Chapter III - Annual Report 2004

...continuation (Chapter III)

Case 11.771 - Report Nº 61/01, Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo (Chile)

92. On April 16, 2001, the IACHR conveyed the following recommendations to the Chilean State:

1. Establish responsibility for the murder of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo by due process of law, so that the guilty may be duly punished.

2. Adapt its domestic legislation to the provisions of the American Convention, in such a way as to leave Decree-Law N° 2191 of 1978 without effect.

3. To take the steps necessary for the members of the victim’s family to receive adequate and timely compensation, including full reparations for the human rights violations described herein as well as payment of fair compensation for physical and nonphysical damages, including moral damages.

93. On November 8, 2004, the Commission requested information from both parties regarding the status of compliance with the recommendations. The Commission received information from the State by note dated February 1, 2005.

94. In its reply the State provided the following information regarding compliance with the three recommendations:

1. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court decided not to apply the Amnesty Decree Law in a judgment handed down in the case of the disappearance of Miguel Angel Sandoval. The State of Chile is taking the relevant steps so that, through the Ministry of Interior’s Human Rights Program, the judicial investigation into the Samuel Catalán Lincoleo’s disappearance are not exhausted or interrupted until the circumstances surrounding his arrest and subsequent disappearance are established, and the relevant responsibilities and punishments are determined, thus complying with the recommendation issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requiring that responsibility for the victim’s murder be established by due process of law so that the guilty may be duly punished.

2. With respect to repealing the Amnesty Decree Law, No. 2191, reference was made to the problems that exist with amending or abrogating it. Nevertheless, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court has given indications of a clear tendency toward setting new guidelines in interpretation and enforcement of that Decree Law. The State copied some of the “whereas” clauses from the ruling of November 17, 2004, on account of their relevance and importance to the investigations into human rights violations that are currently being processed by the Chilean courts.

3. With reference to the reparations extended to Mr. Samuel Catalán Lincoleo’s family, the State notes that Law 19.123, which created the National Reparation and Reconciliation Corporation also established economic benefits in the fields of health, education, and exemption from military service for certain family members identified therein.

95. In this particular case, his son, Samuel Catalán Albarrán, received a reparations pension until his 25th birthday; Mrs. Adriana Albarrán Contreras, the partner of the victim and mother of his above-mentioned son, is currently receiving a pension and will do so for the rest of her life.

96. In addition, through the Interior Ministry’s Human Rights Program, a paternity suit was pursued on behalf of the victim’s extramarital daughter, Miss. Elena Bucarey Bucarey. Judgment in this matter was recently issued, awarding her a reparations payment, to be made retroactive and to be paid to her until she turns 25. She is also entitled to the health and education benefits.

97. The reparations pensions created by Law 19.123 are compensatory in nature, intended to make redress for the harm caused; they have been rejected by none of the identified beneficiaries but rather have been and continue to be paid out in accordance with the governing legal provisions.

98. To date the family of Samuel Catalán Lincoleo has not filed civil suit for compensation against the Chilean treasury and consequently has not invoked the civil action provided for by domestic law.

99. Finally, it must be noted that Law 19.123 was amended by Law No. 19.980, published in the Official Journal on November 9, 2004, which established the following new forms of compensation in connection with reparations pensions:

-An increase, as of the first of the next month following publication of the Law, of 50% in the amount of the monthly reparations pensions. This modification applies automatically for all current beneficiaries including, as already noted, Mrs. Adriana Albarrán Contreras.

-An increase of 15%, for a total of 40% in the compensatory benefit payable to the mother or father of the beneficiary’s extramarital children.

-For the purposes of Law 19.123, the rights are recognized of all mothers of extramarital children who have pursued recognition formalities before the civil courts, with which they are entitled to reparations pensions. That is the situation of the mother of Miss. Elena Bucarey Bucarey.

With regard to the Reparations Payment for children:

-A reparations payment of $10,000,000 (approximately USD $17,500) shall be made, on one single occasion, to each of the children of the beneficiary who never received the monthly reparations pension, and of the corresponding difference to those who formerly received it but who ceased to do so upon reaching the age of 25.

100. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the recommendations made by the Commission.

Case 11.715 - Report Nº 32/02, Juan Manuel Contreras San Martín et. al. (Chile)

101. On March 12, 2002, the Commission approved a friendly settlement report in the present case, through which it recognizes the agreement of the State to comply with the following measures for reparation:

To award to Messrs. Juan Manuel Contreras San Martín, José Alfredo Soto Ruz and Víctor Eduardo Osses Conejeros, a discretional annuity of three minimum wages each;

To provide to them free of charge adequate training in skills and trades in accordance with their expectations, aptitudes and possibilities, through the office of the National Training and Employment Service (SENCE in its Spanish initials) in the region where they live, in order to enable them to increase their financial incomes and enhance their quality of life;

To publicly provide reparation to the victims before their community by means by an act of the Regional Government duly disseminated by the mass media, designed to restore their reputation and honor that had been certainly damaged by the judicial decisions that once harmed them.

102. In the same report, the Commission took note of the fulfillment of these promises, and recommended that the State carry out studies and relevant legislative initiatives in keeping with the norms for indemnification for judicial error.

103. On November 8, 2004, the Commission requested to the parties to submit information on the status of compliance with its recommendations. The Commission received information from the petitioners dated January 20, 2005. The petitioners informed the Commission “que respecto del cumplimiento de las condiciones adoptas en el contexto de dichas soluciones amistosas el Estado de Chile ha dado fiel ejecución a las mismas”.

104. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the State has complied with the recommendations made by the Commission.

Case 12.046 - Report Nº 33/02, Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos (Chile)

105. On March 12, 2002, the Commission approved a friendly settlement in the case of Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos. In this agreement, the State pledged to:

1. Scholarship

… The Government undertakes to award a special scholarship of 1.24 Monthly Tax Units (UTM) to Mrs. Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos while she is enrolled in higher education.

…

2. Symbolic redress

… The Government would publicize the compensatory measures by means of an official communication on the matter, to be issued jointly with regional authorities, recognizing that rights of the petitioner enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights–freedom from arbitrary or abusive interference with her private life and equal protection of the law–were violated when her enrollment was not renewed and she was obliged to leave the educational establishment where she was pursuing her studies, “Andrés Bello” school in Coquimbo, a private school subsidized with co-financing, for the sole reason that she had become pregnant. In addition, steps would be taken to disseminate recent legislation (Law Nº 19,688), amending the Education Act, which contains provisions on the rights of pregnant students or nursing mothers to have access to educational establishments.

106. The Commission, upon approving the settlement, established a deadline of three months, for the Chilean State to report about the compliance with the measures agreed upon.

107. The Commission received reports from the State on July 18, and November 21, 2002. In their latter report, the State informed:

That on April 18, 2002, in the Intendance of Coquimbo’s IV Region, headquarters for the regional government, the Chilean State gave full compliance with the friendly settlement agreement, by way of a public act of amends to the petitioner, which included the symbolic presentation of the President of the Republic scholarship, effective March of the current year, and throughout her higher education.

…

that the petitioner Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos is receiving [the scholarship]…since March of the current year, for an average monthly sum of $ 35,000 (approximate equivalent of US $50).

108. This communication was transmitted to the petitioner on December 12, 2002, with a deadline of two months to present observations on the compliance of these recommendations. The petitioner did not respond to this request.

109. On November 8, 2004, the Commission requested the parties to submit information on the status of compliance with its recommendations. The Commission received information from the petitioners dated January 20, 2005. The petitioners informed the Commission “que respecto del cumplimiento de las condiciones adoptas en el contexto de dichas soluciones amistosas el Estado de Chile ha dado fiel ejecución a las mismas”.

110. Based on the information before the Commission in the present case, the Commission considers that the State has complied with the recommendations made by the Commission.

Case 11.654 - Report Nº 62/01, Río Frío Massacre (Colombia)

111. The Commission issued Report 62/01 on Case 11.654, on April 6, 2001. The case was about the Riofrío massacre. In that report, the Commission made three recommendations. First, the Commission recommended that Colombia conduct “an impartial and effective investigation in ordinary jurisdiction with a view to prosecuting and punishing those materially and intellectually responsible for the massacre.” On January 21, 2005 the petitioners indicated that the decision adopted on March 6, 2003 by the Criminal Law Chamber of Cassation of the Supreme Court declaring all proceedings in the military criminal justice system null and void and remanding the case to the National Director of Prosecutions “..has not been fully complied with and therefore the perpetrators remain unpunished.”

112. The Commission’s second recommendation was that Colombia take “such steps as are necessary to ensure that the families of the victims are duly compensated.” From the information presented by the petitioners it can be inferred that the victims’ next of kin have received monetary compensation pursuant to the procedure established under Law 288/96 and that therefore the monetary aspect of the recommendations has been satisfied.

113. Thirdly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia take “the necessary steps to prevent any future occurrence of similar events in accordance with its duty to prevent and guarantee the basic rights recognized in the American Convention as well as the necessary measures to give full force and effect to the doctrine developed by the Constitutional Court of Colombia and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in investigating and prosecuting similar cases through the ordinary criminal justice system.” The measures adopted by the State have been and will continue to be evaluated in the Commission’s general reports and in its exercise of its various convention-related and statutory functions.

Case 11.710 - Report Nº 63/01, Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro (Colombia)

114. On April 6, 2001, the IACHR issued Report 63/01 on Case 11.710. This case concerned the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada González and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro. The Commission made three recommendations at that time. First, the IACHR recommended that Colombia “[C]arry out a full, impartial, and effective investigation within the ordinary jurisdiction with a view to judging and punishing those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Carlos Manuel Prada and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro.” On December 30, 2004 the State reported by note DDH 67229 issued by the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that a special motion requesting that the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court review the decision issued on March 22, 2002 by the Criminal Military Tribunal acquitting the State agents allegedly involved in the case has been filed and that it is currently pending before Procuraduria Delegada para la Casacion. The filing of this motion can be considered a positive step toward the future compliance with the recommendation.

115. Secondly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia adopt “the measures necessary to ensure that the victims’ next-of-kin receive adequate and timely reparations for the violations determined in the Report.” The State reiterated that by resolution of May 3, 2002, the Council of Ministers decided to rule in favor of moving forward with the corresponding damages to the victims’ next of kin, under Law 288/96. From the information provided it is unclear whether payment has been made to the victims’ next of kin.

116. Thirdly, the IACHR recommended that Colombia adopt “measures necessary to fully apply the case law developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by this Commission with respect to the investigation and adjudication of similar cases in the ordinary penal justice system.” The measures adopted by the State have been and will continue to be evaluated in the IACHR’s general reports and in the Commission’s exercise of its various convention-related and statutory functions.

Case 11.712 - Report Nº 64/01, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry (Colombia)

117. On April 6, 2001, the Commission released Report 64/01 on Case 11.712, which concerned the extrajudicial execution of Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry et al. At the time, the Commission made three recommendations. First, that Colombia conduct “an impartial and effective investigation before ordinary jurisdiction for the purpose of judging and sanctioning those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry.” On December 30, 2004 the State reported by Note DDH 47897 from the Office of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that it was still gathering information on compliance with this recommendation. For their part, on February 3, 2005 the petitioners indicated that the judicial process is still pending before the military courts and that it has not been transferred to the ordinary jurisdiction in view of the fact that the request filed in that regard by the Public Ministry (colision de competencia) was rejected on December 27, 2002 and such decision confirmed on March 7, 2003. Therefore, no progress has been made toward compliance with this recommendation.

118. Secondly, the Commission recommended that Colombia adopt the measures necessary for reparation of the consequences of violations committed to the detriment of María Fredesvinda Echeverry and Lady Andrea Isaza Pinzón, and provide due indemnity for the relatives of Leonel de Jesús Isaza. The State reported that by a resolution dated May 3, 2002, the Committee of Ministers had decided to rule in favor of moving forward with payment of compensation to victims and their next of kin, without indicating any details on actual payment. The petitioners, for their part, indicated that there had been no payment of compensation or other type of reparation to the victims.

119. Thirdly, it recommended that Colombia adopt the measures necessary to avoid similar events from occurring in the future, in conformance with the obligation of preventing and guaranteeing the basic rights recognized in the American Convention, and adopt the necessary measures for full compliance with the doctrine developed by the Colombian Constitutional Court and by the Commission in the investigation and judgment of similar cases by ordinary criminal justice. The measures adopted by the State have been and will continue to be evaluated in the Commission’s general reports, and as the Commission discharges its various functions under conventions and by statute.

Case 11.421 - Report Nº 93/00, Edison Patricio Quishpe Alcívar (Ecuador)

120. In Report Nº 93/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$30,000 in compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in paying the compensation.

2. To urge the State to take the necessary measures to carry out the commitment to pursue civil and criminal proceedings and to seek to impose punishment on those persons who, in the performance of government functions or under the color of public authority, are considered to have participated in the alleged violation, and the payment of interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement, and in that context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

121. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that thus far they have no information on judicial proceedings undertaken by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of those directly responsible for the violations that were alleged to the IACHR.

Case 11.439 - Report Nº 94/00, Byron Roberto Cañaveral (Ecuador)

122. In Report Nº 94/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$7,000.00 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, or to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to carry out the pending commitment to bring civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings against those persons who, in the performance of state functions, participated in the alleged violations, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise implementation of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the Ecuadorian State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on progress in carrying out the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

123. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that thus far they have no information on judicial proceedings taken by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of those directly responsible for the violations that were alleged to the IACHR.

Case 11.445 - Report Nº 95/00, Angelo Javier Ruales Paredes (Ecuador)

124. In Report Nº 95/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To acknowledge that the State punished those responsible for the violation but has failed to pay the US$15,000 in compensation.

2. To urge the State to take the necessary steps to fulfill the pending commitment regarding payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with the friendly settlement agreement and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on compliance with the obligations assumed (by the State) under this friendly settlement.

125. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that on January 15, 2001 the State paid the corresponding compensatory damages to the victim, thus fully completing its obligation pursuant to the friendly settlement agreement, since it had previously punished the perpetrators.

Case 11.466 - Report Nº 96/00, Manuel Inocencio Lalvay Guamán (Ecuador)

126. In Report Nº 96/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$25,000 as compensation, and has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.

2. To urge the State to take the measures needed for carrying out the commitments still pending with respect to bringing to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, as to the performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

127. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph.

128. The petitioners reported that the State failed to punish the perpetrators of the crime, because the Second Judge of the First District of the National Police ruled on April 28, 1999 that the statute of limitations had expired for the defendants, a decision that was upheld by the First District Court of the Police. Based on these decisions, the Attorney General, in official letter No. 1064 of March 9, 2001, notified the petitioners that in view of the statute of limitations and an express Constitutional prohibition there could be no new trial of the perpetrators, but this would not preclude the Prosecutor’s Office from initiating repetition proceedings against them. They also reported that so far they had no information on proceedings initiated by the State to exercise the right of repetition expressed by the Prosecutor’s Office, nor on civil or administrative proceedings initiated against the perpetrators. In February 1999, by signing the friendly settlement agreement, the State promised to punish the responsible parties and conclude the criminal proceedings that began in 1993 in the police court. Two months after that agreement the State ruled that the statute of limitations had expired for the defendants, so the offense remained unpunished, indicating that the State fails to comply with the human rights commitments assumed in the international sphere. The petitioners added that they are not aware of any actions by the State to punish the police judges who were seized of the criminal case for torture, and whose negligence in the administration of justice resulted in impunity for the crime.

Case 11.584 - Report Nº 97/00, Carlos Juela Molina (Ecuador)

129. In Report Nº 97/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$15,000 as compensation, and that it has failed to carry out its commitment to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.

2. To urge the State to take the measures needed to comply with the pending commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

130. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that the State has not yet ruled on the civil or administrative liability of the responsible party, or on the proceedings initiated against the police judge whose delay in processing the case contributed to the crime remaining unpunished.

Case 11.783 - Report Nº 98/00 - Marcia Irene Clavijo Tapia (Ecuador)

131. In Report Nº 98/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To recognize that the State has made payment of US$63,000 as compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violations alleged and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

2. To urge the State to take the measures necessary to carry out the commitments pending with respect to bringing to trial and punishing the persons responsible for the violations alleged, and to paying interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months regarding performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

132. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that more than three years have elapsed since the signing of the friendly settlement agreement and the State promised civil, criminal, or administrative trial and punishment for the police, prosecutors, and judges who committed the violations alleged, but so far there has been no judicial decision in this regard.

Case 11.868 - Report Nº 99/00 - Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo (Ecuador)

133. In the friendly settlement reached by the state of Ecuador and Mr. Pedro Restrepo, father of the minor children Carlos Santiago and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy, with respect to complaint No. 11.868, the state undertook to:

SEVENTH - FREEDOM OF ACTION

The Ecuadorian State undertakes not to interfere in the constitutional and statutory rights of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly of the Restrepo family, their sympathizers, and human rights organizations that join this cause for the purpose of commemorating the death of Carlos and Pedro Andrés Restrepo Arismendy or for other purposes related to this event. The National Police and Armed Forces shall guarantee these natural and juridical persons the free exercise of these guarantees, in keeping with Ecuadorian law.

134. Thus far the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information on judicial proceedings initiated by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR, nor on the search for the bodies.

Case 11.991 - Report Nº 100/00, Kelvin Vicente Torres Cueva (Ecuador)

135. In Report Nº 100/00 of October 5, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To recognize that the State has made payment of the US$50,000 in compensation, and to note its failure to carry out its commitments to punish the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

2. To urge the State to make the decisions needed to carry out the pending commitments to bring to trial the persons considered responsible for the facts alleged, and to pay interest for the delinquency in payment of the compensation.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in that context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months on performance of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

136. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that they have no knowledge of any proceedings begun by the State to punish the police, prosecutors, and judges who participated directly or indirectly in the violations alleged to the Commission.

Case 11.478 - Report Nº 19/01, Juan Clímaco Cuellar et al. (Ecuador)

137. In Report Nº 19/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$100,000 as compensation to each of the victims of the situations alleged, and to note the lack of compliance with respect to the punishment of the persons responsible for the violation alleged, and with respect to the payment of interest for the delay in payment of the above-noted sum.

2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR every three months of compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement.

138. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners report that thus far they have no information on any judicial proceedings initiated by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR.

Case 11.512 - Report Nº 20/01, Lida Angela Riera Rodriguez (Ecuador)

139. In Report Nº 20/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceedings with respect to the sanction of the persons implicated in the facts alleged.

2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment regarding the trial of persons implicated in the facts alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every one of the points of the friendly settlement, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to inform the IACHR, every three months, of its compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

140. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that thus far they have no knowledge of any civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings initiated by the State to try and punish those directly and indirectly responsible for the violations alleged. They also said that more than three years have elapsed since the State promised to prosecute and punish the responsible police, prosecutors, and judges, but thus far there has been no sentence in this regard.

Case 11.605 - Report Nº 21/01, René Gonzalo Cruz Pazmiño (Ecuador)

141. In Report Nº 21/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To recognize that the State has made payment of $US30,000 in compensation, and has initiated the judicial proceeding to punish the persons implicated in the alleged violation.

2. To urge the State to adopt the necessary measures to conclude implementation of the commitment to prosecute the persons implicated in the facts alleged.

142. To date the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that they have no knowledge of any current civil, criminal, or administrative sentence against the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR.

Case 11.779 - Report Nº 22/01, José Patricio Reascos (Ecuador)

143. In Report Nº 22/01 of February 20, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To acknowledge that the State has made payment of US$20,000 as compensation, and the beginning of judicial proceedings to punish the persons implicated in the facts alleged.

2. To urge the State to adopt the measures needed to comply with the commitments pending with respect to the trial of the persons presumed to be responsible for the facts alleged.

144. So far the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the previous paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information about any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding initiated by the State to prosecute and punish those directly or indirectly responsible for the violations alleged. They also reported that three years have gone by since the State promised to prosecute and punish the responsible police, prosecutors, and judges, but thus far there has been no such sentence.

Case 11.441 - Report Nº 104/01, Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al. (Ecuador)

145. In Report Nº 104/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To certify that the State has complied with the commitment to pay US$10,000 to each victim in this case, as compensation.

2. To remind the State that it must comply fully with the friendly settlement agreement by instituting judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise compliance with each and every point of the friendly settlement agreements, and, in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR every three months as to compliance with the obligations assumed by the State under these friendly settlements.

146. To date, the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the preceding paragraph. The petitioners reported that thus far they have no knowledge of any judicial proceedings initiated by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR.

Case 11.443 - Report Nº 105/01, Washington Ayora Rodriguez (Ecuador)

147. In Report Nº 105/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case, as compensation.

2. To remind the State that it should fully implement the friendly settlement by beginning judicial proceedings against the persons implicated in the violations alleged.

3. To continue to monitor and supervise the implementation of each and every point of the friendly settlement agreement, and in this context, to remind the State, through the Office of the Attorney General, of its commitment to report to the IACHR, every three months, on the implementation of the obligations assumed by the State under this friendly settlement agreement.

148. Thus far the Ecuadorian State has not reported on compliance with the IACHR recommendations transcribed in the above paragraph. The petitioners reported that to date they have no information on judicial proceedings undertaken by the State for civil, criminal, or administrative punishment of the perpetrators of the violations alleged to the IACHR.

Case 11.450 - Report Nº 106/01, Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa (Ecuador)

149. In Report Nº 106/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Ecuadoran State:

1. To certify compliance by the State with the payment of US$30,000 to the petitioner in this case as compensation.