|
59. Article 63(2) of the American Convention on
Human Rights states 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 by the Court, it may act at the request of
the Commission. 60. A summary of the 15 provisional measures
requested by the Commission and granted or expanded by the Court between
its 107th and 111th sessions is provided below,
according to the country to which the request was made.
As in the case of precautionary measures, the number of measures
requested from states does not correspond to the number of persons
protected as a result of the adoption of these measures. a.
Colombia Alvarez
et al case (11.764) 61. During the year 2000 and the first four
months of 2001, the Commission continued periodic submission to the Court
of its comments on reports of the Colombian State regarding the measures
adopted to protect the physical integrity of 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 of Colombia. Caballero
Delgado y Santana case 62. The Commission has continued periodic
submission to the Court of its comments on the reports of the Colombian
State regarding the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of
persons covered by the provisional measures, namely, María Nodelia Parra,
Gonzalo Arias Alturo, and Elida González Vergel, as stipulated by the
Court in its decision of June 3, 1999. Clemente
Teherán et al case (11.858) 63. The Commission has continued periodic
submission to the Court of its comments on the reports of the Colombian
State regarding the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of
persons covered by the provisional measures stipulated in the decision of
the Court on the provisional measures related to this case of August 12,
2000. San
José de Apartadó Community of Peace case 64. On October 3, 2000, the Commission asked the
Court to adopt provisional measures on behalf of the residents of the San
José de Apartadó Community of Peace, and on November 24, 2000, the
Inter-American Court issued a decision in which it decided to uphold the
decision of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of
October 9, 2000, requiring the Colombian State to adopt the measures
necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of 189 members of
this community. The Court also decided to: 1.
Call upon the Colombian State to expand, without delay, the
measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of all the
other members of the San José de Apartadó Community of Peace. 2.
Call upon the Colombian State to investigate the acts that gave
rise to the adoption of these provisional measures in order to identify
the persons responsible and to punish them appropriately, and to provide
information on the situation with respect to the persons indicated in the
foregoing operative points. 3.
Call upon the Colombian State to adopt, without delay, the measures
necessary to ensure that the persons to whom these measures apply continue
to live at their habitual residence. 4.
Call upon the Colombian State to provide the conditions necessary
for persons of the San José de Apartadó Community of Peace who have been
forcefully displaced to other areas of the country to return to their
homes. 5.
Call upon the Colombian State to allow the petitioners to
participate in the planning and implementation of measures and, in
general, to keep them informed of progress made with respect to the
measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 6.
Call upon the Colombian State to provide a report to the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights every two months from the date of
notification of this decision on the provisional measures adopted to
comply with this decision. 7.
Call upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit
its comments on the reports from the Colombian State within six weeks of
receipt thereof. 65. Periodically, the Commission has submitted
its comments to the Court on the reports of the Colombian State covering
the measures adopted. Giraldo
Cardona case (11.690) 66. The Commission has continued periodic
submission to the Court of its comments on the reports of the Colombian
State regarding the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of
Sister Noemy Palencia, Mrs. Isleña Rey, and Mrs. Mariela de Giraldo and
her two minor daughters, pursuant to the decision of September 30, 1999 in
which the Inter-American Court of Human Rights called upon the Colombian
State to keep in place the measures necessary to protect the life and
integrity of the aforementioned persons on whose behalf the Court ordered
provisional measures in its decisions of October 28, 1996, February 5,
1997, and June 17 and November 27, 1998. b.
Guatemala Blake
case 67. The Commission, in response to a request from
the Guatemalan State to the Court to rule the measures extended null and
void and to lift the obligation of the State to provide periodic reports,
submitted a petition to the Court on July 10, 2000, stating that there was
no cause and effect relationship in this case between the payment of
compensation and the adoption of measures to protect Mr. Justo V. Martínez
and his family, inasmuch as payment did not prevent, per
se, the threats from continuing in the future.
In addition, the Commission was of the opinion that several of the
persons who were involved in the criminal acts had not yet been
investigated. With regard to
the periodic reports to be provided by the State to the Court, the
Commission stated that it would have no objection to the submission of
these reports every six months. 68. In light of the foregoing, on August 18,
2000, the Court rendered a decision in which it called upon the Guatemalan
State to keep in place all the measures necessary to protect the life and
personal integrity of Justo Victoriano Martínez Morales, Floridalma
Rosalina López Molina, Víctor Hansel Morales López, Edgar Ibal Martínez
López, and Sylvia Patricia Martínez López and to provide the Court with
information on the measures taken to investigate threats against these
persons, in order to obtain effective results leading to the
identification and punishment of the perpetrators, and to continue to
submit, every six months, its reports on the provisional measures adopted.
It also asked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to
submit its comments on these reports within six weeks of receipt thereof. 69. The Commission has continued periodic
submission to the Court of its comments on the reports of the Guatemalan
State regarding the measures adopted. Colotenango
case 70. The Commission has continued periodic
submission to the Court of its comments on the reports of the Guatemalan
State regarding the measures adopted to protect the persons covered by the
provisional measures duly issued on February 2, 2000, as a result of the
situation prevailing in Colotenango municipality. Carpio
Nicolle, Bámaca Vélasquez, Paniagua Morales/Vásquez cases 71. The Commission submitted several comments on
the reports submitted by the State on compliance with the provisional
measures related to the aforementioned cases.
With regard to the Paniagua Morales/Vásquez case, it should be
noted that after receiving information from the Commission that the
security situation had improved, the Court lifted the provisional measures
ordered. c.
Mexico Digna
Ochoa y Plácido, Edgar Cortéz Morales, Mario Patrón Sánchez, and Jorge
Fernández Mendiburu 72. During the period covered by this annual
report, the Commission continued to submit reports to the Court, in
compliance with the decision on provisional measures ordered by the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights with respect to the Mexican State to
protect the life and integrity of Digna Ochoa y Plácido, Edgar Cortéz
Morales, Mario Patrón Sánchez, and Jorge Fernández Mendiburu, and to
guarantee safe conditions at the offices of the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez
(PRODH) Human Rights Center. In its decision of December 18, 1999, the Court also ordered
an investigation into the events reported, with a view to identifying and
punishing the perpetrators. d.
Peru Baruch
Ivcher case 73. At the request of the Commission, the Court
decided, on November 23, 2000, to expand the provisional measures ordered
with respect to this case on November 21, 2000.
The Commission later asked the Court to approve these measures. 74. On February 7, 2001, the State reported that
it had revoked the decision voiding the Peruvian nationality claim of Mr.
Ivcher, that it had accepted the recommendations of Report 94/98 of
December 9, 1998 issued by the Commission; that the physical, mental, and
moral integrity of Mr. Ivcher, his family, and others persons were being
protected, as was his right to a fair trial; that Mr. Ivcher's position as
a shareholder of Frequencia Latina had been reestablished; and that the Peruvian
State was willing to negotiate a friendly settlement in accordance with
Article 53 of the Regulations of the Commission. 75. In view of the fact that the violations that
gave rise to the issuance of provisional measures had ceased, the Court
issued a decision on March 14, 2001 lifting the provisional measures
ordered. Cesti
Hurtado case 76. Based on the reports submitted by the
Commission with respect to this case, on August 14, 2000, the Court issued
a decision lifting and terminating the provisional measures ordered by it
in its decisions of September 11, 1997 and June 3, 1999, with respect to
Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti Hurtado and his relatives, Mrs. Carmen Judith
Cardó Guarderas, Mrs. Margarita del Carmen Cesti Cardó, and Mr. Gustavo
Cesti Cardó. In that decision, the Court held that, based on the claims of
the Inter-American Commission and the State, the extremely grave and
urgent circumstances that had led to the adoption of provisional measures
no longer existed, as evidenced by the release of Mr. Cesti Hurtado and
the fact that his safety and the safety of his family no longer appeared
to be at risk. Loayza
Tamayo case 77. On January 6, 2001, the Inter-American
Commission responded to a request for information from the Court, by means
of a decision of its President on December 13, 2000, related to
provisional measures on behalf of Mrs. María Elena Loayza Tamayo.
The Commission stated, inter
alia, that it agreed with the information provided by the
representatives of the victims; consequently, it was of the opinion that
the approval by the Court of the provisional measures requested was
appropriate. 78. On February 3, 2001, the Court approved, in
its entirety, the decision issued by the President of the Court on
December 13, 2000, and asked the Peruvian state to keep in place the
measures that were necessary to ensure the efficient return of Mrs. Loayza
to her country, as well as her physical, mental, and moral integrity, and
to provide a report, every two months, on the measures adopted pursuant to
the decision of February 3. It
also asked the Commission to submit its comments on the reports of the
Peruvian State within six weeks of receipt thereof.
The Commission has fulfilled this obligation. Constitutional
Tribunal case 79. On August 14, 2000, the plenary session of
the Court decided to adopt provisional measures related to this case, at
the request of the Commission. To
that end, the Court approved the decision of the President of April 7,
2000 in its entirety, and reiterated to the State the need to adopt
measures to protect Mrs. Delia Revoredo.
On September 21, 2000, the Commission reported that harassment of
Mrs. Revoredo was continuing in the form of criminal and arbitration
proceedings, with the aim of depriving her of her liberty and of her
assets and blocking her return to her position on the Constitutional
Tribunal. The Commission concluded that the State had not taken the
measures necessary to end the acts that had led to the measures;
consequently, the Commission asked the Court to keep in place the measures
ordered on August 14, 2000, and to remind the Peruvian State of its
obligation with respect to precautionary protection in order to avoid
irreparable damage to Mrs. Revoredo.
80. On February 1, 2001, the Peruvian state
expressly acknowledged, in a document to the Court, its responsibility for
violating the rights of the following Justices of the Constitutional
Tribunal: Drs. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry, and Delia
Revoredo Marsano de Mur. The
State reported that on November 17, 2000 the three Justices were
reinstated in their positions on the Constitutional Tribunal and their
rights restored. For this
reason, the State held the view that the basic demands and claims made in
the original petition had been met. 81. On March 14, 2001, the Court issued a
decision in which it decided to lift the provisional measures ordered with
respect to Delia Revoredo Marsano, inasmuch as the violations that had
given rise to the issuance of provisional measures had ceased. e.
Dominican Republic Provisional
measures on behalf of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the
Dominican Republic 82. On May 30, 2000, the Commission asked the
Inter-American Court to adopt provisional measures to stop the Dominican
Republic from engaging in the massive expulsion of Haitians and Dominicans
of Haitian origin, since, based on the information contained in the
petition regarding case Nº 12.217, this action was endangering the lives
and physical integrity of the deportees.
Furthermore, on many occasions, families were separated and minor
children abandoned. Within
the context of the provisional measures requested, the Commission asked
the Dominican State to establish a procedure to permit verification of
cases where grounds existed for deportation.
In such instances, individuals were supposed to be accorded all
rights to due process. The
Commission also asked that deportations take place on an individual rather
than collective basis. On
June 12, 2000, the Commission submitted to the Court an addendum to the
request for provisional measures. 83. On August 18, 2000, a public hearing was held
and the Court granted the provisional measures with respect to the persons
identified by the Commission. In
that decision, the Court ruled, inter
alia, to: 1.
Ask the Dominican State to take the measures necessary to protect
the life and physical integrity of Benito Tide Méndez, Antonio Sension,
Andrea Alezy, Janty Fils-Aime, William Medina Ferreras, as well as the
life and physical integrity of witnesses Father Pedro Ruquoy and Mrs.
Solange Pierre, who appeared at the public hearing of August 8, 2000; 2.
Call upon the Dominican State to refrain from deporting or
expelling Benito Tide Méndez and Antonio Sension from its territory; 3.
Permit the immediate return of Janty Fils-Aime and William Medina
Ferreras to its territory; 4.
Call upon the Dominican State to permit the family reunification of
Antonio Sension and Andrea Alezy with their minor children in the
Dominican Republic; 5.
Call upon the Dominican State, within the framework of the
pertinent cooperation agreements between the Dominican Republic and Haiti,
to investigate the situation of Janty Fils-Aime and William Medina
Ferreras, under the supervision of the IACHR; 6.
Call upon the Dominican State to continue investigations related to
Benito Tide Méndez, Rafaelito Pérez Charles, Antonio Sension, Andrea
Alezy, and Berson Gelim. 84. On December 14, 2000, the Commission informed
the Court of its grave concern arising from statements of the Dominican
State and reiterated its request for compliance with the provisional
measures adopted by the Court. On
January 2, 2001, the Dominican State informed the Court that the situation
had not changed and that it would comply with the provisional measures
adopted by the Court. The Inter-American Commission has continued to provide
information to the Court on the provisional measures granted. f.
Trinidad and Tobago James
et al case 85. During the period covered by this report, the
Commission continued to provide the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
with information on the situation regarding the beneficiaries of the
provisional measures ordered by the Court in the case of James et
al. The foregoing
includes information provided by the Commission on August 31, 2000, in
response to a request from the Court of August 16, 2000, in which the
Court ordered the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to keep in place the
provisional measures extended on June 14, 1998, August 29, 1998, May 25,
1999, May 27, 1999, and September 25, 1999 in the James et
al case, and asked the State to safeguard the lives and personal
integrity of individuals and to refrain from engaging in acts that could
jeopardize processing of their cases before the inter-American system.
It also requested information from both parties information
regarding the status of a number of beneficiaries of provisional measures. 86. By means of correspondence of November 24,
2000, the Court reiterated its request to the State to keep in place
provisional measures applicable to the case of James et
al, and ordered the State to comply with orders and to continue
informing the Court, every two months, of appeals and actions taken with
respect to the beneficiaries of provisional measures. 2.
Contentious cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights a.
Argentina Bulacio
case 87. On January 24, 2001, the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights submitted the case of Walter David Bulacio to the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights since it involved, inter
alia, violation of the right 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, for acts and
negligence on the part of the Republic of Argentina.
That petition pertained to events that took place on April 19,
1991, when Walter David Bulacio was detained by the Argentine Federal
Police as part of a police operation, when he was trying to attend a rock
concert. As a result of the
detention conditions and torture at the hands of this police entity, he
died on April 26, 1991. Garrido
and Baigorria case 88. On November 20, 2000, the Inter-American
Court issued a decision in which it called on the Argentine State to
submit to the Court, by January 29, 2001, a final report on steps taken to
comply with the different aspects of the judgment on reparations issued on
August 27, 1998, which have not yet been complied with. 89. This case was submitted to the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights by the Commission by means of a petition of May 29,
1995. The petition
indicates that the facts outlined in it pertain to the forced
disappearance of Messrs. Raúl Baigorria and Adolfo Garrido on April 28,
1990 and the resulting denial of justice, in violation of numerous
articles of the American Convention.
In that regard, the Commission cited Articles 1(1) (the obligation
to respect rights), 4 (the right to life), 5 (the right to humane
treatment), 7 (the right to personal liberty), 7(5), 7(6), 8, and 9 (the
right to a fair trial), 8(1) (due guarantees), and 25 (judicial
protection) of the Convention. b.
Bolivia Trujillo
Oroza case 90. On January 21, 2000, the Bolivian State
withdrew the preliminary objections filed with respect to this case and
asked the Court to open the reparations stage.
As a result of these deliberations, on January 25, 2000, the Court
issued a decision stating that it considered the objections withdrawn and
that processing related to the merits of the case would continue.
On that same day, it held a public hearing in which Bolivia
acknowledged the events and its international responsibility in the case
and accepted the legal consequences resulting therefrom.
The Inter-American Commission expressed its satisfaction with the
stance adopted by the State. In
light of the foregoing, on January 26, 200, the Court decided to approve
acknowledgement of these events and of the responsibility of the State;
and to rule that it had violated the rights protected under Articles 1(1),
3, 4, 5(1), 7, 8(1), and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
and to institute reparations proceedings. 91. On June 9, 1999, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights filed this case with the Court pertaining to
events that began on December 23, 1971, when Mr. José Carlos Trujillo
Oroza was detained by agents of the Bolivian State and subsequently
disappeared, as well as the failure to investigate these events.
In the view of the Commission, the events outlined in the petition
violate the following articles of the American Convention: Article 3
(right to juridical personality), Article 4 (right to life), and Article 7
(right to personal liberty), all in relation to Article 1(1) of this
Convention (obligation to respect rights), to the detriment of the victim. Furthermore, the Commission holds the view that Bolivia
violated the right to a fair trial (Article 8(1)), to judicial protection
(Article 25), and to humane treatment (Article 5(1)) also contained in the
American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the Article 1(1)
thereof (obligation to respect rights), to the detriment of Mr. Trujillo
Oroza and his relatives. c.
Chile Case
“The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) 92.
On February 5 2001, the Inter-American Court issued its judgment on
the merits in a case relating to the prohibition of the exhibition of the
film “The Last Temptation of Christ” in the Republic of Chile.
This case had been referred to the contentious jurisdiction of the
Court on January 15, 1999. In
its judgment, the Court declared that the censorship imposed by the
Chilean State on the exhibition of this movie violated the right to
freedom of thought and expression contemplated in Article 13 of the
American Convention, as well as the duties provided for in Articles 1(1)
and 2 of that Treaty, to the detriment of Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos, Ciro
Colombara López, Claudio Márquez Vidal, Alex Muñoz Wilson, Matías
Insunza Tagle and Hernán Aguirre Fuentes.
Therefore the Court ordered the State to remove prior censorship
from its domestic legislation, permit the exhibition of the film, and
report to the Court on the measures adopted within a period of six months. 93. On January 15, 1999, the IACHR referred case
11.803 to the Inter-American Court. The
case pertained to violation of Articles 2, 12, and 13 of the American
Convention on Human Rights by the Republic of Chile, as a result of the
ban imposed by the Supreme Court of that country on the film "The
Last Temptation of Christ." d.
Colombia Alvaro
Lobo Pacheco et.al, known as the 19 Merchants case 94.
On January 24 2001 the IACHR filed before the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights an application against the Republic of Colombia in
relation to the extrajudicial execution of merchants Alvaro Lobo Pacheco,
Gerson Rodríguez, Israel Pundor, Angel Barrera, Antonio Flórez Ochoa,
Carlos Arturo Riatiga, Víctor Ayala, Alirio Chaparro, Huber Pérez,
Alvaro Camargo, Rubén Pineda, Gilberto Ortiz, Reinaldo Corso Vargas, Hernán
Jáuregui, Juan Bautista, Alberto Gómez, and Luis Sauza, October 6, 1987,
and of Juan Montero and Ferney Fernández on October 18, 1987, in the
department of Boyacá, in the Middle Magdalena region.
In its application the Commission alleges that the Colombian State
is responsible for the violations of the rights to life, personal liberty
and integrity, and judicial protection of the victims (known as “the 19
merchants”) and their next-of-kin under Articles 4, 5, 7, 8(1), and 25
of the American Convention, in conjunction with the generic duty
established in Article 1(1). e.
Ecuador Suárez
Rosero case 95. During the period covered by this report, the
Commission continued to submit several reports regarding compliance with
judgments handed down on November 12, 1997 (merits) and January 20, 1999
(reparations) in the Suárez Rosero case, which are being considered by
the Court. In particular,
these reports pertained to compliance with payments ordered in the case,
as well as the obligation of the State to investigate the acts that led to
violation of the American Convention established by the Court.
It will be recalled that in the judgment on the merits, the Court
established the responsibility of the State for violation of Articles 7,
8, 5, and 25, all in accordance with Article 1(1) of the American
Convention, to the detriment of Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero.
Furthermore, the Court decided that a specific provision of the
Penal Code violates Article 2 of the American Convention in relation to
Articles 7(5) and 1(1) thereof. Benavides
Cevallos case 96. During the period covered by this report, the
Commission submitted a series of reports on compliance with the judgment
issued by the Court on June 19, 1998.
In that judgment, the Court established the legal basis for
acknowledgment by the Ecuadorian State of the claims of the Commission
regarding the illegal arrest and detention, torture, and murder of Mrs.
Consuelo Benavides Cevallos by State agents and the failure to grant
protection and judicial guarantees aimed at protecting her and her
relatives. Furthermore, the
Court noted the acknowledgement by the State of its international
responsibility for violation of rights protected under Articles 3, 4, 5,
7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in accordance with Article 1(1)
thereof, approved the agreement between the State and the relatives
regarding reparations, and called on the State to continue investigations
aimed at punishing the persons responsible for the violations indicated
above. Finally, the Court
reserved the authority to oversee fulfillment of the obligations
established therein. Within
that context, the reports submitted by the parties, which are being
considered by the Court, covered, in particular, the duty of the State to
continue investigations to sanction those responsible for the human rights
violations mentioned in that judgment, and to place the name of the victim
in streets, plazas, and schools. f.
Guatemala Bácama
Velásquez 97. On November 25, 2000, the Court handed down a
unanimous judgment on the merits of this case.
It will be recalled that this case pertained to the disappearance,
torture, and extrajudicial execution of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez in 1992
at the hands of agents of the Guatemalan Army.
By means of that judgment, the Court decided that Article 7, 5(1)
and 5(2), 4, 8, and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American
Convention, had been violated. It
also declared that the State had failed to fulfill its obligation to
prevent and sanction torture under Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment
of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez, and ordered an investigation to identify
the persons responsible for the human rights violations, as well as public
disclosure of the results of this investigation and the sanctioning of the
perpetrators. 98. By means of a decision of the President of
the Court on February 9, 2001, the reparations stage was opened and the
relatives of the victim or their representatives, the Commission, and the
Guatemalan State were granted 60 days to submit their arguments and
evidence related to this stage of the case. Blake
case 99. During the period covered by this report, the
Commission submitted several reports on compliance with the judgment
handed down on January 22, 1999, in which the Court set forth the
obligations of the Guatemalan State with respect to compensation in this
case. These reports are being
reviewed by the Court. In its
judgment of January 24, 1998, the Court decided that Guatemala had
violated, to the detriment of the relatives of Mr. Nicholas Chapman Blake,
Articles 8 (fair trial) and 5 (humane treatment) of the American
Convention, pursuant to the terms of Article 1(1) thereof (obligation to
respect rights), and that the State had an obligation to use all the
resources available to it to investigate the acts reported and to sanction
those responsible for the disappearance and death of Mr. Blake. Paniagua
Morales case 100. The Commission presented six relatives of the victims as
witnesses and two experts at the public hearing on reparations related to
this case, also known as the "white van case."
In addition, the Commission presented its arguments related to this
stage of the case. 101. It will be recalled that in its judgment of March 8,
1998, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights unanimously concluded that
the Republic of Guatemala was responsible for the acts of its agents that
violated the fundamental rights of Ana Elizabeth Paniagua Morales, Julián
Salomón Gómez Ayala, William Otilio González Rivera, Pablo Corado
Barrientos, Manuel de Jesús González López, Erik Leonardo Chinchilla,
Augusto Angarita Ramírez, Doris Torres Gil, Oscar Vásquez, and Marco
Antonio Montes Letona. After
declaring that the Guatemalan State had violated Articles 1, 4, 5, 6, 8,
and 25 of the American Convention, as well as Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the
Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Court ordered
the State to conduct an effective investigation in order to identify,
prosecute, and punish the perpetrators, and declared that the State had an
obligation to provide compensation for the situations arising from
violation of those rights. Villagrán
Morales et al ("street children") case 102. On November 15, 2000, the Inter-American Court handed
down a decision in which it decided to ask the State to submit to the
Court all information available to it on the actual place of residence or
work or any other location at which the relatives of Federico Clemente
Figueroa Túnchez and Jovito Josúe Juárez Cifuentes could be found.
In addition, it asked the State to inform these persons under its
jurisdiction, through the mass media, that the Court had issued a judgment
on the merits of the case and that they needed to contact the Court as
soon as possible. On February
12, 2001, the Commission submitted to the Court the testimony of four
witnesses and one expert at the public hearing on the reparations stage of
this case. 103. The case pertains to a series of actions that violated
the rights of five young people, "street children," which
resulted in their murder by police officers, and the failure to provide
protective measures and judicial guarantees.
As indicated in the most recent annual report of the Commission, the Court handed down a judgment in this case on November 19,
1999 and decided, unanimously, that the State was responsible for the
violation of Articles 7, 4, 5, 19, 8, and 25 of the American Convention,
all in accordance with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof,
as well as Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to
Prevent and Punish Torture. e.
Nicaragua Mayagna
(Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni case 104. By means of a judgment of February 1, 2000, the Court
handed down a decision regarding the preliminary objection filed by
Nicaragua and rejected by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. It unanimously decided to reject the preliminary objection
filed by the Nicaraguan State and to continue to hear the case.
On August 18, 2000, the Court issued a decision ordering the
Nicaraguan State to provide the Court with the grounds for the time-barred
offer of witnesses and experts in its correspondence of April 7, 2000, and
to indicate which of these persons were offered as witnesses and which
ones were offered as experts. 105. On November 16, 17, and 18, 2000, the Commission
presented 8 witnesses and 4 experts to testify regarding the use and
holding of land in both the Community of Awas Tingni and in Latin America
in general at a public hearing on the merits of the case.
The experts and witnesses provided information on the indigenous
property systems developed on the basis of customary law and noted that
communities have their method of landholding and that their identities are
tied to their lands. It will
be recalled that in the petition related to the aforementioned case, filed
by the Commission on June 4, 1998, mention was made of the alleged
violation by the Nicaraguan State of Articles 1 (obligation to respect
rights), 2 (domestic legal effects), 21 (private property), and 25
(judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the
detriment of the members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni,
due to the failure to demarcate and officially recognize the territory of
that community. The
Commission also asked the Court, based on Article 63(1) of the American
Convention, for reparations for the situations arising from violation of
the rights mentioned in the petition. f.
Panama Baena
Ricardo et al case 106. On January 26, 27, and 28, 2000, the Commission presented
witnesses and experts to the Court, as well as its final oral arguments at
a public hearing on the merits of this case.
On February 2, 2001, the Court issued a judgment on the merits of
this case and decided that the State had violated Articles 9, 8(1), 8(2),
25, and 16, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2, all contained in the
American Convention on Human Rights.
It also ordered the State to pay the 270 workers the sum
corresponding to the decrease in their salaries and to accord them other
labor rights to which they were entitled by law.
In the case of workers who had died, these payments were to be made
to their successors in title. It
also ordered the State to reinstate them in their positions and, if this
was not possible, to provide them with alternative employment that matched
their conditions, salaries, and remuneration at the time that they were
fired. If the latter was not
possible, the State was required to provide them with compensation for the
termination of labor relations, in accordance with domestic labor law.
Similarly, the successors in title of the victims who had died were
supposed to receive the pension or retirement to which these persons were
entitled within 12 months of the date of notification of this judgment. 107. The complaint related to this case was filed by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on January 16, 1998 and pertains
to the alleged violation by the Panamanian State of Articles 8 (fair
trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 10 (right to compensation),
15 (right of assembly), 16 (freedom of association), and 25 (judicial
protection) of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, in relation
to Articles 1 and 2 thereof, as a result of the events that occurred on
December 6, 1990, which led to the dismissal, in an allegedly arbitrary
manner, of 270 public employees who had participated in a demonstration
regarding labor-related issues. Furthermore,
as a result of the foregoing proceedings resulting from these events,
their right to a fair trial and judicial protection was allegedly
violated. The Commission also
asked the Court to declare that "Law 25 and the provision contained
in Article 43 of the Constitution of Panama permitting the retroactivity
of laws for reasons of "public policy" or "state
interest," applied in this case, were at odds with the American
Convention and should therefore be amended or repealed, in accordance with
Article 2 of the Convention." Furthermore,
the Commission asked the Court to declare that Panama had violated
Articles 33 and 50(2) of the Convention, and to order that State to rehire
the workers who were fired while exercising their rights, and to provide
reparations and compensation to the victims. g.
Peru Barrios
Altos case 108. The Peruvian State recognized its international
responsibility in this case on February 19, 2001, in writing, and on March
14, 2001, at a public hearing. Consequently,
on March 14, 2001, the Inter-American Court unanimously decided to accept
the admission of international responsibility by the State and to declare
the violation of Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25, in relation to Articles 1(1)
and 2, all contained in the American Convention.
Moreover, it declared that amnesty laws Nos. 26479 and 26492 are
incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights and are thus
legally null and void, and declared that the State had an obligation to
investigate the events in order to determine the persons responsible for
human rights violations and to publicly disclose the results of this
investigation and punish the perpetrators. 109. On June 8, 2000, the Commission submitted this case to
the Court, asking it to find that the Peruvian State had violated Article
4 (right to life) of the American Convention, to the detriment of
Placentina Marcela Chumbipuma Aguirre, Luis Alberto Díaz Astovilca,
Octavio Benigno Huamanyauri Nolazco, Luis Antonio León Borja, Filomeno León
León, Máximo 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.
Furthermore, it asked the Court to find that the State had violated
Article 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Natividad
Condorcahuana Chicaña, Felipe León León, Tomás Livias Ortega, and
Alfonso Rodas Alvítez. In
addition, it asked the Court to declare that the Peruvian State had
violated Articles 8, 25, and 13 of the American Convention, as a result of
the promulgation and application of amnesty laws no. 26479 and 26492. Finally, it asked the Court to rule that, as a result of the
promulgation and application of amnesty laws No. 26479 and 26492 and
violation of the rights indicated above, Peru had failed to comply with
Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Cantoral
Benavides case 110. On August 18, 2000, the Inter-American Court handed down
a judgment on the merits of the case.
By means of that judgment, the Court decided to declare that
Articles 5(1) and 5(2); 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5); 8(1), 8(2)(c),
8(2)(d), 8(2)(f), 8(2)(g), 8(3) and 8(5); 9; 7(6), and 25 had been
violated; all in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American
Convention, and Articles 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to
Prevent and Punish Torture. In
that judgment, the Court ordered the State to launch an investigation to
identify the persons responsible for the human rights violations and to
provide compensation for damages resulting from these violations. Cesti
Hurtado case 111. On January 25, 2000, the Court held a public hearing on
the request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits of September
29, 1999. On January 29,
2000, it decided that the request for interpretation of the judgment,
filed by Peru, was admissible only with respect to the first, second,
third, and fourth points thereof; that operative points 1 and 8 of the
judgment were binding and therefore had to be complied with immediately,
and that this did not prevent the competent authorities from adopting a
decision with respect to the criminal responsibility of Mr. Cesti Hurtado
regarding the illicit acts of which he was accused; that operative point 8
of the aforementioned judgment implied the invalidation of all the legal
consequences thereof, including, inter
alia, the invalidation of the attachment ordered of his property; that
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights could not rule with respect to
the applicability of its decisions in future hypothetical situations, and
that, for the purpose of this case, it had been clearly and duly
established by the Court in its judgment of September 29, 1999 that the habeas
corpus appeal, as a procedural measure, was appropriate to determine
whether the detention of Mr. Cesti Hurtado was arbitrary. 112. On August 10, 2000, the Commission submitted its
arguments on compensation and expenses at a public hearing on reparations
related to this case. Durand
and Urgarte case 113. On August 16, 2000, a judgment was handed down on the
merits of this case and a decision was made that Articles 4(1), 7(1),
7(5), 7(6), 8(1), and 25(1), in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the
American Convention on Human Rights had been violated, and that the State
had an obligation to make every effort possible to locate and identify the
remains of the victims and to turn them over to their relatives, and to
investigate the events and prosecute and sanction the perpetrators. Ivcher
Bronstein case 114. On November 20 and 21, 2000, the Commission presented
witnesses and experts to the Court who provided information on the events
outlined in the petition and other matters addressed at a public hearing
on the merits of the case. 115. On February 6, 2001, a judgment was handed down on the
merits. In it, the Court
decided to declare that the State had violated rights enshrined in
Articles 20(1) and 20(3), 8(1) and 8(2), 25(1), 21(1) and 21(2), and 13(1)
and 13(3), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human
Rights. Furthermore, it
indicated that the State had an obligation to investigate the acts that
led to the violations outlined in the judgment on the merits in order to
identify and punish the perpetrators, to seek to create the conditions
under which Baruch Ivcher Bronstein could take the necessary steps to
exercise and enjoy once again his rights as a shareholder of the company Latinoamericana
de Radiodifusión S.A., a position that he held until August 1, 1997
under the terms of domestic law. Domestic
law should also be applied with regard to compensation for dividends and
other remuneration to which he was entitled as a majority shareholder and
official of that company. To
that end, the pertinent petitions should be submitted to the competent
national authorities. In
addition, it stipulated the amounts to be paid to Baruch Ivcher Bronstein
by way of compensation for moral prejudice and for domestic and
international court costs and fees. Constitutional
Tribunal case 116. The Commission presented witnesses and experts to the
Court on November 22 and 23, 2000, who shared information on the events
outlined in the petition and other related matters. 117. On January 31, 2001, the Inter-American Court issued a
judgment on the merits of this case and decided to declare violation of
Articles 8 and 25 in relation to the general obligation of Article 1(1),
all contained in the American Convention.
It further called on the State
to order an investigation in order to determine the persons responsible
for the human rights violations mentioned in the judgment, to disclose to
the public the results of this investigation, and to sanction the
perpetrators. It also ordered the State to pay the amounts corresponding to
the salary losses and other benefits to which Messrs. Manuel Aguirre Roca,
Guillermo Rey Terry, and Delia Revoredo Marsano were entitled under law,
as well as costs and fees. h.
Trinidad and Tobago Peter
Benjamin et al case 118. The petition in this case was filed by the Commission on
October 5, 2000 and pertains to the detention, prosecution, indictment,
and sentencing to death of Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan
Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh
in Trinidad and Tobago, pursuant to a law that makes it mandatory to
impose the death penalty on all persons convicted of intentional homicide
in Trinidad and Tobago. In
its petition, the Commission asserts that the Republic of Trinidad and
Tobago violated the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the
American Convention on Human Rights, as evidenced by the mandatory nature
of its death penalty convictions, the resources available for
victims to seek amnesty, pardon, or commutation of a sentence,
delays in criminal proceedings, their detention conditions, the fairness
of their trials, and the inability to file constitutional motions in
domestic court related to criminal proceedings against them. 119. In a response of December 11, 2000, the Inter-American
Court informed the Commission that the State had filed a preliminary
objection in this case and that the President of the Court, following the
precedent of the Constantine et al
case, had decided against convening a special hearing related to the
preliminary objection filed. On
January 11, 2001, the Commission provided a written response to this
communication. George
Constantine et al case 120. The petition in this case was submitted to the Commission
on February 22, 2000, and pertains to the arrest, detention, prosecution,
indictment, and sentencing to death in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
of Messrs. George Constantine, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Clarence
Charles, Steve Mungroo, Anthony Garcia, Mervyn Edmund, Gangadeen Tahaloo,
Natasha De Leon, Wenceslaus James, Keiron Thomas, Denny Baptiste, Wilson
Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis,
Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip
Chotolal, Naresh Boodram, and Joey Ramiah.
The foregoing is the
result of a law that makes imposition of the death penalty mandatory on
all persons convicted of intentional homicide in Trinidad and Tobago.
In its petition, the Commission expresses the view that the
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago violated the provisions of Articles 1, 2,
4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, as
evidenced by the mandatory nature of its death penalty convictions, the
resources available for victims to seek amnesty, pardon, or commutation of
a sentence, delays in criminal proceedings, their detention conditions,
the fairness of their trials, and the inability to file constitutional
motions in domestic court related to criminal proceedings against them. 121. On June 15, 2000, the Court informed the Commission of
the filing of a preliminary objection by the State with respect to this
case. The Commission provided
its response to this objection on July 14, 2000.
On September 1, 2000, the Commission informed the Court of its
voluntary waiver of the convening of a hearing on the preliminary
objection filed by the State. Furthermore,
the Commission asked the State to rule that this objection should be
considered together with the objection filed in the case of Haniff Hilaire
based on the written arguments in both cases and the oral arguments
presented at the public hearing on the preliminary objection in the case
of Haniff Hilaire held by the Court on August 10, 2000. 122. By means of a decision of October 9, 2000, the President
of the Inter-American Court decided to accept the petition of the
Commission with respect to the convening of a public hearing on the
preliminary objection filed and to continue hearing the case at the stage
to which it had progressed. Haniff
Hilaire case 123. On August 10, 2000, the Commission verbally rejected the
preliminary objection filed by the State of Trinidad and Tobago at a
public hearing. That
objection was based on the lack of competence of the Court to hear this
case because of the reservation made by Trinidad and Tobago when
recognizing the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. The reservation
indicated that this recognition was being granted only insofar as it was
compatible with the Constitution of that State. 124. The petition related to the case was filed by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on May 25, 1999, and pertains to
the arrest, detention, prosecution, indictment, and sentencing to death in
the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago of Haniff Hilaire, as a result of a
law that makes imposition of the death penalty mandatory on all persons
convicted of intentional homicide in Trinidad and Tobago.
In its petition, the Commission expresses the view that the
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago violated, to the detriment of Mr. Hilaire,
the provisions of Article 1 (obligation to respect rights), 2 (domestic
legal effects), 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right
to personal liberty), and 25 (judicial protection), all contained in the
American Convention on Human Rights. Venezuela El
Amparo case 125. On November 20, 2000, the Court issued a decision with
respect to this case, by means of which it urged the Venezuelan State and
the Inter-American Commission to reach an agreement on matters related to
compliance with the judgment on reparations outlined in operative point 1
of that decision and stipulated that the Venezuelan State and the
Inter-American Commission should submit a final report on the matters in
dispute mentioned in the foregoing operative point by June 1, 2001. Caracazo
case 126. On November 21, 2000, the Inter-American Court issued a decision in which it called on the State to submit to the Court all information at its disposal on the actual place of residence or employment or any other place where the relatives of Héctor Ortega Zapata, Boris Eduardo Bolívar Marcano, Jesús Alberto Cartaya, Héctor Lugo Cabriles, Elsa Ramírez Caminero, Sabas Reyes Gómez, Alís Flores Torres, Abelardo Antonio Pérez, and Jesús Rafael Villalobos could be found. In addition, it asked the State to inform the persons who were under its jurisdiction, through the mass media, that the Court had handed down a judgment on the merits of the Caracazo case and that they needed to contact the Court as soon as possible. [ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |