Alejandra Matus Acuña v. Chile, Case 12.142, Report No. 55/00, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111 Doc. 20 rev. at 242 (2000).
ALEJANDRA MARCELA MATUS ACUÑA ET AL.
October 2, 2000
On April 13, 1999, El Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena [The Black Book of Chilean Justice],
written by journalist Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña and published by the
Planeta Publishing Company of
Chile, was released in that country.
On that date also, all copies of the aforementioned book were confiscated,
under judicial proceedings instituted for violation of the State Security
Law of Chile. On June 16,
1999, Messrs. Bartolo Ortiz and Carlos Orellana, executives at the Planeta Publishing Company in Chile were arrested as part of these
proceedings. Two days later, they were both released and charges against
them dropped. Journalist
Matus Acuña left the country and has not returned to Chile, since she
thinks that she would be detained in proceedings that violate Chilean
law and the American Convention on Human Rights (the American Convention).
As of the date of this report, the books remain confiscated, and
the judicial proceedings in regard to which the journalist has been declared
to be in contempt of court, remain open.
On April 26, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(the IACHR or the Inter-American Commission) received
a request for precautionary measures from the Center for Justice and International
Law, CEJIL, and the Legal Clinic for Public Interest Actions of the Chilean
Diego Portales University (AIP Clinic), on behalf of 30 persons whose
right to receive information had been impaired by the aforementioned restrictive
measure. The IACHR subsequently received a petition from the Association
of Attorneys for Public Freedoms in Chile (AALP), on behalf
of five attorneys from that country,
contending that the confiscation of El
Libro Negro is an arbitrary and illegal measure and that it violates
Articles 1(1), 2, and 13 of the American Convention.
In this petition, the IACHR is asked to establish the international
liability of the Republic of Chile (the Chilean State or the
State). CEJIL and the AIP Clinic also filed a petition claiming
violation of the right of Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña and all members
of the society to freedom of expression as a result of prior censorship
of El Libro
Negro de la Justicia Chilena, as well as violation of that journalists
right to property, since it held that, because of a legal decision, this
individual had been denied the right to revenue to which she was entitled
under the contract signed with the Planeta
3. The Chilean State reports that
the two executives at the Planeta
Publishing Company were released two days after detention and charges
against them dropped, that there is no outstanding warrant for the arrest
of Alejandra Matus, that a draft law has been submitted for amendment
of the State Security Law, under which, according to the State, provisions
that violate freedom of expression will be repealed, and that the journalists
intellectual property right to her book is not at issue.
In this report, the IACHR concludes that the case meets the requirements
set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention.
Consequently, a decision has been made to declare the case admissible,
to notify the parties of this decision, and to continue analysis of the
merits related to alleged violation of Articles 2, 8, 13, and 21 of the
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
5. The IACHR contacted the Chilean
State on April 28, 1999, and requested information, within 10 days, regarding
the request for precautionary measures submitted by CEJIL and the AIP
Clinic on behalf of the 30 persons listed in footnote one, and all the
residents of Chile.
On April 28, 1999, the AALP submitted a petition on behalf of its
five members, alleging human rights violations resulting from the confiscation
of the copies of the book El Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena, cited in the request for precautionary
measures mentioned above. On
May 4, 1999, the Commission assigned the number 12.142 to the case and
requested information from the Chilean State on the pertinent parts of
the AALP report within the 90-day period established for this purpose.
On May 7, 1999, the State requested an extension of the deadline
fixed for providing information related to this case, due to the
fact that the IACHR communication of April 28, 1999 was not received by
the Permanent Mission of Chile to the Organization of American States
until May 6, 1999.
On June 18, 1999, the Inter-American Commission asked the Chilean
State to adopt precautionary measures on behalf of Messrs. Bartolo Ortiz
and Carlos Orellana, the General Manager and Editor-in-Chief of the Planeta Publishing Company, respectively. Specifically, the IACHR
requested that the arrested warrant issued for both persons be withdrawn,
as well as the decision to institute proceedings against them for publication
of El Libro Negro de la Justicia
On June 30, 1999, a request was received for precautionary measures
on behalf of Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña, who claimed that her security
and personal integrity were threatened as a result of the warrant for
her arrest issued by Judge Rafael Huerta Bustos and by the declaration
that she was in contempt of court in the criminal proceedings instituted
against her. The journalist
charged that her right to freedom of expression and intellectual property,
as the author of El Libro Negro
de la Justicia Chilena, was also impaired, to the extent that the judicial decision prevented the distribution
and sale of this book. In
that communication, Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña appointed Jean Pierre
Matus Acuña and the Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Americas
Division (HRW/Americas), José Miguel Vivanco, as her legal representatives.
On July 19, 1999, the IACHR contacted the State with a view to
expansion of the precautionary measures to include journalist Matus Acuña,
with respect to protection of the rights mentioned.
On July 30, 1999, the State indicated that the Chilean authorities
were analyzing the recent information furnished by the Commission
with respect to this case, and that it was its understanding that the
60-day time period for the provision of information was to be added to
the 90 days mentioned in the communication of May 4, 1999, the date on
which the IACHR opened the case.
Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña submitted a document on August 11,
1999, in which she asked the IACHR to submit another request to the Chilean
State for precautionary measures or to issue new measures, since her situation
had not changed. On August
23, 1999, the Inter-American Commission contacted the Chilean State and
submitted another request for precautionary measures on behalf of the
On October 4, 1999, during its 104th session, the Inter-American
Commission held a hearing related to this case, which was attended by
the representatives of the Chilean State, journalist Alejandra Marcela
Matus Acuña, and representatives of Human Rights Watch/Americas, CEJIL,
and the AIP Legal Clinic.
On October 6, 1999, CEJIL and the AIP Legal Clinic sent correspondence
to the IACHR on behalf of 27 Chilean citizens, in which they claimed violation
of the American Convention in the case of the confiscation of El Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena. The Inter-American Commission acknowledged receipt of this
correspondence on October 12, 1999, and included it in the file.
In correspondence from Dr. Jean Pierre Matus Acuña dated October
8, 1999, he asserted that the act of declaring the journalist in contempt
of court goes hand in hand with an arrest warrant or the imminent issuance
of such an order. The Commission
forwarded this correspondence to the Chilean State on November 29, 1999
and asked for its comments in that regard.
On December 30, 1999, the Chilean State provided its response to
Case 12.142 and to the various requests for precautionary measures on
behalf of the persons mentioned above.
On March 28, 2000, the IACHR made itself available to the State
and petitioners for the purpose of reaching a friendly settlement of the
case. A time period of 30
days was established for that purpose, which elapsed with no written response
from the parties.
On June 14, 2000, CEJIL and the AIP Legal Clinic reiterated and
expanded their claims related to the case filed by them on October 6,
On June 16, 2000, the Chilean State sent a certificate to the IACHR
issued by the President of the Chilean Supreme Court, stating that Mrs.
Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña had been declared in contempt of court on
May 14, 1999, in the case against her for violation of Law No. 12.927,
but that no arrest warrant had been issued against her in that case, which
was in the preliminary phase.
The Inter-American Commission contacted the Chilean State on July
11, 2000, in order to provide it with the relevant parts of the June 14,
2000 correspondence of the petitioners and to request its comments. On that date, it informed the petitioners of the certificate
provided by the Chilean State.
The IACHR Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression, Dr. Santiago
Canton, presented his commentaries and observations pertaining to the
instant case, in which he concluded that it is admissible.
The Inter-American Commission considered them during its analysis
of the case.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
During the processing of this case, the Inter-American Commission
received various petitions and requests for precautionary measures on
behalf of several persons, including journalist Matus Acuña.
All the documents and requests are linked to the alleged violation
resulting from the court-ordered confiscation of El
Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena.
Later on, in discussing the position of the petitioners, the IACHR
will summarize the arguments of the representatives of journalist Matus
Acuña, and, where relevant, the other correspondence received with respect
to this case.
22. Journalist Alejandra
Marcela Matus Acuña reports that on April 13, 1999, the Planeta
Publishing Company made a public announcement that an investigation was
being launched in Chile into her book entitled El
Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena.
That same day, at the request of the President of the Chilean Supreme
Court, Servando Jordán López, the Santiago Court of Appeal appointed Rafael
Huerta Bustos as the court President to investigate the alleged violation
of Article 6(b) of Law No. 12.927 (State Security Law), which imposes
sanctions on those who defame, slander, or libel the President of
the Republic, Ministers of State, Senators or Deputies, members of the
superior courts, the Comptroller General of the Republic, Commanders-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces, or the Director General of the National Police, whether
or not this defamation, slander, or libel was committed by reason of the
office of the victim.
The journalist also claims that on that day, Judge Rafael Huerta
Bustos ordered the confiscation of the entire press run of El Libro
Negro as a precautionary and preventive measure in defense of
the alleged victims honor, despite the fact that no final
ruling had been handed down. Mrs.
Matus Acuña describes the situation as follows:
thousand one hundred and forty-one copies of the book were confiscated
by the law and order forces on April 14, 1999, from the storeroom of the
Planeta Publishing Company and
bookstores in Santiago. The
subsequent reprinting of this book was banned, pursuant to the provisions
of Article 16 of the State Security Law.
From that time to the present, the confiscation order has remained
in effect, and it has already been three months since I have been denied
my right to freedom of expression without prior censorship and my legitimate
right to the intellectual property confiscated, the publication of which
has been banned under the law.
Journalist Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña contends that the Chilean
State has violated her right to freedom of expression, enshrined in Article
13 of the American Convention, as well as her right to property guaranteed
under Article 21 of said Convention. In addition, having reviewed the
response of the Chilean State, CEJIL and the AIP Clinic maintain that
the case should be analyzed from the broader standpoint of the right to
freedom of expression and autonomy of all persons.
They therefore question the fact that the State failed to refer
to the request for precautionary measures
filed on behalf of the 30 persons listed in this report.
The representatives of the journalist claim that the submission
of the proposed amendment to Law 12.927 on State Security does not represent
fulfillment by Chile of its international obligation; instead, this action
confirms that this law violates the American Convention.
Since this law is still in effect, the petitioners hold the view
that it constitutes a flagrant violation of the American Convention.
They proceed to analyze in detail the amendments to Law 12.927 approved
by the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, which they consider to be insufficient
to guarantee freedom of expression, since they fail to address and/or
amend Articles 263 et seq. of
the Penal Code.
In regard to the right to property, the petitioners contend that
the intellectual property right of Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña to El
Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena should be considered an asset and,
as such, to be protected under Article 21 of the American Convention.
In that regard, they maintain:
Chilean State] is seeking, unlawfully, to limit the concept of assets
to physical and tangible assets only, such as the books confiscated, and
is overlooking the rights derived from intellectual property ownership
of the work, based on which, as is the customary practice with the publication
and distribution of books, the author of a work receives a percentage
of the revenue generated from the sale of the work.
Journalist Matus Acuña maintains that, pursuant to Article 27(k)
of the State Security Law, the decision of Judge Rafael Huerta ordering
the confiscation of all copies of El
Libro Negro cannot be appealed before a higher court.
However, this law provides for a special review in cases to which
Article 16 is applied, the course of action followed by Judge Huerta.
The journalist refers to the exhaustion of domestic remedies in
the exercise of the action allowed under this remedy, called a claim,
on May 13, 1999, my representatives filed the pertinent complaint with
the Santiago Court of Appeal, which was processed under No. 29,063-99.
However, on May 27, 1999, the Fourth Division of that Court, with
the approval of Judge Gloria Olivares and Attorney Francisco Merino, rejected
the claim filed. This decision was appealed before the Chilean Supreme
Court, and the Santiago Court of Appeal ruled the appeal inadmissible
on June 2. Proceedings for
review of leave to appeal were filed against this decision under No. 1742-99,
and the Chilean Supreme Court decided not to hear the appeal submitted,
arguing that the claim had been settled by a collegiate court.
Consequently, all domestic remedies related to this case have been
With regard to the alleged violation of the right of the victims
to receive information under the American Convention, CEJIL and the AIP
Legal Clinic filed a separate remedy of protection on April 19, 1999,
under the No. 1628-99 with the Court of Appeal in Santiago, with a view
to the lifting of the legal ban imposed on El
Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena.
To that end, they cited
Article 19(12) of the Constitution of Chile and Article 13 of the American
Convention. On the same date
that the remedy of protection was filed, the first division of the Santiago
Court of Appeal declared it inadmissible due to the fact that the
complaint filed was a matter that was already being heard by a legally
constituted court that was acting within the scope of the authority that
the proceeding, initiated by the lawmaker, had conferred on it,
and that the actions and appeals provided for in that proceedings fully
protected the rights for which protection was being sought by means of
the remedy of protection. The
representatives of the claimants appealed that judicial decision on April
22, 1999 by means of an appeal for reconsideration of judgment due
to the fact that the judicial decisions reflected confusion of the rights
of the author of the book, who did indeed have proceedings pending, with
the rights of the petitioners, who were claiming violation of the right
to have access to information. They therefore maintain that domestic remedies have been exhausted
in Chile, pursuant to Article 46 of the American Convention.
Furthermore, the Association of Attorneys for Public Freedoms [AALP]
submitted a remedy of protection of constitutional guarantees with the
Santiago Court of Appeal, since it viewed the confiscation of El
Libro Negro as prior censorship,
which is prohibited under Article 19 of the Constitution of Chile and
Article 13 of the American Convention.
The AALP maintains that the decision of Examining Judge Jordán
López is not based on the State Security Law, the Law on the Advertising
Abuses, or on any other Chilean legal provision.
It further maintains that the laws enforced in Chile are laws related
to contempt, and that their mere existence constitutes an additional violation
of Article 2 of the American Convention.
With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, it maintains
that the constitutional proceedings instituted by the AALP and Messrs.
Bofill, Correa, López, Moraga, Ovalle, and Ruiz Tagle are specifically
aimed at protection of their right to information, to the extent that
it protects the recipients of these opinions and this information,
and that the remedy of protection sought is a suitable and effective method
of dealing with the violation reported.
29. In its response of December 30, 1999, the Chilean
State provides an account of the requests for precautionary measures and
petitions filed with the IACHR in the case under review.
In that regard, it offers a response under the heading entitled
Actions taken by the Chilean State, which is provided in its
On April 20, 1999, the Government forwarded a draft law to the
Chamber of Deputies amending State Security Law 12.927, with a view to
defining law and order offenses and the authorities of the courts to confiscate
books or documents that are prejudicial to State security.
June 21, the President of the Republic pointed to the urgent need to settle
the matter, qualified as simple.
On June 22, the President of the Republic submitted a replacement
note pertaining to the draft law, for consideration during the discussion
of this matter. This note
specifically replaces Article 6(b) of Law 12.927.
the moment, constitutional steps are being taken with a view to approval
of the draft law. On October
6, the Chamber of Deputies approved amendment of Article 6(b), the first
step required under the Constitution. The draft law is being reviewed by the pertinent Senate committee,
the second step under the Constitution. The draft law approved by the Chamber of Deputies amends Articles
4 and 6, repeals Articles 16-20 and 30, and replaces Article 21 of Law
12.927. Furthermore, it replaces
Article 29 of Law No. 16,643 on Advertising Abuses. It also amends Article 429 of the Penal Code on the offense
Messrs. Bartolo Ortiz and Carlos Orellana were involved in proceedings
as accomplices to the offense described in Article 6(b) of Law 12,927.
On June 16, they were detained by the investigative police and
that same day, the Examining Judge released them on bail.
On June 18, they were freed following review of the decision by
the Santiago Court of Appeal. Later
on, on July 29, the Santiago Court of Appeal decided to overturn the decision
of the Examining Judge who ordered the indictment of Messrs. Ortiz and
Orellana, and declared that charges against them would be dropped.
Mrs. Alejandra Matus Acuña was summoned by the Examining Judge
to appear in court as the defendant in the May 6, 1999 case (the summons
was served on April 13, 1999), and, noting that she was out of the country,
it was ordered that a summons be served by means of an announcement in
El Mercurio newspaper, under penalty of being declared in contempt
of court if she failed to appear before the Examining Judge.
To date, NO [sic] indictment or warrant has been issued for the
arrest of Alejandra Matus, as stated in the Santiago Court of Appeal certificate,
at the request of the Supreme Court.
Messrs. Ortiz and Orellana were indicted and the charges were later
dropped, as indicated above.
Based on the foregoing information, the Chilean State is asking
the Commission to consider the precautionary measures sought on behalf
of Messrs. Bartolo Ortiz and Carlos Orellana granted.
Furthermore, it asks the IACHR to declare the obligation to bring
its domestic legislation in line with the American Convention as having
been fully discharged, within the framework that can be provided
by a democratic state that observes the rule of law and the separation
of powers, such as Chile.
With regard to the status of Alejandra Marcela Matus Acuña, the
State maintains that the adoption of special measures would not
be appropriate, since it holds the view that this protection is
not jeopardized, and that the request for precautionary measures with
respect to the right to intellectual property of that journalist exceeds
the scope of the protection granted under the American Convention on Human
Rights. In that regard,
the State maintains that:
this specific case, the copies seized or confiscated are not the property
of the author of the literary work---Alejandra Matus Acuña---but of the
publishing company (Planeta), which is marketing the work. In fact, the books were seized from the warehouse of the publishing
company. Second, the seizure
or confiscation of goods is a measure adopted within the framework of
legal proceedings and in accordance with current laws. Consequently, it is not an arbitrary or abusive procedure;
but rather one that is legitimate under the law.
Third, confiscation is a measure that does not affect property;
rather, it is a precautionary measure involving temporary removal from
the market of legal assets that are the object of a dispute, serve as
evidence, or provide a basis for legal action, based on the public interest,
as determined by a judicial decision.
the right of Alejandra Matus to the intellectual property in the form
of a literary work has never been questioned or threatened.
No one, let alone a state agent, has ever sought to disavow her
authorship of the work. As
a result, it does not seem appropriate for the Government to adopt special
protective measures to guarantee the intellectual property right of Alejandra
Matus Acuña to her work.
personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci competence
of the Commission
The arguments in this case describe actions that certainly violate
several rights that are recognized and enshrined in the American Convention,
which took place in the territorial jurisdiction of Chile, during the
time that Chile had an obligation to respect and guarantee all the rights
set forth in that instrument. Consequently, the IACHR has ratione
personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci competence to examine the merits of the complaint.
Other admissibility requirements of the petition
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
33. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has
established the following with respect to the rule of prior exhaustion
of domestic remedies:
Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims
of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated
in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in
keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free
and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons
subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1).
information submitted by the petitioners and summarized in this report
describes in detail the domestic remedies that were sought and exhausted
in Chile to address the alleged human rights violations reported to the
Inter-American Commission in this case, which the Chilean State did not
mention in its correspondence to the Inter-American Commission.
The Inter-American Court has stated that: if an objection
to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies is to be considered timely,
it must be raised during the initial stages of the proceedings, failing
which the interested State can be assumed to have tacitly waived its right
to the exercise thereof.
In the case under review, the IACHR notes that the State did not
dispute the different claims made by the petitioners with respect to the
exhaustion of domestic remedies in Chile.
In the view of the Inter-American Commission, the Chilean State
tacitly waived its right to raise this objection in this case, and as
a result, considers the requirement set forth in Article 46(1) of the
American Convention to have been fulfilled.
Time-period for submission
The events that led to this case began on April 13, 1999.
The petition of the AALP, on the basis of which the case was opened,
was received on April 29, 1999, well within the six-month time period
provided for in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention.
Duplication of procedures and res
The objections provided for in Article 46(1)(d) and Article 47(d)
of the American Convention have not been raised by the Chilean State,
and cannot be found in the information contained in this case file.
Characterization of the claims made
The IACHR holds the view that if the claims made are determined
to be true, they would constitute a violation of the rights guaranteed
under Articles 1(1), 2, 8, 13, and 21 of the American Convention.
The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to
hear this case and that the petition is admissible pursuant to Articles
46 and 47 of the American Convention.
Based on the aforementioned arguments of fact and law and without
prejudice to the merits of the case,
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN
Declare the admissibility of this case with respect to the alleged
violation of the rights protected under Articles 2, 8, 13, and 21 of the
Notify the parties of this decision.
Continue the analysis of the merits of the case.
Publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the
OAS General Assembly.
Done and signed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., on October 2, 2000. (Signed): Hélio Bicudo, Chairman; Juan E. Méndez, Second Vice- Chairman; Members: Marta Altolaguirre, Robert K. Goldman, Peter Laurie, and Julio Prado Vallejo.
Commissioner Claudio Grossman, a national of Chile, did not review
or vote on this case, pursuant to Article 19(2) of the regulations
of the IACHR.
The group of 30 persons on whose behalf precautionary measures were
sought is the same group that had appealed the judicial order to confiscate
El Libro Negro in Chile,
and is composed of the following writers and students: Miguel Arteche
Salinas, Pía Barros Bravo, Alejandra Basualto Pearcy, Carlos Bolton
García, Teresa Calderón González, Alfonso Calderón Squadritto, Rodrigo
Eduardo Codoceo Hernández, Jorge Contesse Singh, Marjorie Charlotte
Cooper Lapierre, José Angel Cuevas Estivil, Carlos Franz Thorud, Jaime
Hales Dib, Thomas Harris Espinosa, Miguel Kottow Lang, Camilo Marks
Alonso, Jorge Montealegre Iturra, Esteban Navarro, Nain Nómez Díaz,
Ximena del Pilar Palma Corrales, Carolina Pardo Sas, Floridor Pérez
Lavin, Daniel Rapiman Asserella, Grinor Rojo de la Rosa, Federico
Schopf Ebensperger, Antonio Skarmeta Vranicic, Guillermo Trejo Maturana,
Virginia Vidal Vidal, Luis Weinstein Crenovich, Faride Zerán Chelech,
and Verónica Zondek Darmstadter.
The attorneys who signed the complaint as victims are Jorge Bofill
Gensch, Juan Ignacio Correa, Julián López Masle, Claudio Moraga Klenner,
Javier Ovalle Andrade, and Pablo Ruiz Tagle Vial, the President of
The names of the 27 persons appear in footnote 1 on page 1 (above),
with the exception of José Angel Cuevas Estivil, Carlos Franz Thorud,
and Nain Nómez Díaz.
Correspondence of July 21, 1991 (page 1)
from journalist Matus Acuña.
Correspondence of June 14, 2000 (page 14) from CEJIL and the AIP Clinic.
Correspondence of July 21, 1999 (pages 2 and 3) from journalist Alejandra
Marcela Matus Acuña.
petitioners explained that a remedy of protection in Chile is
equivalent, mutatis mutandis, to action for the protection of a right guaranteed
by the Constitution in other Latin American countries. In that
regard, they cite Article 20 of the Chilean Constitution, which states
that persons whose legitimate right to the exercise of various rights
and guarantees is deprived, disturbed, or threatened may refer the
matter, on their own or through a representative, to the appropriate
court of appeal, with a view to the immediate adoption of the measures
deemed necessary for reinstatement of the right and ensuring due protection
of the person affected, without prejudice to the other rights that
may be asserted before the appropriate authorities or courts
Communication from CEJIL and the AIP Clinic of October 6, 1999, pages
3 and 4.
the correspondence cited above, the petitioners describe the remedy
of protection as a regular appeal provided for in Article 181
of the Chilean Code of Civil Procedure, which is aimed at obtaining
from the court that handed down a ruling or decision an amendment
thereto or nullification thereof.
Chile ratified the American Convention on August 21, 1990.
Court, Velásquez Rodríguez case, Ruling of June 26, 1987, para. 91.
Idem, para. 88.