Annual Report 2005 - Chapter III

...CONTINUATION

j. Honduras

Alfredo López Álvarez Case

527. The Commission filed an application in the case of Alfredo López Álvarez v. Honduras (Case 12,387) on July 7, 2003. The application concerns the Honduran State’s violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 25 and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to its obligations under Articles 2 and 1.1 thereof, by having arbitrarily deprived Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, a Honduran citizen of Garifuno descent, of his personal liberty starting on April 27, 1997. The victim was framed because of his activities as a community leader and to prevent him from acting as a leader of the Garifuno community. The case is now in its intermediate phase. The Commission took no action on this case in 2004.

528. On June 28 and 29, 2005, the Court held a public hearing where the Commission presented its witnesses and expert, and made its final arguments on the merits and eventual reparations and costs.

529. The judgment in this case is still pending.

Cuatro Puntos Cardinales Case (Servellón García et al.)

530. On February 2, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,331, Marco Antonio Servellón García et al. ("Cuatro Puntos Cardinales"). The case was brought against the Honduran State for the illegal detention, torture and subsequent extrajudicial execution of Marco Antonio Servellón García (16), Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez (17), Diomedes Obed García (19) and Orlando Álvarez Ríos (32) by Honduran State agents, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, between September 15 and 17, 1995.

531. In its brief answering the application, the Honduran State neither contested the facts recounted in paragraphs 27 to 106 of the Commission’s application nor challenged the arguments that the victims’ next of kin and their representatives made in connection with those facts. The State thus conceded to those parts of the application that concerned these facts.

532. Neither did the State challenge certain facts depicting a climate of systematic violation of human rights with the State’s tolerance and acquiescence.

533. On August 16, 2005, the Commission filed its written pleadings on the nolo contendere entered by the State. In those pleadings, it wrote that the Honduran State’s acknowledgement of the facts and its acceptance of international responsibility in the present case was a positive contribution toward advancing this process. It therefore asked the Court to accept the State’s plea of nolo contendere with respect to those issues where it served to end the dispute as to the facts and the law in this case.

534. The Commission also noted, however, that the State had not outright conceded the claims made by the Commission and the representatives of the victims and their next of kin. The Commission therefore expressed the view that the Court should decide some of the points still contested, and asked the Court to continue proceedings on the case and to adjudicate it in accordance with the law.

535. The Court’s judgment in this case is still pending.

Juan Humberto Sánchez Case

536. In 2005, the Commission filed its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On September 12, 2005, the Court issued an order on the matter of compliance.

537. In its latest order the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to

a.          continue to effectively investigate the facts in this case and to identify the material and intellectual authors and any accessories after the fact, and to punish them under administrative or criminal law, as appropriate (operative paragraph ten);

b.         give the victim’s next of kin full access to all phases of the inquiry and investigative agencies and make the findings of the investigation public (operative paragraph ten);

c.          move Mr. Juan Humberto Sánchez’ mortal remains to a place of the next of kin’s choosing, at no cost to them (operative paragraph eleven);

d.         establish a record of detainees so that the lawfulness of arrests can be supervised (operative paragraph twelve);

e.          publish the operative part of the Judgment of June 7, 2003, along with the section on the facts proven, in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper with nationwide circulation (operative paragraph thirteen);

f.          deposit the compensation ordered for Breidy Maybeli Sánchez and Norma Iveth Sánchez, both minors, in an investment with a sound Honduran banking institution; the compensation is to be in United States dollars or the equivalent in Honduran currency and is to be invested under the most favourable conditions allowed under Honduran law and banking practice (operative paragraph eighteen);

g.         pay the full amount ordered by the Court for pecuniary damages (operative paragraph eight);

h.         pay the full amount ordered by the Court for non-pecuniary damages (operative paragraph nine);

i.          pay the full amount ordered by the Court for costs and expenses (operative paragraph fourteen), and

j.          pay the interest on the amount in arrears (operative paragraph seventeen).

k. Nicaragua

Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case

538. The Judgment ordering reparations in this case was handed down on August 31, 2001. During 2005, the Commission noted to the Court that the State had not complied with the duties set forth in that Judgment and asked the Court to issue an order on compliance.

Yatama Case

539. The application in Case 12,388, Yatama v. Nicaragua, was filed with the Court on June 16, 2003, for the Nicaraguan State’s violations of Articles 23, 8, 25, 2 and 1.1 of the American Convention, with respect to the candidates that Yapti Tasba Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asla Takanka (YATAMA), an indigenous regional political party, put forward for the offices of mayor, deputy mayor and municipal councillors in the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, in the North Atlantic Autonomous Region and the South Atlantic Autonomous Region. The application asserts that the State failed to provide a remedy that would have enabled them to protect their right to run and be elected in the municipal elections of November 5, 2000, and failed to adopt the legislative or other measures necessary to give effect to the rights enshrined in the American Convention – in particular, it failed to include provisions in the electoral law to facilitate political participation by indigenous organizations in elections in Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast Autonomous Region, in accordance with the customary law, values, uses, and customs of the indigenous peoples who inhabit that area.

540. On June 23, 2005, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits of the case. The Court began by dismissing the preliminary objections that the Nicaraguan State had entered and then declared that the following rights of the candidates nominated by Yatama to run in the 2000 municipal elections had been violated: the right to a hearing with due guarantees, the right to judicial protection, the right to participate in government, and the right to equal protection of the law, recognized, respectively in Articles 8.1, 25, 23 and 24 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.

541. In that same judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

l. Panama

Baena Ricardo et al. Case

442. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.

543. On November 28, 2005, the Court issued an order on the matter of compliance. In that order the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to:

a.          pay to all 270 victims the amounts corresponding to unpaid salaries and other labour rights that they are owed under Panamanian law; if any of the 270 workers is deceased, then payment shall be made to the beneficiaries (operative paragraph six of the Judgment of February 2, 2001);

b.         reinstate the 270 victims and, should this not be possible, offer them alternative employment under the same conditions, salaries and remunerations that they had at the time they were discharged. Failing that, pay any and all compensation they would have received if they were terminated, in accordance with domestic labour law. Similarly, the State is to pay the beneficiaries of any workers who may have died, any and all pension or retirement benefits that the deceased workers are owed (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment of February 2, 2001); and

c.          pay the interest that accrued because the moral damages were paid after the deadline stipulated in the Judgment, and pay the heirs of the deceased victims the compensation corresponding to moral damages (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment of February 2, 2001, and operative paragraph four of the order on compliance, dated November 22, 2002).

m. Paraguay

“Panchito López” Juvenile Rehabilitation Centre Case

544. The Court delivered the Judgment on Reparations in this case on September 2, 2004. On December 19, 2005, the Commission commented to the Court that while in general the Paraguayan State had taken some administrative steps to comply with the operative points of the Judgment, only one of those points (concerning publication of the Judgment) had been fully complied with. From the State’s report on compliance with this Judgment the Commission concluded that the State had not take the necessary or suitable measures to comply with the bulk of the obligations emanating therefrom. The Commission found the non-compliance disturbing now that more than one year had passed since notification of the judgment, particularly given the gravity of the case and the number of operative paragraphs that were to have been carried out within a period of 15 days, six months or one year from the date the State was notified of the Judgment.

545. The Commission then asked the Court to demand that the State immediately comply with its obligations. The order from the Court on this matter is still pending.

Goiburú et al. Case

546. On 8 June 2005 the Inter-American Commission filed an application with the Court in cases 11,560, 11,665 and, 11.667 -Agustín Goiburú, Carlos José Mancuello, Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba. These cases were against the Paraguayan State, for the illegal and arbitrary detention and forced disappearance of Agustín Goiburú, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, and the brothers Rodolfo Feliciano and Benjamín de Jesús Ramírez Villalba in Paraguay, as of 1974 and 1977, and the partial impunity that persists in connection with these violations, since not all those responsible for them have been punished.

547. The summons to a public hearing is still pending.

Ricardo Canese Case

548. The Court delivered the Judgment on reparations in this case on August 31, 2004. On November 16, 2005, as a result of a report filed by the State, the Commission informed the Court that it was disturbed by the failure to comply with the Judgment in this case, as more than one year had passed since the State was notified of the judgment and the deadlines set for compliance had passed. The Commission also noted that from the State’s report, it was apparent that effective measures had not been taken to comply with all the obligations emanating from the Judgment.

549. The Court’s order on compliance is pending.

Sawhoyamaxa Case

550. On February 3, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,419, “The Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community of the Enxet-Lengua People and Its Members” v. Paraguay, for the latter’s failure to guarantee the Indigenous Community’s right to its ancestral property. In 1991, the Community set in motion procedures to recover a portion of its ancestral territory, yet to this day its territorial claim has not been satisfactorily resolved. The foregoing has meant that the Community has been denied ownership and possession of its territory; instead, given the Community’s way of life, the State’s inaction has kept the Community in a very perilous predicament, without enough food, medical care and sanitation, which has posed a constant threat to the very survival of the Community’s members and to the integrity of the Community itself.

551. The Court decided not to call a public hearing in this case. The Court’s judgment is pending.

Vargas Areco Case

552. On March 27, 2005 the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 12,300, Gerardo Vargas Areco. The case was brought against the Paraguayan State for its responsibility in the actions and omissions committed in the investigation into the murder of Gerardo Vargas Areco, age 16, on December 30, 1989, while he was performing his Compulsory Military Service in the Paraguayan Army. The case was also filed because of the State’s failure to adequately compensate his next of kin.

553. In its answer to the application, the Paraguayan State advised the Court that it was admitting to the points made in the application; in a brief of clarification, dated November 15, 2005, the State wrote that the written brief of pleadings, arguments and evidence did not square with the application filed by the Inter-American Commission.

554. On November 23, 2005, the Commission observed that under the American Convention’s provision regarding acceptance of the facts, the Paraguayan State’s acknowledgment of the facts amounted to an acknowledgment of international responsibility for violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Gerardo Vargas Areco’s next of kin, and is grounds for a ruling on the obligation to make full reparations and the types of reparation that are in order.

555. The Court’s judgment on this case is pending.

Yakye Axa Case

556. The application in the case of the Yakye Axa v. Paraguay was filed with the Inter-American Court on March 17, 2003. The facts recounted in the application concern the ancestral property rights of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community of the Enxet-Lengua people and its members. The State’s inaction has kept the Community in a very perilous predicament, without enough food, medical care and sanitation, which has posed a constant threat to the very survival of the Community’s members and to the integrity of the Community itself. The IACHR referred the case to the Court to establish the State’s violations of Articles 21, 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the indigenous community and its members.

557. On June 17, 2005, the Court delivered its Judgment on the case. There it found that the Paraguayan State had, through the facts in this case and to the detriment of the Yakye Axa Community, violated the right to a fair trial with due guarantees, the right to judicial protection, the right to property, and the right to life, recognized, respectively, in Articles 8.1, 25, 21 and 4 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.

558. At the same time, however, the Court held that it did not have sufficient evidence to find that the violation of the right to life of 16 members of the Community had been established.

559. In its judgment, the Court ordered the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the Judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

n. Peru

5 Pensioners Case

560. During 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic observations regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On September 12, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject of compliance.

561. In this most recent Court order, it found that the State had not yet complied with its obligations to

a.          conduct the necessary investigations and apply the proper punishments to those responsible for failing to abide by the judgments delivered by the Peruvian courts on the actions filed by the victims seeking relief (operative paragraph six of the Judgment of February 28, 2003);

b.         pay the four victims and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra’s widow the sum of $3,000.00 (three thousand United States dollars) for non-pecuniary damages, as indicated at paragraph 180 of the Judgment (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment of February 28, 2003);

c.          pay the sum of US$13,000.00 (thirteen thousand United States dollars) for expenses and a total of US$ 3,500.00 (three thousand five hundred United States dollars) for costs, as indicated at paragraph 182 of the Judgment (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment of February 28, 2003); and

d.         have any patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to private property decided by the competent national bodies in accordance with domestic law (operative paragraph five of the Judgment of February 28, 2003).

Acevedo Jaramillo et al. (SITRAMUN) Case

562. On June 25, 2003, the Commission filed an application against the Republic of Peru in the case of Acevedo Jaramillo Julio et al., members of the Lima Municipal Workers Union (SITRAMUN) (Case 12,084) alleging the State’s failure to comply with the rulings delivered by the domestic courts in favour of the members of SITRAMUN. In the application, the Commission asked the Court to declare the Peruvian State’s international responsibility for non-compliance with its international obligations under Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, by its failure to observe the rulings delivered by the Lima city judges, the Lima Superior Court of second instance and Peru’s Constitutional Tribunal on an action dating back to 197 in which constitutional guarantees are invoked. In these cases, the courts upheld the workers of the Municipality of Lima who were members of SITRAMUN.

563. In a public hearing held by the Court on September 20 and 21, 2005, the Commission presented its arguments on the preliminary objections, merits and reparations.

564. The judgment on this case is pending.

Barrios Altos Case

565. In 2005, the Commission filed its periodic observations on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.

566. On September 22, 2005, the Court issued an order on the matter of compliance. There, it held that the State had not yet complied with its obligations to

a.          investigate the facts to determine the identity of those responsible for the human rights violations referred to in the judgment on the merits, publish the findings of the investigation and punish those responsible (operative paragraph five of the Judgment on the merits, dated March 14, 2001);

b.         pay the reparations owed to Mr. Martín León Lunazco, son of the victim Máximo León León (operative paragraph 2.c of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001);

c.          deposit the full amount of the indemnification owed to beneficiaries who are minors, Luis Alvaro León Flores and Ingrid Elizabeth Ríos Rojas, in a “trust fund under the most favourable conditions according to Peruvian banking practices” (operative paragraph two in fine of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001);

d.         pay the indemnification owed to beneficiaries Cristina Ríos Rojas, daughter of the deceased victim Manuel Isaías Ríos Pérez, and Rocío Genoveva Rosales Capillo, daughter of the deceased victim Alejandro Rosales Alejandro (operative paragraph two in fine of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001);

e.          provide health care services (operative paragraph three of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001);

f.          provide educational benefits (operative paragraph four of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001);

g.         introduce “the most suitable legal classification” to define the crime of extrajudicial execution (operative paragraph 5.b of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001);

h.         erect a memorial monument (operative paragraph 5.f of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001); and

i.          publish the full text of the Judgment on the merits that the Court delivered on March 14, 2001, in the Official Gazette El Peruano, and disseminate its content via other media (operative paragraph 5.d of the Judgment on reparations of November 30, 2001).

Baldeón García Case

567. On February 11, 2005, the Commission filed an application against the Peruvian State in case 11,767, Bernabé Baldeón García, for the State’s responsibility in the unlawful detention, cruel, unlawful and degrading treatment and extrajudicial execution of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón García in Pacchahuallhua, Independencia district, Vilcashuamán province, department of Ayacucho, between September 25 and 26, 1990, and the State’s subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating the facts and its denial of justice to the victim’s next of kin

568. The State submitted its answer to the application on July 22, 2005. There, it acknowledged international responsibility for the facts and for violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 1.1 of the American Convention. It also proposed to the victim’s next of kin that the two parties begin negotiations with a view to reaching a friendly settlement.

569. On September 2, 2005, the Commission asked the Court to accept the Peruvian State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility. It also asked the Court to declare that the dispute as to the facts and as to the violations of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 1.1 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victim, and Articles 8, 5, 25 and 1.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of the victim’s next of kin, had ended. In the event no friendly settlement could be reached, the Commission asked the Court to continue proceedings on the case and ultimately deliver a judgment on the Commission’s claims in the matter of reparations.

570. The Court decided not to hold a public hearing in this case. Final written arguments are pending. The Court has requested that they be submitted by 2006.

Cantoral Benavides Case

571. In 2005 the Commission presented its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On September 22, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject of compliance.

572. In this latest Court order, it finds that the State has yet to comply with its duties to

a.          pay interest on the balance in arrears, in keeping with paragraph 97 of the Judgment on reparations;

b.         provide medical treatment and psychotherapy to Mrs. Gladys Benavides López, in keeping with operative paragraph eight of the Judgment on reparations;

c.          provide Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides with a fellowship to pursue advanced or university studies at a centre of recognized academic excellence, selected by mutual agreement between the State and the victim, as well as living expenses for the duration of those studies, as ordered in operative paragraph six of the Judgment on reparations; and

d.         investigate and punish those responsible for the violations committed to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral Benavides, in the terms of operative paragraph twelve of the Judgment on the merits and nine of the Judgment on reparations.

Castillo Páez Case

573. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the subject of compliance is dated November 17, 2004.

574. In that order the Court finds that the State has yet to fully comply with its duties to

a. investigate the facts in the present case and identify and punish those responsible (operative paragraph two of the Judgment on Reparations of November 27, 1998); and

b. locate the mortal remains of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez (Judgment on the Merits of November 3, 1997).

Castillo Petruzzi Case

575. The Court delivered the judgment on reparations in this case on May 30, 1999. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the matter of compliance.

Cesti Hurtado Case

576. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the subject of compliance is dated November 17, 2004.

577. In that order, the Court finds that the State has not yet fully complied with its obligations to

a.          pay interest on the compensation ordered for moral damages (operative paragraphs two, three, four and six of the Judgment of May 31, 2001);

b.         investigate the facts in the case and punish those responsible (operative paragraph five of the Judgment of May 31, 2001);

c.          pay compensation for pecuniary damages (operative paragraph one of the Judgment of May 31, 2001), and

d.         nullify the military proceedings and all its consequences (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment of September 29, 1999).

De La Cruz Flores Case

578. The Judgment on reparations in this case was delivered on November 18, 2004.

579. On September 7, 2004, the Court forwarded a brief filed by the victim’s representative to report on compliance with the Judgment the Court delivered in this case, especially with regard to the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws recognized in Article 9 of the Convention in the context of the criminal case being prosecuted against Mrs. Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores. The representative pointed out that by virtue of the opinion given by the Superior Prosecutor, dated December 20, 2004, the order of the National Criminal Court for Crimes of Terrorism, and the order of the Fourth Supra-provincial Criminal Court for Crimes of Terrorism, dated January 26, 2005, Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores was to be tried for the crime of terrorism on the grounds of membership, referred to in Article 5 of Legislative Degree 25475.

580. Having received this information, on February 17, 2005 the Commission informed the Court that given these developments in the criminal case being prosecuted against Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores in the domestic courts, the violation of Article 9 of the Convention found by the Court had not been corrected, thus obstructing full compliance with the measures ordered by the Court in its judgment. As for the possibility of nullifying the final judgment of June 15, 2000, which had itself overturned the March 4, 1999 judgment that had convicted Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores and sentenced her to prison for 10 years for the crime of terrorism, the Commission was of the view that nullification of that June 15, 2000 judgment could engage the Peruvian State’s international responsibility yet again, this time for violation of the principle of the non-retroactivity of criminal law, to the detriment of the victim.

581. For these reasons, the Commission petitioned the Court to ask the Peruvian State to provide precise information on compliance with the Court’s judgment in this case, in terms of respecting rights and adopting domestic legislative measures to ensure that violations such as those found in the judgment do not recur in Peru and to ensure that in the new trial prosecuted against Mrs. Maria Teresa De La Cruz Flores the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, recognized in the American Convention, is observed.

Durand and Ugarte Case

582. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 27, 2002.

583. In this most recent order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to

a.          provide the beneficiaries with health services, psychological support and inter-personal-development services and assistance with construction of a residence;

b.         publish the judgment delivered by the Court on August 16, 2000 and circulate its contents via other media, in keeping with operative paragraph 4 (a) of the Judgment on reparations of December 3, 2001);

c.          include in the executive decree ordering publication of the agreement “a public apology to the victims for the grievous injuries caused”, as dictated under operative paragraph 4(b) of the Judgment on reparations of December 3, 2001;

d.         investigate and punish those responsible for the facts in this case, in keeping with operative paragraph seven of the Judgment on the merits that the Court delivered on August 16, 2000, and to prosecute the investigation instituted through Lima’s Fourth Criminal Prosecutor’s Office for the murder of 30 people, among them Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, in keeping with operative paragraph 4 (c) of the Judgment on reparations of December 3, 2001; and

e.          take concrete steps to locate the place and identify the remains of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera.

García Asto and Ramírez Rojas Case

584. On June 22, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the State of Peru in case No. 12,413, Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas, in accordance with Article 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to find that the Peruvian State’s international responsibility had been engaged for its violations of Articles 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trail), and 9 (principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) thereof, by virtue of the Peruvian anti-terrorist legislation under which the alleged victims were tried and convicted, and their new trial in February 2003 under the amended law. The facts in this case also engaged Peru’s international responsibility for failure to comply with its duties under Article 2 of the American Convention.

585. The Court delivered its Judgment in this case on November 25, 2005. Given the State’s acceptance of facts that predated September 2000, the Court found that by the facts in this case, and to the detriment of Mr. Wilson García Asto and Urcesino Ramírez Rojas, the Peruvian State had violated the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, juridical guarantees, and judicial protection, recognized, respectively, in 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. The Court also concluded that the State had violated the right to humane treatment in the case of the victims’ next of kin, again in relation to Article 1.1 of the Convention. Finally, the Court held that the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws, recognized in Article 9 of the Convention, was violated in the first trials to which the victims were subjected.

586. At the same time, the Court determined that it did not have sufficient evidence to establish that the principle of legality and freedom from ex post facto laws had been violated in the second trials that the victims underwent.

587. In its Judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

Gómez Palomino Case

588. On September 13, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court, against the State of Peru, in case 11,062, for the forced disappearance of Santiago Fortunato Gómez Palomino in Lima, Peru, on July 9, 1992, and for related facts, including the impunity that attended these violations. The Commission asked the Court to declare that the following Articles of the American Convention had been violated: 7 (right to personal liberty), 5 (right to humane treatment), 4 (right to life), 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection), all in relation to Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of the Convention.

589. On November 22, 2005, after the State acknowledged responsibility, the Court delivered its judgment in the case. There, it concluded that through the facts of the case and to the detriment of the victim, the State had violated the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty, recognized, respectively, in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. It also found that the State had violated, to the detriment of the victim and his next of kin, the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof; further, that the State had violated the next of kin’s right to humane treatment, recognized in Article 5 of the Convention. The Court also found that by its conduct, the State had violated its duty to adopt the domestic legislative measures necessary to guarantee the victim’s rights to life, to personal liberty and to humane treatment, under the terms of Article 2 of the Convention and Article 1.b of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.

590. In its judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

Gómez Paquiyauri Case

591. The Court delivered the Judgment ordering reparations in this case on July 8, 2004. Information from the State on the matter of compliance is still pending.

Huilca Tecse Case

592. The Court delivered its Judgment on the merits of this case on March 3, 2005. The case concerns the extrajudicial execution of a Peruvian labour leader, Mr. Pedro Huilca Tecse, on December 18, 1992. At the time of the events, the alleged victim was Secretary General of the General Confederation of Labour of Peru (hereinafter the “CGTP”) and was purportedly executed by members of the “Colina group, a death squadron with ties to the Peruvian Army Intelligence Service.” The application also alleged a failure to conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation into the facts.

593. In the judgment delivered, the Court accepted the State’s acknowledgment of the claims made by the Commission and the injured party, and therefore found violations of the rights recognized in Articles 4.1 (right to life) and 16 (freedom of association) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and a failure to comply with Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect rights), to the detriment of Mr. Pedro Huilca Tecse, as set forth in paragraphs 64 to 79 of the Judgment. It also found that the State had violated the rights recognized in Articles 8 (the right to due process) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and thus had failed to observe the duty set forth in Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of the following next of kin of Mr. Huilca Tecse: Mrs. Martha Flores Gutiérrez, the victim’s wife; their children, Pedro Humberto Huilca Gutiérrez, Flor de Maria Huilca Gutiérrez, Katiuska Tatiana Huilca Gutiérrez, José Carlos Huilca Flores, and Indira Isabel Huilca Flores, as well as Julio César Escobar Flores, who was the victim’s stepson and the son of Mrs. Martha Flores Gutiérrez, in the terms of paragraphs 80 to 83 of the Judgment.

594. In its judgment, the Court also decided to partially approve a reparations agreement that the State and the injured party had agreed upon and established the pertinent reparations. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

Ivcher Bronstein Case

595. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on the matter of compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. Then, on September 21, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject.

596. In that order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to

a.          investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations established in th[e] Judgment in order to identify and punish those responsible (operative paragraph seven of the Judgment of February 6, 2001);

b.         provide the conditions to enable Baruch Ivcher Bronstein to take the measures necessary to recover the use and enjoyment of his rights as majority shareholder in the Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A., as he was until August 1, 1997, under the terms of domestic legislation. With regard to the recovery of dividends and other amounts that he would have received as majority shareholder and officer of that company, domestic law should also apply. To this end, the respective claims should be submitted to the competent national authorities (operative paragraph eight of the Judgment of February 6, 2001);

c.          pay Baruch Ivcher Bronstein compensation for moral damages in the amount of US$20,000.00 (twenty thousand United States dollars) or the equivalent in Peruvian currency at the time that payment is made (operative paragraph nine of the Judgment of February 6, 2001); and

d.         pay Baruch Ivcher Bronstein compensation, in reimbursement of the costs and expenses arising in the internal and international jurisdictions, the sum of US$50,000.00 (fifty thousand United States dollars) or its equivalent in Peruvian currency as of the date payment is made (operative paragraph ten of the Judgment of February 6, 2001).

Case of Juárez Cruzatt et al. (Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case)

597. On September 9, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Republic of Peru in case No. 11,015, Hugo Juárez Cruzatt et al., for the State’s responsibility in the events at the Miguel Castro Castro prison in Lima, May 6 to 9, 1992. In the course of those events, at least 42 inmates had been killed, 175 injured, and a further 322 subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment for various lengths of time. The Inter-American Commission asked that the Court find that the Peruvian State had incurred international responsibility for its failure to abide by its international obligations by violating Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general duty to respect and ensure those rights, set forth in Articles 1.1 thereof. The violations were incurred by Peru’s failure to prevent firearms from entering the prison, by its excessive use of force, extrajudicial execution, torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, its failure to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation, its destruction of evidence essential to solving the case, and the denial of justice to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin.

598. The Court sent the State notice of the application on 5 October 2005. The State’s answer to the application and to the brief of pleadings, arguments and evidence is still pending.

Loayza Tamayo Case

599. In 2005, the Commission filed its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. On March 3, 2005, the Court issued an order on the subject of compliance.

600. In its most recent order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its duties to

a.          reincorporate Ms. Maria Elena Loayza-Tamayo in her prior teaching positions in the public sector, with the understanding that the amount of her salary and other benefits must be equivalent to the amount of her remunerations for her work in both the public and private sectors at the time of her detention;

b.         ensure Ms. Maria Elena Loayza-Tamayo's full enjoyment of her right to retirement benefits, including for the period in which she was detained;

c.          adopt all the internal legal measures to ensure that no adverse resolution issued in the process in which Ms. Maria Elena Loayza-Tamayo was presented before the civil courts has any legal effect ;

d.         take the necessary internal legal measures to conform Judicial Decrees 25-475 (Crime of Terrorism) and 25-659 (Crime of Treason) with the American Convention on Human Rights; and

e.          investigate the facts of the present Case, identify and sanction those responsible, and adopt the necessary internal legal measures to ensure compliance with this obligation.

Lori Berenson Case

601. The Court delivered its Judgment on Reparations in this case on November 25, 2004. In 2005, the State submitted a number of compliance-related reports. The Court requested that the Commission submit its comments on this subject by January 2006.

602. On March 2, 2005, the aggrieved party filed an application seeking an interpretation of the Court’s judgments on the merits and reparations. When consulted on the matter, the Commission expressed the view that the application did not satisfy the requirements that the Court had established in its jurisprudence for the admissibility of applications seeking interpretations of judgments. On June 23, 2005, the Court dismissed the application seeking an interpretation, on the grounds that it was inadmissible.

Neira Alegría Case

603. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic observations concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 28, 2002.

604. In its most recent order, the Court finds that the State has not yet complied with its duties to locate and identify the victims’ remains and deliver them to their next of kin.

Constitutional Court Case

605. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by The Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 17, 2004.

606. In that November 17, 2004 order, the Court found that the State had not yet complied with its obligations to

a. establish the identities of the persons responsible for the human rights violations committed against the victims in this case and punish them, and

b. pay the salaries and other benefits that, under domestic law, are owed to Mr. Manuel Aguirre Roca, Mr. Guillermo Rey Terry and Ms. Delia Revoredo Marsano.

Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees

607. On February 4, 2005, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Peruvian State, in case 11,830, concerning the dismissal of 257 employees of Peru’s National Congress, who figured among the 1117 employees dismissed through congressional resolutions passed on December 31, 1992.

o. Dominican Republic

Case of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico

608. On July 11, 2003, the Commission lodged an application with the Court against the Dominican Republic, in case 12,189, the first one ever brought to the Court against that country. The case is that of two young girls, Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico. The Commission is asking the Court to find that the State’s international responsibility has been engaged by the fact that the Dominican authorities refused to grant Dominican citizenship to Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi even though they were born within the territory of the Dominican Republic and the Dominican Republic recognizes the principle of jus soli. In view of the foregoing, the Commission asked the Court to declare a violation of the right to juridical personality, the right to a fair trial, the rights of the child, the right to nationality, the right to equality before the law, and the right to judicial protection, set forth respectively in Articles 3, 8, 19, 20, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 thereof.

609. The Court delivered its Judgment in the case on September 8, 2005. It began by dismissing the State’s three preliminary objections and went on to declare that the State had violated the right to nationality and the right to equality before the law, upheld in Articles 20 and 24 of the Convention, in relation to Article 19 and Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the two girls, Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico; it also found that the State had violated the right to juridical personality and the right to a name, recognized in Articles 3 and 18, respectively, in relation to Articles 19 and 1.1 of the Convention and to the detriment of the two young girls Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico; it also ruled that the State had violated the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Leonidas Oliven Yean, Tiramen Bosico Cofi and Teresa Tucent Mena.

610. In the Judgment, the Court decided the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.htmml.

p. Suriname

Moiwana Community Case

611. The Court delivered its judgment on the merits of the Moiwana Community Case on June 15, 2005. This case concerns a November 29, 1986 attack perpetrated by members of the Surinamese armed forces on the N’djuka Maroon community of Moiwana. The soldiers massacred more than 40 men, women and children and destroyed the community. Those who managed to escape presumably fled into the surrounding forests, and were later exiled or internally displaced. No proper investigation was ever done of the massacre and no one was either prosecuted or punished. The survivors were never able to return to their ancestral lands and therefore never able to resume their traditional way of life. For these reasons, the Commission pointed out, while the attack itself occurred prior to Suriname’s ratification of the American Convention and its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, the alleged denial of justice and displacement occurred subsequent to the attack and were the centrepiece of the case brought to the Court in the application.

612. In its judgment, the Court found that the right to have one’s physical, mental and moral integrity respected, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to property, the right to a hearing with due guarantees, and the right to judicial protection, recognized, respectively, in Articles 5.1, 22, 21, 8.1 and 25 of the Convention had been violated, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof and to the detriment of the Moiwana Community.

613. In that judgment the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

q. Trinidad and Tobago

Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case

614. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments concerning compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court.

615. The Court’s most recent compliance-related order in this case is dated November 27, 2003. In it, the Court finds that the State was ordered to report every six months on the measures adopted, in other words, on January 5 and July 5, 2003, but had failed to comply with that requirement. The Court decided, therefore, that if the situation persisted, it would inform the General Assembly of the Organization of American States of that fact, pursuant to Article 65 of the Convention […] and Article 30 of the Statute of the Court.

Winston Caesar Case

616. On March 11, 2005, the Court delivered its judgment on the merits in this case, which concerns the sentence that the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago gave to the victim in the case, which was 20 years in prison at hard labour and 15 lashes with a cat-o-nine tails. Trinidad and Tobago’s Court of Appeal upheld the verdict and sentence, and 23 months after final confirmation of the verdict, Mr. Caesar’s flogging was inflicted.

617. In its Judgment, the Court found that the victim’s right to humane treatment and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 25 of the Convention, had been violated, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof. It also concluded that the State had not abided by its duty under Article 2 of the Convention in relation to the aforementioned Articles 5.1 and 5.2.

618. Contrary to what the Commission had argued, however, the Court also decided that the State had not violated the right to a hearing with due guarantees, recognized in Article 8.1 of the Convention.

619. In its judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

r. Venezuela

El Caracazo Case

620. In 2005, the Commission submitted its periodic comments on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court. The Court’s most recent order on the matter of compliance is dated November 17, 2002.

621. In its latest order, the Court finds that the State has not yet complied with its obligations to

a.          investigate, identify and punish those responsible under criminal and administrative law, which includes the principals, accessories before the fact and possible accessories after the fact (operative paragraph one);

b.         locate, exhume and identify the mortal remains of some of the victims, and deliver them to their next of kin (operative paragraph two);

c.          in those cases in which burials are performed, report whether the State has defrayed the costs and taken into consideration the site chosen by the family to bury the mortal remains of the persons to which operative paragraph two refers (operative paragraph three);

d.         take all necessary steps to avoid recurrence of the circumstances and facts of the present case (operative paragraph four, subparagraphs a), b) and c), and

e.          pay costs and expenses for the Centre for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (operative paragraph ten).

El Amparo Case

622. In 2005 the Commission submitted its periodic comments regarding compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in this case. The Court’s most recent compliance-related order is dated November 28, 2002.

623. In its most recent order in this case, the Court finds that the State has yet to comply with its obligations to

a. pay interest owed in the amount of US$28,751.44; and

b. take steps subsequent to the issuance of the September 14, 1996 judgment to comply with the Court’s order in operative paragraph four of that judgment, concerning the State’s obligation to “continue investigations into the events referred to in the instant case, and to punish those responsible.”

Case of the Vargas Disappeared (Blanco Romero, Hernández Paz and
Rivas Fernández)

624. On June 30, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in cases 12,256, 12,258, and 12,307. The Commission asked the Court to declare that, by the events that began in Vargas State, Venezuela, between December 21 and 23, 1999, involving the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz, and José Francisco Rivas Fernández by State agents, the State had violated Articles 4.1 (right to life), 5.1 and 2 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8.1 (right to a hearing with due guarantees), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect rights), and Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles 1, 2, 6, and 7 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

625. On June 28, 2005, after the State acknowledged the facts, the Court issued an order in which it decided to accept the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility, an acknowledgement that had ended the dispute over the facts in the case. The Court further decided to continue to process the case. On November 28 of that year, the Court issued a judgment in which it found that the victims’ rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to due process and to judicial protection, recognized in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, had been violated and that the State had failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Articles I(a) and I(b), X and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Court also ruled that the rights to humane treatment, to due process and to judicial protection, protected under Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention had also been violated in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin, and the State’s obligation under Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

626. In its judgment, the Court established the reparations that it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/seriec/index_c.html.

Retén de Catia Case (Montero Aranguren et al.)

627. On February 24, 2005, the Commission filed an application against the Venezuelan State in Case 11,699, Víctor Jesús Montero Aranguren et al. "Retén de Catia", for the State’s responsibility in the events that occurred in and around a prison called the "Retén e Internado Judicial de Los Flores de Catia", in the city of Caracas between November 27 and 29, 1992. The Commission’s contention was that the State was responsible for the failure to prevent acts of violence and respond to emergencies in the prison; for excessive use of force, for the extrajudicial execution of a number of inmates; for the subhuman conditions at the prison, conditions that were causal factors in the violence and sense of danger rampant in the prison at the time of the events; the failure to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation; the denial of justice to the victims and their next of kin; and the lack of prison policies that conformed to international standards.

628. The summons to the public hearing in this case is still pending.

TABLE OF CONTENTS | CONTINUED