|
RESOLUTION Nº 22/86 CASE
7920 HONDURAS April
18, 1986 HAVING
SEEN the background information on this case, viz: 1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights received the following petition in a communication dated October 7, 1981: We
condemn the arbitrary arrest, in Tegucigalpa, of ANGEL MANFREDO
VELAZQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, since September 12 of this year, for unknown
reasons. We assign responsibility for that action to Colonels Leonidas
Torres Arias (G-2), Gustavo Alvarez (FUSEP), Juan López Grijalba
(National Investigation Department) and Hubbert Bodden (Commander, First
Battalion of Infantry, Tegucigalpa). We have exhausted legal remedies
without success. We know that he is in the First Battalion of Infantry
in Tegucigalpa, together with many other "Missing" political
prisoners from Honduras and El Salvador but the authorities deny his
arrest. This situation is a matter of concern to the community of Langueña
and to the country in general. We are hoping that he will be released
soon. 2. In a cablegram
dated October 14, 1981, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts
of the petition to the Government of Honduras requesting it to provide
the pertinent information. 3. In a note dated
November 24, 1981, the Commission transmitted to the Government of
Honduras additional information provided by the petitioner in this case,
requesting it to take such steps to enable the Commission to have full
information on the case as soon as possible. That information was the
following: ANGEL
MANFREDO VELASQUEZ RODRIGUEZ, a UNAH student, was violently apprehended,
without an arrest warrant, by members of the National Investigation
Directorate and of G-2 (INTELLIGENCE) of the Armed Forces of Honduras
and taken to an unknown destination. His
arrest was carried out in Tegucigalpa on the afternoon of September 12,
1981 by the above-mentioned persons, in the presence of several
eyewitnesses who saw that he was put into a vehicle that took him to the
police cells where he has been subjected to violent interrogations and
cruel tortures and accused of alleged political crimes. Initially
he was taken together with other prisoners to the cells of the II
station of the State Security Force located in the El Manchén
neighborhood of that city, where agents specializing in torture did
everything possible to make him confess to crimes they attributed to him
without giving him any opportunity to defend himself. On
September 17, 1981 he was transferred to the First Battalion of Infantry
where they continued the above-mentioned cross examinations and all the
police and security forces systematically denied his arrest. Accordingly
we are appealing to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to
intercede with the pertinent authorities so that justice may prevail and
guarantee the life and safety of Angel Manfredo Velasquez Rodríguez. 4. Since the
Commission did not receive a reply, it repeated to the Government of
Honduras, in the note of May 14, 1982, the request for information,
pointing out that, should it not receive it within a reasonable period,
it would begin to consider the application of Article 42 (formerly
Article 39) of the Regulations of the Commission whereby the facts
reported will be considered to be true. 5. In a note dated
June 4, 1982 the Government of Honduras acknowledged receipt of the
communication of May 14, 1982, mentioned above, and stated that
"the competent authorities are carrying out all possible
investigations on this matter and that as soon as we obtain a reply on
your request we shall immediately send it to you so that the respective
processing may continue". 6. In the notes of
October 6, 1982, March 23, 1983 and August 9, 1983, the IACHR repeated
to the Government of Honduras the request for information on this case
and again pointed out that, should such information not be received, the
Commission would apply the provisions of Article 42 (formerly Article
39) of its Regulations. 7. At its 61st
Regular Session (October 1983), the Commission, taking into account the
fact that the Government of Honduras had not provided the information
repeatedly requested, decided to presume that the facts that are the
subject matter of the petition were true, pursuant to the provisions of
Article 42 (formerly Article 39) of its Regulations, and to that end
approved a Resolution (Nº 30/83) the operative part of which reads as
follows (OEA/Ser.L/V/II.61, doc.44): 1.
By application of Art. 39 of the Regulations to presume the facts
of the communication of October 7, 1981, concerning the detention and
subsequent disappearance of Mr. Angel Manfredo Velasquez Rodriguez in
Honduras, to be true. 2.
To observe to the Government of Honduras that such acts
constitute very serious violations of the right to life (Art. 4) and the
right to personal liberty (Art. 7) of the American Convention on Human
Rights. 3.
To recommend to the Government of Honduras: a) that it undertake
a complete and impartial investigation to determine the persons
responsible for the acts denounced; b) that pursuant to Honduran law
that the persons responsible be punished; and c) that it inform the
Commission within a maximum period of 60 days about the measures taken
to put into practice the recommendations set forth in the present
Resolution. 4.
Once the period of time set forth in paragraph three of this
Resolution has expired, and if the Government of Honduras has not
presented observations, the Commission will include this Resolution in
the Annual Report to the General Assembly pursuant to Art. 59 (g) of the
Commission's Regulations. 8. That resolution
was transmitted to the Government of Honduras in the note of October 11,
1983, informing it that the period set in paragraph 3 thereof for the
submission of observations on Resolution 30/83, would run from the date
of the respective note. 9. The Government
of Honduras, in a note dated November 18, 1983 (Official Letter Nº
1504) and within the period set, submitted observations on Resolution
30/83 which may be summarized as follows: a.
That the domestic law of Honduras had not been exhausted in the
case, pursuant to Official Letter Nº 2586 of the Supreme Court of
Justice of that country, which states that a writ of habeas corpus
in favor of Angel Manfredo Velásquez and others was pending before that
court and a copy thereof was attached to the note of November 18. b.
That, in addition, the above-mentioned Official Letter from the
Court stated that "It is false that the Director of that
Directorate has said that additional persons are under arrest or that
they were being investigated for offenses against the security of the
state and with the exception of MARIA ODILIA MEDRANO or INES CONSUELO
MURILLO CHAWEDER who were earlier brought before the courts. Therefore
the DNI authorities are unaware of the whereabouts of the other persons
that are the subject matter of petitions, although every effort is being
made to discover their whereabouts, even though it is difficult for the
police authorities to obtain this information from the communist
countries of Nicaragua, Cuba, Russia and other Marxist-oriented
countries". c.
That, furthermore, the Government of Honduras wished to point out
that "it has not ceased nor will it cease to make every effort that
will make it possible to reliably establish the whereabouts of Mr. Angel
Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez, proof of which is that the competent
authorities are following up the information provided by the Mayor of
the Municipality of Langue, Department of Valle, who states that Mr. Velásquez
Rodríguez, according to rumors "has been prowling around this
locality, rumors of people, he says, who have seen him and that he
avoids being identified since he is going around with groups of
guerrillas from El Salvador and that when they are pursued by the
Salvadorian military he comes to take refuge in this sector, because he
is familiar with it. In addition, some rumors of the people of Nacaome
state the same thing, that they saw him in March of this year; that he
has contacts with other communists in this community and that he travels
between Nicaragua and El Salvador through "underground
routes...,". d.
That, in the light of the above, the Government requested the
Commission to reconsider the resolution adopted. 10.
In its communication of January 17, 1984, the Commission
transmitted to the petitioner the pertinent parts of the observations of
the Government of Honduras, requesting it to send any new or additional
information on the case. 11.
In its communication of 17 February 1984, the petitioner made the
following comments on the observations of the Government: The
Director General of the National Investigation Directorate (DNI) says
that he does not know the whereabouts of the person sought,
"although every effort is being made to ascertain their
whereabouts". Nevertheless, no attention has been given to the
particular case of Angel Manfredo Velásquez and one of the men who
arrested him was José Isaias Vilorio, which was reported to the then
Director of the DNI and the present Head of Military Intelligence (G-2),
General Juan López Grijalba. The
Government does not mention by name the Mayor of Langue, Valle, who has
echoed the rumor that the missing person is a Salvadorian guerrilla,
that mayor could be: -
Fidel Díaz, 1981 and -
Antonio Yañez, 1982 until December 1983. 12.
At its 62nd session (May 1984) the Commission studied the request
of the Government of Honduras for reconsideration and decided to
continue to study the case. 13.
Pursuant to that decision, the Commission sent the Government of
Honduras a note on May 30, 1984, requesting the following information on
the status of the case before the competent authorities of the country: a.
Whether the remedies of domestic law had already been exhausted; b.
Whether the proceedings on the writ of habeas corpus
lodged on behalf of Mr. Angel Manfredo Velásquez and others had been
concluded and what had been the results; c.
Whether the Report of the Municipal Mayor of Langue, a copy of
which the Government of Honduras had transmitted together with its note
of November 18, 1983, mentioned above, had appeared as a party in a
judicial proceeding for determining the whereabouts of Mr. Velásquez; d.
Whether an investigation has been made of the complaint against
Mr. José Isaias Vilorio, allegedly involved in the disappearance of Mr.
Velásquez, which had been reported earlier to the then National
Director of Investigations, General Juan José López Grijalba, as
stated in the file of the IACHR and, e.
If the depositions of the persons who had allegedly stated that
they had seen Mr. Velásquez had been given in due legal form to the
competent authorities. 14.
In the above-mentioned note the Commission also informed the
Government of Honduras that it was hoping to receive a reply before the
beginning of its next session (63rd), scheduled for October 1984 so it
could complete its study of this case; this request was repeated on
January 29, 1985 and it was pointed out that the Commission would adopt
a final decision during its session scheduled to begin on March 4 of
that year. 15.
At its 64th Session (October 1984) the Commission decided to
postpone its final examination of the case and to grant the Government
of Honduras a period of thirty days in which to send the findings of
above-mentioned investigation and the data requested in the note of May
30, 1984. 16.
In its cablegram of March 1, 1985, the Government of Honduras
requested postponement of consideration of this case until the next
session since, in accordance with Decision Nº 232 of June 14, 1986, it
had set up an Investigating Commission composed of senior officials with
authority "to exhaustively examine the complaints concerning
alleged violations of human rights, to clarify those facts and establish
the identity of the persons who were responsible so that the
corresponding legal penalties may be imposed upon them" and that
that Commission had requested the government to allow it a period of
ninety days in which to render a report on the results of its
activities, which period had not yet expired. 17.
That time limit was communicated to the Government of Honduras by
cablegram on March 11, 1985. 18.
In its note of April 8, 1985, the Government of Honduras
acknowledged receipt of the cablegram of March 11, mentioned above, but
did not send the data and information requested by the Commission in its
note of May 30, 1984 nor the findings of any investigation that may have
been carried out by the Special Commission established by Decree 232 of
June 14, 1984. 19.
In its cablegram of April 4, 1986 (Nº 717) the Government of
Honduras informed the Commission of the following: "In the wake of
new items on the radio and in the press, this Court of First Instance
proceeded to conduct the pertinent proceedings and consequently the
corresponding investigations on the disappearance of persons in the
national territory, and specifically as a result of the complaint of
Mrs. Gertrudiz Lanza González, Juana Paula Valladares Lanza, Vertilia
Cerrato Alena. Proceedings were instituted against Gustavo Alvarez Martínez,
Daniel Bali Castillo, Juan López Grijalba, Juan Blas Salazar, Alexander
Fernández, Marcos Hernández and another person named Gradiz, for the
crimes of murder, torture, abuse of authority and disobedience, in re
prejudice of José Eduardo Lanza, Reinaldo Díaz, Manfredo Velasquez,
Rafael Antonio Pacheco, Marco Antonio Fino, Jorge Eureque, Rolando
Vindel Zavala, Gustavo Morales and others, which proceedings were
dismissed by this Court whose judgement has already confirmed by the
First Court of Appeals, except in the case of General Gustavo Alvarez
Martínez, whose testimony was not taken, because he was outside the
country". CONSIDERING:
1. That the new
information provided in the cablegram of April 4, 1986, by the
Government of Honduras on the investigations carried out in this case,
transmitted to the Commission almost two years after it had been
requested is not sufficient, in the opinion of the Commission, for
carrying out a further examination of the case nor does it warrant
reconsideration of Resolution 30/83 adopted at the 61st Session of the
Commission; 2. That, on the
contrary, from all the information available on the case, it is inferred
that Mr. Angel Manfredo Velasquez Rodríguez is still disappeared and
that the Government of Honduras--despite the many requests of the IACHR
and, in particular, the detailed request for information of May 30,
1984--has failed to show that the facts reported are not true; 3. That the
information provided by the Government of Honduras in its telegram of
April 4, 1986 does not address the points requested by the Commission,
nor is the willingness of the Government of Honduras to pursue the
investigation in order to clarify the facts to be inferred from that
telegram, which only reports that the Court which conducted the
proceedings on the facts reported in Case 7920 had dismissed the
proceedings and that its judgment had also been confirmed by the First
Court of Appeals; 4. That in this
case there has also been an unjustified delay in the administration of
justice. 5. That, in view
of what is stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, it may be concluded that
the Government of Honduras has not implemented the recommendations of
the Commission; 6. That, in the
case that is the subject matter of this resolution, the Commission has
not been able, by reason of the nature of the petition, to apply the
friendly settlement procedure provided for in Article 48, paragraph 1, f
of the American Convention on Human Rights and in Article 45 of its
Regulations; 7. That, since the
friendly settlement procedure is not applicable, the Commission pursuant
to the provisions of Article 51, paragraph l, of the Convention and give
its opinions and conclusions on the issue submitted to it for its
consideration; 8. That, in
addition, the information provided by the Government of Honduras has
been insufficient since the results of the investigation of the Special
Commission on disappeared persons is unknown and sufficient time has
elapsed since the facts which gave rise to this complaint were reported.
9. That, in
addition, since the friendly settlement procedure is not applicable, the
Commission may, pursuant to Article 50 of its Regulations, submit the
case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights if the Government has
not complied with the recommendations made, and 10.
That, on September 9, 1981, the Government of Honduras declared
its recognition of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, in accordance with Article 62 of the Convention. THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES: 1. To confirm in
all its parts Resolution 30/83 of October 1983, and consequently to deny
the request for reconsideration submitted by the Government of Honduras.
2. To refer the
case to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights for the purposes
provided for in Article 63, paragraph 1 of the Convention, and therefore
that the Court may decide that there has been a violation of the rights
to life (Article 1), to humane treatment (Article 5) and to personal
liberty (Article 7) of the American Convention on Human Rights; that the
consequences of the situation caused by the violation of those rights
should be remedied and that the party or parties injured should be
granted just compensation. 3. To transmit
this resolution to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to the
petitioner, and to the Government of Honduras, in accordance with
Article 50, paragraph l, of the Regulations of the Commission. |