HONDURAS: HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE COUP D’ÉTAT

 

 

V.         HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

 

207.       The organs of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights have repeatedly underscored the connection between democracy and human rights.  In Advisory Opinion OC-8, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Inter-American Court”) wrote that:  “In a democratic society, the rights and freedoms inherent in the human person, the guarantees applicable to them and the rule of law form a triad. Each component thereof defines itself, complements and depends on the others for its meaning.”[223]  For its part, the Inter-American Commission wrote that the democratic system and the rule of law are essentials for effective protection on human rights; conversely, human rights cannot be fully guaranteed without effective and unqualified recognition of political rights.[224]

 

208.       Given the interrelationship between democracy, the rule of law and the observance of human rights, the Commission confirmed that the coup d’état that deposed the Constitutional President had and still has an immediate adverse impact on the rule of law and human rights.

 

A.          The State of Emergency and Judicial Guarantees

 

209.       Article 25 of the American Convention provides that:

 

1.         Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.

 

210.             Article 27 of the American Convention reads as follows:

 

1.         In time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it may take measures derogating from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion, or social origin.

 

2.         The foregoing provision does not authorize any suspension of the following articles: Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 6 (Freedom from Slavery), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion), Article 17 (Rights of the Family), Article 18 (Right to a Name), Article 19 (Rights of the Child), Article 20 (Right to Nationality), and Article 23 (Right to Participate in Government), or of the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights.

 

3.         Any State Party availing itself of the right of suspension shall immediately inform the other States Parties, through the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, of the provisions the application of which it has suspended, the reasons that gave rise to the suspension, and the date set for the termination of such suspension.

 

211.             Article 187 of the Constitution of Honduras provides that:

 

The President of the Republic, in agreement with the Council of Ministers, may suspend exercise of the rights set forth in Articles 69, 71, 72, 78, 81, 84, 93, 99 and 103 in the event of an invasion of the national territory, serious disturbance of the peace, epidemic or any other general calamity.  Said suspension shall be by Decree, which shall spell out the following:

 

1. The reasons justifying it;

2. The guarantee or guarantees being restricted;

3. The territory that will be affected by the restriction; and

4. The period of time the suspension shall remain in effect.

 

Furthermore, in that Decree the President shall also convene the National Congress to examine said decree and ratify, modify or revoke it within a period of 30 days.

 

If Congress is already in session, it shall take up the Decree immediately.

 

The restriction on guarantees shall not exceed a period of 45 days for each time it is decreed. In the event the grounds that were the basis for the Decree no longer obtain prior to expiration of the time period set forth for the restriction, its effects shall no longer be valid, and in this case all citizens shall have the right to petition for their review. After the period of 45 days, the guarantees shall automatically be reinstated, except when a new Decree of restriction is issued. The restriction of guarantees by decree shall in no way affect the governance of the agencies of the State, whose members shall always enjoy the immunity and prerogatives that the law confers upon them.

 

212.          Under the American Convention, a series of requirements must be met for suspension of guarantees.  First, the suspension must be ordered by a government that exercises public power legitimately, within the context of a democratic society.  In effect, as the Inter-American Court has held, “[t]he suspension of guarantees lacks all legitimacy whenever it is resorted to for the purpose of undermining the democratic system. That system establishes limits that may not be transgressed, thus ensuring that certain fundamental human rights remain permanently protected.”[225]

 

213.         At a press conference held on June 28, the very day the coup d’état came about, the de facto government announced a curfew, but made no reference to the legal grounds for the curfew.  Since that date, the de facto government has continued to use curfews and to extend the state of emergency arbitrarily, without any basis in law or legitimate grounds.

 

214.         Then, on June 30, the de facto government approved Executive Decree 011-2009, wherein it imposed a curfew to take effect that day.  The National Congress ratified that decree through Legislative Decree 144-2009 of July 2.  Executive Decree 011-2009 provided that the curfew would remain in effect over a 72-hour period, starting on June 30, and would be enforced between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. the following day.  Although the 72-hour period expired on July 3, the curfew continued to be enforced for over a month, without any legal basis.  According to the wording of that decree, the following guarantees were suspended: i) personal liberty (Article 69 of the Constitution); ii) the right not to be held in custody or incommunicado for more than 24 hours without a hearing before a competent authority (Article 71 of the Constitution); iii) freedom of association and assembly (Article 78 of the Constitution); and iv) the right to freedom of movement (Article 81 of the Constitution).

 

215.         The constitutionality of Executive Decree 011-2009 was challenged through a number of petitions filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, but not one was decided.[226]

 

216.         During its on-site visit, the IACHR met with the justices presiding the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court, who stated that during the first month, the state of emergency was in effect from 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. the follow day. They also explained that the curfew was ordered for 30 days, after which it was extended but ran from 10:00 p.m. until 3:00 or 4:00 a.m.  In the view of the justices, there was no state of emergency; instead, there were curfews for certain hours.  They explained that during the curfew hours, constitutional guarantees were not suspended; instead, the suspension mainly had to do with “freedom of movement and of association, in order to prevent uprisings.”[227] As for the curfew formalities, the justices stated that curfews are ordered by the Executive Branch and confirmed by the National Congress.  That confirmation is broadcast daily by a national network.[228]

 

217.         The National Human Rights Commissioner (CONADEH) also expressed his position on the state of emergency and maintained that “freedom of movement and other guarantees had been restricted through the legally decreed curfew in force from June 28 to August 11, the date on which freedom of movement was fully restored. When, through Decree 144-2009, the National Congress made the unfortunate decision to restrict the rights established in articles 69, 71, 78 and 81 for a period of 72 hours, concurrently with the right to freedom of movement, my views were heard and when the point in question was up for reconsideration, the wording approved the previous day was discarded; nevertheless, there are still complaints regarding a state of emergency.”[229]  He also stated that “as matters now stand, the general public’s right to freedom of movement and to the security of one’s person and property, free of fear, is being restricted because groups of persons who abuse the right to peaceful demonstration and freedom of association for lawful purposes are staging violent takeovers at strategic points along streets, avenues, bridges, highways and public buildings.  Acts of vandalism are being committed that seriously endanger persons who have nothing to do with these events.  The repeated clashes with police forces have resulted in excessive use of force by the police, which has claimed a regrettable number of victims …”[230]

 

218.             In this case, the state of emergency was established by a decree issued by a de facto government, and was decreed for a period shorter than it lasted in actual fact, without ever being published in the Official Gazette.[231] Congress’ subsequent ratification of the executive decree and its publication on July 27 do not correct the original defects.[232]

 

219.             Irrespective of the Constitutional Chamber’s interpretation, the curfews were states of exception during which guarantees were restricted, even some whose restriction is not allowed under Honduran domestic law governing a state of emergency.[233] And all this without taking the precautions required under Honduran law and the American Convention.

 

220.             Under Article 27 of the American Convention, the suspensions must be to the extent and for the period of time strictly required to ease the emergency situation, which implies limiting the duration of a suspension, the area it covers and the rights restricted.  The Commission is of the view that the curfews that started on June 28 in the context of the coup d’état in Honduras, were ordered without any explanation of their reasons or their relevance to the situation that prompted the state of emergency.

 

221.             Specific mention should be made of the arbitrary change made to the starting time of the curfew on July 5, a change made for the purpose of preventing President Zelaya’s sympathizers from receiving him at Toncontín International Airport.  It is equally telling that the measure was lifted on July 12, only to be reinstated on July 15, without any explanation of the circumstances that would warrant a further suspension of rights.

 

222.             Even in a legitimate state of emergency, each measure taken must be reasonable; in other words, it must be strictly appropriate to the cause and to the scope of the state of emergency.  There must be no type of discrimination.  The IACHR has confirmed that while the curfew was in place, thousands of persons were trapped between military roadblocks, without any justification or cause.  Furthermore, enforcement of the curfew was not uniform throughout the national territory; enforcement of the restriction on freedom of movement was even discriminatory.  For example, the Commission found that in the city of El Paraíso, certain persons were allowed to move about during curfew hours, which meant that enforcement was selective and thereby discriminatory.

 

223.             The de facto authorities suspended constitutional guarantees again when President Zelaya returned to Honduras and entered the Brazilian Embassy.  On September 21, the de facto authorities announced a curfew that would begin at 4:00 p.m. that day; however, it remained in place for the next 48 hours.

 

224.             On September 26, the de facto government published Executive Decree PCM-M-016-2009 announcing that certain guarantees would be suspended for a period of 45 days (the maximum allowed under the Constitution).  Those guarantees were the right to personal liberty (Article 69), freedom of expression without prior censorship (Article 72), freedom of association and assembly (Article 78), freedom of movement (Article 81), and the right to be brought before a competent authority within 24 hours if arrested or detained (Article 84).  The Decree also prohibited public meetings or assemblies unless authorized by the police or military authorities.

 

225.             In its fifth paragraph, the Decree states that “as a consequence of the constitutional change in the Executive Branch office, dissident and ideologically compromised groups instigated by governments that do not share our democratic system, are fomenting insurrection among the population, causing clashes with the general public, National Police personnel and the Armed Forces personnel who are providing support, thereby endangering lives, property, social peace and constitutional rule.”[234]

 

226.             Four different petitions of amparo were filed challenging that decree, but not one was decided by the Constitutional Chamber.[235]  About a month later, the decree was revoked by the very authorities who had issued it.

 

227.             The state of emergency declared by those who unlawfully seized power had adverse consequences for the rights of individuals, made all the worse by the serious problems that have for decades plagued the system for the administration of justice in Honduras. The Commission has underscored how essential judicial oversight of government measures is in a democratic society.  Nevertheless, the de facto authorities are denying the existence of a state of emergency and human rights violations and are therefore doing nothing to protect and promote human rights. Specifically, nothing in the information received suggests that any organ with the authority to conduct its own investigations into human rights violations has taken any measures internally to ascertain responsibility, even though it is self-evident, for example, that persons were held illegally and some of them were seriously injured.

 

228.             Again, the case file for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Gerson Vilches Almendares was instituted on the basis of a communication that the Commission issued in application of Article XIV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.  The grounds for the petition cited the following:

 

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has repeatedly requested information concerning the whereabouts of this person.  Yet no petition on his behalf has thus far been filed by any citizen or foreign national and in accordance with the provisions of articles 16, 19, 21 and 22 of the Law on Constitutional Justice. And no particulars concerning his detention, the reason for it, and the specific authority with which the petition is being filed have been provided, except for a vague account of his detention by supposed agents of the State.[236]

 

229.             The justices serving in the Constitutional Chamber stated that immediate action has been taken on writs of habeas corpus and that executor judges “have not really found anyone who has been mistreated or detained” nor have they received any communications alleging mistreatment or torture.  In the report he prepared for the on-site visit, the National Commissioner for Human Rights stated that “on June 29 and 30, CONADEH executed a writ of habeas corpus granted by the Constitutional Chamber, and found not one political prisoner at the Estado Mayor [Joint Staff] or in any other military facility in the country.”[237]

 

230.             The information compiled also reflects the difficulties and obstacles that judges executing writs of habeas corpus encountered, both when police refused to release persons being held and when the judges themselves were assaulted or otherwise attacked.[238]  The Commission also found that by the time some writs of habeas corpus were granted, the individual on whose behalf the petition had been filed had already been released.

 

231.             Furthermore, despite the many complaints of human rights violations, prosecutors had allegedly filed only six (6) requests seeking indictment of state agents.  In one of those cases, police chiefs accused of excessive and disproportionate use of force, unlawful detention and battery were acquitted on the ground that their actions were lawful.[239]

 

232.             Furthermore, the authorities in the Judicial Branch denounced the steps taken to transfer judges, and the fact that proper procedure was not followed in removing judges and appointing new judges to the bench. This constitutes a breach of the independence of the judicial branch of government and possible violations of the guarantee of the impartiality of judges.

 

233.          The Supreme Court wrote the following in its observations: “It is important to note that the IACHR’s complaints largely concern cases that have been properly identified as involving common crimes and, in some cases, organized crime, but which the Commission is attempting to portray as violations of human rights.”[240]

 

234.           The IACHR concludes that in the context of the coup d’état, the available judicial remedies do not currently afford efficient and effective protection against human rights violations. The situation described above deters the filing of complaints that would shed light on the facts and thus serves to intensify the climate of impunity that is conducive to the commission of even more human rights violations.[241]  It is vital that the Public Prosecutor’s Office perform its functions without regard to the views or political association of the beneficiaries of its services.

 

B.              The Right to Life

 

235.             Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides that:

 

1.         Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

 

236.          The Commission has written that the right to life constitutes the essential basis for the exercise of all other rights.  The Inter-American Court has held that the right to life plays a fundamental role in the American Convention as it is the corollary essential for the other rights to materialize.  When the right to life is not respected, all other rights are meaningless.[242] Compliance with Article 4 of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) thereof, requires not only that no person be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life (negative obligation), but also that the States adopt all appropriate measures to protect and preserve the right to life (positive obligation), under their duty to ensure full and free exercise of rights by all persons under their jurisdiction.[243] This active protection of the right to life by the State involves not just lawmakers, but the entire apparatus of the State and those responsible for protecting safety and security, whether they are police or military.  States have an obligation to take the measures necessary not just to prevent, try and punish violations of the right to life that occur as a consequence of the commission of crimes in general, but also to prevent arbitrary executions by their own security agents.[244]

 

237.          On the domestic front, Article 65 of the Honduran Constitution states that “the right to life shall be inviolate.”

 

238.          The Commission received information on the killing of at least 7 opponents of the de facto government, presumably attributable to agents of the state.[245]

 

239.          On July 5, Isis Obed Murillo Mencías,[246]  age 19, died from a bullet wound to the head, which he received in a demonstration staged outside Toncontín Airport in Tegucigalpa. The Armed Forces broke up the demonstration, having stationed snipers on nearby buildings.[247]  The young man’s father was detained on July 9 by agents from the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation (DNIC) as he was leaving the offices of the Committee of Relatives of Detainees-Disappeared in Honduras after making statements about the events surrounding his son’s death.  The grounds for the arrest were a charge of an alleged attempted murder by Mr. Murillo Sánchez.  According to reports, that charge had been dormant for a number of years.  Mr. Murillo Sánchez was detained in the Juticalpa Penal Center, where he was said to have been held in a small isolation cell under inadequate detention conditions.[248]  Family members complained that they have no information on the investigation and the young man’s brothers have allegedly received threats by text messaging and have been followed.[249] In the report he prepared for the on-site visit, the National Commissioner on Human Rights stated that “the investigation continues, although there have been many problems due to mishandling of the crime scene, which the demonstrators did not leave intact, and the failure to conduct a proper reconstruction of events.”[250]  In a communication from the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, the conclusions presented by CONADEH were reiterated; the communication also stated that owing to the importance “of this case, it has been declared confidential by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights;  every Monday, a meeting is held to share information.”[251]

 

240.          In its observations, the Supreme Court reported that: “Concerning the death  of Isis Obeth Murillo (lsy Obed Murillo Mencia), a Honduran national, age 19, identification card # 1511-1990-00176 and a resident of Guayape, Department of Olancho who died on the afternoon of July 5, 2009, in the area around Toncontín Airport in the city of Tegucigalpa, as he was participating in a demonstration in support of former President Zelaya; the crime-scene investigation could not be completed owing to the threats from demonstrators who surrounded the area and made it imposible to process the crime scene.  The case is now confidential and is being investigated by the Office of the Prosecutor for Human Rights.”[252]

 

241.          On July 24, Pedro Magdiel Muñoz[253] was arrested by the Police as he was on his way to El Paraíso, near the border with Nicaragua, to participate in the demonstrations in support of President Zelaya’s return.  The bus on which he was traveling had been unable to make any progress, which is why the passengers were said to have proceeded on foot and in other vehicles.  At 4:30 p.m., Pedro Magdiel Muñoz and his companions arrived in Alauca.  At around 5:00 p.m., as he was resting under a tree, he was arrested along with Gerson Evenor Vilches Almendarez.[254] At 6:45 a.m. on the following day, the persons taken into custody said that one person was dead.  The body of Pedro Madgiel Muñoz was found on Saturday, July 25, in a vacant lot.  He had 42 knife wounds, bullet wounds in the head, neck and back, and signs of torture.[255]  His wounds were concealed under a clean shirt that had been put on him after he was already dead, since at the time he was taken into custody he was allegedly wearing no clothes.[256]  The Police, on the other hand, claimed that the person detained was Gerson Wilchez Almendarez.[257]  In the report he prepared for the on-site visit, the National Commissioner on Human Rights stated that the death of Pedro Madgiel Muñoz “has been blamed on the forces of law and order without any evidence other than the accusation made by those with him in the protest group, none of whom was willing to collaborate in the investigation conducted by the authorities and by the CONADEH itself; it was his congresswoman who worked relentlessly to have the episode properly investigated and prosecuted.”[258] The Military High Command indicated that the armed forces do not use “knives, blades or anything” so that they discarded the Army’s involvement in this case.[259]  The de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic sent the Commission a communication in which it stated that “the scene examined was totally compromised, so that a faithful reconstruction of events is completely out of the question.”  As for the investigative steps taken, it stated that “(t)hus far nothing has been found that would suggest that the forces of law and order had a hand in these events.” They also reported that a case file would be on record with the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights in Tegucigalpa.[260]

 

242.          The Supreme Court reported the following in its observations:  “Concerning the death of Mr. Pedro Magdiel Muñoz: Mr. Magdiel was a Honduran citizen, age 22, identification # 0801-1986­15568 and a resident of Tegucigalpa, who likely died on July 24, 2009, between 19:00 and 20:00 hours; because of the group of demonstrators, the scene of his death could not be surveyed until 11:20, which meant that not every formality and procedure could be followed.  In fact, only three members of the crime-scene investigation team were allowed access to the scene:  the prosecutor from the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the forensic physician and a crime-scene inspector.  The investigative work found that the crowds of demonstrators had totally modified and altered the crime scene.  In response to speculation that the victim had been arrested by the military and taken to one of the area police stations, a review was made of all the log books and records of detainees.  No record of his detention was found. The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights and various human rights organizations also took up the investigation.  The alteration of the crime scene and the manipulation of the body were so extensive that the body was found lying face up in the undergrowth, wrapped in a flag similar to the Honduran national flag and a sheet. The body bore wounds inflicted with blunt and bladed instruments over various parts of the body.  Rigor mortis was complete.  Another inspection made of the scene of the events uncovered a piece of wood presumably used against the victim.  Various photographs were circulated on the internet that showed a soldier dragging the body of a person whom various human rights figures claimed was the body of Pedro Magdiel Muñoz Salvador.  Non-commissioned Investigation Officer III Elmer Núñez and Human Rights Prosecutor Juan Carlos Griffin Ramírez examined and discarded those claims.  An eyewitness statement was taken from Mrs. Amada de Jesús Fonseca, who identified herself as an active member of the Bloque Popular and who stated that between 19:00 and 20:00 hours, she was with a group of demonstrators when suddenly an unknown youth ran out among a group of persons yelling ‘I killed him’ and saying ‘you haven’t seen anything yet’.  She also stated that neither the police nor the military had any involvement in the crime.  Efforts have been made to contact this individual but she says she is in fear for her life.  She has not, however, retracted her statement.  Furthermore, the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights, headquartered in Tegucigalpa, has an active file on this case, which it currently has under investigation.  It has had an autopsy done on the body and has requested immuno-microbiological testing on Mr. Pedro Magdiel’s clothing and the blunt weapon found at the scene of the crime.”[261]

 

243.          On July 30, Roger Vallejos Soriano was shot in the head during the teachers’ demonstrations that took place in Comayagüela.  He died on August 1.  The Commission received varying accounts of the teacher’s death, one from the National Commissioner of Human Rights and another from the de facto government.  The National Commissioner for Human Rights maintained that the “circumstances under which the killing occurred pointed to a private security guard, who seemed to have reacted when a group of protestors did not heed his request that they not enter the business he was guarding; this version of events came from an independent radio journalist and is subject to personal confirmation.”[262]  On the other hand, on September 17, the IACHR received a communication from the de facto government’s Secretariat of Foreign Affairs where it reported that the preliminary conclusions on the killing were that “because the shot was fired at close range, the act was presumably committed by someone else who was participating in the demonstrations.”[263]  However, the Commission obtained testimony about this crime from the person who was at Professor Vallejos Soriano’s side when he was shot in the head and who testified as follows:

 

At around 1: 35 p.m. on July 30, 2009, -after violent repression at the El Durazno police post-, we embarked upon a peaceful march, ending up outside the Belén Area Market (…)  The repeated provocations by the police, led by the Patrol from Preventive Police M-102 (…) ended in bloodshed, [including] the case of my friend Roger Abrahan Vallejo, who died two days later (…)   I was the one who was with Roger when he fell; seven minutes after establishing the presence of vital signs, I got him to the Colonia Torocagua suburban emergency clinic, and from there he was sent by ambulance to the Escuela Hospital (…) Police and civilians were present during the surgery they performed on him; the police asked for the bullet. (…) My friend Roger was taken to IHSS, where he died at 11:45 on the night of August 1.[264]

 

244.             In its observations the Supreme Court stated the following:  “Mr. Roger Vallejos Soriano was killed on July 30 of this year, in a demonstration in support of Mr. Zelaya Rosales; when the demonstration was in the vicinity of the Belén Area Market, the demonstrators were attempting to loot various vendors’ stalls when an unknown person fired a weapon and the bullet struck Mr. Vallejo Soriana, who was one of the demonstrators.  He died on August 1, 2009.  The cause of death was found to be an acute open encephalo-cranial trauma caused by a bullet.  The manner of death was considered homicide.  The wound to the head had an entry and exit orifice which meant that no bullet was found within the victim’s body.  The forensic physician found traces of gunpowder on the head, suggesting that the bullet was fired at close range.  The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights classified this as a confidential case.”[265]

 

245.             On August 2, at the intersection of the turnoff to Jutiapa, Valle de Jamastrán, on the road from Danlí to Trojes, a roadblock of the IX Infantry Battalion was set up.  At around 5:30 p.m., an agent of the security forces had allegedly ordered a vehicle to stop.  When it did not respond immediately –the vehicle stopped some 15 meters away-,[266] the security agent fired off a burst of bullets, one of which hit Pedro Pablo Hernández in the head, killing him instantly.  The agent responsible had allegedly been charged with murder[267] and was said to be in custody.  The young man’s body was not exhumed because the family did not trust the experts to be objective.[268]

 

246.             The Supreme Court stated the following in its observations: “Pedro Pablo Hernández was killed at 5:30 p.m. at the intersection of the turnoff for Jutiapa, Valle de Jamastrán, when he failed to heed the signal that an agent made indicating that he was to stop the vehicle in which he was driving, whereupon the agents fired their weapons.  Soldier Freddy Antonio Flores was taken into custody in this case and an order for his imprisonment was issued on August 7, 2009, for the crime of simple homicide.  The trial is being prosecuted by the courts.”[269]

 

247.             As a result of the repressive tactics the security forces employed to disperse the crowds outside the Brazilian Embassy, Wendy Avila, an asthmatic, died on September 27 from inhaling tear gas.[270]   The Supreme Court wrote the following in its observations: “University student Wendi Elizabeth Ávila died on September 26 of this year; it is reported that the clinical file indicates that her death was due to a crisis of pneumonia and asthma; the forensic physician indicated that the case of death was the A1N1 virus.  No investigation was conducted as this was deemed a death due to natural causes.  According to the records, prior to her death, the university student had been hospitalized at San Jorge Hospital, with a clinical history of chronic bronchial asthma.”[271]

 

248.             Francisco Alvarado, age 65, was killed when he was shot in the chest on Tuesday, September 22 in Comayagüela, in the course of a clash between the Resistance and the National Police.  The victim was an innocent bystander.[272] In its observations the Supreme Court wrote the following: “An investigative case has been opened into the death of Mr. Francisco Alvarado, which happened on September 22 of this year.  The investigation is currently in the hands of the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation and has established that the individual in question died in a clash that took place in Colonia Flor del Campo, Comayagüela, Municipality of the Central District, when a group of persons armed with rocks, sticks and machetes attempted to seize the facilities of the police post in that neighborhood.  According to the forensic physician’s preliminary report, the cause of death was injuries inflicted by a firearm; the prosecutor in charge of this case has declared it to be confidential inasmuch as members of the Preventive Police Force are under investigation and the witness protection system is being used, according to memorandum No 1265-09.”[273]

 

249.          Lastly, Elvis Jacobo Euceda Perdomo, age 18, was riding a bicycle when he was shot twice in different parts of his body “when he ignored a police roadblock” [274] after shouting “golpistas” at the police.  He died in San Pedro Sula on September 22.  According to what was reported, the police officer who shot him had allegedly been identified, but is reportedly a fugitive from justice.[275]. The Supreme Court reported the following in its observations:  “Mr. Elvis Jacobo Euceda Perdomo died in the city of San Pedro Sula, Department of Cortés, at around 4:00 p.m. on September 22 of this year.  The cause of death was a bullet wound to the head. Police officer Denis Omar Montoya Murillo has been named as the party responsible and is currently a fugitive from justice. A member of the Preventive Police was indicted in this case.”[276]

 

250.          The Commission concludes that the 7 deaths described in this report were a consequence of an excessive and disproportionate use of force by Army and Police personnel, who employed poison gases and bullets.  The information the State supplied does not suggest that any significant headway has been made in the internal investigations intended to identify and punish those responsible for these events.  Quite the contrary, the hypotheses being put forward by the de facto authorities place the blame for the murders on private citizens and other demonstrators; in some cases, the de facto government blames the families of the victims for the lack of progress made in the investigations, claiming that they are not cooperating.

 

251.         The IACHR must once again remind the State of its obligation to guarantee the right to life of all its inhabitants, and its obligation to conduct impartial, diligent and effective internal investigations to determine those responsible for the violations committed and to impose the punishments that the law prescribes.

 

C.            The Right to Humane Treatment and Right of Assembly

 

252.          Article 15 of the American Convention reads as follows:

 

Right of assembly.

The right of peaceful assembly, without arms, is recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedom of others.

 

253.          Article 5 of the American Convention provides that:

 

1.         Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.

 

2.         No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

 

254.          The Inter-American Commission has written that Article 15 of the American Convention protects the right to peaceful assembly without arms, and stipulates that no restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and those necessary in a democratic society in the interest of national security, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedom of others. Inherent to the sharing of ideas and social demands as a form of expression is the exercise of related rights, such as the right of citizens to assemble and demonstrate and the right to the free flow of ideas and information.[277] The Commission has deemed that detention of peaceful demonstrators is a violation of the right to freedom of assembly.[278]

 

255.          The Commission has held that agents may impose reasonable restraints on demonstrators to ensure that they are peaceful or to contain those who are violent, as well as to disperse demonstrations that become violent and obstructive.[279] However, the actions of the security forces should protect, rather than discourage, the right to assembly and therefore, the reasons for dispersing the demonstration must be based upon the duty to protect people.  The law enforcement officer deployed in such contexts must contemplate the safest and quickest methods of dispersal that cause the least harm to the demonstrators.[280]

 

256.          Concerning the right to humane treatment in the case of persons deprived of their liberty, the Commission has held that:

 

[...] the State, by depriving a person of his liberty, places itself in the unique position of guarantor of his right to life and to humane treatment. [….] All this means that the act of imprisonment carries with it a specific and material commitment to protect the prisoner's human dignity so long as that individual is in the custody of the State, which includes protecting him from possible circumstances that could imperil his life, health and personal integrity, among other rights.[281]

 

257.          For its part, the Inter-American Court has written that:

 

Detention conditions where prison facilities are overcrowded, inmates are subject to isolation in a small cell, with no ventilation or natural light, without beds for resting and without adequate hygiene, and suffering lack of communication or restrictions to visits, constitute a violation of the right to humane treatment.[282]

 

258.          The European Court, too, has held that:

 

the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, her health and well-being are adequately secured..[283]

 

259.          The Inter-American Court has written the following about the effects of incommunicado detention on the persons so held:

 

Prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being.  Such treatment, therefore, violates Article 5 of the Convention, which recognizes the right to the integrity of the person.[284] 

  

260.          Article 79 of the Constitution of the Republic of Honduras states that:

 

Every person has the right to assemble with others, peacefully and unarmed, in public demonstrations and in transitory assemblies that concern their common interests, no matter what their nature, and without having to file a notification or obtain special permission.

 

Open-air assemblies and those of a political nature may require a special permit, solely for purposes of ensuring public order.

 

261.          Finally, Article 68 of the Constitution of Honduras provides that “everyone has the right to have his physical, mental and moral integrity respected.”

 

262.          The information that the Commission has in its possession shows that since the coup d’état, the primacy of military power over civilian power manifested itself in the heightened military presence both in border areas and in Honduras’ interior, the establishment of military and police roadblocks on the country’s main arteries, and the active intervention of the Army in controlling and suppressing public demonstrations.[285]

 

            1.         Military and Police Roadblocks

 

263.          According to the information the Commission has in its possession, in the wake of the coup d’état 51 military and police roadblocks were set up across the Honduran territory for the purpose of restricting the movement of persons.  These roadblocks were reinforced in response to demonstrations organized in support of President Zelaya.[286]

 

264.          Thus, with people traveling toward the border with Nicaragua, approximately 18 military and police roadblocks were erected on the road from Tegucigalpa to the department of El Paraíso, all for the purpose of restricting the demonstrators’ movements.[287]  In the days following the coup d’état, the Army and the Police were also posted along the main access roads to Tegucigalpa.[288]

 

265.          According to the information supplied, at these roadblocks hundreds of persons were subjected to degrading searches.  This was particularly grave for women.[289]  The testimony reveals that these people were interrogated and had their identification papers taken away. [290]  They had no access to water or sanitation services,[291] and were repressed using bullets and tear gas.  Many were injured and dozens were detained:[292] 

 

Five military trucks were at the entrance.  They decided who could pass.  The military forced us to get off the bus and humiliated us, especially the gays.  At 12 a military aircraft began to fly over the area at very low altitude:  a Police and Air Force helicopter.  The Army trucks were constantly on the move and at night they hurled tear gas.[293]

 

266.          The IACHR also received testimony recounting the disproportionate use of force on July 24, at a military and police roadblock set up at the Alauca turnoff, department of El Paraíso[294]:

 

On Friday, July 24, 2009, I was in Alauca, El Paraíso.  I came upon a roadblock manned with Army soldiers and police.  That was around noon […] we named [a] commission to speak with the police chief.  Just as the commission was speaking with him, the soldiers began hurling gas.  I was standing in front of the roadblock.  They fired a tear gas grenade at me that hit me in the left leg, around the knee.  I fell down […] when I took off running they fired another tear gas grenade at me.  This one hit me below and behind the left knee, which was just where the first grenade had landed...[295].

 

267.          On July 25, a group of persons were heading for the border with Nicaragua when they were stopped by military roadblocks and forced to get out of the vehicle in which they were traveling.  The police then allegedly began firing their weapons.[296]

 

268.          The IACHR has information indicating that while the curfew was in effect in the community of Tocoa, department of Colón, Army personnel threatened the population warning them not to come out of their homes. It detained individuals without a court order and, for lack of space, held them inside the patio area at the Tocoa police station, exposed to the elements. [297]  In Trujillo, department of Colón, troops with the Infantry Battalion and from the Puerto Castillo Naval Base allegedly surrounded the Matilde Córdova de Suazo Normal School to intimidate the teachers from the area who were assembled there for a meeting.[298]

 

269.          The de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs sent the IACHR a communication in which it said that on July 24, “the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights sent a group of prosecutors to the area; representatives of the Secretariat of Health were also sent to provide health care to the persons who had congregated in that area.  When they reached the border with Nicaragua, they proceeded to inspect the various detention centers and requested the immediate release of persons if there was no good cause to continue to hold them in custody.”[299]

 

270.          The Supreme Court stated the following in its observations:  “Under Article 54 of the Police and Social Coexistence Act, when deemed necessary members of the National Police are authorized to take measures to limit or restrict and to permit circulation of persons and vehicles for the sake of guaranteeing security or peaceful coexistence.”[300]

 

            2.         Supression of Demonstrations

 

271.          From the moment the news of the interruption of constitutional order broke, a powerful wave of public reaction spread across the Honduran territory, both in condemnation of the coup d’état and in support of the de facto government.  From the information that the Commission has in its possession, which will be described below, it appears that obstacles were systematically put in place to deter participation in the demonstrations protesting against the coup d’état and that frequently those demonstrations were violently suppressed by the National Police, the Army and the Cobra Special Strike Force.

 

272.          On June 28, a crowd gathered in front of the Presidential Residence in Tegucigalpa to protest against the coup d’état and was violently dispersed by members of the Army who used helicopters to fly over the area, fired shots in the air, some of which hit buildings nearby, and beat some 30 people using batons and weapons.  Many of the victims were teachers.[301]

 

273.          On June 29, a group of people gathered in front of HONDUTEL’s offices in Tegucigalpa.  A military vehicle then sped towards the crowd, leaving one person seriously injured.[302]

 

274.          That same day, a group of President Zelaya’s followers met in front of the Presidential Residence in Tegucigalpa.  That afternoon a combined police and military combined operation was deployed, which included snipers[303]  and a helicopter that dropped tear gas bombs.  The security forces, armed with heavy caliber weapons,[304] surrounded the demonstrators, goaded them –while pointing their weapons at them- and hurled tear gas grenades,[305] some of which hit the demonstrators directly.[306] The demonstrators were then dragged by the hair[307] and men and women[308] alike were kicked[309]  and beaten with batons, clubs and steel tubes[310] in the spinal column, chest,[311] forearms,[312] head and feet.[313]

 

275.          These beatings caused injuries, and around 25 demonstrators were taken to the Escuela Hospital, where a group of soldiers remained posted to detain them.[314]  Police officers attempted to enter the hospital’s emergency room by force and threw tear gas grenades inside.  The hospital director, who objected to the tactics, was mistreated by the police.[315]  Some people testified that there was staff from the public prosecutor’s office inside the hospital, dressed as doctors, taking information from the individuals who required medical attention,[316] in order to bring criminal charges.[317]

 

276.          Similarly, some people who wanted to join the demonstrations were forced into military vehicles while being insulted, beaten and threatened;[318] another group of people was pursued by police, trapped on a bridge and then beaten with batons on the buttocks, legs and head, and then detained in the Manchen police station.[319]

 

277.          On June 30, in the city of El Progreso, Department of Yoro, demonstrators from the resistance to the coup d’état gathered in the city’s central park, called “Las Mercedes,” to stage a sit down protest in front of the City Hall and then march to La Amistad bridge,[320] located on the main access road to San Pedro Sula.[321]   Before they arrived at the meeting point, the demonstrators noticed a large contingent of police, backed up by members of the Cobra strike force.  They therefore did not advance any further and instead tried to engage the security forces in dialogue.  Nevertheless, the police hurled tear gas grenades,[322] even directly at the demonstrators,[323] and began wielding their clubs indiscriminately,[324] which is why the demonstrators fled and tried to hide in the houses nearby.  The demonstrators were beaten[325] and kicked, hit on the head, back and hips with batons[326] and were trodden on.[327]  One of the demonstrators was beaten unconscious and had a bullet wound in his right leg.[328]

 

278.          Some demonstrators who testified to the Commission said that during the police persecution, they entered the facilities of HONDUTEL for safety. But the manager called the police, claiming that the offices had been taken over.  With that, the police entered the HONDUTEL building and detained and beat the demonstrators,[329] even though the authorities already had them in hand.[330]  The Public Prosecutor’s Office filed a request with the Trial Court of the El Progress District, in the department of Yoro, seeking indictment of 6 demonstrators on charges of rebellion, but the judge ordered the case dismissed.[331]

 

279.          On July 1, Army troops broke up a demonstration in front of the Presidential Residence in Tegucigalpa to protest against the coup d’état.  A helicopter was used to launch tear gas grenades while pepper spray was launched from a tank.[332]

 

280.          On July 2, police and military forces in San Pedro Sula threw tear gas and pepper spray at a group of demonstrators and fired bullets, rubber bullets and warning shots.[333]

 

281.          In the early hours of July 3, in the community of Limones, Army troops fired on a march of some four thousand campesinos from the department of Olancho and allegedly detained 20 demonstrators.[334] 

 

282.          That same day in Tegucigalpa, a demonstration was held in front of the Presidential Residence to protest the coup d’état.  It was violently dispersed by the military and police who arrested a number of demonstrators.[335]

 

283.          On July 5, as crowds of people had converged on Toncontín Airport to welcome President Zelaya, around a dozen people were shot and seriously wounded.[336]  The mother of one of the injured gave the following testimony to the Commission:

 

My son was also there watching when he suddenly felt something hit him in the right thigh. He collapsed.  Nearby was a taxi-like vehicle and the driver got out to help my son.  When he saw that he was losing blood and there was a large gaping hole on his thigh that exposed the tissue mass underneath, he immediately applied a tourniquet and loaded him into his taxi.  He sped off, driving against the traffic.  He then crossed the median strip to take him to the Honduran medical center in La Granja.  As he arrived he shouted that he had someone who needed urgent attention; they later called the vascular and orthopedic surgeons because my son was in hyperbolic shock (with just about two grams of hemoglobin).  They couldn’t get an IV into him because his veins had collapsed ….[337]

 

284.          Police remained throughout the night to guard the Escuela Hospital, where the wounded had been taken, and would not allow journalists to interview them.[338]  The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights inspected the scene of the events the next day and found 170 shells from military-issue weapons.[339]  Even so, officials at the Military High Command denied that the weapons were loaded and said that the military were only carrying rubber bullets, protective shields and tear gas.[340]

 

285.          On July 29, a group of demonstrators assembled in front of the Presidential Residence in Tegucigalpa to protest against the coup d’état. Police agents, members of the Cobra Special Strike Force, and snipers opened fire and chased down and beat the demonstrators, some of whom were taken to the Escuela Hospital.  The hospital was then surrounded by Army and Police personnel.[341]

 

286.          On July 30, in the department of Comayagua, the Resistance Front and residents of the departments of Comayagua and La Paz staged a demonstration on the road to San Pedro Sula.  The precise location was at a place known as Cuesta de la Virgen, near the village of Ojo de Agua.  The demonstrators had reportedly decided to suspend the demonstration at 2:00 p.m.  Even so, at 12:30 p.m. around 50 troops from the Siguatepeque Engineers Battalion, 100 agents of the Siguatepeque Preventive Police and Preventive Police from Comayagua and troops from the Army at Zambrano arrived on the scene threatening to break up the demonstration.  At 12:45 p.m. they ordered that the demonstration was to stop at 1:00 p.m.  A yellow plane from Palmerola Base was flying over the area constantly.

 

287.          But before the agreed upon hour and without any warning, the security forces formed two fronts to surround the demonstrators.[342] They then fired bullets[343] and threw tear gas grenades and stones.  They chased, hit and beat around one hundred demonstrators, striking them with their police truncheons, and forcibly removed those who had taken refuge in nearby houses.[344]

 

288.          A group of people taken to the Santa Teresa Hospital for treatment of injuries, bleeding and wounds inflicted by the security forces,[345] were detained by police[346] even though they were under observation at the hospital, and had not been released by the hospital.[347]  The testimony received by the IACHR indicated that the level of aggression and violence shown by the members of the security forces during the attacks could only be attributed to the use of narcotic drugs.[348]

 

289.          The IACHR received various statements describing how, in order to break up the demonstration, some 40 persons were loaded into a military truck, with very small windows; the truck’s backdoor was closed and a soldier threw a tear gas grenade inside the vehicle, which caused those inside to cough and choke.  In their desperation, some people tried to jump out of the vehicle, while others stuck their heads through the windows to breathe.  But the police beat them on the head to force them back inside.[349] This tactic was allegedly repeated 5 times.

 

290.          That same day, a group of demonstrators in Comayagüela were on the road leading to Tamara, in the community of El Durazno, to protest the coup d’état.  Military trucks, agents of the National Police and of the Cobra Special Strike Force arrived on the scene.  They threw tear gas grenades and beat the demonstrators with their batons on the head, face, back, buttocks, the bottoms of the feet and arms.[350] Then, highway patrol police allegedly cleared away any evidence in the form of bullet catridges and tear gas grenades.  During this demonstration, Professor Roger Abraham Vallejo Soriano received a gunshot wound from which he died two days later.[351]

 

291.          That same day, July 30, a group of police officers and members of the Cobra Special Strike Force chased, kicked and beat a group of demonstrators returning from the town of El Lolo in the department of Francisco Morazán.  The demonstrators were hit on the legs, head and back, even when they had already been subdued.  The police then detained the demonstrators and threatened them:[352]

 

They then had all of us lie face down on the ground.  They hit us, hurled insults and shouted things like “sons of b­­------, because of you we’ve been away from home for over a month.[353]

 

292.          On July 31, a number of demonstrators gathered at El Puma gas station, on the western highway near the new crossroads at Gracias, Lempira, in the department of  Santa Rosa de Copán to protest the coup d’état. At around 10:00 a.m., National Police personnel surrounded the demonstrators, launched tear gas and beat women, the elderly and children with their batons.[354]  The Police also detained around 54 demonstrators[355] and confiscated vehicles without a court order.[356]

 

293.          On August 5, students, members and sympathizers of the Revolutionary University Force, administrative personnel and members of the Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Universidad Autónoma de Honduras [Union of Employees of the Autonomous University of Honduras] started a peaceful protest in front of the university campus in Tegucigalpa.  The demonstration was scheduled for 12:00 p.m.  However, at 11:00 a.m., a group of agents from the Cobra Special Strike Force arrived on the scene with a water cannon and dispersed the demonstrators using tear gas, pepper spray, pressurized jets of water[357] and warning shots.  The students responded with a shower of stones.[358]  Military and police personnel then entered the grounds of the university, in violation of university autonomy.  There they hurled tear gas, fired rubber bullets[359] and beat around a hundred students.[360]

 

294.          When the students hurled stones and threw back the tear gas grenades that the police had launched, the latter spread out into the fast-food restaurants adjacent to Suyapa Boulevard, which runs along the university campus.  In the process, they damaged a number of businesses.  The same thing happened on the campus of the University, where the Little Caesars and Expresso Americano fast-food restaurants were damaged.[361]

 

295.          Because of the disturbances underway in the front part of the university campus, the Dean of the University, Julieta Castellanos, who was in a meeting with the University’s Board of Directors, spoke by phone with police authorities to demand that the police immediately withdraw from the university grounds.  When the police remained inside the campus, a group of authorities headed by the Dean and the Principal of the University’s Board, Olvin Rodríguez, arrived on the scene to speak with the security forces.  When they did, however, they were attacked.[362]

 

296.          On August 11, following a demonstration held in Tegucigalpa to protest against the coup d’état, police threw tear gas, chased down the demonstrators, beat them with batons[363] and fired on them.[364] Snipers had allegedly been posted, hidden behind trees.[365]

 

297.          The testimony taken by the IACHR indicates that on the night of August 11, a white, dual-cabin pickup was circulating in the vicinity of the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional Francisco Morazán, even though a curfew was then in effect from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.  The people inside the pickup threw tear gas grenades and Molotov cocktails, which were picked up by people inside the University grounds.[366]

 

298.          On August 12, these people contacted the prosecutors at the Public Prosecutor’s Office to report the tear gas grenades and Molotov cocktails as evidence.  When the prosecutors left the grounds of the university, it was invaded by police and Army personnel, in violation of university
autonomy.  They threw tear gas grenades and beat up the students.
[367]  Ten people who were on the grounds of the university at the time were held for several hours at gunpoint. [368]  They robbed them of their belongings, hit them with batons,[369] took their photographs in order to identify them,[370] and threatened to “disappear” them.[371]  For the hours that they were in custody, these people had no access to water or food, and were not given medical attention, even though the Red Cross and the Green Cross were inside the University.  They were finally released when representatives of human rights organizations arrived on the scene, as did prosecutors from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights.[372]  According to newspaper articles, the police launched investigations and questioned people who were on the campus because the police suspected them of having manufactured the tear gas grenades and Molotov cocktails.[373]

 

299.          That same day, a peaceful march took place in Tegucigalpa to protest against the coup d’état. The police and Army deployed helicopters and water canons, threw tear gas grenades, kicked the demonstrators and beat them with their batons.[374] They threw pepper spray into the demonstrators’ eyes,[375] took them into custody[376] and transported them to the columned patio area [“Los Bajos”] of the National Congress building[377]  and to the facilities of the Cobra Special Strike Force.[378]

 

300.          Some people were severely beaten on the street before[379] and after the march.[380] The IACHR received the following testimony from a person who was beaten when the march had already ended:

 

I was on the ground when a policeman came up to me and immediately started beating me on the head with a club.  He struck me several times.  Then, two other police officers joined in, and continued to hit me.  Then yet another police officer unbuttoned his vest; underneath the vest was a chain.  He took it out and looked around to make certain no one was looking.  Wielding the chain, he beat me on my back repeatedly, leaving me badly beaten.  The other policemen beat me everywhere on my body (…)  When we got to Escuela Hospital, I felt bad and was unable to breathe (…) I thought I was going to die, because I couldn’t breathe.  Just then several nurses came up and told the police to leave and that I was in no condition to go back to jail.  The policemen protested, but the nurses told them “you already have him just about dead, you’re going to kill him again.[381]

 

301.          The same thing happened in Barrio El Chile, Comayagüela, as the following testimony recounts:

 

I was leaving my house at the end of the bridge in Barrio El Chile when I encountered a cordon of around 40 soldiers.  I asked the officer what was happening.  He answered “Screw you” and ordered them to arrest me.  I resisted.  He then ordered them to beat me with a tube; they then took me by the neck and tore my shirt….[382]

 

302.       Another demonstration was harshly suppressed by the security forces in San Pedro Sula on August 12.[383]

 

303.          On August 14, a group of approximately 1200 people in the city of Choloma, Department of Cortés, staged a demonstration to protest against the coup d’état.  They used the highway as the demonstration route.  As agreed with the Police, the march would end at 12:00 p.m.  At around 10:15 a.m., however, the police began to disperse the demonstrators with approximately 200 tear gas grenades.  They beat them with batons, metal bats and construction rods.[384]  Later, the demonstrators assembled around the police station to get information about the persons in custody there.  The police, however, hurled tear gas, used a water canon and beat the demonstrators with batons inflicting serious injuries:[385]

 

It looked like a pitched battle.  They hurled grenades at us.  The cruelty was terrible, as the elderly, women, defenseless demonstrators were bloodied and dragged.  The police chief was right there, watching it all.  Very few lawyers came. Only two.  (…) When the policeman saw me he turned around and said to me “what the hell do you want, what’s the matter.” I told him that I was an attorney and he said to me “around here lawyers are worth s---.” He hit me once in the chest and several times on my back.[386]

 

304.          Some demonstrators also reported the presence of undercover agents,[387] striker-breakers and troublemakers,[388] as well as armed members of the security forces in civilian dress.[389]  A number of people who participated in the marches to protest against the coup d’état reported having been threatened and followed by police.[390]

 

305.          More recently, at a thematic hearing held during its 137th regular session, the Commission received information to the effect that at a press conference held on October 20, the National Police had announced that a permit was required for any public demonstrations, in the form of a written notification 24 hours in advance, stating the reason for the demonstration, the organizers, the times the demonstration would start and finish, and an explanation of how the demonstration would not disrupt freedom of movement.  It was reported that in the week of October 26 to 30, two applications seeking permits for demonstrations that would begin at the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional had been denied.  It was also reported that while a permit had been issued for a demonstration on October 29, the security forces had nonetheless suppressed the demonstration.

 

306.          The Commission has deemed that requiring a police permit for any public event, assembly, election, conference, parade, congress or sports-related, cultural, artistic or family event to be disproportionately restrictive.[391] Although the Honduran Constitution provides for the possibility that special permits may be required for demonstrations held in the open air or those that are political in nature, from the facts and circumstances described it is apparent that the de facto government has been demanding permits as a way of restricting, controlling and criminalizing demonstrations against the coup d’état.[392]

 

307.          Furthermore, the alternative measures imposed on some of those detained on September 22, prohibited them from “attending demonstrations in support of Mr. Manuel Zelaya Rosales”[393] or from “attending political demonstrations or being present at places where members of the so-called resistance are assembled.”[394]

 

308.          As for the control of demonstrations, the Secretary of Defense stated that the Armed Forces were operating solely as backup to the Police, and that the Police Force was running the operations.[395]  The Police authorities reported that the National Constitution gives the President the authority to mobilize the armed forces whenever he or she deems that the situation at hand is more than the Police are equipped to handle.[396] However, the Commission received information indicating that from the very outset the Army partnered the police to control demonstrations, as happened for example at the demonstration held in Comayagua on July 30.

 

309.          The Supreme Court wrote the following in its observations: “No peaceful demonstration was suppressed; however, those demonstrations that turned violent were lawfully suppressed by the use of reasonable force by the National Police, assisted by the Armed Forces.”[397]

 

310.          The Commission has written that the use of force is a last resort that is to be limited both qualitatively and quantitatively, employed solely to prevent a more serious occurrence than the one that prompted the State to intervene. Law enforcement officials may not, under any circumstances, resort to illegal practices to obtain the objectives entrusted to them. The Commission has stated categorically that the means that the State may employ to protect its security or that of its citizens are not without limits.[398]

 

311.          The Commission has also written that the legitimate use of public force implies, inter alia, that it must be both necessary and proportional to the situation; in order words, that it must be exercised with moderation and in proportion to the legitimate end being sought, while at the same time endeavoring to keep personal injury and loss of human life to an absolute minimum.[399] In order to be considered within international parameters, the degree of force exercised by state agents must not exceed what is “absolutely necessary.” The State must not use force disproportionately and immoderately against individuals who, because they are under its control, do not represent a threat; in such cases, the use of force is disproportional.[400]

 

312.          The Commission observes with concern that the Army, partnering with the National Police, is playing an active role in controlling demonstrations.  While in states of emergency the armed forces can be called upon to participate in crowd control at demonstrations, this practice must be limited to the maximum because soldiers are trained to defeat an enemy; they do not receive the training that police receive for their job, which is to protect and control civilians.[401]  As the Commission observed:

 

in a democratic system it is essential to make a clear and precise distinction between internal security as a function for the police and national defense as a function for the armed forces, since they are two substantively different institutions insofar as the purposes for which they were created and their training and preparation are concerned. The history of the hemisphere shows that, broadly speaking, the intervention of armed forces in internal security matters is accompanied by violations of human rights in violent circumstances. Therefore, practice teaches us that it is advisable to avoid the intervention of the armed forces in matters of internal security since it carries a risk of human rights violations.[402]

 

313.          As both the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court have said, the use of force by state security forces must be regarded as the exception and not the rule, and must be planned and proportional to the situation.  Force or other means of coercion should only be used when all other means have been exhausted and failed.[403]

 

314.          Specifically, the Inter-American Court wrote that:

 

When subduing public disturbances the State must do so in accordance with and in application of domestic law in an effort to restore public order, provided the law and the actions taken in application of it also conform to the applicable standards for the protection of human rights.[404] “Nevertheless, the power of the State in this matter is not unlimited; its actions must respect the fundamental rights of individuals under its jurisdiction and observe legal procedure.[405]

 

315.          The reports received by the Commission during the visit are mutually corroborating in that they recount how the public mobilized to protest against the coup d’état and to express support for the mechanisms that would restore democracy in the country.  Those demonstrations, however, were forcibly dispersed by police and military.  On more than one occasion, the forces of law and order did not wait until the hour agreed upon with the demonstrators for the demonstrations to conclude and instead broke them up early, without any type of warning, using tear gas and pepper spray and deploying helicopters and water cannons.  The Commission is deeply disturbed by the security forces’ use of snipers and by the fact that under domestic law, police officers are authorized to carry and use tear gas (spray).[406]

 

316.          The police authorities, for their part, said that they use dialogue to disperse demonstrations.  They argue, however, that under domestic law, it is a crime to take over roads and bridges, which means that even when dialogue fails, the demonstrations still have to be dispersed.[407]  The military authorities also asserted that Army soldiers do not use bayonets; instead, they use rifles with rubber bullets and devices such as tear gas.  They denied the accusations that the Army was detaining and torturing people.[408]  

 

317.          The Supreme Court stated the following in its observations:  “Concerning the conduct of the National Police, with the support of the Armed Forces, and the use of tear gas grenades, water cannons, bullets and beatings with batons or “toletes” [truncheons], Article 39 of the Police and Social Coexistence Act provides that the Police may use coercive force or instruments when other non-violent means have been exhausted or failed,  in order to prevent the imminent or actual commission of crimes or misdemeanors, all for the sake of ensuring that public order and peaceful co-existence are preserved and restored, defending others from a physical or psychological violation, etc.   Principle 2, under General Provisions of the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials states that "Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of … non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons." Article 34 of the Organic Police Statute provides that “when the National Police are unable to deal with special situations on their own, such as unforeseeable circumstances or force majeure or the commission of a crime against the security of the State, it may request the support of the Municipal Police Force or the military authority, who shall supply that support with the diligence and urgency that the situation demands."[409]

 

318.          The testimony, photographs, video, testing and copies of court records obtained by the Commission show that the security forces did use violence against the demonstrators, verbally abusing them, spraying them, kicking them and beating them on the head, feet, thorax, back, stomach and genitals with batons, shields, metal rods, chains and other instruments, even when the demonstrators were offering no resistance and despite the fact that the police stick is a last resort and its use on those parts of the body is prohibited.  As a result of these actions, hundreds of demonstrators, many of whom were children, were seriously wounded; a number were left with some temporary or permanent disability.[410] The Commission is particularly troubled by the events of July 30, when around 40 people were locked up in the back of a military truck and a tear gas grenade was thrown inside.

 

319.          The very same practices were used at the military and police roadblocks where the persons detained were physically and verbally assaulted, were subjected to interrogation and harassment, and dispersed through the use of tear gas grenades, bullets and beatings with batons and other instruments.

 

320.          What is more, the injuries and deaths that occurred suggest that despite their claims to the contrary, the security forces were carrying and used firearms.  The “Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials” provide that intentional “lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life” and when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve the objectives.[411]

 

321.          Finally, the persons detained stated that there were unable to communicate with family, were held in overcrowded conditions –given the large numbers of persons crowded into small cells with no ventilation despite the high temperatures- and had no access to food, drinking water, sanitary services, or proper medical care.  And although women, men and children were detained, the cells were not segregated by sex or age.

 

322.          No matter the circumstances, the right to humane treatment is, like the right to life, non-derogable.  The Commission believes that the operations implemented by the security forces to break up the demonstrations through excessive and disproportionate use of force, affected the physical and mental integrity of the demonstrators, who were subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.  These tactics, coupled with the state of emergency, were calculated to prevent those who opposed the de facto government from freely exercising their right of assembly.  Furthermore, from the detailed information obtained, it is clear that the conditions under which persons deprived of their liberty were held also constituted violations of the right to humane treatment.

           

3.         Compulsory Military Service

 

323.          The IACHR received information on a draft legislative decree that the Secretary of National Defense has introduced to amend the existing military service laws to bring them in line with the amendments introduced in the Constitution in 1994, in which Military Service was made voluntary.

 

324.          Article 276 of the Constitution of the Republic reads as follows:

 

Citizens between the ages of eighteen (18) and thirty (30) shall provide military service voluntarily in peace time, under the modality of an educational, social, humanistic and democratic system.  Under the Military Service Act, the State has conscription authority.

 

In time of international war, all Hondurans capable of defending and rendering service to the country are soldiers.

 

325.          The IACHR has been told that under this amendment, which is being fast-tracked by Congress, the circumstances under which the State could draft citizens into military service –in other words, that military service would be compulsory- are not clearly spelled out.[412]

 

326.          The Supreme Court reported the following in its observations:  “Military service is voluntary under Article 276 of the Constitution of the Republic.  The draft Decree which the administration of Mr.  Zelaya Rosales submitted to Congress and which the latter had under consideration does not violate any provision of the Constitution or the human rights of the inter-American system; nevertheless, discussion of that draft has been temporarily suspended.  The Government flatly denies the assertion that some branches of the Armed Forces, the Army in particular, have attempted to recruit youth.”[413]

 

327.          The Commission does not have much information about this possible legislative amendment.  However, the Commission would like to point out that any amendment to the Military Service Act must conform to the provisions of the Constitution of the Republic and those human rights instruments of the Inter-American System to which Honduras is party.  Having said this, the Commission is of the view that in the context of the coup d’état and militarization, a law of this kind has no legitimacy whatsoever, especially when one considers that any law emanating from a de facto government is illegitimate ab initio.

 

            4.         Complaints from the INTUR Group

 

328.          During its visit, the Commission received testimony and complaints against demonstrators supporting President Zelaya, who on at least 9 occasions had looted and destroyed local businesses.[414] Reference will be made to the three episodes that gained the most notoriety.

 

329.          On August 5, between 12:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., employees and customers of the Pollo Campero[415], Dunkin Donuts[416] and Burger King[417] restaurants, all of which are part of the INTUR group, were, according to their complaints, the victims of acts of vandalism, threats, damage and destruction of machinery and facilities, perpetrated by the Bloque Popular, the Frente de Reforma Universitario, the Frente Universitario Revolucionarios, teachers and leaders who were protesting against the coup d’état as part of the movement on the campus of the UNAH.[418]

 

330.          That same day, in the area Juan Pablo Segundo Boulevard, specifically at the Burger King, Pollo Campero, Chili’s, Dunkin Donuts and Little Caesar’s restaurants, also part of the INTUR group, a group of demonstrators belonging to the Bloque Popular, the Frente de Reforma Universitaria and the Frente Universitario Revolucionario had allegedly made death threats against the employees and had damaged the facilities.[419]

 

331.          At around 3:00 p.m. on August 12, a group of demonstrators –some of whom had their faces covered- threatened employees at the Burger King and Dunkin Donuts restaurants in the Midence Soto building, the Pollo Campero and Churs Chicken on the Paseo Liquidámber and the Little Caesar’s restaurant located adjacent to Tegucigalpa’s central park. They threatened to burn down the restaurants unless the restaurants closed their doors.  They also vandalized the facilities and took money from the cash registers.[420] It was also reported that the Popeye’s restaurant and a school bus on Miraflores Boulevard were set on fire.

 

332.          As was said at the press conference held at the end of the Commission’s on-site visit, the Commission again condemns any act of violence, whatever its form.  Nevertheless, in the case of the complaints made specifically by the employees of the INTUR group, the Commission observes that these are charges against private parties, in which the State’s international responsibility is not being alleged.[421]

 

333.          The IACHR has held that:

 

The international protection provided by the supervisory bodies of the Convention is of a subsidiary nature. The Preamble to the Convention is clear in this respect, when it refers to the reinforcement or complementing of the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states. The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is based on the principle that a defendant state must be allowed to provide redress on its own and within the framework of its internal legal system. The effect of this rule is to assign to the jurisdiction of the Commission an essentially subsidiary role.[422]

 

334.          Under these circumstances, it is the responsibility of the domestic courts, to which the affected parties have already turned, to determine who is responsible, the penalties they should face and the reparations owed to the injured parties, all in accordance with the principles of due process.

 

D.                   Right to Personal Liberty

 

335.          Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights reads as follows:

 

1.         Every person has the right to personal liberty and security.

 

2.         No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto.

 

3.         No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.

 

4.         Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.

 

5.         Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial.

 

6.         Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.

 

7.         No one shall be detained for debt. This principle shall not limit the orders of a competent judicial authority issued for non-fulfillment of duties of support.

336.          The Commission has written the following in connection with this article:

 

The analysis of the compatibility of the deprivation of liberty with the provisions of Article 7.2 and 3, of the American Convention should be done in three phases.  The first consists of determining the legality of the detention from a material and formal standpoint.  To do so, it must be determined whether this action is compatible with the domestic legislation of the State in question.  The second step involves the analysis of these domestic provisions within the context of the guarantees established by the American Convention, in order to determine whether they are arbitrary.  Finally, if the detention meets the requirements of a domestic legal provision that is compatible with the American Convention, it should be determined whether the application of this law in this specific case was arbitrary.[423]

 

337.          The Inter-American Court, for its part, has on several occasions held that Article 7 of the Convention regulates the guarantees essential to protect personal liberty.  Specifically with reference to clauses 2 and 3 it has held that:

 

according to the first of these regulatory provisions [Article 7(2) of the Convention], no one shall be deprived of his personal liberty except for reasons, cases or circumstances specifically established by law (material aspect) but, also, under strict conditions established beforehand by law (formal aspect). … [under] the second provision [Article 7(2) of the Convention], … no one shall be subject to arrest or imprisonment for causes or methods that – although qualified as legal – may be considered incompatible with respect for the fundamental rights of the individual, because they are, inter alia, unreasonable, unforeseeable or out of proportion.[424]

 

338.          The Court has written that the protection of personal liberty safeguards “both the physical liberty of the individual and his personal safety, in a context where the absence of guarantees may result in the subversion of the rule of law and deprive those detained of the minimum legal protection.”[425]  Article 7 of the Convention is a guarantee against arbitrary arrest and detention, and strictly provides that the grounds and procedures for arrest and detention shall be those defined by law.  It is also a guarantee of prompt and effective judicial oversight of the conditions at detention facilities in order to protect the wellbeing of those being detained at a time when they are entirely under the State’s control and, therefore, particularly vulnerable to abuses of authority.[426]  It has been observed in this respect that where detention is not ordered or promptly supervised by a competent judicial authority, where the detainee may not fully understand the reason for the detention or have access to legal counsel, and where the detainee’s family may not have been able to locate him or her promptly, there is clear risk, not just to the legal rights of the detainee, but also to his or her personal integrity.[427]

 

339.          As for domestic law, Article 69 of the Constitution of Honduras states the following: “Personal liberty is inviolate and may only be restricted or temporarily suspended by the means and under the circumstances that the law prescribes.”

 

340.          Thousands of unlawful and arbitrary detentions have been made since the coup d’état, both in enforcing the curfew and during the demonstrations in support of President Zelaya. Specifically, the Commission has received information regarding detentions in which the requirements stipulated in domestic and international law were not observed.

 

341.          According to the information received, in the days following the coup d’état –specifically, the period from June 28 to July 12- 1029 detentions were made;[428] the total number of detentions for the period from June 28 to October 10 was 3033.[429]  According to information from COFADEH, the following illegal detention centers were established:  the municipal gymnasium in San Marcos de Colón, Choluteca; military tents in the Verdugo sector of the municipality of El Paraíso, department of El Paraíso; the base of the Cobra Special Strike Force in Colonia 21 de octubre, Tegucigalpa; the columned patio area [“Los Bajos”] of the National Congress building and the basement of the Congress building.

 

342.          According to the Secretariat of Security, between June 29 and August 15, 213 people were detained for crimes and misdemeanors, and 3430 for violating the curfew.  The total number of foreign nationals detained during that period was 150; 113 of these were Nicaraguans.[430]

 

343.          During the June 29 demonstration in Tegucigalpa, 92 persons were detained – among them nine children and six women.  These people were taken to police cells where the conditions of detention were not adequate and those detained were not segregated by sex and age.  They were also denied medical treatment and were not allowed to make phone calls to family members.  They were ultimately released thanks to the efforts of the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights and nongovernmental human rights organizations, among them the Center for Research and Promotion of Human Rights (CIPRODEH), the Committee of Relatives of Detainees – Disappeared in Honduras (COFADEH) and the Center for the Prevention of Torture and Treatment and Rehabilitation of Its Victims and Their Families (CPTRT).[431]

 

344.          On July 2, between 150 and 200 demonstrators –including nine children- were detained in San Pedro Sula.  Reportedly, only 78 detentions were registered.[432]  That same day, 31 persons were detained for vandalism.  They were released because the Prosecutor’s Office allegedly did not have sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges.[433]

 

345.          On July 4, a group of 25 persons on a bus traveling from Trujillo to Tegucigalpa was detained by the Army at the La Esperanza turnoff in the city of Siguatepeque, department of Comayagua.  They were held from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and were released thanks to the steps taken by the Siguatepeque Human Rights Commission.[434]

 

346.          On July 8, a group of demonstrators was detained at the El Durazno police station in Comayagüela.  No record was made of their detention.  They were released thanks to the steps taken by COFADEH attorneys.[435]

 

347.          On July 12, in the city of Trujillo, department of Colón, in the sector know as “El Triángulo,” where a police and military roadblock had been set up, police detained two individuals who were on their to Guadalupe Carney and beat them for no reason.[436]

 

348.          According to CONADEH’s report, between June 29 and July 7 CONADEH personnel visited police stations nationwide, both in the morning and in the evening.  Not one of the people they found there had been lawfully detained.  The CONADEH staff assured those detained during the curfews that they would be released when the curfews were over.[437]

 

349.          On July 29, the preventive police in Tegucigalpa detained a number of individuals –women and children among them.  These detainees were beaten, threatened and taken to the San Miguel police station, where they were incarcerated in small cells.  The only woman detained was taken to the El Manchén police station.  These detentions were not recorded.  The detainees were not informed of the reasons why they had been detained and were not read their rights.  Two hours later, a human rights organization intervened to secure their release.[438]

 

350.          During the July 30 demonstration in Ojo de Agua, around a hundred people,[439] children included,[440] were detained and taken to the Comayagua police station.  They were not told the reasons for their detention and no record of their detention was made.[441]  Attorneys from COFADEH filed a petition of habeas corpus at 2:00 p.m., with the First Trial Court of the Comayagua district.  The complaint was filed against the Commissioner in charge of the Comayagua Preventive Police Headquarters.[442]  The attorneys succeeded in securing the release of 86 detainees at 1:00 a.m. the following day.  The other 12 persons remained in custody until 4:00 p.m. on July 31 and were released for lack of evidence to substantiate the charges.[443]  Some of these people were released while the curfew was in force, which meant that they were unable to leave the police station until the curfew was over.[444]

 

351.          That same day, July 30, a number of patrol cars transporting persons detained in connection with demonstrations held in El Durazno and at the Belén area market in Comayagüela, arrived at the Belén Police Station.[445]  However, the security forces would not allow CIPRODEH attorneys inside the station.  That day, police detained around 200 persons[446] and only the minors were released.[447]  The detentions were conducted without an order from a competent authority and the persons detained were not informed of the reasons for their detention.[448]  Some of these people had been injured. CIPRODEH transported them to various medical facilities for treatment.[449]

 

352.          Around 54 demonstrators were detained in Santa Rosa de Copán on July 31.[450]

 

353.          On August 3, 31 people were detained and mistreated at the facilities of the First Police Station in San Pedro Sula’s Barrio Lempira.  They were not shown any order from a competent authority setting out the grounds for their detention and were not read their rights.  These people were jailed in small cells, virtually unable to breathe given the high temperatures.[451]  The executor judge was allegedly denied access to the facilities, although he had requested access on three different occasions.  He was even subjected to physical mistreatment and verbal abuse.[452]

 

354.          That same day, six persons were in custody at the Chamelecón Police Station.[453] No record was made of their detention, of their having been read their rights, or of their having been advised of the reasons for their detention.  Two other people were in custody at the facilities of the Río Blanco Substation, under the same circumstances.  The police officer apparently felt that no order of detention was necessary, and there was no need to inform the detainees of the reason for their detention.[454]

 

355.          One individual recounted how, on that day, he was detained at the entrance to Colonia San Ignacio by a police officer in civilian dress.  The police officer did not advise him of the reason why he was being detained; instead, he simply said that he had received complaints.  While en route to the Colonia Kennedy police station, that same police officer had allegedly picked up another youth, put him in handcuffs and beat him up in a back street before arriving at the police station.  They were standing there, in the sun, for 45 minutes.  He was then taken to the station at Colonia Villa Nueva, where he was asked if he had participated in the march.  They then took him back to the Colonia Kennedy station, where they left him in a hallway with two other youths.  After that, they took him to what he believes was the Edén police station, and finally to CORE VII.  In his testimony, this person said the following: 

 

…I was put in a cell with 5 other people.  We were talking and one of them seemed friendly.  He offered me water, cigarettes –I told him I didn’t smoke.  We talked about things in general.  He started asking me whether I had visited the rural parts of the country and whether I had ever been to the Valle de Jamastrán.  I told him that I had been almost everywhere in Honduras.  I was struck by his question, however, because I had coordinated the organizational effort for the fourth ballot box in that region of the country.  Then he asked me, “What do you know about Nicaragua” and “What were you doing in Ocotal?” I didn’t answer him.  Then he said that there were five Cubans, five Venezuelans and two Honduras in the marches.  He was critical of the demonstrations. (…) At around 5:30 they took everyone out, but told me that I wasn’t leaving.  This man who had asked me so many questions was coming in and out.  When I was left alone, he came in the cell and said to me, “Today, you’re going to answer everything I asked you. [455]

 

356.          Subsequently, this agent of the security forces questioned the young man and hit him in the head with the handle of a pistol.  He was verbally abusive, using foul language, and applied lit cigarettes to the young man’s skin, burning him on the left arm, chest, hands and feet.  He put his knee on the young man’s body and then brought up a white liquid in a plastic container; he tried to force the young man to drink the liquid and when he didn’t succeed, he emptied the contents of the bottle on the young man’s head.  He then ignited a cigarette lighter and held it up to the young man’s testicles for a time, since the young man was wearing trousers.  He then moved the lighter near the young man’s neck, so close that his shirt was partially burned.  According to the analysis done at the CPTRT, the young man’s physical condition was consistent with his account of what happened.[456]

 

357.          On August 11, during a protest march in Tegucigalpa, security forces detained 42 persons, who were taken to Metropolitan Police Headquarters No. 1 in Tegucigalpa –also known as CORE VII-, to police station No. 14 in Colonia Kennedy and to the El Manchén police post.[457]  One of those detained was a human rights defender who, despite having shown his credentials and having shown that he was doing his job, was held in custody until the next day.

 

358.          At 3:00 p.m. on August 12, 28 persons (27 adults and one minor) were detained near Tegucigalpa’s Central Park and the National Congress building.  After being taken into custody, these individuals were transported to and held inside the National Congress building, in an area known as “Los Bajos” [a columned patio area].[458]  There, the detainees were beaten on the arms, head, legs, back and chest and were ordered to remove their shirts and lie face-down on the hot asphalt.[459]  One of the individuals detained suffered a fractured clavicle as a result of the police abuse.[460]  Furthermore, Congressmen were allegedly watching these events and laughing, and reportedly goading the security police to hit the detainees even harder; civil servants working at the Congressional building had allegedly kicked the detainees.[461]  The detainees were later taken to the facilities of the Cobra Special Strike Force in Colonia 21 de Octubre, where they were held incommunicado, beaten and never informed of the reasons for their detention.  No record was made of these detentions.[462]  Of the total number detained in that episode, 11 sustained injuries and were taken by Red Cross ambulances to the Escuela Hospital at around 10:00 p.m.  After receiving medical treatment, they were taken back to the facilities of the Cobra Special Strike Force at around 1:00 a.m. on August 13.  In order to enable the injured to be treated at the hospital, their identification documents were returned to them.

 

359.          At 3:00 a.m. on August 13, the detainees were transported to Metropolitan Police Headquarters No. 1 and placed in small, unventilated cells.  They had no access to either sanitary facilities or drinking water.[463] Some 10 minutes before the 24-hour period of detention[464] was set to expire –after which the detainees would have had to be released-, the Office of the Prosecutor for Common Crimes filed the charging documents, in which 24 persons were accused of the crimes of robbery, unlawful demonstration, vandalism and sedition;[465] another three were charged with the crime of terrorism.

 

360.          At 2:00 p.m. on August 13, despite the fact that two Judges to execute writs of habeas corpus were present, the detainees were not released.  They were not read their rights until 5:00 p.m.[466]  while the crime with which they were being charged was still not filled on the papers.  The Prosecutor allegedly maintained that the detainees were read their rights at 2:00 p.m.[467]  At  7:00 p.m. that day, a group hearing was held in a meeting room on the third floor of Metropolitan Police Headquarters No. 1, where the Judge, Public Defender Janneth Gómez, the attorneys for the defense Karol Cárdenas of COFADEH, two other lawyers, three prosecutors for common crimes, representatives of human rights organizations, attorneys from the Resistance, attorneys from COLPROSUMAH and the Consul for Colombia were all present.  During the hearing, 8 police officers and elements of the Cobra Special Strike Force were inside the room.  The Prosecutor was allegedly against seeking nullification of the case, arguing that the detainees’ rights had been observed and that theirs was a special situation.[468]  It was only then that the detainees were informed of the reason for their detention and were able to speak with their attorneys.  At 1:00 a.m. on August 14, eleven persons were transferred to the National Penitentiary on the grounds that they were unable to prove domicile.[469]  During its on-site visit, the Commission visited the 11 persons who were still incarcerated in the National Penitentiary. They were all released on different dates in the period from August 14 and 20.  As for the 24 persons originally charged with the crimes of robbery, unlawful demonstration, vandalism and sedition, 18 were acquitted and the other six were tried for unlawful demonstration.[470]

 

361.          One of the persons detained that day gave the following testimony at the trial hearing:

 

They put me in the columned patio area [“los bajos’] of the National Congress building; they threw me on the floor.  Some police women came up to me and one of them said, ‘What are you hiding there?  Give it to me!  If you don’t…’ I was on the floor.  She hit me with a steel rod, causing my hand to bleed.  After that, two more police officers walked up […] I was protecting the camera; it was my proof, my way of defending myself.  I took film; everything was on film in my camera.  I don’t trust the police.  They didn’t return one of the phones to me.  I have bruises all over my body.  You’re not going to see it again.  I could see the floor of the Congress building.  The Congressmen were laughing and goading the police.  We saw a number of civilians, too.  The Congress became a police encampment.  The floor was very hot.  They took us to the basement.  We think it is a garage.  They took us to the basement because they were beating us, making fun of us, calling us dogs, they beat us […] Then Madrid arrives and says, ‘I want you to sign this statement.  If you don’t, you’ll lose your rights.’ By then it was around four or five in the afternoon.  He left.  We had had no telephone communication or medical treatment.  We were all beaten up. At around six that evening, they let a few human rights people come in…[471]

 

362.          Other people, including children, were also detained on August 12 and held at the El Manchen police post for five hours before being released thanks to the intervention of the attorneys from COFADEH.[472]  Another 47 persons –seven of whom were women— were detained while taking part in an informational meeting outside the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional Francisco Morazán.  They were held for two days, accused of participating in the fire started at the Popeye’s Restaurant and the burning of a bus on Miraflores Boulevard.[473]

 

363.          According to CONADEH, staff of that institution prepared a special report on the physical condition and legal status of the persons detained as a result of the disturbances caused by the demonstrators’ violence on August 11 and 12, “in the area of the Miraflores Plaza Commercial Center in Colonia Miraflores and in the downtown area of the capital city, respectively.” According to the annex attached to the report, on August 11, 38 persons were allegedly in custody at the Metropolitan Police Headquarters No. 1 in Barrio Los Dolores, for the crimes of robbery, vandalism, holding unlawful assemblies, sedition, and arson; on August 12, 25 persons were in custody for the crimes of robbery, unlawful demonstrations, vandalism, and sedition threatening the domestic security of the State of Honduras.  Nevertheless, when “the cells at that Police Headquarters were inspected, (it was found that) none of the aforementioned persons was present; the majority had been released and others were brought before the competent authorities for the filing of the respective prosecutorial request seeking indictment”.[474]

 

364.          On August 12, a judge in domestic violence cases in San Pedro Sula, who had allegedly asked Police why they were attacking the demonstrators, was arrested by police for no reason and finally released when a second writ of habeas corpus was filed on his behalf.[475]   That same day, a number of persons were detained in San Pedro Sula and incarcerated at the First Police Station.  There were no warrants issued by a competent authority, the detentions were not recorded, the detainees were not read their rights, they were not allowed to make calls, and were not advised of the reasons for their detention. The persons detained suffered physical, verbal and mental abuse; a number of them had lesions on their heads.  The officer in charge of the station had allegedly told the Executor Judge that the persons were not being detained; instead, they were being evaluated by a forensic physician.  All the same, the Executor Judge declared the detentions unlawful and ordered the detainees immediate release.[476]  Something similar occurred in the case of the individuals detained at the Barrio Suncery police station.[477]

 

365.          On August 14, during a demonstration in Choloma,[478] around 35 demonstrators were detained and held in the facilities of the National Preventive Police of Choloma.  They were locked up in fetid cells and beaten and mentally mistreated by the police.[479]  No order was issued by a competent authority for their detention and they were not read their rights.  Because of the injuries they had sustained, some were transported to Hospital[480] and to the Honduran Social Security Institute:[481]

 

I was reporting what was happing in the clash between the police and the demonstrators, broadcasting live for Radio Progreso.  Because of that I was standing somewhat apart from the scene of the clash.  Suddenly, however, a policeman nearby drew his weapon.  When I saw this, I started running.  Five police came after me.  I couldn’t run anymore because of the tear gas, and that was when they caught up with me.  I told them I was a journalist for Radio Progreso and was broadcasting live.  They told me I was under arrest and took away my cell phone, which I was using at the time to broadcast.  Then they put me in a patrol car.  They piled more detainees on top of me.  They were beating us, but because I was at the bottom of the pile, they beat those on top of me more.  They insulted us and paraded us everywhere.  When we arrived at the police station, the very same police officers who transported us there started hitting us again.  In the patrol car, they gave me back my cell phone but told me not to answer it.  I was unable to take calls from the Radio Station. While they were bringing me in, they were kicking me in the head.  They did not read us our rights, did not let us make or take calls and never told us why they took us into custody.[482]

 

366.          The Executor Judge granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the release of these persons on the grounds that the legal requirements necessary to detain them had not been observed.[483]  The physicians who treated the detainees said that four were in serious condition and that the physicians themselves were struck by Police when they attempted to treat the injured.[484]

 

367.          According to the CONADEH report, CONADEH personnel had executed a writ of habeas corpus “on behalf of persons detained in a violent demonstration in Choloma, Cortés, which had involved vandalism.  The idea was to get the detainees released to receive proper medical treatment, and apply alternative measures in their case.” According to the reports which are attached as an annex, the habeas corpus proceedings established that no order for their detention had been issued, that they were not read their rights and that there was no evidence suggesting that they were guilty of any crime.[485]

 

368.          More recently, as the electoral process unfolded, the Commission was told that on August 30, September 6 and October 25, a number of persons were detained and accused of voicing their rejection of the electoral candidates.[486]

 

369.          Unlawful detentions were also practiced at the military and police roadblocks set up on the highways. From July 23 to 28, various people were detained in the El Paraíso region and taken to police stations in the cities of El Paraíso and Danlí.  They were held incommunicado, were not told the reasons for their detention and had no access to sanitary facilities.[487]

 

370.          At 6:00 a.m. on July 24, other people were detained at the Santa María turnoff at the entrance to Danlí.  They were taken to the departmental police station in that municipality.  There, they were not told the reasons why they had been detained and were physically mistreated by police.  The detainees initially thought that they were detained because of the curfew that had been imposed in that area and whose hours were indefinite; however, they then noticed other people who, even when the curfew was still in effect, had allegedly been permitted to move about at will.[488]

 

371.          On July 24, in the San Marcos de Colón border region in the department of Choluteca, a group of persons, some of them authorities of the administration of President Zelaya, were detained by members of the preventive police for being out during the curfew.  The Police asked for their papers, inspected their identifications, bags, vehicles, and luggage.  Although they found nothing irregular, the police detained them nonetheless.  Even though the executor judge for the habeas corpus ordered their release, these people were unable to leave the police station until the curfew was finally over at 4:30 a.m.[489]

 

372.          According to the CONADEH report, in the period from July 23 to 27, 242 Hondurans were taken into custody for curfew violations and held in custody at the Departmental Police Headquarters No. 7 in Danlí.  At El Paraíso Municipal Police Headquarters, seven Nicaraguan nationals and 38 Hondurans were also held for curfew violations.[490]

 

373.          On July 28, CIPRODEH human rights defenders went to the eastern sector of the country in response to reports that a group of demonstrators were being transported in a container truck that had been at the Alauca turnoff in the department of El Paraíso for several days.  The demonstrators had allegedly been forced into the container truck when police threatened them with tear gas.  During the time that these people were in custody, they had no access to food or medical attention, even though a number of them were sick.[491]  Another 76 persons had been detained under the same circumstances on July 27.

 

374.          More recently, when President Zelaya entered the Brazilian Embassy, State security forces continued to detain hundreds of people.  The de facto authorities told the Commission that on September 22, a number of people were being detained at the “Chochi Sosa” Stadium in the Olympic Village -41 adults and 2 children- for disorderly conduct during the demonstrations; 113 adults and 41 children were being held for violation of the curfew; 21 adults were being held there for miscellaneous reasons, 14 of whom were Nicaraguan nationals.

 

375.          As for the criminal cases instituted against the persons detained, the Secretariat of Security reported that eight individuals, including a woman, had been detained for the crime of sedition and were granted bail.  Three men were detained for crimes of terrorism and aggravated arson; they, too, had also been granted bail.  In connection with the August 12 arson attack on a restaurant, 15 men, one woman and one child were detained for sedition, unlawful demonstration, vandalism and robbery prejudicial to the internal security of the State of Honduras.  The child was granted bail, under parental supervision; five adults were granted bail under the supervision of COFADEH; eleven adults remained in custody at the National Penitentiary.  Nine arrest warrants were also issued in connection with unspecified charges and were pending enforcement.

 

376.          In its observations, the Supreme Court wrote the following: “Based on the Transparency and Access to Information Act, state security institutions allow access to information to all persons who, having properly identified themselves, are performing procedures on behalf of detained persons; human rights organizations are able to attest to this fact, as they obtain information from the log books at the various security facilities.    A request was filed with the First Trial Court of Santa Rosa de Copan, as shown in court record 401-2009, seeking indictment of six police officers for the crimes of abuse of authority, unlawful detention and excessive use of force. (…)  The National Police faithfully complied with those clauses of the Constitution of the Republic that hold that no person may be detained or held incommunicado for more than twenty-four (24) hours without being brought before the competent authority, and that every person detained shall be read his or her rights in accordance with Article 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”[492]

 

377.          On the subject of detentions made during a state of emergency, the Commission held that:

 

detention is arbitrary and illegal when not carried out for the reasons and according to the formalities established by law; when carried out without adherence to the standards established by law; and when it involves misuse of the authority to arrest--in other words, when carried out for purposes other than those envisaged and stipulated by law. The Commission has also pointed out that detention for improper ends is, in itself, a form of penalty without due process, or extralegal punishment, which violates the guarantee of a fair trial.[493] Furthermore, ‘[t]he suspension of the right to personal liberty authorized in Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights can never be absolute. There are basic principles at the heart of any democratic society that the security forces must respect in order to carry out a detention, even in a state of emergency. The legal prerequisites for detention are obligations that State authorities must respect, in keeping with their international commitment under the Convention to protect and respect human rights.”[494]

 

378.          The IACHR observes that the detention of thousands of people, many of them foreign nationals, has been one of the tactics used by the de facto government, and carried out by the security forces, both police and military alike.  The Commission observes that arbitrary detentions in Honduras, police abuse and lack of judicial oversight of detentions are problems that predate June 28.  In the context of the coup d’état, however, they have taken on a new and much more serious significance because they have allowed the security forces to conduct detentions on a mass scale, and with a specific political purpose.  The detentions carried out by the de facto government were unlawful and arbitrary inasmuch as they were pursued without a court order and the detainees were not brought before a judge for verification of the lawfulness of their detention.  Furthermore, the detentions were not reported to the Public Prosecutor’s Office nor to the competent authority in the case of detained children.

 

379.          The security forces have tried to justify the detentions by citing curfew violations.  The Commission has already stated that the suspension of guarantees has no basis in law and is an improper restriction of the rights of the inhabitants of Honduras.  The alternative justification for the detentions was the alleged commission of offenses by the demonstrators.  It was reported that very few detainees were actually charged with unlawful association and vandalism when the demonstrations were over.[495] However, there is no information as to the total number -or even a rough estimate- of the arrest warrants issued for the crime of sedition.[496]  Nevertheless, the few cases that did come to the attention of the Public Prosecutor’s Office were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence to justify indictment for some of the offenses provided for in the Criminal Code.  As a result, the detainees were released.  This pattern also reveals how the de facto government resorted to practices intended to criminalize public protest, all in order to control and deter the opposition to the coup d’état.

 

380.          The detainees were held incommunicado, were not informed of the reason for their detention, and were not read their rights.  In some cases, the police denied habeas corpus judges and family members any access to the detainees.  At times, police denied that the persons were in custody; they even claimed that arrest warrants from a competent authority were unnecessary and that they did not have to read detainees their rights.  These problems were uncovered repeatedly by the numerous writs of habeas corpus, which were granted because legal procedure was not followed when the detainees were taken into custody.  The Commission notes with concern that on a number of occasions children were taken into custody and incarcerated with adults.

 

381.          The IACHR is also troubled by the fact that many of those detained in the context of the demonstrations were charged with the offense of “unlawful demonstration.”[497] The description of this offense under Honduran criminal law is vague, thus allowing the competent authorities ample interpretative latitude and, therefore, broad discretionary authority as to what constitutes “unlawful demonstration.”

 

382.          A review of the information compiled reveals not only that legal procedure was not followed in making the detentions, but also that detainees were held in the National Congress building and at the facilities of the Cobra Strike Force, and other facilities not equipped for that purpose.  In one particular case, the first hearing was conducted at CORE VII police headquarters, rather than in the proper court.

 

[TABLE OF CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT]
 


[223] I/A Court H.R., Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, paragraph 26.

[224] IACHR, Annual Report 2008, Chapter IV, Cuba.

[225] I/A Court H.R., Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, paragraph. 20.

[226] CEJIL, e-mail received by the IACHR on August 10, 2009.  Testimony of L.C.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 129).  The justices of the Constitutional Chamber stated that the Judicial Branch never acts on its own initiative; instead, it responds to petitions filed by parties.  In this matter, the Constitutional Chamber held that “we have no role in the curfews”. Information that the Supreme Court supplied to the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009.

[227] Information received by the IACHR during the meeting with the Supreme Court in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009.

[228] Information received by the IACHR at the meeting with the Supreme Court in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009.  Concerning the formalities that must be followed when declaring a state of emergency, the 1921 State of Siege Act provides as follows:  i) Article 17.- Pursuant to clause 21 of Article 86 of the Constitution, the Federal Legislative Branch shall be responsible for declaring the State of Siege.  Pursuant to clause 4 of Article 117 of the Constitution, when the Legislative Branch is in recess, it shall be the Federal Executive Branch that declares the State of Siege.  The Declaration must be done in the Council of Ministers;” ii) Article 18.- A State of Siege, whether declared by Congress or by the Executive Branch, must be lifted by Congress, unless it is in recess, in which case it shall be lifted by the Executive Branch.  Nevertheless, if the State of Siege is for a prescribed time period it shall be lifted automatically on the prescribed date and time; iii) Article 19.- “Improperly declaring or prolonging a State of Siege shall be deemed a crime against the Sovereignty of the Nation.”

[229] Report of the CONADEH, op. cit., p. 12.

[230] Report of the CONADEH, op. cit., p. 12. 

[231] By a communication dated July 2, 2009, the IACHR requested information concerning the adoption of Executive Decree 011-2009.

[232] By a communication dated July 30, 2009, the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Honduras sent a copy of Legislative Decree 144-2009 through which the National Congress ratified Executive Decree 011-2009 in toto.  It also sent a copy of the Official Gazette, dated July 27, 2009, where that legislative decree is published in print.

[233] Under the 1921 State of Siege Act, in a state of siege the following rights may only be suspended for the most serious cause: “i) the right of assembly or association for political purposes but not assembly or association for scientific or industrial purposes,  freedom of the press and the right to bear arms, ii) the inviolability of correspondence and the rights of immigration and emigration for freedom of movement and change of residence; iii) the inviolability of the home; any domestic or foreign-owned industry can be brought to a halt for the sake of the Nation and its immovable property temporarily taken over, as can its movable assets by paying their value either at the time of takeover or once the State of Siege is lifted.”

[234] Executive Decree CM-M-016-2009, Consideranda 5.

[235] N.B., e-mail received by the IACHR on September 21, 2009.  Petitions of amparo that C.H., A.G.L.L. and S.Y.P.A. filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court on September 29, 2009, received by the IACHR on September 30, 2009.

[236] Communication from Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira de Williams, President of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Honduras, dated August 10, 2009.  In the case file on the petition of habeas corpus, the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation reported that “there is no record of (Mr. Gerson Evenor Vilchez Almendares) having been detained or charged and no proceeding is pending.” However the Chief Prosecutor General reported that Mr. Vilchez “was detained by the Preventive Police and handed over for investigation purposes to the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation in the city of El Paraíso on July 24 of this year, as he was found to be in possession of a small amount of marijuana; he was released the next day, July 27…” Information received by the IACHR during the second meeting with the Supreme Court in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009
(No. 474).

[237] Report of the CONADEH, op. cit., p. 11.

[238] For example, on August 12, 2009, the Public Prosecutor’s Office had allegedly barred attorney Karla Pinto from filing a complaint against two police officers for disobedience, as they had refused to release persons in custody despite an order from the executor judge ordering their immediate release.

[239] First Trial Judge of the Santa Rosa de Copán District, decision of October 5, 2009, Case file 401-2009. CEJIL, Violaciones de derechos humanos [Violations of Human Rights], op. cit.

[240] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 18, paragraph 46.

[241] I/A Court H. R., “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, paragraph 237; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala Case. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paragraph 126; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador Case. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120., paragraph 170.

[242] I/A Court H.R., Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay Case. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, paragraph 161; Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru Case. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 128; “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay Case. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, paragraph 156 and others.

[243] I/A Court H.R., Huilca Tecse v. Peru Case. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paragraph 66; Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala Case. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paragraph 153 and others.

[244] I/A Court H.R., Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, op. cit., paragraph 129. See also, UN, General Comment 6 (Sixteenth session, 1982), paragraph 3; Human Rights Committee, Case of María Fanny Suárez de Guerrero vs. Colombia, Communication 45/1979.

[245] The IACHR also received the following information on the violent deaths that occurred in the context of the coup d’état: On June 29, 2009, Vicky Hernández Castillo (Jhonny Emilson Hernández), a transvestite, was shot in the head and killed as she was plying the sex trade.  The killing allegedly occurred during the police roundups conducted during the hours of the curfew ordered by the de fact regime.  The body showed signs of strangulation. On July 24, 2009, the IACHR requested information pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention. CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit. In its observations, the Supreme Court reported that: “In the case of the death of Jonhy Emilson (Sonny Emilson) Hernández Martínez alias "Vicky Hernández Castillo," a member of the LGTTB community identification number 0501-1983-08333, a native and resident of the Sunsery neighborhood of San Pedro Sula, Cortés, age 26.  The forensics report found that the cause of death was strangulation; the case is currently under investigation.  Thus far, the motive for the crime is unknown although the most likely theory is that this was a crime of passion, according to case file 1057-2009. Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 13, paragraph 26.

On July 3, 2009, Gabriel Fino Noriega was leaving the Estelar broadcasting station in San Juan Pueblo, department of Atlántida, when unidentified persons shot him several times.  The journalist, who was also a correspondent for Radio America, died shortly thereafter from his wounds.  In the days leading up to his assassination, he had been reporting on the survey and on the coup d’état. Months prior to his death, Fino Noriega had received threats because of information he had made public in connection with massacres that occurred in the Atlantic coastal region of Honduras.  In keeping with Article 41 of the American Convention, the IACHR had requested information on the journalist’s death via a communication dated July 10, 2009.  The Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression condemned the journalist’s assassination and pointed out that in the context of the coup d’état and the interruption of the constitutional order, this crime was especially troubling and he called for an investigation to determine whether the crime had anything to do with his practice of journalism.  In his report for the on-site visit, the National Commissioner on Human Rights of Honduras maintained that “pinning the blame on the security forces only allows the possible intellectual and material authors of the crime to escape unpunished.” Finally, in a communication sent by the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, it was reported that “the Public Prosecutor’s Office has the necessary investigations underway.” Report of the National Commissioner of Human Rights of the Republic of Honduras, CONADEH, for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), on-site visit in Honduras, August 17 to 21, 2009, p. 10.  Information received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009. De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, Memorandum 702-DGAE-09 of September 29, 2009. The Supreme Court reported the following in its observations: “The case of Fino Noriega, a native and resident of  San Juan Pueblo, Atlántida and a journalist with Radio Estelar, who died as a result of seven bullet wounds on July 3, 2009, is under investigation, registered as number 0101-2009­00414”. Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, pp. 13-14, paragraph 27.

On July 6, 2009, Anastasio Barrera was allegedly abducted by four individuals wearing police vests, in San Juan Pueblo, municipality of La Másica, Atlántida.  This was after his abductors had beaten his wife, María de Jesús Herrera, on the head.  She and their two children had managed to escape.  Mr. Barrera was affiliated with one of the five women’s cooperatives operated by the Central Nacional de Trabajadores del Campo [National Farm Workers Union] CNTC. Anastasio Barrera’s body was found 6 days later in the city of Tela.  On July 24, 2009, the IACHR requested information pursuant to Article XIV of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.  CIDPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit. CEJIL, Violaciones de derechos humanos en Honduras [Human Rights Violations in Honduras]. State of affairs, November 3, 2009.  In its observations, the Supreme Court reported the following: “In the case of Anastasio Barrera, in San Juan Pueblo, La Masica, Atlántida, four individuals were allegedly wearing Police vests.  According to the records of the National Bureau for Criminal Investigation, recorded as complaint number 950-09 for the crime of abduction, the case is under investigation.” Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 14, paragraph 28.

In San Pedro Sula on July 11, 2009, Roger Iván Bados González was shot dead.  His two sisters were seriously injured.  Mr. Bados was a member of the organized social resistance against the coup d’état and a member of the left-leaning Democratic Unification Party and the Bloque Popular in San Pedro Sula.  In keeping with Article 41 of the American Convention, in a communication dated July 15, 2009 the IACHR requested information on Mr. Bados’ death.  In the report he prepared for the IACHR’s on-site visit, the National Commissioner of Human Rights of Honduras stated that “relatives picked up the casings of the two bullets there at the scene; even though these bullet casings were vital evidence, they did not turn them over to the competent authority.  Instead, they handed them to a police officer from the National Bureau of Criminal Investigaiton (DNIC), a supposed friend of the family.  His aunt did not give us his proper name and although another family member has promised to tell us what it is, he has not given us anything so that we still don’t know who the police officer was and what happened to the valuable evidence.” In a communication sent by the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, it was reported that this homicide “is under investigation by the Homicide Unit of the Office of the San Pedro Sula Regional Prosecutor’s Office, where various investigative procedures have been conducted …and the notion that the death was the result of political persecution has been discarded.” Report of the CONADEH, op. cit., p. 10. De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, Memorandum 702-DGAE-09, op. cit.

On July 12, 2009, Ramón García was shot and killed in the community of Callejones, Municipality of Macuelizo, Santa Bárbara. Unidentified men had dragged him off a bus by force and had shot him.  Mr. García had allegedly been a member of the Democratic Unification Party and of the National Farm Workers Union.  In keeping with Article 41 of the American Convention, by a communication dated July 15, 2009 the IACHR requested information on his death.  In a communication from the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, it was reported that “from the DNIC’s investigation thus far, it is believed that this murder was not an act of political repression.  The investigation has also established that the individual in question was neither a leader of the Farm Workers Union, and had not participated in the various demonstrations called by the so-called Popular Resistance.” De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of Honduras, Memorandum 702-DGAE-09, op. cit.

On July 26, 2009, Víctor Samuel Almendarez Fuentes has allegedly been shot in the right leg by the Preventive Police in the Tiburcio Carias Andino Stadium and has allegedly bled to death. Attorneys for the Center for the Prevention of Torture and the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture and Their Families had filed a complaint with the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights.  Information that the CPTRT supplied to the IACHR during its on-site visit. (No. 471). In its observations, the Supreme Court reported that: “A complaint was received on July 26, 2009 in the case of Víctor Samuel Almendarez Fuentes, to the effect that the individual in question had been shot in the right leg by a member of the Preventive Police as he was leaving Tiburcio Carias Andino Stadium in Tegucigalpa; investigations established that this individual died in a clash between rival fans of the Motagua and Olimpia teams, after a game between the two clubs.  When police intervened to stop the fighting and disperse the groups, the two rival factions joined forces against the police.  The individual in question was shot and died instantly.  The matter is therefore under investigation, but has nothing to do with the political situation in the country.” Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 14, paragraph 29.

On August 8, 2009, Juan Gabriel Figueroa Tomé was found dead.  He had been shot in the back of the neck and had a wound in his thorax.  The previous day, he had alledgedly been kept under surveillance by two heavily armed subjects.  At 2:00 a.m. on Saturday, August 8, 2009, neighbors in Colonia López had allegedly heard shots and someone screaming ‘don’t kill me, if you want the motorbike, take it.” But his assailants had answered that they were not after his motorbike, they were after him.  Juan Gabriel Figueroa Tomé was a building inspector for the Municipality of Choloma, a member of the Liberal Party and part of the Resistance against the coup. Pusuant to Article 41 of the American Convention, the IACHR requested information concerning his death via a communication dated September 4, 2009.

At 6:30 a.m. on September 10, 2009, Melvin Enrique Larios Cruz, a member of the “Unión Catracha” Farm Cooperative that is part of the El Aguan Campesino Movement (MCA) and his companion Oscar José Rodríguez Valdés were killed by persons unknown in the village of Honduras Aguán, municipality of Trujillo.  According to the Farm Workers Union (CNTC), their deaths were the result of the ten days of harassment that campesinos who had settled on the premises of the former Regional Military Training Center had endured at the hands of the landowners who had appropriated those lands under the government of Rafael Callejas.  FIAN Honduras, e-mail received by the IACHR on September 11, 2009.

[246] On July 10, 2009, the IACHR requested information pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention.  In a communication received from the de facto government on July 10, it stated the following:  “we are able to report that as of now the only person confirmed dead as a result of the events that have occurred since June 28 of this year is the youth Isis Obed Murillo (19) who died from a bullet wound on Sunday, July 5 of this year.  We are currently awaiting the Report of the Forensic Physician.  The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights has taken the initiative of opening a case file for investigation of this matter to determine how the young man died, and who is responsible for his death.” Memorandum No. 526-DGAE-09, received July 10, 2009.

[247] Preliminary Report of the Delegation of Guatemalan Human Rights Organizations in Honduras, July 3 to 6, 2009.

[248] COFADEH, Informe preliminary [Preliminary report], op. cit.

[249] Information that COFADEH supplied and which the IACHR received in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 266).

[250] CONADEH Report, op. cit., p. 9. Information received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[251] De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, Memorandum 702-DGAE-09, op. cit.

[252] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 12, paragraph 22.

[253] On July 30, 2009, the IACHR requested information pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention.

[254] Testimony of G.A.A.P.,taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 281).

[255] IACHR Press Release 52/09, “IACHR condemns murder in Honduras,” July 27, 2009.  Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2009/52-09eng.htm. Testimony of F.N.M.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 270).

[256] Testimony of S.Z., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 282).

[257] “Hallan a joven muerto en frontera Las Manos” [Young Man Found Dead along border, Las Manos], La Tribuna, July 26, 2009.

[258] CONADEH Report, op. cit., pp. 9-10.  Information received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[259] Information received by the IACHR during its meeting with the Military High Command in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[260] De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, Memorandum 702-DGAE-09, op. cit.  

[261] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, pp. 10-12, paragraph 20, where reference is made to the report sent to the IACHR via Memorandum No. 702 of September 29, 2009.

[262] CONADEH Report, op. cit,. p.10, Information received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[263] Note sent from the de facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs to the Executive Secretary of the IACHR, received by the IACHR at its headquarters on September 16, 2009.

[264] Testimony of M.O.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 445).

[265] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 14, paragraph 30.

[266] Testimony of I.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009. (No. 280).

[267] Prosecutorial Request Seeking Indictment, issued August 7, 2009 by the First Trial Judge of the Danlí section, El Paraíso.

[268] Testimony of I.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009. (No. 280).

[269] Furthermore, in its observations the Supreme Court reported that: “The roadblock put up on August 2 at the intersection of the Jutiapa turnoff, Valle de Jamastrán, was erected for enforcement of the curfews ordered by law and pursuant to the respective decrees.  The episode in which Mr. Pedro Pablo Hernández died is before the courts and the respective trial is underway.” Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 15, paragraphs 31 and 49.

[270] “Muere una mujer afectada por gases tóxicos en Honduras” [Woman poisoned by toxic gases dies in Honduras], TeleSUR, September 28, 2009.  The de facto authorities claimed that there is a “clinical case record that shows that the cause of death was  a crisis of pneumonia and asthma, supposedly triggered when her prescribed treatment was suspended because she was believed to be carrying the A1N1 virus. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has the case file in its possession, and the case continues to be investigated.” De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, Memorandum 731-DGAE-09 of October 20, 2009.

[271] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 15, paragraph32.

[272] The de facto authorities reported that the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation was conducting the investigation into this case and had established that the death occurred in the Colonia Flor del Campo, Comayagüela, when a group of persons armed with stones, clubs and machetes  tried to take over the police facilities in that area.  The DNIC is “doing the investigative work to shed light on this event.”  De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, Memorandum 731-DGAE-09 of October 20, 2009.

[273] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 15, paragraph 33.

[274] De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, Memorandum 712-DGAE-09 of October 13, 2009.

[275] De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, Memorandum 731-DGAE-09 of October 20, 2009.

[276] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 16, paragraph 34.

[277] IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, op. cit., paragraph 55.

[278] IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, op. cit., paragraph 56.

[279] IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, op. cit., paragraph 63, citing the United States Court of Appeals, Washington Mobilization Committee v. Cullinane, Judgment of April 12, 1977, 566 F.2d 107, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 215, p. 119.

[280] IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, op. cit., paragraph 63.

[281] IACHR, Report No. 41/99 (Merits), Case 11,491, Detained Minors (Honduras), March 10, 1999, paragraphs 135 and 136.

[282] I/A Court H.R., García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru Case. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137; Raxcacó Reyes v. Guatemala Case. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133, paragraph 95; Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala Case. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, paragraph 118.  See also, Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted at the First United Nations Conference on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, held in Geneva in 1955; rules approved by the Economic and Social Council in resolutions 663C (XXIV) of July 31, 1957 and 2076 (LXII) of May 13, 1977, Rules 10 and 11.

[283] ECHR, Case of McGlinchey and Others vs the United Kingdom, Judgment of April 29, 2004.

[284] I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 156.

[285] CIPRODEH representatives reported this information to the IACHR’s Executive Secretariat on July 20, 2009.

[286] Villa Vieja, Tegucialpa; El Durazno, Tegucigalpa; Cerro de Hula, Francisco Morazán; Río Hondo, Tegucigalpa; Zambrano, Francisco Morazán; Guaymaca, Francisco Morazán; Talanga, Francisco Morazán, Ojo de Agua, El Paraíso; Jacaleapa, El Paraíso; Las Crucitas, El Paraíso; Arenales, El Paraíso; El Paraíso, El Paraíso; Alauca, El Paraíso; Las Limas, El Paraíso; Tocoa, Colón; Planes, Colón; El Prado, Colón; Danto Bridge, Atlántida; Tela exit, Atlántida; Guaymitas, Yoro; La Democracia Bridge, Yoro; Chamelecón, Cortés; Potrerillos, Cortés; Villa Nueva, Cortés; Choloma, Cortés; in the Port Authority area, Cortés; FESITRANH toll road, Cortés; exit toll road for Lima, Cortés; Ceibita, Santa Bárbara; Pito Solo, Santa Bárbara; Colinas, Santa Bárbara; Los Naranjos, Santa Bárbara; Limones, Olancho, Catacamas exit, Olancho; Telica, Olancho; village of Las Delicias, Olancho; Jesús de Otoro, Intibucá; entrance to La Esperanza, Intibucá; turnoff for La Esperanza in Siguatepeque, Comayagua; Cuesta de la Virgen, Comayagua; Santa Elena, La Paz; San José, La Paz; turnoff for  Gracia, Copán; El Rosario turnoff, Copán; entrance to Santa Rosa de Copán, Copán, Ocotepeque exit, Ocotepeque; Duyure, Choluteca; Choluteca exit, Choluteca; Santa Elena station, Choluteca; Jicaro Galán, Valle; Gracias, Lempira.  COFADEH, Segundo informe. Violaciones a derechos humanos en el marco del golpe de Estado en Honduras. Cifras y Rostros de la Represión [Second Report.  Human Rights Violations in the context of the coup d’état in Honduras.  Figures and Faces of Repression].

[287] Testimony of O.H.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 112). Testimony of M.U., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 222). According to the information provided, military roadblocks were set up at Villa Vieja, Tegucigalpa; Ojo de Agua, El Paraíso; Jacaleapa, El Paraíso; Las Crucitas, El Paraíso; Arenales, El Paraíso; El Paraíso, El Paraíso; Alauca, El Paraíso; Las Limas, El Paraíso; El Durazno, Francisco Morazán; and other roadblocks in the northern part of the country.  Document delivered to the IACHR in El  Paraíso on August 20, 2009 (No. 519).

[288] Document delivered to the IACHR in El Paraíso on August 20, 2009 (No. 519).

[289] Testimony of T.J.R. cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit.

[290] Testimony of T.J.R. cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit.

[291] Testimony of I.G.P, cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit.;Testimony of S.Z. and M.N.C.E., taken by the IACHR in El Paraíso on August 20, 2009.

[292] Testimony of T.J.R. cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit. Testimony of O.H.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucicalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 112). Testimony of M.U., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 222). Testimony of R.P., taken by the IACHR in El Paraíso on August 20, 2009.

One of the Red Cross physicians  reported that a number of people had been seriously injured; one had been shot in the ear; others had been savagely beaten with batons.  Testimony of P.H. and M.M.S., taken by the IACHR in El Paraíso on August 20, 2009. Testimony of E.V., taken by the IACHR at the meeting with community leaders in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009.

[293] Testimony of S.Z., taken by the IACHR in El Paraíso on August 20, 2009.

[294] In the disturbances that occurred on July 24, 2009, in the Las Manos border area, dozens of people were reportedly detained, among them those identified as follows: A.L., L.E.C., M.L., J.E., A.S., O.M., M.G., M.G., P.A., I.E.S.P., C.A.B., C.G.S., E.L.C., G.S., L.D.V., J.B., D.P., E.U., S.S., R.R.D., M.A.O., C.Z., M.Z., N.O., F.M.Z., A.C., Y.G., H.A.S., M.C.P.V., F.J.A., B.A.R., B.S.O., L.S., O.E.S., S.Z.R., J.P.M., R.A., K.M., J.J.C., M.O., C.S., J.A.T., D.S., L.A.F., C.R., O.A.A., J.A.Z., A.D.R., F.F.S.A., A.M.G.R., G.P., C.S., V.B., J.P., G.O.M., E.M.D., A.B., D.P.B., M.S., N.M., O.B., L.B., S.C., I.Y.R.A., M.A.G., E.B., P.B., M.E.S., J.H.M., and J.E.B. The IACHR also received information to the effect that M.H.V. had allegedly been shot when a member of the Honduran Armed Forces discharged a 9 mm weapon.  Testimony of G.A.E.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 311).

[295] Testimony of N.l.C.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17 and 20, 2009 (No. 444).

[296] Testimony of L.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 253).

[297] Testimony of E.E.B.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 171).

[298] CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report of violations], op.cit, p. 23.

[299] De facto Secretariat of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Honduras, Memorandum 702-DGAE-09, op. cit.

[300] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 16, paragraph 38.

[301] CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit. Testimony of B.A.C.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 101). Testimony of E.C., taken by the IACHR at the meeting of community leaders in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009.

[302] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit. Testimony of R.U.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 449).

[303] Testimony of C.A.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 70).

[304] Testimony of J.A.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 258).

[305] Testimony of J.B.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 52). Testimony of F.W.C.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 294). Testimony of R.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 286).

[306] Testimony of J.M.M.E., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 299).

[307] Testimony of V.C.M.D., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 249).

[308] Testimony of O.P.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 218).

[309] Testimony of L.M.J.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 225). The beatings had split his right ear open.

[310] Testimony of R.H.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 291). Testimony of B.A.C.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 101).

[311] Testimony of W.E.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 236).

[312] Testimony of J.A.O.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 167).

[313] Testimony of H.S.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 450).

[314] Testimony of D.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 51). Testimony of J.B.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 52).

[315] Testimony of G.M.M.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 94). Testimony of V.C.M.D., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 249).

[316] Testimony of M.G.E.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 113).

[317] Cf. Testimony of M.G.E.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 113).

[318] Testimony of C.A.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 70).

[319] Testimony of Y.D.C.Z., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 85). The owner of the bus that had allegedly been used to broadcast at the protest had reportedly been forced off and the vehicle had been confiscated.  The police claimed to have found rounds of ammunition inside the bus, which the owner says are not his property. Testimony of J.A.E.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 245).

[320] Jesuit Ministries’ Team of Reflection, Research and Communication in Honduras [Equipo de Reflexión, Investigación y Comunicación de la Compañía de Jesús en Honduras] (ERIC), Preliminary Report.  Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], El Progreso, Department of Yoro, received by the IACHR on August 17, 2009.

[321] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit, p. 14.

[322] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit, p. 14. Testimony of R.G.N., cited in ERIC, Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], op. cit.

[323] Testimony of R.G.N., cited in ERIC, Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], op. cit.

[324] Testimony of C.A.Z., cited in ERIC, Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], op., cit.

[325] Testimony of R.G.N., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 9). “Disparos y gases dejar 6 heridos en El Progreso” [“Bullets and gas leave 6 injured in El Progreso], El País, July 1, 2009.

[326] Testimony of E.I.M.M. and A.B., cited in ERIC, Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], op. cit.

[327] Testimony of S.E.P.M., cited in ERIC, Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], op. cit. The demonstrators who went to the city’s public hospital to have their wounds treated were allegedly not given satisfactory care.

[328] Testimony of F.L., cited in ERIC, Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], op. cit.

[329] Testimony of M.M. cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit.

[330] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit.

[331] Case file 174-09 with the El Progreso District Trial Court, department of Yoro, received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 518).

[332] Testimony of A.R.C.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 287).

[333] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit. In a communication dated July 3, 2009, the IACHR requested information from the State about this situation.

[334] International Holistic Forum, e-mail received by the IACHR on July 4, 2009. Pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention, in a communication dated July 10, 2009, the IACHR requested information from the State in connection with this matter.

[335] E-mail received on July 3, 2009, by the managing editor of Channel La Cumbre in Bonito Oriental in the Department of Colón.  By a communication dated July 10, 2009, the IACHR requested information concerning this event, pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention.

[336] Testimony of L.R.A. (who had allegedly been shot in the head), taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 147). Testimony of D.D.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 146).

[337] Testimony of I.C.G.P. and A.R.S.L. concerning their son, received by the IACHR in Honduras on August 17, 2009 (No. 21).

[338] Testimony of L.R.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 147).

[339] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit.

[340] Information received by the IACHR during the meeting with the Military High Command in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[341] Testimony of D.K.D., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 144).

[342] Testimony of R.A.B.L., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 21, 2009 (No. 152).

[343] Testimony of J.T.G., C.A.G.B. and O.E.G.M., taken by the IACHR en Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (Nos. 63, 69 and 140).

[344] Testimony of O.T.G.F., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 67); Testimony of J.F.M.M., G.M.O., R.F.R., A.P.C., M.A.C., L.E.G., O.A.M.C., L.A.B.I and R.E.E.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 8); Testimony of L.Z.A. and J.R.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 19); Testimony of V.E.A., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 17, 2009 (No. 23); Testimony of  X.E.S.C., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 28); Testimony of M.P.P.P., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 57); Testimony of M.I.M.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 58); Testimony of J.A.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 59); Testimony of R.L.C., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 60); Testimony of A.M.M.P., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 62); Testimony of R.O.F.A., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 64); Testimony of M.L.G.C., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 65); Testimony of C.A.G.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 69); Testimony of S.A.F.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 71); Testimony of D.I.C.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 77); Testimony of O.C.D., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 79); Testimony of J.D.C., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 80); Testimony of N.G.D.G. (No. 81) and E.R.D.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 82); Testimony of R.G.M., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 83); Testimony of N.G.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 87); Testimony of L.A.A.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 89); Testimony of E.L.M.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 90); Testimony of A.C.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 91); Testimony of R.J.R.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 92); Testimony of D.P.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 93); Testimony of M.L.C.O., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 97); Testimony of J.D.F., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 98); Testimony of M.M.M., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 99); Testimony of N.G.V., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 100); Testimony of R.D.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 103); Testimony of A.S.A., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 104); Testimony of M.A.B.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 105); Testimony of L.F.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 106); Testimony of S.E.S.L., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 107); Testimony of E.T.G.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 151); Testimony of D.L.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 154); Testimony of M.I.M.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 209); Testimony of O.C.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 223); Testimony of A.V.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 243); Testimony of C.L.P.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 243); Testimony of F.P.C.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 243); Testimony of M.L.G.C., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 65).

[345] Testimony of R.G.M., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 83).

[346] Testimony of J.F.M.M., G.M.O., R.F.R., A.P.C., M.A.C., L.E.G., O.A.M.C., L.A.B.I. and R.E.E.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 8); Testimony of M.I.M.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 58); Testimony of R.O.F.A., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 64); Testimony of L.F.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 106); Testimony of A.I.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 243).

[347] Testimony of G.A., E.R.D.G., M.I.M.R., N.G.D.G., R.G.M., R.O.F.A., P.R., B.A., S.H.F.G., J.T., A.B., M.M., L.F., M.L.G., O.A.C.V., L.A.A.G., A.I.L.A., L.A.A., E.L.M., R.T.P., M.A.L., R.G.D., E.C., N.G.B., D.B., A.V.M., M.C., E.C., E.G. and R.B., cited in COFADEH, Informe sobre el deterioro de los Derechos Humanos en Honduras en el marco del golpe de Estado [Report on the deterioration of the human rights situation in Honduras in the context of the coup d’état], document delivered to the IACHR during its visit.

[348] Testimony of S.C.C.E., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 111).

[349] Testimony of N.G.D.G., E.R.D.G., O.C.D., R.A.L.A., R.G.D., F.P.U., P.A.C., L.G., S.E.G.D., R.T., L.A.R.P., F.P., J.S., M.S., L.C.R., J.C., J.R.U.U., M.T.A., V.C.M., M.A.U.B., J.R.M., B.V., M.J.M., A.S.A., H.C., M.P.P., D.Y.I., J.E.C., D.I.C.R., O.E.G.M., M.B., S.C., E.S., R.A.B.L., P.C., O.C., C.R.V., M.S., G.N.J., J.R.U., M.A.A., J.A.A., C.R.M., F.A.C., I.S.E., D.F.B., W.R., N.G.V., L.F., M.B., R.F., S.C., J.M.S.M., S.G.G.C., W.A.S.S., E.L.M., R.D., O.D.O.B., D.G., R.O.B.G., D.A.F., E.G.S., A.I.O., R.C., A.L.V., V.C., O.T.F.G., M.L.G.C., S.A.V., R.I.C., V.G., C.F.A., E.S., R.N., A.M.M., D.P., A.C., M.G.B., D.M.A., M.G., F.A.S.F., M.E.V., N.H., M.E.S., M.E.V., S.A.C.C., E.C.I., R.C.V., M.R.C., A.M.O.M., H.B.A., J.R.F.M., F.V.A., F.V., R.D.G., S.G.G.C., E.M.F., N.R., A.G.G.G., C.R.V.S., R.E.C., J.C.C., I.C.M., S.M.C., R.G.R., B.M.R., R.H.N., B.G.L., E.F.G.E., E.V.M., M.K.G.C., R.H., R.A.R, F.J.V.B., S.L.A., M.L.C., A.P.C. I.C.G., P.V., M.R.L., M.E.M., L.B., J.C, L.G.C, R.C.V., O.C.P., O.M.O., S.E.H., D.D., O.A.C.V., A.A.G, G.A.L.T., E.R.V., J.S.V.C., M.S., M.R.R.P., J.L.H.M.U, and C.A.G.B., in COFADEH, Informe sobre el deterioro de los Derechos Humanos en Honduras en el marco del golpe de Estado [Report on the deterioration of the human rights situation in Honduras in the context of the coup d’état], op. cit. See also, Testimony of F.E.A.F., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 68); Testimony of J.R.E.S., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 61); Testimony of M.L.G.C., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 65); Testimony of F.V., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 66); Testimony of N.A.M.D., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 73); Testimony of M.E.S.H., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 75); Testimony of N.G.D.G. (No. 81) and of E.R.D.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 82); Testimony of E.L.M.G., taken by the IACHR on August 20, 2009 (No. 90); Testimony of R.J.R.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 92); Testimony of M.L.C.O., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 97); Testimony of J.D.F., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 98); Testimony of A.S., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 108); Testimony of E.T.G.G., taken in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 151); Testimony of D.L.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 154); Testimony of E.L.M.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 90); Testimony of N.G.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 87).

[350] Testimony of C.H.R.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 128); Testimony of H.M.H.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 149); Testimony of I.R.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 150); Testimony of O.M.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 208); Testimony of C.B.D., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 246); Testimony of X.Z.M.Z., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 248); Testimony of E.F.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 254); Testimony of E.L.C.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 155); Testimony of J.A.R.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 263); Testimony of J.M.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 234); Testimony of V.M.V.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 39); Testimony of C.M.L.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 235); Testimony of D.D.P.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 35); Testimony of B.G.P.A., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 42); Testimony of A.D.O.A. and O.M.R.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 208).  The Supreme Court stated the following in its observations: “36.  As for the persons who were hit in the face or on the buttocks and arms when they were dispersed by Police after they blocked the road leading into Tegucigalpa in the village of Durazno, the Commission is informed that the Police proceeded to disperse these demonstrators in the proper manner and in exercise of the legal authority they are given in their Organic Statute.” Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 16.

[351] According to the testimony of D.C., “a patrol vehicle went by carrying detained persons; when it lurched, one policeman fell off.  When he got up he started firing shots into the air.  We were frightened and ran off.  A couple of minutes later three shots were fired.  I heard that one of our companions had been injured.  It was Roger Abraham Vallejo.  We called the Red Cross but they never responded. CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit. Testimony of M.O.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Honduras on August 18, 2009 (No. 445). For its part, pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention, the IACHR sent a letter in which it requested information regarding police supression of the demonstration on July 30, 2009.  In that note, the IACHR singled out the situation of Roger Vallejos Soriano. Finally, when it learned of Vallejo’s death on August 1, 2009, it requested information again, this time in a communication dated August 7, 2009.

[352] Testimony of M.K.M.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 22); Testimony of T.G.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 24); Testimony of D.I.R.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 25); Testimony of C.D.H.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 34); Testimony of O.J.E.V.C. and E.A.B.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 47).

[353] Testimony of M.C., cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit.

[354] Testimony of J.O.R.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 204).

[355] Testimony of M.V.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 203); Testimony of D.A.M.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 207).

[356] Testimony of D.A.M.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 207).

[357] Testimony of J.L.C.E., cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit. Testimony of J.L.R.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 157).

[358] CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit. Testimony of S.D.N., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 242).

[359] Testimony of J.L.C.E. cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit. Testimony of A.R.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 297); Testimony of T.G.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 24); Testimony of K.P.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 27).

[360] Testimony of C.R.R.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 26); Testimony of R.A.M.O., taken in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 431). The Supreme Court stated the following in its observations: “Concerning the alleged violation of university autonomy said to have occurred in Tegucigalpa on August 5, when members of the police force and the Cobra special strike force entered university grounds, the authorities took this action in order to pursue various demonstrators who had committed acts of vandalism to private property in the area and had set fire to a vehicle in the university.  The National Police acted in accordance with Article 52 of the Police and Social Coexistence Act.” Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 16,
paragraph 37.

[361] CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit.

[362] Testimony of M.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 283); Testimony of E.G.R., D.M., C.D.R., F.P. and A.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 273). Pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention, in an August 7, 2009 communication the IACHR requested information concerning the events described here.

[363] Testimony of C.S.S.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 36); Testimony of J.N.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 224); Testimony of G.Y.C.E., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 29); Testimony of A.R.B.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 40).

[364] Testimony of S.A. cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit.

[365] Testimony of O.E.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 296).

[366] Testimony of A.D.O.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 440).

[367] Testimony of C.R.R.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 26); Testimony of K.P.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 27); Testimony of P.E.V.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 45); Testimony of D.F.C.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 41).

[368] Testimony of N.L.C.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 444).

[369] Testimony of L.M.O.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 44); Testimony of P.E.V.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 45); Testimony of N.L.C.G., V.Y.M. and D.C.R.T., taken by the IACHR en Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009.

[370] Testimony of L.M.O.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 44).

[371] Testimony N.L.C.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 444).

[372] Testimony of K.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 158); Testimony of R.E.T.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 50); Testimony of C.A.E., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 288); Testimony of F.D.R.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 264); Testimony of G.G.R., taken by the IACHR on August 18, 2009 (No. 292).

[373] “13 bombas molotov y 6 candelas explosivas hallan en la Pedagógica” [13 Molotov cocktails and 6 other explosive devices found on campus of teachers’ university], Diario La Tribuna, August 13, 2009; “Hallan bombas molotov en la Pedagógica” [Molotov cocktails found at Teachers’ University], Diario El Heraldo, August 12, 2009 (No. 517).

[374] Testimony of D.A. and J.N.P.L., N.G.R.L., taken in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123); Testimony of J.L.R.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 157); Testimony of C.M.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 231); Testimony of G.B.A. and A.J.A.G., taken by the IACHR on August 19, 2009 (No. 216); Testimony of J.M.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 290).

[375] Testimony of A.D.C.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 54).

[376] Testimony of R.E.T.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 50).

[377] Testimony of M.R.A.B., J.P.M.A., D.A., N.G.R.L., A.L.O.C., O.D.G.C., A.S.C.H., M.C.L. and G.A.F.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 213).

[378] Testimony of J.P.M.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123).

[379] Testimony of E.Z.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 1); Testimony of D.R.P.M., taken by the IACHR on August 21, 2009 (No. 247).

[380] Testimony of E.N.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa during the meeting with community leaders on August 17, 2009 (No. 155).

[381] Testimony of E.N.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa during the meeting with community leaders on August 17, 2009 (No. 155); for their part, W.S.L and M.I.F. stated in their testimony, taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 that they had been witnesses to the repression that the individual in question suffered (No. 267).

[382] Testimony of S.A.O.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 227).

[383] Testimony of E.E.R.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 216).

[384] Testimony of H.M.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 16); Testimony of M.M.V.Q., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 111); Testimony of S.C.C.E. and E.C.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 111); Testimony of H.M.V. and J.E.C., cited in ERIC, Violación a los derechos humanos fundamentales [Violation of basic human rights], op. cit.

[385] Testimony of H.T., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 10); Testimony of D.O.Z.F. and R.U., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 14).

[386] Testimony of S.E., taken by the IACHR at the meeting with human rights defenders in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009.

[387] Testimony of O.E.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 296).

[388] Testimony of J.E.E.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 166).

[389] Testimony of I.C.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 78).

[390] The Coordinator of the Revolutionary University Force told the IACHR that police agents in disguise were on university campuses on July 8, 2009; that students were followed on August 14, 2009, and that threatening notes were found at the FUR headquarters on August 19, 2009 (No. 269). Furthermore, a member of the Revolutionary Motorcyclists Club said that because of his participation in the marches protesting against the coup, he was harassed and followed on July 15, 2009; on June 18, 2009, they tapped his telephone and on July 21 police had tried to enter his home with a supposed search warrant.  He also reported the presence of of undercover agents inside the motorcyclists’ club.  Testimony of J.M.O.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 161); Testimony of G.A.A.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 281).

[391] IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas, op. cit., paragraph 56.

[392] For example, Executive Decree 016-2009 contained a provision that made authorization from the police or Army a prerequisite for holding public assemblies.

[393] Tegucigalpa Criminal Trial Court, Record of order for precautionary measures in the case of Agustina Flores López, dated October 12, 2009.  Case file 39641-09. CEJIL, Violaciones de derechos humanos [Violations of human rights], op.cit.

[394] Court No.7, Record of the order for Precautionary Measures, Case File 39633-09. Information received by the IACHR on November 3, 2009.

[395] Information received by the IACHR during the meeting with the Secretariat of Defense in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[396] Information received by the IACHR during the meeting with Police officials in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[397] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 19, paragraph 50.

[398] IACHR, Report No. 57/02 (Merits), Case 11,382, Finca La Exacta (Guatemala), October 21, 2002, paragraphs 35 et seq.; IACHR, Report No. 32/04 (Merits), Case 11,556, Corumbiara Massacre (Brazil), March 11, 2004, paragraphs 164 et seq.

[399] IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas, op. cit, paragraph 65, citing from ECHR, Case Ribitsch v. Austria, Judgment of 4 December 1995, Series A No. 336, paragraph 38.

[400] IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas, op. cit., paragraph 65.

[401] IACHR, Justicia e Inclusion Social: los desafíos de la democracia en Guatemala [Justice and social inclusion:  the challenges of democracy in Guatemala], in Spanish only, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118, December 29, 2003, paragraph 113.

[402] IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights in Venezuela, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118, October 24, 2003, paragraph 272.

[403] IACHR, Report on the situation of human rights defenders in the Americas, op. cit., paragraph 66. I/A Court H.R., Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela Case. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paragraph 67.

[404] I/A Court H.R., Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago Case. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paragraph 217.

[405] I/A Court H.R., Bulacio v. Argentina Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 124; Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 240.

[406] Article 5 of the Manual on the Use of  Force for Honduran Law Enforcement Institutions provides that: “The appropriate levels of non-lethal force shall be applied in the following order:  persuasion; physical restraint; preventive custody; use of irritant sprays that do not cause permanent injury; use of batons; use of police flashlights, use of police vehicles.”

Article 9:  “If tear gas spray is available, it may be used if it is necessary to physically subdue a criminal and thus avoid the use of batons or firearms.  In this case, the following steps must be followed:  1. Spray a short burst in the direction of the subject’s face to physically disable him, but keep his face and skin exposed to the air.  Whenever possible the subject’s face and affected skin should be washed with water. 2.  If the tear gas causes some injury, the subject is to be given medical treatment. 3. A verbal report is to be filed with one’s immediate superior and a written report is to be drafted as soon as possible.”

Article 11: “Peaceful resistance by a person is not sufficient cause to justify the use of batons.  In such a situation, the police officer should endeavor to find some other means to restrain the subject before resorting to batons.” Article 12: “The following use of the police stick shall be prohibited:  1. - Striking the person on the head, spinal column, sternum, kidneys and genitalia; 2. - Strangling a person. 3. - Putting a person in a restraining lock that can dislocate joints or break bones.”

[407] Information received during the IACHR’s meeting with high-ranking police officials in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[408] Information received during the IACHR’s meeting with the Military High Command in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009.

[409] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, pp. 12-13, paragraph 23.

[410] According to the information presented during the IACHR’s 137th regular session, 133 people were subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, 211 were assaulted with unconventional weapons, 453 were injured or beaten, and 21 suffered serious injuries. COFADEH, Segundo informe [Second report], op. cit.
p. 11.

[411] United Nations, Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials,” adopted at the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, Havana, Cuba, August 27 to September 7, 1990, principles 4 and 9.  See also, Courte HR, Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160,
paragraph 239.

[412] Article 40 of the draft Decree received by the IACHR on August 21, 2009, reads as follows: “Conscription. Citizens shall be conscripted into military service when any of the following conditions are present: 1) when the Armed Forces’ operational preparedness is below seventy percent (70%); 2) when a public calamity or emergency occurs that requires the use of state resources to mitigate its effects; and 3) when indicia confirm the presence of external threats of invasion or an attack on the national territory.  Reserves shall be mobilized for the reasons specified in this law.”

[413] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 19, paragraph 51.

[414] Testimony of H.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 313).

[415] Testimony of M.R.N.M.; taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 315); Testimony of C.J.T., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 399); Testimony of J.V.C.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 400).

[416] Testimony of M.R.N.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 315)

[417] Testimony of M.R.N.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 315); Testimony of M.A.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 391); Testimony of J.C.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 392); Testimony of N.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 393); Testimony of C.A.D.Z., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 395); Testimony of D.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 396); Testimony of A.Y.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 398); Testimony of I.P.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 401); Testimony of D.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 402); Testimony of J.D.L.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 404).

[418] Testimony of D.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 325); Testimony of J.C.A.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 326); Testimony of O.E.R.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009  (No. 327); Testimony of J.O.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 328); Testimony of L.R.A.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 329); Testimony of J.H.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 330); Testimony of S.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 331); Testimony of E.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 332); Testimony of L.G.A.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 333); Testimony of E.J.M.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 353).

[419] Testimony of A.R.M.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 355); Testimony of M.E.E.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 356); Testimony of J.R.A.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 357); Testimony of J.D.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 358). Testimony of E.G.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 359); Testimony of M.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 360); Testimony of E.J.E.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 361); Testimony of M.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 362); Testimony of H.J.I.R.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 363); Testimony of J.E.A.Q., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 364); Testimony of W.R.A.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 365); Testimony of C.Y.H.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 367); Testimony of F.G.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 368); Testimony of G.A.A.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 378); Testimony of J.M.C.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 379); Testimony of D.A.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 388); Testimony of W.P.M.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 389); Testimony of A.Y.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 390); Testimony of D.A.A.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 403); Testimony of V.M.C.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 405); Testimony of M.E.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 406); Testimony of A.S.G.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 407); Testimony of L.E.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 408); Testimony of D.I.B.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 409); Testimony of K.Y.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 410); Testimony of J.P.F.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 411); Testimony of A.V.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 412); Testimony of D.E., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 413); Testimony of J.C.A.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 414); Testimony of W.C.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 416); Testimony of I.M.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 417); Testimony of D.S.I.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 418); Testimony of H.A.D.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 419); Testimony of J.R.E., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 420); Testimony of J.R.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 421); Testimony of O.A.C.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 422); Testimony of E.A.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 423); Testimony of S.Y.H.Z., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 424); Testimony of Y.A.L.D., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 425); Testimony of N.R.C.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 426); Testimony of M.J.A.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 427).

[420] Testimony of D.E.P.E, taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 334); Testimony of N.N.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 335); Testimony of R.L.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 336); Testimony of M.G.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 337); Testimony of A.M.S., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 338); Testimony of L.C.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 339); Testimony of N.Y.G.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 340); Testimony of D.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 341); Testimony of M.S.F., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 342); Testimony of M.A.M.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 343); Testimony of R.R.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 344); Testimony of V.J.H.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 345); Testimony of M.D.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 346); Testimony of N.R.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 347); Testimony of D.M.O.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 348); Testimony of A.A.F.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 349); Testimony of P.M.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 350); Testimony of C.J.C.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 351); Testimony of P.R.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 352); Testimony of R.O.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 366); Testimony of R.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 369); Testimony of I.E., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 370); Testimony of M.C.T., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 371); Testimony of L.A.H.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 372); Testimony of Z.E.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 373); Testimony of G.Y.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 374); Testimony of V.M.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 375); Testimony of J.F.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 376); Testimony of J.R.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 377); Testimony of I.V., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 397); Testimony of D.M.S.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 428); Testimony of J.R.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 429); Testimony of D.J.G.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 430).

[421] Article 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights reads as follows: “Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party”.

[422] IACHR, Report No. 39/96 (Inadmissibility), Case 11.673, Marzioni (Argentina), October 15, 1996, paragraphs 48 and 49.

[423] IACHR, Report No. 53/01 (Merits), Case 11,565, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez (Mexico), April 4, 2001, paragraph 23.

[424] I/A Court H.R., Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador Case. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, paragraph 57; I/A Court H.R., Tibi v. Ecuador Case. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114,
paragraph 98.

[425] I/A Court H.R., Acosta Calderón vs. Ecuador Case, op. cit., paragraph 74; Tibi vs. Ecuador Case, op. cit., paragraph 97; Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers vs. Peru Case, op. cit., paragraph 82.

[426] As the Court has held on several occasions, “the State, which is responsible for detention facilities, is the guarantor of these rights of detainees.”” I/A Court H.R., Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru Case. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20 paragraph 60; Cantoral Benavides v. Peru Case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 87.

[427] IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/ll.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., October 22, 2002, paragraph 121.

[428] The following were detained at the fourth police station in the Belén Section:  i) on June 28, 2009, 22 detainees for breach of the peace; ii) June 29, 2009, 75 detainees for breach of the peace and 26 for curfew violation; iii) June 30, 2009, 46 persons detained for breach of the peace and 14 for curfew violation; iv) on July 1, 2009, 16 detainees for  breach of the peace and 14 for curfew violation; v) July 2, 2009, 18 persons detained for breach of the peace and 26 for curfew violation; vi) July 3, 2009, 14 persons detained for  breach of the peace and 74 for curfew violation; vii) July 4, 2009 (as of 11:00 a.m.) 9 persons detained for  breach of the peace, including seven minors.

At the district 1-3 police post, Colonia San Miguel, the following were detained for breach of the peace and curfew violation;  i) on June 28, 2009, 19 adults, 1 minor; ii) July 29, 10 adults, 5 minors; iii) July 2, 10 adults.

At the district 3-3 police post, Barrio La Granja, the following were detained for breach of the peace and curfew violation:  i)  June 29, 17 adults, 5 minors; ii) June 30,  6 adults, 2 minors;  iii) July 1, 4 adults, 1 minor; iv) July 2,  7 adults and 3 minors; v) July 4, 8 adults and 6 minors; vi) July 5,  8 adults and 2 minors; vii) July 6, 28 adults and 17 minors.

At district 1-4 police post, Colonia Kennedy, the following were detained for breach of the peace and curfew violation: i) June 28,  1 adult; ii) June 29, 1 adult; iii) June 30, 5 adults; iv) July 2, 6 adults and 3 minors; v) July  3, 11 adults; vi) July 4, 17 adults; vii) July 5, 13 adults and 7 minors; viii) July 8, 1 adult; ix) July 9, 1 adult; x) July 10, 24 adults and 6 minors.

At the police post serving the El Manchén Barrio, the following were detained for breach of the peace and curfew violation:  i) June 28, 34 adults and 3 minors; ii) July 4, 66 adults; iii) July 6, 25 adults; iv) July 7, 13 adults; v) July 8, 8 adults; vi) July 9 8 adults, vii) July 10, 22 adults; viii) July 11, 31 adults, and ix) July 12, 11 adults.

As of August 14, 2009, 1046 persons had been detained in the Central District; 104 persons in Tocoa, Department of Colón; 233 persons in San Pedro Sula, department of Cortés; 60 persons in Santa Bárbara; 9 persons in Trujillo, department of Colón; 7 persons in El Progreso, department of Yoro; 1 person in Marcala, La Paz, and 241 persons in the department of El Paraíso. COFADEH, Informe preliminary [Preliminary report], op. cit.

[429] COFADEH, Segundo informe. Violaciones a derechos humanos en el marco del golpe de Estado en Honduras. Cifras y Rostros de la Represión [Second Report.  Human Rights Violations in the context of the coup d’état in Honduras.  Figures and Faces of Repression]. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.cofadeh.org7html/documentos/segundo_informe_situacionl_resumen_violaciones_
ddhh_golpe_estado.pdf
.

[430] Information supplied to the IACHR during the meeting with the Secretariat of Security in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 524).

[431] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit. Testimony of F.W.C.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 18, 2009 (No. 294).

[432] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Violations], op. cit.  Case file on Petition of Habeas Corpus No. 62-09 filed on behalf of Ernesto Bardales, Darlyn García Rodríguez, Joel Elio Vásquez, Luis Cruz, Elvin Espinoza, Ever Jeovanny Flores, Cristian Isabel Sánchez, Miguel Angel Chavarria, José David Barahona, José Manuel Pacheco and Germán Danilo Amaya. In her report, the executor judge denied the petition alleging that the detention “had been lawful.”  Information received by the IACHR on August 19, 2009 (No. 211).

[433] Case file 61-09 on writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Ernesto Bardales and Abrahan Pavón Zalasar. Information received by the IACHR on August 19, 2009 (No. 212).

[434] Testimony of J.L.C.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 304).

[435] Testimony of J.E.E.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 166).

[436] Testimony of O.A.P.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 306).

[437] CONADEH Report, op. cit., p. 11.

[438] Testimony of C.G.D.S. and C.A.P.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 145).

[439] Testimony of R.B.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 152). Testimony of D.L.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 154). Testimony of O.T.F.G., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 67).

[440] Testimony of M.P.P., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 57).

[441] Testimony of J.F.M.M., G.M.O., R.F.R., A.P.C., M.A.C., L.E.G., O.A.M.C., L.A.B.I. and R.E.E.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 8). Testimony of R.O.F.A., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 64). Testimony of C.A.G.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 69). Testimony of N.A.M.D., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 73). Testimony of M.E.S.H., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 75). Testimony of J.C., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 80). Testimony of J.J.M.M., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 84). Testimony of E.L.M.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 90). Testimony of A.C.R., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 91). Testimony of D.P.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 93). Testimony of M.L.C.O., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 97). Testimony of J.D.F., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 98). Testimony of N.G.V., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 100). Testimony of R.D.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 103). Testimony of A.S.A., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 104). Testimony of Leocadio Fiallos Gonzales, taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 106). Testimony of O.T.F.G., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 67). Testimony of N.A.M.D., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 73). Testimony of R.B.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 152). Testimony of J.E.C.R., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 219).Testimony of D.L.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 154).

[442] Testimony of J.F.M.M., G.M.O., R.F.R., A.P.C., M.A.C., L.E.G., O.A.M.C., L.A.B.I. and R.E.E.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 8). Testimony of J.R.E.S., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 61).

[443] Testimony of A.V.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 243). Testimony of M.A.B.B., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 105).

[444] Testimony of N.G.D., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 81).

[445] Testimony of D.I.R.H., taken by the IACHR in Comayagua on August 20, 2009 (No. 25). Testimony of C.H.R.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 128). Testimony of C.B.D., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 20, 2009 (No. 246). Testimony of Ronnie Huete, taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 19, 2009 (No. 286).

[446] CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit.

[447] Testimony of H.M.H.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 149).

[448] Pursuant to Article 41 of the American Convention, the IACHR requested information concerning the injured persons and the 45 detainees at the Barrio Belén police station.

[449] Testimony of O.M., M.C., L.R.F., C.H.R., E.A.B.C., V.M.V., P.P., C.B.D., L.A.B., L.C., C.H.R. and J.B., cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit.

[450] Testimony of M.V.P., taken by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 203). Testimony of D.A.M.G., taken by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 207).

[451] Testimony in the Petition of Habeas Corpus Case File No. 67-09. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[452] In the habeas corpus case, it was determined that the detention was unlawful and arbitrary and the immediate release of the detainees was ordered.  Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 219). Testimony of W.A.R.G., P.D.G.C.A., E.C.M., H.R.L.  Case file No. 68-09 on a petition of habeas corpus. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 212). Testimony of P.D.C.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 11).

Case file No. 67-09 on the petition of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Gustavo Mejía, Edgardo Castro, Porfirio Casco, Evangelina Aguilar Carvajal, José Leonel Gonzáles Márquez, José Luis Argueta, Eva Aguilar, José Germán Martínez, Gustavo Henriquez, Maritza Morales Paz, Manuel de Jesús Ríos, Nancy Ondina Ponce Rosales (who was pregnant), José Natividad Vásquez, Wilmer Rodríguez García, Nelly Marcela Rosales Gonzales, Juan Ramón Urbina Reyes, Miriam Palacios, Eugenio Castro Mendoza, Valdemar García Moran, Gustavo Antonio Mejía Escobar, Carlos Roberto Muñoz, Roberto Carlos Mejía, Cristóbal Rolando Mejía, Martín de Jesús Antúnez, José Luis Aguilar Castillo, Jony Alexis Ramos, Gerardo Moisés Morel, Walter Geovany Córdoba and Oscar López. In habeas corpus case file No. 69-09, another executor judge appeared at the detention center and granted the petition of habeas corpus, even though the detainees had already been released by order of another executor judge.  Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124). Testimony of C.O.M.V.B., taken by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula prior to August 19, 2009 (No. 13).

[453] Habeas corpus case file No. 69-09 on behalf of Manuel Santos, José Orlando Quiroz, Alexis Lexander Cuéllar, Sergio Danilo Turcios, José Rolando Licona and Miguel Armando López Madrid. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[454] The judge granted the writ of habeas corpus and ordered the detainees’ release.  Case File No. 69-09 on the Petition of Habeas Corpus entered on behalf of Blass Gilberto Gómez and Enrique Girón. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[455] Testimony of O.E.P.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 295).

[456] Testimony of O.E.P.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 295).

[457] By a communication dated September 4, 2009, the IACHR requested information concerning the detention of these persons.

[458] Testimony of M.R.A.B., J.P.M.A., D.A., N.G.R.L., A.L.O.C., O.D.G.C., A.S.C.H. and M.C.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123); Testimony of G.A.F.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 213); Testimony of M.A.R.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009
(No. 455).

[459] Testimony of G.A.F.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 213). Testimony of A.L.O.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 221).

[460] Testimony of J.N.P.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123).

[461] Testimony of A.S.C.H., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123).

[462] Testimony of M.R.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123). Testimony of J.D.F.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 220).

[463] Testimony of M.R.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123).

[464] Testimony of M.R.A.B., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123).

[465] CIPRODEH, Reporte de detención de manifestantes a inmediaciones del Parque Central y el Congreso Nacional [Report on the detention of demonstrators in the vicinity of the Central Park and the National Congress building]. Information received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009. Testimony of L.E.D.L., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 259).

[466] Testimony of J.P.M.A., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123).

[467] Testimony of N.G.R.L. and A.L.O.C., taken by the IACHR en Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009
(No. 123).

[468] Testimony of A.L.O.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009 (No. 123).

[469] Testimony of M.R.A.B. and A.L.O.C., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009
(No. 123).

[470] Article 60 of the Police and Social Coexistence Act provides that:  “When exercising one’s right to assemble and demonstrate in public, a person may assemble with others or parade in public places to express one’s political, religious, economic, social, or any other lawful interest, and shall not require any notice or special permit.  However, such demonstrations shall be prohibited when it is deemed that they will affect other people’s freedom of movement and rights.  In the political realm, the Law on Elections and Political Organizations must be observed.”

Article 331 of the Honduran Criminal Code reads as follows:  “Anyone who unlawfully calls for or leads any assembly or demonstration shall face a penalty of imprisonment for a period of two (2) to four (4) years and a fine of thirty thousand (30,000) to sixty thousand (60,000) lempiras.  All assemblies attended by persons bearing arms or carrying explosive devices or other explosive or dangerous materials for the purpose of committing a crime shall be deemed to be unlawful. Those attending an unlawful meeting or demonstration bearing arms or carrying explosive devices or other explosive or dangerous materials or objects shall face the same penalty as those who call or lead the assembly or demonstration. Mere attendance at such an assembly shall carry half the penalties indicated above.  Persons who, on the occasion of an unlawful assembly or demonstration, commit acts of violence against the authority, its agents, persons or public or private property shall face the penalty described in the first paragraph of this article, in addition to any penalties he or she may face for other crimes committed.  Anyone who, on his or her own initiative, attends a lawful assembly or demonstration bearing arms, explosives devices or other explosives or dangerous materials for the purpose of committing a crime, shall face the same penalty as those who call or lead an unlawful assembly or demonstration.”

[471] Court 17, Record of the initial hearing, August 18, 2009.  Case File 33054-09. Information received by the IACHR on November 3, 2009.

[472] Testimony of J.L.R.O., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 157).

[473] Testimony of J.A.Z.Y., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 160).

[474] CONADEH Report, op. cit., Annex 13.

[475] Testimony of L.A.C., taken by the IACHR  in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 20).

[476] Case file No. 71-09 in the petition of habeas corpus entered on behalf of Josué Samuel Hernández Hernández, Ramón Rodríguez Ruiz, Santos Geovanny Perdomo, Luis Gerardo Alvarado Cruz, Luis Alonso Chevez de la Rocha et al. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[477] Case file No. 72-09 in the petition of habeas corpus entered on behalf of Emin Omar Bajurto, Allan Josué Alvarado, Gerardo Enrique Caballero, José Adin Zaldívar, Elder Adonay Mejía Leiva, Ernesto Sarmiento Ayala and Karla Quiroz. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[478] That same day, 7 petitions of habeas corpus were filed, Case Files Nos. 74-09, 75-09, 76-09, 77-09, 78-09, 79-09, and 80-09. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[479] Testimony of B.R.C.V., E.E.C.C., O.J.A.L. and H.J.M., taken by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 303). Public complaint from the Federación de Organizaciones Magisteriales de Bonito Oriental [Federation of Teachers Organizations of Bonito Oriental], Colón. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 302).

[480] Testimony of J.E.C., R.E., C.A.L., M.H. and J.F. Case file No. 76-09 in the petition of habeas corpus entered on behalf of Justo Pastor Reyes, Jubentino Bonilla Orellana, Paulino Flores, Enrique Villatoro, Eldin Eledio Argueta, Edwin Castillo, Jesús Adalberto Fajardo García, Gustavo Adolfo Cardoza, José Santiago Rivera Escobar, Luis Antonio Álvarez, Marin René Moreno Lemus, José Julio Umaña, Enrique Emenelio Cáceres Castillo, Ever Eleaquin Torres López, Olvin Javier Lainez, Héctor Geovani Marais, Enrique Cáceres Castillo, Bertilio Cabrera, Wilmer Alfredo Cardoza Mendoza, Nery Sanchez Perdomo, Kelin Danelia Vásquez, Greicy Judith Rivera, José Geobani Chávez Amador, Carlos Alberto Linares, Marcial Hernández, Jesús Adalberto Fajardo, Rogelio Mejía Espinoza, and Héctor Manuel Vásquez. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[481] Testimony of M.V., E.C. and S.C.C. Case file No. 76-09 in the petition of habeas corpus entered on behalf of Justo Pastor Reyes, Jubentino Bonilla Orellana, Paulino Flores, Enrique Villatoro, Eldin Eledio Argueta, Edwin Castillo, Jesús Adalberto Fajardo García, Gustavo Adolfo Cardoza, José Santiago Rivera Escobar, Luis Antonio Álvarez, Marin René Moreno Lemus, José Julio Umaña, Enrique Emenelio Cáceres Castillo, Ever Eleaquin Torres López, Olvin Javier Lainez, Héctor Geovani Marais, Enrique Cáceres Castillo, Bertilio Cabrera, Wilmer Alfredo Cardoza Mendoza, Nery Sánchez Perdomo, Kelin Danelia Vásquez, Greicy Judith Rivera, José Geobani Chávez Amador, Carlos Alberto Linares, Marcial Hernández, Jesús Adalberto Fajardo, Rogelio Mejía Espinoza, and Héctor Manuel Vásquez. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[482] Testimony of G.A.D.C., as told to the National Commissioner of Human Rights. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 124).

[483] Case file No. 76-09 in the petition of habeas corpus entered on behalf of Justo Pastor Reyes, Jubentino Bonilla Orellana, Paulino Flores, Enrique Villatoro, Eldin Eledio Argueta, Edwin Castillo, Jesús Adalberto Fajardo García, Gustavo Adolfo Cardoza, José Santiago Rivera Escobar, Luis Antonio Álvarez, Marin René Moreno Lemus, José Julio Umaña, Enrique Emenelio Cáceres Castillo, Ever Eleaquin Torres Lopez, Olvin Javier Lainez, Héctor Geovani Marais, Enrique Cáceres Castillo, Bertilio Cabrera, Wilmer Alfredo Cardoza Mendoza, Nery Sánchez Perdomo, Kelin Danelia Vásquez, Greicy Judith Rivera, José Geobani Chávez Amador, Carlos Alberto Linares, Marcial Hernández, Jesús Adalberto Fajardo, Rogelio Mejía Espinoza, and Héctor Manuel Vásquez (No. 124). That same day, two other people were allegedly detained at the Río Blanco Police Post. Information received by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009.

[484] Testimony of F.C.R., taken by the IACHR in San Pedro Sula on August 19, 2009 (No. 451).

[485] CONADEH Report, op. cit., Annex 14.

[486] Information that COFADEH supplied to the IACHR on November 5, 2009.  In the detentions at the San Miguel Police Post on October 25 in the Colonia 30 de Noviembre, security forces had allegedly put tear gas in the toilet paper inside the cells. 

[487] Testimony of T.J.R., cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de violaciones [Report on violations], op. cit.  By a communication dated July 30, 2009, the IACHR requested information concerning the detainees in cells in El Paraíso and other military roadblocks along the highway leading to the border with Nicaragua.  In that communication the IACHR listed 86 detained persons by name.

[488] Testimony of T.J.R., V.B., K.S.S.P., P.R., L.M.P., M.S.B., C.B., J.G.G., H.A.M.R., S.H.S., J.F.S. and R.B., cited in CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones [Report on Violations], op. cit.

[489] Testimony of M.J.M., taken by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 21, 2009 (No. 148).

[490] CONADEH Report, op. cit. On July 27, 2009, the IACHR received a communication reporting that 39 adults and 13 minors had been taken into custody.

[491] CIPRODEH, Reporte de manifestantes trasladados en rastra [Report of demonstrators being transported in a container truck], July 28, 2009. Information received by the IACHR in Tegucigalpa on August 17, 2009. The list describes the situation of 37 persons, 6 of whom were minors.

[492] Observations made by the State of Honduras to the IACHR’s Report, dated December 22, 2009 and signed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, p. 13, paragraphs 24, 25, and 40.

[493] IACHR, Report No.45/00 (Merits), Case 10,826, Manuel Mónago Carhuaricra and Eleazar Mónago Laura, Peru, April 13, 2000, paragraph 29.

[494] IACHR, Report No. 45/00 (Merits), Case 10.826, Manuel Mónago Carhuaricra, cit., paragraph 33.

[495] Preliminary Report of the Delegation of Guatemalan Human Rights Organizations in Honduras, July 3 – 6, 2009, July 8, 2009.

[496] CIPRODEH, Reporte de Violaciones a Derechos Humanos [Report on Human Rights Violations], op. cit.

[497] Article 331 of the Honduran Criminal Code reads as follows: “All assemblies attended by persons bearing arms or carrying explosive devices or other explosive or dangerous materials for the purpose of committing a crime shall be deemed to be unlawful.”