Cases 11.826, 11.843, 11.846 and 11.847 - Report Nº 49/01, Leroy Lamey, Kevin Mykoo, Milton Montique and Dalton Daley (Jamaica)

 

181.        In Report Nº 49/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

1.                  Grant the victims an effective remedy which included commutation of their death sentences and compensation;

 

2.                  Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including Articles 4, 5 and 8, in particular 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 4(6) of the Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica;

 

4.                  Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the victims' rights to humane treatment under Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention, particularly in relation to their conditions of detention, are given effect in Jamaica;

 

5.         Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right to a fair hearing under Article 8(1) of the Convention and the right to judicial protection under Article 25 of the Convention are given effect in Jamaica in relation to recourse to Constitutional Motions.

 

182.        In letters dated December 6, 2002, the Petitioners for Dalton Daley, Milton Montique and Leroy Lamey reiterated their previous observations to the effect that the State had, by reason of decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, commuted the victims’ death sentences and were required to implement a mercy procedure in capital cases, but that they were not aware of information indicating that the State had complied with any of the Commission’s remaining recommendations. In a letter dated November 21, 2002, the Petitioners for Kevin Mykoo indicated that they were aware of no further developments concerning compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission did not receive a response from the State to its request for information on compliance. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the Commission’s first recommendation.

 

Case 12.069 - Report Nº 50/01, Damion Thomas (Jamaica)

 

183.        In Report Nº 50/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

 

1.                  Grant the victim an effective remedy, which included compensation;

 

2.                  Conduct thorough and impartial investigations into the facts of the pertinent incidents denounced by the Petitioners in order to determine and attribute responsibility to those accountable for the violations concerned and undertake appropriate remedial measures;

 

3.                  Review its practices and procedures to ensure that officials involved in the incarceration and supervision of persons imprisoned in Jamaica are provided with appropriate training concerning the standards of humane treatment of such persons, including restrictions on the use of force against such persons; and

 

4.         Review its practices and procedures to ensure that complaints made by prisoners concerning alleged mistreatment by prison officials and other conditions of their detention are properly investigated and resolved.

 

184.        The Petitioners indicated, inter alia, that Mr. Thomas continued to be held in a “punishment cell” and that his cell became flooded with sewage on each occasion of heavy rainfall, and they included a petition signed by over 100 of Mr. Thomas’ fellow inmates complaining of their conditions of detention at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Center. In a letter dated December 3, 2002, the Petitioners informed the Commission that Mr. Thomas had not been granted compensation or any other effective remedy, but rather continued to be imprisoned in conditions that subjected him to cruel and inhuman treatment.  The Petitioners also indicated that to their knowledge, the State had not taken any steps to implement the Commission’s remaining recommendations.  The State of Jamaica indicated that Jamaica’s Inspectorate Unit of the Correctional Services conducts awareness training for Correctional Officers that covers relevant United Nations treaties as well as Jamaican legislation, and that there are several mechanisms for investigative monitoring of complaints made by inmates and the conditions of their detention. These were said to include internal investigation by the Superintendent of the Center where the inmate is housed and by the Inspectorate Unit of the Department of Correctional Services, and external investigation by the Inspectorate Unit of the Ministry of National Security, the Public Defender, Boards of Visiting Justices and Boards of Visitors under the Corrections Act, Coroner’s Inquests held in respect of sudden deaths, and Commissions of Enquiry that may be convened in respect of major incidents. The State indicated in respect of the Petitioners’ communication of September 3, 2002 that Mr. Thomas’ restricted detention conditions were authorized under Articles 22(1) and Section B, 82(3) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners by reason of his psychiatric condition and that additional information in this regard would be provided to the Commission in due course. The State also acknowledged that a sewage problem existed in the area in which the Tower Street Correctional Centre is located but that remedial measures were being taken to re-accommodate prisoners when necessary and to find a permanent solution to the problem.  Finally, the State indicated that a preliminary examination of the records of the Correction Services did not reveal any complaints from inmates concerning their health with specific reference to the occasional flooding problem and that an examination of the medical records of all those who signed the petition was being conducted and that the findings would be forwarded to the Commission in due course.  Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has partially complied with the Commission’s third and fourth recommendations.

 

Case 12.183 - Report Nº 127/01, Joseph Thomas (Jamaica)

 

185.        In Report Nº 127/01 dated December 3, 2001, the Commission recommended that the State:

 

1.         Grant the victim an effective remedy, which included a re-trial in accordance with the due process protections prescribed under Article 8 of the Convention or, where a re-trial in compliance with these protections is not possible, his release, and compensation;

 

2.                  Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed in contravention of the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the Convention, including and in particular Articles 4, 5 and 8;

 

3.                  Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the right under Article 4(6) of the Convention to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence is given effect in Jamaica; and

 

4.         Adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the conditions of detention in which the victim is held comply with the standards of humane treatment mandated by Article 5 of the Convention.

 

186.        In a letter dated January 2, 2003, the Petitioners indicated that the State of Jamaica had not acted upon the recommendations contained in the Commission’s report. The Petitioners relied in this regard on a letter dated May 9, 2002 that they received from the Acting Secretary to the Governor General of Jamaica concerning the consideration of the Commission’s report by the Jamaican Privy Council.  In this communication, the Acting Secretary indicated, inter alia, that the Privy Council only considered the Commission’s recommendations as to release, which it found to be without merit and unsupported, and that the Commission’s remaining recommendations related to “Government policy” and therefore were not considered by the Privy Council.  The Commission did not receive a response from the State to its request for information on compliance. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

 

Case 11.565 - Report Nº 53/01, González Pérez Sisters (Mexico)

 

187.        On April 4, 2001 the Inter-American Commission approved Report Nº 53/01 on the Case under reference, in which it made the following recommendations:

 

1.         Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation, within the regular criminal courts in Mexico, to determine the responsibility of all persons who violated the human rights of Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez, and Delia Pérez de González;

 

2.         Adequately compensate Ana, Beatriz, and Celia González Pérez and Delia Pérez de González for the human rights violations established in this report.

 

188.        The Mexican Government invited the IACHR to hold a number of follow-up meetings on the reports published, including the one held on July 3-4, 2001 in Mexico City. A working meeting was also held on the matter on November 14, 2001 during the 113th session of the IACHR, and a follow-up hearing was recently held on March 7, 2002 at the 114th regular session.  In July 2002, a delegation from the Inter-American Commission went again to Mexico at the invitation of the government, at which time it discussed follow up of the recommendations made in a number of cases, including Report Nº 53/01.  Finally, on October 18, 2002, a working meeting was held with the parties during the 116th regular session of the IACHR to follow up on the recommendations mentioned.

 

189.        The information provided by the Mexican State contains a summary of the meetings held both before the IACHR and in Mexico with the petitioners and the authorities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Attorney General of Chiapas (PGJE) and the Office of the Attorney General of Military Justice (PGJM).  The commitments reached by the parties refer to joint action by the PGJE of Chiapas and the PGJM, in conjunction with the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Mexico.  Regarding compensation for the victims, the State reported that the petitioners had presented a proposal, which was under review. For their part, the petitioners indicated that follow up “has been difficulty and slow,” although they pointed out that efforts by areas of government and the organizations involved had made progress possible in a number of meetings on the matter. They concluded that compliance with the recommendations of the report remains pending.

 

190.        Based on the information received from both parties, and in the meeting held to follow up on Report 53/01, the IACHR considers that the State has still not complied with the recommendations, although it appreciates the considerable efforts that have been and are being made by both parties to make constructive progress toward that end.

 

Case 11.108 - Report Nº 107/00, Valentín Carrillo Saldaña (Mexico)

 

191.        In Report Nº 107/00 the Commission approved the friendly settlement agreement signed by the parties on March 1, 1999, as well as the agreement for implementation of the friendly settlement signed on December 2, 1999. In that Report it decided:

 

1.         To monitor those provisions of the Agreement that have not been fully implemented. 

 

2.         To certify the delivery of the benefits to the family of Valentín Carrillo Saldaña, when such deliveries take place. 

 

192.        The State indicated that Mr. Aviña Gutiérrez continued to serve his sentence of 20 years imprisonment in the Military Prison assigned to the Third Military Region of the Secretariat of National Defense, by virtue of the dismissal of the application for judicial review [amparo] of his sentence under military justice. Regarding the payment schooling and monthly stipends for the family members of Valentín Carrillo Saldaña, the State reported on the amounts paid to Mrs. María Elena Chaparro, Saldaña’s widow.  The IACHR received no information from the petitioners, therefore it considers that the State has complied in good faith with the commitments made in the friendly settlement agreement on which Report 107/00 was based.

 

Case 11.381 - Report N° 100/01, Milton García Fajardo (Nicaragua)

 

193.        On October 11, 2001, the IACHR approved Report Nº 100/01 on the above-mentioned case, and made the following recommendations:

 

1.         To conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to establish the criminal responsibility of the persons who inflicted the injuries caused to the detriment of Milton García Fajardo, Cristóbal Ruiz Lazo, Ramón Roa Parajón, Leonel Arguello Luna, César Chavarría Vargas, Francisco Obregón García, Aníbal Reyes Pérez, Mario Sánchez Paz, Frank Cortés, Arnoldo José Cardoza, Leonardo Solis, René Varela and Orlando Vilchez Florez, and to punish those responsible in accordance with Nicaraguan law.

 

2.         To adopt the measures necessary to enable the 142 customs workers who lodged this petition to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations of their human rights established herein.

 

194.        Since the approval of the Report, the petitioners have presented the Commission with three proposed agreements for implementation of the recommendations made by the IACHR.  On March 4, 2002, during a hearing before the IACHR, the petitioners presented the third proposal, which referred to the criteria or parameters recognized by the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, which might help reach an economic settlement. The State sent a note to the Commission indicating that it “reaffirms its willingness to maintain the value of the settlements not yet paid to the claimants;” and makes “available to the petitioners the sum of 400,000 córdobas” (approximately US$200 per victim).

 

195.        The Commission met with the parties on October 18, 2002. At the meeting, the following was agreed:

 

1.         That Ambassador Leandro Marin Abaunza would consult with his Government concerning the proposal made by Commission Member Susana Villarán, and accepted by the petitioners, to designate by mutual agreement an independent expert who would propose, based on Nicaraguan labor laws and criteria established by the inter-American system, compensation for the 142 customs workers. Based on that proposal, a final agreement on compensation would be determined, in Managua, in January 2003, with the Commission present.

 

2.         That at the next meeting in January, Ambassador Marin would bring information on the criminal investigation recommended by the IACHR.

 

196.        On December 5, 2002, the State of Nicaragua reported to the Commission that the meeting could be held in Managua on January 22, 2003, but indicated that it could not accept the proposal to appoint by mutual agreement an independent expert, who would propose the indemnities to be offered to the 42 former customs workers.  In response, the IACHR noted that, given the fact that no agreement could be reached on the points it had raised, it had decided to hold a working meeting with the parties at its headquarters in Washington, D.C., during its 117th session on February 26, 2003.

 

197.        Based on the information presented by both parties and the meetings held to follow up on Report N° 100/01, the IACHR considers that compliance with the recommendations is still pending, although it appreciates the considerable efforts that have been and continue to be made by both parties to make constructive progress towards achieving the objective.

 

Case 11.031 - Report Nº 111/00, Pedro Pablo López González et al. (Peru)

 

198.        In Report Nº 111/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

 

1.         That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation.   

 

2.         That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More.  Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492.   

 

3.         That it adopt the measures required for the family members of  Pedro Pablo López González, Denis Atilio Castillo Chávez, Gilmer Ramiro León Velásquez, Jesús Manfredo Noriega Ríos, Roberto and Carlos Alberto Barrientos Velásquez and Carlos Martín and Jorge Luis Tarazona More to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein. 

 

199.        The petitioners indicated that to date no internal measures had been adopted to void laws 26479 and 25492, which tend to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for these acts, although the investigations closed under these laws had been reopened, when the State remitted the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the national courts.  However, they indicated that the bulk of the verification was concentrated in the Office of the Special Prosecutor to investigate cases related to Vladimiro Montesinos and the Colina Group, which Prosecutor Richard Saavedra was handling.  The latter was not confirmed by the National Council of the Magistracy during the ratification process, which hampered the progress of the investigation.  Finally, they indicated that, for appropriate and timely compensation of the victims, an Interinstitutional Working Committee had been established to propose nonmonetary compensation, but so far had achieved this only in the area of education by facilitating free admission to higher education, but the State had refused to discuss monetary compensation.

 

200.        For its part, the State reported that since October 26, 2000, a complaint was filed against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres in the cases concerning the Barrios Altos killings, the disappearance of nine students and a professor of the University Enrique Guzmán y Valle La Cantuta, the torture of Leonor La Rosa, and the assassination of Agent Mariela Barreto.  The Special Provincial Prosecutor ordered the disjoinder of cases subject to the main investigation and on October 14, 2002, police report Nº 014-DIRCOTE-SUBDITM-DIVIEM was received and is under review pending a statement on the matter. Based on the preceding information, the IACHR concludes that the recommendations are pending compliance.

 

Case 11.099 - Report N° 112/00, Yone Cruz Ocalio (Peru)

 

201.        In Report Nº 112/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

 

1.         That it carry out an exhaustive, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio, and that it punish the persons responsible, in keeping with Peruvian legislation. 

 

2.         That it void any domestic measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the detention and forced disappearance of Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio.  Accordingly, the State should nullify Laws 26.479 and 26.492. 

 

3.         That it adopt the measures required for the family members of  Mr. Yone Cruz Ocalio to receive adequate and timely reparation for the violations established herein.

 

202.        The Peruvian Government, in a note dated December 13, 2002, requested an extension of the deadline for reporting, which the Commission extended by 15 days, notifying the State thereof in a note dated December 18, 2002, to which there has been no response.  The petitioners have not presented any information either.  Based on this silence, the IACHR presumes that compliance with the recommendations is still pending.

 

Case 11.800 - Report N° 110/00, César Cabrejos Bernuy (Peru)

 

203.        In Report Nº 110/00 of December 4, 2000, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

 

1.         To offer adequate compensation to Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy, pursuant to Article 63 of the American Convention, including the moral aspect as well as the material one, for the violation of his human rights, and in particular, 

 

2.         To carry out the Judicial Order issued by the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 5, 1992, reinstating Mr. César Cabrejos Bernuy in his position as Colonel in the National Police, paying him his salary and other remuneration owed to him but not paid since the date of his enforced retirement, and granting him all other benefits to which he is entitled as a Colonel of the Police, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension; or, as a second resort, to pay him the salary and other remuneration to which he would be entitled as a Colonel of the National Police, until he is of legal retirement age, paying also in this case his retroactive salary from the date of his forced retirement, and granting him all the other economic benefits to which, as a Colonel of the National Police, he is entitled, including, as appropriate, those relating to his pension. 

 

3.         To conduct a full, impartial, and effective investigation of the facts, in order to establish responsibilities for the failure to carry out the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 5, 1992, and to pursue such criminal, administrative, and other procedures as necessary to apply the appropriate punishment to those responsible, as befits the gravity of the violations in question. 

 

204.        The Peruvian Government reported that by Resolution Nº 0716-2001-IN/PNP of June 10, 2001, Colonel PNP ® Cabrejos Bernuy was reinstated to active duty on the date of issue of the resolution, with no right to economic reimbursement or recognition of service for the time he spent in retirement.

 

205.        The petitioner made an appeal for partial reconsideration of the decision, to have the time he spent in retirement count as service, and this omission was corrected by supreme resolution Nº 1158-2001-IN/PNP of November 13, 2001, upholding the appeal. Thus the time spent in retirement from March 26, 1997 to July 10, 2001 was recognized as service. Furthermore, by resolution Nº 1399-2001-IN/PNP of December 14, 2001, in accordance with legislative decree 745 of November 13, 1991, Mr. Cabrejos Bernuy retired.

 

206.        The petitioner presented no information.

 

207.        In light of the foregoing, the Peruvian State considers that it has complied with the Commission’s recommendations in points 1 and 2. 

 

Cases 10.247 and others - Report Nº101/01 - Luis Miguel Pasache Vidal et al. (Peru)

 

208.        In Report Nº 101/01 of October 11, 2001, the IACHR made the following recommendations to the Peruvian State:

 

1.         Void any judicial decision, internal measure, legislative or otherwise, that tends to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of the persons responsible for the summary executions and forced disappearance of the victims indicated at paragraph 252.  In this regard, the State should also repeal Laws Nº 26,479 and 26,492.

 

2.         Carry out a complete, impartial, and effective investigation to determine the circumstances of the extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances of the victims and to punish the persons responsible pursuant to Peruvian legislation.

 

3.         Adopt the measures necessary for the victim’s families to receive adequate and timely compensation for the violations established herein.

 

4.         Accede to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

 

209.        The petitioners indicated that, to date, no internal measures had been adopted to void laws 26479 and 25492 that tend to impede the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible, although the investigations closed by virtue of those laws have been reopened, as the State has remitted the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Barrios Altos cases to the national courts. They indicated as well that a Special Prosecutor had been established to investigate extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, and hidden mass graves, with nationwide jurisdiction, coordinating the investigations of these cases. However, owing to budgetary constraints, these cases had not been making progress.

 

210.        For its part, the Peruvian State reported that, taking into account the complexity of the context in which these violations occurred, it had established a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a Special Prosecutor for forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Exhumation of Hidden Mass Graves, a Special National Police Team specializing in criminal investigation, and an Interinstitutional Working Committee coordinating the handling and follow up of cases related to extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances. Similarly, the Peruvian State has approved and ratified the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, adopted in Belêm do Pará, Federative Republic of Brazil, on June 9, 1994.

 

211.        Regarding the status of the investigations and the court cases, it submitted a list of the 25 cases included in the report under reference, in which it indicated that 17 investigations by different prosecutor’s offices in the country were pending and awaiting more information; 4 cases were dismissed as a result of the implementation of amnesty laws, on legal grounds, and in one the investigation was shelved; 2 cases were being heard; and 2 investigations were misguided or lacked sufficient information. The Commission therefore considers that there has been partial compliance with its recommendations. In particular, the Commission recognized full compliance with recommendation 4.

 

Case 9903 - Report Nº 51/01, Rafael Ferrer-Mazorra et al. (United States)

 

212.        In Report Nº 51/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

 

1.                  Convene reviews as soon as is practicable in respect of all of the Petitioners who remained in the State’s custody, to ascertain the legality of their detentions in accordance with the applicable norms of the American Declaration, in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by the Commission’s analysis in the report; and

 

2.         Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that all aliens who are detained under the authority and control of the State, including aliens who are considered “excludable” under the State’s immigration laws, are afforded full protection of all of the rights established in the American Declaration, including in particular Articles I, II, XVII, XVIII and XXV of the Declaration as informed by the Commission’s analysis in its report.

 

213.        In a letter dated November 27, 2002, the Petitioners’ representative advised the Commission that he did not have any up-dated information on compliance with the recommendations contained in the Commission’s report but referred the Commission to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Zadvydas v. Davis upholding the liberty interests of aliens who may have committed crimes in the United States. The Commission did not receive a response from the State to its request for information on compliance. The Commission does not have any information indicating that the Supreme Court decision in Zadvydar has been applied in the instant case. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations. 

 

Case 12.243 - Report Nº 52/01, Juan Raul Garza (United States)

 

214.        In Report Nº 52/01 dated April 4, 2001 the Commission recommended that the State:

 

1.                  Provide Mr. Garza with an effective remedy, which included commutation of sentence; and

 

2.         Review its laws, procedures and practices to ensure that persons who are accused of capital crimes are tried and, if convicted, sentenced in accordance with the rights established in the American Declaration, including Articles I, XVIII and XXVI of the Declaration, and in particular by prohibiting the introduction of evidence of unadjudicated crimes during the sentencing phase of capital trials.

 

215.        In a letter dated November 15, 2002, the Petitioners reiterated the fact that Mr. Garza had been executed by the State contrary to the Commission’s first recommendation, and that as far as they were aware the United States had still taken no action with respect to the Commission’s second recommendation. The Commission did not receive a response from the State to its request for information on compliance. Based upon the information available, the Commission considers that the State has not complied with the Commission’s recommendations.

 

E.       Petitions and cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

 

1.       Provisional Measures

 

216.        Article 63(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights stipulates that in cases of extreme gravity and urgency and when it is necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters it has under its consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.

 

217.        Below is a summary of the 37 provisional measures requested by the Commission and granted or extended by the Court during 2002, listed according to the country making the request. As with the precautionary measures, the number of measures requested of the States bears no relation to the number of people protected by their adoption.

 

a.       Brazil

 

The Urso Branco Prison Case

 

218.        On June 6, 2002 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights presented a request for provisional measures concerning the State of Brazil on behalf of the inmates of the José Mario Alves Detention Center–known as the Urso Branco Prison–located in the town of Porto Velho in the State of Rondonia in the Federative Republic of Brazil “in order to prevent more inmates from dying” in the above-mentioned prison. The Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt immediately the measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of all the inmates of the “Urso Branco Prison”, and to take “immediate steps to seize the weapons in possession of the inmates of the aforementioned prison.”

 

219.        The Court considered this request and on June 18, 2002 resolved:

 

1.                  To request the State to adopt all measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of all the inmates imprisoned in the Urso Branco Prison, including seizing the arms held by the detainees.

 

2.                  To request the State to investigate the events which make it necessary to adopt the […] provisional measures in order to identify those responsible and punish them accordingly.

 

220.        Subsequently, the Court studied the State’s first report on the provisional measures and the Commission’s observations on the report, both of which were submitted in compliance with the Decision on provisional measures issued by the Court on June 18, 2002. In its observations, the Commission reported on certain especially serious events which took place after the Court had ordered the provisional measures, and requested the Court to maintain the provisional measures it had ordered; to hold a public enquiry; and to request the State to carry out a serious study into the events which took place at the Urso Branco Prison, to adopt effective measures to ensure the inmates’ right to communicate freely with members of the organizations which monitor provisional measures, and to provide information on various specific matters.

 

221.        In this connection, the Court issued a Decision on August 19, 2002, that resolved:

 

1.         To order the State to adopt all necessary measures to protect the lives and personal safety of all persons detained at the Urso Branco Prison.

 

2.         To order the State to submit information on the grave events to the detriment of the inmates of the Urso Branco Prison [...] that happened after the Court ordered provisional protection measures, by means of its June 18, 2002 Decision.

 

3.         To ask the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to take the necessary steps to create an appropriate mechanism to coordinate and supervise compliance with the provisional measures ordered by the Court, so as to ensure free communication between the inmates and the authorities and organizations in charge of verifying compliance with those measures, and for there to be no retaliation against the inmates who provide information on this matter.

 

4.         To order the State to investigate the events that gave rise to the adoption of provisional measures in the instant case, with the aim of identifying those responsible and punishing them accordingly.  This should include investigation of the grave events that occurred in the Urso Branco Prison after the Court issued its June 18, 2002 Decision.

 

5.         To order the State to report to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with its request, the names of all penitentiary agents and military police officers who were at the Urso Branco Prison on July 16, 2002, and the name of those currently working at said public institution.

 

6.         To order the State, with the aim of protecting the lives and personal safety of the inmates of the Urso Branco Prison, to adjust conditions in that prison to applicable international human rights norms, pursuant to the provisions of consideration ten of the [...] Decision.

 

7.         To order the State, when it sends the complete list of all persons incarcerated at the Urso Branco Prison, to state the number and names of inmates who are serving a sentence and of those incarcerated without being sentenced; and, also, to report whether the prisoners who have and have not been sentenced are located in different sections.

 

222.        On November 13, 2002, the Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the written materials presented by the State of Brazil on September 11, 2002, and on October 3, 2002, in relation to the provisional measures ordered by the Honorable Court.

 

b.       Colombia

 

The Alvarez et al. Case

 

223.        The Commission continues to present to the Court its periodic observations on the Colombian State’s reports on measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the people covered by the provisional measures that were subsequently broadened by the Court on August 10, October 11, and November 12, 2000, for the benefit of members of the Association of Families and Relatives of Detained and Disappeared Persons in Colombia.

 

The Caballero Delgado and Santana Case

 

224.        The Commission continues to present to the Court its periodic observations on the Colombian State’s reports on the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the people protected by the provisional measures in fulfillment of the stipulations of the Court in its Decision of June 3, 1999.


The Clemente Teheran et al. Case

 

225.        The Commission continues to present to the Court its observations on the Colombian State’s reports on the measures adopted to protect the physical integrity of the people protected by the provisional measures laid down, in accordance with the stipulations of the Decision of the Court on August 12, 2000.

 

The Peace Community of San José de Apartadó Case

 

226.        The Commission continues to present to the court its periodic observations on the Colombian State’s reports on the measures adopted to protect the life and physical integrity of the members of the Peace Community San José de Apartadó.  During the first months of 2002, a series of violent acts were committed against members of the Community and people who were providing services to it, resulting in various fatalities. Responding to the situation, the Court on June 13, 2002, held a public hearing with the participation of the Republic of Colombia, the petitioners, and the Commission, to evaluate the situation.  On June 18, 2002, the Court resolved:

 

1.         To require the State to maintain all measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of the members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, in accordance with the Decision of the President of the Court of October 9, 2000 and the Decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2000.

 

2.         To require the State to adopt any measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of all the persons who provide services to the members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, in accordance with the eighth, ninth and eleventh preambular paragraphs of the […] Decision.

 

3.         To require the State to investigate the facts prompting the expansion of these provisional measures, in order to identify those responsible and to impose the corresponding sanctions.

 

4.         To require the State to maintain all measures necessary to guarantee that the beneficiaries of the present measures may continue living in their usual place of residence and to continue to guarantee the conditions necessary so that the people of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, who had been forced to move to other areas of the country, can return to their homes.

 

5.         To require the State to guarantee the necessary security conditions on the route between San José de Apartadó and Apartadó, in the transportation terminal in Apartadó and in the place known as Tierra Amarilla, so that public transportation is not subject to new acts of violence, such as the ones described in the […] Decision ([…] Having seen 6 and 13), as well as to assure that the members of the Peace Community receive and may effectively and continually transport products, supplies and food.

 

6.         To require the State to continue allowing the beneficiaries of these measures or their representatives to participate in the planning and implementation of said measures, and, in general, that it keep them informed on the progress of the measures issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

7.         To require the State to establish, in agreement with the beneficiaries or their representatives, a mechanism for continuous surveillance and permanent security in the Peace Community of San José of Apartadó, in compliance with the terms of the […] Decision.

 

The Giraldo Cardona Case

 

227.        The Commission continues to make its periodic observations to the Court on the reports of the Republic of Colombia on the measures adopted to carry out the provisional measures dictated by the Inter-American Court and to protect the personal integrity of Ms. Isleña Rey and Ms. Mariela Giraldo and daughters, in fulfillment of the Decisions of September 30, 1999, October 28, 1996, February 5, 1997, June 17, and November 27, 1998.

 

c.       Costa Rica

 

Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and Fernan Vargas Rohrmose (La Nación Newspaper)

 

228.        As was reported at the time, the Commission in its brief of March 28, 2001 decided to request provisional measures from the Court because the precautionary measures that it requested in favor of the petitioners had proved ineffective. On September 7, 2001, the Inter-American Court authorized the provisional measures requested by the Commission and required Costa Rica to refrain from including Mr. Mauricio Herrera Ulloa in the Costa Rican Judicial Register of Criminal Offenders until the case should be resolved definitively by the organs of the inter-American system of human rights, as well as to suspend the order to publish the operative part of the judgment and to establish a connection between the articles and that judgment.

 

229.        On May 6, 2002, the plaintiff’s representative at the local hearing in the case against Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, being also plaintiff in the civil case, requested the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José to consult the Inter-American Court with a view to finding out if the complete execution of the sentence of the case in national law should be suspended or if the suspension applied only to the criminal part so that the civil part could be carried out. In this respect the Criminal Trial Court ordered a consultation with the Inter-American Court to see, “if the provisional measures adopted at the time in the case relating to the newspaper La Nación apply to the whole sentence, both the penal and civil parts, or, on the contrary, they apply only to the penal part.” On August 26, 2002, the Court issued a decision in response to a request from the Costa Rican State in which it clarifies the scope of the provisional measures ordained in the decision of September 7, 2001, and adds that “ the Court intends to ensure the suspension of points 1, 4, and 6 of the sentence laid down by the court of the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José de Apartadó irrespective of civil, criminal, or any other order of projections.”

 

230.        On November 18 and 20, 2002, the Commission requested the Court to revoke its decision of August 26, 2002, mentioned above and to dispose “the return of the proceedings to the state, to notify and transfer to the Commission (and to the alleged victims) the note of the government of Costa Rica of July 30, 2002, so that the Commission (and through it, the alleged victims) would be able to raise before the Court, the observations and allegations that they deem relevant concerning this initiative of the Government.”

 

231.        On November 22, 2002, the Inter-American Court issued a decision in which it established that the decision of August 26, 2002 did not alter what had already been resolved by the Criminal Trial Court in its decision of September 7, 2001, and that the Inter-American Court had confined itself to noting what measures had been ordered to be adopted in the decision of September 7, 2001. In that decision it decided to declare inapplicable the request of the Commission of November 18, 2002, and to uphold the determinations of its earlier decisions made in relation to the instant case.

   

[ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ]