...continued
CASE
11.800, Report N° 110/00, César Cabrejos Bernuy (PERU) 99.
In
report Nº 110/00 of December 4, 20010 the IACHR issued the following
recommendations to the Peruvian state: 1.
To offer adequate compensation to Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy,
pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention, including the moral
aspect as well as the material one, for the violation of his human rights,
and in particular, 2.
To carry out the Judicial Order issued by the Constitutional and
Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 5, 1992,
reinstating Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy in his position as Colonel in the
National Police, paying him his salary and other remuneration owing to him
but not paid since the date of his enforced retirement, and granting him
all other benefits to which he is entitled as a Colonel of the Police,
including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension; or, as a second
resort, to pay him the salary and other remuneration to which he would be
entitled as a Colonel of the National Police, until he is of legal
retirement age, paying also in this case his retroactive salary from the
date of his forced retirement, and granting him all the other economic
benefits to which, as a Colonel of the National Police, he is entitled,
including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension. 3. To conduct a full, impartial, and effective investigation of the facts, in order to establish responsibilities for the failure to carry out the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 5, 1992, and to pursue such criminal, administrative, and other procedures as necessary to apply the appropriate punishment to those responsible, as befits the gravity of the violations in question. 100.
The Peruvian Government, in a note dated February 26, 2002,
requested an extension for completion of the report in which it will
provide the information requested. CASE
9903, Report Nº 51/01 Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et. al. (UNITED
STATES) 101.
On November 14, 2001, the United States delivered to the Commission
its Response to the Commission’s merits report in Case 9903 (Rafael
Ferrer-Mazorra et al. United
States), which was published as Report N° 51/01 dated April 4, 2001 in
the Commission’s 2000 Annual Report. In its report, the Commission
recommended that the State convene reviews as soon as is practicable in
respect of all of the Petitioners who remained in the State’s custody,
to ascertain the legality of their detentions in accordance with the
applicable norms of the American Declaration, in particular Articles I,
II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by the
Commission’s analysis in the report, and to review its laws, procedures
and practices to ensure that all aliens who are detained under the
authority and control of the State, including aliens who are considered
“excludable” under the State’s immigration laws, are afforded full
protection of all of the rights established in the American Declaration,
including in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the
Declaration as informed by the Commission’s analysis in its report. In
its response, the United States objected to the publication of the
Commission’s final report absent the State’s observations and
requested that the Commission either withdraw its report or publish the
State’s response in its Annual Report. The State also indicated that it
rejected the substance of the Commission’s report in its entirety. The
Commission transmitted the State’s response to the Petitioners on
December 3, 2001 with a request for observations within 30 days. No
response was received from the Petitioners. In respect of the State’s
request for the Commission to publish the State’s response, the
Commission has decided to include the State’s response on the
Commission’s website at http://www.cidh.org CASE
12.243, Report Nº 52/01, Juan Raúl Garza (UNITES STATES)
102.
By communications dated January 22, 2002, the Commission requested
follow up information from the United States and from the Petitioners
within one month on compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in
Report Nº 52/01 dated April 4, 2001 and published in the Commission’s
2000 Annual Report. In its report, the Commission recommended that the
State provide Mr. Garza with an effective remedy, which included
commutation of sentence, and that the State review its laws, procedures
and practices to ensure that persons who are accused of capital crimes are
tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with the rights
established in the American Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and
XXVI of the Declaration, and in particular by prohibiting the introduction
of evidence of unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital
trials. The Petitioners
responded by letter received by the Commission on February 4, 2002, in
which they indicated that Mr. Garza had been executed by the State on June
19, 2001 and that to their knowledge the State had not complied with any
of the Commission’s recommendations. The State responded to the
Commission’s request for information in a note dated March 4, 2002, in
which the State indicated that it did not agree with the Commission’s
conclusions and that the Petitioners’ petition was manifestly
groundless. E. Petitions and Cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 103.
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. 104.
A summary of the 17 provisional measures requested by the
Commission and granted or expanded by the Court over the months between
the IACHR’s 110th and 113th sessions is provided below, broken down by
the countries involved. As in the case of precautionary measures, the
number of provisional measures sought does not correspond to the number of
persons protected as a result of their adoption. a.
Colombia
Alvarez et
al. Case
105.
During 2001, the Commission continued periodic submission to the
Court of its comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the
measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the persons covered
by the provisional measures duly expanded by the Court on August 10,
October 11, and November 12, 2000, with respect to members of the
Association of Relatives of Detained-Disappeared Persons (ASFADDES) of
Colombia.
Caballero Delgado and
Santana Case 106.
The Commission continued periodic submission to the Court of its
comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted
to protect the physical integrity of the persons protected by the
provisional measures in compliance with the Court’s order of June 3,
1999.
Clemente Teherán et
al. Case 107.
The Commission continued periodic submission to the Court of its
comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted
to protect the personal integrity of the persons covered by the
provisional measures issued in accordance with the Court’s order in this
case of August 12, 2000.
San José de Apartadó
Community of Peace Case 108.
The Commission continued periodic submission to the Court of its
comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted
to protect the personal integrity of the persons covered by the
provisional measures issued in accordance with the Court’s order of
November 24, 2000.
Giraldo Cardona Case 109.
On December 3, 2001, the Court resolved to instruct the State and
the Inter-American Commission to cease submitting information regarding
Mr. Gonzalo Zárate Triana, who had recently been murdered and with
respect to whom the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had originally
ordered provisional measures on February 5, 1997, and lifted them on June
19, 1998. It also requested the State to continue submitting its
two-monthly reports on the provisional measures adopted on behalf of the
persons protected in this case, and it asked the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights to submit its comments on those reports within six weeks
following presentation thereof. 110.
The Commission continued periodically submtting to the Court its
comments on the Colombian State’s reports regarding the measures adopted
to protect the personal integrity of Sister Noemy Palencia, Ms. Isleña
Rey, and Ms. Mariela de Giraldo and her two young daughters in compliance
with the orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 28,
1996, February 5, 1997, June 17 and November 27, 1998 and September 30,
1999.
b.
Costa Rica Mauricio
Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmose (La
Nación Newspaper) 111.
On March 28, 2001, in light of the Costa Rican State’s failure to
comply with the precautionary measures requested on March 1, 2001, the
Inter-American Commission asked the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
for provisional measures to guarantee the Costa Rican State’s protection
of Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernán Vargas Rohrmose’s right of free
expression. One of the measures the Commission requested was the
suspension of the conviction handed down by the First Circuit Criminal
Court in San José, Costa Rica, until such time as the Commission has
examined the case and, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention,
adopted a final decision on the merits of the case. It also asked the
State to refrain from taking any action toward including the journalist
Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Costa Rican Judicial Register of Criminals,
and to refrain from any other act affecting the right of free expression
of the aforesaid journalist or of the newspaper La
Nación. After a hearing on September 7, 2001, at which the Commission
upheld its position, the Court issued an order requiring the State of
Costa Rica to adopt, without delay, such measures as might be necessary to
annul Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s inclusion in the Judicial Register of
Criminals until such time as the case has been conclusively resolved by
the organs of the inter-American human rights system. It also demanded
suspension of the order requiring publication, in La
Nación, of the concluding part of the conviction handed down by the
First Circuit Criminal Court in San José on November 12, 1999, and
requiring the establishment of a hyperlink, in La
Nación Digital, between the disputed articles and the terms of the
conviction. The State, on October 5, 2001, informed the Court that it had
ordered the suspension of the sentence handed down against Mr. Mauricio
Herrera Ulloa. It also reported that his inclusion in the Judicial
Register of Criminals had been suspended. On November 30, 2001, the
Commission informed the Court that with blatant disregard for the
provisional measures agreed upon, a certified document existed showing
that the Register of Criminals contained the following entry with respect
to Mauricio Herrera Ulloa: “On November 12, 1999, the First Circuit
Criminal Court fined him an amount equal to 120 days’ minimum wage for
the crime of publishing defamatory offensive comments.” The Court, on
December 3, 2001, asked the State to submit its comments on the
Commission’s document. On December 4, the Costa Rican State reported
that because of a mistake in interpretation, confusion had arisen in
certifying Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa’s criminal record. It went on to
add that the Department of Judicial Archives and Records had taken steps
to terminate, once and for all, the uncertainty surrounding Mr. Herrera
Ulloa’s status and it promised that under no circumstance would a
similar situation arise with any future certifications. On December 6,
2001, the Court resolved to take note of the claims contained in the
State’s communication of December 4, 2001, and to require that it
continue to enforce the provisional measures ordered on September 7, 2001,
and, in particular, to continue leaving void of all effect the inclusion
of Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Judicial Register of Criminals. c. Dominican Republic Expulsions
of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin from the Dominican Republic 112. In a letter dated December 4, 2001, the Inter-American Court urged the Dominican Republic and the Inter-American Commission to take "all the steps necessary to create an appropriate mechanism for coordinating and supervising the measures in the case of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic, and all actions necessary to comply in good faith with the dispositions of the Inter-American Court" established in previous resolutions. 113.
In its seventh report, the Inter-American Commission noted that in
order to comply with the Inter-American Court’s communication of
December 4, 2001, the Commission set up a working meeting between the two
parties. This meeting agreed to hold a follow-up meeting in early 2002. d. Guatemala
Paniagua Morales et
al. Case 114.
At the request of the Commission and the State, in a resolution
dated August 28, 2001, the Court decided to lift the provisional measures
it had ordered on January 29, 2001, on behalf of Manuel Alberto González
Chinchilla.
Colotenango Case 115.
At the Commission’s request, the Court decided, in an order dated
September 5, 2001, to require that the State maintain the provisional
measures protecting the lives and persons of the individuals protected by
the resolutions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 22 and
December 1, 1994, September 19, 1997, and February 2, 2000.
Carpio Nicolle Case 116.
At the Commission’s request, the Court decided, in an order dated
September 5, 2001, to require that the State maintain the provisional
measures adopted by the Court on September 19, 1995, February 1, 1996,
September 10, 1996, June 19, 1998, November 27, 1998, and September 30,
1999, on behalf of Marta Elena Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer de
Carpio.
Bámaca Velásquez Case 117.
At the Commission’s request, the Court decided, in an order dated
September 5, 2001, to require that the State maintain the provisional
measures adopted by the Court on August 29, 1998, on behalf of Alfonso
Cabrera Viagres, María Victoria López, Blanca Cabrera, Carmelinda
Cabrera, Teresa Aguilar Cabrera, Olga Maldonado, and Carlos Alfonso
Cabrera. e.
Mexico
Digna
Ochoa Case 118. During the first half of 2001, the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court on November 17, 1999, on behalf of the human rights activist Digna Ochoa y Plácido and members of the nongovernmental human rights organization known as the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center (“PRODH”) remained in force. On May 31, 2001, the Mexican State told the Inter-American Court that there had been no further threats or incidents of harassment and consequently requested that the provisional measures be lifted; this request was made anew on August 13, 2001. After consulting the petitioners, the Inter-American Commission stated on August 22, 2001, that it had no objection to the lifting of the measures, albeit reserving the right to request that they be reinstated if necessary and with the clarification that the petition denouncing the failure to investigate the threats would continue to be processed. The Inter-American Court lifted and concluded the provisional measures in an order dated August 28, 2001. 119.
On October 19, 2001, Digna Ochoa y Plácido died violently in her Mexico City office. Alongside her body was a
note containing a direct threat against the members of PRODH for their
work in defending human rights. Given the new gravity and urgency this
event created, on October 22, 2001, the IACHR sent the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights a request for provisional measures on behalf of
PRODH’s members and the lawyers Pilar Noriega García, Bárbara Zamora López,
and Leonel Rivero Rodríguez. These last three individuals, the IACHR
pointed out, helped Digna Ochoa defend cases and had received threats in
the past. The President of the Inter-American Court issued an order on
October 25, 2001, requiring urgent protection measures for the persons
named in the Inter-American Court’s request. At a later date, the Court
held a public hearing at its headquarters, at which it received
information from both the Mexican State and the IACHR. On November 29,
2001, the Inter-American Court issued an order ratifying the order of
October 25, 2001, and requiring the State to maintain the measures for
protecting the members of PRODH and lawyers Noriega García, Zamora López,
and Rivero Rodríguez; these measures include the investigation of the
reported incidents. At the IACHR’s request, in its order the
Inter-American Court expanded the provisional measures to cover Digna
Ochoa’s parents and siblings. José
Francisco Gallardo Case 120.
On December 18, 2001, the IACHR asked the Inter-American Court to
issue provisional measures to prevent irreparable harm to Gen. José
Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez, his life, his physical, mental, and moral
integrity, and his freedom of expression in connection with his life.
Provisional measures were also sought to prevent irreparable harm to the
mental and moral integrity of his wife, Leticia Enríquez, and of his
children, Marco Vinicio, Francisco José, Alejandro, and Jessica Gallardo
Enríquez. With respect to his daughter Jessica Gallardo, aged eight, the
Court was asked to adopt special protective measures to safeguard her
personal integrity. Finally, the measures are intended to prevent
irreparable harm to Mexican society as a whole with respect to its right
to freely receive information. The Inter-American Commission determined
that the best measure for guaranteeing Gen. Gallardo’s basic rights and
those of his relatives and Mexico society at large would be to release him
from the custody in which he remains in open defiance of IACHR and United
Nations reports that clearly identify him as a victim of arbitrary
detention. The President of the Inter-American Court issued an order on
December 20, 2001, requiring the Mexican State to adopt urgent measures to
protect the life and person of Gen. José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez.
In so doing, the head of the Court determined that the background
information furnished by the IACHR gave prima
facie evidence of a situation of urgent and serious danger to Gen.
Gallardo’s life and person and he also gave due consideration to the
failure to comply with the precautionary measures granted by the
Inter-American Commission. On December 27, 2001, the Mexican State sent
the Inter-American Court its first report on Gen. Gallardo’s provisional
measures, in which it summarized its actions vis-à-vis the Inter-American
Commission with respect to the precautionary measures and noted that, for
security reasons, the general had been moved to a different prison. f. Peru Baruch
Ivcher Case 121.
On February 7, 2001, the State reported that it had revoked the
resolution annulling Mr. Ivcher’s certificate of Peruvian nationality;
that it had accepted the Commission’s recommendations contained in
report 94/98 of December 9, 1998; that Mr. Ivcher, his family, and others
now enjoyed protection of their right to physical, mental, and moral
integrity and their right to a fair trial; that Mr. Ivcher had been
reinstated as a stockholder in the Frecuencia
Latina channel; and that the Peruvian State was willing to work to
reach a friendly settlement pursuant to Article 53 of the Commission’s
Rules of Procedure. Since the violations for which the provisional
measures were issued had ceased, the Court issued an order lifting those
provisional measures on March 14, 2001. Loayza
Tamayo Case 122.
On January 6, 2001, the Inter-American Commission replied to a
request for information from the Court, expressed in an order from its
President dated December 13, 2000, with respect to the provisional
measures adopted on behalf of Ms. María Elena Loayza Tamayo. The
Commission stated, inter alia,
that it shared the position expressed by the victim’s representatives
and, consequently, thought it appropriate for the Court to adopt the
provisional measures requested. 123.
On February 3, 2001, the Court ratified all aspects of the order
issued by its President on December 13, 2000, and asked the Peruvian State
to maintain the measures necessary for effectively ensuring Ms. Loayza’s
return to her country and protecting her physical, mental, and moral
integrity, and to report, every second month, on the measures it adopts in
compliance with the order of February 3; it also asked the Commission to
submit its comments on the reports from the State of Peru within six weeks
following reception thereof and, to date, the Commission has complied with
this obligation. 124.
At the request of the Commission and the State, in a resolution
dated August 28, 2001, the Court decided to lift the provisional measures
it had ordered on February 3, 2001, on behalf of María Elena Loayza
Tamayo. Constitutional
Tribunal Case 125.
On August 14, 2000, at the Commission’s request, the plenary of
the Court decided to adopt provisional measures with respect to this case.
To that end, the Court ratified in all respects the President’s order of
April 7, 2000, and again informed the State of the need to take steps to
protect Ms. Delia Revoredo. 126.
On February 1, 2001, the Peruvian State sent
the Court its express recognition of its responsibility in violating the
rights of Constitutional Tribunal magistrates Dr. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Dr.
Guillermo Rey Terry, and Dr. Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur. The State
reported that on November 17, 2000, the three magistrates were reinstated
in their positions at the Constitutional Tribunal and their rights were
restored. Consequently, in the State’s opinion, the essential demands
and claims contained in the original complaint have been satisfied. On
March 14, 2001, the Court issued an order lifting the provisional measures
issued on behalf of Delia Revoredo Marsano because the violations that
required those measures to be implemented had ceased.
James
et al. Case
127. In a communication dated October 18, 2001, the Commission requested the expansion of the provisional measures in this case to include the alleged victims of another five petitions lodged with the Commission between November 2000 and May 2001. In an order given on November 26, 2001, the Court decided to expand the measures in this case and to ratify the order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 25, 2001, ordering Trinidad and Tobago to adopt all measures necessary to preserve the lives and persons of Balkissoon Roodal, Sheldon Roach, Arnold Ramlogan, Beemal Ramnarace, and Takoor Ramcharan in order to avoid hindering the processing of their cases by the inter-American human rights protection system. Argentina Bulacio Case 128.
On January 24, 2001, the IACHR submitted the case of Walter David
Bulacio to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, noting that it
involved, inter alia, violations
of the right to personal liberty, to humane treatment, to life, to a fair
trial, to judicial protection, and the rights of the child, enshrined in
Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25, and 19 of the American Convention, through acts
and omissions on the part of the Republic of Argentina. The application
pertained to events that took place on April 19, 1991, when Walter David
Bulacio, on his way to attend a rock concert, was detained by the
Argentine Federal Police as part of a police operation. As a result of the
conditions he endured while detained and his torture at the hands of this
police force, he died on April 26, 1991. Cantos
Case 129.
The IACHR submitted its application in this case on March 10, 1999.
It deals with the alleged violation of the human rights of Mr. José María
Cantos by the Argentine State. 130.
On September 7, 2001, the Court issued a ruling on the preliminary
objections lodged by the State in this case; it resolved to dismiss the
first preliminary objection alleging incompetence in accordance with to
Article 1(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights and to admit in
part the second preliminary objection alleging incompetence as indicated
in the ruling. The Court then decided to commence its study of the merits
of the case. Bolivia Trujillo
Oroza Case 131.
On September 6, 2001, the Commission attended a hearing at the
Court’s headquarters to hear testimony from Gladis Oroza de Solón
Romero. At that hearing, the Commission presented its arguments on
reparations in this case. Representatives of the victims and the State
also submitted their arguments. Chile “The
Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et
al.) 132.
The Inter-American Commission gave the Inter-American Court its
comments regarding the Republic of Chile’s report on its compliance with
the Inter-American Court’s judgment in this case of February 5, 2001.
The comments analyze the constitutional and legal amendments made by the
Chilean State with respect to the screening of motion pictures and the
extent to which they are compatible with Article 13 of the American
Convention, based on the comments given by the victims’ representatives
and the opinions of the IACHR’s Special Rapporteur for Freedom of
Expression. 133.
On August 25, 2001, the Republic of Chile amended its Constitution
to eliminate prior censorship, establishing instead a system for the
rating of cinematic works. In addition, on March 5, 2001 the President of
the Republic sent to Congress a bill for a proposed statute regulating the
rating and screening of motion pictures in that country. In its
submission, IACHR alleges that despite the intended reforms the State has
yet to comply with the decision of the Court in the case of “The Last
Temptation of Christ”. Colombia “19
Merchants” Case (Alvaro
Lobo Pacheco et al.) 134.
On January 24, 2001, the IACHR referred the case of Alvaro Lobo
Pacheco et al., also known as
the “Case of the 19 Merchants,” versus the Republic of Colombia to the
jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. The complaint alleges the
violation of the right to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty,
to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5,
7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, through the
extrajudicial killing of 19 merchants at the hand of paramilitary groups,
with the acquiescence and paarticipation of State agents, in the region of
the middle Magdalena river, in 1987. The State objected to the
jurisdiction of the Court to examine the case and Commission presented its
response to the preliminary objections. “Las
Palmeras” Case 135.
On December 6, 2001, the Court issued its judgment on the merits on
the “Las Palmeras” case. In
its judgment, the Court declared the Colombian State responsible for the
violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection as set
forth in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human
Rights with respect to the relatives of Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Hernán
Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Wilian Hamilton
Cerón Rojas, Edebraes Norberto Cerón Rojas, NN/Moisés and Hernán
Lizcano Jacanamejoy. During the course of the procedure the State
acknowledged responsibility for the violation of Article 4 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (right to life) to the detriment of six of the
seven victims. After a
hearing on the merits, the Court ordered the exhumation of the remains of
the seventh victim, Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy.
The exhumation took place at the city of Mocoa, Putumayo, on June
2001 and it was performed by the Argentine Team of Forensic
Anthropologists with the presence of the representatives of the victim’s
family, the State, the IACHR and doctor Daniel O’Donnell, as the
Court’s special representative. Despite the results rendered by the
experts’ studies, the Court considered in its judgment that there was no
conclusive evidence regarding the State’s responsibility in the death of
indigenous leader Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy.
The Court also decided to open the reparations phase. Guatemala Bámaca Velásquez Case 136.
On November 28 and 29, 2001, the Commission attended a public
hearing on the reparations applicable in this case held at the Court’s
headquarters. The Court received the evidence from witnesses and experts
proposed by the Commission and by the representatives of the victims’
families. It also heard the parties’ arguments on compensation and
costs. Myrna Mack Case 137.
On June 19, 2001, the Commission presented the court with an
application against the Republic of Guatemala in compliance with the terms
of Article 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights in connection
with the extrajudicial killing of Myrna Mack Chang on September 11, 1990,
in Guatemala City, an incident that constituted a violation of the right
to life, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection of the victim and her
relatives under Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in
conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring the
Convention’s rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. 138.
Myrna Mack was a renowned Guatemalan anthropologist who, on
September 11, 1990, was killed by 27 stab wounds to different parts of her
body. To date none of the individuals who planned, ordered, and covered up
her slaying have been punished. Thus, on February 12, 1993, the Third
First-Instance Criminal Court in Guatemala handed down a 25-year prison
sentence against Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez, a specialist
sergeant-major from the security section of the presidential general
staff, for being the physical perpetrator of Myrna Mack Chang’s murder.
This court also decided to close the proceedings against the members of
the military and high-level officers from the presidential staff suspected
of being the masterminds behind the killing—Edgar Augusto Godoy Gaitán,
Juan Valencia Osorio, and Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera—as had been
requested in the secondary complainant in the criminal trial. After a
series of remedies filed and pursued by the victim’s sister alone, on
February 9, 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice’s criminal chamber
decided to leave open the case against the soldiers Edgar Augusto Godoy
Gaitán, Juan Valencia Osorio, Juan Guillermo Oliva Carrera, Juan José
Larios, Juan José del Cid Morales, and an individual named Charchal,
since “the proceedings give rise to suspicions about their possible
involvement” in the murder of Myrna Mack. The trial has not yet ended,
and none of the individuals who masterminded, participated in, and covered
up Myrna Mack’s slaying have been punished. 139.
For more than ten years, the criminal proceedings have been
characterized by the efforts of the victim’s sister to bring all the
members of the military guilty of Myrna Mack’s murder to justice,
masterminds and physical perpetrators alike, and this process has been
fraught with obstacles since the very start. These obstacles range from
the murder of the police officer in charge of the investigation, to the
intimidation and threats received by judges, prosecutors, and witnesses,
the army’s own efforts to hinder and obstruct the investigation by
refusing to hand over documents, the imposition of procedural obstacles,
and the judiciary’s lack of willingness to pursue the proceedings with
determination in order to duly judge and punish all those who had a hand
in the murder. 140.
The State replied to the application on September 26, 2001, by
filing preliminary objections; these objections were answered by the
Commission on November 29, 2001. Using the new rules of procedure of the
Commission and the Court, on October 31 the Commission submitted its
comments on the victims’ representatives’ statement regarding
requests, arguments, and evidence that they had lodged on August 31, 2001.
Honduras Juan
Humberto Sánchez Case 141.
On September 8, 2001, the IACHR sent the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights an application naming the Republic of Honduras in the
arbitrary arrest, torture, and extrajudicial killing of Juan Humberto Sánchez
on July 11, 1992. The Commission accused Honduras of violating the right
to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial
protection of the victim and his family, in conjunction with the State’s
general obligation of respecting and ensuring those rights set forth
therein. 142.
Juan Humberto Sánchez, a young Honduran man aged 26, was detained
on two occasions by his country’s armed forces because of suspected ties
to the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) in El Salvador.
The first arrest was carried out on July 10, 1992, by troops of the
10th infantry battalion in Marcala, La Paz, under the orders of 2nd Lt.
Angel Belisario Hernández. On
that occasion, the detainee was taken to the 10th infantry battalion’s
barracks, where he was interrogated; he was later released on July 11,
1992, because of insufficient evidence to support the charges.
The second arrest took place at night on the same day, July 11, and
was carried out by troops from the 1st territorial forces battalion.
The victim was forcibly taken to the army post in Concepción,
where he was interrogated by members of a special army squad known as
"Tucán". On July 22, 1992, Mr. Sánchez’s family was informed
that his decomposing body had been found trapped between the rocks in a
pool on the Río Negro. The body had a rope around its neck, running
across its chest, and holding its hands behind its back; other signs of
torture were also visible. To date no one has
faced trial or punishment for the abduction, torture, and execution of
Juan Humberto Sánchez, and this is a case of total impunity. The criminal
proceedings, characterized by an absence of seriousness and effectiveness,
have not only been utterly insufficient; they have also encountered
numerous obstacles from the very start, such as threats made against
witnesses and the victim’s family, intimidation, and efforts by state
agents to hinder and obstruct the investigation.
Nicaragua Mayagna
(Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case 143.
On August 31, 2001, the Court issued a judgment on merits and
reparations in the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case that the
IACHR had previously lodged against Nicaragua. In its judgment the Court
decided that the State had violated the right to judicial protection and
property of the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. 144.
The Court decided that the State must take the
legislative, administrative, and other steps necessary to create an
effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of
indigenous communities’ property in accordance with the customary law,
values, habits, and customs of those communities, and, until this
delimitation, demarcation, and titling is performed, refrain from acts
which could cause agents of the State, or third parties acting with its
acquiescence or tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use, or
enjoyment of the resources located in the geographic area in which the
members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community live and work. Panama Baena
Ricardo et al. Case
145.
On February 2, 2001, the Court issued a
judgment on the merits of this case, which had been submitted by the
Commission on January 19, 1998. It decided to declare that the State had
violated Articles 9, 8(1), 8(2), 25, and 16 of the American Convention on
Human Rights, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. It also
ruled that the State must pay the 270 workers their wages owed and other
outstanding benefits in accordance with the law, and, in the case of
deceased workers, to make such payments to their heirs and assigns; that
the State must reinstate them in their posts and, if this is not possible,
provide them with alternative employment respectful of the conditions,
wages, and benefits they enjoyed at the time of their dismissal. If this
alternative is not possible either, the State shall cover the
indemnification payment corresponding to liquidation of employment in
accordance with domestic labor law. Similarly, the State shall pay the
heirs or assigns of any deceased workers amounts equal to the pension or
retirement due, within no more than 12 months following notification of
the judgment. Peru Cesti
Hurtado Case 146.
On September 4, 2001, the Commission asked for an interpretation of
the reparations judgment of May 31, 2001. It also requested a hearing on
the matter. The Court invited the State and the Commission to submit their
comments; the Commission did so on October 23. The comments dealt with the
matter of restitutio in integrum
as part of the damages. The Commission asked whether the petitioner had to
take his case for damages before the domestic courts, or whether he simply
had to present the Court’s judgment. 147.
On November 27, 2001, the Court gave its
ruling on the matter, declaring that the State of Peru must determine the
amount of indemnification owed to Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado for the
material harm caused, for which purpose the State must in good faith
provide Mr. Cesti with access to the relevant procedures offered by
domestic law so that the victim can secure the aforesaid indemnification,
if applicable, within a reasonable period of time. Cantoral
Benavides Case 148.
On September 6, 2001, the Commission attended
a hearing held at Court headquarters in order to hear the testimony of
Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, Gladys Benavides López, and Eloy Urso
Cantoral Huamaní, and the reports of experts Oscar Maldonado and Ana
Luiza Vasconcellos. During the hearing, the Commission submitted its
arguments on reparations in this case. Representatives of the victims and
the State also submitted their arguments. Barrios
Altos Case
149.
On February 19, 2001, in a written submission, and on March 14,
2001, at a public hearing, the State of Peru acknowledged its
international responsibility in this case. Consequently, on March 14,
2001, the Inter-American Court unanimously decided to admit the State’s
acknowledgment of its international responsibility and to declare that
Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with
Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, had been violated. It also declared that the
amnesty laws, Nos. 26479 and 26492, were incompatible with the American
Convention on Human Rights and, as such, were void of legal effect; and it
declared that the State was obliged to investigate the incident to
identify the persons responsible for the human rights violations, to make
the results of that investigation public, and to punish the guilty. 150.
On June 20, 2001, the Commission lodged a document with the Court,
requesting an interpretation of the judgment of March 14, 2001, in the
Barrios Altos case. On September 3, 2001, the Court ruled that considering
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. 151.
On September 17, 2001, the State submitted an “Agreement on
comprehensive amends for the victims and their families in the Barrios
Altos case,” signed on August 22, 2001, by the State, the victims, their
families, and their representatives. During this period of sessions, the
Court debated and standardized the agreement and, on November 30, 2001,
issued a judgment on the reparations applicable in this case. The Court
decided to accept, under the judgment, the agreement on amends signed on
August 22, 2001, by the State of Peru and the victims, their families, and
representatives, taking into consideration the IACHR’s approval and
ordering the State of Peru to pay the following: an amount equal to USD
$175,000 to each of the surviving victims: Natividad Condorcahuana Chicaña,
Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega, and Alfonso Rodas Alvítez (or
Albitres, Albites, or Alvitrez); an amount equal to USD $175,000 to the
beneficiaries of the compensation payable to each of the following
deceased victims: Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre, Luis Alberto Díaz
Astovilca, Octavio Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco, Luis Antonio León Borja,
Filomeno León León, Lucio Quispe Huanaco, Tito Ricardo Ramírez Alberto,
Teobaldo Ríos Lira, Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez, Javier Manuel Ríos
Rojas, Alejandro Rosales Alejandro, Nelly María Rubina Arquiñigo, Odar
Mender, Sifuentes Nuñez, and Benedicta Yanque Churo; and an amount equal
to USD $250,000 to the beneficiaries of the compensation payable to the
deceased victim Máximo León León.
Constitutional
Tribunal Case 152.
On January 31, 2001, the Inter-American Court issued a judgment on
the merits of this case and decided to rule that Articles 8 and 25 of the
American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation in Article
1(1) thereof, had been violated. In addition it ruled that the State must
order an investigation to identify the persons responsible for the human
rights violations described in the judgment, to make the results of that
investigation public, and to punish the guilty. It further ruled that the
State must pay the wages owed and other outstanding benefits in accordance
with its law due to Messrs. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry, and
Delia Revoredo Marsano, together with amounts for fees and expenses. 153.
During the year 2001, the Court asked the Commission and the State
for information regarding compliance with the judgment. The Commission
continued to furnish that information. Castillo
Petruzzi Case 154.
During 2001, the Court asked the Commission and the State for
information regarding compliance with the judgment. 155.
On May 14, 2001, the plenary of the Supreme Military Justice
Council revoked the 1994 convictions of Castillo Petruzzi and others, in
compliance with the Court’s decision. The Commission reported that Mr.
Oscar Luján Fappiano, a delegate on this case, would conduct an on-site
visit to observe the new trial. The Court granted a deadline of February
18, 2002, for submitting observations on the new trial. Baruch
Ivcher Case 156.
On May 4, 2001, the Commission lodged an application with the
Court, seeking an interpretation of the judgment of February 6, 2001, in
the Ivcher Bronstein case, with respect to attorneys’ fees. 157.
On September 4, 2001, the Court ruled that to determine the
compensation that could be owed for the material damages inflicted on Mr.
Ivcher, the applicable provisions under Peruvian law should apply and the
corresponding claims should be lodged with the competent national
authorities with a view toward their resolution. Durand
and Ugarte Case 158.
On November 26, 2001, the State presented an
“Agreement on comprehensive amends for the victims’ families in the
Durand and Ugarte case,” signed that same day by the State, the
victims’ families, and their representatives. The Court debated and
standardized the agreement and, on December 3, 2001, issued a judgment on
the reparations applicable in this case. Trinidad
and Tobago Hilaire,
Constantine et al., and Benjamin
et al. Cases
159.
On September 1, 2001, the Court ruled on the
preliminary exceptions in each of these three cases brought before it by
the IACHR. In all three the Court dismissed the objections made by the
State in their entirety and called for a public hearing on the merits. 160.
On November 30, 2001, the Court issued an order combining the three
cases—Hilaire, Constantine et al.,
and Benjamin et al.—and of the
associated proceedings. As a result, the combined case is now known as
Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et
al. vs. Trinidad and Tobago. Venezuela El Caracazo Case 161.
The Commission has continued to participate in the reparations
phase of this case. On November 6, the Commission informed the Court that
it had no objections regarding the witness testimony and expert statements
offered by the victims’ representatives. On December 5, 2001, the Court
decided to accept them. 162. On March 30, 2001, the Commission asked the Court to provide an advisory opinion regarding the scope of the special measures for the protection of children (Article 19) in connection with the legal and judicial guarantees enshrined in the American Convention. Along with its request, the Commission submitted a series of comments, offering some additional elements to complement the request. In November 2001, the Commission submitted a document offering further comments on the advisory opinion it had requested. In its request for an advisory opinion, the Commission asked the Court to render an interpretation on whether Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights impose limits on the discretionary margins available to States for issuing special protective measures under Article 19; it also asked the Court to draw up general guidelines that would be valid in this respect within the framework of the Convention. [ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |