ANNUAL REPORT OF THE IACHR 2006

 

           

          o.         Venezuela

 

            Carlos Nieto Palma et al.

 

489.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and observations on the provisional measures decreed in this case.  On July 9, 2004, at the Commission's request, the Court granted provisional measures to protect the life, physical integrity, freedom of expression and association of human rights defender Carlos Nieto Palma, General Coordinator of the NGO "Una Ventana a la Libertad" ["A Window to Freedom"] and to protect the life and physical integrity of his family.

 

490.          On September 22, 2006, the Court reiterated to the State that it must keep in place the measures it had taken and immediately take all those needed to effectively protect the life, physical integrity and freedom of Carlos Nieto Palma, as well as the life and physical integrity of Yvonne Palma Sánchez, Eva Teresa Nieto Palma and John Carmelo Laicono Nieto, letting the beneficiaries take part in the planning and implementation of those measures.

 

          Eloisa Barrios et al.

 

491.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and observations on the provisional measures decreed in this case.  On November 23, 2004, at the request of the Commission, the Court granted provisional measures to protect the life and physical integrity of Eloisa Barrios, Jorge Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios, Oscar Barrios, Inés Barrios, Pablo Solórzano, Beatriz Barrios, Caudy Barrios, Carolina García and Juan Barrios, eyewitnesses and/or complainants in the investigations connected with the murder of Narciso Barrios, whose perpetrators are alleged to be government agents.  In 2005, while the provisional measures were in effect, Rigoberto Barrios was killed by nine shots.

 

          El Nacional and Así es la Noticia

 

492.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and comments on the provisional measures granted in this case.  On July 6, 2004, at the request of the Commission, the Court granted provisional measures to protect the life, physical integrity and freedom of expression of the employees of media outlets "El Nacional" and "Así es la Noticia."  In its most recent observations in 2006 the IACHR requested the Court to order the State to include in its next report detailed information on: the specific measures taken to protect the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries and to continue investigating the events that prompted the provisional measures.

 

          Guerrero Galluci and Martínez Barrios

 

493.          The Commission presented information and observations on the provisional measures in this case, which were decreed on July 4, 2006, at the request of the Commission, in behalf of Mrs. María del Rosario Guerrero Galluci and Mr. Adolfo Segundo Martínez Barrios.  The Court ordered the State to immediately take the necessary provisional measures to protect the life and physical integrity of Mrs. Guerrero Galluci and Mr. Martínez Barrios; to investigate the events that led to the protective measures and to assure that the beneficiaries or their representatives were involved in planning and implementing the measures.

 

          Liliana Ortega et al.

 

494.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and observations on the provisional measures ordered since 2002 for the benefit of Liliana Ortega and other members of the NGO "Committee of Family Members of Victims of the February-March 1989 events" (COFAVIC).  In its most recent reports the Commission requested the Court to order the State to report in detail on the protective measures taken and the investigation into the events that prompted the provisional measures.

 

          Luis Uzcátegui

 

495.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and observations on the provisional measures ordered in favor of Mr. Luis Uzcátegui, a beneficiary of protective measures since November 2002.  In its most recent comments in 2006 the Commission confirmed its request to the Court to order the State to provide in its next report specific information on the measures taken to fully comply with the order issued by the Court.

 

          Luisiana Ríos et al.

 

496.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and observations on the provisional measures ordered in favor of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe, all of them employees of Radio Caracas Television (RCTV).  In its last report the Commission requested the Court to have the State provide in its next report more specific information on the implementation of measures ordered by the Court.

 

          Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez

 

497.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and comments on the provisional measures ordered in favor of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.  On July 4, 2006, the Court lifted the measures to protect Mrs. Liliana Velásquez; declared that the State was in breach of its duty to report to the Court, specifically and in detail, on the implementation of the measures ordered by the Court; reiterated to the State that it must take without a delay all necessary measures to protect the life and physical integrity and freedom of expression of Mrs. Marta Colomina; and ordered the State to continue assuring the beneficiary's involvement in planning and implementing the protective measures, keeping her abreast of developments affecting them.

 

          The case of the "La Pica" Judicial Detention Center

 

498.          On December 29, 2005, the Commission asked the Court for provisional measures to protect the life and physical integrity of detainees at the Monagas Judicial Detention Center, known as "La Pica."  After requesting information from the parties, on January 13, 2006, the President of the Court ordered urgent protective measures in favor of the inmates.  On January 30, 2006, the Court summoned the parties to a public hearing on February 9, 2006, in order to hear arguments on the events and circumstances that prompted the urgent measures.  That same day the Court granted provisional measures in favor of the inmates.  During 2006 the Commission presented comments on the various government briefs dealing with implementation of those measures.

 

499.          The text of the above Orders may be found that: <http:// www.corteidh. or.cr/docs/medidas/lapica_se_01.doc> and <http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/ lapica_se_02.doc>.

 

            "Globovisión" television

 

500.          During 2006 the Commission presented information and comments on the provisional measures granted by the Court on September 4, 2004, at the Commission's request, to  safeguard and protect the life, physical integrity and freedom of expression of reporters, managers and employees of Globovisión, as well as other persons found in the premises of that media outlet or directly connected with its reporting work.

 

          The case of the Yare I and II Capital Region Penitentiary Center

 

501.          On March 28, 2006, the Commission asked the Court to grant provisional measures to protect the life and physical integrity of detainees at the Yare I and II Capital Region Penitentiary Center.  On March 30, 2006, the Court granted the provisional measures in favor of the inmates.  During 2006 the Commission presented observations on the various briefs from the government dealing with implementation of those measures.

 

502.          The text of the above decisions may be found at: <http://www.corteidh. or.cr/docs/medidas/penitenciarioregion_se_01.doc>.

 

          2.         Contentious cases

 

503.          Under Article 51.1 of the American Convention, within three months of approving the report on the merits, the Commission must submit the case to the Court or decide whether to publish its report. Article 61 of the Convention, 44 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and 32 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure also mention this authority.

 

504.          Below is a summary of cases pending before the Court, arranged by country.

 

          a.         Argentina

 

            Bueno Alves Case

 

505.          On March 31, 2006, the Commission filed with the Court an application in case 11.425 against Argentina, on account of its responsibility for the violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in connection with failure to observe Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Juan Francisco Bueno Alves, tortured while in state custody and subsequently denied proper protection and a fair trial by the judicial system.

 

506.          On July 20, 2006, the victim's representative sent to the Court a brief containing petitions, arguments and evidence, as provided by Article 36 of the Court's Rules.  On September 26, 2006, the State answered the application as prescribed by Article 38 of the Court's Rules.

 

507.          On December 6, 2006, the Court scheduled a public hearing on the merits, reparations and costs, to be held in San José, Costa Rica, on February 2, 2007, with the Commission, the victim's representative and the State.

 

          Bulacio Case

 

508.          In 2006 the Commission reported periodically on the implementation of the resolution ordered by the Court in its decision of September 18, 2003, and its November 17, 2004 resolution on compliance with it.  In that ruling the Court asked the State to report in detail on the progress made in investigating all events in this case and punishing the perpetrators, as well as on the legislative and other measures of any kind needed to bring its domestic law into line with international human rights standards and render them fully effective, so that episodes such as this case will not be repeated.

 

509.          In a decision of December 2004, considering the mandatory nature of the judgments of the Inter-American Court, the Supreme Court of Argentina decided to reopen the criminal case against the head of the police precinct at the time Mr. Bulacio was illegally arrested, which a lower court had found to have lapsed because of the statute of limitations in December 2002.

 

510.          On December 12, 2006, the Court asked the State to present by January 31, 2007, updated information on the status of compliance with the decision of November 28, 2002.

 

511.          The full text of the decision may be found at: http://www.corteidh. or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_100_esp.pdf.

 

          Cantos Case

 

512.          In 2006 the Commission reported periodically on compliance with the Court's orders in its November 28, 2002 decision on the merits, reparations and costs, as well as its resolution of November 28, 2005 on execution of that judgment.  In its 2005 ruling the Court kept open the procedure to supervise compliance with orders not yet implemented in this case, namely: to refrain from charging Mr. José María Cantos the judicial fee and the fine for nonpayment of that fee; to set at a reasonable amount the attorney fees for case C-1099 of the Supreme Court of Argentina; to pay the fees and costs of all experts and attorneys for the State and for the Province of Santiago del Estero; and to lift the liens, general restraining orders on disposition of property and other measures decreed against the property and commercial activities of Mr. José María Cantos for the purpose of securing payment of the judicial fee and attorney fees in the case.

 

513.          On December 12, 2006, the Court asked the State to present by January 31, 2007, updated information on the status of compliance with the Court's judgment of November 28, 2002.

 

514.          The full text of the judgment may be found at: http://www.corteidh. or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_97_esp.pdf.

 

          Garrido and Baigorria Case

 

515.          This case concerns the disappearance of Raúl Baigorria and Adolfo Garrido on April 28, 1990 and the subsequent denial of justice, in violation of Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 7.5, 7.6, 8 and 9 (Right to a Fair Trial), 8.1 (Judicial Safeguards) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

 

516.          In 2006 the Commission was unable to periodically comment on compliance with the Court's orders because the State presented no information whatever on the status of compliance with the compensation decision of August 27, 1998.  In its last ruling of November 17, 2004, the Court had already referred to the lack of information from the State.

 

517.          The full text of the decision may be found at: http://www.corteidh. or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_26_esp[1].pdf.

 

          b.         Barbados

 

            Boyce et al. Case

 

518.          On June 23, 2006, the Commission filed an application concerning case 12.480 (Boyce et al.) against Barbados because of its responsibility for the violation of Articles 4.1 and 4.2 (Right to Life), 5.1 and 5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment, and 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) in connection with Articles 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Messrs. Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Frederick Benjamin Atkins and Michael Huggins.

 

519.          Messrs. Boyce, Joseph, Atkins and Huggins were found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced in 2001 to death under Barbados' 1994 Crimes Against the Person Act, which prescribes the mandatory death penalty for that crime.  Because of a "savings" clause in the Constitution of Barbados, its judiciary may not invalidate laws establishing a mandatory death penalty, even if they violate fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of Barbados and by the American Convention.  In addition, during the proceedings and after their sentencing, the victims were imprisoned in deplorable conditions and the State read to each of them the respective execution order even as their appeals were pending in the Inter-American system.

 

520.          In its proceedings in this case the Court has received the brief containing petitions arguments and evidence from the victims, as well as the State's answer to the application.

 

          c.         Bolivia

 

            Trujillo Oroza Case

 

521.          As regards compliance with its judgment, on September 12, 2005 the Court issued its most recent resolution establishing that the State had as yet not fulfilled its obligations to employ all necessary means to locate the mortal remains of the victim and deliver them to the family for adequate burial; to include the crime of forced disappearance of persons in its domestic law; and to investigate, identify and punish the perpetrators in this case.

 

522.          On October 30, 2006, the Commission presented observations on the State's report on compliance, which had been presented on September 19, 2006.  The Commission recognized as positive the criminalization of forced disappearances in the law published on January 21, 2006. Still pending in terms of compliance, however, are operative items one and three of the Court's decision that deal with locating and delivering the mortal remains of the victim to his family and investigating, identifying and punishing all perpetrators.  The Court was also asked to order the State to present detailed information on the transfer of the investigation to a civilian judge.

 

523.          The full text of the decision may be found at: http://www.corteidh. or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_64_esp.pdf.

 

          c.         Brazil

 

            Nogueira de Carvalho Case

 

524.          On January 13, 2005, the Commission filed with the Court an application against Brazil in case No. 12.058, Nogueira de Carvalho, because of the State's responsibility in the actions and omissions that have preserved impunity in the murder of the attorney Francisco Gilson Nogueira de Carvalho, a human rights defender, and the lack of adequate compensation for his mother and father, Jaurídice Nogueira de Carvalho and Geraldo Cruz de Carvalho.

 

525.          On November 28, 2006, the Court decided preliminary objections and the merits, holding that it had not been established that the State had violated the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection under Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and ordering the case closed. The full text of the decision may be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_161_esp.doc.

 

          Ximenes Lopes Case

 

526.          On October 1, 2004, the Commission filed with the Court an application against Brazil in case No. 12.237, Damião Ximenes Lopes, because of the inhuman and degrading conditions of hospitalization of Mr. Damião Ximenes Lopes -- who is mentally handicapped -- at a health center operating within the Single Health System of Brazil and known as the Casa de Repouso Guararapes [Guararapes Rest Home]; the blows and abuse he was subjected to by the staff of Casa de Repouso; his death while undergoing psychiatric treatment there; and the lack of investigation and due process that have led to continued impunity in this case.

 

527.          On July 4, 2006, the Court decided the merits and remedies in this case.  It accepted the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State and held that Brazil had violated Mr. Ximenes Lopes' right to life and humane treatment established, respectively, in Articles 4.1 and 5.1 and 5.2 of the American Convention; his family's right to humane treatment under Article 5 of the Convention; and the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection under Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention with respect to Mrs. Albertina Viana Lopes and Mrs. Irene Ximenes Lopes Miranda; all in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention.  The Court's decision ordered the appropriate remedies.

 

528.          The full text of the decision may be found at: http://www. corteidh.or.cr/ docs/casos/articulos/Seriec_149_esp.doc.

 


 

          e.         Colombia

 

            19 Merchants (Álvaro Lobo Pacheco et al.) Case

 

529.          In the course of 2006 the Commission periodically reported on the degree of compliance with the Court's orders in its judgment on the merits, reparations and costs dated July 5, 2004.

 

530.          On February 2, 2006, the Court issued a resolution on compliance with that decision, keeping the proceedings open with respect to the State's unfulfilled obligations.  Among these are to investigate the events in this case; make a serious effort to ascertain what happened to the remains of the victims; build a monument in memory of the victims and dedicate a plaque with the names of the 19 merchants; provide the medical and psychological treatment required by family members; create the proper conditions for the exiled family of the victim Antonio Flórez Contreras to return to Colombia if they so desire; guarantee the life, safety and security of persons who testified before the Court and of their families; pay the amounts awarded in the judgment for loss of income of each of the 19 victims, the expenses incurred by the families of 11 of the victims, and the compensation for moral damage; deposit the compensation awarded to the underage beneficiaries in a bank account in their name at a solvent Colombian bank; take the necessary steps to find the families of Mr. Juan Bautista and Mr. Huber Pérez and turn over to them the compensation they are entitled to; and reimburse costs and expenses.  The complete text of this ruling may be found at: <http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/ comerciantes_02_02_06.doc>.

 

          Caballero Delgado and Santana Case

 

531.          Throughout 2006 the Commission reported periodically on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of January 29, 1997, and its resolution on compliance dated November 27, 2003.  In the latter the Court kept the proceedings open with respect to the interest earned on amounts unpaid to Mrs. Ana Vitelma Ortiz, mother of Ms. María del Carmen Santana; the transfer of half the amount of compensation shown in the Certificate of Deposit and its yield before maturity to an account to be opened in the name of the minor Ingrid Carolina Caballero Martínez; purchasing a new Certificate of Deposit using half the compensation and earnings shown for the CD maturing on September 1, 2004, in favor of the representatives of the minor Iván Andrés Caballero Parra;  investigating and punishing the persons responsible for the disappearance and presumed death of the victims, and locating the victims' remains and delivering them to their families.

 

532.          The Court also urged the State to take every step required to put into effect and promptly comply with its judgments of December 8, 1995 on the merits, and January 29, 1997 on reparations, as prescribed by Article 68.1 of the American Convention.

 

          Escué Zapata Case

 

533.          On May 16, 2006, the Commission filed with the Court an application against Colombia in case 10.171, citing State responsibility for violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, along with failure to comply with Article 1.1 thereof, because of the unlawful detention, torture and extrajudicial execution of the indigenous leader Germán Escué Zapata on February 1, 1988, in the district of Jambaló, municipality of Jambaló, Department of Cauca, the lack of subsequent due diligence in investigating the events, and the denial of justice to the family of the victim.

 

534.          On September 18, 2006, the representatives of the victim and his family sent to the Court a brief containing petitions, arguments and evidence. On November 17, 2006, the State answered, acknowledging its international responsibility for violating Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25, and its failure to comply with Article 1.1 of the Convention.

 

535.          On December 20, 2006, the Court scheduled a public hearing on the merits, reparations and costs, held in San José, Costa Rica, on January 29, 2007, with the Commission, the representatives of the victim and his family and the Colombian State.

 

          Las Palmeras Case

 

536.          This case involves the extrajudicial execution of six persons on January 23, 1991, in the locality of Las Palmeras, municipality of Mocoa, department of Putumayo, Colombia, and the subsequent denial of justice to their families.

 

537.          During 2006 the Commission reported periodically on compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment of November 26, 2002, and its November 17, 2004 ruling on compliance, in which the Court ordered the State to take all necessary measures to promptly put into effect the reparations that remain unimplemented and asked it to present detailed information on all steps taken to fulfill its obligation to investigate the events and identify the perpetrators, make public the results of the investigation and punish the perpetrators, as well as on the efforts made to locate the remains of N.N./Moisés and his family and to pay the balance of the compensation ordered in the judgment of November 26, 2002.

 

          La Granja and El Aro Case

 

538.          On July 30, 2004, the Commission filed with the Court an application against Colombia in cases 12.050, La Granja, and 12.266, El Aro, because of State responsibility in the events of June 1996 and those that took place as from October 1997, respectively, in the municipality of Ituango, department of Antioquia, involving violation of the right to life of 16 persons; the right to life and personal liberty of one person; the right to life, humane treatment and liberty of two persons; and the property rights of six persons; as well as to ensure proper protection and a fair trial for all these persons and their families and safeguard the applicable children's rights, all in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention.

 

539.          On July 1, 2006, the Court accepted the State's acknowledgment of international responsibility for violating rights protected by Articles 4 (Right to Life); 7 (Right to Personal Liberty); 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 21 (Right to Private Property) of the Convention, all in conjunction with Article 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights).  In its decision the Court ordered the appropriate reparations. The full text of the decision is at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_148_esp.doc.

 

          La Rochela Case

 

540.          On March 10, 2006, the Commission filed with the Court an application against Colombia in case 11.995, La Rochela, over its responsibility for the events of January 18, 1989, when a paramilitary group, with support and acquiescence from government agents, extrajudicially executed 12 persons and injured three others, all of them part of a commission of Colombian judiciary officials taking evidence in the "La Rochela" locality of Colombia.

 

541.          On December 22, 2006, the Court scheduled a public hearing to hear testimony and expert witnesses offered by the parties, as well as the final arguments of the Commission, the representatives of the victims and the State of Colombia, which partially acknowledged its international responsibility in its written answer filed with the Court.  The hearing was held on January 31 and February 1, 2007.

 

          Mapiripán Massacre Case

 

542.          This case involves the massacre that took place July 15-20, 1997, when some 100 members of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, with the cooperation and acquiescence of government agents, seized, tortured and murdered at least 49 civilians, destroyed the bodies and dumped the remains into the Guaviare River in the municipality of Mapiripán, department of Meta.

 

543.          On December 6, 2006, the Court forwarded to the Commission and the representatives of the victims and their families the first report from the State on implementation of the September 15, 2005 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs.

 

544.          The Commission has until January 17, 2007, to provide observations on the report.

 

          "Pueblo Bello" (José Álvarez Blanco et al.) Case

 

545.          On January 31, 2006, the Court held that Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1, had been violated.  In its decision the Court ordered the appropriate reparations. The full text of the decision may be found at: <http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_140_esp.doc>.

 

546.          On May 24, 2006, both the State and the representatives of the victims  asked for an interpretation of the decision on the merits, reparations and costs, as provided in Articles 67 of the Convention and 59 of the Court's Rules.

 

547.          The State requested an interpretation of the scope of the remedy prescribed by the Court in paragraphs 275 and 276 of the decision, which calls for implementing, as in other cases, an adequate housing program for family members returning to Puerto Bello.  It also asked for clarification of paragraph 240 (a) on distribution of compensation among spouses or domestic partners of the persons killed or missing.

 

548.          For their part, the representatives of the injured parties voiced various doubts about the determination of beneficiaries of the compensation set in the decision, under the guidelines established by the Court in paragraphs 233 to 241.  Those guidelines, they pointed out in particular, had not been applied to certain persons not included by the Court, even though such persons had shown "in a timely fashion and with proper documentation... the family ties... and that they met the Court's requirements for beneficiaries of that compensation."

 

549.          In a decision dated November 25, 2006, the Court rejected as inadmissible the interpretation request from the representatives and clarified the meaning and scope of paragraphs 240 (a), 275, 276 and 287 of the judgment of January 31, 2006, as requested by the State.  The text of this interpretation decision may be found at: <http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_159_esp.doc>.

 

          Wilson Gutiérrez Soler Case

 

550.          This case deals with the detention and injuries suffered by Wilson Gutiérrez Soler, who was tortured in an attempt to make him confess to a crime of which Colombian courts eventually found him innocent.

 

551.          On December 6, 2006, the Court conveyed to the Commission and the representatives of the victim and his  family the first report by the State on implementation of the judgment on the merits, reparations and costs rendered by the Court on September 12, 2005.

 

552.          The Commission has until January 17, 2007, to comment on the report. 

 

 

[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT]