|
D. PETITIONS AND CASES BEFORE
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS, 69. Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that in cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, the latter may act at the request of the Commission.
70. On May 6, 1999, the Commission informed the Inter-American Court that, in light of the fundamental changes in the personal circumstances of Messrs. Guerrero and Páez – indeed, the latter was working as an official in the Administrative Security Department of the State (DAS) – and the fact that there existed no information to suggest that their physical integrity continues to be threatened, "it is reasonable to lift the measures decided upon on behalf of these persons." In its resolution of June 3, 1999, the Honorable Court decided, in conformity with Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of its Regulations:
71. The Court also required the
State to keep it informed about the measures adopted with respect to the
situation of Gonzalo Arías Alturo and Élida González Vergel and "on the
beneficiaries’ involvement in decisions related to execution of the Court’s
orders." 72. The Commission has continued to periodically present to the Court its observations on the reports of the Colombian State on the measures taken to protect the physical integrity of María Nodelia Parra, Gonzalo Arías Alturo and Élida González Vergel.
73. During 1999 and the first two months of 2000, the Commission has continued to periodically transmit to the Court its observations on the reports of the Colombian State on the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures ordered by the Court.
74. On September 3, 1999, the Commission urgently requested the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to order the adoption of special measures of protection to safeguard the life and physical integrity Mrs. Isleña Rey. The Commission’s request was based on information provided by the petitioners indicating that Mrs. Rey had been informed by the Commander of the Police Department of Meta that a call had been intercepted in which instructions had been given to assassinate her. On September 30, 1999, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a resolution in which it decided:
75. The Commission has continued to present to the Court on a periodic basis its observations on the reports of the Colombian State on the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of Sister Noemy Palencia, Mrs. Isleña Rey and Mrs. Mariela de Giraldo and the latter’s two minor children.
76. On January 29, 1999, the Court issued a resolution in which it ordered the State to maintain the measures of protection and to investigate the acts that gave rise to the provisional measures ordered in case 11.858, and the alleged ties between members of the Zenú indigenous community and illegal groups. The Commission has continued to periodically transmit to the Court its observations on the reports of the Colombian State on the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the persons covered by the provisional measures that had been ordered.
77. During its XLIV Regular Session, the Court considered the reports presented by the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in connection with the case of Colotenago and issued a resolution in which it decided:
78. The State of Guatemala submitted a number of reports concerning the status of compliance with the provisional measures in the aforementioned cases, and the Commission in turn submitted a number of observations on these reports. In relation to the Paniagua Morales/Vásquez case, it should be noted that, having received information from the Commission to the effect that the situation of security in question had improved, the Court ordered those provisional measures lifted.
79. On November 17, 1999, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered the State of Mexico to adopt measures to protect the lives and physical integrity of Digna Ochoa Y Plácido, Edgar Cortéz Morales, Mario Patrón Sánchez, and Jorge Fernández Mendiburu; and to guarantee security in the offices of the "Miguel Augustin Pro Juárez" Human Rights Center (PRODH). The Court also ordered the investigation of the alleged acts with a view to identifying and punishing the authors. 80. The request for provisional measures was presented by the IACHR on November 11, 1999, based on the complaint received from the National Network of Civil Human Rights Organizations "Todos los derechos para todos", the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, according to which, Ms. Digna Ochoa had been abducted and subjected to various threats, which were also made to her colleagues in the legal area of PRODH. On September 9, 1999, the Commission had requested the State of Mexico to adopt precautionary measures. During the period in which those measures were in force, Ms. Ochoa was attacked in her own home on October 28, 1999, by a group of unknown individuals who interrogated her about her alleged direct participation in the acts of various armed dissident groups operating in Mexico. The State of Mexico submitted its first report to the Inter-American Court on November 25, 1999, and the Commission made its observations on January 20, 2000, and concluded that the reasons that formed the basis of the request for measures to the Court still remained. On January 24, 2000, the State of Mexico submitted its second report.
81. On May 4, 1999, the Commission transmitted to the Court a request to amplify the provisional measures the latter had issued on August 29, 1998 in the matter of James et al. to include 20 victims in 19 additional Trinidad and Tobago death penalty cases before the Commission: cases 12.140 (Wilberforce Bernard), 12.129 (Naresh Boodram and Joey Ramiah), 11.851 (Clarence Charles), 12.112 (Phillip Chotolal), 11.787 (George Constantine), 12.072 (Rodney Davis), 12.093 (Natasha De Leon), 12.042 (Mervyn Edmund), 12.082 (Alfred Frederick), 12.137 (Nigel Mark), 12.076 (Wayne Matthews), 12.141 (Steve Mungroo), 12.111 (Vijay Mungroo), 12.005 (Wilson Prince), 12.052 (Martin Reid), 12.075 (Noel Seepersad), 12.073 (Gangaleen Tahaloo), 11.853(Keiron Thomas) and 12.043 (Samuel Winchester). In its request, the Commission noted that the State had not responded to the Commission’s requests for precautionary measures in these cases. The Commission also considered that, as these victims had been sentenced to a mandatory penalty of death for their crimes, they were in jeopardy of being executed prior to the final disposition of their cases by the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission indicated that the victims’ executions would render the eventual decisions moot in terms of the efficacy of potential remedies, and would cause irreparable harm to the victims. 82. On May 11, 1999, the President of the Court issued an order in respect of the Commission’s request to amplify the provisional measures issued in the James et al matter to include the 20 individuals mentioned above. In the order, the President required the State to take all measures necessary to preserve the lives of these victims, so that the Court could examine the pertinence of the Commission’s request for amplification. The President also required that the State submit an urgent communication to the Court by May 20, 1999 on the measures taken to comply with the order and its observations on the Commission’s request, for consideration during the Court’s XLIV Regular Session. 83. By letter dated May 21, 1999, the Court transmitted to the Commission a response from the State to the Commission’s request for amplification. In this document, the State reminded the Court that it recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only to such extent that the recognition was consistent with the relevant sections of the State’s Constitution, and provided that any judgement of the Court does not infringe, create or abolish any existing rights or duties of any private citizen. The State argued further that the measures requested by the Commission fell within the State’s reservation, and therefore that it considered the Court’s order of May 11, 1999 to be ultra vires and void. 84. By order dated May 25, 1999, the full Court ratified the President’s order dated May 11, 1999 respecting the 20 victims noted above, and ordered the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures necessary to preserve the lives of the 20 victims so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system. 85. On May 25, 1999, the Commission transmitted to the Inter-American Court a request to further amplify the provisional measures issued by the Court in the James et al matter to include eight victims in seven additional cases before the Commission: cases 11.718 (Anthony Johnson), 12.145 (Kevin Dial and Andrew Dottin), 12.148 (Peter Benjamin), 12.149 (Krishendath Seepersad), 12.151 (Allan Phillip), 12.152 (Narine Sooklal), and 12.153 (Amir Mowlah). In its request, the Commission noted that the State had not responded to the Commission’s requests for precautionary measures in these cases. The Commission also considered that, as these victims had been sentenced to a mandatory penalty of death for their crimes, they were in jeopardy of being executed prior to the final disposition of their cases by the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission indicated that the victims’ executions would render the eventual decisions moot in terms of the efficacy of potential remedies, and would cause irreparable harm to the victims. 86. By order dated May 27, 1999, the Court, in plenary, decided to amplify the provisional measures ordered in the James et al matter and to order the State to take all measures necessary to preserve the lives of the eight victims noted above so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system. 87. On June 18, 1999, The Commission transmitted to the Inter-American Court a request to further amplify the provisional measures issued by the Court in the James et al matter to include two victims in two additional cases before the Commission: Case Nos. 12.156 (Mervyn Parris) and 12.157 (Francis Mansingh). In its request, the Commission noted that the State had not responded to the Commission’s requests for precautionary measures in these matters. The Commission also considered that, as these victims had been sentenced to a mandatory penalty of death for their crimes, they were in jeopardy of being executed prior to the final disposition of their cases in the Inter-American system. Accordingly, the Commission indicated that the victims’ executions would render the eventual decisions moot in terms of the efficacy of potential remedies, and would cause irreparable harm to the victims. The Commission also indicated that it did not have an opportunity to study and open cases in respect of these petitions prior to submitting its May 25, 1999 request for amplification of the Court’s provisional measures, and that the acts that were alleged in these two additional cases to constitute violations of the Convention were taken by the State prior to May 26, 1999, the effective date of the State’s denunciation of the Convention. 88. By order dated June 19, 1999, the President of the Court decided to amplify the provisional measures in the James et al matter to include the victims in the two cases noted above, and to require the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures necessary to preserve the lives of Mervyn Parris and Francis Mansingh, so that the Court could examine the pertinence of the Commission’s request. 89. By order dated September 25, 1999, the Court, in plenary, ratified the President’s order dated June 19, 1999 and ordered the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures necessary to preserve the lives of Mervyn Parris and Francis Mansingh so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system until the situation of extreme gravity and urgency no longer persists in relation to these persons. 90. Finally, the Commission wishes to note that in 1999, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago executed two victims in cases before the Commission, notwithstanding the fact that the Inter-American Court had adopted provisional measures in respect of those victims, as described above. By letter dated June 7, 1999, the petitioners in case 12.129 (Naresh Boodram and Joey Ramiah) informed the Commission that, on June 4, 1999, the State executed Joey Ramiah. In addition, on July 28, 1999, the petitioners in case 11.815 (Anthony Briggs) informed the Commission that, on that day, the State had executed Anthony Briggs.
91. On May 27, 1999, the Court decided to order the State of Peru to adopt the provisional measures requested by the Commission to safeguard the physical and mental integrity of Carmen Judith Cardó Guarderas, Margarita del Carmen Cestí Cardó and Gustavo Cestí Cardó and to investigate the acts alleged in the complaint of Ms. Cestí and which were the grounds for the amplification of the provisional measures. The Court also ordered the State to include a detailed description of the measures of protection and prevention taken on behalf of these persons in the periodic reports that it submits on the status of the provisional measures ordered in this matter.
92. On January 10, 1999, the Commission submitted the case of José María Cantos to the Inter-American Court, because it involves, inter alia, the violation of the right to due legal guarantees, the right to judicial protection and the right to property, which are specified in Articles 8, 25 and 21 of the Convention, and the right to a fair trial and of petition provided for in Articles XVIII and XXIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, as a result of acts and omissions of the Argentine Republic. Mr. Cantos sought remedies for the violations through a broad range of domestic remedies in Argentina, all of which proved to be manifestly ineffective. The State submitted preliminary exceptions and addressed the merits of the complaint. The Commission presented its observations on those preliminary exceptions and, in light of the State’s arguments in its reply on the merits of the complaint, requested the Court to establish a deadline in accordance with Article 38 of its Regulations for it to present its observations. The Commission’s request was granted. Upon receipt of the Commission’s observations, the Court forwarded them to the State, to which it granted an equivalent period of time to that granted the Commission within which to present its rejoinder. That period expires on April 9, 2000. b. Bolivia 93. This case was presented by the Commission on June 9, 1999. The complaint relates to the events that took place beginning on December 23, 1971, when the young man José Carlos Trujillo Oroza was detained and disappeared by agents of the State of Bolivia, as well as to the failure to investigate the acts in question. The rights of the American Convention on Human Rights concerned in this case are the following: the obligation to respect rights and freedoms (Article 1.1), the right to juridical personality (Article 3), the right to life (Article 4), the right to humane treatment (Articles 5.1 and 5.2), the right to personal liberty (Article 7), the right to judicial guarantees (Article 8.1) and the right to judicial protection (Article 25). In a hearing before the Court on January 25, 2000, the State of Bolivia decided to withdraw the preliminary exceptions that it had presented on September 8, 1999 and to instead publicly acknowledged the facts alleged by the Commission in its claim and, in do doing, accepted international responsibility in the case and the legal consequences that derive from the aforementioned acts. Consequently, on January 26, 2000, the Court unanimously decided as follows:
94. In its resolution of January 27, 2000, the Court decided: c. Colombia Case of Caballero Delgado y Santana 95. During the course of 1999, the parties submitted a series of reports on the implementation of the ruling on compensation handed down by the Court on January 29, 1997 in the case of Caballero Delgado y Santana, which are being considered by the Court.
96. On May 31, 1999, a public hearing was held on the preliminary exceptions submitted by the State of Colombia in the case of Las Palmeras. On February 5, 2000, the Inter-American Court handed down a ruling on those preliminary exceptions, in which it decided to reject the first, fourth and fifth preliminary exceptions submitted by the State (violation of due process on account of a grave omission of information; the Inter-American Court lacks the competence to deal with a matter when all the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction have not been exhausted; and lacks competence to act as the court charged with investigating specific incidents). At the same time, it decided to admit the second and third defense pleas (the Commission lacks competence to apply humanitarian law and other international treaties; the Inter-American Court lacks competence to apply international humanitarian law and other international treaties) and to continue to be seized of the case. d. Chile 97. On January 15, 1999, the Commission referred case 11.803 to the Inter-American Court. The case concerns the violation of Articles 2, 12 and 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights by the Republic of Chile, following its prohibition of the screening of the film "The Last Temptation of Christ", by decision of its national Supreme Court. On October 26, 1999, the President of the Inter-American Court issued a resolution convoking the parties to a public hearing on the merits of the case. 98. On November 18 and 20, 1999, a public hearing was held at the headquarters of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in San José, Costa Rica, during which the statements of witnesses, and experts, and arguments on the merits were heard in the case against the State of Chile for censuring the movie "The last temptation of Christ" prior to its screening. Ecuador Case of Benavides Cevallos 99. During the course of 1999, the parties presented various reports relative to the question of compliance with the friendly settlement reached by the parties and described in the sentence of the Court of June 19, 1998. These reports are under the consideration of the Court.
100. On January 20, 1999, the Inter-American Court handed down a decision on reparations in this case and unanimously decided:
5. To supervise fulfillment of this Judgment. The acts that were grounds for the payment of compensation occurred as from June 23, 1992, when Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero was illegally deprived of his liberty and treated in a cruel, inhuman and degrading manner by agents of the National Police of Ecuador. 101. In April of 1999, the State of Ecuador submitted a request for interpretation of the Court’s Sentence on Reparations. On May 29, the Court issued its ruling on the interpretation of the ruling on compensation in the present case and unanimously decided:
102. On January 22, 1999, the Inter-American Court handed down its judgment on reparations in this case and unanimously decided:
103. Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of the grounds for his concurring opinion, and Judge ad hoc Novales Aguirre gave the grounds for his reasoned concurring opinion, both of which were attached to the ruling. 104. On April 21, 1999, the State of Guatemala submitted a request for interpretation of the aforementioned reparations judgment, because it believed that there was a discrepancy between the ruling and the findings on the merits of the case. On September 30, 1999, the Court issued its interpretation of the ruling on compensation and unanimously decided:
Case of Villagrán Morales et al 105. On January 28 and 29, the Court held a public hearing on the merits of this case in order to hear the testimony of the witnesses and experts proposed by the Commission and to hear the closing arguments of the parties on the alleged acts that were the subject of the application. 106. On November 19, 1999, the Inter-American Court handed down its sentence in this case and unanimously decided:
107. Judges Cançado Trindade and Abreu Burelli informed the Court of their joint concurring opinion, which accompanied the judgment.
108. In relation to this case, also known as the "panel blanca [white van] case," following its 1998 judgment on the merits and decision to open the reparations stage, by means of a January 29, 1999 resolution the Court granted various family members of the victims who had not previously been able to do so a deadline to present written submissions and evidence for the determination of compensation and costs. Further, in its resolution the Court indicated that, once those submissions had been received, the Commission would be granted a deadline for the presentation of any additional observations it considered pertinent to this stage of the case. Currently, as the period for the submission of observations or evidence by the State has expired, it is expected that the Court will convoke a public hearing in order to hear the witnesses and experts in connection with the determination of reparations in the case. 109. As will be recalled, in its March 8, 1998 judgment, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights unanimously concluded that the Republic of Guatemala bears responsibility for the acts of its agents that violated the fundamental rights of Ana Elizabeth Paniagua Morales, Julián Salomón Gómez Ayala, William Otilio González Rivera, Pablo Corado Barrientos, Manuel de Jesús González López, Erik Leonardo Chinchilla, Augusto Angarita Ramírez, Doris Torres Gil, Oscar Vásquez and Marco Antonio Montes Letona. Having declared the State of Guatemala responsible for violations of Articles 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Court ordered the State to undertake an effective investigation to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible, and declared that the State is obliged to repair the consequences of these violations.
110. On October 22, 1999, following the presentation of its witnesses, experts and arguments in three public hearings convoked by the Inter-American Court in 1997 and 1998, the Commission presented its final written arguments on this case. As will be recalled, the application presented by the Commission on August 30, 1996, deals with the disappearance, torture and extrajudicial execution of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez in 1992, at the hands of military agents, and requested that the Court pronounce upon the responsibility of the Guatemalan State for this conduct in violation of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, as well as the pertinent provisions of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
111. The Commission brought the case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on June 4, 1998, in connection with the violation by the State of Nicaragua of Articles 1, 2, 21 and 15 of the American Convention, by contravening the rights of members of the indigenous community of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tigni through the State’s failure to demarcate and to grant official recognition to the territory of that community. The Commission also requested, based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, that the Court determine compensation for the consequences of the violation of rights that are the grounds for the claim. 112. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, at its XLVII Session, considered the preliminary exception filed by the Republic of Nicaragua, which had been refuted by the Inter-American Commission, and was based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court considered that the State had implicitly renounced the argument of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because it had failed to cite it before the Commission at the opportune time. In light of the fact that the State's exception was rejected on the grounds of late submission, the Court considered that it was not necessary to pronounce on the question of the effectiveness of the domestic remedies referred to and decided to continue to be seized of the case.
113. During the period from 21 to 29 January 2000, a public hearing was held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in San José, Costa Rica, in which the statements of witnesses and experts, and arguments on the merits were heard in the case brought against the State of Panama arising from the mass dismissal without warning of 270 State workers pursuant to the Act of December 25, 1990.
114. On May 30, 1999, the Court handed down its ruling on the merits of this case, in which it found that the State had not violated Article 20 of the American Convention but that it had violated Articles 9, 8(1), 8(2)b, c, d, f, h, 8(3) and 5, 25, 7(6), 5, 1(1) and 2. The Court also ruled to be "invalid" the trial of Messrs. Castillo Petruzzi, Pincheira Saez, Mellado Saavedra and Astorga Valdes and ordered "that a new trial should be held in which due legal process is fully respected." It ordered the State to adopt the appropriate measures to amend the norms found to be in violation of the Convention. It further ordered the State to pay a total amount of US$10,000 or its equivalent in the national currency of Peru to the families of the detained persons for the expenses and costs that had arisen in connection with the case. 115. On July 15, 1999, Peru informed the Court that on June 11, 1999, the Plenary Assembly of the Supreme Council of Military Justice had found that the Court's decision on the merits of the case of Castillo Petruzzi et al "lacked impartiality and violated the national Constitution and that it would therefore not be possible to implement the decision." On November 17, 1999, the Court, following the argument presented by the Commission, ruled that, in conformity with the basic principle of pacta sunt servanda and pursuant to Article 68(1) of the Convention, the State was under the obligation to implement without delay the ruling of May 30, 1999, that had been handed down by the Court.
116. On March 31, 1999, the Commission presented the application before the Court in which it alleged the violation of the human rights of Baruch Ivcher, a citizen of Peru by naturalization, and majority shareholder, Director and Chairman of the Board of Channel 2 of Peruvian television, whose operating company is the Compania Latinoamericana de Radio Difusion, S.A. The claim is based on the allegation that the State of Peru had arbitrarily deprived Mr. Ivcher Bronstein of his nationality in order to remove him from editorial control of Channel 2 "Frecuencia Latina" and to restrict his freedom of expression, which was exercised through denunciations of gross violations of human rights and corruption.
117. On July 2, 1999, the Commission presented its application in this case to the Court. It concerns the dismissal of three of the seven judges of the Constitutional Court of Peru by a majority of the Congress of Peru, for having exercised their proper jurisdictional function of broad oversight of the constitutionality of legal acts, wherein the Court ruled that Act No. 26657 was invalid on the grounds that it empowered the current President to seek re-election for a second time, in contravention of the provisions of Article 112 of the Constitution, which limits the mandate of a President to two consecutive terms of five years each. The dismissal of these three judges had disrupted the Constitutional Court, leaving it with only four judges, who are legally incapable of exercising the principal function of the Court, which is to ensure the constitutionality of the laws by a finding of unconstitutionality, thus leaving the people of Peru defenseless and unprotected.
118. On May 24, 1999, the Court held a public hearing on the merits of the case in order to hear a witness produced by the Commission, who spoke about his knowledge of the acts that are the object of the claim, as well as a witness and an expert produced by the State. The Court also heard the concluding arguments of the Commission and the State of Peru. 119. On September 29, 1999, the Court handed down its ruling in the Cestí case. The Court found that Articles 7(6) and 25 had been violated and ordered the State to comply with the terms of the resolution adopted by the Specialized Chamber of Public Law of Lima on February 12, 1997, on the application for habeas corpus filed by Mr. Cestí. The Court also declared that the State had violated Articles 7(1), 2, 3, 8(1), 8(2), 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. The Court did not find violation of Articles 5(2), 11 and 21, as requested by the Commission. The Court found that the proceedings instituted against Mr. Cestí in the military jurisdiction are incompatible with the American Convention and ordered the State "to nullify the proceedings and all the consequences arising therefrom." It also ordered the payment of just compensation to Mr. Cestí and compensation for the expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings. 120. On January 25, 2000, at 10 a.m., the Court held a public hearing on the request for interpretation of the finding on the merits of September 29, 1999, submitted by Peru on October 13, 1999, with regard to the meaning and scope of the Court’s finding. 121. On January 29, 2000, the Court issued its judgment on the request for an interpretation of its findings on the merits of the Cestí case and reaffirmed the binding nature of the resolution adopted by the Specialized Chamber of Public Law of Lima on February 12, 1997 and the invalidation of the proceedings initiated against Mr. Cesti in a military court and all the consequences arising therefrom. The Court rejected as inadmissible the other points made by the State in its request.
122. During 1999, the parties presented a series of submissions relative to compliance with the Court´s Sentence on Reparations in the Castillo Páez case, issued on November 27, 1998. These submissions are before the Court for its consideration. 123. During 1999, the parties presented a series of submissions relative to compliance with the Court´s Sentence on Reparations in the Loayza Tamayo case, issued on November 27, 1998. These submissions are before the Court for its consideration.
124. The Court examined the instrument which the Government of Peru presented to the General Secretariat of the OAS in Washington, D.C., on July 9, 1999, by means of which it stated that "it withdraws the declaration of recognition of the optional provision to submit to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights", a withdrawal that is "to have immediate effect and to apply to all cases in which Peru has not responded to the claim brought before the Court." The Court also considered the effect on the cases of Ivcher Bronstein and the Constitutional Court, to which the declaration made reference, because Peru, at that time, had not responded to the respective claims. On September 24, 1999, the Court handed down two rulings on competence in the two cases in which it accepted the argument put forward by the Commission and declared inadmissible the attempt by the State of Peru to withdraw with immediate effect its recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
125. On May 26, 1999, the Commission submitted case 11.816 (Haniff Hilaire) against the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In this case, the Commission alleges that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is responsible for violations of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, all in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, as a consequence of the arrest, detention, conviction and imposition of the sentence of death, pursuant to a mandatory death penalty law, of Mr. Haniff Hilaire for the crime of murder in Trinidad and Tobago.
126. On February 22, 2000, the Commission submitted 23 consolidated cases against the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cases 11.787 (George Constantine), 11.814 (Wenceslaus James), 11.840 (Denny Baptiste), 11.851 (Clarence Charles), 11.853 (Keiron Thomas), 11.855 (Anthony Garcia), 12.005 (Wilson Prince), 12.021 (Darrin Roger Thomas), 12.042 (Mervyn Edmund), 12.043 (Samuel Winchester), 12.052 (Martin Reid), 12.072 (Rodney Davis), 12.073 (Gangadeen Tahaloo), 12.075 (Noel Seepersad), 12.076 (Wayne Matthews), 12.082 (Alfred Frederick), 12.093 (Natasha De Leon), 12.111 (Vijay Mungroo), 12.112 (Phillip Chotalal), 12.129 (Naresh Boodram and Joey Ramiah), 12.137 (Nigel Mark), 12.140 (Wilberforce Bernard), and 12.141 (Steve Mungroo). In this consolidated application, the Commission alleges that the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is responsible for violations of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights for having sentenced the victims in these cases to death pursuant to a mandatory death penalty law for the crime of murder in Trinidad and Tobago, and that the State failed to ensure the victims in all of these cases an effective opportunity to engage in the process for granting amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence, contrary to Article 4(6) of the Convention. In addition, the Commission contends that the State detained 15 of the victims in conditions that failed to respect their rights to humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, failed to try 17 of the victims within a reasonable time, contrary to Articles 7(5) and 8(1) of the Convention and in conjunction with violations of Articles 2 and 25 of the Convention, and deprived two of the victims of the right to a fair trial under Article 8(2) of the Convention in connection with their trial and appeal proceedings. Finally, the Commission argues that the State failed to make legal aid effectively available to the victims in 9 cases to pursue Constitutional motions in the domestic courts in connection with the criminal proceedings against them and thereby failed to provide the victims with prompt and effective recourse before a competent court or tribunal in Trinidad and Tobago for protection against acts that violate their rights under the Trinidad and Tobago Constitution.
127. This case was presented by the Commission on June 7, 1999. The application relates to the events that took place during the months of February and March of 1989 in Venezuela, during which 35 persons were executed extrajudicially, two disappeared and three injured by agents of the Venezuelan State. This case gave rise to proceedings before the Commission under file number 11.455. The rights under the Convention that this case concerns are the following: the obligation to respect rights and freedoms (Article 1(1)); the duty to adopt measures to give effect to those rights and freedoms (Article 2); the right to life (Article 4); the right to physical integrity (Article 5); the right to personal liberty (Article 7); the right to judicial guarantees (Article 8.1), the right to judicial protection (Article 25), and suspension of guarantees (Article 27). On November 10, 1999, a public hearing was held at the seat of the Court, in which Venezuela acknowledged the acts and accepted the legal consequences and the international responsibility that arose therefrom. As a consequence, the Court unanimously decided as follows:
128. In addition, on November 12, 1999, the Court adopted the following resolution:
129. The request for an advisory opinion, which was submitted on December 9, 1997, relates to the issue of whether any imprisoned foreign national who faces the risk of a death sentence has the right to be notified, from the moment of his arrest, of his right to seek the assistance of the consular officials of his country and to enjoy the guarantees of due process. Mexico sought the Court’s opinion on minimum safeguards in trials for crimes that are punishable by death, on the consular function and the application of the death penalty to foreigners, in the light of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, of Articles 2, 6, 14 and 50 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of Article 3(k) of the Charter of the OAS and of Articles I, II, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, all within the framework of Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Court, on October 1, 1999, issued its advisory opinion on the matter and unanimously declared as follows:
In addition, by six votes against one, the Court issued the opinion:
[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] |
