The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held its XLI Regular Session at its seat in San Jose, Costa Rica, from August 23 to September 6, 1998. During this session, the Court considered the following matters:

1) Garrido and Baigorria Case: Reparations Phase. From August 25 to 27, 1998, the Court deliberated and set the amount of reparations and costs to be paid to the relatives of Adolfo Garrido and Raul Baigorria, in compliance with the Judgment of February 2, 1996, and the Order of January 31, 1997, in accordance with which the State of Argentina must pay compensation to the relatives of the named victims and that the Court would determine the form and amount of compensation.

The Court, in its Reparations Judgment of August 27, 1998, decided:

unanimously,

1. To set $111,000 in U.S. dollars, or the equivalent in national currency, as the amount the State of Argentina must pay as compensation to the relatives of Adolfo Garrido, and $64,000 in U.S. dollars, or the equivalent in national currency, as the amount to be paid to the relatives of Raul Baigorria. These payments must be made by the State of Argentina in accordance with the conditions set out in the preceding parts of this Judgment.

2. To set $45,500 U.S. dollars, or the equivalent in national currency, as the sum that the State must pay to the relatives of the victims to cover the costs sustained by them in relation to this case, of which $20,000 in U.S. dollars, or the equivalent in national currency, corresponds to the fees of their attorneys, Carlos Varela-Alvarez and Diego J. Lavado.

3. That the State of Argentina must use all the means at its disposal to continue to search for and to attempt to identify the two extra-marital children of Raul Baigorria.

4. That the State of Argentina must investigate the facts surrounding the disappearances of Adolfo Garrido and Raul Baigorria and prosecute and punish the perpetrators and accomplices, as well as anyone that covered up or participated in other ways in these acts.

5. That the payments indicated in resolutory points 1 and 2 must be made within six months from the notification of this Judgment.

6. That the compensation and reimbursement of costs ordered in this Judgment remain exempt from the payment of any national, provincial or municipal taxes.

7. That the Court will supervise compliance with this Judgment, and will only close the case after full compliance with tje terms of this Judgment.

The facts on which the above reparations were based ocurred on April 28, 1990, when at aproximately 4 p.m., Mr. Garrido and Mr. Baigorria, who were driving a vehicle that belonged to the Garrido family, were detained by uniformed officials of the Mendoza Police inside the General San Martin Park in the city of Mendoza, in front of the Eva Peron Home School. Since that date their whereabouts have remained unknown. The State of Argentina recognized the facts specified in the application, as well as its international responsibility in this case. The Court took notice of the State's recognition in its Judgment of February 2, 1996.

2) Provisional Measures James et al.: The Court held a public hearing at its seat on August 28 to hear the observations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the State of Trinidad and Tobago concerning the provisional measures adopted on June 14, 1998, and the urgent measures taken by the President in his Orders of June 29, July 13 and July 22, 1998. On August 19, 1998, the President of the Court, Judge Hernan Salgado-Pesantes, sent a communication to the State, in which he reiterated the importance of the State's appearance at the hearing. However, as it had announced in its letter of August 13, 1998, Trinidad and Tobago did not attend the public hearing. In the August 13 letter, the State also informed the Court that it would not accept any responsibility for the procedural failures of the Inter-American Commission in these matters.

After hearing the observations of the Commission during the public hearing, the Court issued an Order on August 29, 1998, in which it decided:

1. To ratify the Orders of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 29, July 13 and July 22, 1998.

2. To order Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures necessary to preserve the life and physical integrity of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, and Denny Baptiste so as not to hinder the processing of their cases before the Inter-American system.

3. To require the State of Trinidad and Tobago to report every fifteen days, beginning on September 1, 1998, on the status of the appeals and scheduled executions of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, and Denny Baptiste, and to require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to send its observations on these reports to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within two days of their receipt.

4. To require the State of Trinidad and Tobago and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights immediately of any significant developments concerning the circumstances of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire, and Denny Baptiste.

Judge Garcia-Ramirez issued a concurring vote with this Order.

These provisional measures were requested because of the imminent execution of several citizens on death row in Trinidad and Tobago, who have separately filed petitions before the Inter-American Commission. According to the Commission, the execution of the alleged victims would impede its ability to fully examine and make a decision with respect to these cases and would render moot any eventual remedy which might be ordered in their favor.

3) Cantoral Benavides Case: Preliminary Objections Phase. The Court deliberated over the preliminary objections raised by Peru in this case and issued a judgment on September 3, 1998, in which it decided:

by five votes to two

1. To reject the preliminary objections raised by the State of Peru.

Judges de Roux-Rengifo y Vidal-Ramirez dissenting.

by six votes against one

2. To continue processing the merits of the case.

Judge Vidal-Ramirez dissenting.

The facts of the application, submitted for the consideration of the Court on August 8, 1996, referred to the alleged violation of the Convention to the detriment of Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides who the Commission alleges, 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 violated, to the detriment of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides, Articles 5 (Right to Human 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) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same. Further, the Commission claims that Peru is responsible for the violation of Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention and Articles 2 and 8 of the Inter-Ameriacn Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

4) Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case: Preliminary Objections Phase. In this case, the Court deliberated and issued on its September 4, 1998, Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by Perú, in which it decided:

by five votes against two,

1. To reject the first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth preliminary objections raised by the State of Peru.

Judges de Roux-Rengifo and Vidal-Ramirez dissenting.

unanimously,

2. To accept the third objection [of the _________ and the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies in Peru with regard to the alleged violation of Article 29 of the American Convention, in relation to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations] presented by the State of Peru.

unanimously,

3. To continue processing the merits of the case, except with respect to the third objection.

Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Concurring Vote.

The application, submitted for the Court's consideration on July 22, 1997, referred to the sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of treason issued by a “faceless” Peruvian Tribunal against the following Chilean citizens: Jaime Francisco Castillo-Petruzzi, Maria Concepcion Pincheira-Saez, Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra and Alejandro Astorga-Valdes. In its application, the Commission requests the Court to decide that Peru violated, to the detriment of the victims, Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 20 (Right to a Nationality), 27 (Suspension of Guarantees) and 51(2), all of the American Convention. Further, the Commission requested that the Court order null the proceedings of the Military Courts against the named persons, whom the State should compensate for the damages they have suffered; that the Court order the State to pay the costs and fees from this case and from the proceedings in the domestic courts; and 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.

5) Bamaca Velasquez Case:

Provisional Measures. The Court considered the request for provisional measures presented by the Inter-American Commission on June 24, 1998, for the protection of the life and physical integrity of Santiago Cabrera-Lopez, a witness that testified before the Court in this case, as well as the observations of the State of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the urgent measures taken by the President in his Order of June 30, 1998. By Order of August 29, 1998, the Court decided:

1. To ratify the Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 30, 1998, and to require the State of Guatemala to maintain the measures necessary to protect the life and physical integrity of Santiago Cabrera-Lopez, in order to avoid irreparable damages to him.

2. To require the State of Guatemala to adopt all the measures necessary to protect the lives and physical integrity of Alfonso Cabrera-Viagres, Maria Victoria Lopez, Blanca Cabrera, Carmenlinda Cabrera, Teresa Aguilar-Cabrera, Olga Maldonado and Carlos Alfonso Cabrera.

3. To require the State of Guatemala to investigate the identified facts and to report on of the situation of the named persons.

4. To require the State of Guatemala, beginning on the date of the notification of this Order, to present reports on the provisional measures adopted in the present case every two months and to require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on these reports within six months of their receipt.

Merits. The Court issued an Order on August 29, 1998, in which it summoned the State and the Inter-American Commission to a public hearing at its seat on November 22, 1998, in order to hear the testimony of various witnesses called by the Commission in the case. Additionally, on September 1, 1998, the Court decided to summon the State of Guatemala and the Commission to a public hearing to be held on October 15, 1998, in the seat of the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C., in the United States of America, in order to hear the testimony of witnesses Nery Angel Urizar-Garcia, ex-specialist in the Guatemalan intelligence, and Otoniel de la Roca-Mendoza, who will testify about the alleged torture and detention of Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez in March 1992.

This case was submitted to the Court by the Commission in its application of August 30, 1996, against the State of Guatemala for the alleged disappearance, torture and extra-judicial execution of Efrain Bamaca-Velasquez in violation of the American Covnention. The application referred to the facts that occurred on March 12, 1992, when members of the Armed Forces of Guatemala allegedly captured Mr. Bamaca-Velasquez after an armed confrontation and then held him in various military installations, where he was tortured and later executed by members of the Armed Forces of Guatemala. The Commission requested that the Court declare that the State of 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 (Right to a Fair Trial), and Article 25 (Judicial Protection ), all in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention. The Commission also requested that the Court declare that Guatemala violated the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; that the State must investigate the facts and punish those responsible; that the State must inform the relatives of the whereabouts of Mr. Bamaca-Velasquez and return his remains; that the State must reform the training of its Armed Forces; and that the State must pay a just indemnization to the relatives of the victim and their costs.

6) Provisional Measures Alvarez et al.: The Court deliberated over the request for the amplification of the provisional measures requested on August 4, 1998, by the Inter-American Commission in favor of Daniel Prado and his family. Mr. Prado is the attorney for ASFADDES that is representing the relatives of the victims in various criminal indemnity proceedings in Colombia and, according to the Commission, he is in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency because of various threats against him. On August 29, 1998, the Court decided:

1. To require the State of Colombia to maintain the provisional measures on behalf of Jose Daniel-Alvarez, Nidia Linores-Ascanio, Gladys Lopez, Yanette Bautista, Maria Helena Saldarriaga, Piedad Martin, Maria Eugenia Lopez, Adriana Diosa, Astrid Manrique, Faride Ascanio, Carmen Barrera, Evidalia Chacon, Jose Publio Bautista, Nelly Maria Ascanio, Ayda Mile Ascanio, Miriam Rosas Ascanio, Javier Alvarez y Erik A. Arellano-Bautista.

2. To require the State of Colombia to maintain provisional measures on behalf of Maria Eugenia Cardenas and her relatives.

3. To ratify the August 6, 1998 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human and to require the State of Colombia to maintain the provisional measures necessary to protect the lives and physical integrity of Daniel Prado and his family in order to avoid irreparable damages to them.

4. To require the State of Colombia to investigate the facts that gave rise to the present measures, with the purpose of discovering those responsible and punishing them.

5. To require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to urge the beneficiaries of the provisional measure adopted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the present case to cooperate with the State of Colombia so that it may more effectively adopt the necessary security measures.

6. To require the State of Colombia, beginning on the date of notification of the present Order, to expand its reports on the measures adopted and to continue to present them every two months and to indicate in those reports the measures taken with respect to each of the beneficiaries named in this Order.

7. To require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on the reports of the State within six weeks from the date of their receipt.

7) Loayza Tamayo Case: Reparations Phase. On August 29, 1998, the Court issued an Order in which it decided to request from the “Colegios Médicos” of Chile and Peru, as additional evidence, the designation of one or more of its members to report on the physical and psychological health of Maria Elena Loayza-Tamayo and the psychological health of Gisselle Elena and Paul Abelardo Zambrano-Loayza (the children of Ms. Loayza-Tamayo). This information is considered necessary by the Court in order to issue a Judgment on reparations in this case in accordance with this Court's Judgment of September 17, 1997, in which it decided that Peru had violated to the detriment of Ms. Loayza-Tamayo, Articles 7, 8(1), and 8(2) in relation to Articles 25 and 1(1), as well as Articles 5 and 8(4) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention for the illegal deprivation of her liberty; cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment; violation of her personal integrity; and the violation of her right to not be tried twice on the same facts.

8) Neira Alegria et al. Case Reparations. The Court considered the status of compliance with the Repaartions Judgment issued in this case on September 19, 1996, in which an indemnization of US$154,040.74 was ordered in favor of the relatives of Victor Neira-Alegria, William Zenteno-Escobar and Edgar Zenteno-Escobar. After having studied the documents presented by Peru and a request made by the relatives of the victims, the Court issued on August 29, 1998, an Order in which it decided:

[t]o require the State of Peru, pursuant to the Judgment of September 19, 1996, that it should take all the necessary measures so that Alquilina Medina Tapia de Neira, Carlos Ernesto Neira-Medina, Victor Jose Neira-Medina and Soledad Neira-Medina receive the compensation for which they are entitled in the present case, including the measures necessary for their acreditation as beneficiaries of the trust created in the Banco de la Nacion.

9) Pantoja Ordoñez et al. Case: The Court considered this case, which was submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by its application, on July 6, 1998.

The petition presented by the Commission refers to the allegedly unlawful execution, and subsequent denial of justice by the State of Colombia, of Artemio Pantoja-Ordonez, Hernan Javier Cuaran-Muchavisoy, Julio Milciadez Ceron-Gomez, Edebraiz Ceron-Rojas, William Hamilton Ceron-Rojas and Hernan Lizcano-Jacanamejoy or Moises Ojeda. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requested in its application that the Court decide that Colombia violated Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as Article 3 of the Geneva Covenants of 1949.

10) Next session: The Court will hold its XLII Regular Session from November 16 to 27, 1998.

The composition of the Court during this Regular Session was as follows: 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) y Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo (Colombia). In the Garrido and Baigorria Cases, Julio A. Barberis was named by the State of Argentina as Judge Ad-hoc. In the Cantoral Benavides and Castillo Petruzzi et al. Cases, Fernando Vidal-Ramirez was named by the State of Peru and participated as Judge Ad-hoc. Also present were 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, which is an autonomous judicial institution of the Organization of American States was established in 1979, is composed of jurists of the highest moral authority and recognized competence in the area of human rights. The judges are individually elected by the General Assembly of the O.A.S, and cannot serve for more than two terms of 6 years each.

San Jose, September, 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.