ontents - corte interamericana de derechos · pdf filecase of castañeda gutman (mexico)...

�Contents

Contents

I. ORIGIN,STRUCTUREANDCOMPETENCEOFTHECOURT 1

A. Establishment 1

B. Organization 1

C. Composition 2

D. Jurisdiction 3

1. Contentiousfunction 4 2. Advisoryfunction 5 3. Provisionalmeasures 6

E. Budget 6

F. RelationswiththeGeneralSecretariatofthe OrganizationofAmericanStates(OAS) 6

G. Relationswithsimilarregionalorganizations 6

II. JURISDICTIONALANDADVISORYACTIVITIESOFTHECOURT 7

A. Seventy-eighthregularsessionoftheCourt 7

1. CaseoftheLaRochelaMassacre(Colombia) 7 2. CaseofCantoralHuamaníandGarcíaSantaCruz(Peru) 7 3. CaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison(Peru) 8 4. CaseofHeliodoroPortugal(Panama) 8 5. CaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison(Peru) 8 6. MatteroftheGlobovisión”TelevisionStation(Venezuela) 8 7. CaseofYvonNeptune(Haiti) 8 8. MatterofMeryNaranjo(Colombia) 8 9. CaseofRuggeriet al.(Venezuela) 9 10. CaseofCaballeroDelgadoandSantana(Colombia) 9 11. MatterofÁlvarezet al.(Colombia) 9 12. MatterofthePeaceCommunityofSanJosé deApartadó(Colombia) 10 13. MatterofPilarNoriegaet al.(Mexico) 10 14. MatteroftheJiguamiandóandtheCurbaradó Communities(Colombia) 11 15. CaseofValleJaramilloet al.(Colombia) 11 16. MatterofMillacuraLlaipénet al.(Argentina) 11 17. CaseofCastañedaGutman(Mexico) 12

Inter-AmerICAn Court of HumAn rIgHts

�� Contents

18. MatteroftheCapitalJudicialDetentionCenterElRodeo �andElRodeo��(Venezuela) 12 19. Hearingsonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment 12 20. Ordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment 12

B. Thirty-thirdspecialsessionoftheCourt 13

1. CaseofBayarri(Argentina) 13 2. CaseofTiuTojín(Guatemala) 13 3. CaseofEscuéZapata(Colombia) 13 4. Otheractivities 13

C. Seventy-ninthregularsessionoftheCourt 13

1. CaseofKimel(Argentina) 14 2. MatteroftheUrsoBrancoPrison(Brazil) 14 3. CaseofBaenaRicardoet al.(Panama) 15 4. CaseofMayagna(Sumo)AwasTingniCommunity (Nicaragua) 15 5. CaseoftheGómezPaquiyauriBrothers(Peru) 15 6. CaseoftheMapiripánMassacre(Colombia) 15 7. CaseofEscuéZapata(Colombia) 16 8. CaseofSalvadorChiriboga(Ecuador) 16 9. CaseofYvonNeptune(Haiti) 16 10. CaseofGabrielaPerozoet al.(Venezuela) 17 11. CasesofFermínRamírezandRaxcacóReyes (Guatemala) 17 12. Ordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment 18

D. Thirty-fourthspecialsessionoftheCourt 19

1. CaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison(Peru) 19

E. EightiethregularsessionoftheCourt 19

1. CaseofApitzBarberaet al.(“FirstAdministrative Court”)(Venezuela) 20 2. CaseofAlbánCornejoet al.(Ecuador) 21 3. MatterofCarlosNietoPalmaandanother(Venezuela) 21 4. CaseofCastañedaGutman(Mexico) 21 5. MatterofLeonelRiveroet al.(previously PilarNoriegaGarcíaet al.(Mexico) 22 6. CaseofLuisianaRíoset al.(Venezuela) 22 7. Ordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment 22

F. Thirty-fifthspecialsessionoftheCourt 22

1. CaseofHeliodoroPortugal(Panama) 23 2. CaseoftheSaramakaPeople(Suriname) 24

��Contents

AnnuAl report 2008

3. CaseofTristánDonoso(Panama) 24 4. CaseofTiconaEstrada(Bolivia) 24 5. MatterofthePersonsDeprivedofLibertyinthe “Dr.SebastiãoMartinsSilveira”Prison,inAraraquara, SãoPaulo(Brazil) 24 6. MatteroftheChildrenandAdolescentsDeprivedof Libertyinthe“TatuapéComplex”oftheCASA Foundation(Brazil) 24 7. CaseofClaudeReyeset al.(Chile) 24 8. CaseofBulacio(Argentina) 24 9. Otheractivities 25

G. Thirty-sixthspecialsessionoftheCourt 25

1. CaseofBayarri(Argentina) 25 2. Ordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment 26 3. Otheractivities 26

H. Eighty-firstregularsessionoftheCourt 26

1. CaseofGarcíaPrietoet al.(ElSalvador) 26 2. CaseofClaudeReyeset al.(Chile) 26 3. MatterofLysiasFleury(Haiti) 27 4. MatterofLeonelRiveroet al.(Mexico) 27 5. Matterofthe“ElNacional”and“AsíeslaNoticia” Newspapers(Venezuela) 27 6. MatteroftheChildrenandAdolescentsDeprivedof Libertyinthe“TatuapéComplex”oftheCASA Foundation(Brazil) 27 7. MatterofthePersonsDeprivedofLibertyinthe “Dr.SebastiãoMartinsSilveira”Prison,inAraraquara, SãoPaulo(Brazil) 27 8. CaseofChaparroÁlvarezandLapo�ñiguez(Ecuador) 28 9. CaseofTiuTojín(Guatemala) 28 10. CaseofTiconaEstrada(Bolivia) 28 11. CaseofValleJaramilloet al.(Colombia) 29 12. CaseofKawasFernández(Honduras) 31 13. Orderonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment 31

�. Thirty-seventhspecialsessionoftheCourt 32

1. CaseofTyroneDaCostaCadogan(Barbados) 32 2. CaseofKawasFernández(Honduras) 32 3. CaseofEscheret al.(Brazil) 32 4. MatteroftheKankuamo�ndigenousPeople (Colombia) 32 5. MatteroftheMendozaPrisons(Argentina) 32 6. Academicactivities 32 7. Otheractivities 33


�V Contents

J. Submissionofnewcontentiouscases 33

1. CaseofKawasFernándezv.Honduras 33 2. CaseofRadillaPachecov.Mexico 34 3. CaseoftheDischargedandRetiredEmployees oftheOfficeoftheComptrollerGeneralv.Peru 34 4. CaseofAnzualdoCastrov.Peru 35 5. CaseofUsónRamírezv.Venezuela 35 6. CaseoftheLasDosErresMassacrev.Guatemala 36 7. CaseofTyroneDaCostaCadoganv.Barbados 36 8. CaseofBarretoLeivav.Venezuela 36 9. CaseofManuelCepedaVargasv.Colombia 37

K. Newprovisionalmeasures 38

1. ProvisionalmeasuresinthecaseofTyrone DaCostaCadoganwithregardtoBarbados 38 2. ProvisionalmeasuresinthecaseofKawas FernándezwithregardtoHonduras 39

L. Newadvisoryopinion 39

1. AdvisoryopinionOC-21 39

M. Monitoringcompliancewithjudgmentand implementationofprovisionalmeasures 39

1. Contentiouscases 40 2. Provisionalmeasures 40

n. StatusofmattersbeingprocessedbytheCourt 41

1. Contentiouscases 41

1.a Contentiouscasespendingjudgment 41 1.b Contentiouscasesatthestageof monitoringcompliancewithjudgment 42

2. Provisionalmeasures 47

2.a. Provisionalmeasureslifted 47 2.b. Activeprovisionalmeasures 48

III. OTHERACTIVITIESOFTHECOURT 50

Presentationofthe2007AnnualReport ontheWorkofthe�nter-AmericanCourt ofHumanRights 50

VContents

AnnuAl report 2008

Thirty-eighthRegularSessionofthe GeneralAssemblyoftheOrganizationof AmericanStates 50

�naugurationoftheAnnex tothecurrentpremises oftheseatoftheCourt 55

IV. INTER-INSTITUTIONALCOOPERATIONAGREEMENTS 56

V. ADMINISTRATIVEANDFINANCIALAFFAIRS 56

�nternationalcooperation 57

�nternships 57

VI. STATISTICSOFTHECOURT 57

1I.orIgIn,struCtureandatrIbutIonsoftheCourt

AnnuAl report 2008

I. orIgIn, struCture And

CompetenCe of tHe Court

A. ESTABLISHMENT

The�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights(hereinafter“theCourtor“the�nter-AmericanCourt”)wascreatedbytheentryintoforceoftheAmericanConventiononHumanRightsorthe“PactofSanJosé,CostaRica”(hereinafter“theConvention”or“theAmericanConvention”)onJuly18,1978,whentheeleventhinstrumentofratificationbyaMemberStateoftheOrganizationofAmericanStates(hereinafter“theOAS”or“theOrganization”)wasdeposited.TheConventionwasadoptedatthe�nter-AmericanSpecializedConferenceonHumanRights,whichwasheldinSanJosé,CostaRica,fromNovember7to22,1969.

ThetwoorgansfortheprotectionofhumanrightsprovidedforunderArticle33oftheAmerican Convention are the �nter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “theCommission”or“the�nter-AmericanCommission”)andtheCourt.ThefunctionoftheseorgansistoensurecompliancewiththeobligationsimposedbytheConvention.

B. ORGANIZATION

UnderthetermsoftheStatuteoftheCourt(hereinafter“theStatute”),theCourtisanautonomousjudicialinstitutionwithitsseatinSanJose,CostaRica;itspurposeistheapplicationandinterpretationoftheConvention

TheCourtconsistsofseven judges,nationalsofOASMemberStates,whoareelectedinanindividualcapacity“fromamongjuristsofthehighestmoralauthorityandofrecognizedcompetenceinthefieldofhumanrights,whopossessthequalificationsrequiredfortheexerciseofthehighestjudicialfunctions,inconformitywiththelawoftheStateofwhichtheyarenationalsoroftheStatethatproposesthemascandidates”(Article52oftheConvention).Article8oftheStatuteprovides that theSecretaryGeneral of theOrganizationofAmericanStates shallrequest theStatesParties to theConvention (hereinafter “StatesParties”) to submita listoftheircandidatesforthepositionofjudgeoftheCourt.�naccordancewithArticle53(2)oftheConvention,eachStatePartymayproposeuptothreecandidates,nationalsoftheStatethatproposesthemorofanyotherOASMemberState.

ThejudgesareelectedbytheStatesPartiesbysecretballotandbythevoteofanabsolutemajorityduringtheOASGeneralAssembly immediatelybeforetheexpiryofthetermsoftheoutgoingjudges.VacanciesontheCourtcausedbydeath,permanentdisability,resignationordismissalshallbefilled,ifpossible,atthenextsessionoftheOASGeneralAssembly(Article6(1)and6(2)oftheStatute).


2 I.orIgIn,struCtureandatrIbutIonsoftheCourt

Judgesshallbeelectedforatermofsixyearsandmaybere-electedonlyonce.Judgeswhosetermshaveexpiredshallcontinuetoservewithregardtothecasestheyhavebeguntohearandthatarestillpending(Article54(3)oftheConvention).

�fnecessary,inordertomaintaintheCourt’squorum,oneormoreinterimjudgesmaybeappointedbytheStatesParties(Article6(3)oftheStatute).Furthermore,whennoneofthejudgescalledontohearacaseisanationaloftherespondentStateorwhen,althoughajudgeisanationaloftherespondentState,heexcuseshimselffromhearingthecase,thatStatemay,attheinvitationoftheCourt,appointajudgead hoc tojoinitfordeliberatingonanddecidingthecaseinquestion.StateshavetakenadvantageofthispossibilityinnumerouscasesbeforetheCourt.

StatespartiestoacasearerepresentedintheproceedingsbeforetheCourtbytheagentstheydesignate(Article21oftheRulesofProcedure)andtheCommissionisrepresentedbythedelegatesthat itappointsforthispurpose.Underthe2001reformtotheRulesofProcedure,theallegedvictimsortheirrepresentativesmaysubmitautonomouslytheirrequests,argumentsandevidence,andalsotakepartinthedifferentproceedingsandproceduralstagesbeforetheCourt.

ThejudgesareatthedisposaloftheCourt,whichholdsasmanyregularsessionsayearasmaybenecessaryfortheproperdischargeofitsfunctions.Theydonot,however,receiveasalaryfortheperformanceoftheirduties,butratheraperdiemofUS$150foreachdaytheysession.Currently,theCourtholdsfourregularsessionseachyear.SpecialsessionsmayalsobecalledbythePresidentoftheCourtorattherequestofthemajorityofthejudges.AlthoughthejudgesarenotrequiredtoresideattheseatoftheCourt,thePresidentshallrenderhisserviceonapermanentbasis(Article16oftheStatute).

ThePresidentandVicePresidentareelectedbythejudgesforaperiodoftwoyearsandmaybereelected(Article12oftheStatute).

There is a Permanent Commission of the Court composed of the President, the VicePresidentandanyotherjudgesthatthePresidentconsidersappropriate,accordingtotheneedsoftheCourt.TheCourtmayalsocreateothercommissionsforspecificmatters(Article6oftheRulesofProcedure).

TheSecretariatfunctionsunderthedirectionofaSecretary(Article14oftheStatute)andaDeputySecretary(Article14oftheStatute).

C. COMPOSITION

Thefollowingjudges,listedinorderofprecedence,satontheCourtin2008:

CeciliaMedina-Quiroga(Chile),President DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident SergioGarcía-Ramírez(Mexico) ManuelE.Ventura-Robles(CostaRica) LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina) MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica),and RhadysAbreu-Blondet(DominicanRepublic)


AnnuAl report 2008

TheSecretaryoftheCourtisPabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile)andtheDeputySecretaryisEmiliaSegaresRodríguez(CostaRica).

During2008,fivejudgesad hocservedontheCourt;namely:

Name Case Participation

JuanA.TejadaEspino CaseofHeliodoroPortugal(Panama)Publichearinganddeliberationofthejudgment

ÁlvaroCastellanosHowell CaseofTiuTojín(Guatemala)Publichearinganddeliberationofthejudgment

DiegoRodríguezPinzón CaseofSalvadorChiriboga(Ecuador) Deliberationofthejudgment

PierPaoloPasceriScaramuzzaCases of Perozo et al., and LuisianaRíoset al.(Venezuela)

Publichearings

ClausWobeserHoepfner CaseofCastañedaGutman(Mexico)Publichearinganddeliberationofthejudgment

Furthermore,duringtheyear,respondentStatesexercisedtheirrighttoappointajudge ad hocinthefollowingcases:

Name Case

VíctorOscarShiyinGarcíaTomaCaseoftheDismissedandRetiredEmployeesoftheOfficeoftheComptrollerGeneral;CaseofAnzualdoCastro(Peru)

RamónCadenaRámila CaseoftheDosErresMassacre(Guatemala)

RosaMaríaÁlvarez CaseofGonzálezet al.(“CottonField”)(Mexico)

RobertodeFiguereidoCaldas CaseofSéptimoGaribaldi(Brazil)

D. JURISDICTION

TheConventionconferscontentiousandadvisoryfunctionsontheCourt.Thefirstfunctioninvolvesthepowertodecidecasessubmittedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissionoraStatePartyallegingthatoneoftheStatesPartieshasviolatedtheConvention.Pursuanttothisfunction,theCourtisempoweredtoorderprovisionalmeasuresofprotection.ThesecondfunctioninvolvestheprerogativeofOASMemberStatestorequesttheCourttointerprettheConventionor“othertreatiesconcerningtheprotectionofhumanrightsintheAmericanStates.”Withintheirspecificspheresofcompetence,theorgansoftheOASmentionedin itsChartermayalsoconsulttheCourt.



1. Contentiousfunction:thisfunctionenablestheCourttodeterminewhetheraStateshasincurredinternationalresponsibilityforhavingviolatedanyoftherightsembodiedorestablishedintheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,becauseithasfailedtocomplywithitsobligationsto respectandensure those rights.Thecontentiouscompetenceof theCourt is regulatedbyArticle62oftheAmericanConventionwhichestablishes:

1. AStatePartymay,upondepositingitsinstrumentofratificationoradherencetothisConvention,oratanysubsequenttime,declarethatitrecognizesasbinding,ipso facto,andnotrequiringspecialagreement,thejurisdictionoftheCourtonallmattersrelatingtotheinterpretationorapplicationofthisConvention.

2. Suchdeclarationmaybemadeunconditionally,ontheconditionofreciprocity,fora specifiedperiod, or for specific cases. It shall bepresented to theSecretaryGeneraloftheOrganization,whoshalltransmitcopiesthereoftotheothermemberstatesoftheOrganizationandtotheSecretaryoftheCourt.

3. ThejurisdictionoftheCourtshallcompriseallcasesconcerningtheinterpretationandapplicationoftheprovisionsofthisConventionthataresubmittedtoit,providedthattheStatesPartiestothecaserecognizeorhaverecognizedsuchjurisdiction,whetherbyspecialdeclarationpursuanttotheprecedingparagraphs,orbyaspecialagreement.

AccordingtoArticle61(1)oftheConvention“[o]nlytheStatesPartiesandtheCommissionshallhavetherighttosubmitacasetotheCourt.”

Article63(1)of theConventioncontains the followingprovisionconcerning theCourt’sjudgments:

IftheCourtfindsthattherehasbeenaviolationofarightorfreedomprotectedbythisConvention,theCourtshallrulethattheinjuredpartybeensuredtheenjoymentofhisrightorfreedomthatwasviolated.�tshallalsorule,ifappropriate,thattheconsequencesofthemeasureorsituationthatconstitutedthebreachofsuchrightorfreedomberemediedandthatfaircompensationbepaidtotheinjuredparty.

Paragraph2ofArticle68oftheConventionprovidesthat:“[t]hatpartofajudgmentthatstipulatescompensatorydamagesmaybeexecutedinthecountryconcernedinaccordancewithdomesticproceduregoverningtheexecutionofjudgmentsagainsttheState.”

ThejudgmentsrenderedbytheCourtare“finalandnotsubjecttoappeal.”In“caseofdisagreementas to themeaningorscopeof the judgment, theCourtshall interpret itat therequestofanyoftheparties,providedtherequestismadewithinninetydaysfromthedateofnotificationof the judgment”(Article67of theConvention).TheStatesParties“undertake tocomplywiththejudgmentoftheCourtinanycasetowhichtheyareparties”(Article68oftheConvention).

NinecontentiouscaseswerelodgedbeforetheCourtduringthecurrentyear,anditdeliveredeighteenjudgments.1Infivejudgmentsitruledonpreliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsand

1 The Court delivered judgment in the following contentious cases: the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia(interpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcosts),CantoralHuamaníandGarcíaSantaCruzv.


AnnuAl report 2008

coststogether;infiveothersitruledonmeritsandthecorrespondingreparationsand,ineightoninterpretationofjudgment.Thus,theCourtdecidedtencontentiouscasesintheirentirety,byadoptingafinaldecisiononpreliminaryobjections,meritsandreparationsinrelationtoallthepointsindisputesetoutintheapplication.TheCourtiscurrentlyprocessingonehundredandtencontentiouscases,ofwhichninety-fourareatthestageofmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment,nineattheinitialprocessingstageandsevenatthestageofpreliminaryobjectionsandpossiblemerits,reparationsandcosts.

TheCourtsubmitsareportonitsworktotheGeneralAssemblyateachregularsession,inwhichit“specif[ies],inparticular,thecasesinwhichaStatehasnotcompliedwithitsjudgments”(Article65oftheConvention).

Twenty-oneStatesPartieshaverecognizedthecompulsoryjurisdictionoftheCourt.Theyare:CostaRica,Peru,Venezuela,Honduras,Ecuador,Argentina,Uruguay,Colombia,Guatemala,Suriname,Panama,Chile,Nicaragua,Paraguay,Bolivia, ElSalvador,Haiti,Brazil,Mexico, theDominicanRepublicandBarbados.

ThestatusofratificationsofandaccessionstotheConventionisincludedattheendofthisreport.

2. Advisoryfunction:thisfunctionenablestheCourttorespondtoconsultationsbyOASMemberStatesortheOrganization’sorgans,inthetermsofArticle64oftheConvention,whichstipulates:

1. The member states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding theinterpretationofthisConventionorofothertreatiesconcerningtheprotectionofHumanRights in theAmericanstates. Within theirspheresofcompetence, theorgans listed inChapterXoftheCharteroftheOrganizationofAmericanStates,asamendedbytheProtocolofBuenosAires,mayinlikemannerconsulttheCourt.

2. TheCourt,attherequestofamemberstateoftheOrganization,mayprovidethatstatewithopinionsregardingthecompatibilityofanyofitsdomesticlawswiththeaforesaidinternationalinstruments.

Peru(interpretationofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcosts),Kimelv.Argentina(merits,reparationsandcosts),EscuéZapatav.Colombia(interpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcosts),SalvadorChiribogav.Ecuador(preliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcosts),YvonNeptunev.Haiti(merits,reparationsandcosts),MiguelCastroCastroPrisonv.Peru(interpretationofthejudgmentonmerits, reparations and costs), Apitz Barberaet al.v. Venezuela (preliminary objection,merits, reparationsandcosts),AlbánCornejoet al.v.Ecuador(interpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcosts),CastañedaGutmanv.Mexico(preliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsandcosts),theSaramakaPeoplev.Suriname(interpretationofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsandcosts),HeliodoroPortugalv.Panama(preliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsandcosts),Bayarriv.Argentina(preliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcosts),ChaparroÁlvarezandLapo�ñiguezv.Ecuador(interpretationofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcosts),ValleJaramilloet al.v.Colombia(merits,reparationsandcosts),TiuTojínv.Guatemala(merits,reparationsandcosts),TiconaEstradav.Bolivia(merits,reparationsandcosts)andGarcíaPrietoet al.v.ElSalvador(interpretationof the judgmentonpreliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcosts).



The right to request an advisory opinion is not limited to the States Parties to theConvention.AnyOASMemberStatemayrequestsuchanopinion.TheadvisoryjurisdictionoftheCourtenhancestheOrganization’scapacitytodealwithmattersarisingfromtheapplicationoftheConvention,becauseitenablestheorgansoftheOAStoconsulttheCourt,withintheirspheresofcompetence.

One request for an advisory opinion was submitted to the consideration of the Courtduringtheyear,buttheCourthasnotyetmadearulinginthisregard.

3. Provisionalmeasures:theCourtmayadoptanymeasuresitdeemspertinentincasesofextremegravityandurgency,andwhennecessarytoavoidirreparabledamagetopersons,bothincaseswhichtheCourtishearingandincasesnotyetsubmittedtoitattherequestofthe�nter-AmericanCommission.Article63(2)oftheConventionstipulatesthat:

�ncasesofextremegravityandurgency,andwhennecessarytoavoidirreparabledamagetopersons,theCourtshalladoptsuchprovisionalmeasuresasitdeemspertinentinmattersithasunderconsideration.WithrespecttoacasenotyetsubmittedtotheCourt,itmayactattherequestoftheCommission.

During the year, two requests for provisionalmeasureswere submitted to theCourt’sconsiderationandwereadopted.Inaddition,fiveprovisionalmeasuresweretotallyliftedandfourpartiallylifted.Currently,fortyoneprovisionalmeasuresareactive.

E. BUDGET

Article72oftheConventionprovidesthat“theCourtshalldrawupitsownbudgetandsubmititforapprovaltotheGeneralAssemblythroughtheGeneralSecretariat.Thelattermaynotintroduceanychangesinit.”�naccordancewithArticle26ofitsStatute,theCourtadministersitsownbudget.The2008budgetoftheCourtwasUS$1,756,300.00(onemillionsevenhundredandfifty-sixthousandthreehundredUnitedStatesdollars).

Atitsthirty-sixthspecialsessionheldinWashington,D.C.,onSeptember30,2008,theGeneralAssemblyoftheOrganizationofAmericanStatesadoptedtheCourt’sbudgetfor2009intheamountofUS$1,780,500.00(onemillionsevenhundredandeightythousandfivehundredUnitedStatesdollars).

F. RELATIONSWITHTHEGENERALSECRETARIATOFTHEORGANIZATION OFAMERICANSTATES(OAS)

Duringtheyear,theCourtwasinclosecommunicationwiththeOASGeneralSecretariatconcerningadministrativeandfinancialmatters,andcouldalwaysrelyonitscollaborationandsupportfortheCourt’sactivities.

G. RELATIONSWITHSIMILARREGIONALORGANIZATIONS

TheCourtenjoyscloseinstitutionaltieswiththe�nter-AmericanCommission.Thesetieshavebeenstrengthenedthroughmeetingsbetweenthemembersofthetwobodies,heldonthe

7II.JurIsdICtIonalandadvIsoryaCtIvItIesoftheCourt

AnnuAl report 2008

recommendationof theGeneralAssembly(infra ��).TheCourtalsomaintainscloserelationswiththe�nter-American�nstituteofHumanRights,whichwasestablishedunderanagreementbetween the Government of Costa Rica and the Court that entered into force on November17, 1980. The �nstitute is an autonomous, international academic institution, with a global,interdisciplinaryapproachtotheteaching,researchandpromotionofhumanrights.TheCourtalsomaintainsinstitutionalrelationswiththeEuropeanCourtofHumanRights,whichwascreatedbytheEuropeanConventionfortheProtectionofHumanRightsandFundamentalFreedomsandestablishedbytheCouncilofEuropewithsimilarfunctionstothoseofthe�nter-AmericanCourt.

II. JurIsdICtIonAl And AdvIsory

ACtIvItIes of tHe Court

A. Seventy-eighthregularsessionoftheCourt

TheCourthelditsseventy-eighthregularsessioninSanJosé,CostaRica,fromJanuary22toFebruary3,2007,withthefollowingmembers:CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),President;DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident;SergioGarcíaRamírez(Mexico);ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica),andRhadysAbreuBlondet(DominicanRepublic).ThefollowingJudgesad hoc alsotookpartinthesession:JuanA.TejadaEspino,appointedbytheStateofPanamaforthecaseofHeliodoro Portugal,andClausvonWobeserHoepfner,appointedbytheStateofMexicoforthecaseofCastañeda Gutman. AlsopresentweretheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile),andtheDeputySecretary,EmiliaSegaresRodríguez(CostaRica).

During this session, theCourt held fourpublic hearings concerning contentious cases,seven private hearings on monitoring compliance with judgment, one procedure concerninghelpful evidence ina contentious case,fivepublic hearingsonprovisionalmeasuresandoneprivatehearingonprovisionalmeasures.�talsodeliveredtwojudgmentsoninterpretation,elevenordersonprovisionalmeasuresandthirteenordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment.ThemattersconsideredbytheCourtduringthesessionaredescribedbelow:

1. Case of the La Rochela Massacre (Colombia): Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs.OnJanuary28,2008,theCourthandeddownjudgmentontherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscasethattheCourthaddeliveredonMay11,2007,deciding,inter alia,todeclareadmissibletherequestforinterpretationof the judgmentonmerits, reparationsandcosts in thiscase,deliveredbytheCourtonMay11,2007,andtodeterminethescopeofthecontentsofparagraphs270,295and305ofthesaidjudgment.

2. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz (Peru): Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs.�On January28,2008, the

2 JudgeDiegoGarcía-SayánexcusedhimselffromhearingthiscasepursuanttoArticle19(2)oftheCourt’sStatuteandArticle19ofitsRulesofProcedure.


8 II.JurIsdICtIonalandadvIsoryaCtIvItIesoftheCourt

Court delivered judgment on the request for interpretation of the judgment on preliminaryobjection,merits, reparationsandcosts in thiscasethat theCourthadhandeddownonJuly10,2007,deciding,inter alia,todeclareinadmissiblethefirstandthirdpointsoftherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcostsinthecaseofCantoralHuamaníandGarcíaSantaCruzfiledbytheState,becausetheywerenotinkeepingwiththeprovisionsofArticles67oftheConventionand29(3)and59oftheRulesofProcedure;andtodeclareadmissiblethesecondpointofthisrequestforinterpretation;namely,withregardtotheintegrationorcorrectionofparagraph187ofthejudgmentonmerits,themeaningandscopeofwhichwasdeterminedbytheCourtinthejudgmentoninterpretation.

3. CaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison(Peru):Request forprovisional measures. OnJanuary29,2008,theCourtissuedanorderregardingarequestforprovisionalmeasuresfiledbytherepresentativesofagroupofvictimsinthiscase,inwhichitdecidedtorejecttherequestforprovisionalmeasures.

4. Case of Heliodoro Portugal (Panama): Preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. AtapublichearingheldonJanuary29and30,2008,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofthewitnessesproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictimandhisnextofkin,andtheState.TheCourtalsoheardthefinaloralargumentsoftheCommission,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictimandhisnextofkin,andtheStateofPanamaonthepreliminaryobjectionsandpossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

5. CaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison(Peru):Request submitted by the common intervenor of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin.OnJanuary29,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonthesaidrequestinthiscase,inwhichitdecidedtorejecttherequestfiledbythecommonintervenorinthecaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison.

6. MatteroftheGlobovisión”TelevisionStation(Venezuela):Provisional measures. OnJanuary29,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,deciding,inter alia, to ratify all aspects of the order of the President of the �nter-American Court ofHumanRightsofDecember21,2007,and,therefore,torejecttherequestforexpansionoftheprovisionalmeasuresthatwasfiledonDecember17,2007;andtorequiretheStatetomaintaintheprovisionalmeasuresdecidedintheorderofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsofSeptember4,2004.

7. CaseofYvonNeptune(Haiti):Merits and possible reparations and costs. OnJanuary30,2008,theCourtheldaprocedureconcerninghelpfulevidence,intheformofapublichearingduringwhichitreceivedthetestimonyofYvonNeptune,theallegedvictim,andanotherdeponentwhomerelyprovided information,aswellas informationpresentedby theStateofHaiti, the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,andtherepresentativeoftheallegedvictimonseveralaspectsrelatingtothemeritsandpossiblereparations.

8. MatterofMeryNaranjo(Colombia):Provisional measures. OnJanuary31,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided:todeclarethattheprovisionalmeasuresadoptedbytheorderofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofSeptember22,2006,hadbecomeunnecessarywith regard to JavierAugustoTorresDurán,becausehewasnowdeceased;torequiretheStatetoadoptforthwithanynecessarymeasuresandtomaintainthosethatithadalreadyadoptedtoprovideeffectiveprotectiontotheliveandintegrityofthe


AnnuAl report 2008

following persons: Mery Naranjo Jiménez and her next of kin: Juan David Naranjo Jiménez,AlejandroNaranjoJiménez,SandraJanethNaranjoJiménez,AlbaMeryNaranjoJiménez,ErikaJohannGómez,HeidiTatianaNaranjoGómez,SebastiánNaranjoJiménez,MaríaCamilaNaranjoJiménez,AuraMaríaAmayaNaranjo,EstebanTorresNaranjoandthechild,LuisaMaríaEscuderoJiménez;toreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldadoptallnecessarymeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofMaríadelSocorroMosqueraLondoño;toreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldensurethatthemeasuresofprotectionwerenotprovidedbythe“securityunits”that,accordingtothebeneficiaries,wereinvolvedinthereportedfactsand,consequently,thattheybeappointedwiththeparticipationofthebeneficiariesortheirrepresentative,andtoreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldmaintainthepermanentcustodymeasuresrequiredtoprovidesecuritytotheplaceofresidenceofMeryNaranjoJiménezandherfamily.

�naddition,theCourtdecided,inter alia,torequiretheStateofColombiatoreporttothe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsaboutthemeasuresithadadoptedtocomplywiththeorder;inthisreport,theStateshouldrefertotheallegedmurderofJavierAugustoTorresDuránandtheallegeddetentionofJuanDavidNaranjo;torequiretherepresentativesandthe�nter-AmericanCommissiontopresenttheirobservationsontheState’sreport;inaddition,theCourtreiteratedtotheStatethatitshouldallowthebeneficiariesofthemeasurestotakepartintheirplanningandimplementationand,ingeneral,keeptheminformedofprogressintheexecutionofthemeasuresorderedbytheCourt.

9. Case of Ruggeri et al. (Venezuela): Preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. OnJanuary31andFebruary1,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofthewitnessesandexpertwitnessesproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommission, the representativesof theallegedvictims,and theState. �naddition, theCourtheardthefinaloralargumentsoftheCommission,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictims,andtheStateofVenezuelaonthepreliminaryobjectionsandpossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

10. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana (Colombia): Provisional measures. OnFebruary4,2008,duringapublichearingtheCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasures,andtheState,concerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthiscase.

OnFebruary6,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthiscase,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,torequiretheStatetomaintainandadoptthenecessarymeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofMaríaNodeliaParraandGonzaloAriasAlturo;toreiterateto the State that it should investigate the facts that originated and justifiedmaintaining theprovisionalmeasuresand,ifapplicable,identifythoseresponsibleandimposethecorrespondingsanctions;andtoreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldallowthebeneficiariestoparticipateintheplanningandimplementationofthemeasuresofprotectionand,ingeneral,keeptheminformedofprogressinthemeasuresorderedbytheCourt.

11. MatterofÁlvarezet al.(Colombia):Provisional measures. OnFebruary4,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights, the representatives of the beneficiaries of the provisionalmeasures and the State ofColombia,concerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

OnFebruary8,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,torequiretheStatetoadoptthenecessaryprovisionalmeasuresto



protectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofallthemembersofASFADDES,byprotectingtheofficesof this organization; to require the State to adopt the necessarymeasures to safeguard therighttolifeandpersonalintegrityofMaríaEugeniaLópez,AdrianaDiosa,AstridManrique,ErikArellanaBautista,DanielPrado,SilviaQuintero,MaríaEugeniaCárdenas,ÁlvaroGuisaoUsuga,FlorentinoGuisaoUsuga,GloriaGómez,VerónicaMarínandNemecioOquendo;toreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldallowthebeneficiariestoparticipateintheplanningandimplementationofthemeasuresofprotectionand,ingeneral,keeptheminformedofprogressinthemeasuresorderedbytheCourt;andtorequesttherepresentativestoforwardspecificinformationonthesituationofMaríaEugeniaLópez,AdrianaDiosa,AstridManrique,ErikArellanaBautista,DanielPrado,SilviaQuintero,MaríaEugeniaCárdenas,ÁlvaroGuisaoUsuga,FlorentinoGuisaoUsuga,GloriaGómez,VerónicaMarínandNemecioOquendo.Thisinformationshouldincludeaprecisereportonwhetherasituationsubsistsofextremegravityandurgencyandtheneedtoavoidirreparabledamagetothesepersons.

12. MatterofthePeaceCommunityofSanJosédeApartadó(Colombia):Provisional measures. OnFebruary4,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsoftheInter-AmericanCommission onHumanRights, the representatives of the beneficiaries of theprovisionalmeasures,andtheStateofColombia,concerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

OnFebruary6,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,toreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldmaintainanymeasuresithadadoptedandorder immediatelythosenecessarytoprovideeffectiveprotectiontothe lifeandpersonal integrityofall themembersof thePeaceCommunityofSanJosédeApartadó;torequiretheStatetoreportontheinvestigationsintothefactsthatgaverisetotheadoptionof these provisional measures; to reiterate to the State that it should make every effort toallowthebeneficiariesofthemeasureortheirrepresentativestotakepartintheplanningandimplementationofthemeasuresofprotectionand,ingeneral,keeptheminformedofprogressinthemeasuresorderedbytheCourt;andtoauthorizethePresidentofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightstodulyconvenetheState,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandtherepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasurestoahearingtomonitortheimplementationoftheprovisionalmeasures.

13. MatterofPilarNoriegaet al.(Mexico):Provisional measures. OnFebruary5,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasures,andtheStateofMexico,concerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

OnFebruary6,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,tolifttheprovisionalmeasuresdecidedbythe�nter-AmericanCourtinitsordersofNovember302001,April20,2004,June29,2005,andNovember24,2005,withregardtoPilarNoriegaGarcía,BárbaraZamoraLópez,EusebioOchoaLópez,�reneAliciaPlácidoEvangelista,andCarmen,Jesús,LuzMaría,Eusebio,Guadalupe,�smael,Elia,Estela,Roberto,JuanCarlos, �gnacioandAgustín,allOchoaandPlácido; torequiretheStatetomaintainthenecessarymeasurestosafeguardthelifeandpersonalintegrityofLeonelRiveroRodríguez,MaríadelosÁngelesEspinosaSánchez,AugustoCésarSandinoRiveroEspinosa,LuisaAmandaRiveroEspinosa andMaríaKatherinaRiveroEspinosa; to require theState to continue investigatingthefactsthatgaverisetotheprovisionalmeasuresorderedinfavorofthepersonsmentionedin the second operative paragraph, in order to identify those responsible and to impose the


AnnuAl report 2008

correspondingsanctionson them;and to require theState toallow thebeneficiariesor theirrepresentativestotakepartintheplanningandimplementationofthemeasuresofprotectionand, ingeneral, keep them informedofprogress in theprovisionalmeasuresorderedby the�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights.

14. MatteroftheJiguamiandóandtheCurbaradóCommunities(Colombia):Provisional measures. OnFebruary5,2008,duringaprivatehearing, theCourt received therequest forautonomous representationand recognitionsubmittedby the representativeof32 familiesofPuertoLlerasandPuebloNuevointhevalleyoftheJiguamiandóRiverandtherepresentativeof177familiesoftheCurbaradóCommunityCouncil,concerningtheseprovisionalmeasures.Duringthishearing,theCourtalsoheardtherespectiveobservationsoftheState,therepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasures,andtheInter-AmericanCommission.Aftertheprivatehearing,andduringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasures,andtheStateofColombia,concerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

The sameday, theCourt issued twoordersonprovisionalmeasures concerning thesematters,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,toreiteratetotheStateofColombiathatitshouldadopt,forthwith,thenecessarymeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofthemembersofthecommunitiesconstitutedbytheJiguamiandóCommunityCouncilandthefamiliesoftheCurbaradówhoarebeneficiariesofthesemeasures;toadoptthenecessarymeasurestosafeguardthelifeandintegrityofLigiaMaríaChaverraandManuelDennisBlandón,allowingthesebeneficiariesandtheirrepresentativefullparticipationindevisingthemeasures:toreiteratetotheStateofColombiathatitshouldadoptallnecessarymeasurestoensurethatthepersonsbenefitingfromthesemeasurescouldcontinuedwellingintheircurrentlocalities,withoutanytypeofcoercionorthreat;toreiteratetotheStateofColombiathatitshouldestablishingacontinuousmonitoringmechanismintheso-called“humanitarianrefugezones”;andtoreiteratetotheStateofColombiathatitshouldallowtherepresentativesappointedbythebeneficiariesofthemeasurestotakepartintheplanningandimplementationofthemeasuresand,ingeneral,keeptheminformedofprogressinthemeasuresorderedbythe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights.

�naddition,theCourtdecidedtomaintaintheprovisionalmeasuresdecidedbytheCourtinitsordersofMarch6,2003,November17,2004,March15,2005,andFebruary7,2006,inrelationtotheobligationoftheStatetoadopt,forthwith,thenecessarymeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofallthemembersofthecommunitiesconstitutedbytheCommunityCounciloftheJiguamiandóandthefamiliesoftheCurbaradó.

15. CaseofValleJaramilloet al.(Colombia):Merits and possible reparations and costs. OnFebruary6and7,2008,duringapublichearing, theCourt receivedthetestimonyof thewitnesses,expertwitnessesanddeponentmerelyprovidinginformation,proposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommission,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictimsandtheState.TheCourtalsoheardthefinaloralargumentsoftheCommission,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictims,andtheStateofColombiaonmeritsandpossiblereparationsandcostsinthiscase.

16. MatterofMillacuraLlaipénet al.(Argentina):Provisional measures. OnFebruary6,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdeclaredthattheprovisionalmeasuresadoptedbytheorderofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofbecausehewasnowdeceaseanddecided,inter alia:toreiteratetotheStateofArgentinathatitshouldmaintainthemeasuresithadadoptedandadoptanymeasuresnecessarytosafeguardtherightstolife



andpersonalintegrityofMaríaLeontinaMillacuraLlaipén,MarcosandValeriaTorres,JuanPabloCaba,GerardoColín,PatricioOliva,TamaraBolívar,MiguelÁngelSánchez,SilviadelosSantos,VerónicaHeredia,andVivianaandSoniaHayes,andalsothegranddaughtersofMaríaLeontinaMillacuraLlaipén(daughtersofMarcosandValeriaTorres),ofMarcela(“wifeofMarcosTorres”),AlbertoandNoeliaHayes,andLuisAlbertoFajardoand,tothisend,itshouldtakeintoaccountthegravityofthesituationandthespecificconditionsofdangertheyfaced;torequiretheStateofArgentina,initsnextreport,topresentanassessmentofthedangeroussituationfacedbyeachof thebeneficiariesof thesemeasures,describing themeasures thathavebeen implementedtodealwith thisdangeroussituation; to require theStateofArgentina, in itsnext report, todescribethefactsandcircumstancesthatledtothedeathofWalterMansilla;todeclarethat,inthecontextofthisproceedingonprovisionalmeasures,itwouldnotanalyzetheeffectivenessoftheinvestigationsintothefactsthatgaverisetothemeasures,becausethatcorrespondedtotheexaminationofthemeritsofthematter,whichwasbeingconductedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights;torejecttherequestforexpansionoftheprovisionalmeasuresin favorofCristianGamín, �vánEladioTorres,MiguelAntonioGallardo,MauricioAgüero,LuisAlbertoAlcaínaandDiegoÁlvarez;andtorequiretheStateofArgentinatoevaluateappropriatemechanismsfortheeffectiveprotectionoftherightstolifeandintegrityofthebeneficiaries,incoordinationwiththerepresentativesandthebeneficiariesofthemeasures.

17. Case of Castañeda Gutman (Mexico): Preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. OnFebruary8, 2008, during a public hearing, theCourt received thetestimonyoftheallegedvictim.TheCourtalsoheardthefinaloralargumentsoftheCommission,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictimandtheStateofMexicoonthepreliminaryobjectionsandpossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

18. Matter of the Capital Judicial Detention Center El Rodeo I and El RodeoII (Venezuela): Provisional measures. On February 8, 2008, the Court issued an order onprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,torequiretheStatetoadopttheprovisionalmeasuresnecessarytoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofallthepersonsdeprivedoflibertyintheCapitalJudicialDetentionCenterElRodeo�andElRodeo��,inparticular,toavoidviolentdeathsandinjuries;andtorequesttheStatetoreporttothe�nter-AmericanCourtontheprovisionalmeasuresadoptedincompliancewiththeorder,andtherepresentativesofthebeneficiariesandtheInter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightstopresenttheirobservationsonthesaidreport.

19. Hearingsonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment:Duringthissession,theCourtheldaseriesofprivatehearingsonmonitoringcompliancewiththejudgmentshandeddowninthefollowingcases:CantoralBenavidesv.Peru,LoayzaTamayov. Peru,CaballeroDelgadoandSantanav.Colombia,RicardoCanesev. Paraguay,Children’sRehabilitation�nstitutev. Paraguay,Sawhoyamaxa �ndigenousCommunityv. Paraguay, and YakyeAxa �ndigenousCommunityv. Paraguay.

20. Orders on monitoring compliance with judgment: During this session, the Courtissuedordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgmentinthefollowingcases:ServellónGarcíaet al.v. Honduras,LópezÁlvarezv.Honduras,CantoralBenavidesv.Peru,YakyeAxa�ndigenousCommunityv. Paraguay,Sawhoyamaxa�ndigenousCommunityv. Paraguay,CaballeroDelgadoand Santana v. Colombia, Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Children’s Rehabilitation �nstitute v. Paraguay,HuilcaTecsev.Peru,BaldeónGarcíav.Peru,AcostaCalderónv. Ecuador,GutiérrezSolerv. Colombia,andLoayzaTamayov. Peru.


AnnuAl report 2008

B. Thirty-thirdspecialsessionoftheCourt

TheCourt held its thirty-third special session in Tegucigalpa,Honduras, fromApril 28toMay1,2008,3withthefollowingmembers:CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),President;DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident;SergioGarcíaRamírez(Mexico);ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica),andRhadysAbreuBlondet(DominicanRepublic).Judgead hocAlvaroCastellanosHowell,appointedbytheStateofGuatemalaforthecaseof Tiu Tojín, alsotookpart inthesession. AlsopresentweretheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile),andtheDeputySecretary,EmiliaSegaresRodríguez(CostaRica).

Duringthissession,theCourtheldtwopublichearingsconcerningcontentiouscases.ThemattersconsideredbytheCourtduringthissessionaredescribedbelow:

1. CaseofBayarri(Argentina):Preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs.OnApril29,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofthewitnessesand expert witnesses proposed by the �nter-American Commission and the representativesof the alleged victim. TheCourt also heard the final oral arguments of theCommission, therepresentativesoftheallegedvictim,andtheStateofArgentinaonthepreliminaryobjectionsandpossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

2. CaseofTiuTojín(Guatemala):Merits and possible reparations and costs.OnApril30,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofthewitnessesandexpertwitnessesproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissionandtherepresentativesoftheallegedvictims.TheCourtalsoheardthefinaloralargumentsoftheCommission,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictims,andtheStateofGuatemalaonmeritsandpossiblereparationsandcostsinthiscase.

3. CaseofEscuéZapata(Colombia):Request for interpretation of judgment.OnMay1,2008,theCourtdeliberatedonarequestfiledbytheStateofColombiaforinterpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscasehandeddownbytheCourtonJuly4,2007,andconsideredthepossibilityofdeliveringaruling.

4. Otheractivities:aseminaroncurrentandfuturechallengesfacedbytheinter-AmericansystemfortheprotectionofhumanrightswasheldfromApril28to30,2008.OntheafternoonofApril30,thejudgesoftheCourttookpartintheseminarasinvitedspeakers.TheeventwasheldintheConventionCenter,PlazaSanCarlos,SanMartínHotelDistrict,Tegucigalpa,Honduras.

C. Seventy-ninthregularsessionoftheCourt

TheCourthelditsseventy-ninthregularsessioninSanJosé,CostaRica,fromMay2to9,2008,withthefollowingmembers:CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),President;DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident;SergioGarcíaRamírez(Mexico);ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica),andRhadysAbreuBlondet(DominicanRepublic).ThefollowingJudgesad hoc alsotookpartinthesession:DiegoRodríguezPinzón,appointedbytheStateofEcuadorforthecaseofSalvador ChiribogaandPier

3 Fundingforthethirty-thirdspecialsessionwasprovidedbytheMinistryofForeignAffairsofNorway.



PaoloPasceriScaramuzza,appointedby theStateofVenezuela, for thecaseofPerozo et al.AlsopresentweretheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile),andtheDeputySecretary,EmiliaSegaresRodríguez(CostaRica).

Duringthissession,theCourtheldonepublichearingandfourprivatehearingsconcerningcontentious cases. �t also delivered three judgments on contentious cases, one judgment oninterpretation,fourordersonprovisionalmeasuresandsixordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment.ThemattersconsideredbytheCourtduringthesessionaredescribedbelow:

1. CaseofKimel (Argentina): Judgment on merits, reparations and costs.4OnMay2,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase,declaring,inter alia,thatitacceptedtheacknowledgementofinternationalresponsibilitymadebytheStateandindicatingthattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticle13(1)and13(2)(FreedomofThoughtandExpression)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof;Article8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,Article9(FreedomfromExPostFactoLaws)oftheConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,alltothedetrimentofEduardoKimel.�naddition,theCourtdeclaredthatitacceptedthewithdrawalofrepresentatives’allegations concerning the right tobeheardbyan impartial judgeestablished inArticle8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial),therighttoappealthejudgmentbeforeahighercourt,embodiedinArticle8(2)(h)(RighttoaFairTrial),andtherighttojudicialprotectionstipulatedinArticle25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights.

Regarding reparations, inter alia, the Court ordered the State: to pay the amountsestablishedinthejudgmentforpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarydamage,andreimbursementofcostsandexpenses;toannulthecriminalconvictionagainstMr.Kimelandanyofitsconsequences;toeliminateimmediatelyMr.Kimel’snamefromanypublicrecordsinwhichitappearedwithacriminalrecordrelatedtothiscase;tomakethepublicationsindicatedinparagraph125ofthejudgment;tocarryoutapublicacttoacknowledgeitsresponsibilityand,withinareasonabletime,toadaptitsdomesticlawstotheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,inordertocorrecttheambiguityacknowledgedbytheStatesoastosatisfytherequirementsoflegalcertaintyand,consequently,sothatthisambiguitydidnothaveanadverseimpactontheexerciseoftherighttofreedomofexpression.

JudgesDiegoGarcía-SayánandSergioGarcíaRamírezinformedtheCourtoftheirconcurrngopinions,whichaccompanythejudgment.

2. MatteroftheUrsoBrancoPrison(Brazil):Provisional measures.OnMay2,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,toreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldadoptimmediately,allnecessarymeasurestosafeguardthelifeandintegrityofallthepersonsdetainedintheUrsoBrancoPrison,aswellasallthosewhoentertheprison,includingthevisitors,andthesecurityagentsworkingintheprison;toreiteratetotheStatethatitshouldtakethenecessarystepstoensurethatthemeasurestoprotectlifeand

4 OnMay7,2007,JudgeLeonardoA.Franco,anArgentinenational,informedtheCourtthathewasinhibitedfromhearingthiscase.ThisinhibitionwasacceptedthesamedaybythePresident,inconsultationwiththejudgesoftheCourt.Consequently,onMay7,2007,theStatewasinformedthat,within30days,itcouldappointajudgead hoc totakepartinthiscase.ThetimeelapsedwithouttheStatemakingthisappointment.


AnnuAl report 2008

personalintegrityareplannedandimplementedwiththeparticipationofthebeneficiariesortheirrepresentatives,andthat,ingeneral,keeptheminformedonprogressintheimplementationofthemeasures,andtorequiretheState,inthenextreportitpresentstotheCourt,toprovideinformationoncompliancewiththemeasuresindicated;particularlyonthemeasuresadoptedimmediatelytopreventthemurderoractsagainsttheintegrityofthepersonsdetainedintheprisonorthosewhoentertheprisonpremisesforanyreason.Attachedtothisreport,theStatewasaskedtosubmitanupdatedlistofalltheindividualswhohaddiedviolentlysincethefirstorderofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightswasissuedinthismatter.

3. CaseofBaenaRicardoet al.(Panama):Monitoring compliance with judgment. OnMay3,2008,duringaprivatehearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthepartiesoncompliancewiththejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscasedeliveredbytheCourtonFebruary2,2001.

4. Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community (Nicaragua): Monitoring compliance with judgment. On May 3, 2008, during a private hearing, the Court heard theargumentsofthepartiesoncompliancewiththejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscasedeliveredbytheCourtonAugust31,2001.

5. CaseoftheGómezPaquiyauriBrothers(Peru): Provisional measures.5OnMay3,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthiscase,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,tolifttheprovisionalmeasuresorderedbythe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsinitsordersofMay7,2004,andSeptember22,2006,withregardtoRicardoSamuelGómezQuispe,Marcelina Paquiyauri �llanes de Gómez, Lucy Rosa Gómez Paquiyauri, Miguel Ángel GómezPaquiyauri,RicardoEmilioGómezPaquiyauri,CarlosPedroGómezPaquiyauri,MarcelinaHaydéeGómez Paquiyauri, Jacinta Peralta Allccarima and Nora Emely Gómez Peralta; to require theStatetomaintainthenecessarymeasurestosafeguardthelifeandpersonalintegrityofAngeldelRosarioVásquezChumoandthemembersofhisfamilywholivewithhimforanadditionalperiodofatleastsixmonthscalculatedfromthedateofnotificationoftheorder,afterwhichtheCourtwouldassessthepertinenceofmaintainingtheminforce;torequestÁngeldelRosarioVásquezChumoandthemembersofhis familywho livewithhim,ortheirrepresentative, tosubmit their observations on the continuation and existence of the presumptions of extremegravityandurgencyandofpossibleirreparabledamagethatwouldjustifytheneedtomaintaintheprovisionalmeasures in force;and to require theState topresenta report to theCourt,detailingtheargumentsandevidencebasedonwhichitconsideredthatthemeasuresorderedinfavorofMr.VásquezChumoandhisfamilyshouldbemaintainedinforce,andtorequirethe�nter-AmericanCommissiontopresentitsobservationsonthesaidreportoftheState,aswellastheobservationsofÁngeldelRosarioVásquezChumoandhisfamily.

6. CaseoftheMapiripánMassacre(Colombia):Provisional measures.OnMay3,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthiscase,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,torequiretheStateofColombiatomaintaintheprovisionalmeasuresdecidedintheorderoftheCourtofJune27,2005;torequiretherepresentativesto forwardtheobservationsthatwerependingassoonaspossibleandinparticular,toprovidespecificinformationonthesituationofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasuresordered.Theobservationsshouldincludeaclearindicationofwhetherasituationofextremegravityandurgencysubsistedthatrequiredmeasures

5 JudgeDiegoGarcía-Sayán,aPeruviannational,excusedhimselffromhearingthiscasepursuanttoArticle19(2)oftheCourt’sStatuteandArticle19ofitsRulesofProcedure.



toavoidirreparabledamagetothesepersons,sothattheCourtcouldassesstheneedforthemeasuresofprotection;iftheinformationrequestedwasnotpresentedwithinthetimeframethattheCourtestablished,theCourtwouldassesswhethertheprovisionalmeasuresshouldbelifted,andtorequesttheStatetopresentareportontheimplementationoftheprovisionalmeasures,inparticulardetailedinformationonthedangerfacedbyeachofthebeneficiaries,themeasuresofprotectionprovidedtoeachofthemandthecurrentstatusandresultsoftheinvestigationsconductedintothefactsthatgaverisetothemeasures.Followingthisreport,theStateshouldcontinueinformingthe�nter-AmericanCourtabouttheprovisionalmeasuresadoptedeverytwomonths.

7. CaseofEscuéZapata(Colombia):Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs.OnMay5,2008,theCourtruledoninterpretationinthiscase,anddecided,inter alia,todeclareadmissibletherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsdeliveredonJuly4,2007;andtodeterminethescopeoftheprovisionsofparagraphs166,168,170and188ofthisjudgment.

Judgead hoc DiegoEduardoLópezMedinainformedtheCourtofhisconcurringopinion,whichaccompaniesthejudgment.

8. CaseofSalvadorChiriboga (Ecuador): Judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. OnMay6,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthepreliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,torejectthepreliminaryobjectionoffailuretoexhaustdomesticremediesfiledbytheStateandtodeclarethattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle21(2)(RighttoProperty)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticles8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)thereof,all inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)oftheConvention.�naddition,theCourtdeclaredthatithadnotbeenprovedthattheStatehadviolatedArticles24(RighttoEqualProtection)and29(Restrictionsregarding�nterpretation)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights, or that the State had failed to comply with Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of theConvention,tothedetrimentofMaríaSalvadorChiriboga.

Regardingreparations,theCourtdecidedthatdeterminationoftheamountandpaymentoffaircompensationfortheexpropriationofproperty,aswellasanyothermeasuredesignedtorepairtheviolationsthathadbeendeclaredinthejudgment,shouldbemadebymutualagreementbetweentheStateandtherepresentatives,andthatitreservedthepowertoverifywhetherthatagreementwasconsistentwith theAmericanConventionandto takeanynecessarydecision.�fnoagreementcouldbereached,theCourtwilldeterminethecorrespondingreparationsandexpensesandcostsand,tothatend,willconducttherespectiveproceeding.

JudgeQuirogaMedinainformedtheCourtofherpartiallydissentingopinion,JudgeVenturaRoblesinformedtheCourtofhisconcurringopinion,andJudgead hocRodríguezPinzóninformedtheCourtofhispartiallydissentingopinion,allofwhichaccompanythejudgment.

9. CaseofYvonNeptune(Haiti):Judgment on merits, reparations and costs.OnMay6,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase,declaring,inter alia,thattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticles8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,andArticles7(1),7(2),7(3),7(4)and7(5)(RighttoPersonalLiberty)of theConvention, in relation toArticle1(1)(Obligation toRespectRights) thereof,all to the


AnnuAl report 2008

detrimentofYvonNeptune.�naddition,theCourtdeclaredthattheStatehadnotviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle9(FreedomfromExPostFactoLaws)oftheConvention,tothedetrimentofYvonNeptune,andthattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticle5(1),5(2)and5(4)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)oftheConvention, inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofYvonNeptune.

Regarding reparations, the Court decided, inter alia, that the State should: adopt thejudicialandanyothernecessarymeasurestoensurethatthelegalsituationofYvonNeptuneistotallydefinedasregardsthecriminalproceedingsfiledagainsthim,assoonaspossible.IftheStatedecidestosubmithimtoanothertrial,thisshouldbeconductedinaccordancewiththeapplicablelegalandconstitutionalprocedures,satisfytherequirementsofdueprocess,andfullyguaranteetherighttodefenseoftheaccused,inthetermsoftheAmericanConvention;adoptthelegislativeandanyothermeasurestoregulatetheproceedingsoftheHighCourtofJustice,inordertodefinetherespectivecompetences,proceduralnormsandminimumguaranteesofdue process; publish once in the official gazette and in another daily newspaper with broadnationalcirculationparagraphs1to10,16to21,36to155,161,163,167,168and170to183ofthejudgmentandtheoperativeparagraphsthereof;adoptthelegislative,administrativeandanyothermeasuresnecessarytomakeasubstantial improvementinprisonconditionsinHaiti,adaptingthemtointernationalhumanrightsnorms,andpaytheamountsestablishedinthejudgmentforpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarydamage,aswellasreimbursementofcostsandexpenses.

10. CaseofGabrielaPerozoet al.(Venezuela):Preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. OnMay7and8,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofthewitnessesandexpertwitnessesproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictimsandtheStateofVenezuela.�naddition,theCourtheardthefinaloralargumentsoftheCommission,therepresentativesandtheStateofVenezuelaonthepreliminaryobjectionsandonthepossiblemerits,reparationsandcosts.

11. CasesofFermínRamírezandRaxcacóReyes(Guatemala):Monitoring compliance with judgments and provisional measures. OnMay8,2008,duringaprivatehearing,theCourtreceivedtheargumentsofthepartiesoncompliancewiththejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsdeliveredbytheCourtonJune20,2005,inthecaseofFermínRamírezandonSeptember15,2005,inthecaseofRaxcacóReyes.Asregardsthelatter,theCourtalsoheardtheargumentsofthepartiesonarequestforexpansionoftheprovisionalmeasuresorderedbytheCourt.

�naddition,onMay9,2008,theCourt issuedanorderonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgmentinFermínRamírezv.GuatemalaandRaxcacóReyesv.Guatemala,andonprovisionalmeasuresinthecaseofRaxcacóReyeswithregardtoGuatemala.�nthecaseofFermínRamírez,theCourtdeclared, inter alia, that theStatehadcompliedwith theobligationssetout in thefollowingoperativeparagraphsofthejudgmentonmeritsandreparationsdeliveredbytheCourtonJune20,2005:tomakethepaymentforreimbursementofexpensesinfavoroftheGuatemalanInstituto de Estudios Comparados de Ciencias Penales (thirteenth operative paragraph); tohold,withinareasonabletime,anewtrialofFermínRamírezthatsatisfiestherequirementsofdueprocess,withfullguaranteesofahearinganddefensefortheaccused(seventhoperativeparagraph); and to abstain from executing Fermín Ramírez, whatever the result of the trialreferredtointheseventhoperativeparagraph(ninthoperativeparagraph).�naddition,theCourtdeclaredthatitwouldkeepopentheprocedureofmonitoringcompliancewiththepointspendingtotal fulfillment,namely: toabstain fromapplying thatpartofarticle132of theGuatemalan



PenalCodethatreferstothedangerrepresentedbytheagentandtoadaptittotheConventionwithinareasonabletime(eighthoperativeparagraph);toadoptthenecessary legislativeandadministrativemeasurestoestablishaproceduresothatanypersoncondemnedtodeathhastherighttorequestapardonorcommutationofsentence(tenthoperativeparagraph);toprovideFermínRamírezwithappropriatetreatment(eleventhoperativeparagraph);andtoadopt,withina reasonable time, the necessary measures to ensure that prison conditions are adapted tointernationalhumanrightsstandards(twelfthoperativeparagraph).

�nthecaseofRaxcacóReyes,theCourtdeclaredthattheStatehadcompliedtotallywiththefollowingoperativeparagraphsofthejudgmentonmeritsandreparationsofSeptember15,2005:toannulthedeathsentenceimposedonRaxcacóReyes(eighth operative paragraph of the judgment);topublishthepertinentpartsofthejudgmenthandeddowninthiscase(thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment);andtopaytheamountsestablishedasreimbursementofcostsandexpenses(fourteenth operative paragraph of the judgment).�naddition,theCourtdeclared that the State had complied partially with the following operative paragraph of thejudgmenthandeddowninthecaseofRaxcacóReyes:toprovideadequatemedicalcaretoRaxcacóReyes(tenth operative paragraph of the judgment)andthatitwouldmaintaintheprocedureofmonitoringcomplianceopeninrelationtothefollowingpendingpointsofthejudgmenthandeddowninthecaseofRaxcacóReyes:tomodifyarticle201oftheGuatemalanPenalCode(fifth operative paragraph of the judgment);toabstainfromapplyingthedeathpenaltyandexecutingthose convicted of the offense of abduction or kidnapping (sixth operative paragraph of the judgment);toadoptaprocedureguaranteeingthatanypersoncondemnedtodeathhastherighttorequestand,ifapplicable,toobtainapardon(seventh operative paragraph of the judgment);toadoptthenecessarymeasurestoensurethattheprisonsareadaptedtointernationalstandards(ninth operative paragraph of the judgment);toadoptthenecessarymeasurestoenableRaxcacóReyestoreceiveperiodicvisitsfromOlga�sabelVicente(eleventh operative paragraph of the judgment);andtoadopttheeducational,work-relatedandothermeasuresnecessarytoensurethatRaxcacóReyescanreincorporatesocietyoncehehasservedhissentence(twelfth operative paragraph of the judgment).

TheCourtalsodecidedtorequiretheStateofGuatemalatoadoptallnecessarymeasurestocomplyeffectivelyandpromptlywiththependingpointsofthejudgmentshandeddownintheFermínRamírezandRaxcacóReyescases;torequesttheStateofGuatemalatosubmitareportoneachcasetotheCourt indicatingallthemeasuresadoptedtocomplywiththereparationsorderedbytheCourtthatwerependingcompliance;torequesttherepresentativesofthevictimsand the �nter-American Commission to present any observations they deemed pertinent ontheState’sreports;torejecttherequestfortheexpansionofprovisionalmeasuressubmittedby the representatives of the beneficiaries; to reiterate to the State that it shouldmaintaintheprovisionalmeasuresrequiredtoprotectthelifeofBernardinoRodríguezLarasoasnottoobstructtheprocessingofhiscasebeforetheinter-Americansystemfortheprotectionofhumanrights;torequiretheStatetosubmitareportonthemeasuresithadadoptedtocomplywiththeprovisionalmeasuresorderedinfavorofBernardinoRodríguezLaraandtocontinueinformingthe�nter-AmericanCourtabouttheimplementationofthemeasuresadopted;andtorequirethebeneficiaryoftheprovisionalmeasuresorhisrepresentativestopresenttheirobservationsontheState’sreportsandthe�nter-AmericanCommissiontosubmit itsobservationsonthesaidreports.

12. Orders on monitoring compliance with judgment: During this session, the Courtissuedordersoncompliancewithjudgmentinthefollowingcases:ClaudeReyeset al. v. Chile,


AnnuAl report 2008

Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru,XimenesLopesv. Brazil,FermínRamírezv.GuatemalaandRaxcacóReyesv.Guatemala.

D. Thirty-fourthspecialsessionoftheCourt

TheCourthelditsthirty-fourthspecialsessioninSanJosé,CostaRica,onAugust2,2008.Themembersof theCourt for this judgmenton interpretationwereas follows:SergioGarcíaRamírez (Mexico), acting President for this case, Antônio AugustoCançado Trindade (Brazil),CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica)andLeonardoA.Franco(Argentina).AlsopresentweretheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile),andtheDeputySecretary,EmiliaSegaresRodríguez(CostaRica).

Duringthissession,theCourtdeliveredonejudgmentoninterpretation,whichisdescribedbelow:

1. CaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison(Peru):Interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. �OnAugust2,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentoninterpretationinthiscase,7inwhichitdecided,inter alia,todeclareadmissibletherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthecaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrisonfiledbytheState;todeclareadmissibletherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscasefiledbytherepresentatives;andtodeterminethemeaningandscopeoftheprovisionsofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcosts.

JudgesSergioGarcíaRamírez,AntônioA.CançadoTrindadeandManuelE.VenturaRoblesinformedtheCourtoftheirseparateopinions,whichaccompanythejudgment.

E. EightiethregularsessionoftheCourt

TheCourtheld itseightieth regularsession inSanJosé,CostaRica, fromAugust4 to8,2007,withthefollowingmembers:CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),President;DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident;SergioGarcíaRamírez(Mexico);ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica),andRhadysAbreuBlondet(DominicanRepublic).ThefollowingJudgesad hoc alsotookpartinthesession:ClausvonWobeserHoepfner,appointedbytheUnitedMexicanStatesforthecaseofCastañeda Gutman andPierPaoloPasceriScaramuzza,appointedbytheBolivarianRepublicofVenezuelaforthecaseofLuisiana Ríos et al. AlsopresentweretheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile),andtheDeputySecretary,EmiliaSegaresRodríguez(CostaRica).

6 JudgeDiegoGarcía-Sayán excused himself fromhearing this case, pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Court’sStatuteandArticle19ofitsRulesofProcedure.

7 JudgeSergioGarcíaRamírezwasthePresidentoftheCourtwhenthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscasewasdelivered;consequently,fortheeffectsofthisjudgment,heretainsthisposition.Also,inanorderofMay3,2008,theCourtacceptedJudgeAlirioAbreuBurelli’srequesttowaivehisparticipationinhearingthiscase,forreasonsbeyondhiscontrol.Consequently,JudgeLeonardoA.FrancosatontheCourttohearthisproceedingoninterpretationofjudgment,pursuanttoArticle16(1)oftheRulesofProcedure.



During this session, theCourt held one public hearing concerning a contentious case,deliveredtwojudgmentsoncontentiouscases,andonejudgmentoninterpretation.�naddition,theCourtissuedtwoordersonprovisionalmeasuresandtenordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment.ThemattersconsideredbytheCourtduringthesessionaredescribedbelow:

1. CaseofApitzBarberaet al.(“FirstAdministrativeCourt”)(Venezuela):Judgment onpreliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs.�OnAugust5,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthepreliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase,anddecided,inter alia,torejectthepreliminaryobjectionfiledbytheStateandtodeclarethattheStatedidnotviolatetherightofJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCovatoahearingbyacompetentcourt;butthattheStatehadviolatedtherighttoahearingbyanimpartialcourtestablishedinArticle8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)oftheConvention,tothedetrimentofJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCova;thattheStatehadnotviolatedArticle8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)oftheConventionbynothearingJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCovaintheproceedingstoremovethecasetothePoliticalandAdministrativeChamberoftheSupremeCourtofJustice,andnottohearJuanCarlosApitzBarberaandPerkinsRochaContrerasatapublichearinginthecourseoftheappealstheyfiled;thattheStatefailedtocomplywithitsobligationtojustifythechargesthatderivesfromtheguaranteesestablishedinArticle8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCova;thatithasnotbeenprovedthattheJudiciaryasawholelacksindependence;thattheStateviolatedtherighttoahearingbyanindependentcourt,pursuanttoArticle8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentofJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCova;thattheStateviolatedtherighttoahearingwithinareasonabletime,embodiedinArticle8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofJuanCarlosApitzBarberaandPerkinsRochaContreras;thattheStateviolatedtherighttoasimple,promptandeffectiverecourse,embodiedinArticle25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofJuanCarlosApitzBarberaandPerkinsRochaContreras;thattheStatedidnotviolatetherightofAnaMaríaRuggeriCova to judicialprotection,embodied inArticle25(1)(Right toJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention;thattheStatedidnotviolatetherightofJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,

8 OnJanuary28,2008,JudgeDiegoGarcía-Sayán,aPeruviannational,informedtheCourtthathewasinhibitedfromhearingthiscase,“consideringthatitwouldbeinthebestinterestsoftheCourt.”Heindicatedthatheisa“memberoftheAndeanCommissionofJurists”andthatheholdsa“managementpositioninthisinstitution.”He considered that, “although the specific functions of this position are not directly related to institutionalcommunicationsoropinionsonsubstantivematters,[…]heshouldexcusehimselffromcontinuingtoparticipateinhearingthiscasesothattheperceptionoftheCourt’sabsoluteindependencewouldnotbeaffectedinanyway.”ThePresidentoftheCourtconsideredthattherewasnoevidencethatJudgeGarcíaSayánhadparticipatedinthiscaseinanywayorthathehadgivenanopinion,publiclyorprivatelyaboutthelitigationunderway,itscauses,developmentandpossiblesolutions,orevenaboutthepartiestothecase.However,thePresident,inconsultationwiththeotherJudges,andpursuanttoArticle19(2)oftheCourt’sStatute,founditreasonabletoacceptJudgeGarcía-Sayán’smotivesforhisdecisionsothat“theperceptionoftheCourt’sabsoluteindependencewouldnotbeaffectedinanyway”and,consequently,acceptedhisinhibition.JudgeGarcía-Sayán’sinhibitionandthePresident’sdecisionwerenotifiedtothepartiesonJanuary29,2008.


AnnuAl report 2008

PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCovatoequalprotection,embodied inArticle24(RighttoEqualProtection)oftheConvention;thattheStatedidnotviolatetherightofJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCovatohaveaccess,undergeneralconditionsofequality,tothepublicserviceoftheircountry,embodiedinArticle23(1)(c)(RighttoParticipateinGovernment)oftheAmericanConvention;thattheStatedidnotviolatethegeneralclauseonnon-discriminationcontainedinArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtothesubstantiverighttobeheardwithinareasonabletimeembodied inArticle8(1) (Right toaFairTrial) thereof;and that theallegedviolationofArticle29(c)and29(d)(Restrictionsregarding�nterpretation)of theAmericanConvention, inrelationtoArticle3ofthe�nter-AmericanDemocraticCharter,wasinadmissible.

Regardingreparations,theCourtdecided,inter alia,thattheStateshould:paytheamountsestablished in the judgment forpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarydamage,and reimbursementofcostsandexpenses;reincorporateJuanCarlosApitzBarbera,PerkinsRochaContrerasandAnaMaríaRuggeriCovaintotheJudiciary,iftheysowish,inapositionwithequivalentremuneration,socialbenefitsandrankto thosetheywouldhavehadtoday if theyhadnotbeendismissed.If, for justifiable reasons, contrary to thewish of the victims, theState should be unable toreincorporatethemintotheJudiciary,itmustpayeachofthevictimstheamountestablishedinparagraph246ofthejudgment;makethepublicationsindicatedinthejudgment,andadoptthenecessarymeasurestoensuretheadoptionoftheEthicsCodeforVenezuelanJudges.

2. CaseofAlbánCornejoet al. (Ecuador):Request for interpretation of the judgment on merits, reparations and costs. On August 5, 2008, the Court ruled on a request filed bythe representatives of the victims in this case for interpretation of the judgment on merits,reparationsandcostsdeliveredbytheCourtonNovember22,2007,inwhichitdecidedtorejectasinadmissibletherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonmerits,reparationsandcostsdeliveredonNovember22,2007,inrelationtotheissuesraisedbytherepresentatives,becausetheywerenotinkeepingwiththeprovisionsofArticles67oftheConventionand29(3)and59oftheRulesofProcedure.

3. MatterofCarlosNietoPalmaandanother(Venezuela):Provisional measures.OnAugust5,2008,theCourt issuedanorderonprovisionalmeasures inthismatter, inwhich itdecided,inter alia,torequiretheStatetomaintainthenecessarymeasurestosafeguardthelifeandpersonalintegrityofCarlosNietoPalmaand�vonnePalmaSánchezforatleastsixmonths,followingwhichtheCourtwouldassessthepertinenceofmaintainingtheminforce;andtorequestCarlosNietoPalmaorhisrepresentativestosubmittheirobservationsonthecontinuationandexistenceofthepresumptionsofextremegravityandurgencyandofpossibleirreparabledamagethatwouldjustifytheneedtomaintaintheprovisionalmeasuresinforce.

4. Case of Castañeda Gutman (Mexico): Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. �OnAugust6,2008, theCourtdelivered judgmenton thepreliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase,inwhichitdecidedtorejectthepreliminaryobjectionsfiledbytheStateandtodeclarethattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodied inArticle25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentofJorgeCastañeda

9 OnMay7,2007, JudgeSergioGarcíaRamírez,aMexicannational,excusedhimself fromhearing thiscase,pursuanttoArticle19(2)oftheCourt’sStatuteandArticle19ofitsRulesofProcedure;theCourtacceptedhisrecusal.



Gutman; that theState hadnot violated the political right to be elected embodied inArticle23(1)(b)(RighttoParticipateinGovernment)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentofJorgeCastañedaGutman;andthattheStatehadnotviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle24(RighttoEqualProtection)oftheConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofJorgeCastañedaGutman.

Regardingreparations,theCourtordered,inter alia,thattheStateshould:completetheadaptationofitsdomesticlawstotheConvention,inordertoadaptthesecondarylegislationandthenormsthatregulatetheactionforprotectionoftherightsofthecitizentocomplywiththeprovisionsoftheconstitutionalreformofNovember13,2007,sothat,usingthisrecourse,citizensareguaranteedthepossibilityofquestioningtheconstitutionalityofthelegalregulationoftherighttoparticipateingovernment;publishonceintheofficialgazetteandinanothernewspaperwithwidespreadcirculationparagraphs77to133ofthejudgment,withoutthefootnotes,andtheoperativeparagraphsthereof;andreimburseJorgeCastañedaGutmanforcostsandexpenses.

5. MatterofLeonelRiveroet al.(previouslyPilarNoriegaGarcíaet al.)(Mexico):Provisional measures.OnAugust6,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,torequiretheStatetomaintainthenecessarymeasuresto safeguard the life andpersonal integrity of LeonelRiveroRodríguez,Maríade losÁngelesEspinosaSánchez,AugustoCésarSandinoRiveroEspinosa,LuisaAmandaRiveroEspinosaandMaríaKatherinaRiveroEspinosa,untilDecember15,2008,inthetermsoftheorderoftheCourtofFebruary6,2008;andtoorderachangeinthenameofthismatter,tobeknownhereafterasthe“matterofLeonelRiveroet al.”

6. CaseofLuisianaRíoset al.(Venezuela):Preliminary objection and possible merits, reparations and costs. On August 7, 2008, during a public hearing, the Court received thetestimonyofthethreewitnessesproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,the representativesof theallegedvictimsand theStateofVenezuela. �naddition, theCourtheardthefinaloralargumentsofthepartiesonthepreliminaryobjectionandthepossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

7. Orders on monitoring compliance with judgment: During this session, the Courtissuedordersonmonitoringcompliancewith its judgments in the followingcases:Canesev.Paraguay, Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, Plan de SánchezMassacrev.Guatemala,ConstitutionalCourtv.Peru,DurandandUgartev.Peru,BarriosAltosv.Peru,CestiHurtadov.Peru,Yatamav.Nicaragua,andLasPalmerasv.Colombia.

F. Thirty-fifthspecialsessionoftheCourt

The Court held its thirty-fifth special session inMontevideo, Uruguay from August 11to15,2008,withthefollowingmembers:10DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident;SergioGarcíaRamírez(Mexico);ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);Margarette May Macaulay (Jamaica), and Rhadys Abreu Blondet (Dominican Republic). AlsopresentwastheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile).

10 Forreasonsbeyondtheircontrol,JudgeCeciliaMedinaQuirogaandDeputySecretaryEmiliaSegaresRodríguezwereunabletotakepartinthethirty-fifthspecialsession.


AnnuAl report 2008

Duringthissession,theCourtheldtwopublichearingsoncontentiouscases,twoprivatehearings on monitoring compliance with judgment, and two public hearings on provisionalmeasures. �n addition, theCourt issued judgment ona contentious caseanda judgment oninterpretation.ThemattersconsideredbytheCourtduringthesessionaredescribedbelow:

1. CaseofHeliodoroPortugal(Panama):Judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs.11OnAugust12,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthepreliminaryobjections,merits, reparationsandcosts in thiscase, inwhich itdecided, inter alia, torejectthepreliminaryobjectionoffailuretoexhaustdomesticremediesfiledbytheState;todeclarepartiallyadmissibleandtorejectpartiallythepreliminaryobjectionrelatingtocompetenceratione temporisfiledbytheState;andtorejectthepreliminaryobjectionrelatingtocompetenceratione materiae filedbytheState.Inaddition,theCourtdeclaredthattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodied inArticle7(Right toPersonalLiberty)of theConvention, inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,andhadfailedtocomplywithitsobligationsunderArticle�ofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersons,inrelationtoArticle��thereof,tothedetrimentofHeliodoroPortugal;8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)ofthesaidinstrument,tothedetrimentofGracielaDeLeón,PatriaPortugalandFranklinPortugal;and5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)oftheConvention, inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofGracielaDeLeón,PatriaPortugalandFranklinPortugal. �naddition, theCourtdeclared that theStatehad failed tocomplywith itsobligationtodefinetheoffenseofforceddisappearance,asstipulatedinArticlesIIandIIIofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersons;andhadfailedtocomplywithitsobligationtodefinetheoffenseoftorture,asstipulatedinArticles1,6and8oftheInter-AmericanConventiontoPreventandPunishTorture.

Regardingreparations,theCourtordered,inter aliathattheStateshould:payGracielaDeLeón,PatriaPortugalandFranklinPortugalcompensationforpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarydamage;investigatethefactsthatresultedintheviolationsinthiscase,andidentify,prosecuteand,ifapplicable,punishthoseresponsible;publishonceintheofficialgazetteandinanothernewspaperwithwidespreadnationalcirculation,Chapters�,��,V�,V��,V��,�XandXofthejudgment,withoutthecorrespondingfootnotes,andtheoperativeparagraphsthereof;organizea public act to acknowledge its international responsibility for the violations declared in thejudgment;provide,freeofchargeandimmediately,throughitsspecializedhealthinstitutions,themedicalandpsychologicaltreatmentrequiredbyGracielaDeLeóndeRodríguez,PatriaPortugalandFranklinPortugal;definetheoffensesofforceddisappearanceofpersonsandtorture,andmakethepaymentforreimbursementofcostsandexpenses.

JudgeSergioGarcíaRamírezinformedtheCourtofhisseparateopinion,whichaccompaniesthejudgment.

11 OnMay9,2008,JuanAntonioTejadaEspino,whohadbeenappointedJudgead hocfortheStateofPanama,asked thePresidentof theCourt toexcusehim fromhearing thiscase.Thesameday, thePresidentof theCourtacceptedhisrecusal,inconsultationwiththejudgesoftheCourt.Also,forreasonsbeyondtheircontrol,JudgeCeciliaMedinaQuirogaandDeputySecretaryEmiliaSegaresRodríguezwereunabletotakepartinthedeliberationandsignatureof thejudgment inthecaseofHeliodoroPortugal.PursuanttoArticle5(1)of theCourt’sRulesofProcedure,theactingPresidentforthisjudgmentwasJudgeDiegoGarcía-Sayán.



2. CaseoftheSaramakaPeople(Suriname):Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs.12OnAugust12,2008theCourtruledoninterpretationinthiscase,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,todeclareadmissibletherequestfiledbytheStateforinterpretationofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsandcostsinthecaseoftheSaramakaPeoplehandeddownonNovember28,2007;andtodeterminethescopeoftheprovisionsofoperativeparagraphs5to9ofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsandcostshandeddownonNovember28,2007.

3. Case of Tristán Donoso (Panama): Preliminary objection and possible merits, reparations and costs. On August 12, 2008, during a public hearing, the Court received thetestimonyoftheallegedvictim,proposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandbyhisrepresentatives,andthereportsoftwoexpertwitnesses,oneproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissionandtherepresentatives,andtheotherbytheState.�naddition,theCourtheardthefinaloralargumentsofthepartiesonthepreliminaryobjectionandthepossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

4. CaseofTiconaEstrada(Bolivia):Merits and possible reparations and costs. OnAugust13,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofawitnessproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandtherepresentativesoftheallegedvictims.�naddition,theCourtheardthefinaloralargumentsofthepartiesonmeritsandpossiblereparationsandcostsinthiscase.

5. MatterofthePersonsDeprivedofLibertyinthe“Dr.SebastiãoMartinsSilveira”Prison,inAraraquara,SãoPaulo(Brazil):Provisional measures. OnAugust13,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights, the representativesof thebeneficiariesof theprovisionalmeasures,and theStateofBrazilconcerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

6. Matter of the Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the “TatuapéComplex” of the CASA Foundation (Brazil): Provisional measures. On August 13, 2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasures,andtheStateofBrazilconcerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

7. CaseofClaudeReyeset al.(Chile):Monitoring compliance with judgment.OnAugust14,2008,theCourtheldaprivatehearinginordertoobtaininformationfromtheStateofChileoncompliancewiththepointspending fulfillmentof the judgmentonmerits, reparationsandcostsinthiscasedeliveredbytheCourtonSeptember19,2006,andtoreceivetheobservationsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandtherepresentativesofthevictims.

8. Case of Bulacio (Argentina): Monitoring compliance with judgment. On August 14,2008,theCourtheldaprivatehearinginordertoobtaininformationfromtheStateofArgentinaoncompliancewiththepointspending fulfillmentof the judgmentonmerits, reparationsandcostsinthiscasedeliveredbytheCourtonSeptember18,2003,andtoreceivetheobservations

12 Forreasonsbeyondtheircontrol,JudgeCeciliaMedinaQuiroga,JudgeManuelE.VenturaRoblesandDeputySecretaryEmiliaSegaresRodríguezwereunabletotakepartinthedeliberationandsignatureofthisjudgment.PursuanttoArticle59(3)oftheCourt’sRulesofProcedure,theactingPresidentforthisjudgmentwasJudgeSergioGarcíaRamírez.


AnnuAl report 2008

ofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandtherepresentativesofthevictimandhisnextofkin.

9. Other activities: The Court held a series of protocol visits to various authorities ofthe Oriental Republic of Uruguay. On August 11, 2008, a public seminar was held when thefollowing issueswerediscussed: theStateobligationsarising from theAmericanConvention;the incorporationof international standards into comparative case law, the experienceof thecountries;theforceddisappearanceofpersonsinthecaselawofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsandreparationsbeforetheinter-Americanhumanrightssystem.

G. Thirty-sixthspecialsessionoftheCourt

TheCourthelditsthirty-sixthspecialsessionenSanJosé,CostaRica,onOctober29and30,2008,withthefollowingmembers:CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),President;DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident;SergioGarcíaRamírez(Mexico);ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica),andRhadysAbreuBlondet (DominicanRepublic). Also presentwas theSecretary of theCourt, PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile).

Duringthissession,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonacontentiouscase,andtwoordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment.ThemattersconsideredbytheCourtduringthesessionaredescribedbelow:

1. CaseofBayarri(Argentina):Judgment on preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. 13OnOctober30,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthepreliminaryobjection,merits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase,inwhichitdecided,torejectthepreliminaryobjectionfiled by the State of a “substantial change in the purpose of the application” in relation tothe failuretoexhaustdomesticremedies,anddeclaredthattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodied in Article 7(1), 7(2) and 7(5) (Right to Personal Liberty), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right toHumaneTreatment),8(1),8(2)and8(2)(g)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,alltothedetrimentofJuanCarlosBayarri.�naddition,itdeclaredthattheStatehadfailedtocomplywithitsobligationtoinvestigatethetorturetowhichJuanCarlosBayarrihadbeen subjectedwithduediligence, as stipulated inArticles1,6and8of the �nter-AmericanConventiontoPreventandPunishTorture.

Regardingreparations,theCourtdecided,inter alia,thattheStateshould:payJuanCarlosBayarricompensationforpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarydamage,andthereimbursementofcostsandexpenses;providethemedicaltreatmentrequiredbyJuanCarlosBayarri,freeofcharge,immediatelyandforthetimenecessary;concludethecriminalactionthathadbeenfiledbasedonthefactsthatgaverisetotheviolationsinthiscaseandhanddownjudgmentasprovidedbylaw;publishonceintheofficialgazetteandintwoothernewspaperswithwidespreadnational

13 OnSeptember11,2007, JudgeLeonardoA.Franco,anArgentinenational, informed theCourt thathewasinhibitedfromhearingthiscase.This inhibitionwasacceptedthesamedaybythePresident, inconsultationwiththejudgesoftheCourt.Consequently,onSeptember17,2007,theStatewasinformedthat,within30days,itcouldappointajudgead hoc totakepartinthiscase.ThetimeelapsedwithouttheStatemakingthisappointment.



circulation,chapters�,V��,V��and�Xofthejudgment,withoutthecorrespondingfootnotes,andtheoperativeparagraphsthereof;ensurethe immediateeliminationof thenameofJuanCarlosBayarrifromallpublicrecordswhereitappearswithacriminalrecordand,insofarasithasnotonesotodate,incorporatemembersofthesecurityforces,theinvestigativeunitsandtheadministrationofjusticeintotraininganddisseminationactivitiesonthepreventionoftortureandcruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment.

JudgeSergioGarcíaRamírezadvisedtheCourtofhisconcurringopinion,whichaccompaniesthejudgment.

2. Orders on monitoring compliance with judgment: During this session, the Courtissuedordersonmonitoringcompliancewithitsjudgmentsinthefollowingcases:VargasArecov.ParaguayandBaenaRicardoet al.v.Panama.

3. Other activities: on October 29, 2008, the new Annex to the Court’s premises wasinauguratedattheseatoftheCourtinthepresenceofthePresidentoftheRepublicofChile,MichelleBachelet,andthePresentoftheRepublicofCostaRica,OscarAriasSánchez,togetherwithseniorofficialsofbothGovernmentsandmembersofthediplomaticcorps.

H. Eighty-firstregularsessionoftheCourt

TheCourtheld itseighty-firstregularsession inSanJosé,CostaRica, fromNovember24to29,2007,withthefollowingmembers:CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),President;DiegoGarcía-Sayán(Peru),VicePresident;SergioGarcíaRamírez(Mexico);ManuelE.VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica),andRhadysAbreuBlondet(DominicanRepublic).Judgead hoc ÁlvaroCastellanosHowellalsotookpartinthesession,appointedbytheStateofGuatemalaforthecaseofTiu Tojín. AlsopresentwastheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile).

Duringthissession,theCourtdeliveredthreejudgmentsoncontentiouscases,andtwpjudgmentsoninterpretation.�naddition,theCourtissuedsixordersonprovisionalmeasuresandtwoordersonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment.ThemattersconsideredbytheCourtduringthesessionaredescribedbelow:

1. CaseofGarcíaPrietoet al.(ElSalvador):Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs.14OnNovember24,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentontherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsand costs delivered by the Court in this caseon November 20, 2007, deciding to reject therequestforinterpretationofthisjudgmentasinadmissible.

2. CaseofClaudeReyeset al.(Chile):Compliance with judgment.OnNovember24,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgmentinthiscaseinwhichitdeclaredthattheStatehadcompliedwiththeobligation:(1)toadopt,withinareasonabletime,thenecessarymeasurestoguaranteetherightofaccesstoinformationcontrolledbytheStatepursuanttothegeneralobligationtoadoptdomesticlegalprovisionsestablishedinArticle

14 JudgeDiegoGarcía-SayánexcusedhimselffromhearingthiscasepursuanttoArticle19(2)oftheCourt’sStatuteandArticle19ofitsRulesofProcedure.


AnnuAl report 2008

2oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights;and(b)toprovide,withinareasonabletime,trainingtothepublicbodies,authoritiesandagentsresponsibleforrespondingtorequestsforaccesstoinformationcontrolledbytheStateonthenormsthatregulatethisright,incorporatingtheparametersembodiedintheConventionthatmustberespectedwithregardtorestrictionsof access to such information.Consequently, theState of Chile has fully compliedwith thejudgmentofSeptember19,2006,inthecaseofClaudeReyeset al.,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofArticle68(1)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRightsthat imposeontheStatesPartiestotheAmericanConventiononHumanRightstheobligationtocomplywiththejudgmentsoftheCourt.TheCourtthereforedecidestoconsiderthecaseofClaudeReyeset al. concluded,sincetheStateofChilehascompliedintegrallywithallaspectsofthejudgmenthandeddownbytheInter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsofSeptember19,2006,andtofilethecaserecords.

3. MatterofLysiasFleury(Haiti):Provisional measures.OnNovember25,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,that theprovisionalmeasuresorderedby the �nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights in itsordersofMarch18, June7andDecember2,2003, in favorofLysiasFleuryhavebecomemeaningless,becausehehadleftHaiti–thisdecisionwaswithoutdetrimenttoanystepsthe�nter-AmericanCommissionmightdeempertinentinthecontextofprocessinghiscase;andtorejecttherequestforexpansionoftheprovisionalmeasuresinfavorofthenextofkinofMr.Fleury.

4. Matter of Leonel Rivero et al. (Mexico): Provisional measures. On November 25,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,tolifttheprovisionalmeasuresorderedbythe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsinitsordersofJune29andNovember24,2005,andFebruary6andAugust6,2008,withregardtoLeonelRiveroRodríguez,MaríadelosÁngelesEspinosaSánchez,AugustoCésarSandinoRiveroEspinosa, LuisaAmandaRiveroEspinosaandMaríaKatherinaRiveroEspinosaand tofile therecordsofthismatter.

5. Matter of the “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers (Venezuela):Provisional measures.OnNovember25,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresin this matter, in which it decided, inter alia, to life and terminate the provisional measuresorderedbytheCourtinitsorderofJuly6,2004,andtofiletherecordsofthismatter.

6. Matter of the Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the “TatuapéComplex”oftheCASAFoundation(Brazil):Provisional measures.OnNovember25,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,tolifttheprovisionalmeasuresorderedbythe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsinitsordersofNovember30,2005,July4,2006,andJuly3,2007,withregardtothechildrenandadolescentsdeprivedoflibertyinthe“TatuapéComplex”oftheCASAFoundationandtofiletherecordsofthismatter.

7. MatterofthePersonsDeprivedofLibertyinthe“Dr.SebastiãoMartinsSilveira”Prison, inAraraquara,SãoPaulo(Brazil):Provisional measures.OnNovember25,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecidedtolifttheprovisionalmeasuresorderedbythe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsinitsordersofJuly28andSeptember30,2006,withregardtothepersonsdeprivedoflibertyinthe“Dr.SebastiãoMartinsSilveira”Prison,inAraraquara,SãoPaulo,andtofiletherecordsofthismatter.



8. CaseofChaparroÁlvarezandLapoIñiguez(Ecuador):Interpretation of judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. On November 26, 2008, the Courtdeliveredjudgmentontherequestforinterpretationofthejudgmentonpreliminaryobjections,merits,reparationsandcostsdeliveredbytheCourtinthiscaseonNovember21,2007,decidingtodeclaretherequestforinterpretationofthesaidjudgmentinadmissible.

9. Case of Tiu Tojín (Guatemala): Judgment on merits, reparations and costs. OnNovember26,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthemeritsandthepossiblereparationsandcostsinthiscase,inwhichitdeclared,inter alia,that:itacceptedtheState’sacknowledgementof international responsibility and declared the State responsible for violating the rightsembodiedinArticles4(1)(RighttoLife);5(1)and5(2)(RighttoHumaneTreatment);7(1),7(2),7(4),7(5)and7(6) (Right toPersonal Liberty);8(1) (Right toaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,andArticle�ofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersons,tothedetrimentofMaríaTiuTojín;itacceptedtheState’sacknowledgementofinternationalresponsibilityanddeclaredtheStateresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles4(1)(RighttoLife);5(1)and5(2)(RighttoHumaneTreatment);7(1)and7(2)(RighttoPersonalLiberty);8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to RespectRights)and19(RightsoftheChild)thereofandArticle�ofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersonstothedetrimentofthechild,JosefaTiuTojín;itacceptedtheState’sacknowledgementofinternationalresponsibilityanddeclaredtheStateresponsibleforviolatingtherightsestablishedinArticles5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment),8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention, inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofVictorianaTiuTojín;anditacceptedtheState’sacknowledgementofinternationalresponsibilityanddeclaredtheStateresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofJosefaTiu�mul,RosaTiuTojín,PedroTiuTojín,ManuelTiuTojínandJuanaTiuTojín.

Regardingreparations,theCourtordered,inter alia,thattheStateofGuatemalashould:investigatethefactsthatgaverisetotheviolationsinthiscase,andidentify,prosecuteand,ifapplicable,punishthoseresponsible;proceedimmediatelytoseekandfindMaríaandJosefaTiuCojín;publishonce in theofficialgazetteand inanothernationalnewspaperwithwidespreadcirculationChapters �, �V,andV�andparagraphs67 to120ofChapterV��of the judgment,without the corresponding footnotes, and its operative paragraphs, within six months of thenotification of the judgment; broadcast once by radio, in theK’iche’ andSpanish languages,Chapters�,�V,andV�andparagraphs67to120ofChapterV��ofthejudgment,withoutthecorrespondingfootnotes,anditsoperativeparagraphs,withinoneyearofthenotificationofthejudgment;andmakethepaymentforreimbursementofcostsandexpenses,withinoneyearofthenotificationofthejudgment.

Judgead hocÁlvaroCastellanosHowelladvisedtheCourtofhisconcurringopinion,whichaccompaniesthejudgment.

10. Case of Ticona Estrada (Bolivia): Judgment on merits, reparations and costs. OnNovember27,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthemeritsandthepossiblereparationsandcostsinthiscase,inwhichitdeclared,inter alia:thatitacceptedtheState’spartialacknowledgment


AnnuAl report 2008

ofinternationalresponsibility;thattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticles7(RighttoPersonal Liberty), 5(1),5(2) (Right toHumaneTreatment)and4(1) (Right to Life) of theAmericanConventiononHumanRights,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,inadditiontofailingtocomplywithitsobligationunderArticle�(a)ofthe�nter-AmericanConvention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Renato Ticona Estrada;thattheStatehadnotviolatedtherightembodiedArticle3(RighttoJuridicalPersonality)oftheAmericanConvention;thatithadnotbeenprovedthattheStatehadfailedtocomplywithitsobligationsunderArticleX�ofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersons;thattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticles8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,andhadalsofailedtocomplywithitsobligationsunderArticle1(b)ofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersons,tothedetrimentofHonoriaEstradadeTicona,CésarTiconaOlivares,HugoTiconaEstrada,BetzyTiconaEstradaandRodoTiconaEstrada;thattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof, to the detriment of Honoria Estrada de Ticona, César Ticona Olivares, Hugo TiconaEstrada,BetzyTiconaEstradaandRodoTiconaEstrada;thattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticles8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)thereof,tothedetrimentofHugoTiconaEstrada;andthattheStatehadfailedtocomplywiththeobligationsestablishedinArticles�(d)and��ofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersons,inrelationtoArticle2oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights.

Regarding reparations, the Court ordered, inter alia, that the State of Bolivia should:continue processing the criminal proceedings for the forced disappearance of Renato TiconaEstrada,inordertoconcludethemassoonaspossiblefollowingthenotificationofthisjudgment;investigatethefactsthatoccurredtoHugoTiconaEstrada,andidentify,prosecuteand,ifapplicable,punishthoseresponsible,assoonaspossiblefollowingthenotificationofthisjudgment;proceedtosearchforRenatoTiconaEstradapromptlyandeffectively;publishonceintheofficialgazetteandinanothernationalnewspaperwithwidespreadcirculationthetitleandparagraphs1to5ofChapter�;thetitleandparagraphs12,14,22to27ofChapter��,ChapterV�,thetitleandcorrespondingsubtitlesandparagraphs73to76,82to85,87to88,and95to98ofChapterV��, and the title andparagraphs104and105ofChapterV�� of the judgment,without thecorresponding footnotes,andalso theoperativeparagraphs thereof,within sixmonthsof thenotificationofthejudgment;implementtheagreementsconcerningtheprovisionofthemedicalandpsychologicaltreatmentrequiredbyHonoriaEstradadeTicona,CésarTiconaOlivares,HugoTiconaEstrada,BetzyTiconaEstradaandRodoTiconaEstrada;allocatethenecessaryhumanandmaterialresourcestotheInter-institutionalCouncilfortheClarificationofForcedDisappearanceswithinareasonabletimeand,tothisend,theStateshouldestablish,withinoneyear,aspecificproposalwithaplanningandactionprogramoncompliancewiththisaspect;andpayHonoriaEstradadeTicona,CésarTiconaOlivares,HugoTiconaEstrada,BetzyTiconaEstradaandRodoTiconaEstradacompensationforpecuniaryandnon-pecuniarydamageandreimbursementofcostsandexpenses,withinoneyearfromthenotificationofthejudgment.

JudgesGarcía-SayánandGarcíaRamírezadvisedtheCourtoftheirjointseparateopinion,whichaccompaniesthejudgment.

11. CaseofValleJaramilloet al.(Colombia):Judgment on merits, reparations and costs.OnNovember27,2008,theCourtdeliveredjudgmentonthemeritsandthepossiblereparations



and costs in this case, declaring that: it accepted the State’s partial acknowledgement ofinternationalresponsibilityandstatedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticles7(1)(RighttoPersonalLiberty),5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)and4(1)(RighttoLife)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofthehumanrightsdefender,JesúsMaríaValleJaramillo;itacceptedthe State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility and stated that the StatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticles7(1)(RighttoPersonalLiberty)and5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofNellyValleJaramilloandCarlosFernandoJaramilloCorrea;itacceptedtheState’spartialacknowledgementof internationalresponsibilityandstatedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)oftheAmericanConvention, in relationtoArticle1(1)(Obligation toRespectRights) thereof, to thedetrimentofMaríaLeticiaValleJaramillo,LigiaValleJaramillo,LuzmilaValleJaramillo,MagdalenaValle Jaramillo, Romelia Valle Jaramillo, Marina Valle Jaramillo, Darío Valle Jaramillo, OctavioValle Jaramillo, AlfonsoMontoyaRestrepo, Luis FernandoMontoya Valle,Gloria Lucía Correa,Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa,María Lucía Jaramillo Correa, AnaCarolina Jaramillo Correa,JesúsEmilioJaramilloBarrera,AdelaCorreadeJaramillo,BlancaLucíaJaramilloCorrea,RomeliaJaramilloCorrea,NellydaJaramilloCorrea,JoséMaríaJaramilloCorrea,LuisEugenioJaramilloCorrea,GloriaElenaJaramilloCorreaandAdrianaMaríaJaramilloCorrea;itacceptedtheState’sacknowledgementofinternationalresponsibilityandstatedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle22(1)(FreedomofMovementandResidence)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofCarlosFernandoJaramilloCorrea,hiswife,GloriaLucíaCorrea,hisson,CarlosEnriqueJaramilloCorreaandhisdaughters,MaríaLucíaJaramilloCorreaandAnaCarolinaJaramilloCorrea;itacceptedtheState’spartialacknowledgementofinternationalresponsibilityandstatedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightsembodiedinArticles8(1)(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(1)(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofNellyValleJaramillo,AlfonsoMontoyaRestrepo,LuisFernandoMontoyaValle,CarlosFernando Jaramillo Correa, Gloria Lucía Correa, Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa, María LucíaJaramilloCorrea,AnaCarolinaJaramilloCorrea,JesúsEmilioJaramilloBarrera,AdelaCorreadeJaramillo,BlancaLucíaJaramilloCorrea,RomeliaJaramilloCorrea,NellydaJaramilloCorrea,JoséMaría Jaramillo Correa, Luis Eugenio Jaramillo Correa,Gloria Elena Jaramillo Correa, AdrianaMaríaJaramilloCorrea,MaríaLeticiaValleJaramillo,LigiaValleJaramillo,LuzmilaValleJaramillo,MagdalenaValleJaramillo,RomeliaValleJaramillo,MarinaValleJaramillo,DaríoValleJaramilloandOctavioValleJaramillo;

TheCourtalsodeclaredthat:theStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,inrelationtoArticle1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Blanca �nés Valle Jaramillo,GonzalodeJesúsJaramilloCorrea,JuanGuillermoValleNoreña,JohnJairoValleNoreñaandLuzAdrianaValleNoreña;duringtheproceedings,ithadnotbeenprovedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle5(1)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofthefollowingpersons:MauricioAlbertoHerreraValle,ClaudiaHelenaHerreraValle,LilianaMaríaHerreraValle,BertaLucíaValleNoreña,AdrianaMaríaLondoñoDelValle,AnaMaríaValleVillegas,AndrésFelipeValle Villegas, Claudia MaríaGarcía Valle, Diana PatriciaGarcía Valle, Francisco JavierGarcíaValle,FranklinHenaoValle,FredyHenaoValle,JairoAlbertoLondoñoDelValle,JeannetteHenaoValle,JohnAlbertoHenaoValle,JulianaPatriciaLondoñoDelValle,MaríaVictoriaGarcíaValleandMartaLuzGarcíaValle(nextofkinofJesúsMaríaValleJaramillo);orofAlejandroJaramilloMejía,


AnnuAl report 2008

AnaCatalinaHoyosJaramillo,AndrésFelipeOchoaJaramillo,CésarAugustoJaramilloGutiérrez,DiegoAlejandroOchoaJaramillo,GabrielaGómezJaramillo,JorgeMarioJaramilloGutiérrez,JoséMiguelJaramilloGutiérrez,JuanCamiloJaramilloGutiérrez,JuanGonzaloJaramilloMejía,JulianaJaramilloTobón,LuisJairoJaramilloGutiérrez,LuisaMaríaGómezJaramillo,María�sabelJaramilloMejía, Oscar Fernando Hoyos Jaramillo, Luis Santiago Jaramillo Tobón and Victoria AlejandraGómezJaramillo(nextofkinofCarlosFernandoJaramilloCorrea);duringtheproceedings, ithadnotbeenprovedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle11(1)and11(2)(RighttoPrivacy)oftheAmericanConvention;duringtheproceedings,ithadnotbeenprovedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle17(RightsoftheFamily)oftheAmericanConvention; itwas not incumbent on theCourt to rule on the alleged violation of the rightsembodiedinArticles5(RighttoHumaneTreatment),13(FreedomofThoughtandExpression)and16(FreedomofAssociation)oftheAmericanConvention,tothedetrimentofhumanrightsdefenders,sincetheywerenotconsideredallegedvictimsinthecase;and,duringtheproceedings,ithadnotbeenprovedthattheStatehadviolatedtherightembodiedinArticle13(FreedomofThoughtandExpression)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights.

Regardingreparations,theCourtordered,inter alia,thattheStateofColombiashould:pay the amounts established in the judgment for pecuniary andnon-pecuniary damage, andreimbursement of costs and expenses within one year of the notification of the judgment;investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations in this case; publish once in the officialgazetteand inanothernationalnewspaperwithwidespreadcirculationparagraphs2 to4,6,29,47,70to78,80to97,104to107,109,110,115,122,125to128,130,132,140to144,147,160,161,165 to170,176 to180,184,190,191,196,197and200of the judgment,without the corresponding footnotes and with the titles of the respective chapters, and alsotheoperativeparagraphsthereof,withinoneyearofthenotificationofthejudgment;carryoutapublicact intheUniversidaddeAntioquiatoacknowledge its internationalresponsibility fortheviolationsdeclaredinthiscase,withinoneyearofthenotificationofthejudgment;placeaplaqueinmemoryofJesúsMaríaValleJaramillointhePalacio de Justicia[maincourthouse]oftheDepartmentofAntioquia,withinoneyearofthenotificationofthejudgment;provide,freeofchargeandimmediately,throughitsspecializedhealthcareinstitutions,thepsychologicalandpsychiatrictreatmentrequiredbythevictims;grantNellyValleJaramilloandCarlosFernandoJaramilloCorrea,withinoneyearof thenotificationof the judgment,aneducationalgrant toundertake studies or training in a profession, and to guaranteehis safety if Carlos FernandoJaramilloCorreadecidestoreturntoColombia

JudgeSergioGarcíaRamírezadvisedtheCourtofhisconcurringopinion,whichaccompaniesthejudgment.

12. CaseofKawasFernández(Honduras):Provisional measures.OnNovember29,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthiscase,inwhichitdecidedtorequiretheRepublicofHonduras:toadoptforthwith,allnecessarymeasurestosafeguardthelifeandpersonalintegrityofDencenAndinoAlvarado; toadoptallnecessarymeasures toensure thatDencenAndinoAlvaradowouldnotbeharassedorthreatenedowingtohisparticipationasawitnessintheinvestigationbeingconductedbytheauthoritiesintothemurderofBlancaJeannetteKawasFernández;andtoensurethatthemeasuresofprotectiondecidedintheorderwereplannedandimplementedwiththeparticipationofthebeneficiariesofthemeasuresortheirrepresentatives

13. Orderonmonitoringcompliancewithjudgment:Duringthissession,theCourtissuedanorderonmonitoringcompliancewiththejudgmenthandeddowninBulaciov.Argentina.



I. Thirty-seventhspecialsessionoftheCourt

TheCourt held its thirty-seventh special session inMexico,D.F., fromDecember 1to5,2008,with the followingmembers: CeciliaMedinaQuiroga(Chile),President;DiegoGarcía-Sayán (Peru), Vice President; Sergio García Ramírez (Mexico); Manuel E. VenturaRobles(CostaRica);LeonardoA.Franco(Argentina);MargaretteMayMacaulay(Jamaica);andRhadysAbreuBlondet(DominicanRepublic).ThefollowingJudgesad hocalsotookpartin the session: LeoValladares Lanza, appointed by theState ofHonduras for the case ofKawas FernándezandRobertodeFigueiredoCaldas,appointedbytheStateofBrazilforthecaseofEscher et al.AlsopresentedwastheSecretaryoftheCourt,PabloSaavedraAlessandri(Chile).

Duringthissession,theCourtheldtwopublichearingsconcerningcontentiouscasesandtwopublic hearings onprovisionalmeasures. TheCourt also issuedoneorder onprovisionalmeasures.

1. CaseofTyroneDaCostaCadogan(Barbados):Provisional measures.OnDecember2,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhichitdecided,inter alia,toratifyallaspectsoftheorderofthePresidentofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsofNovember4,2008,andtorequiretheStatetomaintainthenecessaryprovisionalmeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofTyroneDaCostaCadogan,inordernottoobstructtheprocessingofthiscasebeforetheinter-Americansystem

2. CaseofKawasFernández (Honduras):Preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs.OnDecember2,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofthewitnessesandexpertwitnessesproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesoftheallegedvictims,andtheHonduranState.TheCourtalsoheardthefinaloralargumentsofthepartiesonthepreliminaryobjectionsandthepossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

3. CaseofEscheret al.(Brazil):Preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs.OnDecember3,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtreceivedthetestimonyofthewitnessesandexpertwitnessesproposedbythe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandtherepresentativesoftheallegedvictims,andtheState.TheCourtalsoheardthefinaloralargumentsofthepartiesonthepreliminaryobjectionsandthepossiblemerits,reparationsandcostsinthiscase.

4. MatteroftheKankuamoIndigenousPeople(Colombia).Provisional measures. OnDecember4,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasures,andtheState,concerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

5. MatteroftheMendozaPrisons(Argentina):Provisional measures. OnDecember4,2008,duringapublichearing,theCourtheardtheargumentsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,therepresentativesofthebeneficiariesoftheprovisionalmeasures,andtheState,concerningtheprovisionalmeasuresinforceinthismatter.

6. Academicactivities:Duringthisspecialsessionthesecondtrainingprogramontheinter-AmericansystemforofficialPublicDefendersoftheAmericaswasheldinconjunction


AnnuAl report 2008

withthe�nter-AmericanAssociationofPublicDefenders(A�DEF).�naddition,apublicseminaron the current and future challenges for the inter-American system for the protection ofhumanrightswasheldonDecember1,2008,andapublicseminaronnationalincorporationof internationalhuman rights lawand thecase lawof the �nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsonDecember5.

ThepublichearingsandtheDecember1seminarwereheldinthePalaciodeMineríainCalleTacuba,inMexicoCity’sHistoricCenter.ThepublicseminaronDecember5washeldattheUniversidadNacionalAutónomadeMexico(UNAM)JuridicalResearch�nstitute.

7. Otheractivities:OnDecember1,2008,theCourtparticipatedinthecommemorationofthetenthanniversaryofMexico’sacceptanceofthecompulsoryjurisdictionofthe�nter-AmericanCourt.TheCourtalsoheldseveralworkingmeetingsduringthesessionwith:the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,membersoftheSupremeCourtofJustice,theProsecutorGeneral(Procurador General),theMinisterofGovernance,theExecutiveSecretaryoftheNationalHumanRightsCommission,theFederalDistrictHumanRightsCommission,andauthoritiesoftheUNAMJuridicalResearch�nstitute.

J. SUBMISSIONOFNEWCONTENTIOUSCASES

�nthecourseof2008,ninenewcontentiouscasesweresubmittedtotheconsiderationoftheCourt:

1. CaseofKawasFernándezv.Honduras

On February 4, 2008, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention onHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightslodgedanapplicationagainsttheStateofHonduras,concerningthecaseofKawasFernández.Theapplicationrelatestotheallegedextrajudicialexecutionoftheenvironmentalist,BlancaJeannetteKawas,theallegedlackofduediligenceininvestigatingandpunishingthoseresponsibleforherdeathand,ingeneral,thepresumedobstructionofjustice,aswellasthefailuretomakeadequatereparationtohernextofkin.

�nthedemand,theCommissionrequestedtheCourttodeclaretheStateresponsibleforviolatingtherightembodiedinArticle4(RighttoLife)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofBlancaJeannetteKawasFernández. �naddition, it requestedthat theCourtdeclare theStateresponsible forviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles8(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects), thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Blanca Jeannette Kawas Fernández.Furthermore, the Commission considered that the case revealed the vulnerable situation ofenvironmentalistsanddefendersofnaturalresourcesinHonduras,theattacksontheseindividuals,andtheobstaclestoinvestigatingtheactsofharassmentandabuse.

Inviewoftheabove,theCommissionaskedtheCourttoordertheStatetoadoptspecificmeasuresofreparationindicatedintheapplication,pursuanttoArticle63(1)(ObligationtomakeReparation)oftheConvention.



2. CaseofRadillaPachecov.Mexico

OnMarch15,2008,pursuanttoArticles51and61oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightslodgedanapplicationagainsttheUnitedMexicanStates,concerningthecaseofRadillaPacheco.TheapplicationrelatestotheallegedforceddisappearanceofRosendoRadilla PachecowhichbeganonAugust25,1974, the totalimpunitythatallegedlyreignswithregardtothisact,theallegedfailuretoclarifyhiswhereabouts,andalsotheallegedfailuretomakereparationtohisnextofkinforthelossescausedandfortheallegedprolongeddenialofjustice.

�n the demand, the Commission requested the Court to declare the State of MexicoresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles3(RighttoJuridicalPersonality),4(RighttoLife),5(RighttoHumaneTreatment),7(RighttoPersonalLiberty),8(RighttoaFairTrial)and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofRosendoRadillaPacheco.�naddition,theCommissionrequestedthattheCourtdeclaretheStateresponsibleforviolatingArticles8(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentofthenextofkinofRosendoRadilla.

�nviewoftheabove,pursuanttoArticle63(1)(ObligationtomakeReparation)oftheConvention,theCommissionaskedtheCourttoordertheStatetoadoptspecificmeasuresofreparationindicatedintheapplication.

3. CaseoftheDischargedandRetiredEmployeesoftheOfficeof theComptrollerGeneralv.Peru

OnApril1,2008,pursuanttoArticles51and61oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,lodgedanapplicationagainsttheStateofPeru,concerningthecaseofmembersoftheNationalAssociationofDischargedandRetiredEmployeesoftheOfficeoftheComptrollerGeneraloftheRepublic.TheapplicationrelatestotheallegedfailuretoenforcethejudgmentsofPeru’sConstitutionalCourtofOctober21,1997,andJanuary26,2001,orderingtheOfficeoftheComptrollerGeneraloftheRepublictogranttheAssociationmemberswhoaretheplaintiffsinthiscasethesamesalaries,bonusesandbenefitspaid toactiveemployeesof thatofficeperforming functions identical,similarorequivalent tothosethatthedischargedorretiredemployeesperformedinthecaseof273membersoftheNationalAssociationofDischargedandRetiredEmployeesoftheOfficeoftheComptrollerGeneraloftheRepublic.

�n the demand, theCommission requested theCourt to declare theState responsiblefor violating the rights embodied in Articles 21 (Right to Property) and 25 (Right to JudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofthese273presumedvictims.



AnnuAl report 2008

4. CaseofAnzualdoCastrov.Peru

OnJuly11,2008,pursuanttoArticles51and61oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,lodgedanapplicationagainsttheStateofPeru,concerningthecaseofAnzualdoCastro.TheapplicationrelatestotheState’sallegedresponsibility for the forced disappearance perpetrated by State agents as of December 16,1993,ofthestudent,KennethNeyAnzualdoCastro,whosewhereaboutsandthecircumstancesinwhichhisdisappearancetookplacehavestillnotbeenclarified;theallegedsufferingcausedtohisnextofkin,andthesubsequentlackofaninvestigationintothefactsandtheprosecutionandpunishmentofthoseresponsible.

�nthedemand,theCommissionaskedtheCourtdeclaretheStateofPeruresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles3(RighttoJuridicalPersonality),4(RighttoLife),5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and25 (Right to Judicial Protection)of theAmericanConventiononHumanRights, in relation toArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,aswellastheviolationofArticle�ofthe�nter-AmericanConventiononForcedDisappearanceofPersons,tothedetrimentofKennethNeyAnzualdoCastro.�naddition,theCommissionallegedthattheStateisresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles5(RighttoHumaneTreatment),8(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentofthenextofkinoftheallegedvictim,namely:FélixVicenteAnzualdoVicuña,father;�ris�sabelCastroCachaydeAnzualdo(deceased)mother,andhissiblings,MarlyArlenyAnzualdoCastroandRommelDarwinAnzualdoCastro.

�nviewoftheabove,pursuanttoArticle63(1)(ObligationtomakeReparation)oftheConvention,theCommissionaskedtheCourttoordertheStatetoadoptspecificmeasuresofreparationindicationintheapplication.

5. CaseofUsónRamírezv.Venezuela

OnJuly25,2008,pursuanttoArticles51and61oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,lodgedanapplicationagainsttheStateofVenezuela,concerningthecaseofUsónRamírez.TheapplicationrelatestotheallegedfilingofacriminalactioninthemilitaryjurisdictionfortheoffenseofinsultstotheNationalArmedForces,to the detriment ofGeneral (retired) FranciscoUsónRamírez and his subsequent sentencingtofiveyearsandsixmonths’imprisonment,asaresultofcertainallegeddeclarationsthatMr.Usónmadeduringatelevisioninterviewconcerningfactsthatwereallegedlythetopicofpublicdiscussionandcontroversyatthetime.

�n the demand, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible forviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles13(FreedomofThoughtandExpression),7(RighttoPersonalLiberty),8(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention, in relation toArticles 1(1) (Obligation toRespectRights) and2 (Domestic LegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentofFranciscoUsónRamírez.




6. CaseoftheLasDosErresMassacrev.Guatemala

OnJuly30,2008,pursuanttoArticles51and61oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,lodgedanapplicationagainsttheStateofGuatemala,concerningthecaseoftheDosErresMassacre.TheapplicationrelatestotheState’spresumedresponsibilityarisingfromtheallegedlackofduediligenceintheinvestigation,prosecutionandpunishmentof those responsible for themassacreof251 inhabitantsof theParcelamiento (landdividedintolots)ofLasDosErres,municipalityofLaLibertad,DepartmentofPetén,allegedlyperpetratedbymembersoftheGuatemalanArmybetweenDecember6and8,1982.

�n the demand, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State of GuatemalaresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles8(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentoftwosurvivorsofthemassacreand155nextofkinofthepersonswhodiedinthemassacre.

�nviewof theabove,pursuant toArticle63(1)(Obligation tomakereparation)of theConvention,theCommissionaskedtheCourttoordertheStatetoadoptspecificmeasuresofreparationindicatedintheapplication.

7. CaseofTyroneDaCostaCadoganv.Barbados

OnOctober 31, 2008, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the AmericanConvention onHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,lodgedanapplicationagainsttheStateofBarbados,concerningthecaseofTyroneDaCostaCadogan.TheapplicationrelatestotheallegeddeathsentenceimposedonTyroneDaCostaCadoganwithouttakingintoconsiderationtheparticularcircumstancesofthecrimecommittedorpossibleattenuatingcircumstances.TheCommission alleged that on May 18, 2005, the Supreme Court of Barbados declared TyroneDaCostaCadoganguilty ofmurder and sentencedhim to death by hanging, under the 1994Offensesagainst thePersonAct,whichprescribes capital punishment forperpetratorsof thiscrime.Asaresultofanexclusionclause intheConstitutionofBarbados,domesticcourtsareallegedlyprohibitedfromdeclaringthattheautomaticimposingofthedeathpenaltyisinvalid,evenwhenthisviolatesfundamentalrightsprotectedbytheConstitutionofBarbadosandtheAmericanConventiononHumanRights.

�n the demand, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible forviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles4(1)and4(2)(RighttoLife),5(1)and5(2)(RighttoHumaneTreatment)and8(RighttoaFairTrial)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticles1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentofTyroneDaCostaCadogan

�nviewof theabove,pursuant toArticle63(1)(Obligation tomakereparation)of theConvention,theCommissionaskedtheCourttoordertheStatetoadoptspecificmeasuresofreparationindicatedintheapplication.

8. CaseofBarretoLeivav.Venezuela

On October 31, 2008, pursuant to Articles 51 and 61 of the American ConventiononHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights, lodgedanapplication


AnnuAl report 2008

againsttheStateofVenezuela,concerningthecaseofBarretoLeiva.TheapplicationrelatestothecriminalactionasaresultofwhichOscarBarretoLeivawassentencedtoayearandtwomonths’ imprisonment for offenses against public patrimony, arising fromhis termasSectoralDirectorGeneralofAdministrationandServicesoftheMinistryoftheSecretariatofthePresidencyoftheRepublic.AccordingtotheCommission,duringtheprocessingbeforetheSupremeCourtofJusticeofthecriminalactionagainstthethenPresidentoftheRepublic,asenatorandadeputy,Mr.Barretowassummonedtotestifyasawitnessand,subsequently,awarrantforhisarrestwasissued.TheCommissionallegesthat,duringtheseproceedings,Mr.Barretowasnotprovidedwithdetailednotificationoftheoffenseshewaschargedwithowingto thesecretnatureof thepre-trial stagebefore thewarrant forhisarrestwas issued. �naddition,theCommissionallegedthathisrighttodefensehadbeenimpairedbecausehewasnotpermitted:theassistanceofadefensecounselofhischoiceduringthepre-trialproceedingsorduringthestatementshemadeafterhehadbeencharged;tocross-examinewitnesses,toobtaininformationontheevidencethatwasbeingcollected,andtopresentevidencethatcouldthrowlightonhisversionofthefactsandinvalidatethebodyofevidenceagainsthim.Furthermore,theCommissionallegedtheimpossibilityofappealingtheconviction,becauseMr.Barretohadbeensubjectedtoanactioninwhichtherewasnoappealfromthejudgmentrendered,beforeanauthority thatwasnothisnatural judge,andalso thearbitrarinessofhispreventivedetention,takingintoaccountthatithadbeendecidedbasedexclusivelyonindicationsofguilt,withoutthepossibilityofobtainingprovisionalreleaseonbailandwithoutany justification being provided for the procedural purposes sought by the application ofthismechanism.�nthisregard,theCommissionaddedthatMr.Barretohadbeensubjectedto preventive detention for 16 days more than the punishment that was imposed, whichdisregardstheguaranteesofreasonabletimeandthepresumptionofinnocence.Moreover,itindicatedthat,duringthecriminalaction,normswereappliedthatwereincompatiblewiththe Convention; they included norms that provided that proceedings during the pre-trialstageweresecretfortheaccusedandhislawyeruntilanarrestwarranthadbeenexecuted,and that established the general application of preventive detentionwhenever therewereindicationsofcriminalresponsibility.

�nthedemandtheCommissionrequestedtheCourttodeclaretheStateresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodied inArticles7(RighttoPersonalLiberty),8(RighttoaFairTrial)and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the AmericanConvention, in relation to Articles 1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)and2(DomesticLegalEffects)thereof,tothedetrimentoftheallegedvictim.


9. CaseofManuelCepedaVargasv.Colombia

OnNovember14,2008,pursuanttoArticles51and61oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,lodgedanapplicationagainsttheStateofColombia,concerning thecaseofManuelCepedaVargas.TheapplicationrelatestotheallegedextrajudicialexecutionofSenatorManuelCepedaVargas,leaderoftheNationalDirectorateoftheColombianCommunistPartyandprominentfigureofthePatrioticUnionpoliticalparty,whichoccurredinBogotáonAugust9,1994,andalsotothepresumedlackofduediligenceininvestigatingandpunishingthoseresponsiblefortheexecutionoftheallegedvictim,aswell



astheobstructionofjusticeandthefailuretomakeadequatereparationtothevictim’snextofkin.

�nthedemand,theCommissionaskedtheCourttodeclaretheStateofColombiaresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticles4(RighttoLife),5(RighttoHumaneTreatment),8(RighttoaFairTrial),11(RighttoPrivacy),13(FreedomofThoughtandExpression),16(FreedomofAssociation),23(RighttoParticipateinGovernment)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention onHumanRights, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation toRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofManuelCepedaVargas.�naddition,theCommissionallegedthattheStatewasresponsibleforviolatingtherightsembodiedinArticle5(RighttoHumaneTreatment),11(RighttoPrivacy),8(RighttoaFairTrial)and25(RighttoJudicialProtection)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofthefollowingnextofkinofthevictim:�vánCepedaCastro(son),MaríaCepedaCastro(daughter),OlgaNaviaSoto(permanentcompanion),ClaudiaGirónOrtiz(daughter-in-law),andMaríaEstrellaCepedaVargas,RuthCepedaVargas,GloriaMaríaCepedaVargas,ÁlvaroCepedaVargasandCeciliaCepedaVargas(deceased)(siblings).Lastly,theCommissionaskedtheCourt todeclare theState responsible for theallegedviolationofArticle22 (FreedomofMovementandResidence)oftheAmericanConvention,inrelationtoArticle1(1)(ObligationtoRespectRights)thereof,tothedetrimentofthefollowingnextofkinofthevictim:�vánCepedaCastro(son),MaríaCepedaCastro(daughter),andhisdirectnuclearfamily.


K. NEWPROVISIONALMEASURES

During2008,twonewrequestsforprovisionalmeasuresweresubmittedtotheconsiderationoftheCourt:

1. ProvisionalmeasuresinthecaseofTyroneDaCostaCadoganwithregard toBarbados

OnOctober31,2008,pursuanttoArticles63(2)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights, 25 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and 74 of the Rules of Procedure of theCommission,the�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,submittedtotheCourtarequestforprovisionalmeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofTyroneDaCostaCadogan,whohadbeensentencedtodeathbyhanging.

OnNovember4,2008,thePresidentoftheCourtissuedanorderconcerningthisrequestfor provisional measures, in which she decided: to order the State to adopt the necessaryprovisionalmeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofTyroneDaCostaCadoganandnottoobstructtheprocessingofthiscasebeforetheinter-Americansystem;andtorequiretheStatetoinformtheCourtofthemeasuresimplementedtocomplywiththeorder.

OnNovember26,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthismatter,inwhich itdecided, inter alia, to ratifyall aspectsof theorderof thePresidentof the �nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsofNovember4,2008,and to require theState tomaintain


AnnuAl report 2008

thenecessaryprovisionalmeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofTyroneDaCostaCadogan,inordernottoobstructtheprocessingofthiscasebeforetheinter-Americansystem

2. ProvisionalmeasuresinthecaseofKawasFernándezwithregardtoHonduras

OnNovember28,2008,pursuanttoArticles63(2)oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRightsand25oftheRulesofProcedureoftheCourt,theCenterforJusticeand�nternationalLaw(CEJ�L),submittedtotheCourtarequestforprovisionalmeasurestoprotectthelifeandpersonalintegrityofDencenAndinoAlvarado.

OnNovember29,2008,theCourtissuedanorderonprovisionalmeasuresinthiscase,inwhichitdecidedrequiretheRepublicofHonduras:toadoptforthwithallnecessarymeasurestoensuretheprotectionofthelifeandpersonalintegrityofDencenAndinoAlvarado;toadoptallnecessarymeasurestoguaranteethatDencenAndinoAlvaradowouldnotbeharassedorthreatenedowingtohisparticipationasawitnessintheinvestigationsundertakenbytheauthoritiesinthecaseofthemurderofBlancaJeannetteKawasFernández;andthatthemeasuresofprotectionorderedshouldbeplannedand implementedwith theparticipationof thebeneficiariesof themeasuresortheirrepresentatives.

L. NEWADVISORYOPINION

1. AdvisoryopinionOC-21

OnAugust14,2008,theFederalRepublicofArgentinasubmittedarequestforanadvisoryopinionconcerningthe“interpretationofArticle55oftheAmericanConventiononHumanRights”inrelationto“thejudgead hocandtheequalityofarmsintheproceedingsbeforethe�nter-AmericanCourtinthecontextofacasearisingfromanindividualpetition,”aswellaswithregardto“thenationalityofthejudges[oftheCourt]andtherighttoan independentand impartialjudge.”

M. MONITORINGCOMPLIANCEWITHJUDGMENTANDIMPLEMENTATION OFPROVISIONALMEASURES

�nordertomonitorcompliancewiththeundertakingmadebytheStates“tocomplywiththejudgmentoftheCourtinanycasetowhichtheyareparties”(Article68oftheConvention)and,inparticular,toinformtheGeneralAssemblyof“thecasesinwhichaStatehasnotcompliedwithitsjudgments”(Article65oftheConvention),theCourtneedstoknowtheextenttowhichStateshavecompliedwithitsrulings.Accordingly,theCourtmustmonitorthattheStatesconcernedcomplywiththereparationsithasordered,beforeinformingtheOASGeneralAssemblyaboutanyfailuretocomplywithitsdecisions.

TheCourt’smonitoringofcompliancewithitsdecisionsimplies,first,thatitmustrequestinformationfromtheStateontheactionscarriedouttoimplementcompliance,andthenobtainthecommentsoftheCommissionandofthevictimsortheirrepresentatives.WhentheCourthasreceivedthisinformation,itcanassesswhethertheStatehascompliedwithitsjudgment,guidetheState’sactionstothateffect,andcomplywithitsobligationtoinformtheGeneralAssembly,inthetermsofArticle65oftheConvention.



�nlightoftheabove,andexercisingthepowersinherentinitsjurisdictionalfunctionofmonitoringcompliancewithitsjudgments,theCourtwillnowreportoncomplianceinseveralcontentiouscasesandwithregardtoprovisionalmeasures:

1. Contentiouscases The Court issued thirty-three orders concerning the degree of compliance with thejudgments handed down in the following case: Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, LópezÁlvarezv.Honduras,CantoralBenavidesv.Peru,YakyeAxa�ndigenousCommunityv. Paraguay,Sawhoyamaxa�ndigenousCommunityv. Paraguay,CaballeroDelgadoandSantanav. Colombia,RicardoCanesev. Paraguay,Children’sRehabilitation�nstitutev. Paraguay,HuilcaTecsev.Peru,BaldeónGarcíav.Peru,AcostaCalderónv. Ecuador,GutiérrezSolerv. Colombia,LoayzaTamayov. Peru,ClaudeReyeset al. v. Chile, Mayagna(Sumo)AwasTingniCommunityv. Nicaragua, Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala,RaxcacóReyesv.Guatemala,Canesev.Paraguay,Goiburúet al.v.Paraguay,ServellónGarcíaet al.v.Honduras,PlandeSánchezMassacrev.Guatemala,ConstitutionalCourtv.Peru,DurandandUgartev.Peru,BarriosAltosv.Peru,CestiHurtadov.Peru,Yatamav.Nicaragua,LasPalmerasv.Colombia,VargasArecov.Paraguay,BaenaRicardoet al.v.Panama,ClaudeReyeset al.v.ChileandBulaciov.Argentina.

�naddition,theCourtcontinueditspracticeoforganizingprivatehearingsonmonitoringcompliancewithitsjudgments.�nthisregard,itheldthirteenprivatehearingsinthefollowingcases: Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Caballero Delgado and Santanav. Colombia, Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Children’s Rehabilitation �nstitute v. Paraguay,Sawhoyamaxa �ndigenous Community v. Paraguay and Yakye Axa �ndigenous Community v. Paraguay,BaenaRicardoet al.v.Panama,Mayagna(Sumo)AwasTingniCommunityv.Nicaragua,FermínRamírezv.Guatemala.RaxcacóReyesv.Guatemala,ClaudeReyeset al.v.Chile,andBulaciov.Argentina.

2. Provisionalmeasures

TheCourtissuedseventeenordersthatreflectthedegreeofcompliancewithandimplementationoftheprovisionalmeasuresithadorderedinthefollowingcases:thematterofthe“Globovisión”TelevisionStationwithregardtoVenezuela,matterofMeryNaranjowithregardtoColombia,caseofCaballeroDelgadoandSantanawithregardtoColombia,matterofÁlvarezet al.withregardtoColombia,matterofthePeaceCommunityofSanJosédeApartadówithregardtoColombia,matterofPilarNoriegaet al.withregardtoMexico,matterofthecommunitiesoftheJiguamiandóandof theCurbaradówith regard toColombia,matterofMillacuraLlaipénet al.with regardtoArgentina,matteroftheCapitalDetentionCenterElRodeo�andElRodeo��withregardtoVenezuela,matteroftheUrsoBrancoPrisonwithregardtoBrazil,caseoftheGómezPaquiyauriBrotherswithregardtoPeru,caseoftheMapiripánMassacrewithregardtoColombia,caseofFermínRamírezwith regard toGuatemala,caseofRaxcacóReyeswith regard toGuatemala,matterofCarlosNietoPalmaandanotherwithregardtoVenezuela,matterofLeonelRiveroet al.(previouslymatterofPilarNoriegaet al.)withregardtoMexico,andmatterofLysiasFleurywithregardtoHaiti.

�naddition,theCourtorderedthepartialliftingoffourprovisionalmeasuresthatithadordered:matter of Pilar Noriega et al.with regard toMexico, case of theGómez PaquiyauriBrotherswith regard toPeru,matterofMillacuraLlaipénet al.with regard toArgentina,and


AnnuAl report 2008

matterofMeryNaranjowithregardtoColombia;theywereconsideredpartialbecausetheCourtordered themeasures lifted onlywith regard to someof the beneficiaries,whilemaintainingthemeasuresactiveforotherbeneficiaries.InadditiontheCourtorderedthetotalliftingoffiveprovisionalmeasures:matterofLysiasFleurywithregardtoHaiti,matterofLeonelRiveroet al.withregardtoMexico,matterofthe“ElNacional”and“AsíeslaNoticia”NewspaperswithregardtoVenezuela,matteroftheChildrenandAdolescentsDeprivedofLibertyinthe“TatuapéComplex”oftheCASAFoundationwithregardtoBrazil,andmatterofthePersonsDeprivedofLiberty in the “Dr.SebastiãoMartinsSilveira” Prison inAraraquara,SãoPaulowith regard toBrazil.

�naddition,theCourtcontinueditspracticeoforganizingprivatehearingsonmonitoringcompliancewith theprovisionalmeasures ithadordered.�n this regard, itheld threeprivatehearings in the following cases: matter of the Communities of the Jiguamiandó and of theCurbaradówithregardtoColombia,caseofFermínRamírezwithregardtoGuatemala,andcaseofRaxcacóReyeswithregardtoGuatemala.

n. stAtus of mAtters BeIng proCessed By tHe Court

1. Contentiouscases

Attheendof2008,16casesarependingtheCourt’sjudgment;ofthese,nineareattheinitialprocessingstage,andsevenatthestageofpreliminaryobjectionsandpossiblemerits,reparations and costs. �n addition, 94 cases are at the stage of monitoring compliance withjudgment,whichmeansthatatotalof110casesarebeingprocessedbeforetheCourt.

1.a Contentiouscasespendingjudgment:

NameDateofsubmis-

sion

Resp-ondentState

Currentstage

1.CaseofGabrielaPerozoet al.

12/04/07Preliminary objections and possiblemerits,reparationsandcosts

2. CaseofLuisianaRíoset al. 20/04/07 VenezuelaPreliminary objections and possiblemerits

3. CaseofTristánDonoso 28/08/07 PanamaPreliminary objections and possiblemerits

4.CaseoftheCottonField(RamosMonárrezet al.)

04/11/07 MexicoPreliminary objections and possiblemerits

5. CaseofReverónTrujillo 09/11/07 VenezuelaPreliminary objections and possiblemerits

6.CaseofArleyJoséEscheret al.

20/12/07 BrazilPreliminary objections and possiblemerits



7. CaseofSétimoGaribaldi 24/12/07 BrazilPreliminaryobjectionsandpossiblemerits

8. CaseofKawasFernández 04/02/08 Honduras �nitialprocessing

9. CaseofRadillaPacheco 15/03/08 Mexico �nitialprocessing

10.CaseoftheDismissedandRetiredEmployeesoftheComptroller’sOffice

01/04/08 Peru �nitialprocessing

11. CaseofAnzualdoCastro 11/07/08 Peru �nitialprocessing

12. CaseofUsónRamírez 25/07/08 Venezuela �nitialprocessing

13.CaseoftheDosErresMassacre

30/07/08 Guatemala �nitialprocessing

14. CaseofBarretoLeiva 31/10/08 Venezuela �nitialprocessing

15.CaseofTyroneDaCostaCadogan

31/10/08 Barbados �nitialprocessing

16.CaseofManuelCepedaVargas

17/11/08 Colombia �nitialprocessing

1.b Contentiouscasesatthestageof monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

NameRespondent

SteteCurrentstage

1. Caseofthe19Tradesmen Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

2. CaseofAcevedoJaramilloet al. Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

3. CaseofAcostaCalderón Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

4. CaseofAlbánCornejoet al. Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

5. CaseofAlmonacidArellano Chile Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment


AnnuAl report 2008

6. CaseofApitzBarberaet al. Venezuela Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

7. CaseofBaenaRicardoet al. Panama Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

8. CaseofBaldeónGarcía Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

9. CaseofBámacaVelásquez Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

10. CaseofBarriosAltos Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

11. CaseofBayarri Argentina Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

12. CaseofBenavidesCevallos Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

13. CaseofBlake Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

14. CaseofBlancoRomeroet al. Venezuela Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

15. CaseofBoyceet al. Barbados Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

16. CaseofBuenoAlves Argentina Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

17. CaseofBulacio Argentina Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

18.CaseofCaballeroDelgadoandSantana

Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

19. CaseofCaesarTrinidadand

TobagoMonitoringcompliancewithjudgment

20. CaseofCantoralBenavides Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

21.CaseofCantoralHuamaníandGarcíaSantaCruz

Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

22. CaseofCantos Argentina Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

23. CaseofCarpioNicolleet al. Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

24. CaseofCastañedaGutman Mexico Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

25. CaseofCastilloPáez Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment



26. CaseofCastilloPetruzziet al. Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

27. CaseofCestiHurtado Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

28. Caseofthe“FivePensioners” Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

29. CaseofClaudeReyeset al. Chile Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

30.CaseoftheSawhoyamaxa�ndigenousCommunity

Paraguay Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

31.CaseoftheYakyeAxa�ndigenousCommunity


32.CaseoftheMayagna(Sumo)AwasTingniCommunity

Nicaragua Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

33. CaseoftheMoiwanaCommunity Suriname Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

34.CaseofChaparroÁlvarezandLapoÍñiguez

Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

35. CaseofLaCruzFlores Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

36. CaseoftheMapiripánMassacre Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

37.CaseofthePuebloBelloMassacre


38. CaseoftheSerranoCruzSisters ElSalvador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

39. Caseofthe�tuangoMassacres Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

40.Caseofthe“LaRochelaMassacre”


41.CaseoftheYeanandBosicoChildren

DominicanRepublic

Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

42.Caseofthe“StreetChildren”(VillagránMoraleset al.)

Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

43. CaseofElCaracazo Venezuela Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

44.CaseoftheMiguelCastroCastroPrison


45. CaseoftheConstitutionalCourt Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment


AnnuAl report 2008

46. CaseofDurandandUgarte Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

47. CaseofElAmparo Venezuela Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

48. CaseofEscuéZapata Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

49. CaseofFermínRamírez Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

50.CaseofGarcíaAstoandRamírezRojas


51.CaseofGarcíaPrietoandanother

ElSalvador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

52. CaseofGarridoandBaigorria Argentina Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

53. CaseofGoiburúet al. Paraguay Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

54. CaseofGómezPalomino Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

55. CaseofGutiérrezSoler Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

56. CaseofHeliodoroPortugal Panama Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

57.CaseoftheGómezPaquiyauriBrothers


58. CaseofHerreraUlloa CostaRica Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

59.CaseofHilaire,ConstantineBenjaminet al.

TrinidadandTobago

Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

60. CaseofHuilcaTecse Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

61. Caseofthe“Children’sRehabilitation�nstitute”


62. Caseof�vcherBronstein Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

63. CaseofJuanH.Sánchez Honduras Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

64. CaseofKimel Argentina Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

65. CaseofLaCantuta Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment



66. CaseofLasPalmeras Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

67. CaseofLoayzaTamayo Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

68. CaseofLópezÁlvarez Honduras Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

69. CaseofLoriBerensonMejía Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

70. CaseofMaritzaUrrutia Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

71.CaseofthePlandeSánchezMassacre

Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

72. CaseofMolinaTheissen Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

73. CaseofMonteroArangurenet al. Venezuela Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

74. CaseofMyrnaMackChang Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

75. CaseofNeiraAlegríaet al. Peru Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

76. CaseofPalamara�ribarne Chile Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

77. CaseofPaniaguaMoraleset al. Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

78. CaseoftheSaramakaPeople Suriname Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

79. CaseofRaxcacóReyes Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

80. CaseofRicardoCanese Paraguay Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

81. CaseofSalvadorChiriboga Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

82. CaseofServellónGarcíaet al. Honduras Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

83. CaseofSuárezRosero Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

84. CaseofTibi Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

85. CaseofTiconaEstrada Bolivia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment


AnnuAl report 2008

86. CaseofTiuTojín Guatemala Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

87.CaseoftheDismissedCongressionalEmployees


88. CaseofTrujilloOroza Bolivia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

89. CaseofValleJaramilloet al. Colombia Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

90. CaseofVargasAreco Paraguay Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

91. CaseofXimenesLopes Brazil Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

92. CaseofYATAMA Nicaragua Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

93. CaseofYvonNeptune Haiti Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

94. CaseofZambranoVélezet al. Ecuador Monitoringcompliancewithjudgment

2. Provisionalmeasures

Atthebeginningof2008,forty-sixprovisionalmeasureswereactive.Ofthesefivewereliftedduringtheyearand,attheendoftheyear,forty-oneprovisionalmeasureswereactive.

2.a. Provisionalmeasureslifted:

NameStateregardingwhich

theywereadopted

1. “ElNacional”and“AsíeslaNoticia”NewspapersVenezuela(Lifted)

2. LysiasFleuryHaiti

(Lifted)

3.Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the “TatuapéComplex”oftheCASAFoundation

Brazil(Lifted)

4.PersonsDeprivedofLibertyinthe“Dr.SebastiãoMartinsSilveira”PrisoninAraraquara,SãoPaulo

Brazil(Lifted)

5. PilarNoriegaet al.Mexico(Lifted)



2.b. Activeprovisionalmeasures:

NameStateregardingwhichtheywere

adopted

1.19Tradesmen(SandraBelindaMonteroFuentesand family,SalomónFlórezandfamily,LuisJoséPundorQuinteroandfamily,andAnaDivaQuinteroQuinterodePundorandfamily)

Colombia

2. AdriánMeléndezQuijanoet al. ElSalvador

3. Álvarezet al. Colombia

4. BámacaVelásquezet al. Guatemala

5. CaballeroDelgadoandSantana Colombia

6. UrsoBrancoPrison Brazil

7. CapitalElRodeo�andElRodeo��DetentionCenter Venezuela

8. CarlosNietoandanother Venezuela

9. CarpioNicolleet al. Guatemala

10. CentralOccidentalRegionPenitentiary(UribanaPrison) Venezuela

11. CapitalRegionPenitentiaryCenterYare�andYare��(YarePrison) Venezuela

12. PeaceCommunityofSanJosédeApartadó Colombia

13. CommunitiesoftheJiguamiandóandoftheCurbaradó Colombia

14. EloisaBarrioset al. Venezuela

15. “Globovisión”TelevisionStation Venezuela

16. GuatemalanForensicAnthropologyFoundation Guatemala

17. GiraldoCardona Colombia

18. GloriaGiraltdeGarcíaPrietoet al. ElSalvador

19. GómezPaquiyauri Peru


AnnuAl report 2008

20. GuerreroGallucciandMartínezBarrios Venezuela

21. GutiérrezSoleret al. Colombia

22. HaitiansandDominicansofHaitianoriginintheDominicanRepublic DominicanRepublic

23. HelenMacket al. Guatemala

24.Members of the Community Studies and Psychosocial Action Team(ECAP)(thePlandeSánchezMassacrecase)

Guatemala

25. MonagasDetentionCenter(“LaPica”) Venezuela

26. Jameset al. TrinidadandTobago

27. KawasFernández Honduras

28. LilianaOrtegaet al. Venezuela

29. LópezAlvarezet al. Honduras

30. LuisUzcátegui Venezuela

31. LuisianaRíoset al. Venezuela

32. MaríaLeontinaMillacuraLlaipénet al. Argentina

33. MartaColominaandLilianaVelásquez Venezuela

34. MapiripánMassacre Colombia

35. MeryNaranjoet al. Colombia

36. MendozaPrisons Argentina

37. Kankuamo�ndigenousPeople Colombia

38. Kichwa�ndigenousPeopleofSarayaku Ecuador

39. RamírezHinostrozaet al. Peru

40. Raxcacóet al. Guatemala

41. TyroneDacostaCadogan Barbados


50 III.otheraCtIvItIesoftheCourt

III. otHer ACtIvItIes

of tHe Court

The following isadescriptionof theprincipalactivitiesof theCourtduring thecurrentyear:

Presentationofthe2007AnnualReportontheWorkoftheInter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights

OnApril3,2008,thePresidentoftheCourt,accompaniedbytheVicePresidentandtheSecretaryoftheCourtpresentedthe2007AnnualReportontheworkofthe�nter-AmericanCourttotheOASCommitteeonJuridicalandPoliticalAffairs(CAJP).Duringthisactivity,JudgeMedinaQuirogapresenteda“Summaryofthe2007exercise”.

Subsequently, on May 12, 2008, resolution CP/CAJP. 2628/08 was adopted approving“ObservationsandRecommendationsofthePermanentCouncilontheAnnualReportofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights.”

Thirty-eighthRegularSessionoftheGeneralAssemblyoftheOrganizationofAmericanStates

The thirty-eighth regular session of the OAS General Assembly was held in Medellín,Colombia,fromJune1to3,2008.The�nter-AmericanCourtwasrepresentedbyitsPresident,VicePresidentandSecretary.

OnJune3,2008,thePresidentoftheCourtaddressedtheplenarysessionoftheAssemblyand,inter alia,referredtotheimportanceoftheinternationalprotectionofhumanrightsretainingthehighestpriorityontheOrganization’spoliticalagenda;tothehopethattheStateswhichhadnotyetaccededtotheAmericanConventionwouldbecomepartiestoit,andtoincorporationofthecriteriaestablishedbytheCourtintothedomesticlawoftheStatesParties.Shealsoreferredto the increase in the number of contentious cases, and requests for advisory opinions andprovisionalmeasuressubmittedtotheCourt,whichrepresentedoneofthegreatestandmostchallengingfactorsfortheinter-Americanjurisdiction,andalsotorecognitionoftheimportanceofcompliancewiththeCourt’sdecisionsandtheeffortsoftheStatestoensurethattheyarefullyrespected.

The sameday, theOASGeneralAssemblyadopted theCourt’s2007AnnualReport inResolutionAG/RES.2408(XXXV��-O/08).�nthisresolutiontheGeneralAssemblyresolved:

1. ToadopttheobservationsandrecommendationsofthePermanentCouncilontheAnnualReportofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights(CP/CAJP-2628/08)andtoforwardthemtothatorgan.

2. ToreaffirmtheessentialvalueoftheworkoftheInter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsinenhancingtheprotectionanddefenseofhumanrightsintheHemisphere.

51III.otheraCtIvItIesoftheCourt

AnnuAl report 2008

3. Toreiteratethatthejudgmentsofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsarefinalandmaynotbeappealed,andthatthestatespartiestotheAmericanConventiononHumanRightsundertaketocomplywiththedecisionsoftheCourtinallcasestowhichtheyareparty.

4. Toreiteratetheneedforstatespartiestoprovide,inatimelyfashion,theinformationrequestedbytheCourtinordertoenableittofullymeetitsobligationtoreporttotheGeneralAssemblyoncompliancewithitsjudgments.

5. Toreaffirmtheimportanceof:

a. Theadvisoryfunctionofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsfor the development of inter-American jurisprudence and internationalhumanrightslaw;

b. Thejurisprudenceofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsfortheeffectiveexerciseofandrespectforhumanrightsintheHemisphere;andconsequentlytheimportanceofthedisseminationofitsdecisionsbythememberstates,astheydeemitappropriate;

c. Thespecialsessionsofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsheldawayfromitsheadquarters,giventheir importance indisseminatinginformationontheinter-Americanhumanrightssystemandespeciallyontheworkofthe�nter-AmericanCourt;and

d. The training activities conducted by the �nter-AmericanCourt forjudgesandothersinvolvedintheadministrationofjustice.

6. ToinstructthePermanentCouncilto:

a. Continueitsconsiderationoftheissueof“Accessofvictimstothe�nter-AmericanCourt ofHumanRights (jus standi) and its application inpractice,” including its financial and budgetary implications, taking intoaccounttheneedtomaintainproceduralequityandtoredefinetheroleoftheCommissioninproceedingsbeforetheCourt;

b. ContinuetoconsidermeansofencouragingcompliancebymemberstateswiththejudgmentsoftheCourt;and

c. �nstruct the Permanent Council to continue analyzing ways toachieveaneffectiveincreaseofthefinancialresourcesallocatedtotheInter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsintheprogram-budgetoftheOrganization.Tothatend,thanktheSecretaryGeneraloftheOrganizationforhisworkandurgehimtocontinuehiseffortsandpresentadditionalproposals forachievingadequatefundingforthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsintheprogram-budgetoftheOrganization.

7. To thank the member states (Colombia, Costa Rica, and Mexico) andpermanent observers (the European Union, Norway, and Spain) and the Office of the



United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which have made voluntarycontributionstothe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights.�naddition,tourgememberstatestocontributetotheSpecificFundforStrengtheningtheInter-AmericanSystemforthe Protection and Promotion ofHumanRights; and to encourage permanent observersandother donors in accordancewithArticle 74of theGeneralStandards toGovern theOperationsoftheGeneralSecretariattomakevoluntarycontributionstothe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights.

8. Toencouragememberstatestocontinuetoinvitethe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightstoholdspecialsessionsawayfromitsheadquarters.

9. To urge the �nter-American Court of Human Rights, the �nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,andthe�nter-American�nstituteofHumanRightstocontinuetoholdspecializedseminarsontheinter-Americansystemforthepromotionandprotectionofhumanrightsforgovernmentofficials.

10. To support the initiativeof the �nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights toholdaseminaronthepresentandfuturechallengestothe inter-Americanhumanrightssystem.

11. Toinvitethe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightstocontinuetoparticipate,withitsjudges,inthedialoguewithmemberstatesinthereflectionprocessonstrengtheningtheinter-Americanhumanrightssystem,withinthecontextoftheCommitteeonJuridicalandPoliticalAffairs.

12. Alsotoinvitethe�nter-AmericanCourttobearinmindtheproposalsandcomments issuedby themember states in the frameworkof thedialogue, between thememberstatesandthemembersof the�ACHRandtheCourt,onthe functioningof theinter-American human rights system, on April 4, 2008, as well as the contributions bycivilsociety,assetoutinthereportofthatmeeting(CP/CAJP-2644/08),andtoadoptthemeasuresitdeemsappropriateintheframeworkofitsautonomyandindependence.

13. TothanktheCourtforitswillingnesstodialoguewithmemberstatesaspartofthejointreflectionprocessintheeventofpossiblereformstoitsRulesofProcedure.

14. To urge member states to consider the signature and ratification of,ratificationof,oraccessionto,as thecasemaybe, theAmericanConventiononHumanRightsandotherinstrumentsofthesystem,includingacceptanceofthebindingjurisdictionofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights.

15. To request the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly atitsthirty-ninthregularsessiononthe implementationofthisresolution,theexecutionofwhichshallbesubjecttotheavailabilityoffinancialresourcesintheprogram-budgetoftheOrganizationandotherresources.

Thesameday,theOASGeneralAssemblyadoptedResolutionAG/RES.2407(XXXV��-O/08)entitled“StrengtheningofHumanRightsSystemspursuanttothemandatesarisingfromtheSummitsoftheAmericas,”inwhichitresolved:


AnnuAl report 2008

1. To reaffirm thecommitmentofmemberstates to continuestrengtheningandimprovingtheinter-Americansystemforthepromotionandprotectionofhumanrightsand, in that connection, to continue to take the following concrete measures aimed atimplementingtherespectivemandatesoftheHeadsofStateandGovernmentarisingfromtheSummitsoftheAmericas,inparticular,theThirdSummit(QuebecCity,2001)andtheFourthSummit(MardelPlata,Argentina,2005):

a. Universalizationoftheinter-Americanhumanrightssystembyconsideringthesignatureandratificationorratificationof,oraccessionto,assoonaspossibleandasthecasemaybe,alluniversalandinter-Americanhumanrightsinstruments;

b. Compliance with the judgments of the �nter-American Court of HumanRightsandfollow-upoftherecommendationsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights;

c. �mprovementofaccessbyvictimstothemechanismsoftheinter-Americanhumanrightssystem;

d. AdequatefinancingoftheInter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsandthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights,includingthefosteringofvoluntarycontributions,sothattheymaycontinuetoaddresstheiractivitiesandresponsibilities;and

e. Examination of the possibility that the �nter-American Court of HumanRightsandthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsmaycometooperateonapermanentbasis,takingintoaccount,amongotherthings,theviewsofthoseorgans.

2. Torecognizethefollowingprogressmadeinthespecificareasoftheinter-Americanhumanrightssystem,namely:

a. The broad process of reflection on the inter-American system for thepromotionandprotectionofhumanrights,withintheCommitteeonJuridicalandPoliticalAffairs(CAJP)ofthePermanentCouncilandtheimportanceoftheinformalmeetingsheldintheframeworkoftheCAJPandoftheexchangeofproposalsandcommentsbetweenthememberstatesandtheorgansoftheinter-Americanhumanrightssystem,regardingwaystostrengthenandimproveit;

b. Also,thatthosemeetingscontributedtothe“dialogueontheworkingsoftheinter-Americanhumanrightssystembetweenmemberstatesandthemembersofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandthejudgesofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights,”onApril4,2007,atwhichwerereceived,aswell,contributionsfromcivilsocietyorganizationsinaccordancewiththeguidelinesforcivilsocietyparticipationinOASactivities,asrecordedinthereportofthemeeting(CP/CAJP-2644/08);

c. ThedepositbyMexico,onAugust20,2007,ofitsinstrumentofaccessiontotheProtocoltotheAmericanConventiononHumanRightstoAbolishtheDeathPenalty;



d. Thevoluntarycontributionstofacilitatetheworkoftheorgansoftheinter-American human rights system, made by Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,Mexico,andtheUnitedStates;byDenmark,Finland,France,�reland,�taly,Norway,theRepublicofKorea,Spain,andSweden;andalsobytheEuropeanUnion,the�nter-AmericanDevelopmentBank,theOfficeoftheUnitedNationsHighCommissionerforRefugees,theSavetheChildrenFoundation,andtheUniversityofNotreDame;and

e. To recognize the effort made by the �ACHR in beginning the process ofconsultationontheproposedamendmentstoitsRulesofProcedurein2007,andto receive the contributions of member states and of civil society, all of whichredounds in improved performance and protection of the inter-American humanrightssystem.

3. To instruct the Permanent Council to meet the objectives mentioned inoperative paragraph 1 and to complement and consolidate the progress referred to inoperativeparagraph2,by:

a. Continuingthebroadprocessofreflectionontheinter-Americansystemforthepromotionandprotectionofhumanrights,asamatterofspecialimportanceintheworkprogramoftheCAJPadoptedeachyear,andthat,tothatend,meetingsarescheduledtakingaccountoftheproposalsputforwardinthediscussionsthattookplaceinsaidCommittee.Saidprocessofreflectionwillcontinueinconsultationwiththememberstates,specializedagenciesoftheinter-Americanhumanrightssystem,nongovernmentalorganizations,nationalhumanrightsinstitutes,academicinstitutions,andexpertsinthefield,regarding:

i. The major challenges facing the inter-American system for thepromotionandprotectionofhumanrightsintheHemisphere;ii. Possibleactionstostrengthenandimprovethesystem;andiii. The advisability of convening an inter-American human rightsconference;

b. Continuingtoexamine,principallythroughtheCommitteeonAdministrativeand Budgetary Affairs (CAAP) of the Permanent Council, ways to bring aboutadequatefinancingoftheorgansoftheinter-Americanhumanrightssystemintheprogram-budgetoftheOrganization;

c. Supporting any initiatives taken by the �nter-American Court of HumanRights and the �nter-AmericanCommission onHumanRights to request fundingfrominternationalandregionalagenciestofurthertheactivitiesoftheorgansoftheinter-Americansystemforthepromotionandprotectionofhumanrights;

d. Encouraging,inaddition,memberstatestocontributetotheSpecificFundforStrengtheningthe�nter-AmericanSystemfortheProtectionandPromotionofHumanRights,aswellastototheOliverJackmanFundestablishedbyresolutionAG/RES.2329(XXXV��-O/07);

e. Continuingtoconsiderwaystopromotecompliancewiththejudgmentsofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsandfollow-upoftherecommendationsofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsbymemberstates;


AnnuAl report 2008

f. Continuingtoanalyzetheprioritiesforimprovementoftheinter-Americanhuman rights system, including consideration of the possibility that the �nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsand the �nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRights may come to operate on a permanent basis, taking into account relatedinformationprovidedbythepresidentsofbothorgans;

g. Holdingeachyear,withintheCAJP,thedialoguebetweenthememberstatesandthemembersofthe�nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightsandjudgesonthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsonhowthe inter-Americanhumanrightssystemoperates.TheCAJPwillestablishtheagendaforsaidmeetingatleasttwomonthsinadvance;and

h. Requesting the �nter-American Court of Human Rights and the �nter-AmericanCommissiononHumanRightstocontinuetoreportontheimpactandthemeaninginpracticeoftheseregulatoryreformsfortheworkofbothorgansandforthestrengtheningofthesystem.

4. To continue to promote the strengthening of national systems for thepromotionandprotectionofhumanrightsinmemberstates;and,tothatend,tourgethepertinentorgans,agencies,andentitiesoftheOrganizationtoprovide,inaccordancewiththeircapabilitiesandresources,cooperationandtechnicalsupport tothememberstatesthatsorequest,inordertohelpenhancecompliancewiththeirinternationalhumanrightsobligations,andtodevelopcooperativerelationsandinformationexchangewith,inter alia,the�bero-AmericanFederationofOmbudsmen,theCaribbeanOmbudsmen’sAssociation,theNetworkofNationalHumanRights�nstitutionsoftheAmericas,theAndeanCouncilofOmbudsmen,andtheCentralAmericanOmbudsmanCouncil.

5. To urge member states to consider signing and ratifying, ratifying, oracceding to, as the case may be, the Additional Protocol to the American ConventiononHumanRights in theAreaofEconomic,SocialandCulturalRights, “ProtocolofSanSalvador.”

6. To request the Permanent Council to report to the General Assembly atitsthirty-ninthregularsessiononthe implementationofthisresolution,theexecutionofwhichwillbesubjecttotheavailabilityoffinancialresourcesintheprogram-budgetoftheOrganizationandotherresources.

InaugurationoftheAnnextothecurrentpremisesoftheseatoftheCourt

On October 29, 2008, the new annex to the current premises of the Court wereinauguratedwiththeparticipationofthePresidentoftheRepublicofChile,MichelleBachelet,thePresidentoftheRepublicofCostaRica,OscarAriasSánchez,togetherwithseniorofficialsofbothGovernmentsandmembersofthediplomaticcorps.


56 Iv.Inter-InstItutIonalCooperatIonagreements/v.admInIstratIveandfInanCIalaffaIrs

Iv. Inter-InstItutIonAl

CooperAtIon Agreements

During2008,the�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsconcludedcooperationagreementswith the following nine institutions of the American continent: Human Rights Commission oftheStateofChihuahua,Mexico,theUniversidadAutónomadeChihuahua,Mexico,theChileanConstitutionalStudiesCenteroftheUniversidaddeTalca,thePermanentArbitrationCourt,theSupremeCourtofJusticeofHonduras,theOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral(Ministerio Público)ofHonduras,theUniversidadSanMartíndePorres,Peru,theMatíasRomero�nstituteoftheMinistryofForeignAffairsofMexicoandtheBarraMexicanaColegiodeAbogados,A.C.Thepurposeoftheseagreementsistoestablishthebasesforcollaborationinordertopromotejointactivitieswith the said institutions with regard to human rights research, teaching, dissemination andextensionwork.

v. AdmInIstrAtIve And

fInAnCIAl AffAIrs

TheInter-AmericanCourt’sfinancialstatementsforthe2007financialyearwereauditedby the independent external auditing firm, Venegas, Pizarro, Ugarte&Co., authorized publicaccountants,whorepresentHLB�nternationalinCostaRica.

The audit included bothOAS funds and theState of CostaRica’s contribution for thisperiod.ThefinancialstatementsarepreparedbytheadministrativeunitoftheInter-AmericanCourtandtheauditwasmadeinordertoconfirmthattheCourt’sfinancialtransactionstakeintoaccountgenerallyacceptedaccountingandauditingprinciples.

AccordingtotheMarch12,2008,reportoftheauthorizedpublicaccountants,theCourt’sfinancial statementsadequately reflect the institution’sfinancial situationandnetassets,andalsotheincome,expenditureandcashflowsforthe2007period,whichareinaccordancewithconsistentlyappliedandgenerallyacceptedaccountingprinciples fornon-profitorganizations,suchastheCourt.

Thereportoftheindependentauditorsshowsthattheinternalaccountingcontrolsystemusedby theCourt isadequate for recordingandcontrolling transactionsand that reasonablecommercialpracticesareusedtoensurethemosteffectiveuseofitsfunds.

A copy of this report was send to the OAS Financial Services Department and to theOrganization’s�nspectorGeneral.

57vI.statIstICsoftheCourt

AnnuAl report 2008

Internationalcooperation

Executionofinternationalcooperationprojectscontinuedduring2008.TheGovernmentofNorway,throughtheNorwegianMinistryofForeignAffairs,donatedUS$965,141.61fortheprojectStrengtheningthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRightsandUS$320,000.00fortheprojecttoprovideSupportforVictims/PublicDefense.�naddition,theSpanish�nternationalCooperationAgency(AEC�)donatedUS$513,610.00fortheprojectSupportforthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights,andUS$118,105.82forthe�tinerantCourtproject.

�n addition, the Court received several independent contributions: the United NationsHighCommissionerforRefugees(UNHCR)gave¢3,750,000.00;thePermanentMissionofMexicoto theOASdonatedUS$125,000.00 to theCourt; thePermanentMissionofColombia to theOASdonatedUS$100,000.00 to theCourt; theGovernmentofChile, through itsEmbassy inCostaRica,madeadonationofUS$10,000.00;andSantaClaraUniversity,California,contributedUS$2,100.00.

TheGovernmentofCostaRicamaintaineditsannualcontributionofUS$100,000.00,andtheOASadoptedabudget for2008ofUS$1,756,300.00 fromregular fundsapprovedbytheGeneralAssemblyheldinPanamaCity.

Internships

During2008,theCourtreceived47internsandprofessionalvisitorsfromthefollowing18countriesatitsseat:Argentina,Bolivia,Brazil,Canada,Chile,Colombia,CostaRica,DominicanRepublic,France,Honduras,Mexico,Peru,PuertoRico,SouthKorea,Spain,Switzerland,UnitedStatesandUruguay.ThefollowingwebsitecanbeconsultedforfurtherinformationontheCourt’s�nternshipsandProfessionalVisitsProgram:http://www.corteidh.or.cr/pasantias.cfm

vI. stAtIstICs of

tHe Court

Thefollowingtablesillustratetheactivitiesofthe�nter-AmericanCourtofHumanRights,anditscurrentstatus:


58 vI.statIstICsoftheCourt

21

192

105

75

Advis

ory

Opin

ions

Judgm

ents

iss

ued

Case

s so

lved

Pro

vis

ional M

easu

res

Th

e I

nte

r-A

meri

can

Co

urt

of

Hu

man

Rig

hts

(1

97

9 -

20

08

)


AnnuAl report 2008

22

231

211

113

11221

1123

26

641

221

44

17

53

451

771

315

13

122

710

13

14

914

291

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Su

bm

issio

n o

f ad

vis

ory

op

inio

ns,

con

ten

tio

us c

ases a

nd

pro

vis

ion

al m

easu

res

Advis

ory

Opin

ions

Conte

ntious

case

s

Pro

vis

ional m

easu

res



So

luti

on

of

co

nte

nti

ou

s c

ases

40

65

Bet

wee

n 1

987 a

nd 2

003

Bet

wee

n 2

004 a

nd 2

008

- In

cludes

the

case

s so

lved

on p

relim

inar

y ob

ject

ions,

mer

its

and r

epar

atio

ns,

indep

enden

tly

of t

he

pos

terior

sta

ge

of m

onitor

ing c

omplia

nce

with judgm

ent.


AnnuAl report 2008

33

32

55

76

9

14

16

17

19

26

28

32

39

54

65

74

88

101

110

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Co

nte

nti

ou

s c

ases b

efo

re t

he C

ou

rt a

nd

in

sta

ge o

f m

on

ito

rin

g c

om

plian

ce w

ith

ju

dg

men

t

Case

s

- This

chart

incl

udes

the c

ase

s in

whic

h n

o judgm

ent

has

been iss

ued a

nd t

he c

ase

s in

whic

h t

he

judgm

ent

has

been iss

ued a

nd a

re in s

tage o

f m

onitoring c

om

plia

nce

with judgm

ent.



33

3

0

33

5

3

5

10

12

12

12

15

18

11

12

22

22

15

13

17

16

19861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008

Co

nte

nti

ou

s c

ases w

ith

ou

t ju

dg

men

t at

the e

nd

of

the m

en

tio

ned

years

Cases


AnnuAl report 2008

22

22

34

44

57

11

10

21

27

32

42

59

75

84

94

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Co

nte

nti

ou

s ca

ses

on

sta

ge o

f m

on

ito

rin

g c

om

pli

an

ce w

ith

ju

dg

men

t

Case

s

- It

is

consi

der

ed t

hat

a c

ase

is

in t

he

stage

of m

onitoring c

om

plia

nce

with judgm

ent

when

the

Court

has

alrea

dy

solv

ed t

he

case

and s

om

e ex

trem

e of th

e ju

dgm

ent

is

pen

din

g c

om

plia

nce

, by

the

condem

ned

Sta

te.

Only

when

the

Court

consi

der

s th

at

the

Sta

te h

as

com

plie

d w

ith e

ach

and e

very

of th

e oblig

ations

ord

ered

in t

he

judgm

ent,

it

ord

ers

the

arc

hiv

e of th

e ca

se.



3

2

3

10

2

1

0

3

2

4

6

22

2

44

4

5

6

5

8

11

13

8

9

8

13

7

9

5

7

5

7

15

27

13

24

88

12

17

13

17

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Pu

blic h

eari

ng

s o

n c

on

teti

ou

s c

ases

Case

s

Days

of hearing

* O

n t

he y

ear

2008 w

as

carr

ied o

ut

one h

earing t

o r

ece

ive r

equest

ed e

vid

ence

in o

ne p

art

icula

r ca

se.


AnnuAl report 2008

39

38

40.5

19

Rule

s of

Pro

cedure

1980

Rule

s of

Pro

cedure

1991

Rule

s of

Pro

cedure

1996

Rule

s of

Pro

cedure

2000

Avera

ge t

ime o

f th

e p

roceed

ing

on

co

nte

nti

ou

s c

ases

Month

s

- The a

vera

ge t

ime o

f th

e p

roce

edin

g h

as

been c

ounte

d s

ince

the p

rese

nta

tion o

f th

e a

pplic

ation,

until th

e

date

of th

e judgm

ent

on r

epara

tions

(or

the judgm

ent

that

incl

udes

the p

ronounce

ment

on r

epara

tions)

.



22

64

27

37

52

41

39

4646

76

36

32

8

49

12

72

41

36

39

35

39

Cas

tillo

Pet

ruzz

i

Can

tora

l Ben

avid

es

Ben

avid

es C

eval

los

Suá

rez

Rose

ro

"Str

eet

Chi

ldre

n"

Bla

ke

Gar

rido

and

Bai

gorr

ia

Loay

za T

amay

o

Cas

tillo

Páe

z

"Whi

te V

an"

Gen

ie L

acay

o

El A

mpa

ro

Maq

ueda

Cab

alle

ro D

elga

do a

nd S

anta

na

Cay

ara

Nei

ra A

legr

ía e

t al

.

Gan

gara

m P

anda

y

Alo

eboe

toe

et a

l.

God

ínez

Cru

z

Fairén

Gar

bi a

nd S

olís

Cor

rale

s

Velá

sque

z Ro

dríg

uez

Tim

e o

f th

e p

roce

ssin

g o

f co

nte

nti

ou

s ca

ses

Ch

art

No

. 1

Mon

ths


AnnuAl report 2008

29

32

14

21

29

32

42

35

44

17

23

66

52

38

32

35

38

18

23

64

40

* G

ómez

Paq

uiy

auri B

roth

ers

* M

aritza

Urr

utia

* F

ive

Pensi

oner

s

* J

uan

H.

Sán

chez

* M

ack

Chan

g

Bula

cio

19 M

erch

ants

Hila

ire,

Con

stat

ine

and

Ben

jam

in e

t al

.

Can

tos

Bar

rios

Altos

"The

Last

Tem

ptat

ion o

f Christ

"

Bám

aca

Vel

ásqu

ez

Las

Palm

eras

May

agna

(Sum

o) A

was

Tin

gni C

omm

unity

Trujil

lo O

roza

Bae

na

Ric

ardo

et

al.

Car

acaz

o

Con

stitution

al C

ourt

Ivch

er B

ronst

ein

Dura

nd

and

Uga

rte

Ces

ti H

urt

ado

Tim

e o

f th

e p

roce

ssin

g o

f co

nte

nti

ou

s ca

ses

Ch

art

No

. 2

Mon

ths

* C

onte

ntiou

s ca

ses

proc

esse

d w

ith t

he

Rule

s of

Pro

cedu

re o

f th

e ye

ar 2

000.



12

18

14

24

24

9

27

18

25

12

21

12

15

181818

20

29

29

26

28

* R

axca

có R

eyes

* G

utier

rez

Sol

er

* G

irls

Yea

n a

nd

Bos

ico

* A

cost

a Cal

deró

n

* Y

atam

a

* F

erm

ín R

amírez

* Y

akye

Axa

Indi

genou

s Com

munity

* M

oiw

ana

Com

munity

* C

aesa

r

* H

uilc

a Te

cse

* S

erra

no

Cru

z Sis

ters

* M

olin

a Th

eiss

en

* T

ibi

* D

e la

Cru

z Fl

ores

* C

arpi

o N

icol

le e

t al

.

* H

erre

ra U

lloa

* A

lfonso

Mar

tín d

el C

ampo

Dod

d

* L

ori B

eren

son

* P

lan d

e Sán

chez

Mas

sacr

e

* R

icar

do C

anes

e

* J

uve

nile

Ree

duca

tion

Inst

itute

Tim

e o

f th

e p

roce

ssin

g o

f co

nte

nti

ou

s ca

ses

Ch

art

No

. 3

Mon

ths

* C

onte

ntiou

s ca

ses

proc

esse

d w

ith t

he

Rule

s of

Pro

cedu

re o

f th

e ye

ar 2

000.


AnnuAl report 2008

22

26

21

18

15

16

20

15

16

27

23

1414

3131

22

1717

14

19

12

* No

guei

ra C

arva

lho

* M

igue

l Cas

tro

Cast

ro P

rison

* D

issm

isse

d Co

ngre

ssio

nal E

mpl

oyee

s

* Va

rgas

Are

co

* Al

mon

acid

Are

llano

et a

l.

* G

oibu

rú e

t al.

* Se

rvel

lón

Gar

cía

et a

l.

* Cl

aude

Rey

es e

t al.

* M

onte

ro A

rang

uren

et a

l.

* Xi

men

es L

opes

* It

uang

o M

assa

cres

* Ba

ldeó

n G

arcí

a

* Sa

who

yam

axa

Indi

geno

us C

omm

unity

* Ac

eved

o Ja

ram

illo

et a

l.

* Ló

pez

Álva

rez

* Pu

eblo

Bel

lo M

assa

cre

* Bl

anco

Rom

ero

* G

arcí

a As

to a

nd R

amíre

z Ro

jas

* G

ómez

Pal

omin

o

* Pa

lam

ara

Irib

arne

* M

apiri

pán

Mas

sacr

e

Tim

e o

f th

e p

roce

ssin

g o

f co

nte

nti

ou

s ca

ses

Ch

art

No

. 4

Mon

ths

* Co

nten

tious

cas

es p

roce

ssed

with

the

Rule

s of

Pro

cedu

re o

f the

yea

r 20

00.



19

17

21

1717

13

17

16

17

21

1717

12

141414

9

* Va

lle J

aram

illo

et a

l.

* Ti

cona

Est

rada

* Ti

u To

jín

* Ba

yarr

i

* He

liodo

ro P

ortu

gal

* Ca

stañ

eda

Gutm

an

* Ap

itz B

arbe

ra e

t al.

* Yv

on N

eptu

ne

* Sa

lvad

or C

hirib

oga

* Ki

mel

* Th

e Sa

ram

aka

Peop

le

* Al

bán

Corn

ejo

et a

l.

* Ch

apar

ro Á

lvar

ez a

nd L

apo

Iñig

uez

* Ga

rcía

Prie

to

* Bo

yce

et a

l.

* Ca

ntor

al H

uam

aní a

nd G

arcí

a Sa

nta

Cruz

* Za

mbr

ano

Véle

z et

al.

* Es

cué

Zapa

ta

* Bu

eno

Alve

s

* La

Roc

hela

Mas

sacr

e

* La

Can

tuta

Tim

e o

f th

e p

roce

ssin

g o

f co

nte

nti

ou

s ca

ses

Ch

art

No

. 5

Mon

ths

* Co

nten

tious

cas

es p

roce

ssed

with

the

Rule

s of

Pro

cedu

re o

f the

yea

r 20

00.


AnnuAl report 2008A

cq

uie

scen

ce o

r ackn

ow

led

gem

en

t

of

inte

rnati

on

al

resp

on

sib

ilit

y

63

42

Ord

inar

y pr

oces

sing

Ackn

owle

dgem

ent

of in

tern

atio

nal r

espo

nsib

ilty

by t

heSt

ate

In t

he 4

0% o

f the

con

tent

ious

cas

es, t

he S

tate

s ha

ve a

cqui

esce

d or

ak

now

ledg

ed c

ompl

etel

y or

in p

art

thei

r in

tern

atio

nal r

espo

nsab

ility

.

- Ac

eved

o Ja

ram

illo

et a

l. v. P

erú

- Al

bán

Corn

ejo

et a

l. v.

Ecua

dor

- Al

oebo

etoe

et

al. v.

Surin

ame

- Ba

ldeó

n G

arcí

a v. P

erú

- Ba

rrio

s Al

tos v.

Perú

- Be

navi

des

Ceva

llosv.

Ecua

dor

- Bl

akev. G

uate

mal

a-

Blan

co R

omer

ov.

Vene

zuel

a-

Buen

o Al

vesv.

Arge

ntin

a-

Bula

cio v.

Arge

ntin

a-

Cant

oral

Hua

man

í and

Gar

cía

Sant

a Cr

uz v.

Perú

- Ca

raca

zov.

Vene

zuel

a-

Carp

io N

icol

le e

t al

. v.

Gua

tem

ala

- Ch

apar

ro Á

lvar

ezv.

Ecua

dor

- El

Am

paro

v.

Vene

zuel

a-

Escu

é Za

patav.

Colo

mbi

a-

Gar

cía

Asto

and

Ram

írez

Roja

sv.

Perú

- G

arcí

a Pr

ieto

v.

El S

alva

dor

- G

arrid

o an

d Ba

igor

ria v.

Arge

ntin

a-

Goi

burú

et

al. v

. Par

agua

y-

Góm

ez P

alom

inov. P

erú

- G

utié

rrez

Sol

er v.

Colo

mbi

a-

Hui

lca

Tecs

ev.

Perú

- It

uang

o M

assa

cres

v.

Colo

mbi

a-

Kim

el v.

Arge

ntin

a -

La C

antu

ta v.

Perú

- La

Roc

hela

Mas

sacr

e v.

Colo

mbi

a-

Mar

itza

Urr

utia

v. G

uate

mal

a-

Map

iripá

n M

assa

cre v.

Colo

mbi

a-

Mig

uel C

astr

o Ca

stro

Pris

on v.

Perú

- M

olin

a Th

eiss

en v.

Gua

tem

ala

- M

onte

ro A

rang

uren

et

al. v.

Vene

zuel

a-

Myr

na M

ack

Chan

g v.

Gua

tem

ala

- Pl

an d

e Sá

nche

z M

assa

cre

v. G

uate

mal

a-

Serv

elló

n G

arcí

a et

al. v.

Hon

dura

s-

Tico

na E

stra

dav.

Boliv

ia-

Tiu

Tojínv.

Gua

tem

ala

- Tr

ujill

o O

roza

v. B

oliv

ia-

Valle

Jar

amill

o et

al. v.

Colo

mbi

a-

Varg

as A

reco

v. P

arag

uay

- Xi

men

es L

opes

v. B

rasi

l-

Zam

bran

o Vé

lez

et a

l. v.

Ecua

dor



Sta

te o

f co

mp

lian

ce o

f th

e c

ost

s an

d e

xp

en

ses

ord

ere

d

76%

24%

Tota

l and p

art

ial

com

plia

nce

Pendin

g c

om

plia

nce

*This

chart

take

s in

to a

ccount

51 c

onte

ntious

case

s th

at

wer

e m

att

er o

f st

udy

at

the

tim

e th

is s

tatist

ic w

as

crea

ted.


AnnuAl report 2008S

tate

of

com

pli

an

ce o

f th

e i

nd

em

niz

ati

on

s o

rdere

d

81%

19%

Tota

l an

d p

artial

com

plia

nce

Pendin

g c

om

plia

nce

*This

char

t ta

kes

into

acc

ount

58 c

onte

ntious

case

s th

at w

ere

mat

ter

of

study

at t

he

tim

e th

is s

tatist

ic w

as c

reat

ed.



Pre

lim

inary

ob

jecti

on

s

63

6

36

42

Cases in w

hic

h n

o o

bje

ction w

as p

resente

d

Cases in w

hic

h o

bje

ctions w

ere

pre

sente

d

Cases in w

hic

h t

he C

ourt

adm

itte

d o

bje

ctions*

Cases in w

hic

h t

he o

rder

of

the C

ourt

reje

cte

d t

he o

bje

ctions

* I

n o

ne o

cassio

n t

he C

ourt

ord

ere

d t

he f

ilin

g o

f th

e c

ase a

fter

adm

itting t

he p

relim

inary

obje

ction p

resente

d b

y t

he S

tate

.


AnnuAl report 2008A

rtic

les o

f th

e A

.C.H

.R.

an

d o

ther

treati

es,

wh

ich

vio

lati

on

was d

ecla

red

in

ju

dg

men

t o

f th

e C

ou

rt

66

798

1

98

12

10

9

6 5 4 4

3

1111

22

6

11112

10

13

13

1111223

12

41

48

51

1 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

on P

reve

ntion a

nd E

radic

ation o

f Vio

lence

again

st W

om

en)

11 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

on F

orc

ed D

isappeara

nce

of Pe

rsons)

10 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

on F

orc

ed D

isappeara

nce

of Pe

rsons)

7 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

on F

orc

ed D

isappeara

nce

of Pe

rsons)

3 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

on F

orc

ed D

isappeara

nce

of Pe

rsons)

2 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

on F

orc

ed D

isappeara

nce

of Pe

rsons)

1 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

on F

orc

ed D

isappeara

nce

of Pe

rsons)

5 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

7 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

9 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

10 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

2 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

1 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

6 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

8 (

Inte

r-Am

. Conv.

to P

reve

nt

and P

unis

h T

ort

ure

)

6 (

Freedom

fro

m s

lave

ry)

12 (

Freedom

of co

nsc

ience

and r

elig

ion)

17 (

Rig

hts

of th

e fam

ily)

18 (

Rig

ht

to a

nam

e)

20 (

Rig

ht

to n

ationalit

y)

23 (

Rig

ht

to p

art

icip

ate

in g

ove

rnm

ent)

24 (

Rig

ht

to e

qual pro

tect

ion)

27 (

Susp

ensi

on o

f guara

nte

es)

11 (

Rig

ht

to p

riva

cy)

16 (

Freedom

od a

ssoci

ation)

22 (

Freedom

of m

ove

ment

and r

esi

dence

)

3 (

Rig

ht

to juridic

al pers

onalit

y)

9 (

Freedom

fro

m e

x p

ost

fact

o law

s)

13 (

Freedom

of th

ought

and e

xpre

ssio

n)

21 (

Rig

ht

to p

ropert

y)

19 (

Rig

hts

of th

e c

hild

)

2 (

Dom

est

ic legal effect

s)

4 (

Rig

ht

to life)

7 (

Rig

ht

to p

ers

onal lib

ert

y)

5 (

Rig

ht

to h

um

ane t

reatm

ent)

25 (

Judic

ial pro

tect

ion)

8 (

Rig

ht

to a

fair t

rial)

1.1

(O

blig

ation t

o r

esp

ect

rig

hts

)

Num

ber

of

case

s



32

33

22

4

6

9

7

10

11

14

10

20

23

34

36

46

43

41

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Pro

vis

ion

al m

easu

res o

rd

ered

Cases


AnnuAl report 2008R

eq

uest

fo

r p

rovis

ion

al m

easu

res

94

19

16

Req

ues

ted b

y th

e IA

CH

R

Req

ues

ted b

y th

e alle

ged

vic

tim

s or

thei

r

repre

senta

tive

s

Req

ues

ted b

y co

mm

on a

gre

emen

t by

the

IACH

R,

the

alle

ged

vic

tim

s and t

he

Sta

te

Ord

ered

in its

ow

n m

otion

- The

26%

of th

e pro

visi

onal m

easu

res

reques

ted a

re r

elate

d t

o c

onte

ntious

case

s pro

cess

ed b

efore

the

Court

. The

oth

er 7

4%

corr

espond t

o p

roce

edin

gs

bef

ore

the

Com

mis

sion.

- This

chart

incl

udes

120 r

eques

ts for

pro

visi

onal m

easu

res.

In 1

3 c

ase

s th

e m

easu

res

reques

ted w

ere

reje

cted

and 3

2 b

elong t

o r

eques

ts o

f ex

pansi

on o

f pro

visi

onal m

easu

res

alrea

dy

adopte

d b

y th

e Tr

ibunal.



Su

bje

cts

of

the a

dvis

ory

op

inio

ns

413

4

Inte

rpre

tation o

f th

e A.C

.H.R

.

Inte

rpre

tation o

f oth

er t

reat

ies

Com

pat

ibili

ty b

etw

een d

om

estic

law

s an

d inte

rnat

ional

inst

rum

ents

- 15 a

dvi

sory

opin

ions

wer

e re

ques

ted b

y m

ember

Sta

tes

of th

e O

AS a

nd 6

by

the

Inte

r-Am

eric

an C

om

mis

sion o

n H

um

an R

ights

. O

ne

of th

em w

as r

ejec

ted.


AnnuAl report 2008R

eg

ula

r an

nu

al fu

nd

of

the O

AS

an

d a

nn

ual

bu

dg

et

of

the I

nte

r-A

meri

can

Co

mm

issio

n a

nd

Co

urt

OAS

Com

mis

sion

Court

OAS

$76,0

00,0

00

$76,0

00,0

00

$76,0

00,0

00

$76,6

00,0

00

$76,2

75,5

00

$76,2

75,5

00

$81,5

00,0

00

$87,5

00,0

00

$90,1

25,0

00

Com

mis

sion

$3,1

14,7

00

$3,1

54,5

00

$3,2

00,5

00

$3,4

29,9

00

$3,0

77,8

00

$3,2

74,8

00

$3,6

77,7

00

$3,6

21,3

00

$3,7

46,1

00

Court

$1,2

84,7

00

$1,3

54,7

00

$1,3

95,0

36

$1,3

91,3

00

$1,3

91,3

00

$1,3

91,3

00

$1,6

56,3

00

$1,7

56,3

00

$1,7

80,5

00

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

4.0

9%

1.6

9%

4.1

5%

1.7

8%

4.2

1%

1.8

3%

4.4

7%

1.8

1%

4.0

3%

1.8

2%

4.2

9%

1.8

2%

4.5

1% 2%

2%

4.1

3%

4.1

5%

1.9

7%



Reg

ula

r b

ud

get

of

the C

ou

rt a

nd

ad

vis

ory

op

inio

ns,

co

nte

nti

ou

s ca

ses

an

d p

rovis

ion

al m

easu

res

befo

re t

he C

ou

rt

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Cou

rt's

budget

AO

's,

case

s an

d m

easu

res

bef

ore

the

Cou

rt

5.4

5%

2.9

8%

-0.2

7%

19%

- The

per

centa

ge

incr

ease

tak

es a

s

refe

rence

the

dat

a of

the

last

im

med

iate

year

.

17.6

%

28.3

%

31.2

%

21.8

%

8.9

%

0%

6%

7.5

%

5.5

%

1.4

%

81

THEORGANIZATIONOFAMERICANSTATES

TheOrganizationofAmericanStates(OAS) is theworld’soldest regionalorganization,datingbacktotheFirst�nternationalConferenceofAmericanStates,heldinWashington,D.C.,fromOctober1889toApril1890.Duringthatmeeting,itwasresolvedtocreatethe�nternationalAmericanConference.TheCharteroftheOASwasadoptedinBogotain1948anditenteredintoforceinDecember1951.TheCharterwassubsequentlyamendedbytheProtocolofBuenosAires,signedin1967,whichenteredintoforceinFebruary1970,bytheProtocolofCartagenade�ndias,signedin1985,whichenteredintoforceinNovember1988,bytheProtocolofManaguaadoptedin1993,whichenteredintoforceonJanuary29,1996,andbytheProtocolofWashington,signedin1992,whichenteredintoforceonSeptember25,1997.Currently,theOAShas35MemberStates.Furthermore,theOrganizationhasgrantedPermanentObserverstatustomorethan44StatesandtheEuropeanUnion.

ThebasicpurposesoftheOASareasfollows:tostrengthenthepeaceandsecurityofthecontinent; topromoteandconsolidaterepresentativedemocracywithduerespect for theprinciple of non-intervention; to prevent the possible causes of difficulties and to ensure thepeacefulsettlementofdisputesthatmayariseamongitsmembers;toprovideforthecommonactionoftheMemberStatesintheeventofaggression;toseekthesolutionofpolitical,juridicalandeconomicproblemsthatmayariseamongthem;topromote,bycooperativeaction,theireconomic,socialandculturaldevelopment,andtoachieveaneffectivelimitationofconventionalweaponsthatwillmakeitpossibletodevotethelargestamountofresourcestotheeconomicandsocialdevelopmentoftheMemberStates.

TheOASaccomplishesitspurposesthroughthefollowingorgans:theGeneralAssembly;the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs; the Councils (the PermanentCouncilandthe�nter-AmericanCouncilfor�ntegralDevelopment;the�nter-AmericanJuridicalCommittee; the �nter-American Commission on Human Rights; the General Secretariat; theSpecializedConferences; theSpecializedOrganizations, and other entities established by theGeneralAssembly.

The General Assembly holds regular sessions once a year. �n special circumstances,it meets in special sessions. The Meeting of Consultation is convened in order to considermattersofanurgentnatureandofcommoninterestandtoserveastheOrganofConsultationforimplementationofthe�nter-AmericanTreatyofReciprocalAssistance(RioTreaty),whichistheprincipalinstrumentforcommonactionintheeventofaggression.ThePermanentCouncilexaminesmatters referred to it by theGeneralAssemblyor theMeetingofConsultationandexecutesthedecisionsofboththeseorganswhenimplementationhasnotbeenassignedtoanyotherentity;itmonitorsthemaintenanceoffriendlyrelationsamongtheMemberStatesaswellastheobservanceoftherulesthatgoverntheoperationoftheGeneralSecretariat;italsoactsprovisionallyas theOrganofConsultation for implementationof theRioTreaty. TheGeneralSecretariatisthecentral,permanentorganoftheOAS.TheheadquartersofboththePermanentCouncilandtheGeneralSecretariatisinWashington,D.C.

MEMBER STATES: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas (Commonwealth of the),Barbados,Belize,Bolivia,Brazil,Canada,Chile,Colombia,CostaRica,Cuba,Dominica(Commonwealth of), Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala,Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St.KittsandNevis,St.Lucia,St.VincentandtheGrenadines,Suriname

ontents - corte interamericana de derechos · pdf filecase of castañeda gutman (mexico)...

Documents