|
REPORT
Nº 03/01*
I. SUMMARY 1.
Between 27 December 1995 and 30 September 1999, the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission” or the “IACHR”)
received petitions from various individuals–on their own behalf or on
behalf of a third person, lodged by themselves or by legal counsel–and
non-governmental organizations (individually and collectively hereinafter
the “petitioners”) on behalf of 47 alleged victims. The petitions
claim violation of the rights to judicial guarantees (Article 8), property
(Article 21) equal protection of the law (Article 24) and effective remedy
(Article 25(2)(c)), and of the obligation of States to respect rights
(Article 1(1)) and to give effect to those rights (Article 2), all rights
and obligations enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American Convention”). They
also claim that the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter the “State,”
“Argentine State,” or “Argentina”) has violated the rights to the
preservation of health and well-being (Article XI) and to social security,
in relation to the obligation to work and contribute to social security
(Articles XVI, XXXV and XXXVII) as enshrined in the American Declaration
on the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter the “Declaration”). 2. As the facts are similar and the subject substantially the same, the IACHR combined and processed the petitions in question as a single file, in accordance with Article 40(2) of its Rules of Procedure. The names of the petitioners[1] and of the alleged victims[2], along with the dates on which petitions were lodged, are presented in the following table. Table
1
Acronyms:
CEJIL –
Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional
CELS
– Centro
de Estudios Legales y Sociales, Argentina 3.
All petitioners have filed claims before the Argentine National
Social Security Administration (hereinafter ANSES) with the aim of getting
an adjustment to their retirement or pension payment or in its calculation
(social security income). The petitioners claim that the fundamental
rights protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have been violated
by delays in securing final judgments determining the rights of the
alleged victims and any adjustment to or calculation of their social
security income. They also cite postponement of enforcement of judgments,
as well as inappropriate enforcement of the same that resulted in
confiscation of property and forced them to exhaust other resources in
their attempts to secure what is owed to them. They also cite violation of
their rights to judicial guarantees and effective judicial protection. In
this regard they say that Articles 5, 7, 16, 22 and 23 of Law 24.463 on
Social Security Solidarity allowed for postponement of the enforcement of
court judgments favorable to them on the basis of insufficient budgetary
resources, and that the obligation to make the above-mentioned rights
effective was violated. They also maintain that the facts as outlined have
led to the violation of other rights, including the rights to property,
equality, health and well being, social security and life. 4.
That State maintains that the case is inadmissible because nothing
the petitioners argue constitutes a violation of the Convention. The State
does not deny that there have been delays in judicial proceedings and
enforcement of judgments. They
claim, however, that said delays were justified, citing the collapse of
the social security system due to excess litigation and a lack of
resources, among other reasons. The State is only responsible for
injecting as much as is available into the common pension system and is
not a guarantor of the system. It contributes just enough to cover the
normal and ongoing payments stipulated by law. The State adds that
acquired rights cannot be placed above the laws on public order, and that
the integrity of pensions has not been affected, as current benefits are
comparable to past benefits and that adjustments made according to law do
not have their origin in the constitution. In regard to whether the
provisions of Law 24.463 are compatible with the Convention, the State
holds that the temporary limitation was born of necessity and was in the
public interest. 5.
The State does not debate the tight situation faced by retirees in
the minimum bracket, but does say that they receive additional welfare
benefits. The State adds that, within limits established objectively by
economic growth, it has promoted measures to make effective all the rights
recognized in Article 26 of the Convention and that the complaints under
consideration reflect isolated cases and not the general situation in the
country. In regard to the requirements for admissibility, the State has
responded to each petition individually, variously citing failure to
exhaust domestic remedies, pointing out the date on which remedies were
exhausted or that it had cancelled pension payments, or not saying
anything at all. 6.
In processing this case, the IACHR has noted that the petitions of:
Abiuso, Martha Beatriz; Alfaro, Mario Jorge; Alvarez, Ernesto;
Amada, Alfredo Raúl; Angotti, Oscar; Bernardez, Carmen; Calvo, Wilson
Jorge; Carballo, Héctor; Castañeda, Hector Alfredo; Daruich, Ramadam;
Dabrowski, Ladislao; De Carli, de Onoratelli; Falvo, Juan Carlos; Gagni,
Valeria; Grabowski, Rosa Helena; Linero, Ana María; Ludueña, Ramona
Angelita; Moreno Bosque, María; Nieto, Roberto; Olivero, Omar Bautista;
Pandis, Juan; Poggi, Fulvio Enzo; Ramovecchi, Manuel José; Rodríguez,
Galileo Eduardo; Rodríguez, Juan Manuel; Scarpa, Beatriz Alicia;
Villarino, Abel; Villares, Carlos Cecilio; Volant, Marina; and Vouillat,
María Beatriz did not contain sufficient information, either in regard to
exhaustion of domestic remedies or to the relationship with the facts put
forward in the arguments. Some did not contain enough information to
establish the legitimacy of the petition. As a result, on 21 December
2000, the IACHR decided to separate these petitions from this case and
combine them in Case 11.670A with the purpose of requesting more
information from the parties and making a decision on them at a later
date. 7. In regard to the remaining petitions, namely those of: Acevedo, Daniel; Agro, Eduardo; Agrofolio, José Heribe; Ambrossetti, Pedro S.; Amodeo, Enrique Domingo; Balciunas, Roberto; Caride Juan Manuel; Carmona, Antonio; Chañaha, Angel Amadeo; Menéndez, Amilcar; Orsi Vittorio; Otero, Angela; Pafundi, Amancio Modesto; Piscitelli, Pascual; Rodríguez Arias, Eduardo A.; Solari, María Elena; and Tudor, Enrique José, the Commission has examined them as reflected in this report and has deemed them admissible as they comply with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention. II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 8.
After receiving the original petitions of Amilcar Menéndez and
Juan Manuel Caride in 1995 (hereinafter the “original petitioners”),
the IACHR sent the State a request for information on 13 February 1996 and
later granted it an extension of 45 days for response. The State’s
response was received on 29 August 1996 and forwarded to the petitioners
on 3 September 1996. The case was numbered 11.670. Over time the other
petitions listed in Table 1 were received. They were joined to case 11.670
and each petitioner was informed of that fact. In the IACHR’s view, the
related subject matter provides grounds for combining them in a single
case. The Commission would like to once again point out that article 40 of
the Rules of Procedure[10]
does not require that the facts, alleged victims and violations mentioned
in petitions strictly coincide in time and place for the petitions to be
combined and processed in a single file. To the contrary, the IACHR
believes that petitions can be combined and processed together when the
subject matter and legal questions involved are adequately connected.[11] 9.
On 9 October 1996, during its 93rd Regular Session, the
Commission held a hearing with the original petitioners and the State.
On 4 November 1996 an extension of 30 days was granted to the
petitioners, who then submitted their comments on 16 January 1997.
On 27 January 1997, a submission was received from the State and
sent on to the original petitioners on 3 February 1997.
On 2 February and 14 April 1997 respectively 30-day extensions were
given to the State. On 9 July
1997 the petitioners were granted an extension. The response of the
original petitioners was sent to the State in 19 August 1997.
On 23 September and 15 December respectively, 30-day extensions
were granted to the State. 10. The State’s response was received on 23 January 1998 and sent to the petitioners on 9 February 1998. The petitioners requested an extension on 14 April 1998 and were granted one of 30 days. On 26 August 1998, the original petitioners submitted additional information. On 12 November 1998, the IACHR sent to |