|
|
|
CASE 11.556
CORUMBIARA
I. SUMMARY
1. On October 6, 1995, the Human Rights Defense Center of Porto Velho Archdiocese, the Teotonio Vilela Commission, the Movement of Landless Rural Workers (MST), the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), and Human Rights Watch of the Americas (hereinafter the “petitioning organizations” or the “petitioners”) lodged a complaint against the Federal Republic of Brazil (hereinafter “Brazil,” the “State,” or the “State of Brazil”) for acts related to the murder of persons committed by members of the military police, and the injuries inflicted on 53 other persons, also at the hands of the military police, while evicting rural workers who had invaded a farm in Corumbiara Municipality, Rondônia State, Brazil. The petitioners alleged that, as a result of the reported events, the State incurred international responsibility for violation of the rights to life, to humane treatment, and to protection for one’s honor and dignity, established in Articles 4, 5, and 11, respectively, of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention,” or “the American Convention”), and for breach of its obligation to respect the rights recognized in Article 1(1) of that instrument.
2. The State of Brazil alleged that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and reported on the status and results of those remedies.
3. The Commission had previously referred to the allegations of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in its admissibility report for the present case.[2] In this opportunity, the Commission concludes that the State of Brazil is responsible for violating the right to life, to humane treatment, to judicial protection, and to a fair trial, established in Articles 4, 5, 25, and 8, respectively, of the American Convention, all in connection with the breach by Brazil of its obligation to respect and guarantee the rights recognized in Article 1(1) of the Convention. The Commission further concludes that Brazil violated Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Finally, the IACHR submits relevant recommendations to the State.
II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
4. On December 18, 1995, the Commission opened the case, transmitted the pertinent parts of the complaint to the State of Brazil, and requested that it submit information within 90 days. The State, after requesting and obtaining an extension from the IACHR, replied on June 27, 1996. On 16 September, 1996, the petitioners submitted observations on the State’s response.
5. Two hearings were held on October 7, 1996 and on February 24, 1997, in which the parties set forth their positions. At the first hearing, the Commission offered to initiate a friendly settlement process in this case, but it did not receive the State’s agreement to it. At the second hearing, it repeated its offer, and received additional information from the petitioners, that was forwarded to the State.
6. On March 5, 2001, the Inter-American Commission adopted an admissibility report in the present case.[3]
7. The petitioners filed additional briefs on January 12, 2000, November 10, 2000, and May 7, 2002, and the State did so on August 16, 1999, August 25, 1999, and September 21, 2000. In addition, on various occasions both parties submitted arguments and evidentiary documents, which were forwarded to the other party.
8. On March 8, 2002, another hearing was held in this case, in the course of the Inter-American Commission’s 114th ordinary Period of Sessions.
III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES
A. Position of the petitioners
9. To put the case in context, they point out that it deals with one of the most serious human rights violations in Brazil, and is related to the problem of highly concentrated land ownership in the country, which leaves a large part of the rural population without access to a parcel. They add that this situation has been the main source of a series of social conflicts that have led to the practice of violations of various human rights of male and female farm workers, who do not have access to decent living conditions.
10. They indicate that on July 15, 1995, a group of families of male and female rural workers, including children as well (hereinafter designated by the general term “occupying workers,” or “rural workers”), made up of around 500 families, invaded and set up a camp on a small part of the Santa Elina ranch, a piece of property covering 7,517 alqueires[4], located in the vicinity of the city of Colorado del Oeste, Corumbiara Municipality, Rondônia State, in the northern part of Brazil.
11. They report that the workers decided to invade the Santa Elina ranch on July 15, 1995, and that they were part of a group of extremely poor families without access to employment, credit, or land, who were living in the northern part of Brazil. They add that the encroachment on the farm was done for the purposes of pressuring the State to guarantee them access to a parcel of land, and that the trespassers were entire families, consisting of extremely poor persons, for whom ownership of a small parcel of land represented one of their few hopes for surviving in dignity, far from the poverty of urban areas and from the abusive exploitation of cheap labor by the large landowners in rural areas.
12. They argue that the delay by the federal government in resolving the land issue in the region led to the invasion of the Santa Elina ranch and the events that occurred subsequently.
13. They point out that on July 17, 1995, the owner of the Santa Elina ranch, Helio Pereira de Morais, filed a petition for defense of possession [ação de manutenção de posse] with the courts of the city of Colorado del Oeste, and requested eviction of the workers. They further explain that on the following day, the substitute judge for civil matters, Roberto Gil de Oliveira, granted a precautionary measure and ordered the eviction of the occupying workers.
14. They report that on July 19, 1995, a court officer, accompanied by a group of military policemen under the command of Captain Mena Mendes, went to the camp set up by the occupying workers on Santa Elina ranch and attempted to execute the eviction order.
15. They report that in endeavoring to execute the court order, a confrontation between the occupying workers and the police began, and they add that the way in which the attempt to execute the court order was made is a matter of controversy. They report that according to the military police version, the workers began the confrontation, by throwing rocks, sticks, and homemade bombs, and even firing shots at the policemen and the court officer.
16. They say that the workers admitted to resisting the eviction order by tossing sticks and stones, and by lighting flares, but they deny that they had shot at the police. They claim that the police began firing against the group of men, women, and children, putting the lives of all of them at risk. They report that this first eviction attempt left one injured worker, Adão Mateus da Silva, who was shot.
17. They report that on July 20, 1995, Judge Roberto Gil decided that Captain Mena Mendes should have a larger number of police agents to carry out the eviction. He added that it should be carried out with moderation and a great deal of caution, so that it would not end up in tragedy, as usually happens in such cases.
18. They report that in view of the large number of families who would be evicted, the presence of many women and children, and the intention of the male and female workers to resist the court order, various state and local officials decided to try to solve the matter by peaceful, negotiated means, as they anticipated that forced compliance with the eviction order would most likely result in violence.[5]
19. They say that a peaceful, negotiated solution was not in the interest of many landholders in the region, including the owner of Santa Elina ranch, Helio Pereira de Morais, and the owner of the neighboring farm known as “São Judas Tadeu,” Antenor Duarte do Valle. They contend that as a result, those persons began pressuring executive and judicial officials of Rondônia State to remove the families by force from Santa Elina ranch. They add that the landholders in the region also hired private gunmen who surrounded the camp of the occupying workers.
20. They report that on August 8, 1995, the military police went to Colorado del Oeste, and set up their base on a soccer field close to the camp of the families of workers. They add that the operation was conducted in a highly irregular manner, and that “a series of factors indicate that the State agents had prepared for an act of war against the families of workers, that they had taken pains to make it difficult to identify the agents and gunmen afterwards, they had put journalists off the track, they had conducted the operation illegally, at dawn, with the use of masks and with their faces painted, in addition to the use of private firearms.”
21. They say that the landholders in the region offered financing and logistical support for the police operation on Santa Elina ranch, and that its owner had rewarded the military commanding officer in charge of the eviction operation with an automobile.
22. They report that at about 3:00 a.m. on August 9, 1995, while it was still dark,[6] the police began their eviction operation at Santa Elina farm. They add that based on the evidence gathered in the domestic proceedings, there was no doubt regarding the participation of landholders, and of their employees and armed gunmen during the various stages of the police operation, including three policemen who were on vacation and who offered their personal services to the owner of Santa Elina to assist in the eviction.[7]
23. They allege that some of the military policemen and gunmen who participated in the eviction had their faces covered by hoods and paint, and this was clearly demonstrated in the records of the domestic proceedings, through statements by various persons, including some of the policemen themselves. They add that the domestic proceedings also showed that the military police used private arms, and even arms confiscated at the time by the police.
24. They report that the eviction operation began when the police arrived at dawn, throwing tear gas bombs and firing their arms into the camp, terrorizing the families and endangering the life of everyone. They indicate that the farm workers had formed a group of armed guards, in the event that it was necessary to repel attacks by gunmen hired by the ranchers or landowners. They go on to say that when the police surrounded and attacked the camp, the workers who were armed to serve as guards reacted, and that a confrontation began between them and the police.
25. They mention that the police asserted that they had been surprised by an ambush prepared by the armed workers, who began to shoot at them, and that they were forced to react. They explain that:
Under the circumstances, it is very difficult to know what really happened, since only the police and the workers were present, and the statements by the two groups are contradictory. However, even in view of the stated intention of the workers to resist, because of the fact that the police had been at the camp the day before, and the workers knew that there was a large number of armed police and even hired gunmen among them, it is difficult to believe that they would employ a suicide strategy by attacking the police with their work implements, hunting weapons, and a few revolvers. It is more likely that they fired their weapons to defend themselves, and the shots reached the police, since they had carefully mounted a defense strategy against attacks by the gunmen.
26. They say that as a result of the initial confrontation between the military police and the farm workers, two policemen died and eleven received bullet wounds. They add that on the side of the workers, a seven-year old girl and three workers died, and at least 15 workers were shot and wounded.
27. In this regard, they point out that during the initial confrontation, two policemen--Lieutenant Rubens Fidelis Miranda and Ronaldo de Souza - were hit by bullets that caused their death, while 11 other military policemen received bullet wounds. They indicate that according to testimony given during the domestic proceedings, the shots came from a hill where there was a shed or hut in which several people with guns were located.
28. As for the persons who died during the initial confrontation, on the side of the workers, they report that one of the victims of the Corumbiara killing was a 7 year-old girl, Vanessa dos Santos Silva, who was hit by a bullet in the back, while she and her mother were fleeing the camp. According to the statement by the child’s mother, Maria dos Santos Silva, during the domestic proceedings, she was shot right after the indiscriminate attack on the camp by the police started.[8]
29. They mention that throughout the domestic proceedings, the authorities tried to blame the death of the girl on shots fired by the workers themselves. They add that the bullet that killed Vanessa was never found, so a ballistics test to compare the bullet with the arms seized could not be conducted.
30. They say that to gain control over two workers– José Marcondes da Silva and Ercílio Oliveira de Campos, who were resisting by shooting from the top of an elevated area—the police violently forced several women, including adolescents, to walk in front of them, as a shield, endangering the lives of the unarmed women. They allege that this was how the police captured those workers, who were subsequently executed. The petitioners submitted various statements made during the domestic proceedings on the events, which include testimony by the police as well.
31. They report that José Marcondes da Silva, 50 years old, was savagely murdered by a group of military policemen while he was surrendering with his hands on his head. They explain that, together with Ercílio Oliveira de Campos, he had resisted the police attack by firing on the police and hitting several of them. They say that according to the forensic examination on August 10, 1995, he had bullet wounds in the head from shots fired at close range, as well as other bullet wounds in the abdomen, back, and chest. They add that six bullets were taken from his body, two of which were identified as having been fired by the weapon belonging to MP soldier, José Emilio da Silva Evangelista.
32. As for Ercílio Oliveira Campos, 41 years of age, who accompanied José Marcondes da Silva in the armed resistance against the police assault, they report that his face was disfigured by shots fired at him at close range, and they explain that according to the forensic examination, he was shot 16 times at close range, in the head, shoulder, and arm, and many of the wounds were surrounded by discoloration.
33 They allege that the results of the forensic reports on José Marcondes da Silva and Ercílio Oliveira Campos confirmed the workers’ version that those persons had surrendered and were murdered in cold blood.
34. With regard to another worker, Enio Rocha Borges, who died in a different situation, they allege that during the initial confrontation, that worker was hit by gunfire in circumstances that were not explained. They indicate that he was taken to the hospital while still alive, and he died there at 8:20 p.m. on the same day of August 9, 1995. They point out that the forensic examination performed was highly defective, and did not describe the wounds that caused his death or the trajectory of the bullets.[9] They add that the girlfriend of Enio Rocha Borges, Tereza Pereira Dos Santos, testified during the domestic proceedings that she was there when her companion was hit by shots fired by the police.[10]
35. They say that on the side of the workers, there is proof that at least 15 of them received bullet wounds at the time of the initial confrontation.
36. They allege that once the initial confrontation was over, the military police and the armed gunmen took full control of the situation, and were in absolute, complete control over all the occupying workers. In this context, they go on to say that all the workers were taken prisoner, tied up and lying on the ground, either at the camp or at the military police base located on the soccer field of Santa Elina ranch.
37. They report that once they had taken full control of the situation, the police and armed gunmen began to commit a series of grave abuses, including extrajudicial execution of some workers, shooting at defenseless persons, and beating and humiliating them.
38. In addition to the aforesaid workers who died, the petitioners allege that there were other cases of extrajudicial executions which are listed below. As far as these cases are concerned, the petitioners indicate that according to the results of the different examinations and tests, these workers died from bullets fired at close range, which contradicts the allegation of the police that the victims died during the confrontation.
39. They contend that Nelci Ferreira, 24 years old, died from shots to the back of his head, which hit him as he was helping a wounded companion, on the bank of a stream. The forensic examination indicated that “the wounds are consistent with shots fired at close range.” They indicate that two bullets were extracted and sent to an expert, but that they did not identify the weapons from which they were fired. They refer to the testimony of Ana Paula Alves, the girlfriend of Nelci Ferreira, on November 17, 1995, who described the moment of his death in the following terms:
The witness was in the area of the camp in the company of Nelci Ferreira (...), and, upon spotting one of the workers who had been shot, Nelci tried to help him get away from there, when he was shot in the head (...); the witness dragged her companion to the pharmacy, where other wounded persons were already congregated, and there the military police found them; (...) she could see inside the pharmacy where the police were violently beating the wounded, including her companion, who received a cut on the left brow.
40. They allege that Alcindo Correia da Silva, 52 years old, died at the camp from a single shot that entered near his ear and followed a downwards trajectory to his hip. They said that according to the forensic examination, “the presence of the burns and the exit hole show that the shot was fired at close range.” They say that although the bullet was extracted and sent for testing, the weapon from which it was fired was never identified.
41. They report that the children of Alcindo Correia da Silva, Vilmar Caetano, 14 years old, and Valdir Caetano, 11 years old, and his niece, Cenira Lopes Correa, testified during the domestic proceedings that they had witnessed that summary execution:
From that point, [the witness] was watching when a policeman, dressed in a dark blue uniform and a hood that covered his face, fired a shot from close up at [his] father, who was lying on the ground; [his] father got up, close to the policeman, when the officer fired his gun at the head of the victim;[11]
[He] was there when a policeman shot his father, who was on his knees; his father was on his knees when the policeman shot him;[12]
From that position she could see her uncle, Alcindo Correa da Silva, lying face down on the ground; at one point, her uncle raised his head, and he was shot at the base of his ear;[13]
42. They contend that Odilon Feliciano was shot in the back of the head while still at the camp, and died at the Colorado do Oeste hospital. They state that according to the forensic examination, there were indications of a summary execution, as it determined that “based on the foregoing, the bullet was possibly fired at close range, from the back to the front, entering the back of the skull.” They explain that because the bullet was lost, it was impossible to identify who fired the shots.
43. They further state that a boy, Lucídio Cabral de Oliveira, 11 years old, testified during the domestic proceedings that he had witnessed the execution of Odilon Feliciano, and he described it as follows: “he was there when a policeman, in a blue uniform and with his face painted black, fired a shot into the neck of his friend, Odilon Feliciano.”
44. They allege that Ari Pinheiro dos Santos, 33 years of age, was brutally murdered by the military police. He was shot 11 times, and at least 6 of those shots were fired at close range. As a result, his face and head were destroyed. They indicate that according to the forensic examination, there were:
Fractures of the frontal bone, the temporal bones, the parietal bones, the lower maxilla, to the right, the bones of the right eye socket, with destruction of the right eyeball (...). The upper and lower incisors were destroyed.
(...)
The bullet causing wounds 1 and 2 was possibly fired at close range. (...) The bullet causing wounds 3 and 4 was possibly fired at close range (...) . The bullet causing wounds 5 and 6 was possibly fired at close range (...).
45. They indicate that five bullets were taken from the body of Ari Pinheiro dos Santos, and one of them was identified as having been shot by the weapon belonging to military police soldier Luiz Carlos de Almeida.
46. They allege that Sergio Rodrigues Gomes, 24 years old, was detained together with other workers and taken to the soccer field where a military police base had been set up. They say that he was subsequently removed from that base, while still alive, and taken in a Toyota van to an unknown place. His body appeared days later, on August 24, 1995, floating in the Tanaru River. They said that the forensic report described signs of three shots in the head and multiple fractures of the skull and the face:
(...) the fractures referred to in the external examination extended over virtually all parts of the face and skull, and primarily at the base of the skull, where the bones were all fractured and some of them were splintered.
47. They refer to statements made during the domestic proceedings by various persons who saw Sergio while alive and a prisoner, along with other workers, at the military police base on the soccer field. These statements include the following ones:
Marcelo Girelli: “That at around 3:00 p.m., a fellow worker, Sergio Rodrigues Gomes, was placed on the ground next to the witness, and from time to time, a military policeman would approach him and ask Sergio if ‘he had anything to say’ and, when he said no, he would be beaten violently; (...) he observed when Sergio was taken away from the group, beaten violently, and did not return, and he added that the person who took him away wore a military police uniform.”
Arnaldo Carlos Teco da Silva, Mayor of Corumbiara: “That when he was walking by a certain place on the soccer field he saw a policeman wearing a hood kick the victim, Sergio; that Sergio wanted to talk to Percílio, a town councilor, but the policeman ordered him to be quiet and kicked him.”
Osias Labajo Garate, a journalist: “that he could observe and photograph a COE policeman who was walking with a hood over his head, who was making the rounds of the prisoners and gave a violent kick to one prisoner, an outsider, and later he learned that his name was Sergio Rodrigues Gomes, who was found dead on August 24, 1995, in the Tanaru River, in Chupianga”.
José Carlos Moreira: he was there when a military policeman who was wearing a black hood said that Sergio Rodrigues Gomes, an outsider who was detained with the others, had shot at them; that, at that time, Sergio was covered with blood and had also been shot and violently beaten; that the police in question, whom he could not identify because of the hood, put Sergio in a blue Toyota and left, to return forty minutes later, without Sergio.
48. They say that Sergio Rodrigues Gomes had been identified as one of the workers who was part of the security group and who had shot at the police.
49. They report that among the dead victims was a man who was not identified, who became known as "H-5" , and who possibly died in the stream. None of the workers recognized the victim, who had been shot once fatally in the right eye, at close range, which, they allege showed that he too was executed. They explain that the bullet was extracted from his body and submitted to a ballistics test, but that the relevant weapon was not identified. They added, in support of this statement, that the forensic expert’s report read as follows:
Contusion and perforation wound, in a discolored area on the upper eyelid above the right eye, with partial enucleation of the eyeball (...). The presence of discoloration on the upper eyelid points to the possibility that the shot was fired at close range.
50. They point out that once in control of the situation, the armed gunmen and police began to beat and humiliate the prisoners, who were tied up and lying down on the ground, as stated above, and to subject them to inhuman and degrading treatment. They add that the workers were again beaten at the Colorado do Oeste police station, where they were taken prisoner and forced to make statements despite the fact that many of them were wounded.
51. They further allege that Darci Nunes do Nascimento, according to his statements during the domestic proceedings, was shot behind the ear, that it is not known who shot him and that it was at the time that he and the other 400 persons were lying face down on the ground.[14]
52. They allege that Antonio Ferreira da Silva, on the basis of his statements during the domestic proceedings, was shot three times in sequence, with two shots hitting him in the arm and one in the chest, on the right side, causing him to fall to the ground, where he was found by a policeman who forced him to drag himself next to two other prisoners, where he was then beaten until he lost consciousness. That he was taken to the gymnasium and that it was not until one day later that he was discovered by the Human Rights Committee/OAB, and then taken to the hospital, since he was still wounded.[15]
53. They report that Agostinho Feliciano Neto, according to his statements during domestic proceedings, was inside the hut on the day of the events, and on leaving it, he was shot once in the chest and once in the right foot.[16]
54. They state that, in accordance with statements at the domestic proceedings, Alzira Augusto Monteiro was beaten, was struck in the mouth by an elbow, breaking his teeth, and was forced to walk on top of various persons who had been brought under control and were lying on the ground.[17]
55. They explain that the blow to Alzira Augusto Monteiro was witnessed, according to statements during domestic proceedings, by José Carlos Moreira, who was himself a victim of beating by the military policemen, one of whom, wearing a hood, pierced his foot with a nail.
56. They allege that according to his statement in the domestic proceedings, Claudionor Paula was detained near the canteen or cafeteria, where he was forced to lie face down, while the police walked and jumped on his back; after the interrogation, he was once again assaulted by the military police, who punched and hit him.[18]
57. They transcribed statements during the domestic proceedings made by Ana Paula Alves, indicating that a military policeman hit her twice in the head with the butt of a pistol, leaving her stunned. She further testified that she could see that the police were violently beating the wounded inside the pharmacy.[19]
58. They report that according to statements made during the domestic proceedings, military policemen assaulted Jair Nunes de Morais, kicking him and hitting him on the head with their clubs, leaving him semi-conscious for various hours.[20]
59. They allege that upon arresting Edimar Silírio Dias, based on statements made during the domestic proceedings, military policemen hit him at the base of the ear, stunning him and causing him to fall down, whereupon the police began beating him hard, kicking him and striking him with their clubs, truncheons, and fists, until he lost consciousness.[21]
60. They allege that according to statements during the domestic proceedings, Eilvo Hilário Schneider was violently beaten at the time of his arrest, until he lost consciousness, and was taken first to the hospital and then to the police station, where he was once again beaten and ended up with a fractured finger, a dislocated rib, and various injuries to his head.[22]
61. They allege that, according to his statements during the domestic proceedings, Arivaldo Neckel de Almeida received a surface bullet wound on the head and was then detained; that once he was captured, he received a blow that presumably came from a pistol butt right on top of the previous wound, which caused substantial hemorrhaging, but did not stop the police from kicking him and beating him with their clubs while he was lying on the ground, bleeding. He was then taken to the back of the police station where he was tortured, and information was obtained. During that time, they pressed his right hand in a car door, twisted a finger of his right hand, and broke his thumb by pushing it backwards, and they kicked him in the genitals and in the back, and they kicked him and hit him hard in both ears at the same time, which caused nasal hemorrhaging. Later on, he was taken to the gymnasium where once again he was beaten violently by military policemen to the point that his wound, which had stopped bleeding, was reopened by a hard blow to the head, causing renewed, intense hemorrhaging, after which a policeman requested a vehicle and the witness was taken to the hospital, where the wound was finally sutured.[23]
62. They contend that, according to testimony during domestic proceedings, Zildo Gomes Cunha was kicked in the face, and managed to see his aggressor, who was a policeman dressed in blue and wearing a hood, and that, from time to time, he would be beaten in the back and the head.[24]
63. They allege that Valtair Alves da Silva, according to his statement during domestic proceedings, was beaten on the back and thrown to the ground, where he was beaten violently until he lost consciousness.
64. They indicate that Geraldo Francisco Clara, according to his statements during domestic proceedings, was struck by a truncheon and repeatedly kicked in the ribs, and left the place by being dragged out.[25]
65. They contend that the worker Claudemir Pereira was also brutally beaten by the police.[26] They indicate that he was considered to be one of the leaders of the camp, and thus he was later tried and convicted of the deaths of the policemen that occurred during the confrontation. They add that the injuries suffered by Claudemir Pereira as a result of violent beating were recorded in the forensic examination.[27]
66. They report that based on his statements during domestic proceedings, Paulo Correia da Silva, a worker, was forced to eat pieces of the brain of one of his companions, whose skull had been destroyed by the police by shooting at close range.[28]
67. They allege that Moacir Camargo Ferreira was hit by machinegun fire from MP Corporal Geraldo Joao Rodrigues, while he was in a truck with other captured workers, to be transferred to Colorado del Oeste. They add that during the domestic proceedings, the police said that the shooting was accidental, but that the victim and another witness said the opposite.[29] They point out that there was no police investigation to determine whether or not Moacir Camargo Ferreira was shot intentionally, and that it was not until much later that the Public Prosecutor’s Office intervened to order an investigation into the event by the military police.
68. They indicate that some of the marks from the brutal beatings and attacks of various persons were recorded in the expert reports on the bodies of some of them, even though the examinations were not performed the same day of the events and were extremely deficient in describing the wounds. They add that photos of some of the wounded workers also showed the violence of the beating. In addition, statements by various persons, including some of the military police, also indicated the practice of severe beating of the workers. In this regard, the petitioners cite the following statements made during domestic proceedings, among others:
Osias Labajos Garate, a journalist, who stated that he had observed a military policeman walking back and forth on the backs of the workers who had been captured and were lying down.[30]
Percílio Antonio de Andrade, town councilman, stated that there were quite a few wounded people on the soccer field, and that he saw many people tied up with rope, and that he saw a uniformed policeman kicking a person who was sitting down and tied up.
Military Police Major José Ventura Pereira stated that after rounding up all the workers, he made a move, with the help of Captain César and Captain Mena Mendes, to control some of the policemen, who were walking on the persons who were lying down on the ground.[31]
69. The petitioners further allege that deaths occurred as a result of wounds received on the day of the events, that one person disappeared, and that skeletal remains were found, but that there was never a proper investigation to determine their identity.
70. In this context, they allege that Jesus Ribeiro de Souza, 46 years old, was detained with other workers and later submitted to a forensic examination, but that no visible wounds were found at that time. They further state that Mr. Ribeiro de Souza nonetheless contended that he had been in considerable pain since the conflict, and he died about four months later. They alleged that the death certificate stated as the cause of death only: “conflict of the landless with the MP,” and that his next of kin said that he died from consequences of the beating he received at the camp. They alleged that there was no detailed examination to investigate the cause of his death, despite suspicions that he was one more fatal victim of the conflict.
71. They indicate that according to family members, Oliveira Ignácio Dutra, 71 years of age, was beaten during the events, and died subsequently as a result of the wounds he received. They explain that the hospital medical report, which they describe as highly deficient, states that Mr. Dutra had died of a stroke. They add that in his case as well, there was no examination and no investigation to determine the cause of death and its possible relationship to the conflict.
72. They allege that after the killing, there were various rumors to the effect that the bodies of the workers and gunmen were cremated, and that these rumors were never investigated seriously. They say that at least one worker, Darci Martins Pereira, disappeared, and that his family had reported on many occasions that he never returned home after the killing. However, the petitioners allege, no serious attempts were ever made to clarify his disappearance.
73. They allege that there are at least strong indications that the rumors regarding cremation of the bodies of workers and gunmen at Santa Elina ranch could be true. They explain on this point that on August 12, 1995, three days after the conflict, Roman Catholic Bishop Gerard Jean Paul Roger Verdier went to the former camp of the workers, accompanied by church representatives, and, in the presence of witnesses, gathered samplings of burned bones and ashes.
74. They say that the Bishop took the samples with him to the Diplomata Hotel in the town of Vilhena, where authorities from the region were meeting with State Governor Valdir Raupp. There the samples were photographed and filmed by journalists. The Bishop, in front of witnesses, took nine pieces of bones out of the different samplings, at random, and gave the remainder of the materials to the Public Security Secretary to take the necessary steps.
75. They say that the Bishop gave the pieces that he had randomly selected to Jacques Borjois, president of the Missionary Association in Paris, France, in the presence of witnesses. Mr. Borjois, for his part, took the remains of the bones to the West Paris School of Medicine (Department of Forensic Medicine/Pathology, Cytology, and Anatomy), where Professor Michel Durigon, a national expert and head of the Department, analyzed them.
76. They add that eleven days later, the other remaining samples were transferred by the Brazilian authorities to Campinas University-UNICAMP, for analysis by Professor Fortunato Badan Palhares, who, according to the petitioners, is a controversial professional in Brazil, whose forensic medical opinions have been requested in cases with national repercussion, and who generally issues reports in defense of the persons accused of serious human rights violations. The petitioners report that the number of controversial cases in which that person has participated, “has given rise to unsubstantiated suspicions that he would sell his reports or obtain political or economic advantages through them.” As a result, he has absolutely no credibility in the country.
77. They say that the reports by the Paris School of Medicine and UNICAMP differed. The Paris report indicated that “two of the samples examined are certain to be of human origin,” while the forensic medical report prepared by Professor Badan Palhares’ team concluded that the bone samples examined belonged to animals. They add that the samples sent to Paris were then returned to Brazil, and sent to UNICAMP for comparison. That comparison, however, was never made, nor were the samples submitted to a third laboratory, that could help verify the differences between the two reports. In this way, they maintain, the State failed to comply with its legal obligation to clarify the possibility that other deaths had occurred.
78. As regards the effectiveness of domestic remedies for the reported acts, they contend that the case of Corumbiara is emblematic of the situation in many other cases of violations of the human rights of male and female farm workers in Brazil. They allege that in most cases, the government authorities in rural areas have proven incapable of bringing justice to workers, because of their complicity with the local landowners. They argue that violations are rarely investigated impartially, and that punishment of the guilty parties is even more difficult, despite compelling evidence against public officials and landowners.
79. They further allege that, in the case in point, three investigations were initiated into the events: one by the civil police of Rondônia State; one by the military police; and another by the federal police, at the request of the Ministry of Justice. They point out that the investigations were conducted from the outset to conceal as much as possible the guilt of the landowners and the public officials. Yet, they contend that countless documents were gathered to incriminate the workers. As a result, they say, it came as no surprise to anyone that in the end, only three policemen were convicted for the death of three victims who were executed, whereas two workers were also convicted for their indirect participation in the death of two policemen.
80. They allege that during the domestic proceedings, the close relationship between the landowners and the military police responsible for the violations was clearly demonstrated, and that there was also evidence, they assert, that the landholders were in contact with the Governor as well, the highest authority of the state of Rondônia. They further contend that there was also evidence of how the landowners pressured judges and policemen to evict the workers, despite the attempted peaceful negotiations.
81. They make a series of allegations focusing on indications and evidence to the effect that in various stages of the domestic proceedings in this case, there was a tendency to incriminate the workers who were victims of the massacre and to absolve from guilt or completely fail to investigate the persons responsible for the violations committed against the workers, as is summarized below.
82. They allege that the first irregularities which considerably hampered efforts to uncover the truth and identify the responsible individuals occurred at the site of the events, when the military police destroyed the camp and set fire to whatever remained.
83. They report that on the basis of the evidence provided by the expert examination of the crime scene, appended as evidence, the bodies of the victims were taken from the place where they died before the expert arrived, and that the investigation of the site of the events was highly deficient. They allege that proof of this is the fact that Bishop Gerard Verdier was able to find fragments of bones and remains of calcinated material that had neither been gathered nor registered for the expert report.
84. They contend that the police inquiries that were initiated to investigate the events demonstrated a clear bias against the workers, and that despite enormous pressure from national and international entities to conduct serious and impartial investigations, the results show that this did not happen.
85. They say that on August 9, 1995, police investigation No. 098/95 was opened by the police chief of Colorado do Oeste. Nevertheless, they maintain, that investigation was not opened to investigate the violations committed against the rural workers, but to investigate the crimes of disobedience and resistance by the workers.
86. They add that consequently the first act of the investigation was annexation of the arrest warrant for 355 workers, who had been captured the previous day, despite the fact that many of them were injured. They say that the workers were the first to testify in the investigation, not as victims, but as the accused. They point out that the reading of the criminal complaints and the interrogation showed that the police were looking for information on the leaders of the invasion.
87. They allege that the police chief who presided over the investigation asked for the expert reports on the injured police to be appended to the case records, but did not request the same for the injured workers. They add that on August 11, 1995, the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested expert examination of the workers, after receiving a letter from the Brazilian Bar Association requesting that it be done.
88. They contend that 23 days after the events, 121 workers had made statements in police investigation 098/95 conducted by the civil police station in Colorado do Oeste, and that 74 of them had been charged with crimes of disobedience and resistance. They add that when they testified at the trial, many workers stated that they had given statements at the police station under pressure, after being tortured and violently beaten.
89. They say that at the same time, on August 16, 1995, a military police investigation was opened to investigate the crimes committed by the military police, but that it actually began on August 30, 1995, nearly a month after the events.
90. They allege that on various occasions, the persons who were responsible for the investigations argued that they did not have the resources needed to completely conduct all the technical tests. They say that state and federal officials were fully aware of that fact, and yet they did not provide the support needed for the investigations, and that this considerably delayed or prevented production of important evidence. They transcribed statements by the heads of both the civil and military police investigations made during the meeting of the Human Rights Defense Council in Brasilia.[32]
91. They report that on various occasions, the Promotor de Justiça [public advocate or defender] designated to supervise the investigation contacted state officials to ask for their indispensable support to carry out the work, but failed to receive their full cooperation.
92. They allege that the ballistics tests could not be completed, because the personal weapons of the military police who participated in the operation and the weapons of the gunmen who were working for the landowner, Antenor Duarte, were not collected immediately,[33] and because the bullet shells of the weapons collected were never submitted, or were not sent in sufficient numbers.
93. They say that this last fact was officially reported to the state authorities by the Promotor in charge of supervising the investigations,[34] but in spite of this, new expert examinations were not undertaken. They highlight the importance of this omission, in view of the circumstances in which the events occurred, with agents with their faces painted and wearing hoods, which made it particularly important to conduct a careful, detailed examination of the bullets found in the bodies and at the sites of the executions and to compare them with the weapons seized, in order to identify the persons that were responsible for these acts.
94. They allege that once the civil and military police investigations were concluded, their results were sent to Judge Glodner Luiz Pauletto, who received them on September 26, 1996. They add that this was the judge who had ordered immediate execution of the order to evict the workers that was at the root of the massacre. They point out that during the criminal proceedings, few workers were called to testify, and that the police version of the events therefore prevailed.
95. They say that some important pieces of evidence were produced against some policemen, but that those officers were absolved or were not even prosecuted for the deaths of workers. As an example, they referred to the fact that the ballistic tests had shown that one of the shots that killed José Marcondes had been fired from the weapon used by soldier José Emilio da Silva Evangelista. They go on to explain that throughout the proceedings, soldier Evangelista denied having shot at the worker, arguing that he had loaned his weapon to another soldier, Cilas Frauzino. That soldier in turn denied having fired the weapon identified, although he admitted that it had been in his possession for several minutes. After the ballistics comparison, the petitioners add, the investigator’s analysis was that soldier José Emilio da Silva Evangelista appeared “composed, lucid, and coherent,” whereas soldier Cilas Frauzino appeared nervous during the testimony, and afterwards he had to undergo intensive psychiatric treatment for emotional disturbances.
96. They report that, nonetheless, and inexplicably, charges were not filed against soldier Cilas Frauzinho, while soldier Evangelista was acquitted. Consequently, the petitioners allege, despite identification of the weapon from which some of the bullets were fired at close range, destroying the head of José Marcondes, and despite identification of the policemen who carried that weapon, none of them was held accountable.
97. They maintain that the same thing occurred in relation to the shot that killed “Ari”. They say that the ballistics report identified the firearm from which the bullet was fired, and that the soldier who carried that firearm, Luis Carlos de Almeida, alleged that he had given it to another policeman. Thus neither one was brought to trial.
98. They contend that no efforts at all were made to examine the manner of death of the workers who appeared to have been executed, or to investigate the deaths of the other workers and the possible guilty parties. On the other hand, the petitioners assert, the deaths of the policemen were thoroughly investigated. They say that on the pretext of determining whether use of bullet-proof vests had saved the lives of policemen, they conducted detailed expert tests and reconstructed their deaths, while there was no attempt to examine the brutal deaths of the workers.
99. They allege that the landowner, Antenor Duarte, his manager, José de Paula, and his armed employees, were not brought to trial, despite countless pieces of evidence against them. They add that no official was even investigated in response to the order that gave rise to the criminal execution of the court order.
100. They argue that the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested the acquittal of many policemen, when it should have pressed charges against them. They explain that out of a contingent of 194 military policemen who directly participated in the operation, the authorities gathered sufficient evidence against only a few of them.
101. They report that the trial for the Corumbiara massacre was held on August 14, 21, 23, 25, 29, and 31, and on September 4 and 6 of that year. In summary, of the five military police officers that were prosecuted, only one was convicted for the death of the workers José Marcondes da Silva, Ercílio Oliveira Campos, and unidentified worker, “H-5”. They add that of the six soldiers who were brought to trial, only two were convicted also for the death of the workers José Marcondes da Silva, Ercílio Oliveira Campos, and the unidentified worker, “H5”.
102. They allege that as a result, neither military policemen, nor any other authorities, nor the landowners involved, nor their gunmen were convicted for the death of the girl, Vanessa dos Santos Silva, or for the death of the other workers who died during the events.
103. They point out that the State did not report on the status of criminal proceedings to investigate responsibility for the wounds of 53 workers and for the “countless acts of torture” to which they were submitted.
104. They allege that, nonetheless, “Claudemir and Cícero”, the two workers who were regarded as the leaders of the invasion, were convicted for the death of two policemen during the confrontation, and were also tried for crimes of cárcere privado [prison where persons are held by private individuals under no legal right], disobedience, and criminal association. They maintain that the only evidence they had against “Claudemir” was the statement by a policeman to the effect that he had seen him armed, shooting at the police, from a tree. They add that the same policeman said that the wounds substantiated by the forensic examination of Claudemir probably occurred when he fell out of that tree.
105. They report that this was how the workers were convicted for the death of two policemen who were confirmed to have died during the confrontation, while the police who summarily executed the workers continue to go unpunished.
B. Position of the State
106. In its first response on June 27, 1996, the State alleges that the Civil Police Station in Colorado do Oeste, Rondônia State, initiated police investigation No. 098/95, “for the purpose of investigating the legality of the action by members of the Rondônia military police in an operation which took place August 9, 1995, at the Santa Elina Ranch, near the Prefecture of Corumbiara, which resulted in the death of twelve farm workers and the capture of three hundred fifty-three persons. A military police investigation was also opened for the same purpose.”
107. It adds that because of the results of the action taken to remove the workers from Santa Elina Ranch, the Governor of Rondônia State had dismissed the Public Security Secretary and the Military Police Commander of Corumbiara, who were “identified as the parties that were mainly responsible for the operation.” It further indicates that an agreement was concluded between the Rondônia Government and the Prefecture of Colorado do Oeste in the amount of twenty-five thousand reais, to cover the cost of handling the workers involved in the “accident” who were still camped on land belonging to that prefecture, where they were receiving medical care. 108. It points out that the Human Rights Defense Council, a Brazilian government agency, set up a committee in charge of investigating the incident, and that it produced a report on the status of the investigations and on other steps taken, and took statements from the Rondônia Public Security Secretary and other officials.109. It states that on May 17, 1996, the head of the police investigation reported to the Human Rights Defense Council that it had completed the “ballistics comparison” tests conducted by the Criminology Institute of Paraná State. It adds that the civil police investigation was in its final stage, and that the investigation into the new complaint by the Landless Movement, to the effect that three more workers had died as a result of the wounds suffered during the conflict, was still pending.110. It argues that, as a result, the remedies of domestic jurisdiction have not been exhausted and that the guilty parties would be convicted and punished, pursuant to applicable domestic law.
111. It reported in a letter dated August 16, 1999 on the status of the domestic proceedings related to the investigation of the events of this case, noting that the trial was scheduled for the second half of 1999, and that it was determined not to allow these crimes to go unpunished.
112. In a letter dated September 18, 2000, it reported on the results of the trial in this case, which was held in regular criminal courts in the city of Porto Velho, Rondônia State, between August 14 and September 6, 2000.
113. It states that during that trial, divided into eight groups of hearing with juries, 12 military policemen were tried for the murders of landless farm workers, and two farm workers were tried for the murder of two policemen. It adds that the results of that trial were that three military policemen were convicted, and the two landless farm workers were convicted.
114. It specifies that during the first group of hearings initiated on August 14, 2000, three military policemen were tried for the deaths of workers Ercílio Oliveira Campos, José Marcondes Alves, and one worker identified as “H-5”. It adds that military policeman Daniel da Silva Furtado was convicted to 16 years of confinement in a closed regime for two homicides, and that military policeman Airton Ramos de Morais was convicted to 18 years of confinement in a closed regime for three homicides, while military policeman José Emilio da Silva Evangelista was acquitted. It adds that the two convicted defendants were allowed to remain free until the sentence became res judicata.
115. It indicates that on August 21, 2000, the second group of hearings began its work, which involved the trial of José Helio Cysneiros Pachá and Mauro Ronaldo Flores Corrêa, military police officers accused of being accessories in the murder of workers Ercílio de Oliveira Campos, José Marcondes da Silva, and the worker identified as “H-5”. In accordance with the request by the Promotores de Justiça, these persons were absolved by the jury.
116. It indicates that the work of the third group of hearings began on August 23, 2000, with the trial of Geraldo João Rodrigues, a military police corporal accused of the attempted homicide of Moacir Camargo Ferreira. It adds that the Jury decided that the accused had not committed the crime of attempted homicide, and that continuation of criminal proceedings for possible bodily injuries would be up to the representatives of the victim.
117. It indicates that on August 25, 2000, the fourth group of hearings began, to try landless workers Cícero Pereira Leite Neto and Claudemir Gilberto Ramos, charged with the deaths of military policemen Ronaldo de Souza and Rubens Fidelis Miranda, and with the crimes of cárcere privado, criminal association, and resistance. It adds that Cícero Pereira was convicted to six years of confinement and two months of detention for participation in a homicide and for committing the crime of resistance, and that it was decided that his sentence could be served in a semi-open regime. It adds that Claudemir Ramos was convicted to eight and a half years of confinement, in a closed regime, plus two months of detention, for participating in two homicides and for committing the offenses of cárcere privado and resistance.
118. It states that on August 29, 2000, the fifth group of hearings began to try Claudenilson Alves, a military police sergeant accused of the homicide of farm workers Ercílio Oliveira Campos, José Marcondes da Silva, and the worker identified as “H-5”. It adds that the Promotores de Justiça requested acquittal of the defendant, on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and he was absolved.
119. It reports that on August 31, 2000, the sixth group of hearings began to try Luiz Carlos Fernandes, Moisés Oliveira Lima, and Vilson Luiz Pedon, military police soldiers. It explains that the three were accused of being accessories in the homicide of workers José Marcondes da Silva, Ercílio Oliveira Campos, and the one identified as “H-5.” It added that the Promotor requested acquittal of the defendants on the grounds of insufficient evidence, and they were absolved.
120. It reports that the work of the seventh group of hearings began on September 4, 2000, with the trial of Vitório Regis Mena Mendes, a military police captain, who was charged with the homicide of workers Ercílio Oliveira Campos, José Marcondes Alves, and the victim identified as “H-5.” It added that the Jury accepted the arguments in the indictment and convicted the defendant to nineteen and a half years of confinement, to be served in a closed regime. It further specified that the defendant was permitted to remain in freedom until the judgment became res judicata.
121. It reports that on September 6, 2000, the work of the eighth group of hearings was initiated with the trial of José Ventura Pereira, a military police colonel, who was accused of having permitted the victim Sérgio Rodriguez, who was later found dead, to be taken by a third party while still alive, from the military police base set up in the soccer field, during the eviction proceedings at Santa Elina ranch. It adds that the Jury acquitted the defendant.
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS
122. The Commission will now proceed to determine the established facts of this case, and decide on the international responsibility of the State of Brazil in relation to those facts.
A. Introduction
123. Prior to analyzing the merits of this case, the Commission is compelled to point out that the subject of this case goes beyond the troubling issues of land distribution in Brazil in general, and the specific situation of the landless male and female workers who, with their families, invaded Santa Elina ranch in August 1995. The Commission has given its views on the general problem on several occasions, and has stated, for instance, that:
Brazil covers a widespread expanse of land with a huge capacity for production and social settlement. But for historical reasons, the way the land is distributed has been extremely uneven, and as a result, conditions propitious to social confrontation and violations of human rights are created.[35]
124. The Inter-American Commission initiates its deliberations on the merits on the basis of an analysis of the way in which the court order for eviction of Santa Elina ranch was carried out, since it is beyond the scope of this case to examine the economic, social, historic, and other reasons that might have led the occupying workers to make the decision to invade Santa Elina ranch in July 1995 and set up a camp there.
125. The Inter-America |
