|
60. Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that, in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.
61. During its XXXIX Regular Session, January 19-21, 1998, the Court confirmed its President’s decision of December 22, 1997 expanding the provisional measures adopted in that case to guarantee the life and personal integrity of a member of the association of families of detainees and missing persons in Colombia and their families. 62. Similarly, during its XL Regular Session, the Court extended the provisional measures adopted on behalf of Mrs. María Elena Cárdenas for as long as the risks that gave rise to said measures persist. The Court also decided to prolong the interim measures on behalf of Mr. José Daniel Alvarez, Nidia Linores Ascanio, Gladys López, Yanette Bautista, María Helena Saldarriaga, Piedad Martín, María Eugenia López, Adriana Diosa, Astrid Manrique, Faride Ascanio, Carmen Barrera, Evidalia Chacón, José Publio Bautista, Nelly María Ascanio, Ayada Mile Ascanio, Miriam Rosas Ascanio, and Javier Alvarez. It also requested that the state conduct investigations and, where applicable, penalize those responsible for the events reported. 63. On August 4, 1998, the Commission requested that the Court extended its provisional measures in this case to cover Attorney Daniel Prado and his family, who had been subjected to threats because of Prado’s role as an ASFADDES attorney representing the families of the victims in a number of criminal cases and compensation suits in Colombia. On August 6, 1998, the President of the Court requested that the State of Colombia adopt urgent measures to guarantee the life and personal integrity of Mr. Daniel Prado and his family. 64. On August 29, 1998, the Court decided on the Commission’s request for expanded provisional measures as follows:
65. On June 19, 1998, the Court lifted the provisional measures that had been granted on behalf of Gonzalo Zárate. The Court also requested that the state adopt the measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Sister Noemy Palencia upon her return to the Meta region. The Court maintained the provisional measures in place for Mrs. Isleña Rey Rodríguez, Mrs. Mariela de Giraldo and her two young daughters Sara and Natalia Giraldo and provided that, as a key element of its protective duty, the State of Colombia should take effective measures to investigate and, where necessary, punish the perpetrators of the deeds reported. 66. On November 27, 1998, the Court issued a decision ordering the State of Colombia to adopt a number of measures to protect the personal integrity of Mrs. Isleña Rey Rodríguez, Mrs. Mariela de Giraldo and her two daughters, and Sister Noemy Palencia upon her return home, and to provide information on the investigation into the events that gave rise to the court-ordered measures.
67. On March 18, 1998, the Commission submitted an application to the Court for provisional measures in the case of Clemente Teherán et al (No. 11.858). The measures were requested to protect the lives and integrity of the persons belonging to the Zenú indigenous community in San Andrés de Sotavento, threatened by paramilitary groups operating in the area. On March 23, 1998, the President of the Court decided to request that the State of Colombia adopt a number of measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of the members of that community and to investigate the reports. 68. On June 19, 1998, the Court decided to ratify its President’s decision of March 23, 1998 and to maintain the provisional measures to safeguard the lives and personal integrity and so prevent irreparable injury to 22 persons in the Zenú indigenous community and investigate the events reported, determine those responsible and punish them. 69. On January 29, 1999, the Court issued a new decision ordering the State to continue the protective measures and to investigate the events that gave rise to these measures, as well as the alleged links between members of the community and illegal groups.
70. On May 22, 1998, the Commission submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights an application for provisional measures in five ongoing litigious cases related to the death penalty imposed on five persons detained in Trinidad and Tobago. 71. On May 27, 1998, the President of the Court, after examining the matter, decided as follows:
72. On June 14, 1998, the Court decided on the provisional measures adopted by its President as follows:
73. At the Commission’s request, the President of the Court subsequently broadened the provisional measures to preserve the lives of Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, and Denny Baptiste. 74. On August 28, 1998, at the headquarters of the Court, a public hearing was held to hear the comments of the Commission and the State of Trinidad and Tobago on the provisional measures adopted on June 14, 1998 and on the urgent measures adopted by the President of the Court in his decisions of June 29 and July 13 and 22, 1998. The State of Trinidad and Tobago did not appear at the hearing set by the Court. After hearing the Commission’s comments, the Court decided as follows:
75. To request the State of Trinidad and Tobago and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to report immediately to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on any significant development in the circumstances of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, and Denny Baptiste.
75. On January 21, 1998, the Court issued a decision requiring the State of Peru to maintain the provisional measures that had already been adopted by the Court in this case in 1997. It also indicated that Mr. Cesti Hurtado should be allowed to received the medical treatment of his choice.
76. On June 19, 1998, the Court decided to lift the provisional measures on behalf of Mario López Arrivillaga, Angel Isidro Girón Girón, Abraham Méndez García, and Lorraine Marie Fischer Piraval, and continue them on behalf of Marta Elena Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer de Carpio. It also reiterated to the State of Guatemala that in its next report it include documentation on case 1011-97 and give an update on the investigations into the reports giving rise to the provisional measures. 77. On November 27, 1998, the Court, after examining the comments filed by the Commission and the State of Guatemala, decided that the latter should take the necessary measures to settle the current and future situation of Karen Fischer de Carpio, in compliance with its obligation to effectively guarantee protection for Mrs. Carpio’s life and personal integrity, and demanded that its next report include proper documentation on the status of case 1011-97 and on concrete advances made in the investigations into the reported threats and intimidation.
78. On June 19, 1998, the Court decided to ratify its President’s decision of February 10, 1998 and to continue the provisional measures to effectively guarantee the personal integrity of the Vásquez family. The Court also provided that the State of Guatemala should report on the measures that it has already taken to investigate the causes of the urgent measures adopted by its President. 79. On November 24, 1998, the Commission filed and application with the Court stating that the provisional measures adopted by the Court could be lifted since the petitioners had indicated that the security of the beneficiaries had improved. 80. On November 27, 1998, the Court decided to lift and definitively terminate the provisional measures and to close the case.
81. On June 24, 1998, the Commission requested that the Court adopt interim measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Santiago Cabrera López, a witness in the case before the Court. On June 30, 1998, the President of the Court requested that the State of Guatemala adopt urgent measures on behalf of Mr. Cabrera López to ensure his personal integrity. 82. On August 29, 1998, the Court ruled in favor of the following interim measures:
83. On November 27, 1998, after examining the reports of the Guatemalan government and the Commission’s comments of October 1, 1998, the Court handed down a decision requesting the State to include in its next report details on the measures implemented to protect Lucía Quila Colo, Fermina López Castro, and Patricia Ispanel Medimilla, and that it report on the investigation and punishment of those responsible for the events that gave rise to the adoption of the interim measures, particularly the alleged threats against Alberto Godínez and María García Domingo.
84. This case refers to the events that occurred on April 28, 1990, when Adolfo Garrido and Raúl Baigorria were arrested by the Mendoza Province Police. Since then, their whereabouts are unknown. 85. On January 20, 1998, the Commission appeared at a public hearing convened by the Court to argue its case for reparations from the Argentine State for the victims Adolfo Garrido and Raúl Baigorria. The victims’ representatives and the Argentine State also presented their oral arguments. 86. On August 27, 1998, the Court ruled in favor of reparations in this case, providing the following, unanimously:
87. On July 6, 1998, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Colombia regarding the extrajudicial executions of Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Julio Milcíades Cerón Gómez, Edebraiz Cerón Rojas, William Hamilton Cerón Rojas, and Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy or Moisés Ojeda, and the subsequent denial of justice for them. The Commission requested that the Court find the State of Colombia to be in violation of Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (on judicial guarantees), and 25 (on judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 88. On September 15, 1998, the State of Colombia filed with the Court its written preliminary objections to the Commission’s application. On November 5, 1998, the Commission entered its written comments on Colombia’s preliminary objections.
89. On January 15, 1999, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Chile. The application referred to the court-ordered censorship of screening of the film "The Last Temptation of Christ." The Commission requested that the Court find that the State of Chile violated the right of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience, enshrined in Articles 12 and 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of the Chilean society, particularly Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías Insulza Tagle, and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes, in addition to having violated Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention and the said document [sic].
90. The application filed by the IACHR on March 21, 1996 refers to events that occurred from December 4, 1985, when Ecuadoran state agents suddenly, arbitrarily, and illegally arrested teacher Consuelo Benavides Cevallos and proceeded to hold her incommunicado for several days, to torture her, and finally to kill her. The suit also indicated that the State of Ecuador did not provide effective judicial recourse and denied Ms. Benavides access to the protection of the courts. It adds that Ecuador, by its action, continues to hamper the investigation of the case. The Commission therefore asks the Court to declare Ecuador to be in violation of Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (on the right to personal integrity), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (on judicial guarantees), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Ms. Benavides Cevallos. 91. On June 11, 1998, a public hearing was held in at the headquarters of the Court on the merits of the case, to hear the witnesses and expert witnesses brought by the parties. At that hearing, the State of Ecuador recognized its responsibility for the forced disappearance , illegal detention, torture, and death of Consuelo Benavides in 1985, at the hands of Ecuadoran state agents, in violation of Articles, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. The State of Ecuador placed on record a friendly settlement signed with the parents of Consuelo Benavides, in which it recognized its international responsibility for the events and undertook to continue with the investigations to punish those responsible for the human rights violations in this case and to pay the family compensation equivalent to US$1 million. At the request of the Commission, the State of Ecuador indicated at the hearing that it would encourage the relevant authorities to ratify the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons. On June 19, 1998, the Court decided that the case had been settled through the amicable agreement reached by the parties and reserved the right to supervise compliance with the obligations undertaken by the State of Ecuador. 92. In that regard, the Court, by a unanimous judgment of June 19, 1998, decided the following:
93. On November 12, 1997, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruled on the merits of this case and determined that the State of Ecuador, to the detriment of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero, had violated Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty); Article 8 (on judicial guarantees); Article 5 (on the right to personal integrity); Article 25 (on judicial protection) of the American Convention; that the unnumbered article following Article 114 of the Criminal Code of Ecuador violates Article 2 of said Convention (on the right to enact domestic legislation), and related Articles 7.5 and 1.1 thereof; and that Ecuador should order an investigation to determine the persons responsible for the human rights violations referred to in the judgment. It also determined that Ecuador is obligated to pay fair compensation to the victim and his family and to reimburse them for any expenses incurred in relation to the case. 94. On June 10, 1998, a public hearing was held at the headquarters of the Court to permit the parties to present oral arguments concerning reparations in this case, based on the Court’s judgment on the merits. 95. On January 20, 1999, the Court issued the following unanimous judgment on reparations:
96. This case, also known as the "panel blanca case," arose out of the event that occurred in 1987 and 1988 when a number of civilians were kidnaped and assassinated by agents of Guatemala’s revenue guard. On January 19, 1995, the Commission filed an application with the Court requesting that it declare that Guatemala had violated Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (on the right to personal integrity), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (on judicial guarantees), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of the victims. Therefore, the Commission argued that Guatemala must identify, try, and punish those responsible for the said violations and compensate the victims, in accordance with Article 63.1 of the American Convention. 97. On March 8, 1998, the Court ruled unanimously on the merits of this case as follows:
98. On August 30, 1996, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the State of Guatemala, for the disappearance, torture, and extrajudicial execution of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. The application referred to the events that occurred from March 12, 1992, when members of the Armed Forces of Guatemala captured Mr. Bámaca Velásquez following an armed confrontation. They subsequently kept him alive in a number of military facilities, in which he was tortured and then killed by members of the Armed Forces of Guatemala. The Commission requested that the Court find that the State of Guatemala violated Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (on the right to personal integrity), Article 7 (Right to personal Liberty), Article 8 (on judicial guarantees), and Article 25 (on judicial protection), and related Article 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention. The Commission also requested that the Court find that Guatemala violated the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The Commission further requested that the Court order the State of Guatemala to investigate the facts and punish those responsible; inform the family of Mr. Bámaca Velásquez’s whereabouts and return his remains; reform the manner in which the armed forces are trained; and pay fair compensation to the family of the victim and costs. 99. On June 16, 17, and 18, 1997, at the Court’s headquarters, a public hearing was held on the merits of the case to hear the parties’ oral arguments and their witnesses. 100. On November 22 and 23, 1998 at the Court’s headquarters, the third public hearing was held on the merits of this case; the statements of 8 Commission witnesses were heard.
101. This application was filed by the Commission with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Guatemala on August 3, 1995, and deals with events occurring since 1985, when agents of the State of Guatemala kidnaped Nicholas Chapman Blake and Griffith Davis, and forced their disappearance. 102. The Court deliberated and ruled as follows in the Blake case:
103. Judge Montiel Argüello placed on record with the Court a dissenting vote, Judge Cançado Trindade a reasoned vote, and Judge Novales Aguirre a concurring vote. 104. On June 10, 1998, a public hearing was held at the Court’s headquarters, at which the parties presented oral arguments concerning reparations in the case, based on the judgment handed down by the Court on the merits of the case. 105. On January 22, 1999, the Court ruled unanimously on reparations as follows:
106. This application was filed by the Commission against the State of Guatemala on January 30, 1997 and refers to the kidnaping, torture, and extrajudicial execution of five street children by agents of the State of Guatemala. Three of the children were minors when they were executed. 107. On January 28 and 29, 1999, a public hearing was held at the headquarters of the Court to hear oral arguments on the merits of the case, and to hear the witnesses and expert witnesses put forward by the Commission.
108. On June 4, 1998, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Nicaragua. The facts of the application refer to the lack of demarcation and official recognition of the territory of the Awas Tingni Indigenous Community and, consequently, the violation by the State of Nicaragua of Articles 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 2 (on the duty to enact domestic legislation), 21 (on the right to private property), and 25 (on judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights. 109. On August 21, 1998, the State of Nicaragua filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its written preliminary objections to the Commission’s application. On September 25, 1998, the Commission presented its written comments on the preliminary objections.
110. On January 16, 1998, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Panama for violations of the human rights of Mr. Ricardo Baena and another 270 persons. The application referred to events that occurred from December 14, 1990, when Law No. 25 was approved and under which hundreds of civil servants were arbitrarily dismissed because of their participation in a labor dispute protest. They were accused of complicity with a military mob and denied the right to due process in their complaints before the domestic judicial system. The Commission requested that the Court find that the State of Panama violated Articles 8 (on judicial guarantees), 9 (on the principle of legality and retroactivity), 10 (Right to Compensation), 15 (Right of Assembly), 16 (Freedom of Association), 25 (on judicial protection) of the American Convention, and related Articles 1 and 2 thereof. The Commission also requested that the court declare "that Law 25 and the standard contained in Article 43 of the Political Constitution of Panama, which permits the retroactivity of laws in the interest of law and order and of the society, as applied in this case, conflict with the American Convention and must therefore be amended or repealed in accordance with Article 2 of said Convention." Similarly, the Court was requested to declare that Panama violated Articles 33 and 50.2 of the Convention and that it must reinstate the dismissed workers in the exercise of their rights and provide reparation for the victims. 111. The State of Panama filed preliminary objections to the Commission’s application on April 18, 1998. On May 20, 1998, the Commission submitted to the Court its written comments on the preliminary objections filed by the State of Panama. 112. On January 27, 1999, the Court held a public hearing on the preliminary objections filed by the State of Panama. The Commission presented its oral arguments.
113. On January 9, 1998, the Commission filed an application with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Peru in the case of Mr. Cesti Hurtado. The application referred to the violation of Mr. Cesti Hurtado’s basic rights by the State of Peru as a result of his detention and the deprivation of his freedom, despite the fact that there was a final decision by the Peruvian courts in favor of the petitioner in a habeas corpus appeal. The Commission requested that the Court find the State of Peru to be in violation of Articles 5 (on the right to personal integrity), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (on judicial guarantees), 11 (on protection of honor and dignity), 17 (on protection of the family), 21 (on the right to private property), 25 (on judicial protection), and 51.2 of the American Convention, and related Articles 1 and 2 thereof. It also requested that the Court require the State of Peru to punish those responsible for the violations reported, free Mr. Cesti Hurtado, and pay him compensation for the time he was unlawfully detained, and the resulting damages to his life and assets. 114. On February 20, 1998, the State of Peru filed preliminary objections to the Commission’s application. On April 20, 1998, the latter filed its written response to the preliminary objections presented by Peru. 115. On January 26, 1999, the Court ruled unanimously on the preliminary objections as follows:
116. This application was filed by the Commission before the Court on August 8, 1996. The Commission filed an application against the State of Peru for violations of the basic rights of Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, who was illegally deprived of his freedom, subjected to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, tried twice for the same deed, in overt violation of judicial guarantees and due process. The Commission requested that the Court find the State of Peru responsible, to the detriment of Mr. Cantoral Benavides, for violating Articles 5 (on the right to personal integrity), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (on judicial guarantees), and 25 (on judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and related Article 1.1 thereof. The Commission also requested that the Court find that Peru is responsible for violating Article 2 (on the duty to adopt domestic legislation) of the American Convention, and Articles 2 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 117. On June 8, 1998, a public hearing was held at the headquarters of the Court on the preliminary objections filed by the State of Peru to the Commission’s application, and which the latter had refuted. 118. On September 3, 1998, the Court handed down its judgment on the preliminary objections filed by Peru, ruling:
119. This application was filed by the Commission before the Court on July 22, 1997. The Commission filed the application against the State for sentencing to life imprisonment, in a court not representative of Peru, the Chilean citizens Jaime Francisco Castillo Petruzzi, María Concepción Pincheira Saez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado Saavedra, and Alejandro Astorga Valdés on the charge of high treason. The Commission requested that the Court find that Peru violated Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 5 (on the right to personal integrity), 8 (on judicial guarantees), 20 (Right to Nationality), 27 (Suspension of Guarantees), and 51.2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of these persons. The Commission also requested that the Court overturn the military cases of the above-mentioned persons, to which it must pay reparations and compensation for the damages they have incurred, and that it pay the costs and expenses of the case and all domestic proceedings. In addition, it requested that Peru be declared in violation of Article 29 (on standards of interpretation) of the American Convention, which is consistent with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 120. On June 8, 1998, a public hearing was held at the Court’s headquarters on the preliminary objections to the Commission’s application, filed by the State of Peru and refuted by the Commission. 121. On September 3, 1998, the Court issued its judgment on the preliminary objections filed by Peru ruling as follows:
122. Judge Cançado Trindade placed his concurring vote on record with the Court. 123. On November 25, 1998, a public hearing was held at the Court’s headquarters on the merits of the case and to hear the witnesses proposed by the parties.
124. This application was filed by the Commission before the Court on August 8, 1996. The application referred to events that occurred on February 14 and 15, 1986, when Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Ugarte Rivera were detained as suspects in terrorist acts and incarcerated in the San Jan Bautista (El Frontón) penitentiary. A riot broke out in that penitentiary in June 1986, and Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera have been missing ever since. However, on July 17, 1987 the Sixth Correctional Court of Lima found them innocent and ordered their immediate release. The Commission requested that the Court find the State of Peru responsible for violations, to the detriment of those persons, of Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4 (Right to Life), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (on judicial guarantees), 25 (on judicial protection), and 27 (Suspension of Guarantees) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission also requested that Court to declare the State responsible for violating Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (on the duty to enact domestic legislation) of the American Convention. 125. On June 8, 1998, a public hearing was held at the headquarters of the Court on the preliminary objections to the Commission’s application filed by the State of Peru and refuted by the Commission.
126. On September 17, 1997, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights handed down its judgment in the case. The Court found that the State of Peru had illegally deprived Mrs. María Loayza Tamayo of her freedom and subjected her to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. As a result, the Court ruled that the State of Peru, to Mrs. Loayza Tamayo’s detriment, had violated the right to personal integrity (Article 5 of the American Convention and related Article 1.1 thereof), the right to personal freedom (Article 7 of the American Convention, and related Articles 25 and 1.1 thereof), judicial guarantees (Article 8 of the American Convention and related Articles 25 and 1.1 thereof), and ordered that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo be released within a reasonable time. Peru performed the latter obligation on October 16, 1997. 127. On June 9, 1998, a public hearing was held at the headquarters of the Court for the parties to present oral arguments on reparations regarding the Court’s judgment on the merits of the case. 128. As evidence for a better determination before judgment on reparations in this case, the Court handed down a decision on August 29, 1998 requesting that the medical associations of Chile and Peru appoint one or more of their members to issue opinions on the physical and mental health of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo and the mental health of her children Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano Loayza. 129. On November 27, 1998, the Court ruled on reparations in this case as follows:
130. Judges Cançado Trindade and Abreu Burelli placed on record with the Court their concurring votes; Judges Jackman and García Ramírez their concurring votes, and Judge de Roux Rengifo, his partially dissenting vote, which accompany the judgment.
131. On November 3, 1997, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued its judgment in this case. In this judgment, the Court ruled that the State of Peru was obligated to make reparations for the consequences of the events affecting Mr. Rafael Castillo Páez, who was arrested by agents of the national police of Peru and disappeared. The Court ruled that the State of Peru had violated the right to personal liberty (Article 7 of the American Convention, and related Article 1.1 thereof), the right to personal integrity (Article 5 of the Convention, and related Article 1.1 thereof), the right to life (Article 4 of the American Convention, and related Article 1.1 thereof), and the right to effective recourse to the competent national magistrates or courts (Article 25 of the Convention and related Article 1.1 thereof), to the detriment of Mr., Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez and, in the case of Article 25, of his family as well. 132. On June 9, 1998, the Court held a public hearing at its headquarters, at which the parties presented oral arguments on reparations in respect of the Court’s judgment on the merits. 133. On November 27, 1998, the Court ruled on reparations in the case as follows:
134. Judges Cançado Trindade and Abreu Burelli placed on record with the Court their joint reasoned vote; and Judge García Ramírez, his reasoned vote.
135. This application was filed by the Commission before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Peru on October 10, 1990, and relates to the events affecting Víctor Neira Alegría, Edgar Zenteno Escobar, and William Zenteno Escobar, who were detained in the "El Frontón" penitentiary as suspected terrorists when, as a result of a riot in that prison, the government delegated control of the situation to the Armed Forces Joint Command. Since then, after the armed forces and quelled the riot, these persons have been missing. On October 19, 1995, the Court issued judgment on the merits of this case, ruling that the State of Peru had violated Articles 4.1, 7.6, and 27.2 of the American Convention. It also ordered the State of Peru to make reparations to the victims in the case. The judgment on reparations was handed down by the Court on September 19, 1996. 136. During its XLI Session, the Court examined the status of enforcement by the State of Peru of the judgment on reparations issued in this case on September 19, 1996, which set compensation for the families of Víctor Neira Alegría, William Zenteno Escobar, and Edgar Zenteno Escobar at US$154,040.74. On August 29, 1998, the Court issued a decision in which it stated that:
137. This application was filed by the Commission with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against the State of Suriname on August 27, 1990 and relates to the detention by members of the military police and subsequent death of Mr. Asok Gandaram Panday. On January 21, 1994, the Court ruled that the State of Suriname had violated Articles 7.2 and 1.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The judgment also rejected the Commission’s application to find the State of Suriname in violation of Articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 25.1, and 25.2 of the American Convention. The same judgment also set the reparations. 138. After several years of supervising enforcement of its judgment of January 21, 1994 in this case, the Court decided on November 27, 1998:
139. This application for an advisory opinion was filed on December 9, 1997 by the State of Mexico and inquires as to whether all foreign detainees facing the possibility of the death penalty have the right to be informed, from the time of their arrest, of the possibility of recourse to the assistance of their country’s consular authorities and the right to guarantees of due process. The State of Mexico seeks the Court’s opinion regarding the minimum guarantees in cases involving crimes subject to capital punishment, consular functions, and the application of the death penalty to foreigners, in light of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Articles 2, 6, 14, and 50 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3.k of the Charter of the OAS, and Articles I, II, and XXVI or the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, within the framework of Article 64.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 140. On June 12, 1998, a public hearing was held at the headquarters of the Court on the application for an advisory opinion filed by the State of Mexico, at which time the Commission gave its comments. [ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]
|