doc. 6
1 JulY 1985
Original:  Spanish



In the General Staff Headquarters

Once we had reached the barracks, we were subjected to innumerable insults, blasphemy and foul language.  Everyone knew us to be priests and monks, and it was to that fact that the insults referred.  The main courtyard of the barracks held about 100 paramilitary people who were armed and visibly enraged, numerous soldiers and officers, tanks and other vehicles, some of which were ambulances.


They took us to the Department II (Intelligence) building.  There were some 15 people in the hall, mostly paramilitary types.  They put us with our faces to the wall, asked our names and while shouting insults at us and beating and kicking us, they ordered us to hand over shoes, belts and all personal items (I had no identity document or article of value on me, except my watch and keys which they did not see).


We then went out again into the courtyard, and they took us toward the stables.  Along the way, a civilian, whom I did not know, beat and kicked me at will, and nobody tried to stop him.  Once we got to the stables, we saw some 30 to 40 people lying down; I thought that they were going to kill or torture us.  They forced us to lie face down with our hands behind our heads on top of the mix of manure and straw that covered most of the floor.  The rest of the day, they went on bringing more detainees, including all the journalists who were covering the events at the presidential palace, deputies, trade unionists, university people, etc.  During all this time, the guards threatened us continuously with insults, orders not to move, etc., some of which were accompanied by a few kicks and blows with the butt of a gun (the guards were first of all paramilitary, and then uniformed soldiers; there frequently appeared an individual with a clearly Argentinean accent, which seemed different from the one we had heard earlier.  He was particularly cruel and gross in his insults and beatings).  At approximately midnight, a soldier stole my watch.  Until about 3:30 a.m., we were unable to get up to urinate; some who asked to do so were told they would be urinated on.


During the last hour, we were guarded by a soldier (who seemed to be an officer of the rank of Captain or Major) who behaved in a humanitarian way:  he did not threaten us, did not insult us, did not object to our making ourselves a little more comfortable; he allowed us to get up and urinate against a wall in the stable.


In the DOP (Division of Political Order):

At around 4:30 a.m. on Friday the 10th, they took us barefoot out of the stable, with out hands on our heads, which we were told to keep down; they forced us to walk two by two and they beat us a little.  They put us into some ambulances of the CNSS (National Social Security Bank) from which the litters had been taken out.  They threw us onto the floor of the ambulance, some four or five people in each ambulance.  Two civilians came into the ambulance armed with machine guns.  All indications were that they were taking us to some out-of-the-way place to kill us.  The ambulances went through the streets of La Paz, and when we got out, we realized that we were outside the DOP prison, some 15 meters from the Presidential palace (since the end of the Banzer dictatorship, the place had been used as offices for the Chamber of Deputies, and it was clear that it had just been fixed up again as a jail).


Once inside the DOP, they again put us up against the wall and asked our names.  Then an agent took us priests aside and put us together in a cell:  at that time, there were only three of us:  the fourth Jesuit was brought into the cell in the afternoon; they had taken him out of the General Staff Headquarters on the first trip.  The cell measured 3 meters x 3 meters, and was lit only by the light that came in through the cracks in the door.  It had a cement floor and the only thing that we had to cover ourselves with was a torn piece of dusty matting.  At 7:00 a.m., they gave us hot coffee, the first food we had had since our detention; later, at midday or in mid-afternoon they gave us a plate of food.


We stayed in this cell from the Friday the 18th until the morning of Tuesday the 22nd, when they transferred us to another cell which was in fact an office with a wooden floor fixed up as a cell.  One night, they took us out at 1:00 a.m. to take down our basic personal data:  name, age, occupation, place of detention.  On Sunday the 20th, they returned our shoes.


We stayed in that cell until Friday August 1st.  The treatment we received in the DOP was humanitarian, given the circumstances:  the food was not abundant, but it was well prepared; we were allowed to received blankets, food, wine for the Eucharist, playing cards, cigarettes, etc., we were not mistreated.  However, we know for certain that during those days, others were mistreated by soldiers (not from the DOP) during their interrogation.  After six days’ imprisonment, the DIN (National Investigation Bureau) took a statement from me without using violence: personal data, occupation, place and circumstances of detention, information on membership of political parties, political meetings, possession of arms, plan for an armed struggle in the country and other questions.  I was given the statement to read and I signed it.


On Monday the 28th, they brought three Salesians into our cell; we had been unaware that they had been detained a week earlier.  On the following day, they brought in two Methodist pastors one from La Paz and the other from Sapecha (Alto Beni); we had seen the one from La Paz for some days, because he had been detained on the same day as ourselves.  Two or three nights, we spent some anguished moments hearing and seeing that they were taking prisoners out to we knew not where and that new detainees were arriving.  Over the days, we saw prisoners, many of them under 20 years of age, who had been beaten up with varying degrees of cruelty.  There were six women, whom we estimated to be between 20 and 50 years of age, who had been beaten up with varying degrees of cruelty.  There were six women, whom we estimated to be between 20 and 50 years of age, who had been beaten up with varying degrees of cruelty.  There were six women, whom we estimated to be between 20 and 50 years of age, detained in a cell across from ours.  One day, we had a visit from an insolent employee of the Ministry of the Interior, who was accompanied by his bodyguards bearing submachine guns; among other nonsense, he told us that no one was interested in us, when by other channels, we knew of the efforts that were being made by the Church.


I think it was on the 30th that Brother José Marco was transferred to the Copacabana Clinic (Police clinic) to receive care for symptoms of Phlebitis.  Most of our bruises and traces of ill-treatment had practically disappeared.  We were visited by a DIN doctor three or four times.  For the whole of our stay in the DOP, we went outside on three occasions, for a total of 20 minutes.


Back in the General Staff Headquarters

On Friday the 8th of August, at approximately 11:00 a.m. they took us out of the DOP to an unknown destination, but without armed guards.  We were taken to the General Staff Headquarters.  Later, we were taken into a meeting in the operations room of the High Command, where we saw the Nuncio, two bishops, the Salesian and Jesuit religious superiors, and the three chiefs of intelligence of the Armed Forces.  Seeing the attempt by the chiefs of intelligence to hide the truth, we graphically described the treatment that we had received after our detention; the meeting was not very cordial after that.


We were returned to Department II, where three priests and two nuns detained in their places of residence in the northern altiplano joined us later.  We were not spared insults by the civilians and soldiers, who seemingly proceeded on their own initiative, taking advantage of the prevailing chaos.  AT night, they took us eleven men to an office-turned-cell.  They gave us mattresses and blankets.  The treatment was relatively humanitarian.  The food was insufficient, and often cold.  We never once went outside.  Five small tanks and three large ones were parked in the courtyard beneath our windows, which were covered with newspaper. We often were visited by some soldiers and paramilitary people; some of them behaved cordially, and others were domineering or insulting.  One of them was blatantly hypocritical about what he told us, and what he then said to other people.


On August 4, we learned that on the following day, we would all be going to the palace of the Papal Nuncio.  On August 5, seven were released, while the other four (the three Salesians and myself) were taken to the Nunciature.  When we went outside, the courtyard of the barracks held the customary group of about 100 paramilitary people, who were armed and looked like criminals.


In the Nunciature

The Armed Forces intended our stay here to be a step toward exile, but we have been told that the Nuncio, the Bishops and our religious superiors are not in agreement, and intend to prevent it.


I have learned the charges against:  I find them stupid, unjust because they are false and unproven.  Therefore, I consider my detention to be unjustified and unjust.  Equally unjust will be my exile if it comes to pass.


We are living in excellent conditions in the Nunciature and really have complete freedom within the building.


Until today, August 12, we do not know whether they will exile us or whether they will release us.  It is my desire to stay in Bolivia.


E.       Other Forms of Restriction on Freedom:  Persons Exiled and in Compulsory Residence 5


1.          The Commission will now refer to the situation of those in exile and those in compulsory residence, because it is closely linked to the right to personal freedom, and the right of movement and residence upheld in the American Convention on Human Rights.


2.          Article 7, paragraph g) of the Bolivian Constitution upholds “the right to enter, remain in, travel through and leave the national territory.”  Article 15 of the Constitution establishes that unless a state of siege has been declared, public officials who take measures the molestations, confinement or exile of citizens, and have these measures carried out shall be subject to payment of compensation for damages and to corresponding criminal action, if it is proven that the acts done in violation of the rights and guarantees established in the Constitution.


Furthermore, as stated earlier, when the state of siege is in effect, the declaration of the state of siege authorizes the Executive to suspend the guarantees and rights upheld in the Constitution for certain persons charged upon good grounds with conspiring against the public order.  In such cases, in addition to their arrest by means of a warrant from a legitimate authority, orders may be issued for them to be confined to a department of provincial capital where their health is not in danger, if preservation of public order requires them to be moved away.6


However, during the state of siege, the Constitution prohibits exile for political reasons; however, persons confined, sought or under arrest on such grounds who ask for passports to travel abroad may not be denied them for any reason whatever, and the authorities must grant them the guarantees necessary for this purpose.  Those who carry out orders in contravention of this provision may be tried at any time for violation of constitution guarantees.


3.          It may be said, on the basis of the legislation cited and the denunciations and reports obtained, that hundreds of Bolivians, particularly political and trade union leaders, have found themselves forced to go into exile in various countries, in the face of threats and intimidation by government authorities, or as an essential means of obtaining their freedom; others have opted for voluntary exile, or were deported from the country, while a smaller group have been placed in “compulsory residence,” i.e., forced to live in a particular area of the country and appear from time to time before the authorities.  In the opinion of the Commission, these measures were taken without heeding or respecting the requirements of the Constitution and for the purpose of liquidating any political opposition, 7 albeit peaceful opposition, in open contravention of the text and spirit of the American Convention on Human Rights.8


People who were able to gain asylum9 in various diplomatic missions on the day of the military coup d’état, or in the days following, obtained their safe conduct passes after about three months’ delay.  The IACHR wishes to reiterate its view that the prolonged confinement of individuals in places like diplomatic missions which have the privilege of immunity is also a violation of the freedom of persons granted asylum, and becomes a punishment.  In November 1980, the Bolivian Government informed the commission that all the people who had been in the diplomatic missions had been granted their safe conducts and were leaving the country.10


5.          In notes dated April 3 and 30, 1981, the Commission asked the Bolivian Government for the official list of persons exiled, granted asylum, deported and in “compulsory residence” in order to clarify the various reports it had been receiving.  The Government to date, has not replied.


6.          The Commission has received document GB/214/11/9 of the 214th session of the Committee on Freedom of Association of the International Labour Organisation, which studied Case No. 983 on alleged violations of trade union freedom by the Government of Bolivia.  Appendix II to that document gives the list of persons who have been placed in 2internal exile,” freed or exiled.  This information was provided to the ILO by the Government itself on November 10, 1980.11  Because of its source, the IACHR felt that it would be useful to include it, since it confirms the accusations of arbitrary measures affecting the observance of personal liberty as well as the right of movement and residence upheld in the Pact of San José.


The list appears below:


Juan Lechin Oquendo

compulsory residence

Simón Reyes Rivera


Liber Porti


Julio Tumiri

compulsory residence

Víctor Lima 


Max Toro B.


Noel Vásquez


Víctor Lima


Cayetano Llobet 

released 2/11/80

Gladys Solon

released 9/10/80

Hernán Ludeña 


Oscar Peña Franco 


Fernando Salazar


Cosme Reyes Valverde 

compulsory residence

Luis Aguilar Portillo


Nicasio Choque Donaire


Rufino Cossio Calle 

compulsory residence

Luis Pozo Iñiquez 


Rafael Ortega Vaquera 


Miguel Ortiz Ruelas 


Arlos Soria Galvarro 


Agencio Quispe Quispe 


Walter Humerez Cortez 


Francisco Tintaya Calle 


Paulino Méndez Arosqueta 


Wilfredo Rua Bejarano 


Arturo Villanueva Imaña 

compulsory residence

Walter Robles Bermudez


Julio A. Márquez 


David Acevey  

compulsory residence

Amador Villavicencio 


Eduardo Domínguez Vert

compulsory residence

Alfredo Bonadona 

released 30/10/80

Walter Retamozo Montaño 


Floduardo Ordoñez 

compulsory residence

Raúl González Almansa 


José Márquez


Freddy Justiniano

compulsory residence

Guillermo Dalence 


Valdimir Arusinaga 


Julio Márquez 


Juan Carlos Oriales 

compulsory residence

Adrian Camacho 


Fernando Torrely María 


Armando Porre  


Corsino Pereyra 

compulsory residence


7.          Below we give some of the other information from exiles on undue force:


Case 7823:  Juan Antonio Solano, born January 27, 1955 in Llallagua, Bolivia.  A metallurgy student a t the University of Oruro and member of the University Federation.


Detained in 1977 during the Banzer Government, and again in 1980 after the coup d’état.  He has been in exile in Switzerland since November 22, 1980. when he was forced to leave his country, Bolivia.


Arrested on July 18, 1980 in the university cafeteria of the University of Oruro by the Armed Forces and the police, along with 250 other students.  He was first taken into detention in a military post in Vinto (Oruro), and then to the Oruro DOP, where he remained for 45 days and was later transferred to the Ministry of the Interior in La Paz.  During the entire period of his detention, he was mistreated and was forced to sign false statements.  The interrogations were conducted by agents of the Intelligence Service.  Since he was considered to be a “dangerous element” he was to be sent to Argentina.  The intervention of the church (CIME)12 and the United Nations prevented Bolivian political prisoners from being sent to Argentina.  He was taken to Viacha, where CIME officials interviewed him and facilitated his exile in Switzerland.


Tortures and ill-treatment

Immediately after his arrest along with 250 other students, they were taken to a military post in Vinto (Oruro0 where they underwent a mock burial, being forced to get into a trench where they were sprayed with tear gas and covered with earth and water.  They were then beaten with sticks and were put through mock shootings.  There were than taken to the DOP in Oruro, where prison conditions were very bad.  They were forced to sign statements under duress; there was neither water nor food.  There were between 30 to 40 detainees in cells measuring 2 x 3 meters.  The detainees’ families took them food.  Since there were a number of detainees from the interior of the country, they had no one to take food to them.  During the 45 days he was in the DOP, he survived basically on the food that other prisoners with him.  His next transfer was to the Minister of the Interior in La Paz, where there were a large number of detainees who would later be taken to the concentration camps in the east of Bolivia.  (Madidi, San Joaquín, Puerto Rico, Exiamas).  For the first days, they shut him up in a small room and took him out to interrogate him late at night.  During the first stage of interrogations, they did not use violence, but when he did not confess, they beta him until he lost consciousness.  He was left for two days in a dark room without anything to eat or to drink, and was than taken out to be interrogated again.  He was again beaten, and then taken to a cell which contained all his companions who were in the same psychical condition as himself.  In cells measuring 3 x 4 meters, there were up to 60 people, and no sanitation facilities.  Juan was classified as a “dangerous element” and together with other detainees, was on the list of deportees.  On October 25, they were given safe-conducts to be deported to Argentina as members of extreme leftist groups.  When they were at the airport, they heard the news that CIME, the church and the United Nations were intervening to prevent political prisoners from being sent to Argentina, Chile, and Paraguay.  They were taken to Viacha, where CIME officials helped Juan to leave for Switzerland.


During the whole time he was detained, Juan had no meeting with his family and no opportunity to tell them where he was and in what condition.  He had to leave Bolivia without contacting anyone in his family.


Case 7824:  Diego Morales Barrera, painter and professor of the plastic arts, born in La Paz (Bolivia0 on November 12, 1946.  Professor of the plastic arts at the Higher School of Fine Arts for six years.  From 1976 to 1979, he worked as a sculptor in the Museum of Ethnography and Folklore, where he was press and propaganda secretary of the First Union of Public Employees.  In February 1979, he head to leave the museum because of pressure exerted by the Armed Forces.


Diego Morales Barrera has no political affiliation, but his work as a painter has expressed his disagreement with military coups, he is against de facto governments and his tendency is leftist.


On October 16, 1980, he was detained along with his mother in La Paz by agents of the (SIE) (State Intelligence Service).  Mrs. Morales was released an hour later.  Diego was taken to the Ministry of the Interior where he was beaten and his papers confiscated.  He was taken to the DIC Section Office in Obraje, a suburb of La Paz.  He stayed there for four days until October 20, handcuffed with shackles on his feet, in the dark, without water or food and without toilet facilities, using a bucket for his physiological needs.  On the 20th, he was taken to the Ministry of the Interior.  There, he was taken to the Ministry of the Interior.  There he was interrogated, his testicles beaten and his hands burned with cigarettes.  The interrogation continued in the offices of the Ministry of the Interior.  Using photographs of his paintings as their grounds, they questioned him about his political affiliation, who had financed his exhibit of pictures and whether he belong to the ILN; the interrogation was punctuated by blows to his ears and body.


Those doing the beating were agents, while those supervising and asking questions appeared to be senior military officers.  Between insults and blows, they frightened him by saying that they were going to take out his eyes, cut off his hands or some other part of his body.  This went on more or less from two in the afternoon until eight at night, when three army lieutenants belonging to the SIE took him to a house in the satellite city of El Alto in La Paz:  this is a low-income neighborhood where most of the houses belong to workers and minters.  The people in the house were dressed in civil clothing, but they were soldiers from Tarapacá.  Their leader was a captain and his seconds-in-command were lieutenants, one of whom they nicknamed “Rommel.”


Although they prepared the cattle-pick and in spite of continued threats, the interrogations did not end in violence.


On the 22nd, he had the opportunity to escape, since although he was handcuffed when he was in his cell, he was so thin that he could take them off.  On the night of October 22nd, they brought in a prisoner whom they savagely tortured by putting electric current to his testicles.  On the morning of the 23rd, the lieutenants gave the guards orders to type out the confession of the man who had been tortured, and to fix the wiring because they were going to continue with Diego.  When he heard this, Diego decided to escape and overcoming his pain, he freed himself from the handcuffs, jumped out of the window which gave onto a garage, with the assistance of a neighbor, and later found safe refuge in the Red Cross and the Swiss Embassy until he obtained his safe-conduct, with the cooperation of CIME, to go into exile in Switzerland.


F.       Habeas Corpus 13 and Amparo 14


1.          Not only has the Military Government of Bolivia disregarded the constitutional rules for abnormal situations and the rules on international protection of human rights, it has also made judicial guarantees for protection of those rights into a dead letter.


2.          These recourses in Bolivian legislation are constitutional provisions that seek to protect individuals from arbitrary detention–habeas corpus–and against illegal acts or undue omissions by public officials and private individuals who restrict, deny or threaten to restrict or deny the rights and guarantees of the individual upheld in the constitution and the law (amparo).


3.          In light of the background information given in this Chapter and all the information that has come to the Commission’s attention, particularly information on the way in which the authorities have proceeded n the individual and mass detentions and the circumstances surrounding them. It must be concluded that these legal guarantees of Bolivians’ right to life, personal freedom and safety have been frustrated and have become an ineffective tool with which to control illegal acts by the authorities: in practice, exercise of those rights does not obtain the expected results, given the military government’s refusal to report the whereabouts of detainees, the reasons or charges against them and generally, because there is no communication with the victims, who are deprived of their freedom for longer periods than permitted by the Constitution, even during a state of siege.


4.          Another factor related to what has been said here are the massive arrests for failure to observe the curfew which continues through the country.  There have been other instances in which individuals did not have their papers during round-ups by the security forces.  In these cases, the people are normally set free in a short period of time.  The Commission has also received information about a mass arrest of miners in Siglo XX and Catavi during a work stoppage on January 12, 1981.


The IACHR has also learned of the detention of some political opponents and dissident military officers in May and June 1981.  It is also alleged that the conditions under which the prisoners are living continue to be incompatible with human dignity.


5.          There have recently been statements by various Bolivian authorities affirming that public officials would not be allowed to abuse citizens and that it was becoming necessary to return to the rule of law, with real compliance with the Constitution and the law, submitting those responsible for violations to the competent judicial authorities.  The Commission feels sure that this will open the way toward the regularization and effectiveness of these basic judicial guarantees.

[ Table of ContentsPrevious  | Next ]


5.  American Convention on Human Rights.  Article 22:  1.  Every person lawfully in the territory of a State Party has the right to move about in it and to reside in it subject to the provisions of the law.  2. Every person has the right to leave any country freely, including his own.  3.  The exercise of the foregoing rights may be restricted only pursuant to a law to the extent necessary in a democratic society to prevent crime or to protect national security, public safety, public order, public morals, public health, or the rights or freedoms of others.  4.  The exercise of the rights recognized in paragraph 1 may also be restricted by law in designated zones for reasons of public interest.  5.  No one can be expelled from the territory of the state of which he is a national or be deprived of the right to enter it.  6.  An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to this Convention may be expelled from it only pursuant to a decision reached in accordance with law.  7.  Every persons has the right to seek and be granted asylum in a foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the state and international conventions, in the even that he is being pursued for political offenses or related common crimes.  8.  In no case may an alien be deported or returned to a country, regardless of whether or not it is his country of origin, if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.  9.  the collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.

6.  Article 112, paragraph 4 of the Political Constitution.

7.  Political leaders who opted for mandatory exile include Hernán Silez Suazo and Jaime Paz Zamora, who were the winners of the 1980 presidential elections.

8.  According to testimony taken in a considerable number of cases, the exiles’ passports were stamped with an express prohibition on reentering the country.

9.  The most representative of those who have sought asylum is former Constitutional President Lidya Gueiler, who after the events surrounding the military coup, was given asylum in the Apostolic Nunciature, where she stayed for three months until she was allowed to leave for Paris.

10.  Press clippings that the IACHR has received from the information bulletin “Bolivia Semanal,” which carries the news from the major international agencies, indicated:  in the Bulletin of November 8-16, 1980, “On November 8, the Minister of the Interior, Colonel Luis Arce Gómez, said that the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (CIME) had offered to finance the exit of some 20,000 people from Bolivia, which would enable the government to pay the travel costs to deport “all persons prejudicing the country’s development.”  However, he explained that for now, he was thinking only of deporting a total of 300 Bolivians.  “According to eyewitnesses, the last 18 persons who had taken asylum in the Mexican Embassy in La Paz left the country today.  Five deportees arrived in Lima from la Paz on their way to Switzerland.  They said that they had been threatened with death if they returned to Bolivia, and two of them said that they had been deported for a number of weeks to the Puerto Cabinas concentration camp, where there were still about 100 detainees.”  November 12, sources close to the Ministry of the Interior report that difficulties that arose at the last moment in Caracas prevented the arrival in La Paz of a Venezuelan military aircraft that was to pick up more than 100 political detainees who were to have gone into exile today.  November 13, Lieutenant Colonel Javier Pammo Rodríguez, Prefect of Cochabamba, announced that all political detainees would be deported from Bolivia or confined in the interior of the country until next Saturday, but that it was impossible to specify their number, “since the number varies daily, because some are freed at the same time as other arrests are made.”  The bulletin of November 17-23, 1980 said:  November 20, the Minister of the Interior, after handing over 47 detainees into the jurisdiction of the Inter-Governmental Committee for European Migration (CIME) said that there were no further detainees in Bolivia under the responsibility of the Security Agencies.  However, in January, it says,: “other information indicates that exiles continue in different ways:  officially by CIME, and clandestinely by the Government using air Force planes, as happened on December 25 when a TAM aircraft took 46 detainees, most of them young, out of the country to Paraguay.”  The bulletin of January 18-24, 1981 indicated:  January 24, 1981, a large group of exiled peasants, including women and children, arrived in Bogotá, Colombia, from the jails of La Paz.  The peasant group said that they belonged to the Chuquinuma Grande community.  The exile of this new contingent of Bolivian citizens happened immediately after agitation and protest broke out in the major cities and mining centers of Bolivia.”

11.  It is essential to clarify that according to statements by senior Bolivian officials, the legal status of some of the persons included in the present list may have changed since November 1980.  this is the case, for example, of Juan Lechín and Simón Reyes.

12.  Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration.

13.  Article 18 of the Political Constitution:  any person who believes that he is being unduly or illegally prosecuted, detained, tried or imprisoned may appear, in person or through anyone acting on his behalf, with or without a notarized power of attorney before the Superior District Court or before any Juez de Partido, at his choice, to demand that legal formalities be observed.  In places where there is no Juez de Partido, the appeal may be entered before a magistrate…

14.  Article 19 of the Political Constitution:  In addition to the right of habeas corpus referred to in the preceding article, it is hereby established that there shall be a recourse of amparo against illegal acts or undue omissions by public officials or private individuals that restrict, deny or threaten to restrict or deny the rights and guarantees of persons recognized in this Constitution and in the laws.  A writ of amparo may be entered by the person believing himself to be aggrieved or by another person on his behalf, with sufficient power of attorney, before the Supreme courts in the Department capitals and the Juez de Partido in the provinces, in very summary form.  In addition, the Ministry of the Interior may ex officio enter into a writ of amparo when the affected individual has not or cannot do so.  The authority or person against whom the writ is filed shall be summoned in the form specified in the preceding article in order to provide information and present, if applicable, the action taken on the alleged event, within a maximum of 48 hours.  The final ruling shall be handed down at a public hearing immediately upon receipt of the testimony of the person accused, and failing that, it shall be given on the basis of evidence offered by the petitioner.  The judicial authority shall examine the competency of the public official or the acts of the private individual, and should he find the accusation to be true, shall grant the amparo requested, provided there is no other means or legal recourse for immediate protection of the rights and guarantees restricted, suppressed or threatened.  Heshall  ex officio submit his ruling to the Supreme Court of Justice within 24 hours, for review.  The prior rulings of the judicial authority and the final decision granting amparo shall be carried out immediately and without objection, and in case of resistance, the provisions of the preceding article shall apply.