HAVING SEEN:

1.             The brief of September 22, 1997, from the State of Guatemala (hereinafter "the State"), in which it submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court") full certification of the judicial proceeding in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case, issued by the Fifth Criminal Court of First Instance, Drug-related Activity and Anti-Environment Offenses, which contains all the information substantiated for the clarification of this Case.  The State requested that this document be admitted as evidence in the instant case.

2.             The brief of September 22, 1997, from the State, in which it presented to the Court the following documents, requesting that they be admitted as evidence in the instant Case:

a-             a photocopy of the file of the investigation conducted in the case of Judge Julio Aníbal Trejo-Duque, No. 00339-88 of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Guatemalan National Police;

b-  a certified copy of action No. 51‑89 in the Criminal Court of First Instance against Mr. Augusto Angárita-Ramírez and Ms. Doris Torres-Gil for unlawful trafficking in pharmaceutical products, drugs and narcotic substances.

c-             a certified copy of file GUA‑329/P of the Office of the Guatemalan Office of the Attorney General's Human Rights Section, stemming from a petition lodged by Mr. Augusto Angárita-Ramírez and Ms. Doris Torres-Gil;

d-            a photocopy of the file of the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Police on the investigation into the death of Mr. Carlos Morán-Amaya, and

e-             a photocopy of the file of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Guatemalan National Police Force on the investigation into the death of Mr. Erik Leonardo Chinchilla.

3.             The brief of September 22, 1997, from the State, in which it presented the Court with the following documents, requesting that they be admitted as evidence in the instant Case:

a-             the employment record of Mr. Julio Enrique Caballeros-Seigne;

b-            the employment record of Ms. Sonia Aracely del Cid-Hernández;

c-  the employment record of Mr. Felicito Oliva-Arias;

d-  the employment record of Attorney Carlos Odilio Estrada-Gil;

e-             the employment record of the accused in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case;

f-  the criminal record of the accused in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case;

g-  police records of the witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human rights (hereinafter "the Commission") for the hearings on the merits in this Case;

h-            certification issued by the Ministry of the Interior of Guatemala concerning Mr. Oscar Augusto Díaz-Urquizu's resignation from the post of Director of the Treasury Police, and

i-              an official communication signed by the Director General of the Treasury Police in which he reports that no white "panel" (van) appears in that Department's register.

4.             The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it submitted to the Court a certification relating to the petition for the application of the Law of National Reconciliation as an incidental question, presented by Mr. José Antonio Aldana-Fajardo, a former member of the Treasury Police involved in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case, requesting that it be admitted as evidence in this Case.

5.             The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it submitted to the Court information concerning the liberation of several convicts from a prison by persons who presented themselves at the Puerto Barrios prison, wearing clothes and carrying equipment similar to those used by the Narcotics Bureau, and accompanied newspaper clippings concerning the prison break-out. The State requested that these documents be admitted as evidence in the case.

6.             The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it submitted to the Court a copy of the following documents in which a judgment was delivered on the liability or acquittal of members of the Guatemalan Armed Forces for crimes against civilians, and requested that those documents be admitted as evidence in the instant Case:

a-             a certified copy of the judgment delivered by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala, in which it disposed of an application for judicial review in the case of the murder of university student Julio Rigoberto Cuc-Quin;

b-            a certified copy of the judgment passed by the Tenth Chamber of the Court of Appeal in connection with the murder of the minor Nahaman Carmona;

c-             a certified copy of the judgment passed by the Third Criminal Court of First Instance against Noel de Jesús Beteta-Alvarez;

d-            a certified copy of the judgment passed in the Third Criminal Tribunal, Drug-related Activity and Anti-Environment Offenses, convicting Mr. Danilo Estuardo Parrinello-Blanco, former Minister of the Interior of Guatemala; Mr. Mario Alberto Mérida-González, former Deputy Minister of the Interior of Guatemala; Mr. Salvador Figueroa, former Director of the Guatemalan National Police of Guatemala, and various other members of the National Police Force;

e-             a certified copy of the condemnatory judgment passed by the Fourth Criminal Tribunal, Drug-related Activity and Anti-Environment Offenses, against "the former President (sic) of the Republic of Guatemala", Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Espina-Salguero;

f-             a certified copy of the judgment passed by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Appeal, in which it ordered the immediate apprehension of accused Mr. Antonio Ramón Mérida-Herrera, Mr. Osmundo Fidencio Sacarías-Villacinda, Mr. Braulio Ervilio Velásquez-Rodas, Mr. Eulalio Cabrera-Cabrera, Mr. Daniel Flores-Téllez, Mr. José Luis Ordóñez-de Leon, Mr. Catalino Esteban Valiente-Alonzo, and Mr. Cristóbal Antonio Martinez-Flores.

                The State also indicated in the aforementioned brief that it was presenting certification of the investigation carried out by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Guatemalan National Police Force in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case.  However, following a review of the documents deposited, it was found that this file had not been submitted with the brief, although the record of the police proceedings in this case was delivered with the brief indicated in the first "whereas" of this order.

7.             The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it submitted to the Court a report issued by the Deputy Director of Multilateral Policy for Regional Agencies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, showing that Guatemala was elected by ECOSOC on May 2, 1997, to serve on the Human Rights Committee in Geneva; a decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee; a report on the forty-ninth session of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and an incomplete copy of a report on Human Rights in Guatemala issued by the State Department of the United States of America.  The State requested that these documents be admitted as evidence in the instant Case.

8.             The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it submitted to the Court a copy of Guatemala's Law of National Reconciliation, requesting that it be admitted as evidence in the Case.

9.             The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it presented to the Court a copy of the transcript of the peace accords signed by the Government of Guatemala and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unit and requested that this document be admitted as evidence in the Case.

10.  The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it presented to the Court a copy of the certification of the Accord for a Firm and Lasting Peace, drawn up by the Secretariat for Peace, requesting that this document be admitted as evidence in the instant Case.

11.  The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it submitted to the Court copies of six reports from the Head of the United Nations Mission for the Verification of Human Rights in Guatemala and on the fulfillment of the commitments entered into under the Global Accord on Human Rights, requesting that those documents be admitted as evidence in this Case.

12.           The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it submitted to the Court a copy of the volume containing the Special Report presented by the Guatemalan Office of the Attorney General's Human Rights Section entitled "Human Rights and Transition to Democracy -Tenth Anniversary", requesting that it be admitted as evidence in the instant case.

13.           The State's brief of September 22, 1997, in which it presented to the Court a copy of the Annual Circumstantial Report for 1996 submitted by the Guatemalan Office of the Attorney General's Human Rights Section, requesting that it be admitted as evidence in the case.

14.           The State's assertion in all the aforementioned briefs that the documents presented constitute supervening events, for which reason it considered it pertinent to present them to the Court.  In its presentation the State invoked Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter "the Rules of Procedure").

CONSIDERING:

1.             That Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that

[i]tems of evidences tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto and, where appropriate in the communication setting out the preliminary objections and in the answer thereto.  Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing party is guaranteed the right of defense.

This provision stipulates the exceptional nature of the possibility of admitting an item of evidence at a time other than that indicated. Such an exception is applicable only in a case where the party proposing the evidence pleads force majeure, grave impediment, or supervening events.  In the instant case the State has indicated to the Court that the documents submitted represent "supervening events" and that they were therefore submitted after the brief in answer to the complaint, that is, on June 2, 1995. The Court will consider whether the documents presented constitute supervening evidence and whether they have a bearing on the object of the complaint in the instant Case.

2.             That following a detailed study of the file relating to the proceedings in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case (supra "whereas" 1), the Court finds that the relevant proceedings presented by the State date from 1988, and in some cases, earlier.  For this reason, it is impossible for the documents proposed to be deemed to be supervening events; their inclusion as evidence is therefore inadmissible.  Let it be said, however, that on January 5, 1996, the State presented to the Court a complete copy of trial document Nº. 165-88 of the Seventh Criminal Court of First Instance, which was duly transmitted to the Commission and is attached to the body of evidence in the instant Case.

3.             That the Court has carefully studied the files of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Guatemalan National Police Force with regard to the investigation conducted in the cases of Mr. Julio Aníbal Trejo-Duque, Mr. Carlos Morán-Amaya, and Mr. Erik Leonardo Chinchilla (supra, "whereas" 2, paragraphs a-, d- and e-) and has found that the relevant proceedings presented by the State date from the year 1988.  The Court observes that on several occasions during the conduct of the instant Case it requested the State to provide the judicial information relating to the aforesaid proceedings.  On March 3, 1997, the State submitted to the Court a report from the Head of the Department of Coordination and Classification of Court Archives, showing that no files pertaining to Judge Trejo-Duque, Mr. Morán-Amaya, or Mr. Chinchilla were to be found in the archives.  However, in view of the fact that this information was sought in response to a request from the Inter-American Commission, the Court considers it pertinent to notify the latter, so that it may express its view on whether or not the aforementioned documents should be admitted.

4.             That the Court has studied the remaining documents presented by the State in its second brief (supra, "whereas" 2, paragraphs b- and c-) and has found that they all date from the period between 1987 and 1989, for which reason they cannot be deemed to be supervening events to the answer to the petition in the instant Case.  Their inclusion in the body of evidence in the instant Case is therefore inadmissible.

5.             That the Court has studied the documents presented by the State in its third brief (supra, "whereas" 3) and has concluded that some of them refer to witnesses proposed by the parties to give evidence at the hearing on the merits in the instant case (supra, "whereas" 3, paragraphs a-, b-, c-, d- and g-).  The Court considers it appropriate to transmit these documents to the Commission, with the exception of those referring to Ms. Sonia Aracely del Cid-Hernández, who did not appear to testify.  The remaining  documents presented  by  the  State  in  that  brief  (supra, "whereas" 3, paragraphs e-, f-, h- and i-) cannot be considered to be supervening events, for which reason their inclusion as evidence in this case is inadmissible.

6.             That the petition for the enforcement of the Law of National Reconciliation as an incidental question presented by Mr. José Antonio Aldana-Fajardo dates from September 19, 1997, for which reason it can be deemed to be a supervening event; it is therefore appropriate for this document to be transmitted to the Commission.

7.             That the other documents presented by the State do not refer to the facts to be examined by the Court in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case, in accordance with the text of the petition.

NOW, THEREFORE:

THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,

pursuant to Article 25(2) of the Statute and Articles 29(2) and 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court,

DECIDES:

1.             To transmit to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the following documents presented by the State of Guatemala on September 22, 1997:

a-  a photocopy of the file No. 0339‑88 in the investigation by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Guatemalan National Police Force conducted in the case of Judge Julio Aníbal Trejo-Duque ;

b-  a photocopy of the file of the Criminal Investigation Department of the National Police, concerning the investigation into the death of Mr. Carlos Morán-Amaya;

c-             a photocopy of the file of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Guatemalan National Police Force concerning the investigation into the death of Mr. Erik Leonardo Chinchilla;

d-            the employment record of Mr. Julio Enrique Caballeros-Seigne;

e-             the employment record of Mr. Felicito Oliva-Arias;

f-             the employment record of Mr. Carlos Odilio Estrada-Gil;

g-  a certified copy of the criminal record of the witnesses proposed by the Commission in this Case, and

h-  certification of the petition for enforcement of the Law of National Reconciliation as an incidental question presented by Mr. José Antonio Aldana-Fajardo, former member of the Treasury Police involved in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case

and to request it to submit its comments on the inclusion of those documents in the body of evidence in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case, pending before the Court, within seven days of the date of notification of this Order.

2.             To reject as inadmissible the other documents submitted by the State of Guatemala on September 22, 1997, as evidence in the instant Case.