The Inter-American Court of Human Rights will hold its XL Regular Session in San Jose, Costa Rica, from June 7-20, 1998. During this session, the Court will hear the following matters:

1) Cantoral-Benavides Case: Preliminary Objections Phase. The Court will hold a public hearing on June 8 at 10:00 a.m., on the preliminary objections submitted by Peru. Preliminary objections are procedural defenses that the defendant State may submit, which seek to have a contentious case dismissed before the merits of the case are heard. The preliminary objections submitted by the State of Peru in this Case, which are opposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, include the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, expiration of the petition, lack of standing, and lack of jurisdiction in regard to the entire application.

The facts of the application, submitted for consideration by the Court on August 8, 1996, concern the alleged violations, to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides who, according to the Commission, was illegally deprived of his liberty; submitted to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment; tried twice on the same facts; and had his right to a fair trial violated. According to the application, the State of Peru is responsible for violating, to the detriment of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides, Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, which establishes the obligation to respect rights. The Commission also claims that Peru is responsible for violating Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention and Articles 2 and 8 of The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

2) Castillo-Petruzzi et al. Case: Preliminary Objections Phase. The Court will hold a public hearing on June 8 at 11:30 a. m., on the preliminary objections raised by Peru and opposed by the Commission, which include the failure to exhaust domestic remedies in Peru, lack of jurisdiction to hear the Case by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; lack of legal capacity by the representative named by the Christian Churches' Foundation for Social Assistance (FASIC) to present petition No. 11319 against the State of Peru before the Commission and lack of standing of the Foundation; expiration of the application; and sovereignty and jurisdiction.

The facts of the application, submitted for consideration by the Court on July 22, 1997, concerned a “faceless” tribunal in the State of Peru, which sentenced to life imprisonment for the crime of treason the following Chilean citizens: Jaime Francisco Castillo-Petruzzi, Maria Concepcion Pincheira-Saez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra, and Alejandro Astorga-Valdes. The Commission submitted the application, which requested that the Court decide that Peru violated Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 20 (Right to Nationality), 27 (Suspension of Guarantees) and 51(2), all of them of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of the victims and asked that the Court declare void the consecutive proceedings in the military courts against the mentioned persons, who also should have reparations made to them and a fair indemnity paid to them for the damages they have suffered. The petition also requested that the State be ordered to pay the costs and expenses incurred in this case and in the proceedings in the domestic courts. The Commission also requests that the Court declare that Peru violated Article 29 (Norms of Interpretation of the American Convention) in combination with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

3) Durand and Ugarte Case: Preliminary Objections Phase. The Court will hold a public hearing on June 8 at 4:30 p.m., on the following preliminary objections raised by Peru: failure to exhaust domestic remedies, res judicata, expiration of the application; lack of jurisdiction by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights and legal defect; lack of standing and legal capacity of the Inter-American Commission.

This Case, submitted to the Court on August 8, 1996, was based on facts that occurred on February 14 and 15, 1986, on which, according to the application, Nolberto Durand-Ugarte and Gabriel Ugarte-Rivera were detained for their suspected participation in terrorist activities and imprisoned at the San Juan Bautista Prison (El Fronton). In June 1986, an uprising occurred in the penitentiary center and, since that date, Mr. Durand-Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte-Rivera have been missing. However, on July 17, 1987, the Sixth Correctional Tribunal of Lima found these two men innocent and ordered their immediate release. According to the petition, the State of Peru is responsible for violating, to the prejudice of the cited citizens, Articles 4 (Right to Life), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial Protection) and 27 (Suspension of Guarantees) of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Commission also claims that the State is responsible for violating Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention.

4) Loayza Tamayo Case: Reparations Phase. On June 9 at 10:00 a. m., the Court will hold a public hearing to hear the arguments of Peru, the Inter-American Commission, the victim and her next-of-kin relating to reparations in this Case. Previously, on September 17, 1997, the Court rendered its Judgment on the merits of this Case and unanimously decided, “that the State of Peru is obliged to pay fair compensation to the victim and her next-of-kin and to reimburse them for any expenses they may have incurred in their representations before the Peruvian authorities in connection with this process.” In this Judgment, the Court also decided that Peru violated to the detriment of Maria Elena Loayza-Tamayo, the right to humane treatment (Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Article 1(1) of the same), the right to personal liberty (Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Articles 25 and 1(1) of the same) and the right to a fair trial (Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Articles 25 and 1(1) of the same). The Court also ordered the State to release Ms. Loayza-Tamayo within a reasonable period of time. This last order was completed by the State on October 16, 1997.

5) Castillo Paez Case: Reparations Phase. On June 9 at 4:00 p.m., the Court will hold a public hearing to hear the arguments of Peru, the Inter-American Commission, and the relatives of the victim relating to reparations in this Case. On November 3, 1997, the Court rendered its Judgment on the merits of this Case and unanimously decided, “that the State of Peru is obliged to repair the consequences of [the] violations and compensate the victim's next-of-kin and reimburse them for any expenses they may have incurred in their representations to the Peruvian authorities in connection with this case.” In this judgment, the Court also decided that Peru violated, to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Paez, the right to personal liberty (Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Article 1(1) of the same), the right to life (Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Article 1(1) of the same), and the right to an effective recourse before competent national judges and tribunals (Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to 1(1) of the same).

6) Suarez-Rosero Case: Reparations Phase. On June 10 at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a public hearing to hear the arguments of Ecuador, the Inter-American Commission, the victim and his next-of-kin relating to the reparations in this Case. Previously, on November 12, 1997, the Court rendered its Judgment on the merits in this Case and unanimously decided, “that Ecuador is obliged to pay a fair indemnity to the victim and his relatives and to compensate them for any expenses incurred in their representations relating to this proceeding.” The Court also resolved that the State of Ecuador violated, to the detriment of Rafael Ivan Suarez-Rosero, Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, and that the last paragraph of the unnumbered article after Article 114 of the Criminal Code of Ecuador violated Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Articles 7(5) and 1(1) of the same. Also, the Court decided that Ecuador should order an investigation to determine those responsible for the cited violations.

7) Blake Case: Reparations Phase. On June 10 at 4:00 p.m., the Court will hold a public hearing at its seat to hear the arguments of Guatemala, the Inter-American Commission, and the relatives of the victim, relating to reparations in this Case. Previously, on January 24, 1998, the Court rendered a judgment on the merits of the Case and unanimously decided, “that the State of Guatemala is obliged to pay a fair indemnity to the relatives of Nicholas Chapman Blake and to reimburse any expenses they incurred in their representations before the Guatemalan authorities relating to this process.” In this Judgment the Court determined that Guatemala violated, to the detriment of the relatives of Mr. Blake, the right to judicial guarantees (Article 8(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same), the right to humane physical and moral treatment (Article 5 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same), and that the State is obliged to take all measures to investigate the denounced facts and to punish those responsible for the disappearance and death of Mr. Blake.

8) Benavides Cevallos Case: Merits Phase. On June 11, beginning at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hold a public hearing on the merits of the case to hear the witnesses and the expert offered by the parties.

The application presented by the Inter-American Commission on March 21, 1996, referred to facts that occurred as of December 4, 1985, when agents of the Ecuadorian State arrested, in an allegedly illegal and arbitrary manner, Professor Consuelo Benavides-Cevallos, held her incommunicado for several days, tortured and eventually killed her. The application also indicated that the State of Ecuador did not provide an effective judicial remedy and denied Ms. Benavides access to judicial protection. The Inter-American Commission added that the investigation of the Case was still being impeded by Ecuador's actions. Consequently, the Commission requested that the Court declare that Ecuador had violated Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), 3 (Right to a Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Ms. Benavides-Cevallos.

9) Advisory Opinion OC-16: On June 12 at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a public hearing regarding the request for an advisory opinion, which originated with a request made by the State of Mexico. At this hearing, several State Members of the OAS, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the applicant, some NGO's and individual persons acting as amicus curiae, will present their observations on this matter.

The request for the advisory opinion, submitted December 9, 1997, referred to the right of all detained foreigners that face the risk of the death penalty to be notified, from the moment of their arrest, of the right to obtain the assistance of their country's consular authorities and to the guarantees of due process. The State of Mexico raised questions about the minimum procedural guarantees in criminal proceedings where capital punishment may be imposed, about consular functions and the application of the death penalty to foreigners, in light of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Articles 2, 6, 14 and 50 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 3(k) of the Charter of the OAS, and Articles I, II and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, all based on Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

10) Bamaca Velasquez Case: Merits Phase. On June 16, beginning at 10:00 a.m., the Court will hold a public hearing on the merits of this case to hear the witnesses proposed by the parties, which will testify about their knowledge of the facts of the petition.

This case was submitted to the Court by the Inter-American Commission's application of August 30, 1996, which presented claims against the State of Guatemala for the alleged disappearance, torture, and extrajudicial execution of Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez in violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. The application refers to the facts that occurred as of March 12, 1992, when members of the Armed Forces of Guatemala allegedly captured Mr. Bamaca-Velasquez after an armed confrontation, and subsequently detained him in various military installations, where he was tortured and later executed by members of the Guatemalan Armed Forces. The Commission requested that the Court declare that Guatemala had violated the following: Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), Article 8 (Judicial Guarantees), and Article 25 (Judicial Protection), all in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention on Human Rights. In addition, the Commission requested that the Court declare that Guatemala violated the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of Torture; that the State should investigate the facts and punish those responsible; that the State must inform the family of the whereabouts of Mr. Bamaca-Velasquez and give them his remains; that the State must reform the methods for training the armed forces; and that the State must pay a fair indemnity and costs to the relatives of the victim.

11) Other matters: The Court will consider various proceedings on matters pending before it and will analyze the various reports presented by the States concerning which the Court has adopted provisional measures and the observations to these reports, presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Court will also receive some members of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, with whom it will hold a private working session on June 15 in order to exchange common experiences in the International Protection of Human Rights. Finally, some of the judges will participate as speakers in the XVI Inter-disciplinary Course on Human Rights, organized by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights.

The composition of the Court during this Regular Session will be the following: Hernan Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), President; Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil), Vice-president; Maximo Pacheco-Gomez (Chile); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela); Sergio Garcia-Ramirez (Mexico); and Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo (Colombia). Fernando Vidal-Ramirez, appointed by the State of Peru in the Cantoral Benavides, Castillo Petruzzi, and Durand and Ugarte Cases, will participate as judge ad hoc. Alfonso Novales-Aguirre, appointed by the State of Guatemala in the Blake Case will also participate as judge ad hoc. In the Benavides Cevallos and Suarez Rosero Cases, the President of the Court will be Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil), since, due to his Ecuadorian nationality, the President of the Court, Judge Hernán Salgado Pesantes, has yielded the Presidency for the hearing of the cases against Ecuador. Also present will be the Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, and the Deputy Secretary a.i., Victor M. Rodriguez-Rescia.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, an autonomous judicial institution of the Organization of American States established in 1979, is composed of jurists of the highest moral authority and recognized competence in the field of human rights. The judges are elected to the Court by the General Assembly of the O.A.S., and may not be elected for more than two six year periods.

San Jose, May 22, 1998.

Nota / Footnote

^(*) El contenido de este comunicado es responsabilidad de la Secretaría de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. El texto oficial de los documentos reseñados puede obtenerse mediante solicitud escrita dirigida a la Secretaría, en la dirección que se adjunta.
The contents of this press release are the sole responsibility of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The official text of the documents cited may be obtained by sending a written request to the Secretariat at the address provided at the end of this press release.