|
|
|
Cases
11.826, 11.843, 11.846 and 11.847 - Report Nº 49/01, Leroy Lamey,
Kevin Mykoo, Milton Montique and Dalton Daley (Jamaica)
181.
In
Report Nº 49/01
dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:
1.
Grant
the victims an effective remedy which included commutation of their
death sentences and compensation;
2.
Adopt
such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that
the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and
freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5 and
8, in particular that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a
mandatory sentencing law;
3.
Adopt
such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that
the right under Article 4(6) of the Convention to apply for amnesty,
pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica;
4.
Adopt
such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that
the victims' rights to humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2)
of the Convention, particularly in relation to their conditions of
detention, are given effect in Jamaica;
5.
Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to
ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the
Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of
the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to
Constitutional Motions.
182.
In
letters dated December 6, 2002, the Petitioners for Dalton Daley,
Milton Montique and Leroy Lamey reiterated their previous observations
to the effect that the State had, by reason of decisions of the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, commuted the victims’ death
sentences and were required to implement a mercy procedure in capital
cases, but that they were not aware of information indicating that the
State had complied with any of the Commission’s remaining
recommendations. In a letter dated November 21, 2002, the Petitioners
for Kevin Mykoo indicated that they were aware of no further
developments concerning compliance with the Commission’s
recommendations. The Commission did not receive a response from the
State to its request for information on compliance. Based upon the
information available, the Commission considers that the State has
partially complied with the Commission’s first recommendation.
Case
12.069 - Report Nº 50/01, Damion Thomas (Jamaica)
183.
In Report Nº 50/01 dated April 4, 2001 the
Commission recommended that the State:
1.
Grant the
victim an effective remedy, which included compensation;
2.
Conduct
thorough and impartial investigations into the facts of the pertinent
incidents denounced by the Petitioners in order to determine and
attribute responsibility to those accountable for the violations
concerned and undertake appropriate remedial measures;
3.
Review its
practices and procedures to ensure that officials involved in the
incarceration and supervision of persons imprisoned in Jamaica are
provided with appropriate training concerning the standards of humane
treatment of such persons, including restrictions on the use of force
against such persons; and
4.
Review its practices and procedures to ensure that complaints
made by prisoners concerning alleged mistreatment by prison officials
and other conditions of their detention are properly investigated and
resolved.
184.
The Petitioners indicated, inter
alia, that Mr. Thomas continued to be held in a “punishment cell”
and that his cell became flooded with sewage on each occasion of heavy
rainfall, and they included a petition signed by over 100 of Mr.
Thomas’ fellow inmates complaining of their conditions of detention
at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Center. In a letter dated
December 3, 2002, the Petitioners informed the Commission that Mr.
Thomas had not been granted compensation or any other effective
remedy, but rather continued to be imprisoned in conditions that
subjected him to cruel and inhuman treatment. The Petitioners also indicated that to their knowledge, the
State had not taken any steps to implement the Commission’s
remaining recommendations. The
State of Jamaica indicated that Jamaica’s Inspectorate Unit of the
Correctional Services conducts awareness training for Correctional
Officers that covers relevant United Nations treaties as well as
Jamaican legislation, and that there are several mechanisms for
investigative monitoring of complaints made by inmates and the
conditions of their detention. These were said to include internal
investigation by the Superintendent of the Center where the inmate is
housed and by the Inspectorate Unit of the Department of Correctional
Services, and external investigation by the Inspectorate Unit of the
Ministry of National Security, the Public Defender, Boards of Visiting
Justices and Boards of Visitors under the Corrections Act, Coroner’s
Inquests held in respect of sudden deaths, and Commissions of Enquiry
that may be convened in respect of major incidents. The State
indicated in respect of the Petitioners’ communication of September
3, 2002 that Mr. Thomas’ restricted detention conditions were
authorized under Articles 22(1) and Section B, 82(3) of the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners by
reason of his psychiatric condition and that additional information in
this regard would be provided to the Commission in due course. The
State also acknowledged that a sewage problem existed in the area in
which the Tower Street Correctional Centre is located but that
remedial measures were being taken to re-accommodate prisoners when
necessary and to find a permanent solution to the problem.
Finally, the State indicated that a preliminary examination of
the records of the Correction Services did not reveal any complaints
from inmates concerning their health with specific reference to the
occasional flooding problem and that an examination of the medical
records of all those who signed the petition was being conducted and
that the findings would be forwarded to the Commission in due course. Based upon the information available, the Commission
considers that the State has partially complied with the Commission’s
third and fourth recommendations.
Case
12.183 - Report Nº 127/01, Joseph Thomas (Jamaica)
185.
In Report Nº 127/01 dated December 3,
2001, the Commission recommended that the State:
1.
Grant the victim an effective remedy, which included a re-trial
in accordance with the due process protections prescribed under
Article 8 of the Convention or, where a re-trial in compliance with
these protections is not possible, his release, and compensation;
2.
Adopt such
legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the
death penalty is not imposed in contravention of the rights and
freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including and in particular
Articles 4, 5 and 8;
3.
Adopt such
legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the
right under Article 4(6) of the Convention to apply for amnesty,
pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica; and
4.
Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to
ensure that the conditions of detention in which the victim is held
comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of
the Convention.
186.
In a letter dated January 2, 2003, the
Petitioners indicated that the State of Jamaica had not acted upon the
recommendations contained in the Commission’s report. The
Petitioners relied in this regard on a letter dated May 9, 2002 that
they received from the Acting Secretary to the Governor General of
Jamaica concerning the consideration of the Commission’s report by
the Jamaican Privy Council. In
this communication, the Acting Secretary indicated, inter
alia, that the Privy Council only considered the Commission’s
recommendations as to release, which it found to be without merit and
unsupported, and that the Commission’s remaining recommendations
related to “Government policy” and therefore were not considered
by the Privy Council. The Commission did not receive a response from the State to
its request for information on compliance. Based upon the information
available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied
with the Commission’s recommendations.
Case
11.565 - Report Nº 53/01,
González Pérez Sisters
(Mexico)
187.
On April 4, 2001 the Inter-American Commission approved
Report Nº
53/01 on the Case under reference,
in which it made the following recommendations:
1.
Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation,
within the regular criminal courts in Mexico, to determine the
responsibility of all persons who violated the human rights of Ana,
Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez, and Delia Pérez de González;
2.
Adequately compensate Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez
and Delia Pérez de González for the human rights violations
established in this report.
188.
The Mexican Government invited the IACHR to hold a number of
follow-up meetings on the reports published, including the one held on
July 3-4, 2001 in Mexico City. A working meeting was also held on the
matter on November 14, 2001 during the 113th session of the
IACHR, and a follow-up hearing was recently held on March 7, 2002 at
the 114th regular session.
In July 2002, a delegation from the Inter-American Commission
went again to Mexico at the invitation of the government, at which
time it discussed follow up of the recommendations made in a number of
cases, including Report Nº 53/01. Finally, on
October 18, 2002, a working meeting was held with the parties during
the 116th regular session of the IACHR to follow up on the
recommendations mentioned.
189.
The information provided by the Mexican State contains a
summary of the meetings held both before the IACHR and in Mexico with
the petitioners and the authorities of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Office of the Attorney General of Chiapas (PGJE) and the
Office of the Attorney General of Military Justice (PGJM).
The commitments reached by the parties refer to joint action by
the PGJE of Chiapas and the PGJM, in conjunction with the Secretariat
of Foreign Affairs of Mexico. Regarding
compensation for the victims, the State reported that the petitioners
had presented a proposal, which was under review. For their part, the
petitioners indicated that follow up “has been difficulty and slow,”
although they pointed out that efforts by areas of government and the
organizations involved had made progress possible in a number of
meetings on the matter. They concluded that compliance with the
recommendations of the report remains pending.
190.
Based on the information received from both parties, and in
the meeting held to follow up on Report 53/01, the IACHR considers
that the State has still not complied with the recommendations,
although it appreciates the considerable efforts that have been and
are being made by both parties to make constructive progress toward
that end.
Case
11.108 - Report Nº 107/00, Valentín Carrillo Saldaña (Mexico)
191.
In Report Nº 107/00
the Commission approved the friendly settlement agreement signed by
the parties on March 1, 1999, as well as the agreement for
implementation of the friendly settlement signed on December 2, 1999.
In that Report it decided:
1.
To monitor those provisions of the Agreement that have not been
fully implemented.
2.
To certify the delivery of the benefits to the family of
Valentín Carrillo Saldaña, when such deliveries take place.
192.
The State indicated
that Mr. Aviña Gutiérrez continued to serve his sentence of 20 years
imprisonment in the Military Prison assigned to the Third Military
Region of the Secretariat of National Defense, by virtue of the
dismissal of the application for judicial review [amparo]
of his sentence under military justice. Regarding the payment
schooling and monthly stipends for the family members of Valentín
Carrillo Saldaña, the State reported on the amounts paid to Mrs.
María Elena Chaparro, Saldaña’s widow.
The IACHR received no information from the petitioners,
therefore it considers that the State has complied in good faith with
the commitments made in the friendly settlement agreement on which
Report 107/00 was based.
Case
11.381 - Report N° 100/01, Milton García Fajardo (Nicaragua)
193.
On October 11,
2001, the IACHR approved Report Nº 100/01 on the
above-mentioned case, and made the following recommendations:
1.
To conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation
to establish the criminal responsibility of the persons who inflicted
the injuries caused to the detriment of Milton
García Fajardo, Cristóbal Ruiz Lazo, Ramón Roa Parajón, Leonel
Arguello Luna, César Chavarría Vargas, Francisco Obregón García,
Aníbal Reyes Pérez, Mario Sánchez Paz, Frank Cortés, Arnoldo José
Cardoza, Leonardo Solis, René Varela and Orlando Vilchez Florez, and
to punish those responsible in accordance with Nicaraguan
law.
2.
To adopt the measures necessary to enable the 142
customs workers who lodged this petition to receive adequate
and timely compensation for the violations of their human rights
established herein.
194.
Since the
approval of the Report, the petitioners have presented the Commission
with three proposed agreements for implementation of the
recommendations made by the IACHR.
On March 4, 2002, during a hearing before the IACHR, the
petitioners presented the third proposal, which referred to the
criteria or parameters recognized by the jurisprudence of the
Inter-American Court, which might help reach an economic settlement.
The State sent a note to the Commission indicating that it “reaffirms
its willingness to maintain the value of the settlements not yet paid
to the claimants;” and makes “available to the petitioners the sum
of 400,000 córdobas” (approximately US$200 per victim).
195.
The
Commission met with the parties on October 18, 2002. At the meeting,
the following was agreed:
1.
That Ambassador Leandro Marin Abaunza would consult with his
Government concerning the proposal made by Commission Member Susana
Villarán, and accepted by the petitioners, to designate by mutual
agreement an independent expert who would propose, based on Nicaraguan
labor laws and criteria established by the inter-American system,
compensation for the 142 customs workers. Based on that proposal, a
final agreement on compensation would be determined, in Managua, in
January 2003, with the Commission present.
2.
That at the next meeting in January, Ambassador Marin would
bring information on the criminal investigation recommended by the
IACHR.
196.
On December 5,
2002, the State of Nicaragua reported to the Commission that the
meeting could be held in Managua on January 22, 2003, but indicated
that it could not accept the proposal to appoint by mutual agreement
an independent expert, who would propose the indemnities to be offered
to the 42 former customs workers.
In response, the IACHR noted that, given the fact that no
agreement could be reached on the points it had raised, it had decided
to hold a working meeting with the parties at its headquarters in
Washington, D.C., during its 117th session on February 26,
2003.
197.
Based on the
information presented by both parties and the meetings held to follow
up on Report N° 100/01, the IACHR considers that compliance with the
recommendations is still pending, although it appreciates the
considerable efforts that have been and continue to be made by both
parties to make constructive progress towards achieving the objective.
Case
11.031 - Report Nº 111/00, Pedro Pablo López González et
al. (Peru)
198.
In Report Nº
111/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following
recommendations to the Peruvian State:
1.
That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective
investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced
disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo
Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega
Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos
Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More, and that it punish the persons
responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation.
2.
That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise,
that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of
the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of
Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer
Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and
Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis
Tarazona More. Accordingly,
the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492.
3.
That it adopt the measures required for the family members of
Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez,
Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto
and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge
Luis Tarazona More to receive adequate and timely reparation for the
violations established herein.
199.
The petitioners
indicated that to date no internal measures had been adopted to void
laws 26479 and 25492, which tend to impede the investigation,
prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for these acts,
although the investigations closed under these laws had been reopened,
when the State remitted the judgment of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights to the national courts.
However, they indicated that the bulk of the verification was
concentrated in the Office of the Special Prosecutor to investigate
cases related to Vladimiro Montesinos and the Colina Group, which
Prosecutor Richard Saavedra was handling.
The latter was not confirmed by the National Council of the
Magistracy during the ratification process, which hampered the
progress of the investigation. Finally,
they indicated that, for appropriate and timely compensation of the
victims, an Interinstitutional Working Committee had been established
to propose nonmonetary compensation, but so far had achieved this only
in the area of education by facilitating free admission to higher
education, but the State had refused to discuss monetary compensation.
200.
For its part,
the State reported that since October 26, 2000, a complaint was filed
against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres in the cases concerning the
Barrios Altos killings, the disappearance of nine students and a
professor of the University Enrique Guzmán y Valle La Cantuta, the
torture of Leonor La Rosa, and the assassination of Agent Mariela
Barreto. The Special
Provincial Prosecutor ordered the disjoinder of cases subject to the
main investigation and on October 14, 2002, police report Nº
014-DIRCOTE-SUBDITM-DIVIEM was received and is under review pending a
statement on the matter. Based on the preceding information, the IACHR
concludes that the recommendations are pending compliance.
Case
11.099 - Report N° 112/00, Yone Cruz Ocalio (Peru)
201.
In Report Nº
112/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following
recommendations to the Peruvian State:
1.
That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective
investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced
disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio, and that it punish the persons
responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation.
2.
That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise,
that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of
the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of
Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio. Accordingly,
the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492.
3.
That it adopt the measures required for the family members of
Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio to receive adequate and timely reparation
for the violations established herein.
202.
The Peruvian
Government, in a note dated December 13, 2002, requested an extension
of the deadline for reporting, which the Commission extended by 15
days, notifying the State thereof in a note dated December 18, 2002,
to which there has been no response.
The petitioners have not presented any information either.
Based on this silence, the IACHR presumes that compliance with
the recommendations is still pending.
Case
11.800 - Report N° 110/00, César Cabrejos Bernuy (Peru)
203.
In Report Nº
110/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following
recommendations to the Peruvian State:
1.
To offer adequate compensation to Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy,
pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention, including the moral
aspect as well as the material one, for the violation of his human
rights, and in particular,
2.
To carry out the Judicial Order issued by the Constitutional
and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 5, 1992,
reinstating Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy in his position as Colonel in
the National Police, paying him his salary and other remuneration owed
to him but not paid since the date of his enforced retirement, and
granting him all other benefits to which he is entitled as a Colonel
of the Police, including, as appropriate, those relating to his
pension; or, as a second resort, to pay him the salary and other
remuneration to which he would be entitled as a Colonel of the
National Police, until he is of legal retirement age, paying also in
this case his retroactive salary from the date of his forced
retirement, and granting him all the other economic benefits to which,
as a Colonel of the National Police, he is entitled, including, as
appropriate, those relating to his pension.
3.
To conduct a full, impartial, and effective investigation of
the facts, in order to establish responsibilities for the failure to
carry out the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 5, 1992,
and to pursue such criminal, administrative, and other procedures as
necessary to apply the appropriate punishment to those responsible, as
befits the gravity of the violations in question.
204.
The Peruvian Government reported that by
Resolution Nº 0716-2001-IN/PNP of June 10, 2001, Colonel PNP ®
Cabrejos Bernuy was reinstated to active duty on the date of issue of
the resolution, with no right to economic reimbursement or recognition
of service for the time he spent in retirement.
205.
The petitioner made an appeal for partial
reconsideration of the decision, to have the time he spent in
retirement count as service, and this omission was corrected by
supreme resolution Nº 1158-2001-IN/PNP of November 13, 2001,
upholding the appeal. Thus the time spent in retirement from March 26,
1997 to July 10, 2001 was recognized as service. Furthermore, by
resolution Nº 1399-2001-IN/PNP of December 14, 2001, in accordance
with legislative decree 745 of November 13, 1991, Mr. Cabrejos
Bernuy retired.
206.
The petitioner presented no information.
207.
In light of the foregoing, the Peruvian
State considers that it has complied with the Commission’s
recommendations in points 1 and 2.
Cases
10.247 and others - Report Nº101/01 - Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal et al. (Peru)
208.
In Report Nº
101/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following
recommendations to the Peruvian State:
1.
Void any judicial decision, internal measure, legislative or
otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and
punishment of the persons responsible for the summary executions and
forced disappearance of the victims indicated at paragraph 252.
In this regard, the State should also repeal Laws Nº 26,479
and 26,492.
2.
Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to
determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and forced
disappearances of the victims and to punish the persons responsible
pursuant to Peruvian legislation.
3.
Adopt the measures necessary for the victim’s families to
receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations
established herein.
4.
Accede to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance
of Persons.
209.
The petitioners
indicated that, to date, no internal measures had been adopted to void
laws 26479 and 25492 that tend to impede the investigation,
prosecution, and punishment of those responsible, although the
investigations closed by virtue of those laws have been reopened, as
the State has remitted the judgment of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights in the Barrios Altos cases to the national courts. They
indicated as well that a Special Prosecutor had been established to
investigate extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, and
hidden mass graves, with nationwide jurisdiction, coordinating the
investigations of these cases. However, owing to budgetary
constraints, these cases had not been making progress.
210.
For its part,
the Peruvian State reported that, taking into account the complexity
of the context in which these violations occurred, it had established
a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a Special Prosecutor for forced
Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Exhumation of Hidden
Mass Graves, a Special National Police Team specializing in criminal
investigation, and an Interinstitutional Working Committee
coordinating the handling and follow up of cases related to
extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances. Similarly, the
Peruvian State has approved and ratified the Inter-American Convention
on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted in
Belêm do Pará, Federative Republic of Brazil, on June 9, 1994.
211.
Regarding the
status of the investigations and the court cases, it submitted a list
of the 25 cases included in the report under reference, in which it
indicated that 17 investigations by different prosecutor’s offices
in the country were pending and awaiting more information; 4 cases
were dismissed as a result of the implementation of amnesty laws, on
legal grounds, and in one the investigation was shelved; 2 cases were
being heard; and 2 investigations were misguided or lacked sufficient
information. The Commission therefore considers that there has been
partial compliance with its recommendations. In particular, the
Commission recognized full compliance with recommendation 4.
Case
9903 - Report Nº 51/01, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et
al. (United States)
212.
In Report Nº
51/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:
1.
Convene reviews as soon as is practicable in
respect of all of the Petitioners who remained in the State’s
custody, to ascertain the legality of their detentions in accordance
with the applicable norms of the American Declaration, in particular
Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by
the Commission’s analysis in the report; and
2.
Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that all
aliens who are detained under the authority and control of the State,
including aliens who are considered “excludable” under the State’s
immigration laws, are afforded full protection of all of the rights
established in the American Declaration, including in particular
Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by
the Commission’s analysis in its report.
213.
In a letter
dated November 27, 2002, the Petitioners’ representative advised the
Commission that he did not have any up-dated information on compliance
with the recommendations contained in the Commission’s report but
referred the Commission to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the
case of Zadvydas v. Davis
upholding the liberty interests of aliens who may have committed
crimes in the United States. The Commission did not receive a response
from the State to its request for information on compliance. The
Commission does not have any information indicating that the Supreme
Court decision in Zadvydar has been applied in the instant case. Based
upon the information available, the Commission considers that the
State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.
Case
12.243 - Report Nº 52/01, Juan Raul Garza (United States)
214.
In Report Nº
52/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:
1.
Provide Mr. Garza with an effective remedy,
which included commutation of sentence; and
2.
Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that
persons who are accused of capital crimes are tried and, if convicted,
sentenced in accordance with the rights established in the American
Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the Declaration,
and in particular by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of
unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital trials.
215.
In a letter
dated November 15, 2002, the Petitioners reiterated the fact that Mr.
Garza had been executed by the State contrary to the Commission’s
first recommendation, and that as far as they were aware the United
States had still taken no action with respect to the Commission’s
second recommendation. The Commission did not receive a response from
the State to its request for information on compliance. Based upon the
information available, the Commission considers that the State has not
complied with the Commission’s recommendations.
E.
Petitions and cases before the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights
216.
Article 63(2) of the American
Convention on Human Rights stipulates that in cases of extreme gravity
and urgency and when it is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to
persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems
pertinent in matters it has under its consideration. With respect to a
case not yet submitted to Court, it may act at the request of the
Commission.
217.
Below is a summary of the 37
provisional measures requested by the Commission and granted or
extended by the Court during 2002, listed according to the country
making the request. As with the precautionary measures, the number of
measures requested of the States bears no relation to the number of
people protected by their adoption.
a.
Brazil
The
Urso Branco Prison Case
218.
On June 6, 2002 the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented a request for
provisional measures concerning the State of Brazil on behalf of the
inmates of the José Mario Alves Detention Center–known as the Urso
Branco Prison–located in the town of Porto Velho in the State of
Rondonia in the Federative Republic of Brazil “in order to prevent
more inmates from dying” in the above-mentioned prison. The
Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt immediately
the measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of
all the inmates of the “Urso Branco Prison”, and to take “immediate
steps to seize the weapons in possession of the inmates of the
aforementioned prison.”
219.
The Court considered this
request and on June 18, 2002 resolved:
1.
To request the State to adopt
all measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of
all the inmates imprisoned in the Urso Branco Prison, including
seizing the arms held by the detainees.
2.
To request the State to
investigate the events which make it necessary to adopt the […]
provisional measures in order to identify those responsible and punish
them accordingly.
220.
Subsequently, the Court
studied the State’s first report on the provisional measures and the
Commission’s observations on the report, both of which were
submitted in compliance with the Decision on provisional measures
issued by the Court on June 18, 2002. In its observations, the
Commission reported on certain especially serious events which took
place after the Court had ordered the provisional measures, and
requested the Court to maintain the provisional measures it had
ordered; to hold a public enquiry; and to request the State to carry
out a serious study into the events which took place at the Urso
Branco Prison, to adopt effective measures to ensure the inmates’
right to communicate freely with members of the organizations which
monitor provisional measures, and to provide information on various
specific matters.
221.
In this connection, the Court
issued a Decision on August 19, 2002, that resolved:
1. To order the State to
adopt all necessary measures to protect the lives and personal safety
of all persons detained at the Urso Branco Prison. 2.
To order the State to submit information on the grave events to
the detriment of the inmates of the Urso Branco Prison [...] that
happened after the Court ordered provisional protection measures, by
means of its June 18, 2002 Decision. 3.
To ask the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights to take the necessary steps to create an appropriate mechanism
to coordinate and supervise compliance with the provisional measures
ordered by the Court, so as to ensure free communication between the
inmates and the authorities and organizations in charge of verifying
compliance with those measures, and for there to be no retaliation
against the inmates who provide information on this matter. 4.
To order the State to investigate the events that gave rise to
the adoption of provisional measures in the instant case, with the aim
of identifying those responsible and punishing them accordingly.
This should include investigation of the grave events that
occurred in the Urso Branco Prison after the Court issued its June 18,
2002 Decision. 5.
To order the State to report to the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, in accordance with its request, the names of all
penitentiary agents and military police officers who were at the Urso
Branco Prison on July 16, 2002, and the name of those currently
working at said public institution. 6.
To order the State, with the aim of protecting the lives and
personal safety of the inmates of the Urso Branco Prison, to adjust
conditions in that prison to applicable international human rights
norms, pursuant to the provisions of consideration ten of the [...]
Decision. 7.
To order the State, when it sends the complete list of all
persons incarcerated at the Urso Branco Prison, to state the number
and names of inmates who are serving a sentence and of those
incarcerated without being sentenced; and, also, to report whether the
prisoners who have and have not been sentenced are located in
different sections.
222.
On November 13, 2002, the
Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the written
materials presented by the State of Brazil on September 11, 2002, and
on October 3, 2002, in relation to the provisional measures ordered by
the Honorable Court.
b.
Colombia
The
Alvarez et al. Case
223.
The Commission continues to
present to the Court its periodic observations on the Colombian State’s
reports on measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the
people covered by the provisional measures that were subsequently
broadened by the Court on August 10, October 11, and November 12,
2000, for the benefit of members of the Association of Families and
Relatives of Detained and Disappeared Persons in Colombia.
The
Caballero Delgado and Santana Case
224.
The Commission continues to
present to the Court its periodic observations on the Colombian State’s
reports on the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of
the people protected by the provisional measures in fulfillment of the
stipulations of the Court in its Decision of June 3, 1999.
The
Clemente Teheran et al. Case
|
