51.     Aware of the close relationship between the amnesty law, impunity, and the violation of fundamental human rights, the Chilean State has taken measures such as the enactment of Law N° 19.123 to compensate victims’ relatives. As it has expressed on several occasions, the IACHR repeats that the violation of victims’ rights from the moment of their arrest up to the denial of justice must be considered as a whole.

 

52.     The Inter-American Commission has duly noted that President Patricio Aylwin contacted Chile’s Supreme Court in March 1991 to urge it to consider that the amnesty in force should not and could not be an obstacle to the judicial investigation and identification of the corresponding responsibilities. The Commission also takes due note of the initiative of his successor, President Eduardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, who addressed Chile’s Chamber of Deputies on May 5, 1995, in the context of proposed amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, and reminded that body that:

 

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and the American Convention on Human Rights, two treaties ratified by Chile and currently in force, indicate the duty of states parties to investigate and judge violations of the human rights protected by those treaties, and to rule on the legal remedies brought by the victims.[26]

 

53.     Similarly, the IACHR recognizes the importance of the creation of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its work in gathering information on human rights violations and disappearances. Its report named the victims individually, including Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo, recognized that their cases constituted grave violations of fundamental rights attributable to agents of the State, and attempted to establish their whereabouts and take measures that would make full amends and clear the name of the victims and their families.

 

54.     The Commission recognizes and appreciates Law N° 19.123, an initiative of the first democratic government after the military dictatorship that provides victims’ families with: (a) a lifetime pension in an amount no less than the average income of a Chilean family; (b) a special procedure for declarations of presumed death; (c) specialized attention from the State for health care, education, and housing; (d) cancellation of educational, housing, tax, and other debts owed to state agencies; and (e) exemption from compulsory military service for victims’ children.

 

55.     Nonetheless, in accordance with Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, these measures are not enough to guarantee respect for petitioners’ human rights. The international obligations set forth in those provisions require that the right to justice in the specific case be guaranteed, that the guilty be punished, and that due reparations be made to the victims’ families.

 

56.     The Chilean State has affirmed that revocation of the amnesty law would have no effect as far as those responsible for the violations are concerned, by virtue of the principle contained in Article 9 of the American Convention and Article 19(3) of the Chilean Constitution under which criminal law cannot be applied retroactively. In this regard, the Commission points out that the principle of nonretroactive application cannot be invoked with respect to those granted amnesty, because at the time the acts in question were committed they were classified and punishable under Chilean law as then in force.

 

57.     The IACHR concludes that the Chilean State is responsible for the application of the amnesty law of April 19, 1978, in this case through the rulings of the lower courts as upheld by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of January 16, 1997. The IACHR also finds the State responsible for failing to bring its domestic law into line with the American Convention through the repeal of the amnesty law, in violation of the obligations assumed under Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof.

 

C.      The Right to a Fair Trail (Article 8 of the American Convention)

 

58.     The violation of the right to justice and the resulting impunity in the present case are the result of a chain of events. This pattern began when the military government issued a series of laws designed to form a complex legal framework of impunity for itself and for agents of the State guilty of human rights violations. This process commenced formally in 1978 when the military government enacted Decree-Law N° 2191, “the amnesty law,” and culminated with the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice on January 16, 1997.

 

59.     The Inter-American Commission has, in other cases, ruled that amnesties and the effects thereof cannot deprive victims, their family members, or survivors of the right to obtain, at a minimum, adequate reparations for violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention. This position derives largely from the Inter-American Court’s interpretation of the consequences of a state’s violation of its duty to guarantee human rights under Article 1(1) thereof. The right to adequate compensation is also intertwined with the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the Convention.[27]

 

60.     The judicial consequences of the amnesty are incompatible with the Convention in that they deny the victim the right to a fair trial as set forth in Article 8 thereof.

 

61.     Although the State has the obligation to provide effective recourse (Article 25), which must be “substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law”[28] (Article 8(1)), it is important to note that in many of Latin America’s criminal justice systems the victim has the right to file charges in criminal proceedings. Such is the case in Chile, where the victim of a crime has a fundamental right to recourse before the courts as a party in the criminal proceedings,[29] and where that activity by the victim is essential to the proceedings. In the case at hand, the amnesty law clearly affected the right of the victim and his family to obtain justice through effective recourse against those responsible for violating his human rights.

 

62.     Even if this were not the case, since the crimes in question here are public crimes--that is to say, subject to ex officio prosecution--the State has the legal obligation to investigate them, and that is an obligation that may not be delegated or renounced. It is incumbent on the Chilean State to take punitive action and press forward with the various procedural stages, in fulfillment of its duty of guaranteeing the right to justice of victims and their families. This function must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty; it must not be a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of those private individuals or upon their offer of proof.[30]

 

63.     The amnesty law also deprived the victim’s family of the possibility of obtaining reparations through Chile’s civil courts. On this point, Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides:

 

Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law . . . for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.

 

64.     In any event, under Chilean law, the possibility of initiating a civil case does not necessarily depend on the results of criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the civil claim must be lodged against a specific person in order to establish their responsibility for the alleged acts and determine the payment of compensation. The absence of an investigation by the State made it materially impossible to establish responsibility through the civil courts. Even though the Supreme Court of Chile has affirmed the fact that civil and criminal proceedings are independent,[31] the manner in which the amnesty was applied by the courts affected the right to obtain reparations through the civil courts, because it was impossible to individualize or identify those responsible for the disappearance, torture, and extrajudicial killing of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo.

 

65.     Because of the way in which it was applied and interpreted by the Chilean courts in the present case, the amnesty law prevented the victim’s family from enjoying their right to a fair trial to duly determine their civil rights, as established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention.

 

D.      The Right to Judicial Protection (Article 25 of the American Convention)

 

66.     In the case at hand, the victim and his family were deprived of their right to effective recourse against acts that violated their fundamental rights, in breach of Article 25 of the Convention:

 

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.

 

2.         The States Parties undertake:

 

a.          to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state;

 

b.         to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and

 

c.          to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

 

67.     Concerning the states’ legal obligation of providing effective domestic recourse, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has asserted the following:

 

Under the Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1).[32]

 

68.     The Inter-American Court has further explained that for such remedies to be effective, they must be suitable to address the legal right that has been infringed.[33] In interpreting this matter under the American Convention, the Court has said that:

 

The absence of an effective remedy to violations of the rights recognized by the Convention is itself a violation of the Convention by the State Party in which the remedy is lacking. In that sense, it should be emphasized that, for such a remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.[34]

 

69.     In the present case, the amnesty law and its application by the Chilean Courts barred the victim’s family’s access to effective recourse for the protection of their rights granted under Article 25 of the American Convention. Indeed, through these legislative and judicial acts, the State declined to punish the serious crimes committed against Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo that violated his rights to life, liberty, and physical and moral integrity enshrined in the American Declaration and the American Convention. In addition, the manner in which the decree-law was enforced by the Chilean courts not only kept perpetrators of human rights violations from being punished, but also ensured that no charges would be brought against those responsible; as a result, under domestic law they have been considered innocent.

 

70.     The amnesty law rendered the crimes without juridical effect and left Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo and his family without any judicial recourse that might have permitted the due trial and punishment of those responsible for the human rights violations perpetrated against him under the military dictatorship.

 

71.     By enacting and enforcing Decree-Law N° 2191, the Chilean State failed to guarantee the right enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo and his family.

 

E.       The Obligation to Investigate and Punish (Article 1(1) of the American Convention)

 

72.     Article 1(1) of the American Convention provides that the States Parties undertake to respect the rights recognized therein and to ensure their free and full exercise. As the Inter-American Court has stated, this obligation implies an actual duty on the part of the States to take measures that effectively ensure those rights.[35] By virtue of this obligation, the Chilean State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations, to use the means at its disposal to investigate violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose upon them the appropriate punishments, and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.[36]

 

73.     The IACHR believes that the amnesty law establishes a legal barrier to obtaining relevant information regarding the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation of a fundamental right; it also impedes domestic legal recourse for the judicial protection of fundamental rights established in the American Convention, the laws of Chile, and its Constitution.

 

74.     In cases concerning the applicability of amnesty laws, the Commission has reiterated that states must adopt “the measures necessary to clarify the facts and identify those responsible for the human rights violations that occurred during the de facto period.”[37] Regarding enforcement of the amnesty law in Chile, the Inter-American Commission has ruled that “the State has the obligation to investigate all violations that have been committed within its jurisdiction, for the purpose of identifying the persons responsible”[38] and that the Chilean State should “amend its domestic legislation to reflect the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights, so that violations of human rights by the ‘de facto’ military government may be investigated, with a view to identifying the guilty parties, establishing their responsibilities and effectively prosecuting them, thereby guaranteeing to the victims and their families the right to justice that pertains to them.”[39]

 

75.     In interpreting the scope of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has asserted that the obligation it contains implies:

 

The duty of the States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention and, moreover, if possible attempt to restore the right violated and provide compensation as warranted for damages resulting from the violation.[40]

 

76.     The Inter-American Court has also stated that:

 

The State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.

 

If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim’s full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction.[41]

 

77.     In its interpretation of Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has also affirmed that “the second obligation of the States Parties is to ‘ensure’ the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to every person subject to its jurisdiction . . . . As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate and punish any violation of the rights recognized by the Convention.”[42] The Court further pursues this concept in the following terms:

 

What is decisive is whether a violation of the rights recognized by the Convention has occurred with the support or the acquiescence of the government, or whether the State has allowed the act to take place without taking measures to prevent it or to punish those responsible.[43]

 

The State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.[44]

 

If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim’s full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction.[45]

 

78.     As regards the investigation, the Court notes that it “must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government.”[46]

 

79.     In the present case, the State is obliged to carry out an exhaustive investigation and to punish, through its jurisdictional bodies, those responsible for the acts that resulted in the illegal arrest and forced disappearance of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo.

 

80.     The IACHR believes it is important to note, once again, that the authorities should have conducted a serious investigation of the incident in order to establish the real, objective truth. However, the State’s apparatus instead acted in such a manner that the violations went unpunished and the rights of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo’s family were not upheld.

 

81.     The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, set up by the democratic government of Chile to investigate past human rights violations, made a commendable effort to compile information concerning human rights violations and the situations of disappeared detainees for the purpose of establishing their whereabouts and taking steps to make full amends and to clear their reputations. Nevertheless, although its work covered a large portion of the total number of cases, it did not allow for the investigation of criminal acts committed by agents of the State, nor the identification and punishment of those responsible, precisely because of the amnesty law. For this reason, the right of the surviving victims and the families to know the true facts was violated by the Chilean State.

 

82.     In addition, the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission was not a judicial body, and its function was limited to establishing the identity of the victims of violations to the right to life. Given the nature of its mandate, the National Commission did not have the authority to publish the names of those who committed crimes nor to impose any type of punishment. Consequently, notwithstanding its importance in establishing the facts and awarding compensation, this National Commission cannot be considered an adequate substitute for a judicial process. In this regard, former President of the Inter-American Court Dr. Pedro Nikken has stated that:

 

The establishment of a truth commission is a plausible means, within a political negotiation to reach peace in an armed conflict, as a first step and perhaps the most tangible contribution that can be made within that scenario to combat impunity. . .  [Nonetheless,] the establishment of the truth should not inhibit the judicial organs from judging and punishing the persons responsible, but outside the context of a political negotiation.

 

Impunity for crimes committed by state agents or under the cover of the state does not entail only the failure to punish the persons responsible for those crimes. An inseparable component of such impunity is the failure to carry out any investigation, the cover-up, and even the falsification of the facts to protect the persons responsible. There is no doubt that the discovery of the truth, which is the responsibility of independent persons, destroys that element which, while not useful in itself for eradicating impunity, fulfills at least a dual function. First, it is useful for society to learn, objectively, what happened in its midst, which translates into a sort of collective catharsis. And second, it contributes to creating a collective conscience as to the need to impede the repetition of similar acts and shows those who are capable of doing so that even if they may escape the action of justice, they are not immune from being publicly recognized as the persons responsible for very grave attacks against other human rights. In this regard, even though these do not constitute punitive mechanisms, they may perform a preventive function that is highly useful in a process of building peace and the transition to democracy.[47]

 

83.     The report of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission concluded that:

 

From a strictly preventive standpoint, this Commission considers that an indispensable element for obtaining national reconciliation and for avoiding the repetition of the acts committed would be the State’s full exercise of its power to punish. The full protection of human rights is conceivable only under a true Rule of Law. The Rule of Law assumes that all citizens be subject to the law and the courts of justice, which involves the application of punishment as stipulated by criminal law on an equal basis for all those who violate the norms which ensure respect for human rights.[48] (Emphasis added.)

 

84.     The State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the partial investigation of the facts, and the subsequent payment of compensation are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to comply with the obligations set forth in the Convention. According to Article 1(1), the State has the obligation of investigating violations committed under its jurisdiction in order to identify those responsible, impose the appropriate punishment, and provide the victim with adequate reparations.[49]

 

85.     The Inter-American Commission concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation of investigating and punishing those responsible for violating the human rights of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo and that the application of the amnesty law and, later, of statutory limitations to the action, despite the incriminating evidence that existed, demonstrates that the State also failed to comply with its obligation of imposing punishment.

 

86.     By enacting Decree-Law N° 2191 and applying it in the case of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo, the Chilean State failed to fulfill the obligation of investigating and punishing those responsible, as set forth in Articles 1(1), 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victim’s family.

 

F.       The Right to Life, Liberty, and Humane Treatment (Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention and Article I of the American Declaration)

 

87.     According to the facts described in the complaint and which the Chilean State has expressly acknowledged, Mr. Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo was deprived of his liberty on August 27, 1974, by police officers, members of the armed forces, and civilians, absent a written order from a competent authority. From that time until the date upon which this report was adopted, Mr. Catalán Lincoleo has remained a victim of forced disappearance carried out by the aforesaid agents of the Chilean State. As also said in this report, those facts have been demonstrated by the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

 

88.     In analyzing the IACHR’s competence to study the substance of this case, it has been determined that the arrest and forced disappearance of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo constitute a multiple and ongoing violation of several rights enshrined in the American Declaration and the American Convention. Article I of the American Declaration stipulates that “every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person,” while the relevant provisions of the American Convention grant the following guarantees:

 

Article 4. Right to Life

 

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.

 

Article 5. Right to Humane Treatment

 

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.

 

Article 7. Right to Personal Liberty

 

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.

 

89.     Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons defines violations of this kind:

 

For the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.[50]

 

90.     The Inter-American Court has stated that the forced disappearance of persons “is one of the most serious and cruel human rights violations.”[51] The Court’s broad jurisprudence on this matter was reiterated in another recent judgment:

 

Forced or involuntary disappearance constitutes a multiple and continuous violation of several Convention rights, in that not only does it lead to an arbitrary denial of freedom, but also endangers the detainee’s personal integrity, security, and life. It also leaves the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, opening up the way for other related crimes.

 

This phenomenon also entails neglecting the duty of organizing the governmental apparatus to ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention; as a result of this, by carrying out or tolerating actions intended to lead to forced or involuntary disappearances, by failing to properly investigate them, and by not punishing, when appropriate, the perpetrators, the State violates the duty of respecting the rights protected by the Convention and of ensuring their free and full exercise, with respect to both the victim and his relatives, for identifying his whereabouts.[52]

 

91.     The Inter-American Commission believes that the facts of this case, which have been expressly acknowledged by the Chilean State, clearly constitute the violations referred to in the articles quoted above and the corresponding interpretation. Consequently, the IACHR holds the Chilean State responsible for violating Mr. Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo’s right to life, liberty, and humane treatment as set forth in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention and in Article I of the American Declaration.

 

          VI.      ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER REPORT N° 116/00

 

92.     On December 8, 2000 the Commission adopted Report N° 116/00 in this case, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, and forwarded it to the Chilean State on December 15, 2000 with the pertinent recommendations.  The IACHR set a time period of two months for the State to inform on the measures taken toward compliance with said recommendations. 

 

93.     On February 5, 2001 the State sent a communication requesting a 30 day extension to “submit the pertinent response, considering that the competent authorities have not yet completed the actions with a view to an adequate response to the petition presented in this case”.

 

94.     The IACHR notes that the State has no presented any information regarding compliance with the recommendations in Report 116/00, as requested according to the procedural stage of this case.  The extension was not requested to adopt such measures, but rather to prepare “an adequate response to the petition”, with no indication of the actions taken so far to solve the case and provide reparations to the relatives of the victim.  The Commission must consider the foregoing in the context of this case, given that more than two years have elapsed since the IACHR placed itself at the disposal of both parties with a view to the friendly settlement procedure, and that no response was received form either of them.  Therefore, the IACHR decides not to grant the extension and approves the instant report under Article 51 of the American Convention.

 

VII.     CONCLUSIONS

 

95.     The Inter-American Commission concludes that the Chilean State has unquestionably violated, with respect to Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo, the right to personal liberty, life, and humane treatment set forth in Article I of the American Declaration and in Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention. The IACHR furthermore concludes that the Chilean State has violated, with respect to the members of Mr. Catalán Lincoleo’s family, the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Inter-American Commission also states, once again, that Decree-Law Nº 2191—the amnesty law enacted in 1978 by Chile’s former military regime—is incompatible with Articles 1, 2, 8, and 25 of the American Convention.

 

 

VIII.    RECOMMENDATIONS

 

96.     Based on the foregoing analysis and conclusions,

 

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION REITERATES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHILEAN STATE:

 

1.       Establish responsibility for the murder of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo by due process of law, so that the guilty may be duly punished.

 

2.       Adapt its domestic legislation to the provisions of the American Convention, in such a way as to leave Decree-Law N° 2191 of 1978 without effect.

 

3.       To take the steps necessary for the members of the victim’s family to receive adequate and timely compensation, including full reparations for the human rights violations described herein as well as payment of fair compensation for physical and nonphysical damages, including moral damages.

 

IX.      PUBLICATION

 

97.     On February 23, 2001 the Commission forwarded Report Nº 12/01--the text of which is in the preceding paragraphs--to the Chilean State and to the petitioners, pursuant to Article 51(2) of the American Convention; and it established a period of thirty days for the State to supply information on compliance with the above recommendations.  No response was received from the Chilean State by the date this report was approved.

 

98.     Accordingly, and pursuant to Articles 51(3) of the American Convention and 48 of the Commission’s Regulations, the Commission decides: to reiterate the conclusions and recommendations contained in Chapters VII and VIII supra; to publish this report; and to include it in the Commission’s Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS. Pursuant to the provisions contained in the instruments governing its mandate, the IACHR will continue to evaluate the measures taken by the Chilean State with respect to those recommendations, until the State has fully complied with them.

 

Done and signed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on April 16, 2001. (Signed): Juan E. Méndez, First Vice-Chairman; Marta Altolaguirre, Second Vice-Chair; Hélio Bicudo, Robert Goldman, Peter Laurie and Julio Prado Vallejo, Commissioners.