HAVING SEEN:
1. The June 22, 1994 order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American
Court”) whereby:
1. [It] require[d] the Government of Guatemala to
adopt without delay measures to protect the right to life and the personal
integrity of PATRICIA ISPANEL MEDIMILLA, MARCOS GODINEZ PEREZ, NATIVIDAD
GODINEZ PEREZ, MARIA SALES LOPEZ, RAMIRO GODINEZ PEREZ, JUAN GODINEZ PEREZ,
MIGUEL GODINEZ DOMINGO, ALBERTO GODINEZ, MARIA GARCIA DOMINGO, GONZALO
GODINEZ LOPEZ, ARTURO FEDERICO MENDEZ ORTIZ and ALFONSO MORALES JIMENEZ.
2. [It] request[ed] the Government of Guatemala to
adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the aforementioned persons
may continue to reside at or return to their homes in Colotenango, providing
them the assurances that they shall not be persecuted or threatened by
agents of the Government or by individuals.
[...];
2. The Court’s December 1, 1994 order extending the
provisional measures adopted and expanding them to include Mrs. Francisca
Sales Martín;
3. The Court’s February 1, 1996 order requesting
the State of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State) that, in addition to the
measures already taken, it establish mechanisms to control and police
the civil patrols operating in Colotenango;
4. The Court’s April 16, 1997 decision to order the State to maintain
the provisional measures in the instant case as long as the extremely
grave and urgent situation that led to the adoption of provisional measures
persisted;
5.
The Court’s September 19, 1997 order wherein
[...]
2. [It] call[ed] upon the State of Guatemala to expand
the measures adopted in this Case for the purpose of ensuring the right
to life and physical integrity of Andrés Ramos-Godínez, Rafael Vásquez-Simón,
Juan Mendoza-Sánchez, Julia Gabriel-Simón, Miguel Morales-Mendoza, Lucía
Quila-Colo and Fermina López-Castro.
3. [It] call[ed] upon the State of Guatemala to investigate
the facts denounced by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and
publish those responsible.
[...];
6. The application filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission”) on May 19, 1999, wherein it reported the
following:
a. In 1998, twelve former civil patrolmen were sentenced
to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the murder of Mr. Juan Chanay Pablo
and for numerous other human rights violations committed against citizens
of the community of Colotenango; they were taken to a prison facility
where security was inadequate, and
b.
While on a protest march on April 30, 1999, a group of some
600 former patrolmen arrived at Huehuetenango and marched to the facility
where the former civil patrolmen were being held. There they suddenly began to brandish clubs, machetes, chainsaws
and other tools, which they then used to break into the facility and released
the patrolmen.
7. The State’s brief of May 31, 1999, wherein it confirmed the information
reported in the Commission’s application (supra 6) and stated the following:
a. On May 13, 1999, the Attorney General’s Office
reported that on the very day the twelve patrolmen escaped, it immediately
took statements from those members of the National Police who were guarding
the facility at the time and ordered the Chief of the National Police
to search the area around the departmental capital of Huehuetenango in
order to find and apprehend the escapees.
However, with so few police officers and no patrol cars, any patrol
work was out of the question;
b. The COPREDEH delegate in Huehuetenango, Vayron
Roderico Herrera Mérida -whose job is to accompany officials of the National
Police on their periodic visits to those for whom measures have been ordered
by the Court- was told by townspeople sympathetic to the former patrolmen
that he would be killed if he showed his face in Colotenango;
c. Through COPREDEH, the State is currently examining
alternative ways it can continue to carry out the provisional measures
ordered by the Court, since the presence of the National Police or COPREDEH
officials could set off serious incidents in the community of Colotenango,
and
CONSIDERING:
1. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention
provides that “[i]n cases of extreme
gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to
persons,” the Court may, if requested by the Commission, adopt such provisional
measures as it deems pertinent in cases not yet submitted to the Court”;
2. That under Article 25.1 of the Court’s Rules of
Procedure:
At
any stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency,
and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may,
at the request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional
measures as it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article
63(2) of the Convention.
3. That Article 1(1) of the Convention sets forth
the States Parties’ duty to respect the rights and freedoms recognized
therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the
free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms;
4. That by virtue of the Court’s orders of June 22
and December 1, 1994, and September 19, 1997, the State has the obligation
to adopt the measures needed to preserve the life and safety of those
persons on whose behalf the Court ordered provisional measures;
5. That the “case of extreme gravity and urgency” that persists warrants continued
enforcement of the provisional measures adopted and called for in the
Court’s orders of June 22 and December 1, 1994 and September 19, 1997;
6. That the briefs submitted by the Commission and
the State on May 19 and 31, 1999, respectively, contain information that
suggests that the risk to the safety of the persons being protected has
escalated since the events of April 30, 1999.
The Court therefore considers that alternative mechanisms need
to be adopted for continued compliance with the provisional measures ordered;
7. That the State must take all appropriate steps
to involve the claimants in planning and executing the Court-ordered measures,
so that the latter may be provided diligently and effectively; and
8. That the State’s obligation to investigate threats
and intimidation experienced by persons under its protection is an essential
part of the duty to protect,
NOW THEREFORE:
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
based
on Article 63(2) of the Convention and Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure,
DECIDES:
1. To call upon the State of Guatemala to continue
the measures required to protect the life and safety of the persons on
whose behalf the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered provisional
measures in its decisions of June 22 and December 1, 1994, and September
19, 1997.
2. To call upon the State of Guatemala to investigate
the events that led to the adoption of those provisional measures, with
a view to ascertaining the identity of those responsible and punishing
them.
3. To call upon the State of Guatemala to urgently
report on the alternative mechanisms necessitated by the events of April
30, 1999, and adopted in order to effectively carry out the provisional
measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
4. To call upon the State of Guatemala to involve
the claimants in the planning and execution of the measures referred to
in the preceding paragraph and, in general, to keep them informed of the
progress made with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights.
5. To call upon the State of Guatemala to continue
to file reports on the provisional measures every two months, and to request
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations
on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.