Annual Report 2003 - Chapter III

Myrna Mack Case[‡‡]

355. By resolution of November 30, 2002, the President of the Court convoked the representatives of the victims’ next-of-kin, the Inter-American Commission, and the Guatemalan State to a public hearing to be held on February 18, 19, and 20, 2003, for the purpose of taking the statements of the witnesses and the report by the expert witnesses offered by those representatives and the Commission, and their arguments and the State’s arguments with respect to the case. On February 17, 2003, Guatemala communicated to the Court that it “desists from the preliminary objections invoked on September 26, 2001,” and that it was “partially accepting the facts asserted by the petitioner so long as the petitioner affirms others that the Guatemalan State is not institutionally capable of accepting, as are all those of which the Commission rendered its own extensive interpretation....”

356. The Inter-American Commission stated that the partial recognition of responsibility by the State before the Court had already occurred before the Commission; that it was fundamental that a public hearing be held to analyze the merits, and that the Court should consider the scope of this partial and general recognition when issuing the judgment on the merits. The representatives of the victim’s next-of-kin asked that public hearing proceed.

357. On February 18, 2003, the Commission submitted its statements with respect to the “partial acceptance of facts and rights” by the State in a public hearing before the Court. The Court considered that the controversy between the parties concerning the scope of the State’s recognition of responsibility as to facts and rights continued, it deliberated in this respect, and the same day it ordered accepted, for all purposes, the abandonment by the State of the preliminary objections it had invoked; and it ordered that the public hearing convoked should go forward, as well as all other procedural acts related to the processing of the case with respect to the merits and reparations.

358. On February 18, 19, and 20, the Court held the public hearing at its headquarters, at which it heard the statements of the witnesses and the reports from the expert witnesses proposed by the representatives of the next-of-kin and the Inter-American Commission. The IACHR also presented its final arguments on the merits and on reparations.

359. On November 25, 2003, the Court issued its judgment on the merits and reparations, and,

taking note of the acquiescence of the State, in which it unconditionally acknowledged its international responsibility regarding the case, and having assessed the body of evidence, as set forth in paragraphs 111 to 116 of the instant Judgment,

DECLARES THAT:

unanimously,

1. that the State violated the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraphs 139 to 158 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

2. that the State violated the right to fair trial and to judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau, Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang and Ronald Chang Apuy, as set forth in paragraphs 165 to 218 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

3. that the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang: Lucrecia Hernández Mack, Yam Mack Choy, Zoila Chang Lau, Helen Mack Chang, Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang and Ronald Chang Apuy, as set forth in paragraphs 224 to 233 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

4. that this Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparations, as set forth in paragraph 260 of the instant Judgment.

AND DECIDES THAT:

unanimously,

5. that the State must effectively investigate the facts of the instant case, with the aim of identifying, trying, and punishing all the direct perpetrators and accessories, and all others responsible for the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang, and for the cover-up of the extra-legal execution and other facts of the instant case, aside from the person who has already been punished for those facts; and that the results of the investigations must be made known to the public, as set forth in paragraphs 271 to 275 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

6. that the State must remove all de facto and legal obstacles and mechanisms that maintain impunity in the instant case, provide sufficient security measures to the judicial authorities, prosecutors, witnesses, legal operators, and to the next of kin of Myrna Mack Chang, and resort to all other means available to it so as to expedite the proceeding, as set forth in paragraphs 276 and 277 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

7. that the State must publish within three months of notification of the instant Judgment, at least once, in the official gazette “Diario Oficial” and in another national-circulation daily, the proven facts set forth in paragraphs 134; 134.1 to 134.8; 134.10 to 134.19; 134.26; 134.86 to 134.90; and 134.95 to 134.106, without the footnotes, and operative paragraphs 1 to 12, as set forth in paragraph 280 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

8. that the State must carry out a public act of acknowledgment of its responsibility in connection with the facts of this case and of amends to the memory of Myrna Mack Chang and to her next of kin, in the presence of the highest authorities of the State, as set forth in paragraph 278 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

9. that the State must publicly honor the memory of José Mérida Escobar, police investigator, in connection with the facts of the instant case, as set forth in paragraph 279 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

10. that the State must include, in the training courses for members of the armed forces and the police, as well as the security agencies, education regarding human rights and International Humanitarian Law, as set forth in paragraph 282 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

11. that the State must establish a scholarship, in the name of Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraph 285 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

12. that the State must name a well-known street or square in Guatemala City after Myrna Mack Chang, and place a plaque in her memory where she died, or nearby, with reference to the activities she carried out, as set forth in paragraph 286 of the instant Judgment.

by seven votes against one,

13. that the State must pay the total sum of US$266,000.00 (two hundred sixty-six thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as compensation for pecuniary damage, as set forth in paragraphs 252 to 254 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, as the daughter of Myrna Mack Chang, US$235,000.00 (two hundred thirty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 252 and 254 of the instant Judgment;

b) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 253.2 and 254 of the instant Judgment;

c) to Zoila Chang Lau, as the widow of Yam Mack Choy, US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 253.2 and 254 of the instant Judgment; and

d) to Helen Mack Chang, US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 253.1 and 254 of the instant Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

by seven votes against one,

14. that the State must pay the total sum of US$350,000.00 (three hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, as set forth in paragraphs 263 to 267 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, as the daughter of Myrna Mack Chang, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 263 and 267 of the instant Judgment;

b) to Lucrecia Hernández Mack, US$110,000.00 (one hundred and ten thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.b, 266 and 267 of the instant Judgment;

c) to Zoila Chang Lau, as the widow of Yam Mack Choy, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.c and 267 of the instant Judgment;

d) to Zoila Chang Lau, US$40,000.00 (forty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.c and 267 of the instant Judgment;

e) to Helen Mack Chang, US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.d and 267 of the instant Judgment; and

f) to Marco Mack Chang, Freddy Mack Chang, Ronald Chang Apuy, and Vivian Mack Chang, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Guatemalan currency, to each of them, as set forth in paragraphs 264.a, 264.e, 264.f, 264.g and 267 of the instant Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

by seven votes against one,

15. that the State must pay the total sum of US$163,000.00 (one hundred and sixty-three thousand United States dollars) for legal costs and expenses, and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) for future expenses, as set forth in paragraphs 291 and 292 of the instant Judgment, distributed as follows:

a) to the Myrna Mack Foundation, US$145,000.00 (one hundred and forty-five thousand United States dollars), and US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), to cover the future expenses caused by steps to be taken in connection with the ongoing criminal proceeding to punish all those responsible for what happened to Myrna Mack Chang, as set forth in paragraphs 291.a and 292 of the instant Judgment;

b) to the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.b of the instant Judgment;

c) to the law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.c of the instant Judgment;

d) to the law firm Hogan & Hartson, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.d of the instant Judgment; and

e) to the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), US$3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars), as set forth in paragraph 291.e of the instant Judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting.

unanimously,

16. that the State must pay the total amount of compensation ordered for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as the legal costs and expenses set forth in the instant Judgment, without any of its items being subject to currently existing or future taxes, levies or assessments.

unanimously,

17. that the State must comply with the measures of reparation ordered in the instant Judgment within a year of the date of its notification, as set forth in paragraph 293 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

18. that if the State were to be in arrears, it must pay interest on the amount owed based on the banking interest rate for arrearages in Guatemala, as set forth in paragraph 299 of the instant Judgment.

unanimously,

19. that the Court will monitor compliance with this Judgment and will close the instant case once the State has fully complied with its provisions. Within one year of notification of this Judgment, the State must submit to the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with it, as set forth in paragraph 300.

Maritza Urrutia Case

360. On February 20 and 21, 2003, the Court held a public hearing at its headquarters in which it heard the statements by the witnesses and the report by the expert witness proposed by the representatives of the alleged victim and her next-of-kin and the Inter-American Commission. The IACHR also presented its final oral arguments on the merits and reparations.

361. On November 27, 2003, the Court issued its judgment on the merits and reparations, by which it declared that:

1. That the State violated the right to personal liberty embodied in Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of paragraphs 63 to 77 of this judgment.

unanimously,

2. That the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and the obligations established in Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of paragraphs 84 to 98 of this judgment.

unanimously,

3. That the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and the obligations established in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García, in the terms of paragraphs 110 to 130 of this judgment.

unanimously,

4. That this judgment constitutes, per se, a form of reparation for the victim, in the terms of paragraph 178 of this judgment.

AND DECIDES THAT:

unanimously,

5. That the State shall investigate effectively the facts of this case, which resulted in the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and non-compliance with the obligations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; identify, prosecute and punish those responsible, and also publish the results of the respective investigations, in the terms of paragraph 177 of this judgment.

by six votes to one,

6. That the State shall pay a total of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in compensation for pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraph 160 of this judgment, distributed as follows:

a) To Maritza Urrutia, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraphs 158, 159(a) and 160 of this judgment;

b) To Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(b) and 160 of this judgment;

c) To María Pilar García de Urrutia, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(c) and 160 of this judgment;

d) To Edmundo Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(d) and 160 of this judgment; and

e) To Carolina Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 159(e) and 160 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting

by six votes to one,

7. That the State shall pay the sum of US$44,000.00 (forty-four thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in compensation for non-pecuniary damage, in the terms of paragraph 170 of this judgment, distributed as follows:

a) To Maritza Urrutia, the sum of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraphs 168 and 170 of this judgment;

b) To Fernando Sebastián Barrientos Urrutia, the sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(a) and 170 of this judgment;

c) To Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(b) and 170 of this judgment;

d) To María Pilar García de Urrutia, the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(b) and 170 of this judgment;

e) To Edmundo Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(c) and 170 of this judgment; and

f) To Carolina Urrutia García, the sum of US$1,000.00 (one thousand United States dollars), or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, in the terms of paragraph 169(c) and 170 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting

by six votes to one,

8. That the State shall pay the sum of US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Guatemalan currency, for costs and expenses, in the terms of paragraph 184 of this judgment.

Judge Martínez Gálvez partially dissenting

unanimously,

9. That the State shall pay the total amount of the compensation ordered for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and costs and expenses established in this judgment, and none of the components may be subject to any current or future tax or charge.

unanimously,

10. That the State shall comply with the measures of reparation ordered in this judgment within one year of notification of the judgment, in the terms of paragraph 185 of this judgment.

unanimously,

11. That, should the State delay in making the payments, it shall pay interest on the amount owed corresponding to bank interest on arrears in Guatemala, in the terms of paragraph 192 of this judgment.

unanimously,

12. That the Court shall monitor compliance with this judgment and shall close the instant case when the State has complied fully with the operative paragraphs. Within one years of notification of this judgment, the State shall provide the Court with a report on the measures taken to comply, in the terms of paragraph 193 of this judgment.

Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Concurring Opinion, Judge García Ramírez of his Reasoned Concurring Opinion, Judge De Roux Rengifo of his Separate Opinion, and Judge Martínez Gálvez of his Reasoned and Partially Dissenting Opinion, which are attached to this Judgment.

....

“Plan de Sánchez Massacre” Case

362. This case is in the preliminary phase of study before the Court. It was referred to the Court was on July 31, 2002. During the year covered by this report, the Commission took no action on this case.

Carpio Nicolle Case[§§]

363. The case of Jorge Carpio et al. against Guatemala (Case 11.333) was submitted to the Court on June 13, 2003. The application has to do with the arbitrary execution of Jorge Carpio Nicolle (renowned Guatemalan journalist and politician), Juan Vicente Villacorta, Alejandro Ávila Guzmán, and Rigoberto Rivas González; and with the violation of the physical integrity of the minor Sidney Shaw, in relation to the events of July 3, 1993, in the department of Quiché, Guatemala, when his delegation was surrounded by more than 15 armed men who, after identifying him, shot him and his companions at point-blank range. More than 10 years after the assassination of Jorge Carpio Nicolle and his companions, the case is in impunity, and the IACHR referred the case for the Court to declare that the Guatemalan State has violated the human rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, 13, 19, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument.

364. On November 26, 2003, the Court transmitted a communication by which it reported on the State’s request for an extension to answer the application and raise preliminary objections, and the denial of that request by the Court considering that the time for answering the application had already lapsed.

Molina Theissen Case

365. The case of the child Marco Antonio Molina Theissen against Guatemala (Case 12.101) was referred to the Court on July 3, 2003. The application refers to the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, a 14-year-old child who was kidnapped from his parents’ home by members of the Guatemalan Army on October 6, 1981, in retaliation for the escape of his sister Emma Guadalupe Molina Theissen the previous day from a military barracks where she had been arbitrarily detained and tortured. Since that date Marco Antonio remains disappeared. The victim’s next-of-kin presented successive motions for habeas corpus, which proved absolutely ineffective. None of the persons who participated in the detention and subsequent forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina were prosecuted or punished. The purpose of the application is for the Inter-American Court to declare the violation of the human rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, 7, 19, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same international instrument.

366. On November 11, 2003, the Inter-American Court transmitted to the IACHR the answer to the application submitted by the State. In its answer, the State invoked preliminary objections arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis and ratione materiae, and failure to exhaust domestic remedies. (The time granted by the Court for the Commission to present its written arguments was to lapse on January 12, 2004, and therefore is not covered by this report).

i. Honduras

Juan Humberto Sánchez Case

367. On March 3, 4, and 5, 2003, the Court heard, in a public hearing, from the witnesses and expert witnesses offered by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives of the victim and his next-of-kin, and the Honduran State, as well as their final oral arguments on the preliminary objections, merits, and reparations.

368. On June 7, 2003, the Court issued a judgment on the preliminary objections, merits, and reparations, in which unanimously decided:

1. to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the State.

AND DECLARES THAT:

2. the State violated the right to personal liberty protected by Article 7(1), Article 7(2) , Article 7(3) , Article 7(4) , Article 7(5) , Article 7(6) and the latter in combination with Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, and the right to personal liberty protected by Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández.

3. the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez, María Dominga Sánchez, Juan José Vijil Hernández, Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez, Julio Sánchez, Donatila Argueta Sánchez, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta.

4. the State violated the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez.

5. the State violated the rights to fair trial and to judicial protection protected by Articles 8 and 25, respectively, of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez and of his next of kin María Dominga Sánchez, Juan José Vijil Hernández, Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez, Julio Sánchez, Donatila Argueta Sánchez, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta.

6. the State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, set forth in Article 1(1) in combination with Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Juan Humberto Sánchez. The State also failed to fulfill its obligation to respect rights, embodied in Article 1(1) in combination with Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Juan José Vijil Hernández; and the State did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights, enshrined in Article 1(1) in combination with Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of María Dominga Sánchez, Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Julio Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez, Donatila Argueta Sánchez, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta.

7. the instant Judgment constitutes per se a form of reparation to the victims in accordance with the explanation in paragraph 172 of the instant Judgment.

AND IT DECIDES THAT:

8. the State must pay the total sum of US$39,700.00 (thirty-nine thousand seven hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, as compensation for pecuniary damage, distributed as follows:

a) US$25,000.00 (twenty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed among his daughters, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta; his companions, Donatila Argueta Sánchez and Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, and his parents, María Dominga Sánchez and Juan José Vijil Hernández, as successors to Juan Humberto Sánchez, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 164 and 167, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

b) to Donatila Argueta Sánchez, US$3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

c) US$8,200.00 (eight thousand two hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed equally between Juan José Vijil Hernández and María Dominga Sánchez, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

d) to Domitila Vijil Sánchez, US$1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

e) to Reina Isabel Sánchez, US$1,500.00 (one thousand five hundred United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 167, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

9. the State must pay the total sum of US$245,000.00 (two hundred forty-five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, distributed as follows:

a) US$100,000.00 (one hundred thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, to be distributed among his daughters, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta and Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta; his companions, Donatila Argueta Sánchez and Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, and his parents, María Dominga Sánchez and Juan José Vijil Hernández, as successors of Juan Humberto Sánchez, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 164, 165, 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

b) to Juan José Vijil Hernández, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

c) to María Dominga Sánchez, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

d) to Donatila Argueta Sánchez, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

e) to Velvia Lastenia Argueta Pereira, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

f) to Breidy Maybeli Sánchez Argueta, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

g) to Norma Iveth Sánchez Argueta, US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 199 of the instant Judgment.

h) to each of the following: Reina Isabel Sánchez, María Milagro Sánchez, Rosa Delia Sánchez, Domitila Vijil Sánchez, María Florinda Vijil Sánchez, Juan Carlos Vijil Sánchez, Celio Vijil Sánchez and Julio Sánchez, US$5,000.00 (five thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 177, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

10. the State must continue to effectively investigate the facts in the instant case under the terms set forth in paragraph 186 of the instant Judgment, to identify those responsible, both the direct perpetrators and the instigators, as well as possible accessories after the fact, and to punish them administratively and criminally as appropriate; the next of kin of the victim must have full access and capacity to act, at all stages and levels of said investigations, in accordance with domestic laws and the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights; and the results of said investigations must be made known to the public.

11. the State must provide the conditions required to transfer the mortal remains of Juan Humberto Sánchez to the place chosen by his next of kin, at no cost to them, as set forth in paragraph 187 of the instant Judgment.

12. the State must implement a record of detainees that enables control of legality of detentions, under the terms set forth in paragraph 189 of the instant Judgment.

13. the State must publicly acknowledge its responsibility regarding the facts in this case, and as amends to the victims it must publish in the official gazette Diario Oficial and in another national-circulation daily, once only, the operative part of this Judgment and the chapter pertaining to proven facts in this Judgment, under the terms set forth in paragraph 188 of the instant Judgment.

14. the State must pay the total sum of US$19,000.00 (nineteen thousand United States dollars) or their equivalent in Honduran currency for legal costs and expenses, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 194, 195, 196 to 198 of the instant Judgment.

15. compensation for pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, and legal costs and expenses established in the instant Judgment may not be subject to currently existing or future taxes, levies or charges.

16. the State must comply with the measures of reparation ordered in the instant Judgment within six months of the date it is notified.

17. if the State were in arrears, it must pay interest on the amount owed, which will be the banking interest for arrears in Honduras.

18. the compensation ordered in favor of the girls, Breidy Maybeli Sánchez and Norma Iveth Sánchez, must be deposited by the State in their name in an investment at a solid Honduran banking institution, in United States dollars or their equivalent in Honduran currency, within six months time, and under the most favorable financial conditions allowed by banking practice and legislation, as set forth in paragraph 199 of this Judgment.

19. it will monitor compliance with this judgment and will close the instant case once the State has fully applied the provisions of the instant judgment. Within six months of the date when this Judgment is notified, the State must submit to the Court a report on the measures adopted to comply with this Judgment, as set forth in paragraph 200 of this Judgment.

369. On October 8, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Court the transmittal of the request for interpretation submitted by the Honduran State in relation to the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, and reparations handed down in the case of Juan H. Sánchez on June 7, 2003. In its brief, the State requested the “interpretation of the ruling [and filed a] Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to Articles 67 of the American Convention and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedures.”

370. On October 31, 2003, the Commission submitted its observations and indicated that in filling a request for interpretation of the judgment (“demanda de interpretación de sentencia”) and a special motion for reconsideration (“recurso excepcional de revisión”) the State is not seeking to have the Court interpret the meaning or scope of the ruling, as provided for by Articles 67 of the Convention and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, but rather it sought a review and reconsideration of the final and unappealable judgment that the Court handed down in due course. Based on the foregoing, and on its specific arguments to controvert what was argued by Honduras, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights asked the Court to reject the request for interpretation filed by the Honduran State and to require the Honduran State to comply immediately with all provisions of the judgment of June 7, 2003, in keeping with Article 68(1) of the American Convention.

371. On November 26, 2003, the Court issued an interpretation of the judgment in this case, in which it decided:

1. To reject as inadmissible the appeal for review of the judgment of June 7, 2003, filed by the State in the Juan Humberto Sánchez case.

2. To reject in toto as without grounds the State’s call for interpretation of the judgment of June 7, 2003, in the Juan Humberto Sánchez case, contained in the request.

3. To continue monitoring compliance with the judgment of June 7, 2003, as established in paragraphs 196 to 200 of this judgment.

Alfredo López Álvarez Case

372. On July 7, 2003, the IACHR presented the application in the case of Alfredo López Álvarez against Honduras (Case 12,387). The application refers to the violation, by the Honduran State, of Articles 5, 7, 8, 25, and 24, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 2 and 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, Garifuna, Honduran, by virtue of the arbitrary deprivation of his personal liberty beginning April 27, 1997, as the result of a set-up carried out because of his work as a social leader, and to stifle his activity as a Garifuna community leader.

j. Mexico

Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd Case

373. On January 30, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights referred an application to the Court against Mexico in relation to the Alfonso Martín del Campo case (Case 12.228). In the application, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the Mexican State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7, 8, 25, 5, and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and of Articles 6, 8, and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Mr. Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. The application has to do with the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and denial of justice that Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd has suffered and continues suffering. In addition, the Commission asked the State to make reparation for the consequences of the violations, and to compensate the alleged victim and his next-of-kin. Finally, it calls on the Court to order the State to pay the expenses and costs arising from pursuing the case domestically and before the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.

374. On May 29, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Inter-American Court the transmittal of the brief forwarded by the Mexican State in relation to the case of Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd. In it, the State answered the application filed by the IACHR on January 30, 2003, and invoked preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court to take cognizance of the merits. In keeping with Article 36(4) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission presented its written arguments on the preliminary objections in question, and asked the Court to dismiss the first and second preliminary objections raised by the Mexican State, arguing that neither has any foundation.

k. Nicaragua

Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni Case[***]

375. On November 7, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received a request from the Inter-American Court to inform the Secretariat of the Court on compliance with operative paragraph 6 of the judgment handed down by the Court. On November 17, 2003, the IACHR submitted its observations, whereby it indicated that it recognized that the Nicaraguan State had taken steps to carry out that judgment. However, to date the lands of the Mayagna (Sumo) community of Awas Tingni had not been delimited, demarcated, and titled in keeping with what was stated in paragraphs 153 and 164 of the judgment, and in the provisional measures issued on the same matter on September 6, 2003, and so it ordered the measures deemed advisable to this end.

376. On November 19, 2003, the Inter-American Court transmitted a report to the IACHR on compliance with the judgment on reparations presented by the Nicaraguan State.

Yatama Case

377. The application in the Yatama case against Nicaragua (Case 12,388) was submitted to the Court on June 16, 2003. The application refers to the violation, by the Nicaraguan State, of Articles 23, 8, 25, 2, and 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the candidates for mayor, deputy mayor, and local council presented by the indigenous regional political party Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (YATAMA) for the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region and South Atlantic Autonomous Region, for failing to provide a remedy that would have enabled them to protect their right to participate and be elected in the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, and for failure to adopt legislative or other measures as necessary to uphold the rights established in the American Convention, in particular, for not including provisions in the electoral law to facilitate the political participation of the indigenous organizations in the elections of the autonomous regions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, in keeping with customary law and the values, usages, and customs of the indigenous peoples who live there.

l. Panama

Baena Ricardo et. al. Case

378. On June 6, 2003, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with the judgment in this case, by which it decided:

1. To maintain what was decided in the resolution of November 22, 2002, by which the measures of reparation ordered in the judgment of February 2, 2001 must be complied with in keeping with the order of the Court in that resolution on compliance with the judgment.

2. That the State must submit, no later than June 30, 2003, a detailed report in which it indicates all the progress in making the reparations ordered by the Court, in keeping with what was requested by the Court in ... the Resolution of November 22, 2002.

3. That, once the State remits said detailed report on compliance with the judgment, the victims or their legal representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights must submit their observations on that report within three months of its receipt, as indicated in ... the Resolution of November 22, 2002.

4. That it will continue supervising full compliance with the Judgment of February 2, 2001.

379. On August 13, 2003, the Inter-American Commission received from the Court the transmission of a brief of observations on the resolution of the Inter-American Court of June 6, 2003 (calling into question the jurisdiction of the Court to supervise the implementation of its judgments) and a copy of a report on income and expenditures related to the Court’s judgment of February 2, 2001 in the Baena Ricardo et al. case. The Inter-American Commission presented some general obse