|
Case 1783 URUGUAY
WHEREAS: In
a communication dated October 2, 1975, the following was denounced: As
is our custom, we do not deal in unconfirmed accounts; rather, we are
enclosing the denunciation of a death by torture which occurred in a
facility of the Armed Forces of our country, according to the
documentation that could be compiled on the case. It involves a young
student, Hugo Leonardo de los Santos Mendoza. Attached
please find an account given by the Dean of the School of Medicine of
Montevideo, Dr. Pablo V. Calevaro, and testimony given by the Forensic
Physician of the Joint Forces, Dr. José Alejandro Mautone, which lives
a summary of the protocol of autopsy. If
we shuddered when we learned the news, our feelings of revulsion,
powerlessness and indignation reached their peak when we learned through
a member of the family of the deceased who is a physician and who was
present when the body was identified, how this young student of agronomy
was murdered. First let me say that when the body was turned over, it
was said that the young man had died of pneumonia; on the other hand,
the death certificate issued by the physician said that he had died of
'acute pulmonary edema.' The members of the family were able to detect
signs of punishment on the body of the victim and filed a complaint
before the Judge of the Department of Rocha, who handled the situation
with complete professional dignity. Steps were taken to have the body
identified by university professionals who were carefully selected by
the judge from among individuals who knew the student because they lived
in Rocha and who are known not to be militantly and systematically
opposed to the Government. Among them were a number of court clerks,
lawyers, and physicians. The autopsy report was signed by five
physicians. The report confirmed that pulmonary edema was not the cause
of death, so the death certificate issued is false. Acute pulmonary
edema is a condition that sets in rapidly and is brought about by heart
failure; it leaves unmistakable marks on the lungs and has its
counterpart in changes to the heart muscle itself. That cause of death
can be disregarded entirely, which is not surprising because a young man
of 21 years of age and in good health, who attended the School of
Agronomy (near the site where he was detained), could not have developed
such a condition; an individual who dies of acute pulmonary edema is
most assuredly not physically capable of carrying on a normal life such
as this young man did. It was also possible to verify something else
that is equally serious as this falsehood: an omission was discovered.
In the autopsy that was conducted possibly in the Morgue of the Military
Hospital, no autopsy was done on the skull, despite the subcutaneous
blood clotting, the hematomas, and the evidence of external lesions on
the face and skull. And, in fact, the true cause of death was an
intra-cranial hematoma, located in the posterior fossa where the
cerebellum is housed. This was a hematoma resulting from a trauma, most
assuredly caused by blows of which there are abundant signs over the
entire body. Subcutaneous blood clotting was found in the frontal
region, the right and left temporal region, with a hematoma lodged in
the temporal muscle on the left side, abrasions on both cheekbones and
scrapes on the left mastoid region and chin. Also found were large areas
of abrasions and subcutaneous blood clotting in the upper members and
particularly on both elbows. The same characteristics were found on the
knees, particularly on the left knee and the right thigh. There was
subcutaneous blood clotting on both buttocks and multiple abrasions
which indicated that the student was most likely dragged over a rough
surface, such as gravel. There were also wounds on the
thoracic-abdominal area in the form of subcutaneous blood clotting and
multiple and extensive hematomas. Thus,
this is not merely a death and it is not simply a question of a young
life. It is more than just the case of a student who is worthy of the
praise given him by Council of the School of Agronomy, this is not
simply the case of an individual who has not been found, beyond any
reasonable doubt, to have committed a crime and who was not questioned
by any judge. This is the case of an individual apprehended in a state
of health and returned dead after having undergone tremendous punishment
and torture for who knows how long, with marks on his body that bespeak
the cruelty, the pathology, the malignancy, the barbarity and the
savagery that, because of the acts committed, in some way typify his
captors. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in a note dated December 12,
1973, transmitted the pertinent parts of the denunciation to the
Government of Uruguay, and requested that it provide the appropriate
information; Having
received no reply, the Commission repeated its request for information
to that Government and quoted the text of Article 51 of its Regulations,
in a note dated 3 June 1974; The
Government of Uruguay, in a note dated June 28, 1974, informed the
Commission as follows: As
it has been impossible, because of a number of circumstances beyond my
Government's control, to provide the information on this case within the
period provided for under Article 51 of the Regulations of that
Commission, I would like to request of the Chairman, in accordance with
instructions received, that that deadline be extended for ninety days. The
Commission, in a note dated July 8, 1974, granted the extension
requested by the Government; The
Government of Uruguay, in a note dated September 9, 1974, replied to the
Commission's request for information as follows: Hugo
Leonardo de los Santos Mendoza was detained on a public street on
September 1, 1973, by members of the Joint Forces, and was taken to a
military unit in order to bring him before the corresponding judge,
because of his participation in subversive activities as described in
paragraph 1 above. On
the morning of September 3, during a routine inspection, it was found
that he had suffered a pulmonary condition, and was attended by the
unit's health service, in spite of which he died. The
Military Examining Judge of the Fourth Term, Naval Captain Oscar Pio
Lorenz, intervened and ordered that a forensic examination be carried
out which was done as ordered. The
results of the autopsy, which was directed by Dr. Mautone, established
"acute pulmonary edema" as the cause of death. When
the corpse of Hugo Leonardo de los Santos Mendoza was turned over to the
family, who reside in the Department of Rocha, the Departmental Judge
for that district, in response to complaints filed by members of the
family of the deceased to the effect that the corpse showed visible
evidence of mistreatment, assumed competence and ordered that a new
autopsy be conducted by a group of physicians appointed for that
purpose, whose conclusions differed from the results of the previous
medical-forensic examination. In
the face of the measures ordered by the Judge of the Department of
Rocha, the Military Examining Judge of the Fourth Turn who had assumed
jurisdiction in first instance, reclaimed his competence before the
Supreme Court of Justice. A
dispute over jurisdiction was brought before the Supreme Court and was
settled on August 14, 1974, by decree 2074 in which jurisdiction was
given to the Examining Magistrate of the First Term of Montevideo. Therefore,
it is a responsibility of the judicial authority ultimately appointed,
in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the law, to take such
measures as he deems appropriate with regard to the causes of death of
Hugo Leonardo de los Santos. The
Commission, in a note of August 7, 1975, requested the Government of
Uruguay to kindly provide additional information on the results of the
judicial measures carried out with regard to this matter and, in
particular, a copy of any ruling that may have been handed down on the
matter; The
Government again requested an extension, by note dated February 27,
1976; The
Commission, in a note dated March 15, 1976, granted the Government an
extension to May 20, 1976, for transmittal of the information requested; The
deadline passed without the Government of Uruguay having provided that
information; The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at its 39th session
(October-November 1976), decided to apply Article 51 of its Regulations
in this case; Later,
in a note dated September 12, 1977, the Government of Uruguay reported
to the Commission as follows: The
question of competence or jurisdiction was resolved by the Court of
Justice on August 14, 1974, through decree Nº 2074. Thereafter, on
August 19, 1974, the Examining Magistrate of the First Term in
Montevideo, through official letter Nº 4467, assumed competence and
initiated appropriate proceedings; at the conclusion of these and in
order to obtain more complete information, he ordered that a report be
prepared by the Forensic Technical Institute, an agency of the Supreme
Court of Justice. Consequently, the proceedings carried out previously
were brought together and delivered to Dr. Alfredo Navarro, a general
medicine expert from the School of Medicine, for his consideration. He
proceeded to consider the judicial proceedings initiated in September
1973 and to examine the medical report produced at that time. In his
report, he presents an exhaustive examination of the two autopsies and
determines that that which was carried out by order of the Military
Courts contains defects, while the autopsy prepared in Rocha states the
following: "the organs that served to justify the conclusions of
the autopsy are to be remitted to the Forensic Technical Institute,
mentioned above." In the same report, it is established that the
organs sent by the Judge of the Department of Rocha and received by the
Technical Forensic Institute are the following: "the heart and the
spleen, both intact, and fragments of the lungs; not received, however,
was the 'brain,' the organ which according to the autopsy carried out by
order of the Judge of Rocha would permit confirmation of the conclusion
rendered in the autopsy ordered by him, it being the organ that would
show the lesions which caused the death. Also not received was the base
of the lung, which would permit confirmation of the conclusion of the
autopsy originally, ordered by the Military Judge. In conclusion, the
aforementioned medical expert from the School of Medicine, Dr. Alfredo
Navarro, in an official note delivered to the Examining Magistrate of
the First Term in Montevideo on the date mentioned above (August 9,
1976), finds the following: 'Consequently, and having confirmed the
existence of defects in the two autopsies available, it is impossible to
issue any definitive judgment concerning the death of Hugo Leonardo de
los Santos.' On August 18, 1976, the Acting Judge ordered the
proceedings made available for examination by the Criminal
Prosecutor of the First Term, who on August 31 of the same year, in
opinion 2170/76, recommended that the closing of the Judicial
proceedings be ordered. On September 2 of the same year the documents in
the case were returned to the office of the Examining Magistrate of the
First Term who, by Decree 4005, ordered the closing of the proceedings
and the permanent filing of the case, and The
information received from the Government itself leads to the conclusion
that there is no other process or internal remedy pending decision; THE
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RESOLVES: 1. To declare that
all information leads to the assumption that Hugo Leonardo de los Santos
Mendoza, who was detained by authorities and was in a military unit when
he died two days after his arrest, died as a result of an intracranial
hematoma caused by wounds that he suffered during his detention. 2. To point out to
the Government of Uruguay that this constitutes a very serious violation
of the right to life, liberty and personal security (Article I of the
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man); of the right to a
fair trial (Article XVIII); and of the right to due process of law
(Article XXVI). 3. To recommend to
the Government: a) that it order a thorough and impartial investigation
to determine who is responsible for the events denounced and, in
accordance with Uruguayan law, that it punish those responsible for
those acts; b) that it report to the Commission on the measures taken to
implement the recommendations contained in the preceding section within
a period of no more than thirty days. 4. To forward this
resolution to the Government of Uruguay and to the claimants. 5. To include this
resolution in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the
Organization (Article 9 (bis), c, iii of the Statute), if within thirty
days the Government has not advised the Commission of the measures it
has adopted to carry out the investigation recommended under operative
paragraph 3. Adopted
at meeting Nº 559th, January 30, 1978 (43rd
session) and forwarded to the Government of Uruguay on February 21,
1978.
|