IACHR ANNUAL REPORT 2008

CHAPTER III -
THE PETITION AND CASE SYSTEM

 

 

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

 

1.         Provisional measures

 

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

 

777.          The following is a summary of the 40 provisional measures in force during the period covered by this report, according to the country ordered to implement them.  The number of measures required from the states does not tally with the number of persons those measures were intended to protect.

 

a.          Argentina

 

Millacura Llaipén et al.

 

778.          On June 20, 2006, the Commission submitted a request to the Inter-American Court seeking provisional measures to require the State protect the life and physical integrity of María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, her children Marcos and Valeria Torres, her son-in-law Juan Pablo Caba; Gerardo Colín; Patricio Oliva; Tamara Bolívar; Walter Mansilla; Silvia de los Santos; Verónica Heredia; Miguel Ángel Sánchez; and Viviana and Sonia Hayes.  Mrs.  Millacura Llaipén is a petitioner in a case submitted to the Commission and at the time of the acts alleged in her petition and in her quest for justice, she, her next of kin and her attorneys have been the targets of intimidation and aggression.

 

779.          By order dated February 6, 2008, the Court again called upon the State, inter alia, to immediately adopt all measures necessary to protect the rights to life and to physical integrity of the beneficiaries named by the Commission.  During the course of the year, the Commission presented information and comments related to these provisional measures, as ordered by the Court,  The full text of the order in question is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/millacura_se_03_ing.doc 

 

Mendoza Prisons

 

780.          In 2008, the Commission presented information and comments related to these provisional measures ordered by the Court on November 22, 2004.  The main purpose of those measures is to protect the life and integrity of all persons held in custody in the Mendoza Provincial Prison and those in the Gustavo André Unit at Lavalle, as well as every person found within the walls of those facilities. 

 

781.          A public hearing was held on December 4, 2008, during the Court’s XXXVII special session, which took place in Mexico City.  In attendance were the Commission, the representatives of the beneficiaries and the Argentine State.  The Inter-American Court convoked the hearing in order to receive information on i) how the provisional measures ordered in this case might be affected by the friendly settlement purportedly reached by the Argentine State and the petitioners in case No. 1231/04 “Inmates at Mendoza Penitentiary” being processed before the Inter-American Commission; ii) events subsequent to the Court’s Order of November 27, 2007 that posed a threat to the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered by the Court; iii) the effectiveness of the measures the State adopted to protect the beneficiaries during the period that the Court order was in effect; and iv) whether the situation of the extreme gravity and urgency that necessitated these provisional measures in order to prevent irreparable damage to persons still persists.  The order convoking the hearing in question is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/penitenciariamendoza_se_06.doc.  

 

b.         Barbados

 

Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan

 

782.          On October 31, 2008, the Commission submitted a request to the Court seeking provisional measures to protect the life and physical integrity of Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, a prisoner on death row in Barbados, until such time as the Inter-American Court rules on the violations alleged by the Commission in the application it filed with the Inter-American Court that same day.  On November 4, 2008, the President ordered urgent measures on Mr. Cadogan’s behalf and asked the State and the other parties to submit their comments, which have been reported in due course.  On December 2, 2008, the Court en banc confirmed the President’s order and ordered provisional measures on behalf of Mr. Cadogan.  The order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Tyrone_se_02_ing1.doc

 

c.         Brazil

 

Urso Branco Prison

 

783.          In 2008, the Commission presented writings and comments in connection with the provisional measures ordered on June 18, 2002, on behalf of the persons held in custody in the José Mario Alves Detention Center –known as the “Urso Branco Prison”- for the purpose of preventing further deaths among the inmate population there.

 

784.          The Commission underscored the need for a public hearing into this matter, so that the parties might give their arguments or explanations as to why the action taken thus far has not been enough to guarantee the life and physical safety of the inmates.

 

785.          On May 2, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it confirmed the State’s obligations vis-à-vis these provisional measures, with the exception of the obligation to investigate, which in its opinion should be reserved for a possible contentious proceeding.

 

786.          The order in question is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/urso_se_06_ing.doc.    

 

Febém Tatuapé Complex

 

787.          In 2008, the Commission presented its periodic comments on the State’s reports concerning the measures that the Court ordered on November 17, 2005, at the Commission’s request,  to protect the life and physical integrity of all children and adolescents resident in the FEBEM Tatuapé Complex, as well as that of all those within the complex.

 

788.          According to the Order of its President of June 10, 2008, the Court held a public hearing in connection with these provisional measures on August 13, 2008, during its XXXV special session, which took place in Montevideo, Uruguay.  Participating were the Commission, the representatives of the beneficiaries and those of the Brazilian State.  During that hearing, the Court requested specific information from the State concerning the location and situation of the beneficiaries of the provisional measures who were still within the Casa Foundation (formerly FEBEM).

 

789.          Having reviewed the information supplied by the State and the comments made by the representatives of the beneficiaries and by the Inter-American Commission, on November 25, 2008 the Court issued an order in which it decided to lift the provisional measures.

 

790.          The order in question is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/febem_se_06.doc.  

 

Araraquara Penitentiary

 

791.          In 2008 the Commission presented periodic reports to the Court containing its comments on the Brazilian State’s reports on the provisional measures the Court had ordered at the Commission’s request, to protect the life and physical integrity of the persons on whose behalf the measures were adopted when they were inmates at the penitentiary in Araraquara. 

           

792.          Pursuant to the June 10, 2008 Order of the President, the Court held a public hearing on August 13, 2008, during its special session in Uruguay.  The purpose of the hearing was to receive the arguments of the parties regarding the provisional measures ordered in this matter.  Then, on November 25, 2008, the Court ordered that the provisional measures called for in its orders of July 28, 2006 and September 30, 2006, for inmates at the “Dr. Sebastião Martins Silveira” Penitentiary in Araraquara, São Paulo, be lifted.  The text of the order is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/araraquara_se_05.pdf  

 

          d.         Colombia

 

19 Merchants

 

793.          Throughout 2008, the Commission submitted periodic comments on the reports that the State filed in connection which these provisional measures.  The Court ordered these measures on September 3, 2004, in response to a request from the Commission and for the purpose of protecting the life and physical integrity of Mrs. Sandra Belinda Montero (next of kin of two victims in the case; see “Contentious Cases,” below) and her family.  In its most recent report, the State requested that the order requiring provisional measures be lifted.  It was the Commission’s understanding, however, that given the nature of the events that prompted the order requiring provisional measures and because those events were linked to the case, the extreme gravity and urgency persisted.  It therefore requested that the Court keep the order requiring provisional measures in place. 

 

794.          On November 26, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the Inter-American Commission, the State of Colombia and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and of the persons for whom the provisional measures had been ordered, to appear for a private hearing to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on January 20, 2009.  The hearing will be held to give the Court an opportunity to obtain additional information from the State concerning compliance with the judgment delivered in this case.  The Court will also hear the comments from the Commission and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin on this issue and compile information on the implementation and effectiveness of the provisional measures ordered in this matter and concerning the State’s request that the provisional measures be lifted.  The order in question can be viewed (in Spanish) at the following link http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/comerciantes_26_11_08.doc.
 

Álvarez et al.

 

795.          In 2008 the Commission submitted to the Court its periodic comments on the reports presented by the Colombian State on the provisional measures ordered in this matter.  The measures were ordered at the Commission’s request, for the purpose of protecting the physical integrity of the members of the Association of Relatives of Detainees-Disappeared Persons of Colombia.  The Court originally ordered these provisional measures on July 22, 1997.

 

796.          On February 4, 2008, the Court held a public hearing at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, to receive up-to-date information from the parties concerning implementation of these measures.  Participating were the Commission, the representatives of the beneficiaries and the Colombian State.

 

797.          On February 8, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it confirmed the State’s obligations with regard to these provisional measures.  The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/alvarez_se_18_ing.doc.

 

Caballero Delgado and Santana

 

798.          On February 4, 2008, the Court held a public hearing at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, concerning the provisional measures ordered in this matter.  In attendance were the Commission, the representatives of the persons on whose behalf the measures were ordered, and the Colombian State.  On February 6, the Court decided to call upon the State to maintain and adopt any measures necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of María Nodelia Parra and Gonzalo Arias Alturo.  The text of the order can be viewed at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/caballero_se_08_ing.doc.    For the remainder of the year, the Commission continued to present its comments on the Colombian State’s reports on these measures.

 

799.          It is worth noting that it was December 7, 1994 when the Court first ordered provisional measures in this case at the Commission’s request, to protect some of the witnesses who, in the case being litigated before the Court at the time (see below), were giving testimony concerning the responsibility of agents of the State.

 

San José de Apartadó Peace Community

 

800.          These measures were ordered by the President of the Court, at the Commission’s request, on October 9, 2000, to protect the physical integrity of the members of the San José de Apartadó Peace Community and of persons providing it services.    

 

801.          On February 6, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order in which it decided, inter alia, to reiterate to the State that it should maintain the measures adopted and issue forthwith those necessary to effectively protect the life and physical integrity of all members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó.  The full text of that order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/apartado_se_08_ing.doc.  Throughout 2008, the Commission submitted to the Court its comments on the reports that the State and the representative of the beneficiaries submitted concerning these measures.

 

Community Council of Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó families

 

802.          At the Commission’s request, the Court ordered these measures on March 6, 2003, for the purpose of protecting the right to life of the members of the Community Council of the Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó families and their right to continue to live in their territory.  In 2008, the Commission submitted its regular comments to the reports presented by the State and by the beneficiaries’ representatives.

 

803.          On February 5, 2008, the Court held a public hearing on this matter at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, to give the parties an opportunity to present information on the following questions: a) the measures taken to protect the life and physical integrity of all members of the Community Council of Jiguamiandó and the Curbaradó families; b) the measures taken to ensure that the persons for whom these measures were ordered are able to continue to live in the locations where they now reside, without any form of coercion or threat; c) the special protection for the so-called “humanitarian refugee zones” set up by the beneficiary communities; d) establishment of the safety and security conditions necessary to ensure that those members of the beneficiary communities who have been forced to move, are able to return home or to the “humanitarian refugee zones” that those communities have set up; e) creation of a permanent oversight and communication mechanism in the so-called “humanitarian refugee zones”, and f) identifying all the people who are members of the families for whom the provisional measures were ordered and representation for the families that request it.

 

804.          On that same day, the Inter-American Court issued an order in which it requested the Inter-American Commission to state its position on all the persons who are the beneficiaries of the provisional measures, pursuant to operative paragraph 16 of the order.  The order in question is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/jiguamiando_se_07_ing.doc.

 

805.          To comply with the Court’s order, a Commission delegation headed by the Commissioner Rapporteur for Colombia traveled to that country from November 17 through 21, 2008, and visited a humanitarian refugee zone located in collective territories along the banks of the Jiguamiandó River.  He also held a number of meetings in Riosucio.  During its visit to the humanitarian zone, the delegation received information and testimony about acts of violence and intimidation committed by lawless groups operating in the area and found that the risk factors that prompted the Court to intervene are still present.  These communities have been adversely affected by the palm oil businesses that have set up in the area where the families live.  The IACHR Rapporteur was told of the measures taken by the Colombian authorities to protect the communities and bring about tangible restitution of the collective territory.

 

806.          On February 5, 2008, the Court issued another order in which it decided, inter alia, to keep the measures it had adopted in place and order forthwith any other measures necessary to effectively protect the lives and physical integrity of the beneficiaries.  The text of that order is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/jiguamiando_se_06_ing.doc.

 

Giraldo Cardona

 

807.          At the Commission’s request, the Court ordered measures in the matter of Giraldo Cardona on October 28, 1996, to protect the life and physical integrity of the members of the Meta Civic Committee of Human Rights and to enable them to continue their work.  The beneficiaries were alleged to have been victims of threats, harassment and persecution.  On November 29, 2006, the Court issued an order in which it reiterated that the provisional measures ordered for the beneficiaries remained in effect. That order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/giraldo_se_09_ing.doc

 

808.          In 2008, the Commission regularly submitted comments on the reports filed by the State in connection with these measures.
 

Gutiérrez Soler

 

809.          In 2008, the Commission periodically submitted comments on the State’s reports concerning the measures that the Court ordered in this case on March 11, 2005, which were intended to: a) protect the life, physical integrity and personal liberty of Mr. Ricardo Gutiérrez Soler and his family, namely: his mother, Mrs. María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez; his children, Luisa Fernanda Gutiérrez Reyes, Paula Camila Gutiérrez Reyes, Leonardo Gutiérrez Rubiano, Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez Peña, Sulma Tatiana Gutiérrez Rubiano, Ricardo Alberto Gutiérrez Rubiano and Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez Rubiano; and Mrs. Yaqueline Reyes; and b) protect the life, physical integrity and personal liberty of Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez Soler and his son Kevin Daniel Gutiérrez Niño, in the event the latter two returned to Colombia.  See “Contentious Cases,” below.

 

810.          On December 3, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the Inter-American Commission, the Colombian State and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin to a private hearing, to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on January 20, 2009.  The hearing will be an opportunity for the Court to receive information from the State on its compliance with the judgment delivered in the contentious case; to hear the comments of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of victims’ next of kin on the State’s information; and to receive information on the provisional measures implemented, their effectiveness, and the possibility of their being lifted.  The order convoking the hearing is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/gutierrez_03_12_08.doc.  

 

Mapiripán Massacre

 

811.          In 2008, the Commission periodically submitted comments on the State’s reports concerning the measures originally ordered by the President of the Court on February 4, 2005, for the State to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and physical integrity of Carmen Johana Jaramillo Giraldo, Esther Pinzón López, Sara Paola Pinzón López, María Teresa Pinzón López, Yur Mary Herrera Contreras, Zully Herrera Contreras, Maryuri Caicedo Contreras, Nadia Marina Valencia Sanmiguel, Yinda Adriana Valencia Sanmiguel, Johana Marina Valencia Sanmiguel, Gustavo Caicedo Contreras, Rusbel Asdrúbal Martínez Contreras, Roland Andrés Valencia Sanmiguel, Ronald Mayiber Valencia Sanmiguel, Luis Guillermo Pérez, Nory Giraldo de Jaramillo, Marina San Miguel Duarte, Viviana Barrera Cruz, Luz Mery Pinzón López, and Mariela Contreras Cruz. See “Contentious Cases,” below.

 

812.          On May 3, 2008 the President of the Court issued an order in which she called upon the State of Colombia to maintain in force the provisional measures and upon the representatives, to submit as soon as practicable, any comments pending submission, and, in particular, the concrete information on the situation of the beneficiaries.  She also called upon the State to submit, no later than June 9, 2008, a report on the implementation of the provisional measures.  The Commission continued presenting its comments.

 

813.          On November 26, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the Inter-American Commission, the Colombian State and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin for a private hearing, to be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on January 20, 2009.  At the hearing, the Court will hear the State’s report concerning compliance with the judgment delivered in the contentious case and the comments of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victims’ next of kin on the State’s report.  It will also receive information on the implementation and effectiveness of the provisional measures it ordered and the possibility of their being lifted.  The order convoking the hearing is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/mapiripan_26_11_08.doc. 

 

Mery Naranjo et al.

 

814.          By an order dated July 5, 2006, the Court required the State, inter alia, to adopt the measures necessary to protect the rights to life and to physical integrity of Mery Naranjo Jiménez and her family and to investigate the acts perpetrated against her and Mrs. María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño.  Mrs. Naranjo and Mrs. Mosquera are human rights defenders and community leaders in the city of Medellín.  Because of the work they do, the two women have been threatened and attacked by agents of the State and civilians identified with paramilitary groups.

 

815.          On January 31, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it confirmed the State’s obligations with respect to these provisional measures.  The text of the order can be viewed at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/naranjo_se_03_ing.doc.  

 

816.          As ordered by the Court, in 2008 the Commission supplied information and its comments on these provisional measures.

 

Kankuamo Indigenous People

 

817.          In 2008, the Commission regularly presented its comments on the State’s reports concerning the measures ordered on July 5, 2004, for members of the Kankuamo indigenous people, to protect their lives, physical integrity, cultural identity and special relationship to their ancestral lands.

 

818.          Pursuant to the October 7, 2008 order of its President, the Court held a public hearing in Mexico on December 4, 2008, to hear the parties’ arguments concerning the provisional measures ordered in the present matter.  The text of the order is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/kankuamo_se_03.pdf  

 

         e.         Dominican Republic

 

Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian origin in the Dominican Republic

 

819.          In 2008 the Commission expressed concern over the lack of information.  It also submitted its periodic comments to the State’s reports on the measures adopted for the beneficiaries of the provisional measures ordered, all of whom are Haitians or Dominicans of Haitian origin subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominican Republic and who face the threat of collective “expulsion” or “deportation.”  The Court ordered those measures on August 18, 2000.

 

820.          On February 2, 2006, the Court issued an order in which it expanded the scope of the protective measures ordered back on August 18, 2000, and resolved that the State was to keep the measures already ordered in place and make immediate provision for any other measures needed to effectively protect the beneficiaries’  lives and physical integrity.  The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/haitianos_se_06_ing.doc.

 

f.       Ecuador

 

Sarayaku Indigenous People

 

821.          In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the State’s reports concerning the measures ordered by the Court on June 6, 2004, on behalf of the members of the Kichwa people of Sarayaku, intended to protect their lives, physical integrity, their right to freedom of movement and their special relationship to their ancestral lands. In its comments the Commission specifically observed that the situation that justified the adoption of provisional measures still exists, particularly the need to remove explosive materials from the indigenous people’s lands.

 

822.          The measures were confirmed on June 17, 2005, subsequent to a public hearing held with the parties in Asunción, Paraguay, on May 11, 2005.  The orders in question are available at the following links: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/sarayaku_se_02.doc  (in Spanish) and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/sarayaku_se_01_ing.doc.  

 

g.         El Salvador

 

Gloria Giralt de García Prieto et al.

 

823.          In 2007, the Commission submitted periodic comments to the Court on the Salvadoran State’s reports regarding the measures ordered by the Court on September 26, 2006 at the Commission’s request.  The provisional measures were ordered to protect the lives and physical integrity of some of Mr. Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Giralt’s next of kin and some of his legal advisors and members of the Human Rights Institute of the Central American University.  These measures are in connection with the case being litigated at the Court and decided by the Court in its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, dated November 20, 2007 (see “Contentious Cases”, below).  The text of the order for these provisional measures is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/giralt_se_03_ing.doc.

 

824.          Concerning the fact that the provisional measures remained in force subsequent to the issuance of the judgment on the merits, see, also, the judgment on interpretation that the Court delivered on November 24, 2008.

 

Major Meléndez Quijano et al.

 

825.          In 2008, the Commission submitted to the Court periodic comments on the Salvadoran State’s reports on the provisional measures the Court ordered on May 12, 2007 at the Commission’s request. The text of the order of provisional measures is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/melendez_se_02_ing.doc

 

826.          In the comments it submitted to the Court, the Commission recognized the fact that the State is providing protective measures to the attorneys representing Major Meléndez and his next of kin and has taken note of the procedures followed with a view to providing these measures of protection.  The Commission, however, believes the State has to implement concrete measures to protect Major Meléndez and his next of kin, as ordered by the Court.  This has not happened thus far.

 

h.         Guatemala

 

Bámaca Velásquez

 

827.          In 2007, the Commission submitted information and comments on the provisional measures originally ordered on June 30, 1998, and whose purpose today is to protect the life and physical integrity of the following persons: Santiago Cabrera López, Alfonso Cabrera Viagres, María Victoria López, Blanca Cabrera, Carmenlinda Cabrera, Teresa Aguilar Cabrera, Olga Maldonado, Carlos Alfonso Cabrera, José León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez, Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, Alberta Velásquez, Rudy López Velásquez and other members of the Bámaca Velásquez family who make their permanent home in Guatemala; Emerita Mendoza, Wendy Pérez Álvarez, Sulni Madeli Pérez Álvarez, José Oswaldo Pérez Álvarez, Jacobo Álvarez, José Pioquinto Álvarez, Alez Javier Álvarez, Germán Aníbal de la Roca Mendoza, Kevin Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza, Blanca Noelia Meléndez, Aron Álvarez Mendoza and his family and other members of the family of Mr. Otoniel de la Roca Mendoza who make their permanent home in Guatemala, pursuant to the terms of the Court’s most recent order, issued on March 11, 2005, confirming that the measures are to remain in force.  See “Contentious Cases,” below.

 

828.          On November 11, 2008, the President of the Court issued an order in which she convened the Inter-American Commission, the State of Guatemala and the representatives of the victim’s next of kin, for a private hearing that will be held at the seat of the Inter-American Court on January 20, 2009.  The hearing will provide the Court with an opportunity to compile information from the parties in connection with the request that the provisional measures be lifted; to gather information from the State concerning its compliance with the judgments delivered on the merits and on reparations and costs in the present case, and to hear the comments that the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victims and beneficiaries may have in this regard.  The order convoking the hearing in question is available (in Spanish) at the following address: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/bamaca_se_09.doc.

 

Carpio Nicolle

 

829.          In 2008, the Commission supplied information and comments in connection with the provisional measures ordered in this case since July 4, 1995.  The purpose of the measures was, inter alia, to protect the lives and physical integrity of Mrs. Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio and Mrs. Karen Fischer and of Messrs. Jorge and Rodrigo Carpio Arrivillaga, Abraham Méndez García and his wife and children, and of the adolescents Rodrigo and Daniela Carpio Fischer, should they return to Guatemala. See “Contentious Cases,” below.

 

830.          On November 18, 2008, the Court convoked the Commission and the other parties to a private hearing at the seat of the Court in San José, Costa Rica, on January 20, 2009.  The purpose of the hearing will be to discuss the State’s request that the measures be lifted, and issues related to the performance of the judgment delivered in this case.  The text of the order can be viewed at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/carpio_se_13.pdf

 

Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation 

 

831.          At the Commission’s request, on July 4, 2006 the Court ordered provisional measures to protect the life and physical integrity of the members of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Foundation and the next of kin of its Executive Director, Mr. Fredy Armando Peccerelli Monterroso.  Since then, the Commission has presented its comments on the information supplied, and has requested the Court to order the State to implement, immediately and effectively, all measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of the beneficiaries.  The text of the July 4 order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/antropo_se_02_ing.doc.

 

Helen Mack et al.

 

832.          In 2008, the Commission submitted periodic comments on the State’s reports.  The provisional measures were ordered on August 26, 2002, to protect the life and physical integrity of the family of Mrs. Myrna Mack Chang and the members of the Myrna Mack Foundation, Mrs. Iduvina Hernández and Mr. Jorge Guillermo Lemus Alvarado and their families.  See “Contentious Cases,” below.

 

Plan de Sánchez Massacre (Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team “ECAP”)

 

833.          In 2008, the Commission presented its comments on the State’s reports concerning these measures, which are related to the petition lodged on October 15, 2006, by the Human Rights Legal Action Center, asking the Court to adopt provisional measures to ensure Guatemala’s protection of the lives and physical integrity of the members of the NGO “Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team” (ECAP), who are assisting with the process of securing reparations for the victims and survivors of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre (see “Contentious Cases,” below). On November 25, 2006, the Court issued an order fully confirming the order of October 20, 2006, in which the President of the Court granted the requested measures. The text of the orders can be found at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/plandesanchez_se_04.doc (in Spanish) and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/plandesanchez_se_05_%20ing.doc.

 

834.          In December 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the information reported by the representatives to the effect that “the extreme gravity and urgency and need to avoid irreparable damage, which were the circumstances that necessitated the adoption of these measures for each of the beneficiaries, no longer obtain; this is a function of the various changes that the organization was obliged to make to avoid threatening situations, but which to some degree have impaired its ability to accomplish its objectives of furthering the cause of justice and providing psychosocial support to the victims of the internal armed conflict.”  Based on that information, especially the statements the representatives made regarding their security, the Commission was of the view that the representatives’ assertions were reasonable given the facts of the case. 

 

            Raxcacó et al.

 

835.          In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the State’s reports concerning the provisional measures that the Court ordered in this matter on August 30, 2004, to stay the execution of the death penalty that the Guatemalan courts imposed on Bernardino Rodríguez Lara (the current beneficiary).  The provisional measures are intended to protect his life and physical integrity until such time as the proceedings on his case within the inter-American system are completed.

 

836.          According to the Order of the President of March 28, 2008, the Court held a private hearing at its seat in San José, Costa Rica on May 8, 2008, to receive up-to-date information from the parties concerning the implementation of these measures.  It also wanted to hear the parties’ arguments on a request to expand the measures, and information on compliance with the judgments the Court delivered in the cases of Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala and Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala.  Present for the hearing were the Commission, the representatives of the victims and beneficiaries, and the Guatemalan State.

 

837.          On May 9, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it confirmed the State’s obligations vis-à-vis these provisional measures.  It also decided that the measures need not be expanded to include other persons sentenced to death in Guatemala since, under the judgment delivered in the Case of Raxcacó Reyes Guatemala is not to execute anyone until the necessary amendments have been introduced in the law.  The text of the order is available at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Raxcaco_se_07_ing.doc.   

 

i.          Haiti

 

Lysias Fleury

 

838.          In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the provisional measures that the Court ordered in this matter back on June 7, 2003.  These provisional measures were to protect the life and physical integrity of Lysias Fleury, a human rights defender who reported having been arrested on June 24, 2002, without a court order, and then detained and beaten by police and civilians.  The Commission has previously expressed its concern over the State’s failure to comply with its duty to report to the Court on the implementation of the provisional measures.  In August 2008, the Commission petitioned the Court to expand the provisional measures so that they would protect Mr. Fleury’s wife and children as well.  The text of the pertinent orders is available at the following links: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/fleury_se_01_ing.doc and http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/fleury_se_02_ing.doc.

 

839.          On November 25, 2008 the Court issued an Order where it decided that: (i) the provisional measures decided by the Inter-American Court have become ineffective because he has left Haiti, without detriment to whatsoever the Inter-American Commission may consider pertinent while processing his case; and (ii) To reject the request to expand the provisional measures to Mr. Fleury’s next of kin. The text is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/fleury_se_03_ing1.pdf

 

j.          Honduras

 

López Álvarez et al.

 

840.          In 2008, the Commission submitted its comments on the provisional measures the Court ordered on September 21, 2005, to protect the life and physical integrity of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, Mrs.  Teresa Reyes Reyes and Mrs. Gregoria Flores Martínez, and the latter’s mother and children. The beneficiaries had appeared at a hearing held by the Court on June 28, 2005, as witnesses in the case of López Álvarez et al. See “Contentious Cases,” below. The order is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/lopez_se_01.doc.  

           

Kawas Fernández

 

841.          At the request of the representatives of the victim and her next of kin in the case of Kawas Fernández, which is now before the Inter-American Court, on November 29, 2008 the Court issued an order for provisional measures in which it called upon Honduras to adopt forthwith whatever measures are needed to effectively protect the life and physical integrity of Dencen Andino Alvarado and to guarantee that he will not be persecuted or threatened for testifying in the investigation  conducted by the authorities into the murder of Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández.  The order in question is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/kawas_se_01.doc.

 

k.         Mexico

 

          Pilar Noriega et al. (previously the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center et al.)

 

842.          The Court ordered the provisional measures in this matter on April 20, 2004, to protect the life and physical integrity of attorneys Pilar Noriega García, Bárbara Zamora López and Leonel Rivero Rodríguez; Mr. Eusebio Ochoa López and Mrs. Irene Alicia Plácido Evangelista, parents of Digna Ochoa y Plácido, and her siblings Carmen, Jesús, Luz María, Eusebio, Guadalupe, Ismael, Elia, Estela, Roberto, Juan Carlos, Ignacio and Agustín, all of whom carry the surname Ochoa y Plácido.  These provisional measures were ordered when the provisional measures ordered on November 30, 2001, to protect the members of the Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez Human Rights Center were lifted. The provisional measures originally ordered were in response to the violent death of Digna Ochoa y Plácido on October 19, 2001, at her office in Mexico City.  A message had been left beside her body containing an overt threat against the members of the PRODH because of their work in defense of human rights.

 

843.          On February 5, 2008, the Commission and the other parties attended a public hearing at the seat of the Court, held to discuss these measures.  The following day, the Court issued an order in which it lifted the measures with respect to some of the beneficiaries, but left them in place in the case of Mr. Leonel Rivero Rodríguez and his family.  The text is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/noriega_se_04_ing.pdf

 

Leonel Rivero et al.

 

844.          After the Order of February, 2008, the Tribunal identified the measures as “Leonel Rivero et al”, instead of Pilar Noriega et al.  On November 25, 2008, the Court lifted the provisional measures ordered for these last beneficiaries.  With that, the provisional measures ordered in this matter have been closed.  The text of the Order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/rivero_se_01_ing.pdf

 

l.          Peru

 

Gómez Paquiyauri

 

845.          At the Commission’s request, the Court ordered provisional measures in the Case of Gómez Paquiyauri (see “Contentious Cases,” below) to protect the life and physical integrity of the following: Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri, Jacinta Peralta Allccarima, Ricardo Emilio, Carlos Pedro, and Marcelina Haydée, all by the surname Gómez Paquiyauri, and the minor Nora Emely Gómez Peralta.  The Court also decided to order the State to adopt forthwith the measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of Mr. Ángel del Rosario Vásquez Chumo and the members of his family.

 

846.          On May 3, 2008, the Court issued an order in which it lifted the provisional measures it had ordered on May 7, 2004 and September 22, 2006, for the following persons: Ricardo Samuel Gómez Quispe, Marcelina Paquiyauri Illanes de Gómez, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, Miguel Ángel Gómez Paquiyauri, Ricardo Emilio Gómez Paquiyauri, Carlos Pedro Gómez Paquiyauri, Marcelina Haydée Gómez Paquiyauri, Jacinta Peralta Allccarima and Nora Emely Gómez Peralta.  The text of the order is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/gomez_se_03_ing.doc.

 

Castro-Castro Prison

 

847.          On January 30, 2007 and January 29, 2008, the Court issued two Orders where it dismissed the request of the representatives for provisional measures.  The Commission held that “it [had taken] cognizance of the important information furnished by the representatives regarding this situation. Nonetheless, it considered that some of the referred matters could be discussed within the context of the oversight of compliance with the judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court on November 25, 2006, and that other matters do not necessarily bear direct relation to the facts discussed and decided by the Tribunal.” Likewise, it noted that “[n]otwithstanding the foregoing, [the Commission] will remain vigilant of the development of this delicate situation at the domestic level.” The text of the Orders is available at the following links: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/castro_se_01.pdf

http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/castro_se_02_ing.pdf

 

Ramírez Hinostroza et al.

 

848.          In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its comments regarding the measures the Court ordered in this case back on September 21, 2004, to protect the life and physical integrity of Mr. Luis Alberto Ramírez Hinostroza, his family and his attorneys.  The text of the most recent order, dated May 17, 2007, is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Ramirez_se_02_ing.doc.   

 

m.        Trinidad and Tobago

 

James et al.

 

849.          In 2008, the Commission did not receive any information concerning the State’s implementation of the provisional measures ordered in this case.  The latter are in part related to the Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. (see below) and were ordered back on May 27, 1998.

 

n.         Venezuela

 

Carlos Nieto Palma et al.

 

850.          In 2008, the Commission submitted information and comments in connection with the provisional measures that the Court had ordered on July 9, 2004, at the Commission’s request.  The measures were ordered in order to protect the life, physical integrity, freedom of expression and right of association of Carlos Nieto Palma, a human rights defender working as Coordinator General of a nongovernmental organization called Una Ventana a la Libertad, and to protect the lives and physical integrity of his family.

 

851.          On August 5, 2008, the Court issued another order in which it reiterated to the State its instruction to keep the measures in place and to order forthwith any and all measures necessary to effectively protect the life, physical integrity and liberty of Carlos Nieto Palma, and the life and physical integrity of Yvonne Palma Sánchez.  The Court also asked Mr. Nieto Palma to report whether the conditions of extreme gravity and urgency and the necessity of avoiding irreparable damage that warranted the adoption of these provisional measures still obtained.  The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/nieto_se_04_ing.doc.

 

Eloisa Barrios et al.

 

852.          In 2008 the Commission submitted to the Court information and comments concerning the provisional measures ordered in this matter.  At the Commission’s request, the Court ordered provisional measures on November 23, 2004, to protect the life and physical integrity of the following persons: Eloisa Barrios, Jorge Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios, Oscar Barrios, Inés Barrios, Pablo Solórzano, Beatriz Barrios, Caudy Barrios, Carolina García and Juan Barrios, all eye witnesses and/or complainants in the investigations into the murder of Narciso Barrios.  The parties alleged to be responsible for the murder are agents of the State.  In 2005, while the provisional measures were in effect, Rigoberto Barrios was shot nine times and killed.

 

El Nacional and Así es la Noticia

 

853.          During 2008, the Commission submitted information and comments to the Court in connection with the July 6, 2004 provisional measures the Court ordered in this matter at the Commission’s request.  The measures were intended to protect the life, physical integrity and freedom of expression of the employees of the El Nacional and Así es la Noticia media outlets.  On November 25, 2008, the Court issued an order lifting the provisional measures in question.  The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/elnacional_se_021.doc.  
 

Guerrero Galluci and Martínez Barrios

 

854.          In 2008, the Commission submitted information and comments on the provisional measures that the Court ordered on July 4, 2006, in response to the Commission’s request seeking measures for Mrs. María del Rosario Guerrero Gallucci and Mr. Adolfo Segundo Martínez Barrios.  In its order, the Court instructed the State to adopt forthwith the provisional measures necessary to protect the rights to life and to physical integrity of Mrs. Guerrero Gallucci and Mr. Martínez Barrios; to investigate the facts necessitating the adoption of provisional measures, and to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the measures are planned and implemented in conjunction with the beneficiaries or their representatives. On November 29, 2007, the Court issued an order by which it decided: and (i) To lift the provisional measures ordered by the Court in favor of Mr. Adolfo Segundo Martínez-Barrios; (ii) to reaffirm to the State the provision that it must continue to implement the measures it may have adopted, and that it must adopt forthwith those that may be necessary to protect effectively the rights to life and to humane treatment of Ms. Guerrero-Gallucci; (iii) To call upon the State to perform all relevant actions so that the measures of protection ordered herein are planned and implemented with the participation of the beneficiary thereof or her representatives. The text is available in the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/guerrero_se_02_ing.pdf

 

Liliana Ortega et al.

 

855.          The Commission received no information from the State in 2008 concerning implementation of the provisional measures ordered back in 2002 on behalf of Liliana Ortega and other members of the nongovernmental organization Comité de Familiares de Víctimas de los sucesos de Febrero-Marzo de 1989 (COFAVIC) [Committee of Relatives of the Victims of the February-March 1989 Events]. In February 2008, the beneficiaries petitioned the Court to hold a hearing in this case.

 

Luis Uzcátegui

 

856.          In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its comments on the State’s reports on the implementation of the provisional measures the Court ordered for Mr. Luis Uzcátegui back in November 2002. The Court’s most recent order in this matter, dated May 4, 2004, is available (in Spanish) at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/venezuela_se_016.doc.

 

Luisiana Ríos et al.

 

857.          In 2008, the Commission submitted information and comments in connection with the provisional measures the Court ordered for Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe, all of whom work for Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) (see “Contentious Cases,” below).

 

Marta Colomina

 

858.          In 2008, the Commission continued to submit information and comments related to the provisional measures ordered for Marta Colomina.  On July 4, 2006, the Inter-American Court issued an order in which it decided to lift the protective measures in the case of Mrs. Liliana Velásquez.  In that order, it also found that the State had failed to comply with the duty to provide the Court with detailed, specific reports on the implementation of the Court-ordered measures; it reiterated to the state that it must, without delay, adopt any and all measures necessary to protect Mrs. Marta Colomina’s life, physical integrity and freedom of expression; it also ordered the State to continue to involve the beneficiary in the planning and implementation of the protective measures and keep her informed of the progress made with the measures ordered.

 

            The case of the “La Pica” Judicial Detention Center (Monagas)

 

859.          In 2008, the Commission submitted to the Court its periodic comments on the Venezuelan State’s reports concerning the provisional measures requested by the Commission and ordered by the Court on February 9, 2006, to protect the lives and physical integrity of the inmates at the “La Pica” Judicial Detention Center at Monagas.

 

860.          The Court’s most recent order in this matter is dated July 3, 2007.  The text of the order can be viewed at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/lapica_se_03_ing.doc.

 

"Globovisión" Television

 

861.          In 2008, the Commission submitted information and comments related to the provisional measures the Commission requested and the Court ordered in this matter on September 4, 2004.  The provisional measures ordered are intended to safeguard and protect the life, physical integrity and freedom of expression of the journalists, executives and other employees at Globovisión, and that of any other persons inside the facilities of that media outlet or who may be directly associated with its news operations.

 

862.          On January 29, 2008, the Inter-American Court issued an order in which it reconfirmed its decision to dismiss a request made by the beneficiaries’ representatives to expand the scope of the order so that it would apply to issues not covered in the original order.  The text of the order is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/globovision_se_04_ing.doc.  

 

Penitentiary Center of the West-Central Region (Uribana Prison)

 

863.          In 2008, the Commission submitted periodic comments to the Court concerning the Venezuelan State’s reports on the measures requested by the Commission and ordered by the Court on February 2, 2007.  The measures were ordered to protect the lives and physical integrity of the inmates at the Penitentiary Center of the Central Western Region, known as “Uribana.”  The text of the order for provisional measures is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/centro_se_01_ing.doc

 

Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary

 

864.          In 2008, the Commission submitted to the Court its periodic comments on the reports filed by the Venezuelan State in connection with these provisional measures.  The latter were requested by the Commission and ordered by the Court on March 30, 2006, to protect the lives and physical integrity of the inmates at the Yare I and Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary.  The Court’s most recent order in this matter is dated November 30, 2007, and is available at:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/penitenciarioregion_se_01_ing.doc.

 

El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Region Judicial Confinement Center

 

865.          On December 17, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights filed a request with the Inter-American Court seeking provisional measures, requesting the Court to order the Venezuelan State to protect the inmates at the El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Region Judicial Confinement Center, and those who visit or work at that prison facility.  The Commission’s request was driven by the presence of grave and imminent danger of irreparable harm to the lives and the personal integrity of inmates, prison staff and visitors.  The Commission observed that in 2006, 86 inmates had been killed and 198 injured in various incidents of violence inside the facility; in 2007, 51 inmates had died and 101 had been injured.  The Inter-American Commission had therefore concluded that the insecurity and violence inside the prison were a severe threat.  As of the date of approval of this report, the order from the Court is still pending.

 

866.          On February 8, 2008, the Inter-American Court ordered the Venezuelan State to take provisional measures to protect the lives and personal integrity of all the inmates at the El Rodeo I and El Rodeo II Capital Region Judicial Confinement Center, and to take particular care to prevent injuries and deaths resulting from violence.  The order in question is available at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/rodeo_se_01_ing.doc.

 

Humberto Prado and his immediate family

 

867.          On May 16, 2007, the Commission filed a request with the Court seeking provisional measures to protect the lives and physical integrity of human rights defender Humberto Prado and his immediate family, and Mr. Prado’s right to pursue his work of defending and promoting human rights in Venezuela in his capacity as Director of the Venezuelan Observatory of Prisons.

 

868.          On July 13, 2007 and November 29, 2007, the Court informed the parties of its decision to keep the matter under study and to then reassess Mr. Prado’s situation to decide whether provisional measures were in order.

 

869.          The Commission is currently awaiting updated information from Mr. Prado’s representatives and the Court’s decision in this matter.

 

2.         Contentious Cases

 

a.         Argentina

 

Case of Bayarri

 

870.          On July 16, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 11,280, Juan Carlos Bayarri, in which it alleged that the Argentine Republic had violated articles 7 (right to personal liberty), 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) thereof, by its unlawful and arbitrary arrest of Mr. Juan Carlos Bayarri in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, on November 18, 1991, his torture at the hands of police officers, his detention in preventive custody for almost 13 years, and the subsequent denial of justice.

 

871.          On October 30, 2008, the Court delivered a judgment in which it dismissed the State’s preliminary objections and held that Argentina had violated, to the detriment of Mr. Bayarri, the rights recognized in articles 7(1), 7(2) and 7(5) (right to personal liberty), 5(1) and 5(2) (right to humane treatment), 8(1), 8(2) and 8(2)(g) (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) thereof, and articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.  In the judgment it delivered, the Court set the reparations it deemed appropriate.

 

872.          The full text of the judgment is available (in Spanish) at the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_187_esp.pdf.
 

Case of Bueno Alves

 

873.          On March 31, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 11,425, in which it alleged that Argentina was responsible for 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 relation to Article 1(1) thereof, by virtue of the fact that  Juan Francisco Bueno Alves was tortured while in state custody and subsequently denied proper protection and a fair trial in the judicial system.

 

874.          On May 11, 2007, the Inter-American Court delivered a judgment in which it found that the State had violated articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. In that judgment, the Court set the reparations that it deemed appropriate. 

 

875.          On October 23, 2008, the Court forwarded to the Commission and to the victim’s representatives the State’s first report on compliance with the judgment delivered in this case, so that both parties might make whatever comments they deemed pertinent. 

 

Case of Bulacio

 

876.          In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in the judgment delivered on September 18, 2003, specifically concerning the investigations pending at the domestic level, the punishment of those responsible for the acts committed in this case, and on the adoption of legislative or any other measures necessary to bring the domestic legal system in line with international human rights provisions and to make them fully effective as a means of guaranteeing that such violations do not recur.

 

877.          On August 14, 2008, during the Court’s XXXV special session, which took place in Montevideo, Uruguay, a private hearing was held on the Argentine State’s compliance with the judgment delivered in the Bulacio case.  Participating were the Commission, the representatives of the victims and their family, and the Argentine State.

 

878.          On November 26, 2008, the Court issued an order instructing the Argentine State to take all measures necessary to promptly implement the pending measures of reparations ordered by the Court in the September 18, 2003 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, and reiterated in its order of November 17, 2004.  The text of that order is available (in Spanish) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/bulacio_26_11_08.doc.

 

Case of Cantos

 

879.           In 2008, the Commission continued to present its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the measures ordered by the Court in its November 28, 2002 judgment on the merits, reparations and costs and in its November 2005 order for compliance.   In its 2005 order, the Court decided to keep open the proceeding for monitoring compliance with the aspects pending fulfillment in this case, namely the obligations to refrain from charging Mr. José María Cantos the filing fee and fine levied for failure to pay the filing fee on time; to set a reasonable sum for the fees regulated in Argentine Supreme Court case C-1099; to pay the fees and expenses of all experts and attorneys engaged by the State and the Province of Santiago del Estero, and to lift the attachments, general property encumbrances and other measures that were ordered against the properties and business assets of Mr. José María Cantos in order to guarantee payment of the court filing fee and the professional fees. 
 

Case of Garrido and Baigorria

 

880.          On November 27, 2007, the Court adopted an order monitoring compliance in which it instructed the State to adopt all measures necessary for prompt compliance with the reparations ordered in the judgment of August 27, 1998, that were still pending implementation, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights; and requiring the State to submit, by no later than February 15, 2008, a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to implement the pending reparations ordered by the Court. In particular, the State was instructed to report to the Court on the results of the meeting and to provide, if possible, a timetable and action program covering compliance with the items pending from the reparations judgment issued in this case. The text of the order in question is available at the following link:  http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/garrido_27_11_07_ing.doc.

 

881.          In 2008, the Commission continued to submit its periodic comments on the State’s compliance with the reparations ordered by the Court in its judgment on reparations, delivered on August 27, 1998.

 

Case of Kimel

 

882.          This case concerned the criminal prosecution and subsequent conviction and sentence of a one-year suspended prison sentence and payment of twenty thousand pesos in damages ordered against the historian, journalist, and writer Eduardo Kimel, author of the book La Masacre de San Patricio, which describes irregularities in the investigation into the murder of a group of Palotine clerics during the military dictatorship. The conviction was handed down in a libel suit brought by a former judge whose actions in the investigation were criticized in the book.

 

883.          Having weighed the evidence that the parties introduced during the case and the arguments they made, and the Argentine State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Court rendered its judgment on May 2, 2008.  The text of that judgment is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_177_ing.doc.  In its judgment, the Court held that the rights to a fair trial within a reasonable period, to freedom of thought and expression, and to freedom from ex post facto laws, protected under articles 8(1), 13(1) and 13(2) and 9 of the Convention, in conjunction with article 1(1) and 2 thereof, were violated to the detriment of Mr. Eduardo Kimel.  The Court also decided to admit the representatives’ waiver of rights regarding the right to a hearing by an impartial and independent court protected under Article 8(1), the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court protected under Article 8(2)(h) and the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.  The Court also ordered various measures of reparation.

 

b.              Barbados

 

Case of Boyce et al.

 

884.          In this case, the Court held that the State had violated articles 4(1) and 4(2) (the right to life), 5(1) and 5(2) (the right to humane treatment), and 8 (the right to a fair trial) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1(1) (the obligation to respect rights) and Article 2 (domestic legal effects) thereof, to the detriment of Messrs. Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Fredrick Benjamin Atkins, and Michael Huggins.  It also held that the State had failed to comply with Article 3 of the Convention in relation to articles 1(1), 4(1), 4(2) and 25 (right to judicial protection).  The Court delivered its judgment on November 20, 2007, the text of which is available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_boyce_ing.pdf.

 

885.          The State of Barbados has yet to submit the report ordered in the judgment, in which it is to recount the measures taken to comply with that judgment, including formal commutation of the death sentence imposed on Mr. Michael McDonald Huggins.

 

 Case of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan  

 

886.          On October 31, 2008, the Commission filed an application in Case No. 12,645, Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, and sought provisional measures from the Court to protect the victim’s life and physical integrity.  The case concerns the mandatory application of the death penalty that the Supreme Court of Barbados ordered in 2005 against Mr. Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan, in violation of basic human rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights.  In its application the Commission argued that the State of Barbados is responsible for violation of the rights to life, to humane treatment and to judicial guarantees, to the detriment of Tyrone DaCosta Cadogan. The text of the application is available in the following link:
 http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.645%20Cadogan%20Barbados%2031%20oct%
202008%20ENG.pdf
 

 

[TABLE OF CONTENTS  |  PREVIOUSNEXT]