Guaviare River in the municipality of Mapiripán, department of Meta.. The Commission alleged that the State violated articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victims of the massacre.  In addition, the Commission alleged the violation of articles 8.1 and 25 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1, to the detriment of the victims of the massacre and their next of kin.

 

1060.      In its judgment of September 15, 2005, the Court declared that the State violated articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, and 7.2 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1; 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, in connection with article 1.1; 19 of the Convention, in connection with articles 4.1, 5.1, and 1.1; 4.1, 22.1, and 1.1; 22.1 of the Convention, in connection with articles 4.1, 5.1, 19, and 1.1; 8.1 and 25 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1.1.

 

1061.       During 2009, the Commission submitted periodic observations on state compliance with the orders in the Court’s judgment.

 

1062.      The Court held a private hearing to monitor compliance with the judgment on January 19, 2009, during its LXXXII regular session at the Court’s headquarters.

 

1063.      On July 8, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order on monitoring compliance that left open several points to be monitored, and said, “in decisions on the application of various proceedings against an individual, priority must be given to charges of grave violations of human rights. The application of proceedings such as extradition must not be a mechanism to favor, obtain, or ensure impunity.”  The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/mapiripan_08_07_09.pdf

 

Case of the La Rochela Massacre

 

1064.      On March 10, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 11,995, La Rochela, alleging the Colombian State’s responsibility in the events of January 18, 1989, when a paramilitary group, with the support and acquiescence of state agents, extra judicially executed 12 individuals and violated the physical integrity of another three, all of whom were members of a Colombian judicial commission on a fact-finding mission in the village of La Rochela, Colombia. The Commission alleged that the State was responsible for the violation of articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 in connection with Article 1.1. The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.995%20Masacre%20de%20La%20Rochela%20
Colombia%2010%20marzo%202006%20ESP.pdf

 

1065.      The Court delivered its judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs on May 11, 2007.  In that judgment, it decided to accept the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility and held that Colombia had violated all the victims’ rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty, protected under articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), and 7 of the American Convention; the next of kin’s right to humane treatment, protected under Article 5 of the Convention; and the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, provided under articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in the case of the surviving victims and the families of the deceased victims, all this in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof.  In its judgment, the Court also set the forms of reparation it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_163_ing.doc.

 

1066.      On September 3, 2007 the State filed a request for interpretation of the Judgment in relation to: (i) the compensation of some family members that had already been compensated at domestic level; (ii) the public release of the results of the criminal proceedings; (iii) what happens when a person is not appointed to receive the payment for expenses or when the family group does not come to an agreement on the matter.  On January 28, 2008 the Court issued its judgment declaring the request admissible and, consequently, proceeded to clarify the meaning or the scope of the Judgment.  The text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_175_ing.pdf

 

1067.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on state compliance with the orders in the Court’s judgment on merits, reparations, and costs.

 

Case of the "Pueblo Bello" Massacre (José Álvarez Blanco et al.)

 

1068.      This case concerns the torture and forced disappearance of 37 individuals and the torture and extrajudicial execution of another six.  The events occurred in January 1990, and were the work of paramilitary groups, acting with the acquiescence of State agents, in the Colombian departments of Antioquia and Córdoba. The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.748%20Pueblo%20Bello%20Colombia%2023mar04%20ESP.pdf   The Commission alleged that the State was responsible for articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, and 25 in connection with Article 1.1, for the forced disappearance, torture and extrajudicial execution of the victims in the case, and the denial of justice to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin.

 

1069.      On January 31, 2006, the Court rendered its judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs.  In it, the Court accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility and declared that Colombia violated, to the detriment of the victims, the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty established in articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, and 7.2 of the American Convention; the right to humane treatment set forth in article 5 of the Convention, to the detriment of their next of kin, and the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection established in articles 8.1 and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of the surviving victims and the next of kin of the deceased victims; in connection with the provision of Article 1.1 of the same treaty.  In the judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.  The text of the Court’s judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_140_ing.pdf

 

1070.      During 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in the judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs delivered on January 31, 2006.

 

1071.      A private hearing to monitor compliance with the judgment was held on January 20, 2009, during the Court’s LXXXII regular session.

 

1072.      On July 9, 2009 the Court issued an order in which it declared that the State had met its obligations to  offer a public apology, acknowledge  its international responsibility, and publish the judgment. The Court left open monitoring of compliance with the other obligations of the State. The text of the order is available at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/bello_09_07_09_ing.pdf

 

 Case of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo et al.

 

1073.      This case concerns the murder of human rights defender Jesús María Valle Jaramillo; the arrest and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Mr. Valle Jaramillo, his sister Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Mr. Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, which preceded the murder; the failure to investigate the facts in the case and to punish those responsible; the failure to provide the victims and their next of kin with adequate compensation; and the forced displacement that Mr. Jaramillo Correa suffered in the wake of these events.

 

1074.      On November 30, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing on merits, reparations, and costs, held in San José, Costa Rica, on February 6-7, 2008.  Participating were the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their families, and the Colombian State.

 

1075.      On March 10, 2008, the parties filed their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence and are currently awaiting issuance of the judgment in the case..

 

1076.      On November 27, 2008 the Court issued its judgment on the Merits, Reparations and Costs.  There, 

        

          a) It accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility, and declared a violation of the following Articles: 7(1), 5(1), and 4(1), respectively, of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo; (ii) 7(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa; (iii)  5(1) of the American Convention, in  relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of 23 family members; (iv) 22(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the victim’s wife, his son and his 2 daughters; (v) 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of 25 family members.

 

b) The Court decided that the State violated Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca Inés Valle Jaramillo, Gonzalo de Jesús Jaramillo Correa, Juan Guillermo Valle Noreña, John Jairo Valle Noreña and Luz Adriana Valle Noreña.

 

c) The Court decided that it had not been proved that the State violated: (i) Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa; nor (ii) Articles 11(1), 11(2), 13 and 17 of the American Convention.  The text is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_192_ing.pdf

 

 

1077.      On July 7, 2009, the Court issued a judgment of interpretation in which declared the requests for interpretation submitted by the representatives and the State to be admissible. The Court established the meaning and scope of several paragraphs of the judgment concerning reparations.  It also dismissed two requests made by the representatives concerning costs and expenses, because they were inconsistent with the judgment; and concerning the question whether the State was required to “provide appropriate economic conditions” for the return of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa to Colombia, because the judgment did not order that reparation measure. The text of the Court’s judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_201_ing.pdf

 

Case of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler

 

1078.      This case concerns the detention and torture of Wilson Gutiérrez Soler, to force him to confess to the alleged commission of an offense of which the Colombian courts ultimately found him innocent.

 

1079.      In 2008, the Commission continued to present its periodic comments on the matter of the State’s compliance with the Court’s judgment on merits, reparations and costs, dated September 12, 2005.

 

1080.      On December 3, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she summoned the Commission, the State and the Representatives of the victim and his next-of-kin to a private hearing, to be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009.  There, the Court will receive information from the State on its compliance with the judgment delivered in the contentious case; it will hear the comments that the Commission and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin have on this matter; and it will receive information on the implementation and effectiveness of the provisional measures and whether they can be lifted.  The order convoking the hearing in question is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/gutierrez_03_12_08.doc.  The hearing took place at the place and on the date indicated.

 

1081.      On June 30, 2009, the Court issued an order to continue monitoring compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) investigation of the facts denounced, and identification, prosecution, and punishment of the responsible parties; b) psychological and psychiatric treatment for the victims; and c) adoption of the necessary measures to strengthen existing control mechanisms in state detention centers.  The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gutierrez_30_06_09.pdf

 

f.          Chile

 

Case of Almonacid Arellano

 

1082.      This case concerns the failure to investigate the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano, and the failure to punish those responsible for his extrajudicial execution by invoking the Amnesty Law enacted in Chile by Decree Law No. 2,191 of 1978.  Mr. Almonacid-Arellano was executed on September 16, 1973, in Rancagua, Chile.

 

1083.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the compliance with the Court’s September 26, 2006 judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs..

 

            Case of Claude Reyes et al.

 

1084.      On July 8, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Chilean State, in case 12,108, Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola and Arturo Longton Guerrero.  In its application, the Commission alleged the state’s international responsibility for its refusal to allow access to public information and for not granting the victims an effective judicial remedy to contest a violation of the right of access to information. 

 

1085.      On September 19, 2006, the Court held that the State had violated the rights to freedom of thought and expression, to a fair trial and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all in conjunction with article 1(1) and article 2 thereof.  In the judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.  The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_151_ing.doc.

 

1086.      On May 2, 2008, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance, concerning those points whose compliance was still pending.  On June 10, the President decided to convene the parties for a private hearing to discuss those.  The hearing was held in Montevideo, Uruguay, on August 14, 2008.  On November 24, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it decided to close the case of Claude Reyes et al., inasmuch as the Chilean State had fully complied with the Judgment delivered by the Court on September 19, 2006.  The full text of that order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/reyes_24_11_08_ing.pdf:

 

Case of Humberto Palamara Iribarne

 

1087.      On May 13, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Chile in the case of Palamara Iribarne, on the grounds that the State had confiscated the copies and galleys of the book Ética y Servicios de Inteligencia, had erased the book from the hard disc of Mr. Palamara’s personal computer, had banned its publication, and had found Mr. Palamara guilty of contempt. On November 22, 2005, the Court delivered its judgment in the case, where it found that the State had violated the rights to freedom of thought and expression, private property, a fair trial, judicial protection, and personal liberty, protected under articles 13, 21, 8, 25, and 7 of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The full text of the judgment may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_135_ing.doc.

 

1088.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on the information regarding the compliance with November 22, 2005 judgment.. On December 15, 2008 the Inter-American Court issued an order convening the parties for a private hearing to monitor compliance with judgment to be held at the Court’s seat on January 20, 2009. The hearing took place at the place and on the date indicated

 

1089.      On September 21, 2009, the Court issued an order to continue monitoring compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) adopt, within a reasonable time, all measures necessary to amend the domestic rules concerning/pertaining freedom of thought and expression; b) adapt its domestic law in such a way that, if the existence of military jurisdiction is considered necessary, this one will only be competent on crimes “of function de function” committed by military personnel on active service, and c) guarantee due process in criminal military jurisdiction and judicial protection regarding the actions of military authorities. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/palamara_21_09_09.pdf

 

g.         Costa Rica

 

Case of the "La Nación" Newspaper (Herrera Ulloa)

 

1090.      On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on monitoring compliance with the judgment in question, in which it decided that it would keep open the proceeding for monitoring compliance of the State’s pending obligations, namely: to nullify the November 12, 1999 judgment of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José and all the measures ordered therein; to adjust its domestic legal system to the provisions of Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 2 thereof; and to pay the interest accrued for delay in the payment of compensation for non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement of expenses. The text is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_107_ing.pdf

 

1091.      On June 2, 2009, the President of the Inter-American Court, in consultation with the other judges of the Court, issued an order convening the parties for a private hearing to monitor compliance, to be held at the Court’s headquarters. The hearing took place at the place and on the date indicated.  The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/herrera_02_06_09.pdf

 

1092.      On July 9, 2009, the Court issued an order to continue monitoring compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) to nullify the November 12, 1999, judgment of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial District of San José and all the measures it orders; and b) to adjust its domestic legal system to conform to the provisions of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention, in relation to Article 2 thereof. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/herrera_09_07_09.pdf

 

1093.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning the compliance with the Court’s July 2, 2004 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs.

 

h.         Dominican Republic

 

Case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico

 

1094.      On July 11, 2003, the Commission filed its application in the case, which concerns the refusal of the State, through its Registry Office authorities, to issue birth certificates for the Yean and Bosico children, even though they were born within the State’s territory and despite the fact that the Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes the principle of jus soli to determine those who have a right to Dominican citizenship. The State thus obliged the alleged victims to endure a situation of continued illegality and social vulnerability, violations that are even more serious in the case of children, since the Dominican Republic denied the Yean and Bosico children their right to Dominican nationality and let them remain stateless persons for a long period of time. 

 

1095.      The Court delivered its judgment in this case on September 8, 2005, where it held that there had been violations of the right of nationality, the right to equality before the law, the right to a name, the right to juridical personality, and the right to humane treatment protected under Article 5 of the Convention. The Court also specified the remedies it deemed pertinent. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_130_%20ing.doc

 

1096.      In 2009, the Commission submitted its comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered in the Court’s judgment of September 8, 2005.  It said it was gratified by the fact that the State had complied with the pecuniary damages ordered in the judgment, and was waiting for the State’s future reports concerning compliance with the other obligations set out in the judgment..

 

1097.      On May 18, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order on compliance in which she convened the parties to a private hearing that was held at the seat of the Court on July 8, 2009. That order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/yean_18_05_09.pdf

 

i.          Ecuador

 

Case of Acosta Calderón

 

1098.      On June 25, 2003 the Commission filed an application with the Court in the case of Rigoberto Acosta Calderón to have the Court find Ecuador responsible for violation of articles 7, 8, 24, and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. On June 24, 2005, the Court delivered its judgment in the case, and held that the State had violated the victim’s rights to personal liberty, judicial protection, and a fair trial, protected under articles 7, 25, and 8, respectively, of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. The Court also held that the State failed to comply with its duty under Article 2 of the Convention, as regards Article 7. In its judgment, the Court set out the measures of reparation that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_129_ing.doc.

 

1099.      In 2006, the State submitted its first report on compliance with the judgment in this case.  In August 2007, once the Commission had received the comments of the victim’s representatives, it forwarded its own comments on the matter of compliance with the reparations ordered in the Court’s June 24, 2005 judgment.

 

1100.      On February 7, 2008, the Inter-American Court ordered that the Acosta Calderón case be considered closed inasmuch as the State of Ecuador has complied with the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court on June 24, 2005. The full text of this order is available at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/acosta_07_02_08_ing.doc

 

Case of Benavides Cevallos 

 

1101.      On March 21, 1996, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, for the unlawful and arbitrary arrest, torture and murder of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos by agents of the State, who held her in secret, without a court order, court authorization or court supervision.  The State agents involved and the government institutions with which they were associated then undertook a systematic campaign to deny these crimes and any responsibility on the State’s part.  . 

 

1102.      The most recent order issued by the Court on the matter of compliance is dated November 27, 2003.  There the Court resolved to inform the General Assembly of the Organization about the State’s failure to discharge its obligation of investigating and solving the victim’s forced disappearance. The full text of the judgment can be found at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_38_ing.doc.

 

1103.      In 2009, the State persisted in its pattern of not submitting the reports necessary to document compliance with its obligation of investigating, prosecuting and punishing those responsible for the human rights violations committed against Consuelo Benavides Cevallos, as required under operative paragraph four of the Court’s judgment of June 19, 1998.

 

Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez 

 

1104.      On June 23, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,091, Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Iñiguez, for Ecuador’s international responsibility in the arbitrary detention of the two men in Guayaquil on November 15, 1997, and subsequent violations of their rights in the proceedings instituted against them, in which both men sustained material and moral damages. In light of the facts in the case, the Commission asked the Court to hold the Ecuadorian State internationally responsible for violating the victims’ rights under articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 21 (right to private property), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof (the obligation to respect rights). The Commission also asked for a finding that the State violated Article 2 of the Convention to the detriment of Mr. Lapo Iñiguez.

 

1105.      On November 21, 2007, the Court delivered its judgment in the case.  There, it accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility and held that Ecuador had violated the rights to personal liberty, a fair trial, humane treatment, and private property of Messrs. Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Iñiguez. The Court also ordered the State to: immediately expunge the names of Messrs. Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez and Freddy Hernán Lapo Íñiguez from all public documents in which they still appear with criminal records; immediately inform the relevant private agencies that they must delete from their records all mention of Messrs. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez as the perpetrators of or suspects in the crime with which they were charged; publish the judgment; bring its laws into line with the American Convention; immediately adopt all the administrative and other measures necessary to expunge, ex officio, the criminal records of individuals acquitted of or dismissed from criminal charges, and implement the appropriate legislative measures to bring that about; and pay to Messrs. Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez the compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and for costs and expenses set out in paragraph 270 of the judgment. Finally, the Court ordered that the State and Mr. Juan Carlos Chaparro Álvarez must submit to an arbitration process to set the amounts owed to him for pecuniary damages. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_170_ing.doc

 

1106.      On November 26, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment on the State’s application seeking an interpretation of the judgment in this case.  In its judgment of interpretation, it dismissed the State’s request on the grounds that it was inadmissible.  The text of the judgment is available (in Spanish) at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_189_esp.pdf.  The Commission also continued to submit its comments on the information supplied by the parties regarding the progress made on compliance with the judgment delivered in this case. 

 

1107.      On April 29, 2009, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had fully complied with the operative paragraph concerning elimination of the names of Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo from the public records in which they appeared with a criminal record.  It decided to continue monitoring compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) to inform the relevant private institutions indicated by the victims that they should eliminate from their records any reference to Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo as authors or suspects of the criminal act of which they were accused in this case; b) to publicize the judgment on radio and television; c) to adapt its legislation so that it ceases to charge fees for the deposit and management of property seized to those who have not been convicted in a final judgment; d) to adopt forthwith all the administrative or other measures necessary to eliminate de oficio the criminal record of those persons who are acquitted or whose cases are dismissed; e) to submit to an arbitration procedure to establish the amounts corresponding to pecuniary damage of Mr. Chaparro; and f) to pay Mr. Chaparro interest corresponding to banking interest on arrears in Ecuador. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/chaparro_29_04_09.pdf

 

1108.      In 2009 the IACHR continued to submit comments on the information provided by the parties concerning progress in compliance with the judgment in this case.

 

Case of Cornejo et al.

 

1109.      On July 5, 2006 the Commission filed an application with the Court against Ecuador in case 12,406, Cornejo et al., in which it alleged that the State had failed to comply with its international obligations, to the detriment of Mrs. Carmen Susana Cornejo de Albán and Mr. Bismarck Wagner Albán Sánchez.  For almost two decades, the two had sought justice and punishment of those responsible for the death of their daughter, Laura Susana Albán Cornejo, by compiling evidence related to her death and bringing medical malpractice suits against the physicians who treated her.  In these legal proceedings, they did not enjoy the necessary guarantees or judicial protection. .

 

1110.      On November 22, 2007, the Court delivered its judgment in the case, in which it accepted the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility for violation of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection.  It also declared that Ecuador violated the right to humane treatment to the detriment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán Sánchez and that State had violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, all in conjunction with articles 4, 5, 5(1) and 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán Sánchez.  In its judgment, the Court ordered the State to publish certain parts of the judgment; to fully divulge the rights of the patients, using the proper media and according to the existing legislation in Ecuador and international standards; to implement an education and training program for justice operators and health care professionals about the laws enacted by Ecuador in relation to patients’ rights and the penalties for violating them, and to pay the sum established for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and for costs and expenses.  The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_171_ing.doc

 

1111.      On August 5, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment on the application filed by the representatives on January 19, 2008, seeking an interpretation of the judgment on the merits, reparations and costs.  In the August 5 judgment, the Court denied the request for interpretation on the grounds of inadmissibility. The text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_183_ing.doc .  The Commission continued to submit comments on the information reported by the parties concerning compliance with the January 19, 2008 judgment delivered in this case.

 

1112.      On July 6, 2009, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had fully complied with payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, and for the costs and expenses.  It decided to continue monitoring compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) to publish the pertinent parts of the judgment in a newspaper of national circulation; b) to disseminate patients’ rights fully, using appropriate media and according to existing legislation in Ecuador and international standards; and c) to implement, within a reasonable term, an education and training program for justice operators and health care professionals about Ecuador’s laws for protection of patients’ rights and the penalties for violating them. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cornejo_06_07_09.pdf

 

Case of Mejía Idrovo

 

1113.      On November 19, 2009, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court against Ecuador, alleging failure to comply with the judgment of the Constitutional Court that declared the unconstitutionality of two executive decrees ordering the availability and separation of Mr. Mejía Idrovo from the Army, and ordered reparation for damages.  In its application, the Commission asked the Court to find and declare that the State is responsible for the violation of articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of José Alfredo Mejía Idrovo.

 

Case of Salvador Chiriboga

 

1114.      On December 12, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador, in case 12,054, Salvador Chiriboga, for the international responsibility the State incurred by its expropriation of a piece of property belonging to the Salvador Chiriboga brothers.  The procedure used to expropriate the property stripped the brothers of the use and enjoyment of the property, without paying them the fair compensation to which they were entitled under Ecuadoran law and the American Convention.  The Commission asked the Court to declare the State’s international responsibility for violation of articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 21 (right to private property) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, all in relation to its articles 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) thereof. 

 

1115.      On May 6, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment on the preliminary objection and merits of the present case.  There, the Court held that the State had violated the right to property protected under Article 21(2) of the American Convention, in relation to the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection provided under articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, all this in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María Salvador Chiriboga.  It ordered that within six months from the date of notification of the judgment, the State and the representatives were to reach agreement on the amount and payment of the fair compensation owed for the expropriated property and any other measures to redress the violations established in the Judgment. That six-month time period has passed and the Commission does not know whether the parties were able to reach the agreement called for by the Court.  The full text of the judgment in this case is at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_179_ing.doc

 

1116.      Since the parties failed to agree on the amount and payment of just compensation for the expropriation of the assets, the Court decided to continue with the reparations stage.  It therefore summoned the Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing at the Court’s headquarters on September 24, 2009, to hear their claims on the subject.  As of the preparation of this report, the Court had not yet delivered a judgment.

 

Case of Suárez Rosero 

 

1117.      On December 22, 1995, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador, for the arrest and detention of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero in violation of a pre-existing law; the failure to bring Mr. Suárez before a judicial official promptly once he was in detention; the holding of Mr. Suárez in incommunicado detention for 36 days; the failure to respond adequately and effectively to his attempt to invoke the domestic judicial guarantees, and the State's failure to release him or show any intention of so doing, within a reasonable time, or to guarantee that he would be tried within an equally reasonable time to substantiate the charges brought against him.

 

1118.      On July 10, 2007, the Court adopted an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in question.  In the order, it decided to keep the procedure open for monitoring compliance with the State’s pending obligations.  It also instructed the State to set up a trust on behalf of Micaela Suárez Ramadán (containing the amount owed, plus the corresponding interest) as promptly as possible, in a solvent national financial institution and under the most favorable financial terms allowed by law and banking practices.  It would also be monitoring for investigation of the case (here the Court ordered the State to reopen the investigation and to ensure that all public agencies furnish the information sought by the judicial authorities). The full text of the order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/suarez_10_07_07_ing.pdf. .

 

1119.      On March 20, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order summoning the parties to a private hearing to be held during the Court’s LXXXIII regular session to receive information from the State on compliance with the pending points in execution of the judgments on merits and on reparations and costs. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/suarez_20_03_09.pdf  The hearing took place on July 4, 2009.

 

Case of Tibi

 

1120.      On June 25, 2003, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador for the unlawful and arbitrary detention of Mr. Daniel David Tibi on September 27, 1995, the torture he suffered, and his inability to file a remedy against that torture or his excessively prolonged preventive custody. The Inter-American Court delivered its judgment on the preliminary objections, merits, and reparations in this case on September 7, 2004.. 

 

1121.      On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on the status of compliance with the judgment in the case, in which it instructed the State to take all steps necessary for prompt and effective compliance with the points of its judgment that were still pending. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tibi_22_09_06_ing.doc

 

1122.      On July 7, 2009, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had fully complied with payment for material and moral damages.  It left open monitoring of compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) to identify, try, and if applicable punish within a reasonable time all those responsible for the violation of Daniel Tibi’s rights; b) to publish, in a daily in France, the pertinent parts of the judgment; c) to publish, in a daily in France, a formal written statement issued by high authorities of the State that acknowledges its international responsibility for the facts of the case and apologizes to Mr. Tibi and the other victims; d) to establish an interagency committee to prepare and execute training programs on human rights and treatment of inmates for the staff of the judiciary, the public prosecutor’s office, the police and penitentiary staff, including the medical, psychiatric, and psychological personnel; e) to pay Daniel Tibi compensation for damages for his confiscated property; and f) to pay interest for the delay in payment of the compensation. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tibi_01_07_09.pdf.

 

Case of Zambrano Vélez et al.

 

1123.      On July 24, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Ecuador in case 11,579, Zambrano Vélez et al., for its responsibility in the extrajudicial execution of Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo and José Miguel Caicedo in Guayaquil, during a joint operation of the Ecuadoran Marines, Air Force and Army on March 6, 1993, at a time when guarantees had been suspended in a manner that did not fit the exigencies of the situation.  The facts were never investigated thereafter. 

 

1124.      The Court delivered its judgment on the merits, reparations and costs on July 4, 2007.  In it, it accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility and ruled that Ecuador had failed to comply with its obligations regarding the suspension of guarantees set out in Articles 27(1), 27(2), and 27(3) of the Convention, in conjunction with the obligation to respect rights and to adopt domestic legal effects with respect to the right to life, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, established in articles 1(1), 2, 4, 8(1), and 25 of the Convention. It also ruled that the State had violated the victims’ right to life and their families’ right to a fair trial and to judicial protection. In its judgment, the Court set out the forms of reparation it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_166_ing.doc.

 

1125.      On May 22, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order summoning the parties to a private hearing to be held during the Court’s LXXXIII regular session to receive information from the State on compliance with the pending points in execution of the judgments on merits and on reparations and costs. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/zambrano_22_05_09.pdf.  The hearing was held on July 4, 2009. Subsequent to the hearing, the State submitted its state report and the IACHR submitted its comments thereon.

 

j.          El Salvador

 

Case of García Prieto Giralt

 

1126.      This case concerns El Salvador’s international responsibility for actions and omissions in the investigation into the murder of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Giralt on June 10, 1994, in San Salvador, for the threats subsequently made against his family in connection with their role in the investigation, and for the failure to provide them with proper reparations. El Salvador accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on June 6, 1995.  Thus, the violations that the Commission asked the Court to adjudge and declare are those that occurred subsequent to that date..

 

1127.      The Court delivered its judgment on November 20, 2007.  The full text is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_168_ing.doc. There, it found that the State violated the rights to a fair trial, judicial protection, and humane treatment, protected under articles 8(1), 25(1), and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, all in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention and to the detriment of Mr. José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Ms. Gloria Giralt de García Prieto.  It also found that the State had violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection recognized in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, and the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, due to the failure to investigate the threats and harassment suffered by Mr. José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Ms. Gloria Giralt de García Prieto.  The Court ordered the measures of reparation it deemed appropriate, including an obligation to complete the pending investigation into the homicide of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto and the threats and harassment, all within a reasonable period of time.  

 

1128.      On March 14, 2008, the State filed an application to request an interpretation of that judgment.  On November 24, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment of interpretation in which it dismissed the State’s application as inadmissible.  The parties are awaiting the State’s report on compliance with the Court’s judgment of November 20, 2007.

 

1129.      During 2009 the IACHR continued to submit comments on the information provided by the parties concerning progress in compliance with the judgment in this case.

 

1130.      On December 18, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order summoning the parties to a private hearing to be held on January 28, 2010, to receive infromation from the State on compliance with the pending points in execution of the judgments on merits and on reparations and costs. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/garcia_18_12_09.pdf

 

Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters

 

1131.      On June 14, 2003, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court against El Salvador in connection with the detention, abduction, and forced disappearance of Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, then minor children of 7 and 3 years of age, respectively, who were captured by members of the Atlacatl Battalion of the Salvadoran Army during a military operation known as “Operation Clean-up” or “la Guinda de Mayo”, which took place in various locations including the municipality of San Antonio de la Cruz, department of Chalatenango, from May 27 to June 9, 1982. On November 23, 2004, the Court issued a judgment on preliminary objections and, on March 1, 2005, decided the merits, reparations, and costs.

 

1132.      On July 3, 2007, the Court adopted an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in the case.  There, it instructed the State to report the steps taken to carry out the following obligations: conduct an effective investigation of the facts of the case; identify and punish the guilty, and conduct a serious search for the victims; eliminate all obstacles and mechanisms that prevent compliance with the State’s obligations; ensure the independence and impartiality of the members of the national commission charged with searching for people who disappeared as children during the internal conflict, with the participation of society; create a genetic information system to obtain and store genetic data to assist in determining the identity and establishing the identification of disappeared children and their relatives; provide, free of charge, the medical and psychological treatment needed by the victims’ relatives; create a web page to assist searches for  the disappeared; publish those parts of the judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs ordered by the Court; and pay costs and expenses. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/serrano_03_07_07_ing.doc.

 

1133.      On December 18, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order summoning the parties to a private hearing to be held on January 28, 2010, to receive information from the State on compliance with the pending points in execution of the judgment on merits, reparations, and costs.

 

1134.      During 2009 the IACHR continued to submit comments on the information provided by the parties concerning progress in compliance with the judgment in this case.

 

k.         Guatemala

 

Case of Bámaca Velásquez

 

1135.      In 2009, the Commission presented its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s February 22, 2002 judgment on merits, reparations and costs, underscoring the importance of an investigation into the whereabouts of the victim in a case of forced disappearance, not just for the sake of their loved ones but for society as a whole as well.  This obligation has not yet been fulfilled.

 

1136.      On January 16, 2008 the Court issued an Order where it summoned the parties to a hearing to be held in private. The text is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Bamaca_16_01_08_ing.pdf.  On November 11, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the Commission, the State of Guatemala, and the representatives of the victim’s next of kin  to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009, so that the Court can receive information from the parties on the request that the provisional measures be lifted; it will also enable the Court to compile information from the State concerning its compliance with the judgment on the merits and the judgment on reparations and costs delivered in this case, and to hear the comments from the Commission and from the representatives of the victims and the beneficiaries of the provisional measures.  The order convening the hearing is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/bamaca_se_09.doc.

 

1137.      On January 27, 2009, the Court issued an order to continue monitoring compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) to locate the mortal remains of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez, exhume them in the presence of his widow and next of kin, and deliver the remains to them; and b) to investigate the facts that constituted violations of the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to identify and, if applicable, punish the appropriate parties, and to publicly disseminate the results of the investigation. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Bamaca_27_01_09.pdf

 

Case of Blake

 

1138.      In 2009, the Commission continued to provide its comments on compliance with the Court’s January 22, 1999 judgment on reparations. 

 

1139.      On January 22, 2009, the Court issued an order to continue monitoring compliance with the obligation to investigate the facts of the instant case and to identify and punish those found responsible. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/blake_%2022_01_09.pdf

 

Case of Carpio Nicolle et al.

 

1140.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of November 22, 2004.  In its comments to the Court, the Commission acknowledged the steps taken for payment of the compensatory damages and costs, but expressed concern over the lack of progress made toward compliance with the other reparations ordered in the judgment.  On November 18, 2008, the Court summoned the parties for a hearing to monitor compliance with its judgment, slated for January 20, 2009.  The Order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/carpio_se_13.pdf. The hearing took place at the place and on the date indicated.

 

1141.      On July 1, 2009, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had fully complied with payment for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, and reimbursement for costs and expenses.  It also declared that the monitoring would continue on compliance with the following obligations of the State:  a) to investigate, identify, and as applicable punish those who perpetrated and masterminded the extrajudicial execution of Messrs. Carpio Nicolle, Villacorta Fajardo, Ávila Guzmán, the serious injuries to Sydney Shaw Díaz; b) to remove all obstacles and de facto and de jure mechanisms that maintain impunity in this case, grant the witnesses, judicial authorities, prosecutors, other judicial agents, and victims’ next of kin sufficient guarantees of security, and use all possible measures available to the State to advance the proceeding; c) to adopt specific measures to improve its investigatory capacity; and d) to hold a public act acknowledging its responsibility. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/carpio_01-07-09.pdf

 

Case of Fermín Ramírez

 

1142.      This case concerns the death sentence ordered in the case of Mr. Fermín Ramírez, who was denied the opportunity to exercise his right of defense with respect to changes in the offenses with which he was charged and their legal classification.  Those changes occurred at the time the Guatemalan judicial authorities handed down his conviction on March 6, 1998.

 

1143.      On March 28, 2008 the Court summoned the parties to a hearing to be held in private.  The Order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Fermin_%2028_03_08_ing.pdf. On May 9, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in which it ordered the State of Guatemala to adopt all the measures necessary to effectively and promptly comply with the pending aspects of the judgments delivered in the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Fermin_%2009_05_08_ing.doc

 

1144.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments regarding compliance with the Court’s July 20, 2005 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs.

 

Case of Florencio Chitay Nech

 

1145.      On April 17, 2009, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court against Guatemala concerning the forced disappearance of the Maya indigenous political leader kaqchikel Florencio Chitay, on April 1, 1981, in Guatemala City, the subsequent lack of due diligence in the investigation of the facts, and the denial of justice to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin. In its application the Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare that the State is responsible for the violation of the following articles: a) 3, 4, 5, 7, and 23 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof; and articles I and II of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of Florencio Chitay Nech; b) 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Florencio Chitay Nech and his sons and daughter, i.e., Encarnación, Pedro, Eliseo, Estermerio, and María Rosaura, all with the surname Chitay Rodríguez. c) 5 and 17 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Encarnación, Pedro, Eliseo, Estermerio, and María Rosaura, all with the surname Chitay Rodríguez; and d) 19 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the child at the time Estermerio Chitay Rodríguez.

 

1146.      On December 21, 2009, the President of the Court convened a public hearing to be held at the Court’s headquarters on January 2 and 3, 2010.

 

Case of Maritza Urrutia

 

1147.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered in the Court’s November 27, 2003 judgment.  The case concerns the illegal and arbitrary detention of Mrs. Maritza Urrutia on July 23, 1992, and her subsequent torture in a clandestine detention center, where she spent eight days and was forced to make a public statement prepared by her captors.

 

1148.      On January 22, 2009, the Court issued an order to continue monitoring compliance with the obligation to “investigate effectively the facts of this case, which resulted in the violations of the American Convention and non-compliance with the obligations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible, and also publish the results of the respective investigations.” The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/urrutia_22_01_09.pdf

 

Las Dos Erres Massacre

 

1149.      On July 30, 2008, the Inter-American Commission filed an application against the Republic of Guatemala in case number 11,681, Las Dos Erres Massacre, in which it asserted the State’s lack of due diligence in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the massacre of 251 inhabitants of the community (parcelamiento) of Las Dos Erres, municipality of La Libertad, department of Petén.  The massacre was the work of members of the Guatemalan Army and occurred between December 6 and 8, 1982.

 

1150.      In its application, the Commission noted the positive attitude of the Guatemalan State in acknowledging the facts and its responsibility arising from them, as well as the efforts to make reparation for the human rights violations suffered by the victims in the case, all of which has full effect in relation to the judicial proceeding now proposed.  However, the Commission was of the view that the impunity in relation to the facts of the Las Dos Erres massacre serves to prolong the suffering caused by the gross violations of fundamental rights that occurred; and that it is a duty of the Guatemalan State to fashion an adequate judicial response, establish the identity of the persons responsible, prosecute them, and impose the respective sanctions on them.  The application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.org/demandas/11.681%20Masacre%20de%20las%20Dos%20Erres%20
Guatemala%2030%20Julio%202008%20ENG.pdf
.

 

1151.      On July 14, 2009, there was a public hearing on the case during the XL special session held in Bolivia. 

 

1152.      On November 24, 2009, the Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, in which it decided: to accept the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility; that the State violated articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, and violated the obligations established in articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 7.b of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Violence against Women, to the detriment of the 155 victims of the case, in their respective circumstances; that the State failed to comply with the obligations set forth in articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention; that the State violated articles 17 and 18 of the Convention, in connection with articles 1.1 and 19 thereof, to the detriment of Ramiro Antonio Osorio Cristales; and that the State violated Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. The Court also declared that the State violated Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 19 thereof, to the detriment of Ramiro Antonio Osorio Cristales and Salomé Armando Gómez Hernández.  It decided it would not be in order to rule on the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Convention.  Finally, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The text of the Court’s judgment is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_211_esp.pdf

 

Case of the "Plan de Sánchez" Massacre

 

1153.      The Inter-American Commission submitted an application to the Court in this case on July 31, 2002.  The Commission asserted that the survivors and families of the victims of a massacre of 268 people –most of them indigenous Mayans- had been denied justice and suffered other acts of discrimination and intimidation. The July 18, 1982 massacre was in the village of Plan de Sánchez, Rabinal municipality, in the department of Baja Verapaz, and was the work of members of the Guatemalan Army and their civilian collaborators, who were acting under the protection and guidance of the Army.  The Court delivered its judgment on the merits on April 29, 2004 and its judgment on reparations on November 19, 2004. 

 

1154.      On August 8, 2008 the Court issued an Order of Compliance Supervision with its Judgment.  There, the Court decided that on monitoring overall compliance with the Judgment, the Court finds it essential for the State to provide information on the following aspects which are still pending: a) Investigation, identification and possible punishment of the perpetrators and masterminds of the Massacre; b)  Publicizing of the text of the American Convention in the Spanish and Maya-Achí languages and dissemination thereof in the Municipality of Rabinal; c) Publication in Spanish and Maya-Achí of the pertinent parts of the Judgment on Merits, and of the Judgment on Reparation and Costs in a  newspaper with national coverage; d)  Payment of the amount for infrastructure maintenance and improvements at the chapel in memoriam of the victims;  e) Provision of free-of-charge medical and psychological treatment and medication to those victims who may so require; f) Provision of adequate housing to those survivors of the village of Plan de Sánchez who may so require; g) Implementation of programs on the following issues in the affected communities: (i) study and dissemination of the Maya-Achí culture in the affected communities through the Guatemalan Academy of Mayan Languages or a similar organization; (ii) maintenance and improvement of the road systems between the said communities and the municipal capital of Rabinal; (iii) sewage system and potable water supply; (iv) supply of teaching personnel trained in intercultural and bilingual teaching for primary, secondary and comprehensive schooling in these communities; h) Payment of the compensation amount awarded in the Judgment on Reparations on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to those victims or next of kin who are yet to be paid such amount in full. The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/sanchez_05_08_08_ing.pdf

 

1155.      On July 1, 2009, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had fully complied with publication of the judgment and payment of the sum set for maintenance and improvements at the chapel in which the victims honor the memory of the individuals executed in the massacre.  The Court left open the procedure for supervision of compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) to investigate, identify, and punish as applicable the perpetrators and masterminds of the “Plan de Sánchez” massacre; b) to give the text to the victims and to disseminate the text of the American Convention in Maya-Achí in the municipality of Rabinal; and c) to provide free medical and psychological treatment and medication to the victims who may need it. The text of that order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/sanchez_01_07_09_ing.pdf

 

1156.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on the State’s compliance reports.  The Commission noted that it appreciated the State’s efforts to comply with the judgment on reparations and went on to underscore how important it was for the State to comply with the obligation to investigate the causes of the massacre and the human rights violations that resulted from it, and to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible..

 

Case of Molina Theissen

 

1157.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgment on the merits, dated May 4, 2004, and its judgment on reparations, dated July 3, 2004.  The case concerns the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, a boy of 14 who was abducted from his parents’ home by members of the Guatemalan Army on October 6, 1981. 

 

1158.      According to the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance, which is dated July 10, 2007, the State has yet to fulfill the following obligations:  locating the mortal remains of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and delivering them to his next-of-kin; investigating the facts of the case so as to identify, prosecute, and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the victim’s disappearance; establishing a prompt procedure to obtain a declaration of absence and presumption of death by forced disappearance, and adopting such legislative, administrative, and other measures as may be necessary to create a genetic information system. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/molina_10_07_07%20ing.pdf.

 

1159.      On August 17, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order summoning the parties to a private hearing on October 1, 2009, for the purpose of obtaining information from the State on compliance with the pending points in execution of the judgment. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/molina_17_08_09.pdf.
The hearing took place at the place and time announced.

 

1160.      On November 16, 2009, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had fully complied with the publication of the pertinent parts of the judgments on merits and reparations. The Court left open the procedure for supervision of compliance with the following obligations of the State: a) to locate the mortal remains of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and deliver them to his next of kin; b) to investigate the facts of the case so as to identify, prosecute, and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the victim’s disappearance; c) to establish a prompt procedure to obtain a declaration of absence and presumption of death by forced disappearance; and d) to adopt such legislative, administrative, and other measures as may be necessary to create a genetic information system. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/molina_16_11_09.pdf

 

Case of Myrna Mack

 

1161.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s November 25, 2003 judgment on merits, reparations and costs.

 

1162.      According to the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance, dated November 26, 2007, the last pending requirement is to investigate the facts of the case in order to identify, prosecute and punish all the material and intellectual authors and others responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Myrna Mack Chang, and for covering up the crime and other facts in the case..

 

1163.      On August 14, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order summoning the parties to a private hearing on October 1, 2009, to obtain information from the State on compliance with the pending points in execution of the judgment. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/mack_14_08_09.pdf. The hearing was held at the place and on the date indicated.

 

1164.      On November 16, 2009, the Court issued an order leaving open the procedure for supervision of compliance regarding the State’s obligation to execute the judgment in the domestic courts, for which it must undertake due diligence to capture Juan Valencia Osorio to serve his sentence, because he is currently a fugitive. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/mack_16_11_09.pdf  

 

Case of Paniagua Morales et al.

 

1165.      On November 27, 2007, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance in which it instructed the State to adopt all measures necessary for prompt compliance with the reparations still outstanding from the judgment of May 25, 2001, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights; the Court also instructed the State to submit a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to implement the Court-ordered reparations whose compliance was still pending.

 

1166.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s May 25, 2001 judgment, the text of which is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_76_ing.doc.

 

Case of Raxcacó Reyes

 

1167.      This case concerns the death sentence handed down against Mr. Raxcacó Reyes for committing a crime which, under Guatemalan law, was not a capital offense at the time the country ratified the American Convention..

 

1168.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments regarding compliance with the Court’s September 15, 2005 judgment on merits, reparations and costs.

 

1169.      On March 28, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it summoned the parties to a private hearing to be held in the venue of the Court on May 8, 2008. The text of the Order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Raxcaco_se_06_ing.pdf.  On May 9, 2008, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in which it instructed the State of Guatemala to adopt all measures necessary to effectively and promptly comply with the issues pending compliance from the judgments delivered in the cases of Fermín Ramírez and Raxcacó Reyes. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Fermin_%2009_05_08_ing.doc.

 

Case of Tiu Tojín

 

1170.      This case concerns the unlawful arrest and forced disappearance of María Tiu Tojín and her one-month-old daughter, Josefa Tiu Tojín, on August 29, 1990, in Nebaj, Quiché department, the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating the facts of the case, and the denial of justice to the family of the victims.

 

1171.      On March 14, 2008, the President of the Court ordered a public hearing on the merits, reparations and costs in this case.  The hearing was held on April 30, 2008, during the Court’s XXXIII special session, held in Tegucigalpa, Honduras.  In attendance were the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, and the Guatemalan State.  On June 6, 2008, the parties filed their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence.

 

1172.      Based on the evidence offered by the parties, their arguments, and the Guatemalan State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, on November 26, 2008 the Court delivered its judgment on merits, reparations and costs.  It found that the State had violated articles 4(1); 5(1) and 5(2); 7(1), 7(2), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6; 8(1), 19 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.  In that judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The text of the judgment is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_190_esp.doc

 

Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.)   

 

1173.      In 2008 the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations and costs the Court ordered in its judgment of May 26, 2001..

 

1174.      On April 16, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it summoned the parties to a private hearing to be held in the venue of the Court.  The text of the Order is available in the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/villagran_16_01_08.pdf. On November 11, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she summoned the Inter-American Commission, the State and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin to a private hearing scheduled to be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009.  The hearing is being held to afford the Court an opportunity to receive information from the parties concerning that item of the judgment on merits and the judgment on reparations and costs whose compliance is still pending.  It will also enable the Court to hear the comments of the Commission and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin regarding the question of compliance.  The text of the order convoking the hearing is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Villagran_11_11_08.doc. The hearing took place at the place and time scheduled.

 

1175.      On January 27, 2009, the Court issued an order to continue the procedure for supervision of compliance with the identification and, as applicable, punishment of the responsible parties and to adapt domestic legislation to include the necessary provisions to ensure compliance with this obligation. The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/villagran_27_01_09.pdf

 

l.          Haiti

 

Case of Lysias Fleury

 

1176.      On August 5, 2009, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Haiti for its responsibility for unlawful detention and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of Lysias Fleury on June 24, 2002, in the city of Port-au-Prince, the subsequent lack of due diligence in the investigation of the facts and denial of justice to the detriment of him and his next of kin, and the inhumane treatment of his next of kin. The Commission asked the Court to find that Haiti had international responsibility for the violation of the following articles of the American Convention: 5.1, 5.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 in conjunction with Article 1.1, to the detriment of Lysias Fleury;  5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, to the detriment of Mr. Fleury’s immediate family; 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1, to the detriment of Mr. Fleury and his next of kin.  The text of that order is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.459%20Lysias%20Fleury%20Haiti%205ago09%20ENG.pdf

 

Case of Yvon Neptune

 

1177.      This case concerns the failure to advise the victim of the charges against him in a timely and adequate fashion; to bring him without delay before a judge or other judicial official empowered by law to exercise judicial authority; to afford him an appeal to a competent court to examine the legality of his detention; to ensure his physical, mental, and moral integrity, and his right to be separated from inmates already convicted; to provide him with detention and treatment conditions consistent with international standards while he was in custody at the National Penitentiary; to give him adequate time and means to prepare his defense; and to refrain from accusing him of an act that was not a crime under Haitian law.

 

1178.      The Inter-American Commission, the victim’s representatives and the State submitted their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence on September 30, 2007.

 

1179.      On November 29, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing to receive Mr. Yvon Neptune’s statement and hear the parties make their case with regard to certain specific topics indicated in the order convoking the hearing. That hearing was held in San José, Costa Rica, on January 30, 2008, with the participation of the Commission, the victim’s representatives, and the Haitian State.

 

1180.      The Inter-American Court delivered its judgment on merits, reparations and costs on May 6, 2008, based on the evidence offered by the parties and their arguments during the proceedings.  In that judgment, the Court held that the State had violated articles 5(1), 5(2), 5(4), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), 8(1), 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. The Court also set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.  The text of the decision is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_180_ing.doc.

 

1181.      As of the date of preparation of this report, the State had not transmitted its first report on compliance with the judgment.

 

m.        Honduras

 

Case of Alfredo López Álvarez

 

1182.      On July 7, 2003, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Honduras for violations of the rights of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, a member of a Honduran Garifuna community. Mr. López Álvarez was arrested on April 27, 1997, and tried in criminal court, where he was acquitted on January 13, 2003. He was imprisoned for six and a half years before being released on August 26, 2003.

 

1183.      On February 1, 2006, the Court issued its judgment in this case.  It held that Honduras had violated Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez’s rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, a fair trial, judicial protection, freedom of thought and expression, and equality before the law and the next of kin’s right to humane treatment, all in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. The full text of the judgment can be found http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_141_ing.doc

 

1184.      On February 6, 2008 the Court issued an Order where it deemed it imperative that the State submit updated information on the following obligations pending compliance: a)  the investigation  of the case and the application of the measures resulting from such investigation to those responsible, and b)  the specific actions taken concerning the improvement of conditions in penitentiary centers and the implementation of training programs on human rights to the agents working in such centers.  The text is available http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/lopezal_06_0208_ing.pdf

 

1185.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on the information reported by the State and by the representatives of the victim and his next of kin. The Commission observed that in order for the inter-American system to be able to make a complete assessment of compliance with the judgment, it must have the necessary information regarding the measures taken by the State in the investigation into the facts of the case, the characteristics of those measures, and the measures taken to improve the conditions of incarceration of persons being held in Honduran prisons. 

 

Case of Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández

 

1186.      On February 4, 2008, the Inter-American Commission filed an application against the Republic of Honduras in case 12,507, Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández, in which it asked the Court to find the State internationally responsible for violation of articles 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the general obligations established in articles 1(1) and 2 thereof..

 

1187.      This case concerns the extrajudicial execution of environmentalist Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández on the night of February 6, 1995, in the “El Centro” section of the city of Tela; the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating, prosecuting and punishing those responsible for her death, obstruction of justice, and failure to make adequate reparations to her next of kin.

 

1188.      On May 7, 2008, the representatives of the victim and her next of kin filed their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence.  On July 3, the Honduran State submitted its brief answering the application, in which it acknowledged international responsibility for violation of the rights protected under articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention; it also acknowledged its obligation to offer reparations to the victim’s next of kin..

 

1189.      By an order of October 7, 2008, the Court convoked a public hearing on the merits, reparations and costs in this case.  The hearing was held on December 2, 2008, during the Court’s XXXVII special session, held in Mexico City.  In attendance were the Commission, the representatives of the victim and her next of kin, and the Honduran State.  The parties are to submit their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence by no later than January 20, 2009..

 

1190.      The application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.org/demandas/12.507%20B%20J%20Kawas%20Honduras%204
%20febrero%202008%20ENG.pdf
.   

 

1191.      On April 3, 2009, the Court delivered its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs, in which it decided, inter alia: a) to accept the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility, and to find that there was a violation of articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, to the detriment of Jacobo Roberto Kawas Cury, Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris Watt Kawas, Jaime Alejandro Watt Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas Fernández, and Carmen Marilena Kawas Fernández; b) that the State violated Article 4.1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1, to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández; the State violated Article 5.1 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1, to the detriment of Jacobo Roberto Kawas Cury, Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris Watt Kawas, Jaime Alejandro Watt Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas Fernández, and Carmen Marilena Kawas Fernández; the State violated Article 16.1 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1, to the detriment of Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández.  The Court also found that it had not been demonstrated that the State failed to comply with Article 2 of the Convention.  In addition, it concluded that the State did not violate Article 5.2 to the detriment of Jacobo Roberto Kawas Cury, Blanca Fernández, Selsa Damaris Watt Kawas, Jaime Alejandro Watt Kawas, Jacobo Roberto Kawas Fernández, Jorge Jesús Kawas Fernández, and Carmen Marilena Kawas Fernández.  Finally, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the Court’s judgment is available at:   http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_196_ing.pdf

 

Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez

 

1192.      On September 8, 2001, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, which concerns the July 11, 1992 abduction of Juan Humberto Sánchez, his torture and execution, the ineffectiveness of the habeas corpus remedy filed to determine his whereabouts (until his body was found some days later), and the impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators of those crimes. The Court delivered its judgment on June 7, 2003.

 

1193.      On November 21, 2007, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance with the judgment, in which it found that some of the reparation measures it had ordered had been complied with in full.  However, it also decided to keep open the monitoring procedure vis-à-vis compliance with the pending items, namely: (a) paying Mr. Julio Sánchez the compensation ordered for non-pecuniary damages; (b) conducting an effective investigation into the facts of the case, identifying the direct perpetrators, the instigators, and any accessories after the fact, and punishing them through the appropriate administrative and criminal justice channels; and establishing a log of detainees with which to verify the legality of the detentions.

 

1194.      In 2009, the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the Court’s judgment.  The Commission observed that the State had complied with the majority of its obligations under the judgment and underscored the importance of monitoring for implementation and effective compliance with all aspects of the judgment, particularly those whose compliance is pending, such as the investigation, identification, prosecution and punishment of the material and intellectual authors of the crimes in this case, and creation of the detainee log to control the lawfulness of detentions in Honduras. 

 

Case of Servellón García et al.

 

1195.      In 2009 the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments regarding compliance with the Court’s September 21, 2006 judgment on the violations committed against Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourt Vásquez, Orlando Álvarez Ríos and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, who were detained between September 15 and 16, 1995, during an operation conducted by the Public Security Force of Honduras.  The four young men were extra judicially executed by agents of the State.  Their unburied bodies were found in various places in the city of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, on September 17, 1995. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_152_ing.doc.

 

1196.      On January 29, 2008 the Court issued an Order in which it determined that it will monitor compliance with seven pending matters. On August 5, 2008, the Court issued another Order where it determined that it will monitor compliance with the pending matters in the present case, specifically: a)  to carry out all actions necessary to identify, prosecute and, as the case may be, punish all the perpetrators of the violations committed in detriment of the victims and to remove all obstacles and mechanisms of fact and of law that have maintained impunity in the instant case and b)  to carry out a campaign to sensitize the Honduran society regarding the importance of the protection of children and youngsters, to inform about the specific duties for their protection that correspond to the family, society and the State, and to show the population that children and youngsters in risky situations are not associated to delinquency. The Orders are available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/servellon_29_01_08_ing.pdf  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/servellon_05_08_08_ing.pdf

 

n.         Mexico

 

Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores

 

1197.      On June 24, 2009, the Commission filed an application against Mexico for its responsibility in subjecting Messrs. Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment while detained and in custody of members of the Mexican army; for the failure to bring them promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power to determine the legality of the detention; and for irregularities in the course of the criminal proceeding against them. The application also refers to the lack of due diligence in investigation and punishment of those responsible for the facts, particularly the lack of appropriate investigation of the allegations of torture; the lack of adequate reparation for the victims; and the use of military courts for investigation and trial of human rights violations.  The text of the application is available at the following link http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.449%20Teodoro%20Cabrera%20Garcia%20y%20Rodolfo%20
Montiel%20Flores%20Mexico%2024jun09%20ENG.pdf

 

Case of Castañeda Gutman

 

1198.      This case concerns the lack of a simple and effective domestic remedy to challenge the constitutionality of decisions that affect political rights and that, in practice, had the effect of preventing Mr. Jorge Castañeda Gutman from registering as an independent candidate for the office of President of Mexico.

 

1199.      On November 30, 2007, the Court convoked a public hearing on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, which was held in San José, Costa Rica, on February 8, 2008, with the participation of the Commission, the representatives of the victim and his family, and the Mexican State.  On March 10, the parties submitted their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence.

 

1200.      Based on the evidence offered by the parties during the proceedings and their arguments, the Court delivered a judgment in the case on August 6, 2008 in which it dismissed the State’s preliminary objections and declared that the State had violated Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.  In that judgment the Court set the reparations it deemed appropriate.  The text of the judgment is available at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_184_ing.pdf

 

1201.      On July 1, 2009, the Court issued an order declaring that the State had fully complied with its obligation to publish the pertinent parts of the judgment, and its obligation to pay Mr. Castañeda Gutman the amount established for costs and expenses.  The Court also decided to continue the procedure of supervision of compliance concerning the State’s adaptation of its domestic law to the Convention, in order to adapt the secondary legislation and the norms that regulate the action for the protection of the rights of the citizen to the provisions of the constitutional reform of November 13, 2007, so that, using this remedy, citizens are effectively guaranteed the possibility of contesting the constitutionality of the legal regulation of the right to be elected. The text of that order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/castañeda_01_07_09_ing.pdf

 

Case of Campo Algodonero (González et al.)

 

1202.      This case concerns the denial of justice in the disappearance and murder of Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez (two of whom were minors), in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; the absence of policies to prevent cases of this kind, despite the fact that the authorities are aware of a pattern of violence against women and girls in the state of Chihuahua; the authorities’ failure to respond to the disappearances; the lack of due diligence in the murder investigations; and the failure to provide adequate compensation to the victims’ next of kin.

 

1203.      On May 26, 2008, the State filed its brief answering the application, but did not file any express preliminary objection.  Nevertheless, as the Court held, “the arguments […] regarding the alleged lack of competence of the Court to ‘examine direct violations of the Convention’ would constitute a preliminary objection. 

 

1204.      The Commission filed its arguments regarding the preliminary objection on August 20, 2008..

 

1205.      The text of the application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.496-7-8%20Campo%20Algodonero%20Mexico%204%20noviembre%202007%20ENG.pdf

 

 

1206.      The public hearing was held on April 28-29, 2009 during the Court’s XXXIX special session, held in Chile.

 

1207.      On November 16, 2009, the Court rendered its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs, in which it decided: a) to accept in part the preliminary exception filed by the State, and therefore to declare that: i) it has ratione materiae competence to consider the alleged violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and ii) it does not have ratione materiae competence to consider the alleged violations of articles 8 and 9 of that international instrument; b) to accept the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility; c) to not hold the State internationally responsible for violations of the substantive rights set forth in articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention, from failure to comply with Article 1.1; d) that the State violated articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7.1 of the American Convention, in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, and the obligations established in Article 7.b and 7.c of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudia Ivette González, Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, and Esmeralda Herrera Monreal; e) that the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate, and its obligation to guarantee, the rights stipulated in articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles 1.1 and 2 thereof and with Article 7.b and 7.c of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Claudia Ivette González, Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, and Esmeralda Herrera Monreal. For the reasons, the State violated Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles 1.1 and 2, and 7.b and 7.c of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of: Irma Monreal Jaime, Benigno Herrera Monreal, Adrián Herrera Monreal, Juan Antonio Herrera Monreal, Cecilia Herrera Monreal, Zulema Montijo Monreal, Erick Montijo Monreal, Juana Ballín Castro, Irma Josefina González Rodríguez, Mayela Banda González, Gema Iris González, Karla Arizbeth Hernández Banda, Jacqueline Hernández, Carlos Hernández Llamas, Benita Monárrez Salgado, Claudia Ivonne Ramos Monárrez, Daniel Ramos Monárrez, Ramón Antonio Aragón Monárrez, Claudia Dayana Bermúdez Ramos, Itzel Arely Bermúdez Ramos, Paola Alexandra Bermúdez Ramos, and Atziri Geraldine Bermúdez Ramos; f) that the State violated the nondiscrimination provision of Article 1.1 of the American Convention, in relation to the duty to guarantee the rights set forth in articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7.1 of that treaty, to the detriment of Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, and Claudia Ivette González; and in relation to the access to justice established in articles 8.1 and 25.1 of said Convention, to the detriment their next of kin; g) that the State violated Article 19 of the Convention, in connection with articles 1.1 and 2, to the detriment of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez; h) that the State violated Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin, for the damages caused; i) that the State violated Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of some next of kin, for the acts of harassment; and j) that the State did not violate Article 11 of the Convention.  The Court also set the reparations it deemed appropriate. The text of the Court’s judgment is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_205_esp.pdf

 

Case of Inés Fernández Ortega

 

1208.      On May 7, 2009, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Mexico for its responsibility in the rape and torture of Me’phaa Inés Fernández Ortega, an indigenous woman, on March 22, 2002 in the Barranca Tecuani community, municipality of Ayutla de Los Libres, Guerrero state. The application also concerns the lack of due diligence in the investigation and punishment of the parties responsible for the facts; the lack of appropriate reparation to the victim and her next of kin; the use of military courts to investigate and try human rights violations; and the problems of indigenous persons, particularly women, in gaining access to justice.  The Commission alleged the violation of articles 5, 8, 11, and 25, in connection with 1.1 of the American Convention, and the violation of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Violence against Women, to the detriment of the victim; and articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of her next of kin. Finally, the Commission considered that the State failed to comply with its obligations under articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.  The text of the application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.580%20Ines%20Fernandez%20Ortega%20Mexico%207mayo09.pdf

 

Case of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco

 

1209.      El On March 15, 2008, the Commission filed an application against the United Mexican States in the case of Mr. Rosendo Radilla Pacheco, who was unlawfully detained at an Army military post in the state of Guerrero, Mexico, on August 25, 1974.  The case concerns his forced disappearance since that time, the State’s failure to establish his whereabouts, the fact that the crimes committed have never been punished, and the fact that his next of kin have never been compensated for the harm that the loss of their loved one and the prolonged denial of justice caused. The application is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.511%20Rosendo%20Radilla%20Pacheco%
20Mexico%2015%20marzo%2008%20ESP.pdf
 

 

1210.      The State presented preliminary observations and the parties have presented their comments thereon.  Convocation of the public hearing to hear the evidence and the arguments in this case is pending.

 

1211.      On July 7, 2009, there was a public hearing during the Court’s LXXXIII regular session at its headquarters.

 

1212.      On November 23, 2009, the Court rendered a judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations, and costs, in which it decided: a) to reject the preliminary exceptions raised by Mexico; b) to accept the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility; c) that the State is responsible for the violation of articles 7.1, 5.1, 5.2, 3, and 4.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 thereof, and of articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Rosendo Radilla Pacheco; d) that the State is responsible for the violation of articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1, to the detriment of Tita and Andrea, and Mr. Rosendo, all with the surname Radilla Martínez; e) that the State is responsible for the violation of articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, and of articles I paragraphs a), b) y d), IX, and XIX of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Tita and Andrea, and Mr. Rosendo, all with the surname Radilla Martínez;  f) that the State failed to comply with  Article 2 of the American Convention, in conjunction with articles I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, concerning making forced disappearance of persons a statutory offense. The Court also set the reparations it deemed appropriate. The text of the Court’s judgment is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_209_esp.pdf

 

Case of Valentina Rosendo Cantú et al.

 

1213.      On August 2, 2009, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Mexico for its responsibility in the rape and torture of Me’phaa Valentina Rosendo Cantú, an indigenous woman, on February 16, 2002, in the State of Guerrero, Mexico. The application also concerns the lack of due diligence in the investigation and punishment of the parties responsible for the facts; the effects of the facts of the case on the victim’s daughter and the lack of appropriate reparation to the victim and her next of kin; the use of military courts to investigate and try human rights violations; and the problems of indigenous persons, particularly women, in gaining access to justice and health services.  The Commission considers that the State is responsible for the violation of articles 8.1 and 25, 5.1, 11 and 19,  in conjunction with 1.1 of the American Convention, and Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Violence against Women to the detriment of Valentina Rosendo Cantú. The Commission also considers that the State failed to fulfill its obligations under articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of the victim. Finally, the Commission considers that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 5.1 in relation to Article 1.1, both of the American Convention, to the detriment of Valentina Rosendo Cantú’s daughter. The text of the application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.579%20Valentina%20Rosendo%20Cantu%20
Mexico%202ago09%20ENGLISH.pdf

 

o.         Nicaragua

 

Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community

 

1214.      On June 4, 1998 the Commission filed an application in this case with the Inter-American Court. The case concerns the State’s failure to demarcate the communal lands of the Awas Tingni Community, its failure to take effective measures to ensure the Community’s property rights to its ancestral lands and the natural resources on and in those lands, the fact that the State granted a concession on community lands without the Community’s consent and without guaranteeing an effective remedy to answer the Community’s claims to its property rights.  The Court delivered its judgment on merits and reparations on August 31, 2001. 

 

1215.      On March 14, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it summoned the parties to a private hearing to be held in the venue of the Court.  On May 7, 2008 the Court issued another Order where it decided that it will keep open the procedure of monitoring compliance with the pending aspect of this case, concerning the State’s obligation to delimit, demarcate and title the lands that correspond to the members of the Awas Tingni Community and, until that delimitation, demarcation and titling has been done, it must abstain from any acts that might lead the agents of the State itself, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the property located in the geographic area where the members of the Community live and carry out their activities. The text of the Orders are available in the following links:

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/mayagna_07_05_08_ing.pdf http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/mayagna_14_03_08_ing.pdf

 

1216.      On Sunday, December 14, 2008, the Government of Nicaragua gave the Awas Tingni Community title to 73,000 hectares of its territory, located in Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast region.  The Commission took this as a major step toward resolution of the case that it brought to the Inter-American Court in 1998.  It was the first case that the Commission took to the Court on the issue of the collective ownership of indigenous lands. By this measure, the judgment the Inter-American Court delivered on August 31, 2001 becomes a historic milestone in the recognition and protection of the rights of indigenous people at the global level, and a major legal precedent in international human rights law..

 

1217.      On April 3, 2009, the Inter-American Court issued an order on compliance in which it decided to archive the case because the State had fully complied with the provisions of the judgment rendered by the Court on August 31, 2001. The text of that order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/mayagna_03_04_09_ing.pdf

 

Case of Yatama

 

1218.      On June 17, 2003, the Commission filed an application with the Court in which it asserted that candidates for mayors, deputy mayors and councilors nominated by the indigenous regional political party, Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (hereinafter “YATAMA”), were excluded from participating in the municipal elections held on November 5, 2000, in the North Atlantic and the South Atlantic Autonomous Regions (hereinafter “RAAN” and “RAAS”), as a result of a decision issued on August 15, 2000, by the Supreme Electoral Council. The State did not provide a recourse that would have protected the right of these candidates to participate and to be elected in the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, and it had not adopted the legislative or other measures necessary to make these rights effective; above all, the State did not include provisions in the electoral law that would have facilitated indigenous organizations’ political participation in electoral processes of the Atlantic Coast Autonomous Region of Nicaragua, in accordance with the customary law, values, practices and customs of the indigenous people who reside there. 

 

1219.      On June 23, 2005, the Court issued its judgment in which it held that the right to a fair trial, the right to judicial protection, political rights and the right to equality before the law had been violated.  On November 29, 2006, the Court issued an order instructing the State to take all the steps necessary for effective and prompt fulfillment of the Court’s orders that were still awaiting compliance. Later, on August 4, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it decided that it will keep open the proceeding for monitoring compliance with the following obligations pending fulfillment in the instant case: a) The adoption, within a reasonable time, of such legislative measures as may be necessary to provide for a simple, prompt, and effective judicial remedy to review the decisions adopted by the Supreme Electoral Council which may affect human rights, such as the right to participate in government, in compliance with the relevant legal and treaty guarantees, and to repeal any provisions preventing said remedy from being sought; b) The amendment to Electoral Act No. 331 of 2000; c) The reform of the regulation of those requirements established in Electoral Act No. 331 of 2000 that were found to be in violation of the American Convention and the adoption of such measures as may be required for the members of indigenous and ethnic communities to be able to effectively take part in election processes in accordance with their values, customs, and traditions; d) Payment of the compensation set for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage;  e) Payment of the amount due on account of costs and expenses; f) The duty to publicize via broadcast by a radio station with widespread coverage on the Atlantic Coast the pertinent parts  of the Judgment. The text of the Order is available:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/yatama_04_08_08_ing.pdf

 

1220.      In 2009, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the information reported by the representatives and by the State on the matter of compliance with the reparations the Court ordered in its judgment of June 23, 2005..

 

p.         Panamá

 

Case of Baena Ricardo et al.

 

1221.      On January 16, 1998, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court for the events occurring as of December 6, 1990, and especially as of December 14 of that year, the date on which Law No. 25 was enacted.  Under that law, 270 public employees who had participated in a labor demonstration were arbitrarily dismissed from their positions and accused of complicity in an attempted military coup. Following the workers’ arbitrary dismissal, a series of violations of their rights to due process and to judicial protection were committed in the efforts to get their complaints and lawsuits filed. The Inter-American Court issued its judgment on merits and reparations on February 2, 2001. .

 

1222.      On February 11, 2008 the Court summoned the parties to a private hearing on compliance with the judgment, to be held on May 3, 2008.  On October 30, 2008, it announced that it was standardizing the agreements concluded between some victims and the State.  It also instructed Panama to take the measures necessary to make, promptly and effectively, the payments required under the agreements to those victims or heirs who signed agreements.  In the case of victims or heirs who did not sign agreements or who signed but then retracted their signature, the Court ordered that the discrepancies over the total amount owed under the judgment and compensation and reimbursements owed pursuant to operative paragraphs six and seven of the Judgment must be settled at the domestic level, following the appropriate procedures.  This includes the possibility of recourse to the competent authorities, including the domestic courts.  The Court also announced that it would keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgment in order to receive: a) the vouchers certifying payments to victims or heirs who signed agreements; and b) bank deposit vouchers in the case of those persons who have not signed agreements or who signed but then retracted their signature.  The full text of that order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/baena_30_10_08_ing.pdf

 

1223.      On July 1, 2009, the Inter-American Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared: a) that the State has complied with its duty to deliver the checks for the first of the four payments agreed, in relation to 255 victims or successors signatory to the agreements and to the issuance of the payment receipts.  (The Tribunal was left awaiting confirmation of the situation of the five persons who signed the agreements and who would have withdrawn the check, and with the two persons who signed the agreements but have not withdrawn their checks); b) that the State has yet to comply with its obligation to make a specific bank deposit and send the corresponding deposit slips, in connection with those persons who have not signed the agreements or who, after the signature, withdrew their consent. The text of the aforesaid order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/baena_01_07_09_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Heliodoro Portugal

 

1224.      This case concerns the forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution of Mr. Heliodoro Portugal, the failure to investigate and punish those responsible for these events, and the failure to make adequate reparations to his next of kin.

 

1225.      On November 29, 2007, the Court convened a public hearing on preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs, which was held in San José, Costa Rica, January 29-30, 2008, and was attended by the Commission, the representatives of the victim and his family, and the Panamanian State. .

 

1226.      The Inter-American Court delivered its judgment in this case on August 12, 2008, based on the evidence offered by the parties during the proceedings and the arguments they made.   There, it dismissed the State’s preliminary objections claiming a failure to exhaust local remedies and the Court’s lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae; it also declared that the State’s preliminary objection asserting the Court’s lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis was partially admissible and partially inadmissible. The Court also held that the State had violated Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to articles I and II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Heliodor Portugal; articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin; a failure to comply with the obligation to criminalize forced disappearance, as provided in articles II and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; and a failure to comply with the obligation to criminalize the crime of torture, as required under articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.  In the judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate.  The text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_186_ing.pdf. In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on the first report of the State on compliance, as well as its comments on the observations of the representatives in that respect.

 

Case of Tristán Donoso

 

1227.      On August 28, 2007, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court in the case of Santander Tristán Donoso, alleging Panama’s responsibility for making public a telephone conversation made by the lawyer Santander Tristán Donoso; for putting Mr. Tristán Donoso on trials for crimes against honor, as a reprisal for the complaints he had filed regarding the airing of his phone conversation; the failure to investigate and punish the perpetrators; and the failure to provide adequate reparations. In its application, the Commission asked the Court to rule that the Panamanian State had failed to comply with its international obligations by violating articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 11 (right to privacy), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights, undertaken in Article 1(1) of the Convention,  and the obligation of domestic legal effects, undertaken in Article 2..

 

1228.      On August 12, 2008, the Commission appeared before the Court at a public hearing on the merits and possible reparations in this case.  The hearing was part of the special session that the Court held in Montevideo, Uruguay.  There, it presented the victim’s statement and two expert reports. 

 

1229.      On January 27, 2009, the Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, in which it decided: a) to dismiss the preliminary objection raised by the State; b) the State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Santander Tristán Donoso, Article 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, for the disclosure of the telephone conversation; c) the State did not violate Article 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, for the wiretapping and recording of the telephone conversation; d) the State did not fail to comply with the duty of guaranteeing the right to a private life enshrined in Article 11(2) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, for the investigation conducted against the former Procurador General de la Nación [National Attorney General]; the State violated, to the detriment of Santander Tristán Donoso, Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof; e) the State did not fail to comply with the Article 2 of the Convention; f) the State did not violate Article 9 of the Convention; the State did not violate Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention regarding the investigation of the criminal complaints; g) the State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Santander Tristán Donoso, Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, for the lack of sufficient grounds in the Court decision on the disclosure of the telephone conversation; h) the State did not violate, to the detriment of Mr. Santander Tristán Donoso, the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in the framework of the investigation conducted against him for crimes against honor. The Court also deemed it unnecessary to effect any considerations besides those made on Article 13 of the American Convention regarding the alleged violation of the right to be presumed innocent. Finally, it ordered the pertinent reparations. The text of the decision is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_193_ing.pdf

 

Case of Vélez-Loor

 

1230.      On October 8, 2009, the Commission submitted an application to the Court against Panama for the arrest and subsequent prosecution of the victim – an Ecuadorian national – for crimes relating to his immigration status, in the absence of due guarantees and without affording him the possibility of being heard or of exercising his right of defense. The case also deals with the failure to investigate the allegations of torture Mr. Vélez Loor filed with the Panamanian authorities, as well as with the inhumane detention conditions in which he was held at various Panamanian prisons between his arrest on November 11, 2002, and his deportation to the Republic of Ecuador on September 10, 2003.  The Commission asks the Court to establish the international responsibility of the State of Panama, which has failed to meet its international obligations and has consequently violated Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25  of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with the obligations set by Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, together with Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, all with respect to Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor.  The text of the application is available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.581%20Jesus%20Tranquilino%20Velez
%20Loor%20Panama%208oct09%20ENG.pdf

 

q.         Paraguay

 

Case of the “Panchito López” Juvenile Reeducation Center

 

1231.      In 2008, the Commission presented its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s September 2, 2004 judgment on merits, reparations and costs in this case, and highlighted the fact that almost nothing of what the Court ordered in its judgment has been carried out thus far.

 

1232.      On December 14, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to convene a private hearing with the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the victims, and the Paraguayan State, to receive up-to-date information on progress with implementing the reparations judgment. That hearing took place at the seat of the Court on February 4, 2008.  There, the State and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin signed an agreement of understanding to facilitate fulfillment of the State’s pending obligations..

 

1233.      On February 6, 2008, the Inter-American issued an order requiring the State to take the necessary measures to comply, promptly and effectively, with the pending obligations ordered in the Court’s September 2, 2004 judgment on merits, reparations and costs, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.  The order in question is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/instituto_06_02_08_ing.doc

 

1234.      On August 5, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on September 30, 2009.  The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/instituto_05_08_09.pdf.  The hearing was held on the appointed day.

 

1235.      On November 19, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that it shall continue to monitor compliance with the following obligations of the states: a) to carry out in consultation with civil society a public act of acknowledgement of international responsibility and issue a declaration setting forth a short-, medium- and long-term State policy on the matter of children in conflict with the law; provide psychological treatment to all persons who were inmates at the center; b) medical and psychological treatment to the former inmates injured in the fires, and psychological treatment to the next of kin of the injured and deceased inmates; c) provide vocational guidance and a special education program geared to former inmates at the center; d) provide the mother of Mario del Pilar Álvarez Pérez with a place in a mausoleum, near her home, where she can lay her son’s remains to rest; e) ensure the life, humane treatment and safety of the persons who gave affidavits and their next of kin; d) pay the outstanding pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awarded to the victims and next of kin; and, e) reimburse the representatives of the victims for their costs and expenses. The order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/instituto_19_11_09.pdf

 

Case of Goiburú et al.

 

1236.      In 2008, the Commission continued to file its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s September 22, 2006 judgment in this case.  The latter concerns the unlawful and arbitrary arrest, torture and forced disappearance of Messrs. Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and the brothers Rodolfo Feliciano and Benjamín de Jesús Ramírez Villalba, perpetrated by agents of the State in Paraguay as of 1974 and 1977, and the fact that none of those responsible for these deeds has ever been punished.  The full text of the judgment can be seen at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_153_ing.doc.

 

1237.      On August 7, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on October 1, 2009. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/goiburu_07_08_09.pdf.  The hearing was held on the appointed day.

 

1238.      On November 19, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had complied with its obligation to: a) publish several parts of the Judgment; b) implement, within a reasonable time, permanent programs of human rights training in the Paraguayan police forces, at all levels, and, c) pay the amounts set in costs and expenses.  The Court also declared that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with respect to the points pending in this case, which were to: a) immediately carry out the necessary procedures to activate and conclude effectively the investigation of the facts; b) proceed immediately to seek the three disappeared victims and, if their remains are found, deliver them to their next of kin forthwith and cover the costs of their burial; c) organize a public act acknowledging responsibility and in reparation; d) provide all the next of kin of the victims with appropriate treatment including medicines, after they have given their corresponding consent; e) erect a monument in memory of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello, Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba, and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba; adapt the definition of the crimes of torture and “involuntary” (forzosa) disappearance of persons contained in articles 236 and 309 of the current Penal Code to the applicable provisions of international human rights law, and, g)        pay in cash to the next of kin of the victims the compensation set for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/goiburu_19_11_09.pdf

 

Case of Ricardo Canese

 

1239.      In 2008, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the Court’s August 31, 2004 judgment on merits, reparations and costs in this case. .

 

1240.      On December 14, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to summon the Commission, the victims’ representatives and the Paraguayan State to a private hearing, to get up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the judgment on reparations.  That hearing was held at the seat of the Court on February 4, 2008.

 

1241.      On February 6, 2008 the Inter-American Court issued an order requiring the victim’s representatives to inform the Court, by no later than March 28, 2008, of the victim’s position  regarding the Paraguayan State’s request to be released from the obligation to pay interest in arrears

 

1242.      Having seen the information supplied by the victim’s representation, on August 6, 2008 the Court decided that the State has fully complied with the Judgment on merits, reparations and costs that the Court delivered on August 31, 2004, and therefore considered the case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay closed and the proceedings in the case filed.  The corresponding order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/canese_06_08_08.doc.

 

Case of Sawhoyamaxa

 

1243.      In 2009, the Commission submitted its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s March 29, 2006 judgment on merits, reparations and costs..

 

1244.      On December 14, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to convene a private hearing with the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the victims, and the Paraguayan State, to receive up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the reparations judgment. That hearing took place at the Court’s seat on February 4, 2008..

 

1245.      On February 8, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order instructing the State of Paraguay to adopt all measures necessary to promptly and effectively comply with the pending items, in keeping with Article 68(1) of the American Convention.  The order in question is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/sawhoyamaxa_08_02_08%20_ing.pdf

 

1246.      On May 20, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on July 15, 2009, in the course of the Court’s XL Special Session in Bolivia. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/sawhoyamaxa_20_05_09.pdf.  The hearing was held on the appointed day.

 

Case of Vargas Areco

 

1247.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s September 26, 2006 judgment in this case.  The latter concerns the failure to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the violations committed against Gerardo Vargas Areco, a child who was recruited into service with the Paraguayan armed forces when he was 15 years old.  He died on December 30, 1989, when he was shot in the back attempting to escape the military post.  The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_155_ing.pdf

 

1248.      On October 30, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it decided that it will keep open the proceeding for monitoring compliance with the following obligations pending fulfillment in the instant case, to wit: a) to take, in full accordance with the right to a fair trial and within a reasonable  period of time, all such actions as may be necessary to identify, prosecute, and  punish all those responsible for the violations committed in the instant case; b) to hold a public act to acknowledge its international responsibility in relation  to the violations declared in [the] Judgment, in the community where Gerardo Vargas-Areco’s next of kin reside, and in the presence of the State’s civilian and  military authorities make a public apology and place a plaque in memory of the child Vargas-Areco; c) to provide medical, psychological, and psychiatric treatment, as appropriate, to De Belén Areco, Pedro Vargas, and Juan, María Elisa, Patricio, Daniel, Doralicia, Mario, María Magdalena, Sebastián, and Jorge Ramón, all of them Vargas-Areco, if they so require, and for as long as necessary; d) to implement training programs and regular courses on human rights for all the members of the Paraguayan Armed Forces; e) to publish once in a nationwide daily newspaper the chapter on Proven Facts of the Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and the operative paragraphs thereof;  f) to adapt its domestic legislation on recruitment for voluntary military service of minors under the age of 18 into the Paraguayan Armed Forces, in conformity with the applicable international standards, and g) to pay default interests on the amounts set as compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and reimbursement of costs and expenses. The Order is available in the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/vargas_30_10_08_ing.pdf

 

Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community

 

1249.      On March 17, 2003, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case because of the State’s failure to guarantee the ancestral property rights of the Yakye Axa indigenous community and its members, whose land claim had been pending processing since 1993 without a satisfactory resolution. This has kept the community and its members from securing ownership and possession of their lands and has kept them in state of vulnerability in terms of their nutritional, medical, and sanitation needs, which poses a continuous threat to the survival of its members and the integrity of the community itself..

 

1250.      On June 17, 2005, the Court handed down its judgment in the case, ruling that the community’s right to a fair trial and to judicial protection, to private property, and to life had been violated, and establishing the applicable reparations. The full text of the judgment can be found at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_125_ing.pdf.

 

1251.      On February 4, 2008, the Court held a private hearing at its seat in San José, Costa Rica.  After the hearing, the Commission was present to witness the parties sign an agreement.    On February 8, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it decided that it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the following pending points: (a)  The granting of the traditional territory to the members of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community; (b) The provision of the basic goods and services required for the subsistence of the members of the Community; (c) The establishment of a fund exclusively for the purchase of the lands to be granted to the members of the Community; (d) The implementation of a community development fund and program; (e) The adoption of such domestic legislative, administrative and other measures  as may be necessary to guarantee the effective exercise of the right to property of the members of the indigenous peoples; f) Publication and radio broadcast of the Judgment.  The Order is available in the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/yakyeaxa_08_02_08-ing.pdf..In 2009, the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations the Court ordered in its judgment of June 17, 2005. 

 

Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community

 

1252.      On July 3, 2009, the Commission submitted an application to the Court against Paraguay for the State’s failure to ensure the right of ancestral ownership of the Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek of the Enxet-Lengua People and its members. The application notes that the processing of the community’s land claim has been underway since 1990 without, as yet, a satisfactory resolution. The foregoing has made it impossible for the community to obtain title to and possession of its territory, the effect of which has been to place them in a situation of extreme vulnerability as regards food, medical care and health, which represents a permanent threat to the survival of the community’s members and to the integrity of the Community itself. In its application, the Commission asked the Court to find and declare that Paraguay has violated: a) Articles 21, 4, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, all in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek of the Enxet-Lengua People and its members; and, b) Articles 3 and 19 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Indigenous Community Xákmok Kásek of the Enxet-Lengua People. The text of the application is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.420%20Xakmok%20Kasek%20Paraguay%203jul09%20ESP.pdf

 

r.          Peru

 

Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. (SITRAMUN)

 

1253.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s February 7, 2006 judgment.  The case concerns the failure to comply with a series of judgments delivered between 1996 and 2000 on behalf of workers of the Lima municipal government who had been illegally laid off or fired.  The judgments ordered that they be reinstated and paid their wages, bonuses, allowances, and other benefits. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_144_ing.doc. .

 

1254.      On December 18, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on February 1, 2010. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/acevedo_18_12_09.pdf

 

Case of Baldeón García

 

1255.      This case concerns the unlawful and arbitrary detention, torture and extrajudicial execution of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón García, by Peruvian Army troops on September 25, 1990.

 

1256.      In 2009, the Commission continued to wait for the Peruvian State to submit a report on its compliance with the judgment of April 6, 2006; to date, no such report has been submitted..

 

1257.      On February 7, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order instructing the Peruvian State to take all measures necessary to promptly and effectively carry out the items whose compliance is pending, pursuant to Article 68(1) of the American Convention.  The order in question is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/baldeon_07_02_08_ing.doc.

 

1258.      On April 3, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had met its obligations to: a) publish the pertinent parts of the judgment, and, b) name a street in the memory of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García.  It also determined that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with respect to the following points: a) adopt, in full compliance with the right to fair trial and within reasonable time, all measures necessary to identify, prosecute and punish the physical perpetrators and instigators of the violations committed against Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García; b) make a public apology and acknowledgment of its international responsibility; c) pay to Guadalupe Yllaconza-Ramírez de Baldeón; Crispín, Roberto, Segundina, Miguelita, Perseveranda, Vicente, Sabina and Fidela, all members of the Baldeón-Yllaconza family, the amounts set in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; and, d) pay Crispín Baldeón Yllaconza the amount set as reimbursement for the costs and expenses incurred. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/baldeon_03_04_09.pdf.

 

Case of Barrios Altos

 

1259.      On June 8, 2000, the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, which concerns the extrajudicial execution of 15 individuals on November 3, 1999, in the neighborhood known as “Barrios Altos” in Lima, Peru, and the justice thereafter denied to their next of kin and the survivors by virtue of application of Law No. 26479, which granted a general amnesty to military, police, and civilian personnel in various cases, and Law No. 26492 which “clarifies the interpretation and scope of the amnesty granted by Law No. 26479.” .

 

1260.      The Court delivered its judgment on merits and reparations on March 14, 2001, in which it held that the Peruvian State had violated articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention, and that it had failed to comply with its obligations under articles 1 and 2 thereof by its passage and enactment of the amnesty laws. The Court ruled that those laws were incompatible with the American Convention and, consequently, did not have the force of law. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_75_ing.doc.  Subsequently, in a judgment on interpretation, the Court ruled that given “the kind of violation that the amnesty laws (Nos. 26479 and 26492) represented, the resolutions in the judgment on the merits of the Barrios Altos case would be of general applicability.” The full text of the judgment of interpretation can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_83_ing.doc..

 

1261.      On September 22, 2005, the Court decided to keep open the monitoring procedure with respect to the measures of reparation whose implementation was still pending.  In 2008, the Commission filed its comments on the compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its Judgments of March 14 and November 30, 2001.  In those comments the Commission expressed concern over the failure to comply with some of the reparations not yet implemented. 

 

1262.      On August 4, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it decided that it shall keep the monitoring of compliance proceedings open regarding the points pending fulfillment in the instant case, to wit:  a) payment of the compensation owed to Mr. Martín León-Lunazco, son of victim Máximo León-León; b) payment of the interest in arrears regarding the compensations of beneficiaries Cristina Ríos-Rojas, daughter of deceased victim Manuel Isaías Ríos-Pérez, and Rocío Genoveva Rosales-Capillo, daughter of deceased victim Alejandro Rosales-Alejandro; c) the payment of the amount of interest in arrears owed to Mrs. Maximina Pascuala Alberto-Falero; d) the duty to investigate the facts to ascertain those responsible for the violations of the human rights referred to in the Judgment on the merits, as well as the public release of the results of said investigation and the punishment of the responsible parties; e) the health services provided; f) the educational services provided; g) the progress in the inclusion of the “legal concept resulting most convenient to typify the crime of extrajudicial killings”, and h) the memorial monument to be erected.  The text of the Order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/barrios_04_08_08_ing.pdf.

 

1263.      On December 7, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on February 1, 2010. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/barrios_7_12_09.pdf.

 

Case of Cantoral Benavides

 

1264.      This case concerns the unlawful arrest of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides on February 6, 1993, followed by his arbitrary detention and imprisonment and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, and the violation of due process and freedom from ex post facto laws.

 

1265.      In 2009, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the Court’s December 3, 2001 judgment on merits, reparations and costs.

 

1266.      On December 14, 2007, the President of the Court summoned the Commission, the victims’ representatives and the Peruvian State to a private hearing, to get up-to-date information on the status of compliance with the judgment on reparations.  That hearing was held at the seat of the Court on February 1, 2008.

 

1267.      On February 7, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order instructing the Peruvian State to adopt all measures necessary to promptly and effectively comply with the pending obligations under the Judgments on merits and reparations of August 18, 2000 and December 3, 2001, respectively, delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of Cantoral-Benavides, pursuant to the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.  The order in question is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cantoral_07_02_08_ing.doc

 

1268.      On November 20, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with respect to the operative points pending, namely: a) provide Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides with a fellowship to pursue advanced or university studies, in order to defray the costs of the professional degree that the victim elects to pursue, as well as his living expenses for the duration of the victim’s studies, at a center of recognized academic excellence selected by mutual agreement between the victim and the State; b) provide medical treatment and psychotherapy to Mrs. Gladys Benavides López; and, c) investigate the facts of the present case and identify and punish the responsible parties. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cantoral_20_11_09.pdf

 

Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz

 

1269.      In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s July 10, 2007 judgment in this case.  The latter concerns the torture and extrajudicial execution of Saúl Cantoral Huamaní and Consuelo García Santa Cruz in Lima, Peru, on February 13, 1989, and the failure to investigate the crimes and punish those responsible.  The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_167_ing.pdf

 

1270.      On January 28, 2008, the Court delivered a judgment interpreting its judgment on the merits.  In it, it determined the meaning and scope of paragraph 187 of that judgment.  That paragraph concerned a measure of reparation it had ordered. The text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_176_ing.doc. .

 

1271.      On September 21, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with respect to the following points: a) immediately investigate the facts that generated the violations in the present case, and identify, prosecute, and sanction those responsible; b) publish the pertinent parts of the judgment; c) publicly acknowledge its international responsibility;  d) provide a study grant to a Peruvian public institution for Ulises Cantoral-Huamaní, Pelagia Mélida Contreras-Montoya de Cantoral, and the children of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní, that covers all their educational expenses, from the moment the beneficiaries request this of the State until the conclusion of their advanced technical or university studies; e) provide for the continuation of the psychological treatment currently being received by Vanessa and Brenda Cantoral-Contreras for the necessary period, and provide immediate psychological treatment to the other next of kin who have been declared victims free of charge and for the necessary period; f) pay the outstanding amounts established for pecuniary damages, non pecuniary damages, and reimbursement of costs and expenses; and, g) reimburse Pelagia Mélida Contreras Montoya de Cantoral the amount of US$ 7,500.00. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cantoral_21_09_09.pdf

 

Case of Castillo Páez

 

1272.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments of November 3, 1997 and November 27, 1998.  The case concerns the Peruvian National Police’s abduction and subsequent disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez as of October 20, 1990, and the State’s failure to investigate the case and punish those responsible. .

 

1273.      In the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance in this case, dated November 17, 2004, it found that the State had as of that date not complied with its obligations to investigate the case, identify and punish those responsible, and locate the mortal remains of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/castillo_17_11_04_ing.doc. 

 

1274.      According to the latest information supplied by the parties, a final judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on June 30, 2008, allegedly upheld the conviction of four members of Peru’s National Police, as the persons responsible for the victim’s forced disappearance.

 

1275.      On April 3, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had discharged its duty to investigate, identify, and punish those responsible for the forced disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez, and that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with respect to the obligation to take all available steps to determine his whereabouts. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/castillo_03_04_09_ing.pdf

 

Case of Castillo Petruzzi

 

1276.      The Court delivered its judgment on reparations in this case on May 30, 1999.  There, the Court declared the proceedings conducted against the victims in this case to be invalid and ordered the State to guarantee them a new trial.  It also ordered the State to take the appropriate measures to amend Decrees Laws 25475 and 25659 and to ensure full enjoyment of the rights recognized in the American Convention to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, without exception.  The text of the judgment on the merits is available at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_52_ing.doc .

 

1277.       The State did not report any information in 2009 concerning its compliance with the Court’s judgment in this case..

 

Case of Cesti Hurtado

 

1278.      On January 9, 1998, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case for prosecution of Mr. Cesti Hurtado in proceedings conducted in the military courts.  He was arrested, detained, and sentenced, despite the fact that a writ of habeas corpus had been issued ordering that the victim be removed from military jurisdiction and that his personal liberty not be violated.   The Court issued its judgment on the merits on September 29, 1999 and its judgment on reparations on May 31, 2001.

 

1279.      On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in the case and instructed the State to adopt all measures necessary to promptly and duly comply with the Court’s orders in the Judgment on merits of September 29, 1999 and in the Judgment on reparations of May 31, 2001.  It ordered the State to submit a detailed report specifying the measures adopted to pay interest on the amount ordered in the form of non-pecuniary damages, the investigation into the facts of the instant case and punishment of the perpetrators, the measures adopted to pay the pecuniary damages ordered, and any progress made in the annulment of the military proceedings and the consequences. The full text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cesti_22_09_06_ing.doc.

 

1280.      In 2009, the Commission submitted its comments on the information reported by the representatives and by the State concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of May 31, 2001. The Commission observed that no information had been provided on the matter of compliance and that a number of obligations incumbent upon the State had not been carried out subsequent to issuance of the judgments, after the time period for compliance had elapsed.  It also pointed to the considerable effort the injured party has had to make to obtain reparations.

 

1281.      On August 4, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it decided that the Court will consider the general status of compliance with said Judgment once it has received information regarding: a) payment of interest on the amount of compensation for moral damage; b) annulment of the military proceedings and the effects resulting therefrom; c) payment of pecuniary damages; and   d) investigation of the facts surrounding this case and punishment of the perpetrators. The text is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cesti_04_08_08_ing.pdf.

 

1282.      On December 7, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on February 1, 2010. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cesti_7_12_09.pdf

 

Case of the Five Pensioners

 

1283.      In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgment of February 28, 2003.  This case concerns the violation of the rights to private property and judicial protection of Messrs. Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez, and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (the “Five Pensioners”) when the pension system they had been living under until 1992 was changed and when the State failed to comply with the judgments handed down by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Peru, which upheld their claims.

 

1284.      The Court’s most recent order regarding compliance is dated July 4, 2006. According to that order, the following points are still awaiting compliance in the case at hand: to conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judicial decisions delivered by the Peruvian courts during the applications for protective measures filed by the victims; to pay the four victims and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra’s widow the amount set for nonpecuniary damages; and to pay the amount set for expenses and costs. The Court also ruled that the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property should be established, under domestic law, by the competent national organs. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Pensionistas_04_07_06_ing.doc.

 

1285.      On December 3, 2008 the Court summoned the parties to a private hearing, which will be held at the seat of the Court on January 20, 2009.

 

1286.      On November 24, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had complied in full with its obligation to pay non-pecuniary damages and costs.  It also determined that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with respect to the following points: a) conduct the corresponding investigations and apply the pertinent punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judicial decisions during the applications for protective measures filed by the victims; and, b) establish the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property.  The order in question is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/pensionistas_24_11_09.pdf

 

Case of De la Cruz Flores

 

1287.      In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with what the Court ordered in its November 18, 2004 judgment in this case.  The latter concerns violation of the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, the right to personal liberty, the right to a fair trial in the case of Dr. María Teresa de la Cruz, and her right and her family’s right to humane treatment. The full text of the judgment of November 18, 2004, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_115_ing.pdf.

 

1288.      On November 23, 2007, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it determined that the State had not yet complied with the following obligations: a) observance of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws and the non-retroactivity of the law and of the requirements of due process in the new proceeding brought against Ms. De La Cruz Flores; b) providing medical and psychological care to the victim through the State’s health services, including the supply of free medication; c) providing a grant to Ms. De La Cruz Flores for training and professional development; d) re-listing Ms. De La Cruz Flores in the respective retirement register, and e) publishing the section titled “Proven Facts” as well as operative paragraphs 1 to 3 of the declaratory part of the Judgment in the Official Gazette. The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cruz_23_11_07_ing.doc.   

 

1289.      The victim’s representative reported that in the new trial of Mrs. María Teresa De La Cruz Flores, on March 11, 2009, the Second Transitional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled that it was not the conviction, but the sentence, imposed on Mrs. Cruz Flores that was vacated/null and it emerged from her brief that the sentence was increased.  Based on the foregoing the representative requested provisional measures in favor of the victim.  The Commission deemed it essential that the State forward the decision to it as soon as possible so that it might examine in the light of the judgment of the Inter-American Court the requirement to observe the principles of nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege praevia and freedom from ex post facto laws recognized by the Court, together with the concrete measures adopted by the State to ensure that those principles are observed in full; during which time the personal liberty of the victim should be ensured, as should the prevailing objective of justice in the case.

 

1290.      On December 21, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on February 1, 2010. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cruz_21_12_09.pdf 

 

Case of Durand and Ugarte

 

1291.      This case concerns the crushing of a riot in the prison known as “El Frontón” on June 19, 1986, and the failure to identify the dead bodies of Mr. Norberto Durand Ugarte and Mr. Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, two of the inmates. The text of the judgment on the merits can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_68_ing.doc.  

 

1292.      On August 5, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it found that the State had complied with parts of its judgment, but that the State had yet to comply with the following aspects of the Court’s judgment: a) Publication of the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000 in other media considered appropriate for this purpose; b)            Provision of health care and interpersonal development services and psychological support to the beneficiaries, as well as support for the construction of a residence  (operative paragraph three of the judgment); c) Investigation and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the facts, in accordance with the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000, and continuing to advance the investigation instituted through the 41st Criminal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima for the murder of 30 persons, including Norberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera; and d) Continuation of concrete measures to find and identify the remains of Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, so as to deliver them to his next of kin, in accordance with the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment on merits delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000.  The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/durand_05_08_08_ing.doc The Court asked the State to send a report by January 12, 2009. .

 

1293.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on compliance in this case.

 

Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas

 

1294.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments regarding compliance with the Court’s November 25, 2005 judgment in this case.  The latter concerns the violation of the rights to personal liberty, a fair trial, judicial protection, the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, and humane treatment with respect to Messrs. Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas. The full text of the judgment of November 25, 2005, can be seen at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_137_ing.doc..

 

1295.      According to the Court’s latest order monitoring compliance, which is dated July 12, 2007, compliance with the following obligations is still pending:  a) the obligation to provide medical and psychological care to Mr. Wilson García Asto through State health care services, including free medications; b) the obligation to provide grants to Mr. Wilson García Asto and Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas to afford them the opportunity to receive professional training and refresher courses; c) the obligation to pay Mr. Urcesino Ramírez Rojas the sum set for pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages and expenses and costs, and the obligation to pay Marcos Ramírez Álvarez the amount set for non-pecuniary damages; since they have now reached adulthood, they no longer require trust funds; d) the obligation to publish in another newspaper with nationwide circulation and just one time, the chapter on the facts established in the Court’s judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and the operative part of the judgment. The full text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/garcia_12_07_07_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Gómez Palomino

 

1296.      This case concerns the forced disappearance of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino as of July 9, 1992, in Lima Peru, and the failure to investigate the crime and punish those responsible for the violations committed against him.  The full text of the November 22, 2005 judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_136_ing.doc. 

 

1297.      According to the Court’s latest order monitoring compliance, which is dated October 18, 2007, the State had not yet complied with the reports requested by the Court, which would suggest that all the obligations required under the judgment are still pending. The text is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_18_10_07_ing.doc.  In November 2008, the State forwarded the requested report.  The time period for the parties to submit their comments has not yet expired..

 

1298.      On July 1, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that it would keep open the procedure on compliance with respect to the following points: a) effectively investigate the facts in the case, and identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for the violations declared; b) within a reasonable time, take the necessary steps to find the mortal remains of Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino and deliver them to his next of kin, and provide the necessary means and conditions to convey and bury said mortal remains in the place the next of kin may elect; c) publish the pertinent parts of the judgment; d) provide, free of charge medical and psychological treatment to the next of kin; e) implement the education programs; e) adopt the measures necessary to amend the criminal laws so as to adapt them to the international standards on forced disappearance of persons; and, f) pay all the other amounts established in the judgment. The order in question is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_01_07_09_ing.pdf

 

Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers

 

1299.      On February 5, 2002, the Commission filed an application with the Court in this case, for events that transpired in June 1991 when, during the course of two police operations, the brothers Emilio Moisés and Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri, aged 14 and 17, respectively, were arrested by the National Police and placed in the trunk of a patrol car; one hour after their arrest, their bodies, showing signs of torture, were admitted to the morgue. Their family was given no adequate redress.  On July 8, 2004, the Court issued a judgment on merits and reparations in this case. 

 

1300.      On September 22, 2006, the Court issued an order on compliance with the judgment in this case, instructing Peru to take all the steps necessary for prompt and effective implementation of the pending elements of its judgment, namely: effectively investigating the events to identify, prosecute, and punish all perpetrators of the violations committed against the victims; officially bestowing the names Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri on a school in the province of El Callao, in a public ceremony attended by the families of the victims; and creating a scholarship covering studies up to the university level for Nora Emely Gómez Peralta and facilitating her vital-records registration as daughter of Rafael Samuel Gómez Paquiyauri. The full text of the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh/or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_22_09_06_ing.doc.

 

1301.      On May 3, 2008 the Court issued an Order where it decided that it will keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the following pending aspects: (a)  The effective investigation of the facts of this case in order to identify, prosecute and, if applicable, punish all the authors of the violations committed to the detriment of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri, and (b)  The granting of a scholarship up to university level for Nora Emely Gómez Peralta. The text of the Order is available at the following link:

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gomez_%2003_05_08_ing.pdf

 

1302.      In 2009, the Commission filed its comments on the information reported by the representatives and by the State concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of July 8, 2004.  The IACHR again expressed its concern over the lack of tangible progress and the delay in complying with the three obligations that, according to the order of September 22, 2006, were still pending..

 

Case of Huilca Tecse

 

1303.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s orders in its judgment of March 3, 2005.  The case concerns the extrajudicial execution of organized labor leader Pedro Huilca Tecse in Lima, Peru, on December 18, 1992, and the subsequent failure to investigate the crime and punish those responsible.  The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_121_ing.doc.

 

1304.      According to the Court’s most recent order, dated February 7, 2008, the measures of reparation still pending include: the obligation to investigate, identify and punish the material and intellectual authors of Pedro Huilca Tecse’s execution; the obligation to establish a course or subject on human rights and labor law, called the “Pedro Huilca Chair”; the obligation to remember and applaud the work of Pedro Huilca Tecse for the trade union movement in Peru during the official celebrations of May 1 (Labor Day); the obligation to erect a bust in memory of Pedro Huilca Tecse, and the obligation  to provide psychological care and treatment to the victim’s next of kin. The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/huilca_%2007_02_08_ing.doc

 

Case of the Members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic

 

1305.      On April 1, 2008, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Peruvian State in the case of the members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru (CGR). The case concerns the failure to comply with judgments delivered by Peru’s Constitutional Court on October 21, 1997 and January 26, 2001, which ordered “that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic shall pay the members of the plaintiff Association the wages, salaries, benefits and bonuses received by active employees of that institution who have posts that are the same as or similar or equivalent to the posts held by the discharged or retired staff members.”  The case involved 273 members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General.  In November 2002, the State ceased to readjust and renew their severance and retirement pension to keep pace with the salaries and wages, benefits and bonuses received by that institution’s active employees.  In the wake of the Constitutional Court judgments, the State did not repay the pension adjustments withheld from April 1993 to October 2002.

 

1306.      In its brief answering the application, the State filed a preliminary objection, in response to which the parties submitted their written observations.  The Court has scheduled a public hearing to be held at the Court’s seat on January 21, 2009, where evidence will be taken and arguments heard.

 

1307.      On January 21, 2009, a public hearing was held in the framework of the Court’s LXXXII Regular Session.

 

1308.      On July 1, 2009, the Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs in which it dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the State and declared that the State had violated Article 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention and the right to property enshrined in Article 21(1) and 21(2) of said treaty, all of them in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of the two hundred and seventy three victims.  It also found that it had not been proven that the State had breached its obligation under Article 26 of the American Convention.  Finally it ordered the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_197_ing.pdf.

 

1309.      On November 3, 2009, the State presented a request for interpretation of judgment in which it asked the Court to clarify if the reimbursement of costs and expenses ordered “should be delivered to the legal person known as the [‘]Association of Discharged and Retired Employees[‘] or [to] the individuals that have been described as victims [in] the judgment, indicating the appropriate manner of payment in the latter case.” On November 24, 2009, the Court issued its judgment of interpretation, in which it found the request admissible and declared that “a reading of the judgment as a whole shows that the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees, composed in its entirety of the [273] victims […] is the direct beneficiary of the reimbursement of costs and expenses.” Said decision is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_210_esp1.pdf

 

Case of Ivcher Bronstein

 

1310.      In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of February 6, 2001, and in the Court’s most recent order of September 21, 2005. According to that order, still pending are the State’s obligations to investigate the incidents that led to the violations described in the judgment; to facilitate the victim’s efforts to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as the largest shareholder in Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A.; to pay compensation for moral damages; and to reimburse the costs and expenses incurred at the domestic and international venues..

 

1311.      The Commission has expressed its concern over the State’s failure to fully comply with the Court’s judgment in this case, more than seven years after it was served notice of the judgment.  The Commission asked the Court: as to the obligation to facilitate the victim’s efforts to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as the largest shareholder in the business, as he was on August 1, 1997, to order the State to take concrete steps to put a stop to any measures preventing Mr. Ivcher Bronstein from exercising and enjoying his rights as the major shareholder in the Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A.

 

1312.      On February 27, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held on March 31, 2009, during the Court’s XXXVIII Special Session in the Dominican Republic. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ivcher_27_02_09.pdf.  The meeting was held at the appointed place.

 

1313.      On November 24, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had complied with the following obligations: a) recovery of the dividends and other amounts that Mr. Ivcher Bronstein would have received as majority shareholder and officer of Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A. in accordance with domestic law and subject to the decision of the competent national authorities; and, b) pay the victim compensation for moral damages and reimbursement of costs and expensesThe Court also declared that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with respect to the following points: a) investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations in order to identify and punish those responsible, and, b) facilitate the conditions to enable Baruch Ivcher Bronstein to take the necessary steps to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as majority shareholder of Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A., as he was until August 1, 1997, under the terms of domestic legislation and subject to the decision of the competent national authorities.  The text of this order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ivcher_24_11_09.pdf

 

Case of Juárez Cruzatt et al." Miguel Castro Castro Prison"

 

1314.      This case concerns events at the Miguel Castro Castro Prison in the city of Lima, May 6 to 9, 1992, during which at least 42 inmates lost their lives, 175 were injured, and another 322 were subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for various periods of time; the treatment subsequently given to the surviving victims at the various hospitals and detention centers to which they were taken; the failure to conduct a timely and thorough investigation; the destruction of evidence that was essential to shed light on the incident; and the denial of justice suffered by the victims and their next-of-kin. .

 

1315.      The members of the Court adopted the judgment in this case on November 25, 2006, by a unanimous vote of its members.  In the judgment the Court declared Peru’s international responsibility for violation of the rights protected in articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof; Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women and articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of the deceased and surviving victims of the “Mudanza 1” operation and of the next of kin described in paragraphs 336, 337, 340, 341 and 433(d) of the judgment and named in Annex 2 thereof.

 

1316.      On May 11, 2007, the Inter-American Court notified the Inter-American Commission that the State and a group of victims had filed applications seeking an interpretation of the judgment.  The Commission was given a deadline of August 1, 2007, to make whatever comments it deemed necessary..

 

1317.      On August 2, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued a judgment in which it declared both applications admissible and, therefore, proceeded to clarify the meaning of the questioned points of the judgment.  The judgment on interpretation is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_181_ing.pdf

 

1318.      The State was to present its first report on compliance with the judgment in the month of June 2008.  The Commission has still not received it.

 

Case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro

 

1319.      On July 11, 2008, the IACHR filed an application with the Court against Peru in case No. 11,385, Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro. The case concerns the December 16, 1993 forced disappearance of 25-year-old student Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro in Callao, at the hands of agents of the State; the subsequent lack of due diligence in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of those responsible; and the lack of adequate reparation for the victim’s next of kin.  In its report on the merits, the Commission concluded that the Peruvian State is responsible for violation of the rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to recognition of juridical personality, to a fair trial and to judicial protection, all to the detriment of Mr. Anzualdo; it also found that the State had violated the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial and judicial protection to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin.  The text of the application is available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.385%20Kenneth%20Ney%20Anzualdo%20Castro
%20Peru%2011%20julio%202008%20ENG.pdf

 

1320.      The public hearing was held on April 2, 2009, during the Court’s XXXVIII Special Session in the Dominican Republic.

 

1321.      On September 22, 2009, the Court delivered a judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, in which it concluded that: a) the State was responsible for the forced disappearance of Mr. Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro and, consequently, violated Articles 7(1), 7(6), 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that treaty and with Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro; b) the State violated Articles 5(1), 5(2), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty and Articles I(b) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Félix Vicente Anzualdo Vicuña, Iris Isabel Castro Cachay de Anzualdo, Marly Arleny Anzualdo Castro and Rommel Darwin Anzualdo Castro; and, c) the State did not violate Article 13 of the Convention.  Finally, the Court ordered the appropriate reparations. The text of the judgment is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_202_esp.pdf

 

Case of La Cantuta

 

1322.      On February 14, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in the case of the human rights violations committed against Professor Hugo Muñoz Sánchez and the students Bertila Lozano Torres, Dora Oyague Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz Perea, Armando Richard Amaro Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo Meza, Felipe Flores Chipana, Marcelino Rosales Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños Figueroa, and their families, as a result of the victims’ abduction from the Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University of Education in La Cantuta, Lima, in the early morning hours of July 18, 1992.  Members of the Peruvian Army were involved:  they abducted the victims, then caused them to disappear and summarily executed a number of them.  No one has ever been made to answer for the facts in the case.

 

1323.      On November 29, 2006, the Court delivered its judgment on merits and reparations in this case. It accepted the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility and held that Peru had violated the rights to life, to humane treatment, to judicial protection and a fair trial, protected under the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights and the obligation to ensure domestic legal effects.  In its judgment the Court set the measures of reparation it deemed appropriate.  The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_162_ing.doc.

 

1324.      On November 30, 2007, the Court delivered a judgment interpreting its judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs.  In that interpretation it determined the scope of various issues that the representatives of the victims and their next of kin had raised on March 20, 2007. On that occasion, the representatives had requested clarification of several points related to the identification and/or individualization of the victims’ next of kin in the case in question, regarding their consideration as beneficiaries of the measures of reparation established in the judgment. In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the information reported by the State regarding compliance with the judgment  

 

1325.      On November 20, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had complied with its obligations to: a) publicly acknowledge its liability, and, b) ensure that, within the term of one year, the 10 individuals declared executed or forcefully disappeared victims should be represented in the memorial named “El Ojo que Llora” (The Crying Eye) if they are not represented so far and provided their relatives so desire.  The Court also decided that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with the State’s obligations to: a) take without delay the necessary actions to effectively conduct and complete, within a reasonable time, the ongoing investigations and the criminal proceedings pending in the domestic courts, and to carry out, as the case may be, the necessary investigations to determine the criminal liability of the perpetrators of the violations committed to the detriment of the victims; b) forthwith carry out the search and localization of the mortal remains of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa and Felipe Flores-Chipana and, once located, deliver them as soon as practicable to the relatives and bear the burial costs; c) publish the pertinent parts of the judgment; d) provide the relatives with any necessary treatment including medicines; e) implement, on a permanent basis, human rights-oriented programs for the members of intelligence services; and, f) pay the amounts set as compensation for pecuniary damages, non-pecuniary damages, and costs and expenses. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/cantuta_20_11_09.pdf

 

Case of Loayza Tamayo

 

1326.      In 2009, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgments of September 17, 1997, and November 27, 1998. The case concerns the violation of María Elena Loayza Tamayo’s rights to personal liberty, human treatment, a fair trial and judicial protection starting on February 3, 1993, in Lima, Peru.  The judgments on merits and reparations issued by the Court in this case are available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_33_ing.doc and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_42_ing.doc..

 

1327.      According to the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance with the judgments delivered in this case, dated February 6, 2008, the procedure remains open with respect to the State’s  following pending obligations: reinstatement of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo in the teaching sector in public institutions, on the understanding that the amount of her salary and other benefits is to be equal to the remuneration she was receiving for these activities in the public and private sector at the time of her detention; guaranteeing her full retirement benefits, including those owed for the period transpired since the time of her detention; adoption of all domestic legal measures necessary to ensure that no adverse decision delivered in proceedings against Loayza-Tamayo in the civil courts has any effect whatsoever; adoption of the internal legal measures necessary to adapt Decree-Laws 25,475 (Crime of Terrorism) and 25,659 (Crime of Treason) to conform to the American Convention; and investigation of the facts of the instant case, identifying and punishing those responsible for those acts, and the adoption of all necessary domestic legal measures to ensure that this obligation is discharged. The full text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/loayza_06_02_08_ing.doc.

 

1328.      At the hearing held at the Court’s seat on February 4, 2008, the Commission spoke to the points whose compliance is still pending.  It noted in particular that the most recent development in criminal law is that members of the National Terrorism Directorate accused of committing the violations against the victim can no longer be subject to criminal prosecution.  This is a deeply disturbing development and contrary to the State’s international obligations.

 

Case of Lori Berenson

 

1329.      In 2009, the Commission submitted its periodic comments concerning compliance with the Court’s judgment of November 25, 2004.  The case concerns violation of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, judicial protection and freedom from ex post facto laws, all to the detriment of Lori Berenson.  The full text of the judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_119_ing.doc.

 

1330.      The Court’s most recent order in this case is dated September 22, 2006.  The measures of reparation still pending include: having domestic legislation amended to conform to the standards of the American Convention; providing Mrs. Lori Berenson with adequate and specialized medical and psychological care; adapting detention conditions in the Yanamayo penal facility to conform to international standards, transferring those who cannot tolerate the altitude of the prison to other facilities, and reporting to the Court every six months.  The text of the order monitoring compliance is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/lori_22_09_06_ing.doc.

 

Case of Neira Alegría

 

1331.      This case concerns the crushing of the July 19, 1986 riot at the prison known as “El Frontón” and the failure to identify the bodies of Messrs. Víctor Neira Alegría, Edgar Edison Zenteno Escobar and William Jans Zenteno Escobar who were inmates at that prison.  The text of the January 19, 1995 judgment on the merits is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_20_ing.doc  .

 

1332.      On January 19, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had failed to meet its obligation to report to the Court on the measures adopted to comply with the provisions of the judgment on reparations and costs delivered on September 19, 1996.  The Court also declared that it would keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with the judgment as regards the State’s obligation to “locate and identify the remains of the victims and deliver them to their next of kin”. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/neira_19_01_09_ing.pdf.

 

 Case of the Constitutional Court

 

1333.      The application the Commission filed with the Court in this case on July 2, 1999, concerns the removal of three justices of the Constitutional Court, by a majority vote of the Peruvian Congress.  The justices were removed when the Court exercised its function of ensuring constitutionality and ruled that Law No. 26657 was unconstitutional because it allowed the President of Peru to seek a third term, in violation of Article 112 of the Constitution, which limits the presidential mandate to two consecutive five-year terms of office. The removal of the three justices left the Constitutional Court in pieces, with only four justices, thus legally unable to perform one of the Court’s key functions, which is to check the question of constitutionality when constitutionality challenges are filed.  The people of Peru were thus left vulnerable and with no means of protection.

 

1334.      On February 7, 2006, the Court issued an order monitoring compliance with the judgment in this case, in which it decided to keep the monitoring procedure open with respect to the State’s pending obligations, namely: to investigate to identify the persons responsible for the violations of human rights against the victims in the case and to punish them; to determine and pay the interest accrued on the back pay and other benefits owed to Messrs. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry, and Delia Revoredo Marsanoy, under the applicable domestic law most favorable to the victims and with the necessary guarantees of due process.  The full text of this order is available at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tribunal_07_02_06_ing.doc

 

1335.      On August 5, 2008, the Court issued an Order where it considered necessary that the State informs on the status of compliance with the determination and payment in full of the amounts corresponding to the interest accrued during the time the State incurred in arrears with respect to the payment of the back salaries and other benefits of Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry and Delia Revoredo Marsano, as has been established in the operative paragraph five of the Judgment.  In relation to the other aspects of the Judgment so delivered, the Court reserves the possibility of duly assess them in a possible public hearing to be convened to such end. The Order is available in the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/tribunal_05_08_08_ing.pdf.

 

1336.      In 2009, the State provided no information on the status of compliance with the judgment delivered on January 31, 2001.  The Commission has, therefore, been unable to prepare its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the Court’s judgment in this case.

 

Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees

 

1337.      The Commission filed an application with the Court in this case on February 4, 2005.  The case concerns the dismissal of 257 employees of the Peruvian National Congress, part of a group of 1117 workers dismissed by congressional resolutions on December 31, 1992..

 

1338.      On November 24, 2006, the Inter-American Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations and declared that the State had violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection in the case of the dismissed congressional employees, all in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure rights and the duty to adopt domestic legal measures, set forth in the Convention.  In the judgment, the Court set the measures of reparation it deemed appropriate.  The full text of the judgment can be seen at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_158_ing.doc.

 

1339.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the judgment. 

 

1340.      On June 8, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held on July 8, 2009, in the course of the Court’s LXXXIII Regular Session held at its seat. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/aguado_08_06_09.pdf.  The hearing was held on the appointed day.

 

1341.      On November 20, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that the State had complied with its obligations as regards payment of the amounts set as costs. The Court also declared that it would keep open the procedure to monitor compliance with respect to the points pending for full compliance, which are to: a) guarantee to the 257 victims access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse; and, b) pay immediately the amount established as non-pecuniary damages in favor of the 257 victims. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/aguado_20_11_09.pdf

 

s.          Suriname

 

Case of the Moiwana Community

 

1342.      This case concerns the State’s inadequate investigation into the attack on the village of Moiwana on November 29, 1986, its violent obstruction of justice, and the lengthy period of time that passed without the incident being cleared up or the guilty punished. The full text of the judgment of June 15, 2005, may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_124_ing1.doc

 

1343.      According to the Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance with the judgment delivered in this case, dated November 21, 2007, compliance with the following obligations is still pending: a) to implement the necessary measures to investigate the facts of the case, as well as to identify, prosecute, and eventually punish the responsible parties; b)  to recover the remains of the Moiwana community members killed during the events of November 29, 1986, as soon as possible, and deliver them to the surviving community members; c) to adopt legislative, administrative, and other measures necessary to ensure the property rights of the members of the Moiwana community in relation to the traditional territories from which they were expelled, and to provide for the members’ use and enjoyment of those territories; d) to guarantee the safety of those community members who decide to return to Moiwana Village; e) to establish a community development fund; and f) to build a memorial in a suitable public location. The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/moiwana_21_11_07_ing.pdf.

 

1344.      On December 18, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order on compliance in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on February 1, 2010. That order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/moiwana_18_12_09.pdf

 

Case of the Twelve Saramaka Clans

 

1345.      This case concerns the failure to recognize the legal personality of the Saramaka people, the failure to recognize the communal property right of the members of the Saramaka people to the territory they have traditionally occupied and used, and the failure to provide the members of the Saramaka people with effective access to justice, as a community, for the protection of their fundamental rights

 

1346.      Based on the evidence offered by the parties during the proceedings in this case and the arguments they made, on November 28, 2007 the Inter-American Court delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the seven preliminary objections entered by the State and declared that Suriname had violated articles 3, 21 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.  In that judgment, the Court established the reparations it deemed appropriate. 

 

1347.      On March 17, 2008, the State filed an application seeking an interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, delivered on November 28, 2007.  In it the State requested an interpretation of the “meaning and scope” of several issues, which the Court summarized as follows:

 

a)          with whom must the State consult to establish the mechanism that will guarantee the “effective participation” of the Saramaka people ordered in the Judgment;;

 

b)         to whom shall a “just compensation” be given when, for example, only part of the Saramaka territory is affected by concessions granted by the State; that is, whether it must be given to the individuals directly affected or to the Saramaka People as a whole;

 

c)          to whom and for which development and investment activities affecting the Saramaka territory may the State grant concessions;

 

 

d)         under what circumstances may the State execute a development and investment plan in Saramaka territory, particularly in relation to environmental and social impact assessments, and,

 

e)          whether the Court, in declaring a violation of the right to juridical personality recognized in Article 3 of the Convention, took into consideration the State’s arguments on that issue..

 

1348.      On May 19, 2008, the representatives and the Commission presented their briefs on the State’s application seeking an interpretation.

 

1349.      On August 12, 2008, the Inter-American Court delivered its judgment, declaring the State’s application for an interpretation admissible and, therefore, proceeding to clarify the meaning and scope of those aspects of the judgment.  The judgment on interpretation can be found at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_185_ing.doc.

 

1350.      In 2009, the State presented its first report on compliance and the Commission submitted its comments in that regard and on the observations of the victims’ representatives.

 

t.          Trinidad and Tobago

 

Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al.

 

1351.      This case is the result of the joinder of the cases of Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al., which the Commission lodged with the Court as separate cases on May 25, 1999, February 22, 2000, and October 5, 2000, respectively, all against the government of Trinidad and Tobago. The case concerns the mandatory death penalty; the process for granting amnesties, pardons, and commutations of sentence in Trinidad and Tobago; the delays in the criminal prosecutions of some of the victims; the deficiencies in the treatment and detention conditions of some of the victims; the violations of due process prior to and during the trial and during the appeals phase; and, finally, the nonavailability of legal counsel to assist some of the victims in securing access to domestic remedies for claiming violation of their rights.

 

1352.      The Court delivered its judgment on merits and reparations in the case on June 21, 2002. The Court’s most recent order monitoring compliance is dated November 27, 2003. In that order, the Court noted the State’s duty to report, every six months, the measures adopted and the fact that it had not complied with that requirement. It consequently resolved that “if the current situation persists, to report it to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, pursuant to Article 65 of the American Convention […] and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court.” The judgment and the order can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_94_ing.doc
and
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/hilaire_27_11_03_ing.doc  

 

1353.      Again in 2009, no information was forthcoming from the State regarding compliance with its obligations under the judgment in this case.  . 

 

Case of Winston Caesar

 

1354.      This case concerns violations of Mr. Winston Caesar’s rights to humane treatment and judicial protection.  He had been convicted by a court in Trinidad and Tobago and sentenced to imprisonment at forced labor, and to 15 lashes with a cat o’nine tails.  The Court’s March 11, 2005 judgment is available at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_123_ing.doc..

 

1355.      On November 21, 2007, the Court issued an order in which it found that the State had not complied with its obligation to report to the Court on the measures taken to comply with the judgment.  The Court underscored that even though the State had renounced the American Convention, it nonetheless had an obligation to comply with the Court’s judgment.  It requested a report by March 8, 2008.  That report has not been received.  The text of the order is available at:

.http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/Caesar_21_11_07_ing.doc 

 

u.         Venezuela

 

Case of Chocrón

 

1356.      On November 25, 2009, the Commission submitted an application with the Court against Venezuela for the arbitrary dismissal of the victim from her position as Judge of a First Instance for Criminal Matters of the Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas without observance of basic fair trial guarantees, without due cause, without the possibility to be heard and exercise her right of defense and without an effective judicial remedy against said violations, all as a consequence of the absence of guarantees in the transitional process in the judiciary.  The Inter-American Commission asks the Court to find that the State of Venezuela has engaged its international responsibility for breach of its international obligations as a result of its violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations under Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty.

 

Case of El Amparo

 

1357.      This case concerns the extrajudicial killing of 14 fishermen by police and military personnel on October 29, 1988, at Canal La Colorada in Venezuela, the subsequent failure to conduct an investigation and punish the guilty, and the violations committed with respect to two survivors. The complete text of the January 18, 2005 judgment on the merits is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_19_ing.pdf.

 

1358.      The Court’s most recent order is dated July 4, 2006. In it, the Court declared that the State had fully complied with the obligation to pay the accrued interest in the case.  It also held that if, after ten years, the next-of-kin of Mr. Julio Pastor Ceballos did not claim the amounts kept in their name at the corresponding financial institution, those funds would be returned to the State, with the interest earned.  It also found that the one obligation pending in the case was to continue with the investigation into the facts and to punish the guilty parties. The text of that order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/amparo_04_07_06_ing.pdf

 

1359.      In 2009, the State did not comply with its duty to report to the Court on those aspects whose compliance was pending, despite repeated requests to that effect.

 

1360.      On December 18, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order on compliance in which she convened the parties to a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on January 29, 2010. The order is available (in Spanish only) at    http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/amparo_18_12_09.pdf

 

Case of the Caracazo

 

1361.      According to the most recent order, the State has still not complied with the following obligations:

 

a.          investigating, identifying, and punishing, administratively and criminally, with all the conditions and characteristics set out in the judgment;

b.         finding, exhuming, and identifying the mortal remains of certain victims, and handing them over to their families;

c.          reporting, when burials have taken place, if the State assumed the costs thereof and took into account the locations chosen by the next-of-kin for the interment of the mortal remains of the individuals referred to in the second operative paragraph;

d.         taking the steps necessary to avoid recurrence of the circumstances and facts of the instant case; and,

e.          reimbursing the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) for costs and expenses.

 

 1362.    In 2009, the Inter-American Commission submitted its comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.

 

1363.      On July 6, 2009, the Court issued an order in which it declared that the State had complied with its obligation to pay costs and expenses.  The Court also declared that it would keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with the following obligations: a) conduct an effective investigation into the facts of the instant case, identify those responsible for them, both perpetrators and instigators, as well as any possible accessories after the fact, and, [if applicable], punish them as appropriate; b) to allow the victims’ next of kin and the surviving victims to have full access and power to act at all stages and in all proceedings of the investigations, in accordance with the domestic legislation and the provisions of the American Convention; c) make the results of the investigations known to the public; d) locate, exhume, and identify by means of suitable techniques and instruments the mortal remains of the victims, and deliver them to the victims’ next of kin; e) that the costs of the burial of the mortal remains of the victims in the place chosen by their next of kin shall be born by the State; and, f) adopt all necessary steps to avoid repetition of the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The text of the order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/caracazo_06_07_09_ing.pdf.

 

1364.      On September 23, 2009, the Court ratified the previous orders on compliance and called on the State to adopt all such measures as might be necessary to enforce and effectively comply with the pending aspects of the measures ordered in its Judgment. The text of that order may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/caracazo_23_09_09_ing.pdf

 

Case of the Disappeared of Vargas (Blanco Romero, Hernández Paz and Rivas Fernández)

 

1365.      On June 30, 2004, the Commission filed its application in this case with the Court because of events that took place in Vargas State, Venezuela, between December 21 and 23, 1999, when Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz, and José Francisco Rivas Fernández were arrested by and subsequently forcibly disappeared at the hands of state agents.

 

1366.      On June 28, 2005, after the State admitted responsibility at a public hearing, the Court issued an order in which it accepted the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility, which put an end to the dispute in the case. On November 28 of that year, the Court handed down its judgment, ruling that the victims’ rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, and Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, had been violated and that the State had failed to comply with the obligations established in Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and in Articles I.a and I.b., X, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Court also ruled that there had been violations of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection, and of the obligation set out in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, with respect to the victims’ families. In its judgment, the Court set the forms of reparation it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_138_ing.pdf.

 

1367.      In 2009, the Commission submitted comments concerning the information supplied by the parties.  It underscored how important it is that the binding judgments of the Court be complied with in the time and manner set by the Court, and how imperative it was for the State to report the specific measures adopted to comply with the judgment and to refrain from making its own interpretations that seek to alter the judgment and the reparations owed . 

 

1368.      On May 18, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order on compliance in which she convened the parties to a private hearing which was held at the seat of the Court on July 4, 2009. The order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/blanco_18_05_09.pdf

 

1369.      On July 7, 2009 the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that it would not continue to monitor compliance with the obligation to “adopt the essential measures required to facilitate minor Aleoscar Russeth Blanco-Iriarte’s departure from Venezuela,” given that said person had reached majority of age.  The Court also declared that it would continue to monitor compliance with the other obligations set down in the judgment. The order is available (in Spanish only) at   http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/blanco_07_07_09.pdf

 

Case of Francisco Usón Ramírez

 

1370.      On July 25, 2008, the IACHR filed an application with the Court against Venezuela in case No. 12,554, Francisco Usón Ramírez.  The facts concern a criminal case the State brought in the military court against retired General Francisco Usón Ramírez on charges of “slandering the National Armed Forces.”  He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to five years and six months in prison, all for statements he had made on a television program on a controversy in the news at the time.  In its report on the merits the Commission concluded that the Venezuelan State violated Mr. Francisco Usón Ramírez’ rights to free speech, personal liberty, a fair trial and judicial protection.

 

1371.      On April 1, 2009, a public hearing was held in the framework of the Court’s XXXVIII Special Session in the Dominican Republic.

 

1372.      On November 20, 2009, the Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs in which it dismissed the preliminary objection and declared that the State violated, to the detriment of Francisco Usón Ramírez: a) Articles 9, 13(1), and 13(2) of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty; b) Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof; and, c) Article 7 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof.  The Court also ruled that the State infringed Article 2 of the Convention.  Finally the Court ordered the reparations it deemed appropriate.  The text of the judgment is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_207_esp.pdf

 

Case López Mendoza

 

1373.      On December 14, 2009, the Commission filed an application with the Court against Venezuela for disqualification of the victim from holding public office via administrative proceedings in violation of standards contained in the Convention, as well as prohibition from participation in the regional elections in 2008. In the application, the IACHR holds that the State did not afford the appropriate fair trial guarantees and judicial protection nor provided adequate reparation.  In its application the Commission asks the Court to find and declare the State responsible for violation of Articles 23, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of said instrument, to the detriment of Leopoldo López Mendoza.

 

Case of Luisiana Ríos et al.(RCTV)

 

1374.      The Commission filed an application with the Court in this case on April 20, 2007.  The case concerns multiple restrictions on freedom of expression in the case of journalists, personnel associated with news teams, employees and executives at RCTV television channel and the State’s failure to provide an adequate and effective response to the complaints filed by the victims in domestic venues.  The restrictions on the exercise of freedom of expression in this case can be summarized as follows:  i) violence –occasionally resulting in physical injury- and acts of intimidation against members of the news teams investigating and reporting news in their journalism work outside the channel’s headquarters; ii) blocking access to official sources of information; iii) acts of violence targeted at RCTV property; and iv) threats from high-ranking government officials –even the President of the Republic- to close the channel, to revoke its operating license or not renew its designated air space, all because of its editorial position.

 

1375.      On August 7, 2008, the Commission was present for the public hearing that the Court convened for this case.  Three witnesses offered by the Commission, the victims’ representatives and the State were heard.  The Court heard also final oral arguments on a preliminary objection and on the eventual merits, reparations and costs in the case.

 

1376.      On January 28, 2009, the Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, in which it  dismissed the preliminary objections and declared that the State was responsible for failing to comply with its obligation included in Article 1(1) of the American Convention to guarantee the exercise of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and the right to humane treatment, acknowledged in Articles 13(1) and 5(1) of the same treaty, in detriment of Antonio José Monroy, Armando Amaya, Carlos Colmenares, David José Pérez Hansen, Erika Paz, Isabel Cristina Mavarez, Isnardo José Bravo, Javier García Flores, Luisiana Ríos Paiva, and Pedro Antonio Nikken García. The Court also determined that the State was responsible for failing to comply with its obligation include in Article 1(1) of the Convention to guarantee the exercise of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information, acknowledged in Article 13(1) of the American Convention, in detriment of Anahís del Carmen Cruz Finol, Argenis Uribe, Herbigio Antonio Henríquez Guevara, Laura Cecilia Castellanos Amarista, Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado, Noé Pernía, Samuel Sotomayor, Wilmer Marcano, and Winston Francisco Gutiérrez Bastardo.  The Court also found that it had  not been established that the State violated Articles 24 and 13(3) of the American Convention. It also ruled that it was not appropriate to analyze the facts of the case under Articles 1, 2, and 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Pará. Finally the Court ordered the reparations it deemed pertinent. The text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_194_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Montero Aranguren et al.(Retén de Catia)

 

1377.      This case concerns the events that transpired in the period from November 27 to 29, 1992, inside and near the Los Flores de Catia Judicial Detention Center, a prison facility located in the city of Caracas, specifically: the failure to take preventive measures to avert acts of violence and deal with emergencies inside that facility; the use of excessive force; the extrajudicial execution of a number of inmates; the subhuman prison conditions that were a root cause of the violence and danger at the prison at the time of the events in this case; the failure to conduct a swift and thorough investigation; the denial of justice to victims and their next of kin, and the lack of prison policies that meet international standards.

 

1378.      In 2009 the Commission submitted its comments on compliance with the Court’s July 5, 2006 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, which has not been fully carried out..

 

1379.      On August 4, 2009, the President of the Court issued an order on compliance in which she convened the parties to a private hearing which was held at the seat of the Court on September 30, 2009. The order is available (in Spanish only) at   http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/montero_04_08_09.pdf

 

1380.      On November 17, 2009, the Court issued an order on compliance in which it declared that it would continue to monitor compliance with the State’s obligations set forth in the judgment. The order is available (in Spanish only) at  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/montero_17_11_09.pdf.

 

Case of Gabriela Perozo et al. (Globovisión)

 

1381.      This case concerns a series of incidents, starting in 2001, involving  harassment, persecution and aggression targeted at 44 individuals associated with the Globovisión television channel –including reporters, their technical teams, staff and executives- and the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating these incidents..

 

1382.      On March 18, 2008, the President of the Court decided to convene a public hearing on a preliminary objection, and the merits, reparations and costs.  The hearing was held during the Court’s LXXIX regular session, at the seat of the Court on May 7 and 8, 2008, and was attended by the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, and the Venezuelan State.  On June 9, 2008, the parties filed their final briefs of pleadings, motions and evidence.

 

1383.      The Commission is currently awaiting the judgment that the Court is to deliver in this case..

 

1384.      The application is available at the following link: http://www.cidh.org/demandas/12.442%20Globovision%20Venezuela%2012%20abril%202007%20ENG.pdf

 

1385.      On January 28, 2009, the Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, in which it dismissed the preliminary objections and declared that the State was responsible for the non-compliance with the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention to ensure the right to freely seek, receive and impart information and the right to humane treatment, enshrined in Articles 13(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Alfredo José Peña Isaya, Aloys Emmanuel Marín Díaz, Ana Karina Villalba, Ángel Mauricio Millán España, Aymara Anahí Lorenzo Ferrigni, Beatriz Alicia Adrián García, Carla María Angola Rodríguez, Carlos Arroyo, Carlos Quintero, Ramón Darío Pacheco Villegas, Edgar Hernández, Efraín Antonio Henríquez Contreras, Felipe Antonio Lugo Durán, Gabriela Margarita Perozo Cabrices, Janeth del Rosario Carrasquilla Villasmil, Jhonny Donato Ficarella Martín, John Power, Jorge Manuel Paz Paz, José Vicente Antonetti Moreno, Joshua Oscar Torres Ramos, Martha Isabel Herminia Palma Troconis, Mayela León Rodríguez, Miguel Ángel Calzadilla, Oscar José Núñez Fuentes, Richard Alexis López Valle, and Yesenia Thais Balza Bolívar.  The Court also found that the State was responsible for the non-compliance with the obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention to ensure the right to freely seek, receive and impart information enshrined in Article 13(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Ademar David Dona López, Carlos José Tovar Pallen, Félix José Padilla Geromes, Jesús Rivero Bertorelli, José Gregorio Umbría Marín, Wilmer Jesús Escalona Arnal and Zullivan René Peña Hernández.  The Court also concluded that it had not been established that the State had violated Articles 24, 21 and 13(3) of the American Convention.  It also ruled that it was not appropriate to analyze the facts of the case under Articles 1, 2, and 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Pará. Finally the Court ordered the reparations it deemed pertinent. The text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_195_ing.pdf.

 

Case of Oscar Barreto Leiva

 

1386.      On October 31, 2008, the Inter-American Commission filed an application against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case number 11,663, Oscar Barreto Leiva, for the State’s responsibility in the violation of the rights to a fair trial in the criminal proceedings in which Mr. Oscar Barreto Leiva was convicted of crimes against the public patrimony as a result of his tenure as Sectoral Director General of Administration and Services of the Ministry of the Secretariat of the Office of the Presidency of the Republic, and the consequent violations of the victim’s rights to personal liberty and judicial protection.

 

1387.      The Commission argued that the above-mentioned facts constitute violations of rights protected in articles 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and a failure to comply with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights, undertaken with Article 1(1) of the Convention, and the obligation of domestic legal effects, set forth in Article 2 of that instrument. The text of the application is available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.663%20Barreto%20Leiva%2031%20oct%
2008%20Venezuela%20ENGLISH.pdf
.

 

1388.      On July 2, 2009, a public hearing was held at the seat of the Court.

 

1389.      On November 17, 2009, the Court issued its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs in which it declared that the State was responsible for violation of Articles 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d), 7(1), 7(5), and 8(2) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof; and of Articles 8(2)(c), 8(2)(h), 7(1), and 7(3), in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2, to the detriment of the victim.  The Court also ruled that the State had not violated Articles 8(2)(f), 8(1), and 25(1) of the Convention. Finally the Court awarded the appropriate reparations and costs. The text of the judgment is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_206_esp1.pdf

 

Case of Reverón Trujillo

 

1390.      On November 9, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case No. 12,565, María Cristina Reverón Trujillo. The case concerns Mrs. María Cristina Reverón Trujillo’s arbitrary dismissal from her post as 14th Provisional First-Instance Criminal Judge of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit on February 6, 2002, by the Judicial System’s Operations and Restructuring Commission, and the lack of an effective judicial recourse to provide adequate redress. Although she won her case in the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela on October 13, 2004, which declared her arbitrary dismissal null and void, that Court did not order her reinstatement in her position in the judiciary or in another post of a similar level and salary scale, or payment of her lost earnings and benefits. That decision was based on the fact that Venezuela’s judiciary was at the time undergoing a restructuring process in which it was agreed that all judicial positions –including those held by provisional judges like Mrs. Reverón Trujillo- were to be filled on the basis of competitive examinations. However, on the date that decision was made, no competitive examinations had been held or even announced. Consequently, in spite of having obtained a judicial ruling acknowledging that her dismissal was arbitrary, the nullification remedy was ineffective in providing Mrs. Reverón Trujillo with full redress for the violations the court confirmed.   In its application the Commission argued that the State had violated Article 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, to the detriment of Ms. María Cristina Reverón Trujillo, who did not have access to effective judicial recourse to remedy her arbitrary dismissal. The text of the application is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.565%20Reveron%20Trujillo%20Venezuela%
209%20noviembre%202007%20ESP.pdf

 

1391.      On September 24, 2008, the Court convened a public hearing in the case.  Later, the date of the hearing was changed and it was held at the Court’s seat on January 23, 2009. On June 30, 2009, the Court issued its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, in which it dismissed the preliminary objection and declared that the State had violated Article 25(1) in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2; and Article 23(1)(c), in relation with Article 1(1), in detriment of the victim.  It also ruled that the State did not violate Articles 8(1) and 5(1) of the Convention. As part of the reparation measures, the Court ordered that she be reinstated in her position.

 

1392.      The complete text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_197_ing.pdf

 

Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (First Court of Administrative Disputes)

 

1393.      On November 29, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the State of Venezuela, in Case 12,489, Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, for its removal of judges on the First Court of Administrative Disputes on October 30, 2003, without observing the necessary guarantees of independence and impartiality and in a decision that failed to explain the “inexcusable judicial error” cited as the supposed grounds for their removal.  The judges removed from the bench also never received an effective judicial response to the remedy they filed to challenge their removal. In its application the Commission argued that the State had engaged its international responsibility by its failure to discharge its international obligations, and therefore had violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, to the detriment of the victims. The text of the application is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.489%20Corte%20Primera%20de%20lo%20Contencioso%20
Administrativo%20Venezuela%2029%20nov%202006.pdf

 

1394.      On August 5, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment, in which it found that the State had violated the victims’ rights under articles 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention.  The Court ordered the reparations it deemed appropriate. The text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_123_ing.pdf

 

1395.      On December 18, 2009, the Court convened a private hearing on this case to be held on January 29, 2010 at the seat of the Court. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/apitz_18_12_09.pdf

 

3.         Advisory Opinions

 

   Request for an advisory opinion

 

1396.          On December 29, 2008, the Commission submitted a request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion in order for the Court to determine “whether the use of corporal punishment as a method of disciplining young children and adolescents is compatible with Articles 1.1, 2. 5.1, 5.2 and 19 of the American Convention and Article VII of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, consistent with the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

 

1397.             On January 27, 2009, the Inter-American Court issued a Resolution whereby it decided “not to answer the request for an advisory opinion […] because the criteria regarding the issue mentioned in the consultation […] could be drawn from the analysis and comprehensive interpretation of the Court’s corpus juris on the rights of the child vis-à-vis other criteria established, as well as from the obligations arising from other international instruments ratified by the States of the region.”  Therefore, in its considerations the Court indicated that

 

as regards the matter of the request, the Court observes that in the development of international human rights law there have been advances relevant to the protection of the human rights of children and adolescents.  In particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child [..] which has been signed and ratified by 195 States […], among them 34 States of the American Continent, […] and which establishes the obligation of the States party to respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of those persons who are legally responsible for providing the child with direction and guidance [..].  Nevertheless, it subjects such a right to the obligation to establish the superior interest of the child as a basic element during their upbringing and development, either by the parents or legal guardians.  […] Similarly this obligation extends to school discipline, in order that it may be administered in a way compatible with human dignity […] Added to which the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges the States to ensure that no child is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment […] as well as to any form of physical or psychological abuse, injury, neglect, negligent treatment, mistreatment or exploitation; whether in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person in charge of the child […].  IA Court HR, Resolution of 27 January 2009, on the Request for Advisory Opinion presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/opinion.pdf (in Spanish only).

 

OC-20

 

1398.             On August 14, 2008, Argentina presented a request for an Advisory Opinion regarding “the interpretation of Article 55 of the Convention” on “ad hoc judges and equality of arms during the proceedings before the Inter-American Court in the context of cases originating from individual petitions”, as well as the “nationality of members [of the Court] and the right to an independent and impartial judge.”

 

1399.             On September 29, 2009, the Court issued Advisory Opinion No. 20 where it established that: a) pursuant to Article 55.3 of the American Convention, the possibility of States Party in a case submitted to the Inter-American Court to appoint an ad hoc judge to join the Tribunal whenever there is no judge of that nationality in its composition, is restricted to contentious cases in inter-state petitions (Article 45 of the said instrument) and that it is not possible to derive a similar right in cases originating from individual petitions (Article 44 of the said Treaty); and b) that the judge of the nationality of a State brought before the Court should not participate in the consideration of contentious cases originating from individual petitions.  Full text of the opinion available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_20_esp1.pdf (Spanish only).

 

 

[Table of Contents | Previous | Next]