D.         Status of compliance with the recommendations of the IACHR

          44.       Complete compliance with the decisions of the Inter-American Commission is essential for ensuring that human rights have full force in the OAS member states, and for helping strengthen the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights. With that in mind, the IACHR, in this section, analyzes the status of compliance with the recommendations in the reports adopted by the Commission in the last three years.

 45.      In this regard, the OAS General Assembly, in its resolution AG/RES. 2128 (XXXV-O/05), “Observations and Recommendations on the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” urged the member states to follow up on the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (operative paragraph 3.b) and to continue to take appropriate action in connection with the annual reports of the Commission, in the context of the Permanent Council and the General Assembly of the Organization (operative paragraph 3.c).  Likewise, in its resolution AG/RES. 2075 (XXXV-O/05), “Strengthening of Human Rights Systems pursuant to the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas,” it reaffirmed the intent of the OAS to continue taking concrete measures aimed at implementing the mandates of the Third Summit of the Americas, including follow-up of the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (operative paragraph 2.b), and instructed the Permanent Council to continue the consideration of means of promoting follow-up on the recommendations of the Commission by the Organization’s member states (operative paragraph 4.d).

 46.     Both the Convention (Article 41) and the Statute of the Commission (Article 18) explicitly grant the IACHR the authority to request information from the member states and to produce such reports and recommendations as it considers advisable. Specifically, Article 46 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, which took effect on May 1, 2001, provides the following:

1.      Once the Commission has published a report on a friendly settlement or on the merits in which it has made recommendations, it may adopt the follow-up measures it deems appropriate, such as requesting information from the parties and holding hearings in order to verify compliance with friendly settlement agreements and its recommendations.


2.     The Commission shall report on progress in complying with those agreements and recommendations as it deems appropriate.

          47.     In compliance with its powers under the Convention and the Statute and with the above-cited resolutions, and pursuant to Article 46 of its Rules of Procedure, the IACHR requested information from the states on compliance with the recommendations made in the reports published on individual cases included in its annual reports from 2000 and 2004. The Commission also decided to include on its web page (www.cidh.org) a copy of the responses from the member states in cases where they expressly requested that this be done.

 48.      The table the Commission is presenting includes the status of compliance with the recommendations made by the IACHR in the cases that have been decided and published in the last three years. The IACHR notes that compliance with different recommendations is meant to be successive and not immediate and that some recommendations require a reasonable time to be fully implemented. The table, therefore, presents the current status of compliance, which the Commission acknowledges as being a dynamic process that may evolve continuously. From that perspective, the Commission evaluates whether or not compliance with its recommendations is complete and not whether it has been started.

 49.      The three categories included in the table are the following: 

-        total compliance (those cases in which the state has fully complied with all the recommendations made by the IACHR. Having regard to the principles of effectiveness and fully observed those recommendations where the state has begun and satisfactorily completed the procedures for compliance);


-        partial compliance (those cases in which the state has partially observed the recommendations made by the IACHR either by having complied with only one or some of them or through incomplete compliance with all of them);


-        compliance pending (those cases in which the IACHR considers that there has been no compliance with the recommendations because no steps have been taken in that direction; because the state has explicitly indicated that it will not comply with the recommendations made; or because the state has not reported to the IACHR and the Commission has no information from other sources that would suggest otherwise).






Report Nº 103/01 María Merciadri

de Morini

Case 11.307 (Argentina)




Report Nº 91/03 Juan Ángel Greco

Petition 11.804 (Argentina)




Report Nº 48/01
Case 12.067 Michael Edwards
Case 12.068 Omar Hall
Case 12.086 Brian Schroeter
and Jerónimo Bowleg (Bahamas)




Report Nº 40/04 Maya indigenous community of the Toledo District

Case 12.053 (Belize)




Report Nº 54/01 Maria da Penha

Case 12.051 (Brazil)




Report Nº 55/01 Aluisio Cavalcante
Case 11.286 et al. (Brazil)




Report Nº 23/02 Diniz Bento Da Silva

Case 11.517 (Brazil)




Report Nº 95/03 José Pereira

Petition 11.289 (Brazil)




Report Nº 32/04 Corumbiara Massacre

Case 11.556 (Brazil)




Report Nº 33/04 Jailton Neri Da Fonseca

Case 11.634 (Brazil)




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




Report Nº 32/02 Juan Manuel Contreras San Martín et al.

Petition 11.715 (Chile)




Report Nº 33/02 Mónica Carabantes Galleguillos

Petition 12.046 (Chile)




Report Nº 30/04 Mercedes Julia Huenteao Beroiza et al.

Petition 4617/02 (Chile)




Report Nº 62/01 Massacre de Ríofrío

Case 11.654 (Colombia)




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




Report Nº 64/01 Leonel de Jesús

Isaza Echeverry

Case 11.712 (Colombia)




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




Report Nº 94/00

Byron Roberto Cañaveral
Case 11.439 (Ecuador)




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




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




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




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




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




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




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




Report Nº 20/01 Lida Angela Riera Rodríguez
Case 11.512 (Ecuador)




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




Report Nº 66/01 Dayra María Levoyer Jiménez

Case 11.992 (Ecuador)




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




Report Nº 104/01 Rodrigo Elicio Muñoz Arcos et al.

Case 11.441 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 105/01 Washington Ayora Rodríguez

Case 11.443 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 106/01 Marco Vinicio Almeida Calispa

Case 11.450 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 107/01 Angel Reiniero Vega Jiménez

Case 11.542 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 108/01 Wilberto Samuel Manzano

Case 11.574 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 109/01 Vidal Segura Hurtado

Case 11.632 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 110/01 Pompeyo Carlos Andrade Benítez

Case 12.007 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 63/03 Bolívar Franco Camacho Arboleda

Petition 11.515 (Ecuador




Report Nº 64/03 Joffre José Valencia
et al.

Petition 12.188 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 65/03 Joaquín Hernández Alvarado et al.

Petition 12.394 (Ecuador)




Report Nº 47/01 Donnason Knights

Case 12.028 (Grenada)




Report Nº 55/02 Paul Lallion

Case 11.765 (Grenada)




Report Nº 56/02 Benedit Jacob

Case 12.158 (Grenada)




Report Nº 4/01 María Eugenia Morales de Sierra

Case 11.625 (Guatemala)




Report Nº 58/01 Oscar Manuel Gramajo López

Case 9207 (Guatemala)




Report Nº 59/01 Remigio Domingo
et al.

Case 10.626 et al. (Guatemala)




Report Nº 60/01 Ileana del Rosario Solares Castillo et al.

Case 9111 (Guatemala)




Report Nº 57/02 Finca La Exacta

Case 11.382 (Guatemala)




Report Nº 66/03 Emilio Tec Pop

Petition 11.312 (Guatemala)




Report Nº 67/03 Irma Falquer

Petition 11.766 (Guatemala)




Report Nº 68/03 Community of San Vicente Los Cimientos

Petition 11.197 (Guatemala)




Report Nº 78/02 Guy Malary

Case 11.335 (Haiti)




Report Nº 49/01 Leroy Lamey

Case 11.826 et al. (Jamaica)




Report Nº 50/01 Damion Thomas

Case 12.069 (Jamaica)




Report Nº 127/01 Joseph Thomas

Case 12.183 (Jamaica)




Report Nº 58/02 Denton Aiken

Case 12.275 (Jamaica)




Report Nº 59/02 Dave Sewell

Case 12.347 (Jamaica)




Report Nº 41/04 Whitley Myrie

Case 12.417 (Jamaica)




Report Nº 53/01 Ana Gónzalez Pérez et al.

Case 11.565 (Mexico)




Report Nº 69/03 José Alberto Guadarrama García

Petition 11.807 (Mexico)




Report Nº 100/01 Milton García

Fajardo et al.

Case 11.381 (Nicaragua)




Report Nº 110/00 César Cabrejos Bernuy

Case 11.800 (Peru)




Report Nº 111/00 Pedro Pablo López González et al.

Case 11.031 (Peru)




Report Nº 112/00 Yone Cruz Ocalio Case 11.099 (Peru)




Report Nº 101/01 Luis Miguel Pasache et al.

Case 10.247 et al. (Peru)




Report Nº 75/02 (bis) Pablo Ignacio Livia Robles

Petition 12.035 (Peru)




Report Nº 70/03 Augusto A. Zúñiga Paz

Petition 11.149 (Peru)




Report Nº 71/03 María Mamérita Mestanza Chávez

Petition 12.191 (Peru)




Report Nº 31/04 Ricardo Manuel Semoza Di Carlo

Petition 12.078 (Peru)




Report Nº 51/00 Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al.

Case 9903 (United States)




Report Nº 52/01 Juan Raúl Garza

Case 12.243 (United States)




Report Nº 52/02 Ramón Martínez Villareal

Case 11.753 (United States)




Report Nº 62/02 Michael Domínguez

Case 12.285 (United States)




Report Nº 75/02 Mary and Carrie Dann

Case 11.140 (United States)




Report Nº 97/03 Gary T. Graham (now known as Shaka Sankofa)

Case 11.193 (United States)




Report Nº 98/03 Statehood Solidarity Committee

Case 11.204 (United States)




Report Nº 99/03 César Fierro

Case 11.331 (United States)




Report Nº 100/03 Douglas Christopher Thomas

Case 12.240 (United States)




Report Nº 101/03 Napoleon Beazley

Case 12.412 (United States)




 CASE 11.307, Report Nº 103/01, María Merciadri de Morini (Argentina)

          50.      Report Nº 103/01 was approved by the Commission on October 11, 2001 to report on the friendly settlement reached with respect to a petition challenging the application of Law 24.012 (the “Quota Act”) and its implementing decree, which concerned the placement of women candidates on the ballot.  In its report, the Commission concluded that the information analyzed demonstrated that the matter had been settled in accordance with respect for the principles of the American Convention.  That information included the text of Decree Nº 1246, issued to remedy the problem complained of and ensure the efficacy of Law 24.012, and the terms of the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties in the presence of the Executive Secretary of the Commission, indicating that both parties considered the matter to have been fully resolved through the enactment of Decree Nº 1246.  The Commission recognized the important efforts of both parties to work toward the free and full participation of women in public life, a priority for our hemisphere, and indicated its satisfaction with the settlement.

 CASE 11.804, Report Nº 91/03, Juan Ángel Greco (Argentina)

51.      On October 22, 2003, the Commission approved a friendly settlement agreement in the case of Juan Angel Greco. Under this agreement the State agreed to:

 [....]II.    Non-monetary measures of reparation:

            […. ] 

Within the framework of the republican division of powers, the Government of the Province of Chaco has requested that the Provincial Attorney General’s Office reexamine the criminal case titled: “COMISARIA PUERTO VILELAS S/ELEVA ACTUACIONES,” File Nº 1975/90, Year 1990, of the judicial case titled “BASTIANINI DE GRECO ZULMA S/SOLICITA INTERVENCION ALTO TRIBUNAL A EFECTOS ESCLARECER DENEGACION DE JUSTICIA EN CAUSA QUE FUERA VICTIMA SU HIJO.” File Nº 38.730, Folio 345, Year 1995, and according to the request submitted to the Judge for the matter, that Office has pronounced in terms favorable to its reopening.  In this sense, the Government of the Province of Chaco undertakes to send, through the Office for Human Rights of the Foreign Ministry, a legalized and certified copy thereof to the petitioners and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.  Within the framework of its competences, the Government of the Province of Chaco undertakes to encourage the reopening of the criminal case and the corresponding investigations.


In attention to the measures adopted by the Provincial Attorney General’s Office and the Admissibility Report Nº 72/01 adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Government of Chaco commits itself -- once the criminal case has been reopened – to direct the reopening of the administrative case Nº 130/91-250690-1401.-


The Government of the Province of Chaco, in the framework of its competences, commits itself to ensuring that the family members have access to the judicial and administrative investigations.” 


III.         Economic reparation:




2.         Indemnity: The Government of the Province of Chaco undertakes to provide economic reparation to the family members of Juan Ángel Greco in the sum of three hundred thousand pesos ($300,000) that shall be paid to Mrs. Zulma Bastianini de Greco in the amount of thirty thousand per month in the time period specified in point 3 of the present item, that amount comprising material damages, moral damages, lost wages, costs, fees and any other classification that would arise from the responsibility assumed by the Province of Chaco.




IV.        Other reparation:




“The Government of the Province of Chaco commits itself to the publication of this agreement in the principle written press sources of the nation and the Province of Chaco.”




“The Government of the Province of Chaco commits itself to continue pursuing legislative and administrative measures for the improved protection of Human Rights.  Specifically, it is placed on record that a draft law creating a Criminal Prosecutor’s Office for Human Rights has been developed and transmitted to the Provincial Chamber of Deputies for its study and approval.  Further, the work of the Permanent Commission for Control of Detention Centers, created by Resolution No. 119, of February 24, 2003, of the Ministry of Government, Justice and Labor of the Province of Chaco, will be strengthened.  In this same regard, further emphasis will be placed on the work of the Organ of Institutional Control (O.C.I) created by Article 35 of the Organic Police Law of the Province of Chaco Nº 4.987, directing it toward the more effective protection of human rights on the part of the Provincial Police.  At the initiative of the Executive, the Provincial Counsel for Education and Promotion of Human Rights created by Law Nº 4.912 was constituted in the sphere of the Chamber of Deputies.  The representatives of the distinct intervening organs and powers have already been designated and convoked.  The duly certified and legalized records of these instruments are attached as Annexes I, II, III and IV.  In relation to the measures set forth, some of which were adopted in the course of this friendly settlement procedure, the Government of the Province of Chaco undertakes to keep the petitioners and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights informed as to the status of advances through the Office for Human Rights of the Foreign Ministry.”



        52.          The Commission received information from the parties regarding the steps taken in compliance with the points agreed on at a working meeting held on March 5, 2004. On November 8, 2004, the Commission asked the parties for up-to-date information on the state of compliance with the agreement. The petitioners submitted a brief communication addressing the issue on November 19, 2004.  The Commission received additional information from the parties during a working meeting held on March 2, 2005.  The State presented complementary information on August 30, 2005.  By note of November 8, 2005, the Commission requested updated information from the parties.  The petitioners responded with a presentation dated November 16, 2005.

 53.         Based on the information available to the Commission as of February of 2006, it finds that the State has complied in full with the monetary compensation requirements.  Further, in accordance with the points agreed upon, the Provincial Government ordered the publication of the agreement, which was published in two newspapers with national circulation and four with local circulation.

 54.          However, according to the information available, the points relating to the requirement of investigating and punishing the perpetrators of the human rights violations suffered by Juan Ángel Greco are still pending.  In this regard, the State reported that in October of 2003, the prosecutor had ordered the formal investigation of the police personnel who had been on duty on the night of the fire in order to investigate the facts that lead to the death of the victim.  In June of 2004, the production of various measures of proof that had been requested by the prosecutor at that time was ordered.  Because that proof had not been produced as of March of 2005, the order was reiterated.

 55.          Further, the State reported on decree 19/2004, in which the Executive Branch of the Province ordered that the victim’s family be provided access to the investigations.  However, the petitioners reported that this decree “had not translated into effective access to the case.”  The State further reported that the same decree had ordered the reopening of the administrative investigation and that the family be given access to it.  The petitioners reported, however, that they were unable to confirm the status of that process because they had not been able to have access to the file.

 56.           The final commitment was toward adopting legislative and administrative measures to extend protection of human rights. Whereas the government reported, during the drafting of the agreement, that one of its actions had been to draw up and refer to the Chamber of Deputies a legislative bill that would create a prosecutor’s office specifically for human rights and permanent oversight commission for the province’s detention centers, the information presented subsequently indicates that no measures have been adopted to concretize that initiative. 

 57.           For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the State has partially complied with the points agreed upon and the recommendations issued and, in accordance with the terms of Report 91/03, will continue with the follow-up and supervision of the commitments of the friendly settlement agreement. 

            CASES 12.067, 12.068 and 12.086, Report Nº 48/01, Michael Edwards, Omar Hall,
            Brian Schroeter and Jeronimo Bowleg

        58.          In Report Nº 48/01 dated April 4, 2001, the Commission recommended that the State:

       1.      Grant Messrs. Edwads, Hall, Schroeter and Bowleg, an effective remedy which  includes commutation of sentence and compensation;


      2.      Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is imposed in compliance with the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the American Declaration, including and in particular Articles I, XXV, and XXVI, and to ensure that no person is sentenced to death pursuant to a mandatory sentencing law.


      3.      Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article XXIV of the American Declaration to petition for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in The Bahamas.


        4.      Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to an impartial hearing under Article XXVI of the American Declaration and the right to judicial protection under Article XVIII of American Declaration are given effect in The Bahamas in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.


        5.       Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article XXV of the American Declaration to be tried without undue delay is given effect in The Bahamas.


        6.        Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the rights under Articles XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration to humane treatment and the right not to receive cruel, infamous, or unusual punishment are given effect in The Bahamas.

       59.          On November 8, 2002, the Commission wrote to both the State and the Petitioners and requested up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report Nº 48/01. The State has not informed the Commission as to its compliance with the Commission’s recommendations in Report Nº 48/01. On December 18, 2002, the Petitioners in Case 12.067, Michael Edwards, wrote to the Commission and informed it that they had written to the Attorney General of The Bahamas asking what steps the State would be taking in response to the Commission’s findings and recommendations. To date they are still awaiting a response from the Attorney General of The Bahamas concerning the same. On December 18, 2002, the Petitioner in Case 12.062, Omar Hall, wrote to the Commission and informed it that despite enquiries made to the Bahamian Government, she has not received any information concerning what steps the State has taken to commute Mr. Hall’s death sentence or otherwise put into effect the Commission’s recommendations made in Report Nº 48/01. With regard to Case 12.086, Brian Schroeter and Jeronimo Bowleg, the Petitioners wrote to the Commission and informed it that they were currently attempting to verify which, if any, of the recommendations contained in Report Nº 48/01, has been complied with by the State. Based on these considerations, the IACHR presumes that the Government of The Bahamas has not complied with the Commission's recommendations.

 60.          By communications of July 2, 2004 and November 9, 2004, the Commission requested information from the State about compliance with the recommendations set forth in Report Nº 48/01, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.  To date, the Commission has not received any responses from the State to these communications.

 CASE 12.053, Report Nº 40/04, Maya indigenous communities of the
             Toledo District (Belize)

         61.          In Report Nº 40/04 dated October 12, 2004, the Commission recommended that the State:

1.      Adopt in its domestic law, and through fully informed consultations with the Maya people, the legislative, administrative, and any other measures necessary to delimit, demarcate and title or otherwise clarify and protect the territory in which the Maya people have a communal property right, in accordance with their customary land use practices, and without detriment to other indigenous communities.


2.       Carry out the measures to delimit, demarcate and title or otherwise clarify and protect the corresponding lands of the Maya people without detriment to other indigenous communities and, until those measures have been carried out, abstain from any acts that might lead the agents of the State itself, or third parties acting with its acquiescence or its tolerance, to affect the existence, value, use or enjoyment of the property located in the geographic area occupied and used by the Maya people.


3.       Repair the environmental damage resulting from the logging concessions granted by the State in respect of the territory traditionally occupied and used by the Maya people.

        62.      On February 1, 2006, the Commission wrote to both the State and the Petitioners and requested up-dated information concerning compliance with the Commission’s Recommendations in Report Nº 40/04.  The Commission is awaiting responses from both parties.

 CASE 12.051, Report Nº 54/01, Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil)

 63.          In Report Nº 54/01 of April 16, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Brazilian State:

1.       Complete, rapidly and effectively, criminal proceedings against the person responsible for the assault and attempted murder of Mrs. Maria da Penha Fernandes Maia.

2.      In addition, conduct a serious, impartial, and exhaustive investigation to determine responsibility for the irregularities or unwarranted delays that prevented rapid and effective prosecution of the perpetrator, and implement the appropriate administrative, legislative, and judicial measures.


3.     Adopt, without prejudice to possible civil proceedings against the perpetrator, the measures necessary for the State to grant the victim appropriate symbolic and actual compensation for the violence established herein, in particular for its failure to provide rapid and effective remedies, for the impunity that has surrounded the case for more than 15 years, and for making it impossible, as a result of that delay, to institute timely proceedings for redress and compensation in the civil sphere.


4.      Continue and expand the reform process that will put an end to the condoning by the State of domestic violence against women in Brazil and discrimination in the handling thereof.  In particular, the Commission recommends:

a.       Measures to train and raise the awareness of officials of the judiciary and specialized police so that they may understand the importance of not condoning domestic violence.


b.       The simplification of criminal judicial proceedings so that the time taken for proceedings can be reduced, without affecting the rights and guarantees related to due process.


c.       The establishment of mechanisms that serve as alternatives to judicial mechanisms, which resolve domestic conflict in a prompt and effective manner and create awareness regarding its serious nature and associated criminal consequences.


d.       An increase in the number of special police stations to address the rights of women and to provide them with the special resources needed for the effective processing and investigation of all complaints related to domestic violence, as well as resources and assistance from the Office of the Public Prosecutor in preparing their judicial reports.


e.        The inclusion in teaching curriculums of units aimed at providing an understanding of the importance of respecting women and their rights recognized in the Convention of Belém do Pará, as well as the handling of domestic conflict.


f.        The provision of information to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights within sixty days of transmission of this report to the State, and of a report on steps taken to implement these recommendations, for the purposes set forth in Article 51.1 of the American Convention.

        64.     The State did not submit any information on compliance with the aforementioned recommendations of the IACHR. The petitioners said, with respect to recommendation 1 (supra), that the law courts concluded the criminal proceeding and convicted the person responsible, who is currently serving his sentence under the work release system. As regards recommendation 2 (supra), they indicated that in order to be able to provide a full account of this issue they would need a copy of the administrative investigation that the State has reportedly opened. They add that the investigation was not impartial since it was conducted by the judicial branch of the State of Ceará, and that it failed to identify those responsible for the delays and irregularities in the proceeding.

        65.      With respect to recommendation 3 (supra), they said that an intention existed in some spheres of the Government to nominate the victim for an award; however, it was never concretized. As to recommendation 4(a) (supra), the petitioners said that the State has made little progress toward compliance, and they added that the State’s proposals do not specify the budget and scope of training programs, or specify which evaluation and monitoring mechanisms would be used. On the question of recommendations 4(b) and 4(c) (supra), the petitioners mentioned that no progress has been made in criminal proceedings in cases of domestic violence, and that Brazil remains the only country in Latin America without laws that specifically address domestic violence. As to recommendations 4(d) and 4(e) (supra), the petitioners said that there has been no significant change in the number of specialized delegations and that the amount of resources allocated to them is still extremely low. With respect to education, they mentioned that there has been no substantial progress.  

       66.       Based on the information provided, the Commission concludes that the aforementioned recommendations have been partially complied with.