|
RESOLUTION Nº 29/83 CASE
7970 ARGENTINA October 4, 1984 BACKGROUND:
1. In a communication of March 8, 1982, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the following complaint: Ana
María was kidnapped last February 4 at 8:30 p.m. A Ford Falcon car
drove up to her house, Villa de Mayo, intersecting with General
Sarmiento, and an armed man got out and forced her into the car. The
victim tried to resist and shouted the name of a neighbor. Several
neighbors witnessed the act and arrived on the scene to write down the
license plate number. The same automobile had been seen the previous day
near Ana María's home. On
Friday, February 12, after reading in that afternoon's issue of the La
Crónica
that the corpse of a woman killed by gunshot had been found in the
northern zone of greater Buenos Aires, we went to the police station in
search of information. The police entered into the case, in the company
of the kidnapped woman's relatives. We were struck by the similarity of
data regarding the murdered woman and Ana María, sex, age--about thirty
years--and pregnant. In
the first place, we were informed that the body when discovered was
unrecognizable; also, it had been ordered that the woman's hands be cut
off to identify her through a papiloscopic analysis. Our attention was
drawn to the fact that, invoking health reasons, the burial of the
victim had been ordered and carried out that very day. But at the same
time, we were given several pieces of information on the corpse that
seemed to do away with the possibility that it was that of Ana María:
height l.75 meters and clothing: slacks or culottes and polo shirt, both
in such a condition that it was impossible to describe their
characteristics. On
Wednesday the 17th, the parents of Ana María's boyfriend were called
upon in their home by persons bearing long weapons, and they remained in
two police stations giving statements for ten hours. We were able to
talk to them at nightfall. We then knew that they had been shown a
wedding ring and two other rings that the corpse was wearing and they
were also told that it was wearing a yellow tank top and a blue denim
skirt. It
is obvious that had we been given that information on the 12th, the
relatives who accompanied us on our visit to the police station would
not have hesitated in recognizing those rings and that clothing as
belonging to Ana María. The serious question here would thus have been
clarified immediately. The
data thus described poses a serious question as to the possibility that
the authorities knew, at least several days beforehand, of the
circumstances that were publicized only yesterday. It is a question, of
course, that embraces the statements made by the Under Secretary of the
Ministry of the Interior, Colonel Menéndez, on the night of the 14th,
when he told us that he had no information on the case of Ana María. Moreover,
we cannot help but regret our failure in convincing the judicial
officers who took part in petitioning for habeas corpus, that
this was a clear case of homicide and of illegal deprivation of freedom,
so that they might try immediately to establish a possible connection
between the discovery of the body and the situation of Ana María. The
Judicial Branch has a heavy obligation with regard to violations of
human rights, and it is time that it tried to fulfill it. The
Federal Police and the police of the Province of Buenos Aires answered
the petition for habeas corpus lodged before the Federal Court Nº
2 of San Martín by saying that she was not under arrest. There
is no doubt that the security forces had a part in these deplorable
events. 2. The IACHR,
through a note of March 11, 1982, transmitted the pertinent parts to the
Government of Argentina, requesting that it furnish it with the
necessary information and with any other element of judgment that would
enable it to determine whether or not domestic jurisdiction was
exhausted in the case. 3. Since it
received no reply from the Argentine Government, the Commission, through
a note of March 23, 1983 repeated its request for information to the
Argentine Government, indicating that if this was not forthcoming within
a reasonable time, the Commission would consider the possible
application of Article 39 of the Regulations of the Commission on the
presumption of truth of the facts reported. THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, CONSIDERING: 1. That to date
the Government of Argentina has not replied to the request for
information contained in the Commission's notes of March 11, 1982 and
March 23, 1983; and 2. That Article 39
of the Regulations of the Commission establishes as follows: Article
39
(Presumption) The
facts reported in the petition whose pertinent parts have been
transmitted to the government of the state in reference shall be
presumed to be true if, during the maximum period set by the Commission
under the provisions of Article 31 paragraph 5, the government has not
provided the pertinent information, as long as other evidence does not
lead to a different conclusion. RESOLVES:
1. To presume the
facts reported in the communication of March 8, 1982 to be true,
concerning the irregular circumstances in which Miss Ana María Martínez
died. 2. To observe to
the Government of Argentina that these acts constitute extremely serious
violations of the right to life, liberty, and personal security (Article
I); and the right of protection against arbitrary arrest (Article XXV)
of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. 3. To recommend to
the Government of Argentina: a. that it order a complete and impartial
investigation to determine who perpetrated the acts reported; b. that it
punish those responsible for these acts, in accordance with the laws of
Argentina; and c. that it inform the Commission within a period of no
more than sixty days on the steps taken to put into practice the
recommendations set forth in this resolution. 4. To inform the
Government of Argentina and the complainants of this resolution. 5. To include this
resolution in the Annual Report to the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States, in accordance with Article 59 (g) of
the Regulations of the Commission, without precluding the fact that the
Commission may reconsider the case at its next session, in the light of
the measures taken by the government. [ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]
|