Annual Report 1991 - Chapter II

CHAPTER II

ACTIVITIES OF THE IACHR

During the period to which this report refers, from February 1991 to February 1992, the Commission conducted the following activities:

1. SESSIONS

The IACHR has held two regular sessions (80th and 81st) since February 1991. The 80th session took place from September 23 through October 4, 1991, and the 81st from February 3 through 14, 1992.

a. Eightieth Session:

All of the members participated in this session: Patrick L. Robinson, Chairman; Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, First Vice Chairman; Oscar Luján Fappiano, Second Vice Chairman; Oliver H. Jackman; Gilda M.C.M de Russomano; Leo Valladares Lanza and Michael Reisman.

During that session the Commission received various representatives of governments, individuals and representatives of organizations for the defense of human rights, all of whom expressed their views on overall situations relating to human rights, as well as on the prosecution of individual cases.

The Commission also held a meeting with His Excellency the President of the Republic of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide, who was accompanied by the Secretary General of the Organization of American States and Ambassador Jean Casimir. The meeting produced an exchange of ideas as to how the Commission could help defend human rights in Haiti, in the light of the events that have occurred since September 29, 1991 and contribute to the prompt restoration of the democratic regime and the legitimately elected government. Views were also exchanged on ways of complying with the request formulated by the ad hoc Meeting of Ministers of External Relations, at President Aristide's request, so that the Commission could take any measures within its competence to protect and defend human rights in Haiti.

With regard to on-site visits, the Commission examined several requests from countries whose governments had expressed their readiness for such visits to take place: the Governments of Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, and Nicaragua.

As for the observation visit to the Dominican Republic from August 4 to 12, 1991, the Commission decided to continue to observe the situation of Haitians in that country and the manner in which their repatriation to Haiti was being handled. The Commission also decided to seek consent from the Government of the Dominican Republic to make an on-site visit in the near future.

The Commission also analyzed the situation of the Yanomami Indian population of Brazil and decided to reiterate its request to the Government of Brazil to consent to the on-site visit.

Another subject of interest discussed at that session was the human rights of the indigenous peoples, both in individual cases in a number of countries and in relation to the preparation of an inter-American legal instrument relating to them. Information was received from government representatives and from indigenous organizations.

The Commission accorded special attention to analysis of measures to be taken to make the autonomy and independence of the judiciary more effective.

Lastly, the Commission examined the overall situation of human rights in the American states, the reports concerning cases in process, adopting the appropriate decisions and analyzed the situation of the cases pending decision before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

b. Eighty-first Session:

All of the members participated in this session: Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, Chairman; Oscar Luján Fappiano, First Vice Chairman; Michael Reisman, Second Vice Chairman; Oliver H. Jackman; Leo Valladares Lanza; Patrick L. Robinson and Alvaro Tirado Mejía.

During this session, the Commission approved this Annual Report for the period from February 1991 to February 1992, to be presented to the OAS General Assembly at its twenty-second regular session, which will be held in Nassau, Bahamas, from May 18 to 23, 1992.

2. TWENTY-FIRST REGULAR SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE OAS

Represented by its Chairman, Patrick L. Robinson, and its First Vice Chairman, Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, who were accompanied by the Executive Secretary, Edith Márquez Rodríguez and the Assistant Executive Secretary, David Padilla, the Commission was present at the twenty-first regular session of the General Assembly, held in Santiago, Chile, from June 3 to 9, 1991.

There the General Assembly approved important resolutions pertaining to human rights, among them the following: Draft inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons; Amendment to Article 8.1 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Amendment to Article 4.1 of the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Strengthening of the OAS with regard to human rights; the Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Because of the importance of this last resolution, the full text is reproduced below:

AG/RES. 1102 (XXI-0/91)

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

     (Resolution approved at the tenth plenary session,

held on June 7, 1991)

      THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

HAVING SEEN the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted to the General Assembly pursuant to Article 41.g of the American Convention on Human Rights (CP/doc.2144/91) and the observations and recommendations of the Permanent Council on that report (AG/doc.2709/91), as well as the presentation made by the Chairman of the Commission; and

CONSIDERING:

      That, in the Charter of the Organization of American States, the member states have declared that respect for the fundamental rights of the individual, without distinction as to race, nationality, creed, or sex, is one of the basic principles of the Organization;

      That the main purpose of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is to promote the observance and defense of human rights in all the member states;

      That Article 53.f of the Charter of the Organization of American States establishes that one of the powers of the General Assembly is to consider the observations and recommendations presented by the Permanent Council with regard to the reports of the organs and entities of the Organization, in accordance with Article 90.f of the Charter;

      That, under Article 52 of the Charter, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is one of the organs by means of which the Organization accomplishes its purposes; and

      That the effective exercise of representative democracy is the best guarantee for the full observance of human rights,

RESOLVES:

      1. To take note of the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (CP/doc.2144/91).

      2. To welcome and transmit to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the observations and recommendations of the Permanent Council of the Organization on the Commission's Annual Report.

      3. To take note of the comments and observations made by the governments on the Commission's Report and of the measures that they are adopting to strengthen the promotion, observance, and protection of human rights in their respective countries.

      4. To reiterate to the Commission the mandates contained in operative paragraphs 14, 15, 17, and 18 of resolution AG/RES. 1044 (XX- 0/90) and to request that it present a progress report on the execution of those mandates to the General Assembly at its twenty-second regular session.

      5. To recommend that, pursuant to Article 63, paragraphs (e) and (h), of its Regulations, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights stress in its annual reports the progress achieved and the difficulties that have existed in the effective observance and defense of human rights.

      6. To urge the member states to comply with the recommendations contained in the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with their Constitution and laws.

      7. To reiterate to the member state governments the recommendation that they continue to extend the necessary guarantees and facilities to nongovernmental human rights organizations and their members, so that they may conduct their activities freely, in keeping with the constitutional norms of each country.

      8. To reiterate the provisions of resolution AG/RES. 1043 (XX-0/90), Consequence of Acts of Violence Perpetrated by Irregular Armed Groups on the Enjoyment of Human Rights, to the effect that, in reporting on the status of human rights in the American states, the Commission include reference to the action of irregular armed groups that may be operating in such states.

      9. To reiterate its interest in the prompt approval of the draft Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, which is under study in the Permanent Council, reaffirming that the practice in question is an affront to the conscience of the American peoples.

      10. To reiterate that the practice of torture is a crime against humanity and violates the dignity and nature of the human person.

      11. To recommend to those member states that are not parties to the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact of San José, Costa Rica", that they ratify or accede to that instrument; and in the case of states that have not done so, that they accept the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to receive and examine international

communications pursuant to Article 45, paragraph 3, of the Convention, and that they recognize the binding jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 62, paragraph 2, of the aforementioned Convention.

      12. To encourage the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to continue its important task of promoting and defending human rights in the hemisphere, and to provide it with the support it needs to carry out that eminently important function.

3. ON-SITE OBSERVATIONS AND VISITS CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION

A. On-site observation in the Dominican Republic:

The Commission made a visit to the Dominican Republic for observation from August 12 through 14, 1991, to examine the situation of Haitians in that country and the way in which their repatriation to Haiti was being conducted. The Commission decided to continue to observe the situation of the Haitian citizens in the Dominican Republic and to seek the consent of the Government to make an on-site visit in the near future.

The IACHR's special delegation comprised Dr. Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, First Vice Chairman; Bertha Santoscoy-Noro, human rights specialist; and Gloria Sakamoto, administrative assistant.

b. On-site visit to Peru:

At the invitation of the Government of Peru, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights made an on-site visit to that country from November 28 through 31, 1991, to observe the situation of human rights in Peru.

On that visit were Patrick L. Robinson, Chairman of the Commission; Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, First Vice Chairman; Oscar Luján Fappiano, Second Vice Chairman; and Commissioners Gilda M.C.M. de Russomano, Leo Valladares Lanza, and Michael Reisman. The Commission was assisted on this visit by the Executive Secretary, Edith Márquez Rodríguez; specialists Luis F. Jiménez, Bertha Santoscoy-Noro, and Jorge Seall Sasiain; Marcelo Montesinos, interpreter of the Commission; and Gabriela Hageman, Elsa Ergueta and Nora Anderson, administrative assistants.

During that visit, the Commission met with Mr. Albert Fujimori, President of the Republic; Dr. Carlos Torres y Torres Lara, Minister of External Relations and Chairman of the Council of Ministers; Dr. Augusto Antonioli Vásquez, Minister of Justice; Division General EP Jorge Torres Aciego, Minister of Defense; with the Joint Heads of Staff of the Armed

Forces, presiding Air Force General Arnaldo Velarde, and the Commandants General of the Navy, Admiral Alfredo Arnaiz Ambrossiani and Army General EP Pedro Villanueva Valdivia; Dr. César Fernández Arce, President of the Supreme Court; Dr. Pedro Méndez Jurado, the Attorney General of the Nation; and Dr. Clodomiro Chávez, Attorney General for Human Rights and Defense of the People.

Two subcommissions traveled to the interior of the country, one to Tarapoto and Tocache, and the other to the cities of Ayacucho and Huancayo. In Tarapoto the subcommission met with the Political-Military Commandant of the emergency zone, with representatives of the Office of the Prelate for Social Action of Moyobamba, and with members of the San Martín Peace Commission, with relatives of missing persons who had been arrested, and with priests from the Pastoral Center. The Commission also visited Cordesan, the National Police and the Tarapoto Penitentiary, and spoke with persons being held there. In Tocache the subcommission met with the military, political, judicial and police authorities. In Ayacucho and Huancayo the subcommission met with government and military authorities and members of the Judiciary, and with representatives of the Church and institutions for the defense and promotion of human rights.

The Commission also met with members of Congress and institutions for the defense of human rights, and with the National Human Rights Coordinator, the Andean Commission of Jurists and the Episcopal Social Action Commission. The Inter-American Commission also received individuals and members of institutions representative of Peruvian society, the Commission of Relatives of Missing Persons (COFADER), journalists and press leaders, the Association of Democratic Lawyers of Peru, and visited the Castro Penal Center.

The Commission's work during this visit gave it a fuller perspective on the situation of human rights in Peru, which will be reflected in the Special Report on which it is currently working.

c. Exploratory mission to Haiti:

The Commission conducted an exploratory mission to Haiti from December 4 through 6, 1991, to determine whether the conditions for an on-site visit to that country existed, to identify the problems that would call for a more in-depth study, and if special situations were found, to bring them to the attention of the Government so that they may be resolved.

The special delegation of the IACHR was composed of Patrick L. Robinson, Chairman; Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, Vice Chairman; and Bertha Santoscoy-Noro, and Luis Jiménez, specialists from the Executive Secretariat.

During its stay in Haiti, the Special Commission met with authorities of the Haitian Government, members of Congress and the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the General Staff.

Also, the Special Commission of the IACHR met with human rights representatives and members of political parties in order to gather information on the political situation in the country. It interviewed representatives of the print and spoken press to gain information on the status of freedom of expression. The Commission also held talks with representatives of trade unions and the Church, and visited the childcare center "La famille c'est la vie", where it talked to the persons in charge of the institution.

During its visit the Commission collected information concerning inquiries into several cases that had been submitted to it, particularly those of arbitrary detention carried out under the present regime. It also talked to persons from different social backgrounds, from whom it received complaints, communications and information relating to respect for human rights.

On January 8, 1992, Patrick L. Robinson and Marco Tulio Bruni Celli, Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively, presented a report on the exploratory mission to Haiti to the Permanent Council of the Organization.

4. ACTIVITIES OF THE IACHR RELATED TO THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

a. Guatemala:

In accordance with the provisions of article 63.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to adopt precautionary measures in the "Chunimá" case, in connection with a group of human rights activists belonging to a nongovernmental group, whose lives had been threatened.

On July 30, 1991, the Court held a hearing which was attended by the Chairman of the Commission, Patrick L. Robinson. At that hearing the Court confirmed the decision that the precautionary measures granted by its Chairman should be adopted.

b. Suriname:

As indicated earlier in the Annual Report 1990-1991, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted, on August 27, 1990, Cases Nos. 10.150 and 10.272 to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for study, in accordance with the provisions of articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

In both cases the Commission arrived at the conclusion that the agents of the Government of Suriname had violated the right to life of persons who were citizens of that country. During the period covered by this report, the Commission submitted memorials to the Court, through its delegates Oliver Jackman and David Padilla, and its legal advisor Professor Claudio Grossman. The Government of Suriname, in its turn, submitted its counter-memorial containing preliminary objections relating to procedural matters.

The Court met on December 2, 1991, for the purpose of studying and discussing the aforementioned preliminary objections. At that time the Government of Suriname admitted responsibility in Case No.10.150, Aloeboetoe et.al., pertaining to the summary execution of seven bush negroes by members of the Suriname's military, near the village of Poligron on December 31, 1987. The Court unanimously confirmed the Government's responsibility and requested the Commission to prepare a report, with a view to determining the financial or other damages for which the Government is liable.

With regard to the second case, No. 10.274, Gangaram Panday, the Court rejected the preliminary objections and decided to hold a hearing some time in 1992 in order to study the issues of substance.

c. Peru:

The Commission was represented by its delegate, Oscar Luján Fappiano, at a hearing of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, held on December 6, 1991, in San José, Costa Rica, on Case No. 10.078, Neira Alegría et al, known as "El Frontón."

During this hearing, the Court declared null and void the preliminary objections submitted by the Government of Peru, with the dissenting vote of the ad hoc judge designated by the Government.

Dr. Oscar Luján Fappiano, in his capacity as delegate of the Commission, also attended the preliminary hearing in January 1992 with the Standing Committee of the Court, in connection with the hearing scheduled to take place on a specified date at which the issues of substance of the case under consideration by the Court would be examined.

At its 81st, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights acted upon its decision to file an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights involving a case wherein the facts, as set forth in the application, are as follows: at around 9:00 p.m. on May 13, 1988, in the vicinity of the hamlet of Erusco, a Peruvian Army convoy was ambushed by an armed band belonging to the Peruvian Communist Party -also known as the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path). The ambush left four soldiers dead and 14 wounded. Erusco is in the District of Cayara, Province of Victor Fajardo,

Department of Ayacucho, a region that has experienced a wave of serious violence that began back in 1980, when the group first took up arms against the Peruvian constitutional order. Since December 1982, the Department of Ayacucho has been under a state of emergency and under the authority of a Political-Military Command.

According to the application filed, the next day, May 14, military troops launched a series of actions in the Cayara district. As a result of those actions, at least 33 persons were executed arbitrarily, 7 disappeared, at least 6 were tortured, and public and private property was damage. All this happened between May 14, 1988, and September 8, 1989. When these human rights violations were committed, the military's intent was to take reprisals against what it considered to be a terrorist community, and to eliminate those people whose names appeared in a letter sent by an anonymous informant to an Army officer in the area. Some of the peopple mentioned in the letter were killed on May 14, while other were arrested and then killed on May 18; still others were arrested and disappeared on June 29, while another was executed on December 14. Other people whose names appeared on the list had their property damaged and looted. Apart from those whose names were on the list, military troops proceeded to execute arbitrarily other people from the community, while others 'disappeared.' They also tortured unknown numbers to obtain information on the subversive group's activities.

The application that the Commission file with the Court further states that the authors of these actions also took measures to cover up the truth. Pressure was brought to bear to get witnesses to change their testimony, and those who would not were eliminated. Finally, on September 8, 1989, the last important witness was killed. The authors took other measures as well, calculated to cover up their tracks. These included, inter alia, efforts to wash away the blood stains in the church and to hide the bodies of the victims, most of which have never been located. They also took steps to obstruct the inquiries being conducted by the organs of the Peruvian State to ascertain the truth; as the case gained greater notoriety, efforts were also made to obtain from organs of the State versions that coincided with the versions circulated by the Army.

The Commission's application states that as a result of all these measures, the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation has not filed formal charges against the authors of these crimes, even though the Special Prosecutor officially delivered the Report prepared as a result of his investigations in which he accused the Chief of the Political-Military Command of being the principal party responsible. The Government Commission -also know as the Commission of Notables, set up by the President- failed to arrive at clear-cut conclusions as to who was responsible for these events. It should also be noted that the version of the facts given in the Senate Investigating Commission's majority opinion coincides with the Army's version, while the two dissenting opinions hold the Army responsible. The military courts have not indicted anyone, and indeed dismissed the respective case. All this could not have transpired without cooperation at the highest levels of decision-making in the Peruvian State. There are, moreover, precedents in the form of other slaughters committed by the security forces. Also, the figures on forced disappearances in Peru are high.

5. OTHER MATTERS

During the period covered in this report, the Commission engaged in other activities, including the visits by the Executive Secretary, Edith Márquez Rodríguez, to Madrid, Seville, Strasbourg, and Brussels. The visit lasted five days and was made in April 1991 at the invitation of the Spanish Government.

The visit was used to inform the government and nongovernmental authorities about the inter-American system for the protection of human rights in general, and about the IACHR's work in particular.

In Strasbourg the Executive Secretary met with the Executive Secretary of the European Commission and other senior officials of the Council of Europe. During the meeting, collaboration and cooperation between the IACHR and the organs of the European system were reaffirmed. Lastly, the Executive Secretary met in Brussels with representatives of the European Economic Commission and the Neuman Foundation.

Another of the Executive Secretary's activities was her attendance at the Interdisciplinary Course on Human Rights organized each year by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights in Costa Rica.

In keeping with the decision adopted by the Commission at its 80th regular meeting, the Executive Secretariat addressed the states parties to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, in October 1991, to remind them that pursuant to Article 17.1, "The State Parties agree to inform the IACHR regarding legislative, judicial, administrative, and other measures they have adopted in furtherance of this Convention."

To date only Brazil and Mexico had responded to the Commission's request.

With respect to the mandates that the General Assembly recommended to the Inter-American Commission through resolutions adopted, mention should be made of the following:

1. Protection of the rights of indigenous populations

The General Assembly, in its resolution AG/RES. 1022 (XIX-0/89) instructed the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to prepare a legal instrument on the human rights of indigenous peoples. To that end, during the period covered in this report the Commission had various background documents prepared, and at its 80th session approved a methodology based on the broad consultation to be conducted in successive stages with the cooperation of the government of each country and their respective indigenous institutions. Those institutions would include multinational, governmental or nongovernmental organizations, and particularly the Inter-American Indian Institute (OEA/Ser. 1/VII. 80 Doc. 15 rev.1).

The questionnaire for the first consultation was dispatched by the Commission to all the governments of member countries and other bodies. The questionnaire asked for their opinions as to what areas should be contemplated in the new legal instrument as specified in the American Convention on Human Rights and related instruments and the domestic legislation that may be relevant and useful in the preparation of the new instrument.

2. Administration of justice

In resolution AG/RES. 1022 (XIX-0/89), the General Assembly recommended to the Commission on Human Rights "that it begin a study on the measures necessary to enhance the autonomy, independence, and personal integrity of the members of the judicial branch so that they may investigate violations of human rights properly and perform their functions to the fullest."

At the 80th session of the IACHR a progress report was presented for consideration by the members of the Commission, on the measures necessary for the autonomy, independence and personal integrity of the judiciary. This topic is expatiated upon in Chapter VI.

3. Strengthening of the OAS in regard to human rights

At its twenty-first regular session, the General Assembly adopted resolution AG/RES. 1112, concerning the Strengthening of the OAS in regard to Human Rights, in which it recommended to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights inter alia:

      ...

      g. To pay special attention to and report on the observance of the rights of minors, women, the handicapped and minorities, and on racial discrimination in the hemisphere.

      h. Also to pay particular attention to observance of the human rights of persons with irregular migrant status, to the situation of refugees and displaced persons, and to the rights of migrant workers in general.

      ...

In compliance with the above-mentioned resolution, the Commission requested the member states of the Organization to supply the information it deemed appropriate on the progress achieved and the difficulties that have existed in the effective observance of the rights indicated in the resolution cited above, as well as the texts of the laws promulgated and the jurisprudence of the courts pertaining to such matters in the respective countries.

Chapter VI of this annual report of the Commission contains a section on the rights of minors in the context of the information supplied by the member states and bodies that have acceded to the Commission's request.

4. Economic, social, and cultural rights

At its twentieth regular session, the General Assembly approved resolution AG/RES 1044 "Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights," which recommended, in operative paragraph 15, that the Commission begin a systematic study of the state of economic, social, and cultural rights in the hemisphere. This theme is discussed in greater detail in Chapter VI.

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]