|
|
|
E. Petitions and Cases Before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
1. Provisional Measures
352. Article 63.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to prevent irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems appropriate for 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.
353. A summary of the 36 provisional measures in force and effect for the period covered by this report can be found below, arranged according to the country to which they were requested. The number of requested measures does not match the number of persons protected by their adoption.
a. Argentina
Mendoza Penitentiaries
354. During 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic observations to the state reports related to these measures handed down by the Court on November 22, 2004, at the request of the Commission, in favor of the inmates of the Mendoza Provincial Penitentiary and of the Gustavo André facility in Lavalle, as well as that of all persons within them, including the employees and civil servants working in them.
355. On
May 11, 2005, in Asunción, Paraguay, the Commission appeared in a public
hearing called by the Court on this matter. After the hearing, the
Court decided to maintain the measures ordered. b. Barbados
Boyce and Joseph
356. On February 11 and May 19 of 2005, the Commission requested an expansion in the scope of application of these provisional measures, ordered by the Court on November 25, 2005, to protect the life and personal integrity of several persons sentenced to death, and to allow no impediment that would keep the IACHR from properly examining the cases and deciding on their merits. The Commission requested that the measures also cover, respectively, Messrs. Frederick Atkins and Michael Huggins. On May 11 and 20 of May of 2005, the President of the Court ordered the requested increase in persons protected. These decisions were ratified by the Court on June 14, 2005.
c. Brazil
Urso Branco Prison
357. In 2005, the Commission made its periodic observations on state reports regarding these measures ordered to assist the inmates of the House of Detention José Mario Alves – known as the “Urso Branco Prison” – with the “purpose of preventing further inmate deaths” within it.
358. On September 21, 2005, in view of several communications made by the Commission and beneficiaries regarding the deaths of more persons in the Urso Branco Prison, even after the July 7, 2004 Resolution, on the situations of grave risk related to the personal integrity of the inmates, security agents and visitors, and of the fact that in its latest reports the State had said that “the prison has been partially destroyed by the April, 2004 riot” and that the rebuilding of the facility has not been finished, the Court handed down a decision reiterating the existence of obligations on the part of the State in this regard, as well as its duty to file periodic reports on the implementation of the provisional measures.
Febém Tatuapé Complex
359. On November 8, 2005, the Commission requested that the Court adopt provisional measures so that, inter alia, the Brazilian State would protect the life and personal integrity of the institutionalized children and adolescents in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” [Tatuapé Complex] of the Fundação Estadual do Bem-Estar do Menor de São Paulo [São Paulo State Foundation for the Welfare of Minors] (hereinafter “FEBEM”).
360. On November 17, 2005, the Inter-American Court granted provisional measures and decided, inter alia, to require that the State immediately adopt the necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of all the children and adolescents residing in the FEBEM Tatuapé Complex, as well as that of all persons within it.
361. On November 29, 2005, the Commission appeared before the Court in a public hearing related to the case. On the next day, the Court decided to again require that the State immediately adopt the necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of all the children and adolescents residing in the FEBEM Tatuapé Complex, as well as that of all persons within it. To that end, the State had to adopt the necessary measures to prevent outbreaks of violence, and also to guarantee the security of the inmates and maintain order and discipline in that center. The Court also laid out in detail the essential measures to be taken by the State.
362. In addition, the Commission has submitted additional information to the Court, along with observations to the state reports on the implementation of the measures of protection. The Commission’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons Deprived of Freedom made a site visit to Brazil on December 16, 2005. This visit had the purpose of participating in a meeting of the State and the representatives of the beneficiaries of the measures. The Rapporteur also became involved in the search for solutions to the aforementioned problems.
d. Colombia
19 Merchants
363. During 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic observations on state reports regarding these measures ordered by the Court, at the Commission’s request, to protect the life and personal integrity of Ms. Sandra Belinda Montero (next of kin of two victims in the case (see contentious cases, infra) and her next of kin.
Alvarez et al.
364. The Commission periodically submitted its observations to the Court on the Colombian State’s reports regarding these measures, ordered by the Court at the request of the Commission, to protect the physical integrity of the members of the Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos de Colombia [Association of the Next of Kin of Arrested & Disappeared Persons of Colombia].
Caballero Delgado and Santana
365. The Commission submitted its observations to the Court on the State reports regarding the measures ordered by the Court at the request of the Commission to protect the physical integrity of some witnesses “gravely threatened,” because they “provided evidence of the responsibility of agents of the Colombian State in the events” that gave rise to the case (see contentious cases, infra).
Comunidad de Paz of San José de Apartadó
366. The Commission submitted its observations to the Court regarding the State reports on these measures, ordered by the Court at the Commission’s request, to protect the personal integrity of the inhabitants of Comunidad de Paz [Peace Community] of San José de Apartadó, Colombia, as well as that of those who provide them with services.
367. On March 14, 2005, the Court held at its seat its third public hearing regarding this matter, with the appearance of the Commission. On the next day, the Court handed down a decision requiring the State to adopt the provisional measures which had been ordered pursuant to the President’s Decision of October 9, 2000, and the Court’s decisions of November 24, 2000, June 18, 2002 and November 17, 2004, in favor of all the members of the beneficiary community.
Community Council of Jiguamiandó and Families of Curbaradó
368. The Commission submitted its observations to the Court on the State’s reports with respect to these measures, ordered by the Court at the Commission’s request, in favor of the members of the Afro-descendant communities constituted by the Consejo Comunitario [Community Council] of Jiguamiandó and the families of Curbaradó, to protect their integrity and also to allow displaced members to return to these communities.
369. On March 14, 2005, the Court held in its seat a public hearing on this matter, with the appearance of the Commission. On the next day, the Court handed down a decision reiterating the State’s obligation to adopt measures of protection pursuant to the decisions of March 6, 2003 and November 17, 2004, in favor of all the members of the Community Council of Jiguamiandó and the families of Curbaradó.
Giraldo Cardona
370. The Commission regularly presented to the Court its observations on the reports by Colombia regarding these measures, ordered by the State at the Commission’s request, to protect the integrity of several persons involved with the Comité Cívico por los Derechos Humanos del Meta [Civic Committee for Human Rights of Meta], who had been the victims of threats, harassment and persecution.
Gutiérrez Soler
371. Provisional measures in the case of Gutiérrez Soler (see contentious cases, infra) were decided by the Court motu proprio, in a public hearing on the merits of the case held in the Court’s seat on March 10 and 11, 2005, after having heard information regarding the victim’s security, and that of his next of kin. In its decision, the Court ordered the Colombian State to adopt the necessary measures to protect the life, personal integrity and personal liberty of several of the victim’s next of kin and to investigate the events that gave rise to the measures of protection.
372. Since the adoption of the measures, the Court has regularly submitted its observations to the Court on the Colombian State’s reports with respect to this matter.
Massacre of Mapiripán
373. On February 4, 2005, the victims in the case petitioned the Court that provisional measures be adopted to protect the life and personal integrity of the witnesses before the Court, and of their next of kin (see contentious cases, infra). On that same day, the President of the Court adopted urgent measures of protection.
374. On June 24, 2005, the Inter-American Commission stated that it deemed necessary to maintain the adopted measures of protection, and on June 27, 2005, the Court adopted provisional measures in this matter. Following the adoption of the measures, the Commission has regularly presented to the Court its observations on the Colombian State’s reports on the issue.
Kankuamo Indigenous People
375. During 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic observations on state reports regarding these measures ordered in favor of the members of the Kankuamo indigenous people, to protect their lives, personal integrity, cultural identity and their special relationship with their ancestral territory.
e. Ecuador
Sarayaku Indigenous People
376. During 2005, the Commission submitted its observations on the State’s reports regarding the measures ordered by the Court at the Commission’s request, in favor of the members of the Kichwa of Sarayaku indigenous people, to protect their lives, personal integrity, right to freedom of movement and their special relationship with their ancestral territory.
377. On May 11, 2005, during the Court’s 26th Special Session in Asunción, Paraguay, a hearing was held on this matter, with the appearance of the Commission. After the hearing, the Court handed down a decision reiterating the State’s duty to adopt measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of the members of the Sarayaku People and, in particular, to ensure that the members of the Indigenous People of Sarayaku be able to carry on their activities and use existing natural resources of the territory in which they live.
f. Guatemala
Bámaca Velásquez
378. In 2005, the Commission submitted its regular observations on State reports regarding these provisional measures, which were adopted for the Bámaca Velásquez Case (see contentious cases, infra) to protect the lives and personal integrity of the members of the Bámaca Velásquez family, of Mr. Santiago Cabrera López and his next of kin, and those of Mr. Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, who permanently reside in Guatemala.
379. On March 11, 2005, the Court confirmed that, prima facie, an “extremely serious and urgent” situation persists, justifying the maintenance of the provisional measures ordered in favor of the aforementioned persons, and confirmed the existence of an irregularity in the State’s compliance with its obligation of reporting, which it deemed “especially grave given the legal nature of the urgent measures and provisional measures seeking to prevent irreparable damage to the persons who find themselves in an extremely grave and urgent situation.” Therefore, it reiterated to the State the existence of the latter’s obligations regarding this subject matter.
Blake
380. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic observations to the State’s reports regarding these provisional measures, originally adopted to safeguard the life, freedom and personal integrity of Mr. Victoriano Morales Martínez, in his capacity as main witness in the Nicholas Blake Case. These measures were later extended to his next of kin, who, since Mr. Morales Martínez’s death, have become the beneficiaries of the measures (see contentious cases, infra).
381. On June 14, 2005, the Court lifted the provisional measures it had ordered.
Carpio Nicolle
382. Over the year 2005, the Commission presented its regular observations to the State’s reports. The provisional measures were adopted to, inter alia, protect the life and personal integrity of Mses. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio and Karen Fischer, and Messrs. Jorge and Rodrigo Carpio Arrivillaga, Abraham Méndez García and his wife and children, and young Rodrigo and Daniela Carpio Fischer, should they return to Guatemala (see contentious cases, infra).
Colotenango
383. In 2005, the Commission submitted its regular observations on State reports regarding these provisional measures, adopted to protect the lives and integrity of witnesses in the Colotenango Case, and who are at risk as a result of the escape of several former civil patrolmen.
384. In an October 24, 2005 communication, the Court requested the Commission’s observations on whether the conditions of extreme seriousness and urgency continued to exist, along with the possible irreparable damage, related to these provisional measures. On the following November 23, the Commission submitted the Court an opinion expressing that the situation of risk persisted, aggravated by the decrease in the measures of protection, the lack of effective measures to recapture the patrolmen, the gradual decrease in the information presented for comments by the beneficiaries and the Commission, and the resulting reduction in the quality of the material at the Court’s disposal to carry out the work of verification and interpretation related to this issue. A decision on the matter is still pending.
Fermín Ramírez
385. On March 16, 2005 the Court ratified its President’s decision of December 21, 2004, which, inter alia, required the State to adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Ramírez, who has been condemned to death in a trial that violated the American Convention. The provisional measures were adopted to remove obstacles to the processing of the case before the Inter-American system (see contentious cases, infra).
386. On June 20, 2005, the Court handed down its Judgment on the case for which the measures had been adopted. In it, the Court ordered a new trial for the victim and that the State must not execute the victim, regardless of the outcome of the new trial. The Court hence decided that the State’s obligations under the provisional measures would be superseded by those established in the Judgment. The measures, consequently, were lifted.
Helen Mack et al.
387. In 2005, the Commission submitted its regular observations on the State’s reports. Provisional measures were adopted, inter alia, to protect the lives and personal integrity of the next of kin of Ms. Myrna Mack Chang and the members of the Myrna Mack Foundation, Ms. Iduvina Hernández and Mr. Jorge Guillermo Lemus Alvarado and his next of kin (see contentious cases, infra).
Massacre of Plan de Sánchez
388. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic observations to the State’s reports. Provisional measures were adopted, inter alia, to safeguard and protect the lives, integrity and personal freedoms of Messrs. and Mses. Salvador Jerónimo Sánchez, Prudencia Cajbon, Faustina Tojom, Juan Manuel Jerónimo and Buenaventura Jerónimo (see contentious cases, infra).
389. On May 20, 2005, the beneficiaries petitioned the Court to lift the provisional measures, “since there were no threats against the lives and integrity of the beneficiaries.” The Court consented to this petition on June 1, 2005. Consequently, on June 14 of that same year, the Court lifted the provisional measures related to this matter.
Raxcacó et al.
390. After the adoption of provisional measures in this case, on August 30, 2004, and the ensuing reporting obligation imposed upon the State, the Commission has submitted its corresponding observations to the Court. These measures have been adopted to preserve the lives and physical integrity of Ronald Ernesto Raxcacó Reyes, Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes, Bernardino Rodríguez Lara and Pablo Arturo Ruiz Almengor, sentenced to death in Guatemala in trials that violated the Convention, and in order to remove obstacles to the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system.
391. On September 15, 2005, the Court handed down a Judgment in the Raxcacó Reyes Case. In it, the Court ordered the quashing of the domestic judgment issued against the victim, that a new judgment be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Convention, and that the State abstain from executing the victim. The Court hence decided that the State’s obligations under the provisional measures regarding Mr. Raxcacó Reyes should be superseded by those provided for in the Judgment. The measures, however, remain in force with respect to the other three beneficiaries.
g. Haiti
Lysias Fleury
392. In 2005, the Commission presented its observations on these provisional measures, adopted to protect the life and integrity of Lysias Fleury. On July 26, 2005, the Court requested the Commission’s opinion regarding the continuing existence of the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency that prompted the adoption of the provisional measures. The following August 15, the Commission stated that, in its opinion, there were sufficient grounds to conclude that it was appropriate to continue the provisional measures until such time when the risks of irreparable damage were dissipated; the Commission furthermore stated that, in this case, the State has incurred in a grave lack of compliance with its obligation to report to the Court on the implementation of the measures.
h. Honduras
López Álvarez
393. On June 13, 2005, the Court adopted provisional measures to protect the lives and personal integrity, as well as those of his wife and Ms. Gregoria Flores Martínez, all appearing before the Court as witnesses in the case.
394. On September 21, 2005, the Court issued a decision confirming the prima facie persistence of a situation of “extreme gravity and urgency” which justified maintaining the provisional measures ordered in favor of the aforementioned persons, and confirmed an irregularity in the State’s compliance with its reporting obligation, which it found to be “especially grave given the legal nature of the urgent measures and provisional measures which seek to prevent irreparable damage to the persons faced with a situation of extreme gravity and urgency.” Therefore, the Court reiterated to the State the existence of its obligations in this matter.
i. Mexico
Castañeda Gutman
395. On November 15, 2005, the Commission submitted a petition for provisional measures so that the Court would instruct the Mexican State to take the necessary actions for the registration of the candidacy of Mr. Jorge Castañeda Gutman to the presidency of the Republic while the IACHR decided on admissibility and the merits of the petition filed by Mr. Castañeda regarding the violation of several rights provided for by the American Convention, including political rights and the right to equal protection under the law.
396. The IACHR made its petition prompted by the fact that the State has denied the registration of the presidential candidacy of Mr. Castañeda Gutman on the grounds that he did not comply with a requirement that said candidacy be channeled through a political party. Mr. Castañeda Gutman brought a complaint before the IACHR contesting the conformity of this requirement with conventional obligations.
397. From the Commission’s point of view, the risk of irreparable damage lies in that the aforementioned posture of the authorities may in fact keep Mr. Castañeda Gutman from participating in the elections, since it would be impossible for him to comply within the deadlines with the remaining legal requirements to register his candidacy. He would, in addition, be placed in a clear disadvantage with respect to the other candidates presented by political parties, since they would have had enough time to wage their political campaigns and obtain access to the mass media, both of which are essential to make their platforms known.
398. In its decision, it was the opinion of the Court that it was not possible at that stage to assess the possible violation of the right without issuing an opinion on the merits, which in turn would imply the examination of whether Mexican domestic legislation is in accordance or not with the Convention. The Court also considered that the adoption of the requested measures would imply the use of an interlocutory proceeding to provide a prior judgment, in limine litis, establishing the facts and their consequences, which is the properly the purpose of the main hearing. Finally, it was the Court’s opinion that, when it has received a request for provisional measures, it cannot consider the merits of any argument that is not strictly related to issues of extreme gravity, urgency, and to the necessity of preventing irreparable damage to persons; any other issue can only be brought before the Court in contentious cases or in requests for consultative opinions.
399. Therefore, in its November 25, 2004 decision, the Court denied the measures requested by the Commission.
José Francisco Gallardo
400. During 2005 the Commission submitted its regular observations on the State’s reports regarding measures adopted to protect the life and integrity of General Gallardo.
Pilar Noriega et al. (formerly Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human
Rights
401. During 2005 the Commission presented its periodic observations on the State’s reports regarding measured adopted to protect the lives and integrity of Mses. Pilar Noriega García and Bárbara Zamora López and in favor of Eusebio Ochoa López and Irene Alicia Plácido Evangelista, parents of Digna Ochoa y Plácido, and of the Ochoa y Plácido siblings: Carmen, Jesus, Luz María, Eusebio, Guadalupe, Ismael, Elia, Estela, Roberto, Juan Carlos, Ignacio and Agustín.
402. On September 23, 2005, the State informed the Court of “its decision to modify the provisional measures decreed in favor of Bárbara Zamora and Leonel Rivero, until the Court should determine that these modifications are permanent […] and determines the lifting of the provisional measures.” On September 30, the Commission submitted a brief to the Court on the State’s position. In it, the Commission, inter alia, expressed the opinion that the unilateral reduction of the measures was illegal and inadmissible.
403. On November 24, 2005, in its decision, the Court found that there were no new grounds from which to infer that the facts which led to order the provisional measures had changed, and hence reaffirmed that the measures remained in force.
j. Nicaragua
Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community
404. In 2005, the Commission submitted information and observations regarding the provisional measures adopted in favor of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community (see contentious cases, infra).
k. Peru
Gómez Paquiyauri
405. In 2005, the Commission submitted its regular observations on the State’s reports regarding these provisional measures, adopted by the Court at the request of the Commission in the Gómez Paquiyauri Case (see contentious cases, infra), to protect the lives and personal integrity of Messrs. and Mses. Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri, Jacinta Peralta Allccarima, the Gómez Paquiyauri siblings Ricardo Emilio, Carlos Pedro, and Marcelina Haydée, as well as the minor Nora Emely Gómez Peralta. The Court also decided to order the State to adopt, without delay, the necessary measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of Mr. Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and his next of kin.
Ramírez Hinostroza and Rivera Paz
406. On July 22, 2005, the Commission petitioned that the Court adopt provisional measures in this case, which was being heard by the Commission, in order that the Peruvian State adopt the necessary measures to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza, his next of kin, and also of Mr. Carlos Rivera Paz, Mr. Ramírez Hinostroza’s attorney. On that same day, the President of the Court adopted urgent measures.
407. On September 21, 2005, the Court ratified the President’s decision and called upon the State to maintain any measures adopted and to further adopt, without delay, any additional measures necessary to comply with the Court’s order regarding the protection of the lives and personal integrity of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza, his wife Susana Silvia Rivera Prado, and their three daughters: Yolanda Susana Ramírez Rivera, Karen Rose Ramírez Rivera y Lucero Consuelo Ramírez Rivera, as well as of his attorney Carlos Rivera Paz, and to take into account in so doing the gravity of the situation and the particular risks involved.
l. Dominican Republic
Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic
408. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic observations on the State’s reports regarding measures adopted in favor of the beneficiaries, all Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin, subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the State” or “the Dominican Republic”), and who are in risk of being collectively “expelled” or “deported” (hereinafter “the alleged victims”), in connection with a case currently being processed by the Commission.
m. Trinidad and Tobago
James et al.
409. In 2004, the Commission submitted information and observations regarding the provisional measures adopted in favor of the beneficiaries (see contentious cases, infra: Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al.), 39 persons sentenced to death in trials that violated the American Convention.
410. On July 14, 2004, the Commission informed the Court that one of the beneficiaries, Mr. Anthony Johnson, was no longer sentenced to death; therefore the risk of irreparable damage no longer existed in his case, and provisional measures could be lifted.
411. On February 28, 2005, the Court lifted the provisional measures with respect to Mr. Johnson, and kept them with respect to the 38 remaining beneficiaries.
n. Venezuela
Carlos Nieto Palma et al.
412. In 2005, the Commission presented information and observations regarding the provisional measures adopted by the Court in this case, at the Commission’s request, with the purpose of protecting the life, personal integrity and freedom of expression and association of the human rights defender Carlos Nieto Palma, who was working as the General Coordinator of Una Ventana a la Libertad [A Window to Freedom], a non-governmental organization, as well as to protect the life and personal integrity of his family.
“La Pica” Penitentiary
413. On December 29, 2005, the Commission requested the Court to adopt provisional measures to protect the life and personal integrity of the inmates in the Internado Judicial [Penitentiary] of Monagas, known as “La Pica.” The request was grounded in facts provided by the beneficiaries, i.e., that to date in 2005, “La Pica” has registered more than 10% of the nationwide deaths resulting from firearms, stab wounds, hangings, decapitations, and quartering, in events in which, the beneficiaries’ representatives allege, the authorities in charge of the custody of the prison participated, or which were the product of violence among the inmates themselves.
414. The main purpose of the Commission’s request is to prevent the occurrence of new acts of violence in “La Pica,” which may result in additional wounded and dead inmates. At the end of 2005, the Court’s decision in this regard was still pending.
Eloisa Barrios et al.
415. In 2005, the Commission provided information and observations regarding provisional measures in this case, adopted by the Court at the Commission’s request, with the purpose of protecting the lives and personal integrity of Messrs. and Mses. Eloisa Barrios, Jorge Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios, Oscar Barrios, Inés Barrios, Pablo Solórzano, Beatriz Barrios, Caudy Barrios, Carolina García and Juan Barrios, eyewitnesses and/or promoters of the investigation of the murder of Narciso Barrios, allegedly perpetrated by agents of the State.
416. On June 29, 2005, the Court held a public hearing in its seat, with the appearance of the Commission. On the next day, the Court handed down a decision in which it stated its concern regarding the death of the beneficiary Rigoberto Barrios during the time the provisional measures were in force and effect. The Court reaffirmed its order to the State to adopt the provisional measures and ordered that they also be expanded to include Ms. Maritza Barrios, a next of kin.
417. On September 22, 2005, in response to a petition of the Commission and the beneficiaries, the Court assessed the state of implementation of the measures. It declared its concern regarding the beneficiaries’ statements regarding lack of compliance with the measures, and ordered the State to implement them immediately and to expand their scope of application to include 20 more members of the Barrios family.
El Nacional and Así es la Noticia
418. In 2005 the Commission provided information and observations regarding provisional measures in this case, adopted by the Court at the Commission’s request, in order to protect the lives, personal integrity and freedom of expression of the persons working for the daily newspapers El Nacional and Así es la Noticia.
Globovisión Television Station
419. In 2005 the Commission submitted information and observations with respect to the provisional measures in this case, adopted by the Court at the Commission’s request, to protect the lives, personal integrity and freedom of expression of journalists, members of the board of directors and all other employees of the Venezuelan television station Globovisión, to be found on the premises or who were linked to the journalistic operations of said station.
Liliana Ortega et al.
420. In 2005, the Commission provided information and observations regarding provisional measures granted in favor of Liliana Ortega and other members of the non-governmental organization Comité de Familiares de Víctimas de los sucesos de Febrero-Marzo de 1989 [Committee of the Next of Kin of the Victims of the Events of February-March, 1989] (COFAVIC).
421. In the second semester of 2004, the beneficiaries and the State informed the Court that two of the beneficiaries had left COFAVIC. On December 3, 2005, the Commission informed the Court of its opinion that the situation of extreme gravity and urgency and the risk of irreparable damage with respect to said persons no longer existed, and that it was appropriate to lift the measures regarding them.
422. On March 1, 2005, the Court partially lifted the measures for the two beneficiaries who had left COFAVIC, and maintained them for the rest of the beneficiaries.
423. On June 14, 2005, the Court denied the State’s request to lift the measures.
Luis Uzcátegui
424. In 2005 the Commission submitted information and observations regarding the provisional measures ordered in favor of Mr. Uzcátegui.
Luisiana Ríos et al.
425. In 2005, the Commission provided information and observations with respect to provisional measures ordered in favor of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe, all employees of the television station Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).
426. In its September 12, 2005 decision, the Court once more called upon the State regarding the necessity of adopting measures to protect the lives, personal integrity and freedom of expression of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures that had been ordered, as well as the measures for the protection of the perimeter of the headquarters of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).
Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez
427. In 2005 the Commission provided information and observations regarding the provisional measures ordered in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.
|
