2.Contentious Cases

1

request updated information in September 2007 and to reevaluate then Mr. Prado’s situation in order to decide the pertinence of the provisional measures request.

727.After reviewing the information provided by the parties, the Court announced on November 29, 2007 its decision to request updated information in January 2008 and to reevaluate then Mr. Prado’s situation in order to decide the pertinence of the provisional measures request. At the time of approval of the current report, the Court’s decision in this regard was still pending.

2.Contentious Cases

a.Argentina

Case of Bayarri

728.On July 16, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case 11.280, Juan Carlos Bayarri v. the Argentine Republic, for its responsibility in violating Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, with respect to Mr. Juan Carlos Bayarri, in his illegal and arbitrary arrest in the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, on November 18, 1991, his torture at the hands of police officers, his detention in preventive custody for almost 13 years, and the consequent denial of justice.

729.The victim’s brief of pleadings, motions and evidence has been filed in the proceedings before the Court.

Case of Bueno Alves

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

731.On May 11, 2007, after giving consideration to the evidence furnished by the parties at trial and the claims they made, as well as to the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the Argentine State, the Inter-American Court handed down a judgment ruling that a violation of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, had taken place. In that judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate.

732.The full text of the judgment may be consulted at:

Case of Bulacio

733.During 2007, the Commission continued to report periodically on compliance with the reparations ordered in the Court’s decision of September 18, 2003, and in its order on compliance with sentence of November 17, 2004. In that ruling the Court ordered the State to report in detail on the progress made in investigating all the events in this case and in punishing the perpetrators, as well as on the legislative and other measures needed to bring its domestic law into line with international human rights standards and to render them fully effective, so that episodes such as this case will not be repeated.

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

735.The full text of the judgment may be found at:

Cantos Case

736.During 2007, the Commission continued to present observations periodically on compliance with the orders issued by the Court in its judgment on the merits, reparations, and costs of November 28, 2002, and in its order on compliance with sentence of November 28, 2005. In its 2005 resolution, the Court decided to keep open the procedure for monitoring compliance with the points still pending, to wit: refraining from charging Mr. José María Cantos the filing fee and fine levied for failure to pay the filing fee on time; setting, in a reasonable sum, the fees regulated in Argentine Supreme Court case C-1099; paying the fees and expenses of all experts and attorneys engaged by the State and the Province of Santiago del Estero; and lifting the attachments, general property encumbrances, and other measures that were ordered against the properties and business assets of Mr. José María Cantos in order to guarantee payment of the court filing fee and the professional fees.

737.In a communication dated December 12, 2006, the Court ordered the ArgentineState to present, no later than January 31, 2007, up-to-date information on the state of compliance with the judgment of November 28, 2002.

738.The full text of the judgment may be found at:

Garrido and Baigorria Case

739.On October 29, 2007, the President of the Inter-American Court decided to convene a private hearing, to be attended by the Inter-American Commission, the victims’ representatives, and the ArgentineState, to receive up-to-date information on the degree of compliance with the reparations judgment of August 27, 1998. That hearing took place on November 23, 2007, in San José, Costa Rica; at the event, the parties reached a series of agreements aimed at bringing about the implementation of the pending reparation measures.

740.On November 27, 2007, the Court adopted a compliance order requiring the State to adopt all measures necessary for prompt compliance with the reparations ordered in the judgment of August 27, 1998, that were still awaiting implementation, in accordance with the provisions of Article 68.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights; and requiring the State to submit, no later than February 15, 2008, a detailed report indicating all the measures adopted to implement the pending reparations ordered by the Court. In particular, the State was instructed to report to the Court on the results of the meeting along with, if possible, a timetable and action program covering compliance with the items pending from the reparations judgment issued in the case at hand. The text of the resolution in question can be seen at:

Case of Kimel

741.On April 10, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the ArgentineRepublic in case 12.450, alleging its responsibility in the violation of Articles 13 and 8 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.

742.The case deals with the criminal trial and subsequent conviction to a one-year suspended prison sentence and the payment of twenty thousand pesos in damages handed down against the historian, journalist, and writer Eduardo Kimel, author of the book La Masacre de San Patricio, which describes irregularities in the investigation of the murder of a group of Palotine clerics during the military dictatorship. The conviction was given in a libel trial filed by a former judge whose actions in the investigation were criticized in the book.

743.On June 29, 2007, the Inter-American Commission received from the Court the brief containing requests, arguments, and evidence presented by the victim’s representatives. On August 22, the Court conveyed to the Commission the ArgentineState’s brief responding to the application, in which it extended its recognition of international responsibility regarding the facts and regarding the violation of Articles 13, 8, 1.1, and 2 of the American Convention. In a communication dated September 4, 2007, the Inter-American Commission presented the Court with its written comments on the State’s recognition of international responsibility. On September 18, 2007, the President of the Court resolved to convene a public hearing on merits, reparations, and costs, which was held in the city of Bogotá, Colombia, on October 18, 2007, and was attended by the Commission, the victim, his representatives, and the ArgentineState. On that occasion the three parties signed a friendly settlement agreement in which they asked the Court to rule – in compliance with Article 63 of the American Convention – on the scope of the redress due to the victim Eduardo Kimel, to include indemnification for material and nonmaterial damages, guarantees of satisfaction and measures of nonrepetition, and costs and expenses incurred in the processing of the case before the inter-American system.

1. Barbados

Case of Boyce et al.

744.This case deals with the responsibility of the State of Barbados for violating Articles 4.1 and 4.2 (Right to Life), 5.1 and 5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, with respect to Messrs. Lennox Boyce, Jeffrey Joseph, Fredrick Benjamin Atkins, and Michael Huggins.

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

746.The public hearing in this case took place on July 11, 2007, and the Court handed down its judgment on November 20, 2007. The Court concluded that Barbados did violate Articles 4.1 and 4.2 (Right to Life) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof; Articles 5.1 and 5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment), in conjunction with Article 1.1; and Article 2 in conjunction with Articles 1.1, 4.1, 4.2, and 25. The full text of the judgment may be found at:

1. Bolivia

Case of Ticona Estrada

747.On August 8, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case No. 12.527, Renato Ticona Estrada et al. v. the Republic of Bolivia, for the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada, which began on July 22, 1980, when he was detained by an Army patrol near the Cala-Cala checkpoint in Oruro, Bolivia; for the total impunity covering that incident more than 27 years after they took place; and for the failure to provide redress to his family for the harm inflicted as a result of the loss of their loved one and the prolonged denial of justice they have suffered.

748.In the proceedings before the Court, a brief containing requests, arguments, and evidence has been received from the victim’s family.

Trujillo Oroza Case

749.This case deals with the forced disappearance of Mr. José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, which began on December 23, 1971, in the city of Santa Cruz, Bolivia. The full text of the judgment may be found at:

750.On February 7, 2007, the Commission referred to the lack of progress in locating and handing over the victim’s remains to his family and with investigating, identifying, and punishing the perpetrators. Since then, the State has conveyed no additional information to the Court.

751.The Court’s most recent order on compliance is dated November 21, 2007. The text of that resolution may be found at: As stated in that order, the State has complied with criminalizing the offense of forced disappearance of persons in its domestic law, but is pending compliance with the location and surrender of the victim’s remains to his family and with the investigation, identification, and punishment of the perpetrators.

d.Brazil

Case of Ximenes Lopes

752.On October 1, 2004, the Commission filed an application with the Court in case No. 12.237, Damião Ximenes Lopes v. the Brazilian State, because of the inhuman and degrading conditions of hospitalization of Mr. Damião Ximenes Lopes – a person with a mental disability – at a health center operating within the Single Health System of Brazil and known as the Casa de Repouso Guararapes; the blows and abuse he was subjected to by the staff of the Casa de Repouso; his death while undergoing psychiatric treatment there; and the lack of investigation and due process that have led to continued impunity in this case.

753.On July 4, 2006, the Court ruled on the merits and remedies in this case. It accepted the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State and held that Brazil did violate Mr. Ximenes Lopes’ right to life and humane treatment established in Articles 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2 of the American Convention; his family’s right to humane treatment under Article 5 of the Convention; and the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection under Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the Convention with respect to Mrs. Albertina Viana Lopes and Mrs. Irene Ximenes Lopes Miranda; all in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. In that judgment, the Court set out the forms of redress it deemed appropriate. The full text of the judgment may be found at:

754.On October 24, 2007, the Court conveyed to the Commission and to the victim’s next of kin representatives the State’s first report on compliance with the judgment on merits and reparations. The following December 5, the Court conveyed the representatives’ comments to the State and to the Commission and, later, the Commission submitted its remarks on the State’s report.

Case of Arley Escher et al. (wiretapping of social organizations’ telephone lines)

755.On December 20, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Federative Republic of Brazil in case 12.353, alleging its responsibility in the violation of Articles 11, 16, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof.

756.This case involves the wiretapping and illegal monitoring of the telephone lines of Arley José Escher, Dalton Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral, Celso Aghinoni, and Eduardo Aghinoni, members of two social organizations – the Community Association of Rural Workers (ADECON) and the Conciliaçao Avante Agricultural Cooperative (COANA), associated with the Landless Workers Movement, which promotes agrarian reform in Brazil – carried out between April and June 1999 by the Paraná State Military Police; the illegal recording and broadcasting through the public media of several conversations between the victims and the sectors they represent; and the denial of justice and of due redress owed to the victims.

Case of Sétimo Garibaldi

757.On December 24, 2007, the IACHR lodged an application with the Inter-American Court against the Federative Republic of Brazil in case No. 12.478, Sétimo Garibaldi, for its responsibility arising from its noncompliance with the obligation of investigating and punishing the murder of Mr. Sétimo Garibaldi. The killing took place on November 27, 1998, when a group of some twenty gunmen carried out the extrajudicial eviction of landless workers’ families occupying a rural estate located in Querência do Norte municipality, in the state of Paraná. The incident was reported to the police, and a police investigation was opened and sent to the archive; thus, the obstacles and mechanisms responsible for the impunity in the case were not removed; adequate judicial guarantees for pursuing the matter were not provided; and Mr. Garibaldi’s next-of-kin were denied due redress.

758.Since Brazil accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction after the murder of Mr. Sétimo Garibaldi, the facts of the application on which the IACHR’s legal claims and consequent requests for reparation measures are based address actions and omissions that took place following the date on which that jurisdiction was accepted, along with the Brazilian State’s failure to abide by its obligation of conducting an effective and proper investigation of Mr. Sétimo Garibaldi’s death and its obligation of providing an effective remedy to punish those accused of the extrajudicial killing. In its application, the Commission asked the Court to rule on the State’s international responsibility in failing to meet its international obligations by violating Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, and in failing to abide by the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights set out in Article 1.1 and the obligation to ensure domestic legal effects contained in Article 2 thereof, in consideration also of the federal clause enshrined in Article 28 of that same instrument.

e.Colombia

Case of the 19 Merchants (Álvaro Lobo Pacheco et al.)

759.On January 24, 2001, the Inter-American Commission lodged an application against the Colombian State for the arrest, disappearance, and execution, on October 6, 1987, of the merchants Álvaro Lobo Pacheco, Gerson Rodríguez, Israel Pundor, Ángel Barrera, Antonio Florez Contreras, Carlos Arturo Riatiga, Víctor Ayala, Alirio Chaparro, Huber Pérez, Álvaro Camargo, Rubén Pineda, Gilberto Ortíz, Reinaldo Corso Vargas, Hernán Jáuregui, Juan Bautista, Alberto Gómez, and Luis Sauza, and, on October 18, 1987, of Juan Montero and Ferney Fernández. On July 5, 2004, the Court ruled on the merits and remedies in the case.

760.Over the course of 2007, the Commission periodically reported on compliance with the Court’s orders contained in its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs of July 5, 2004.

761.On July 10, 2007, the Court issued an order on compliance with this judgment, in which it resolved to keep the procedure open with respect to the State’s pending obligations. These include: an investigation of the facts of the case; a serious inquiry to determine unequivocally what happened with the victims’ remains; erecting a monument to the victims’ memory, with a plaque bearing the names of the 19 merchants; providing the medical and psychological treatment required by the next-of-kin; establishing the necessary conditions for the members of the family of victim Antonio Flórez Contreras who are in exile to return to Colombia, if they so wish; guaranteeing the lives, safety, and security of the persons who made statements before the Court, and of their next-of-kin; paying the amounts specified in the judgment for loss of income for each of the 19 victims, for the expenses incurred by the relatives of eleven victims, and indemnification for nonmaterial damages; depositing the compensation ordered in favor of the beneficiaries who are minors in a banking investment in their names in a reputable Colombian bank; taking the steps necessary to locate the next-of-kin of Messrs. Juan Bautista and Huber Pérez and delivering to them the redress they are due; and covering costs and expenses. The full text of this order may be found at:

Caballero Delgado and Santana Case

762.During 2007, the Commission continued to report periodically on the implementation of the redress ordered by the Court in its judgment of January 29, 1997, and its order on compliance with it of November 27, 2003.