University of Minnesota



Genie Lacayo Case, Judgment of January 29, 1997, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 30 (1997)

 

 

 

In the Genie Lacayo Case,

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, composed of the following judges:

 

 

 

Héctor Fix-Zamudio, President

Hernán Salgado-Pesantes, Vice President

Rafael Nieto-Navia, Judge

Alejandro Montiel-Argüello, Judge

Máximo Pacheco-Gómez, Judge;

 

 

 

also present:

 

Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and

Víctor M. Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary,

 

 

 

Delivers the following Judgment in the instant Case, pursuant to Articles 29 and 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Court", "the Court" or "the Tribunal").

 

 

I

1. On January 6, 1994, the Inter-Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission") submitted to this Court a case against the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter "the State", "the Government" or "Nicaragua") which originated in petition Nº 10.792.

 

2. The Court is competent to hear the instant Case. Nicaragua has been a State Party to the Convention since September 25, 1979, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on February 12, 1991, in the following terms:

 

I. The Government of Nicaragua recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica", pursuant to Article 62(1) of the Convention.

 

II. The Government of Nicaragua, in stating the above, establishes that recognition of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is indefinite and general on the condition of reciprocity, subject to the reservation that this recognition of competence applies only to cases arising out of events subsequent to, and out of acts which began to be committed after, the date of deposit of this declaration with the Secretary General of the Organization of American States.

 

3. On March 21, 1994, the Government submitted another acceptance of specific jurisdiction in this Case, "only and exclusively under the precise terms of the application submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that appear in the subtitle Purpose of the Application."

 

4. In connection with these two declarations of acceptance of jurisdiction, this Court, in its Judgment on preliminary objections of January 27, 1995, established the following:

 

[t]he Court does not feel it necessary to state its position at this time concerning the effect of the existence of two acts of acceptance of jurisdiction. In principle, in the Commission's "Purpose of the Application" there appear no demands relative to the violation of the victim's right to life or to humane treatment, events which occurred prior to Nicaragua's acceptance of jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court shall limit itself to decide, in due time, on these matters --and in any event it could not exceed the scope of this matter without the risk of adopting an ultra petita decision--. In adopting this position, the Court shall not be found to lack jurisdiction, since Nicaragua has expressly accepted that the Court has jurisdiction over such a matter." (Genie Lacayo Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 25).

 

II

 

5. On February 15, 1991, the Commission received a petition from the Permanent Human Rights Commission of Nicaragua, transmitted it to the Government on February 27 of the same year, and requested the appropriate information for determining whether the domestic legal measures had been exhausted.

 

6. On March 13, 1991, the Government informed the Inter-American Commission that with respect to petition No. 10.792, a Special Commission of Inquiry of the National Assembly for the Genie Lacayo Case had sought technical advice from the Government of Venezuela. On August 27, 1991, the Venezuelan investigators delivered their conclusions, in which they stated that "we point to members of the Escort of General Humberto Ortega-Saavedra, on guard on October 28, 1990 ... as the main suspects in the crime of homicide against the person of the minor Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo."  The Army High Command maintained that the report "was the result of politically biased investigations; it is impossible in two weeks to determine the perpetrators of such a complex crime which even the Nicaraguan police had been unable to solve."

 

7. On May 29, 1991, the Government transmitted to the Commission a document which included a copy of a note signed on May 23 of the same year by the Vice Minister of the Interior, Dr. José Bernard Pallais-Arana.  The note was accompanied by a report "containing fundamental aspects of the case under consideration, describing the action taken by the police, the legal framework and the submission of the proceedings to the Office of the Attorney General."  The note further states "that it must be recalled that the remedy of appearing before that Honorable jurisdiction [the Commission] may be invoked only after domestic remedies have been exhausted."  The proceeding before the Commission continued and both the Government and the petitioner kept the Commission informed of the status of the domestic investigation.

 

8. On March 10, 1993, the Commission issued Report No. 2/93, the final section reads as follows:

 

VII RECOMMENDATIONS

 

7.1 It recommend that the Government of Nicaragua punish the material authors, as well as their accomplices and accessories, for the crime of homicide to the detriment of Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo.

 

7.2 It recommend that the Government of Nicaragua pay fair compensatory damages to the direct relatives of the victim.

 

7.3 It recommend that the Government of Nicaragua accept the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the specific case on which this report is based.

 

7.4 It request that the Government of Nicaragua inform the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights within three months of the measures it adopts, in accordance with the recommendations in paragraphs 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3 concerning the instant case.

 

7.5 If after three months the case has not been resolved by the Government of Nicaragua, the Commission shall state its opinion and conclusions on the matter submitted for its consideration and it shall make a decision regarding the publication of this report, pursuant to Article 51(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.  Also, the present report shall be transmitted to the Government of Nicaragua and to the petitioners, who are not at liberty to publish it.

 

9. On May 21, 1993, the Government requested that the Commission review Report Nº 2/93. In its request the Government pointed out, inter alia, that "in the case under consideration, the domestic remedies have not been exhausted." In the same document it reiterated this view, stating "that precisely because of the fact that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted and a decision on an appeal is pending ... we also do not know ... to which judicial procedure this matter must be submitted." This petition was dismissed by the Commission during its 84th Session.  It is stated in the pertinent section of the Commission's Minutes No. 5 of October 7, 1993, that "[t]he Inter-American Commission decided to confirm Report No. 2/93 relating to the Case of Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo and to submit it to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights."

 

III

 

10. The petition was submitted to the Court on January 6, 1994, and was notified to the Government by the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat"), together with its attachments, on January 21, 1994, after the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President") had made the preliminary review. The Commission designated Michael Reisman as its Delegate before this Tribunal; Edith Márquez-Rodríguez and Milton Castillo as its Attorneys, and Oscar Herdocia, Daniel Oliva and José Miguel Vivanco as their Assistants.  Subsequently, on March 20, 1996, the Inter-American Commission submitted a note in which it informed the Court that as of that date Mr. Carlos Ayala-Corao and Mr. Alvaro Tirado-Mejía would serve as its Delegates in the instant Case.

 

11. In its petition the Commission invoked Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention") and Article 26 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter "the Rules of Procedure"). The Commission submitted this Case for a ruling by the Court as to whether Nicaragua had violated Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and 24 (Right to Equal Treatment), all read in conjunction with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention "as a result of the Judiciary's reluctance to prosecute and punish those responsible and to order the payment of reparations for the damages caused." The Commission also requested the Court to find that Nicaragua has violated Article 2 of the Convention by failing to adopt domestic legal provisions designed to give effect to those rights and that it has violated, on the basis of the principle of pacta sunt servanda, Article 51(2) of the Convention by failing to comply with the Commission's recommendations.  It asked the Court to determine, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, the reparations and indemnities due to the victim's direct relatives and to instruct the Government to identify and punish those responsible, on the basis of the investigations conducted. The Commission further requested the Court to declare that "Decrees 591 and 600 entitled 'Law on the Organization of the Military Judge Advocate and Military Criminal Procedure' and 'Provisional Law on Military Crimes' are incompatible with the purpose and aim of the American Convention on Human Rights [and that] the Government of Nicaragua be sentenced to pay the costs of this proceeding."

 

12. The application states that the petition lodged with the Secretariat of the Commission by the Permanent Human Rights Commission of Nicaragua, on February 15, 1991, at approximately 8:35 p.m. on October 28, 1990, the youth Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo, aged 16, resident of the city of Managua, was traveling by car to his home in the Las Colinas subdivision. After stopping at a restaurant, he took the road to Masaya and between kilometers 7 and 8 he came upon a convoy of vehicles transporting military personnel who, in response to his attempts to pass them, fired on him. The victim did not die immediately but was left on the highway and died from hypovolemic shock induced by hemorrhage. According to the investigations, this young man's automobile was machine-gunned by weapons from two or more vehicles and 51 cartridge shells of AK-47 ammunition were found at the site. According to ballistic reports, nineteen bullet impacts were found on the car, all made while the car was in motion, and three shots were fired at short range once it had stopped.

 

13. According to the application, National Nicaraguan Police Subcommander Mauricio Aguilar-Somarriba, who, according to his parents, was in charge of the investigation of Genie-Lacayo's death, was killed by his fellow officer Lieutenant Harold Meza. The Government denied that that officer had been in charge of the investigation and dispatched to the Court a case file stating that the author of this deed, Lieutenant Meza, had been sentenced to three years in prison.

 

14. The application further states that the judicial action was initiated on July 23, 1991 (267 days after the events), by the Office of the Attorney General of Justice, then the only criminal action authority; on July 2, 1992 (approximately one year after submission of the petition), the Seventh Court of the Criminal District of Managua delivered a judgment in which it decided: to recognize that "the crime of homicide had been committed against Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo," to identify the alleged perpetrators and accessories and to refrain from proceeding with the case, on the ground that it belonged in the military jurisdiction, and submitted the case file to the Military Advocate; the victim's father appealed the decision on July 6, 1992; on October 27, 1992, the Court of Appeal, Region III, Criminal Chamber, delivered a judgment denying the appeal concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and upheld the ruling of lack of jurisdiction to hear the case, it being a matter for the military courts; on November 6 and 9, 1992, the victim's father and the Assistant Attorney-General each filed special applications for judicial review; on December 20, 1993, the Supreme Court of Justice handed down a ruling in which it dismissed those measures and referred the case to the Military Advocate; both the Assistant Attorney-General and the victim's father repeatedly submitted briefs claiming that the deadline for delivering a judgment had been exceeded by far.

 

15. The Commission maintains in its application that Government agents, acting under the cover of a public function, committed acts that resulted in a denial of justice. These acts include the disappearance of evidence, the contempt displayed by military witnesses in refusing to appear in order to testify in the Seventh Court of the Criminal District of Managua, the failure to institute internal proceedings within a reasonable time, and the application of norms incompatible with the object and purpose of the American Convention, such as Decrees 591 and 600 relating to the Law on the Organization of the Military Judge Advocate and Military Criminal Procedure and the Provisional Military Criminal Law. These acts precluded any impartial investigation that would lead to the punishment of those responsible and compensation of the victim's next of kin. The petition further states that the events on which the complaint is based began on July 23, 1991, the date on which the Office of the Attorney General of Justice, then the only public criminal action authority, submitted the petition to the Judiciary. The specific acts referred to in the application are as follows:

 

a. Colonel Sidney Lacayo-Guerra of the Sandinista Popular Army, chief of General Humberto Ortega-Saavedra's Escort, testified on September 3, 1991, before the Seventh Court of the Criminal District of Managua that the weapons' registration log, reports of movements of the convoy and their arrivals at Military Unit 003 were burned on January 1991. He explained that the records were burned, in compliance with Order 034 of December 1, 1981, because they were not required by the police for the investigation of the case, a regulation that could only be countermanded by order of the Army Chief of Staff.

 

b. On October 7, 1991, the Assistant Attorney-General complained that the Police Chief of Criminal Investigations had arbitrarily and exceeding his authority ordered the T-shirt worn by the deceased on the day of the events to be burned.

 

c. On June 2, 1992, the Seventh Court of the Criminal District of Managua conducted an inspection of Military Unit 003 which showed that General Ortega had six black and olive green Renegade CJ-7 Jeep units and two Sahara Jeeps at his disposal until October 28, 1990. In December 1991, five of those Renegade Jeeps were sold in perfect condition and below their market value.

 

d. Twelve military witnesses who were at Military Unit 003 refused to testify before the court of first instance. In view of their refusal, Judge Boanerges Ojeda-Baca sent a letter on February 25, 1992, to Commander Javier López-Lowery, Chief Police Prosecutor, together with the respective summonses for them to appear.

 

e. The Assistant Attorney-General Alicia Duarte-Bojorge, declared that she had had great difficulty in making the following witnesses appear in court:  Plutarco Fletes, Alberto Torres, Santiago Gámez, Orlando Bolaños and First Lieutenant Mendoza-Mayrena, serving at Military Unit 003; Lieutenant José Francisco Valenzuela, Lieutenant Colonel Bosco Centeno and First Lieutenant Noel Prado-Gutiérrez stationed at other military units, and Freddy Rafael Maltez and Lieutenant Emilio Rodríguez, Captain Marín-Arias, Yader Urbina, Efraín García and Lorenzo Martín-Romero from the Defense Information Department. Accordingly, she requested the Seventh Court of the Criminal District to appeal to General Joaquín Cuadra, Chief of Staff of the Sandinista People's Army, to order them to appear. On March 3, 1992, the judge informed General Cuadra of the order, informing him of it again on April 10, 1992. The Assistant Attorney-General requested the Seventh Court of the Criminal District to dispatch an explanatory brief to the Supreme Court of Justice informing it of the refusal of the witnesses, "who were protected by the military arbitrament."

 

The following considerations were also mentioned in the request:

 

a. That the denial of justice was linked to the lack of access to domestic remedies, inasmuch as any State Party to the Convention is obliged to facilitate access to recourse against acts that violate a person's fundamental rights and that failure to do so would constitute an exception to the rule of exhaustion of remedies. That it is clear that the injured party has not enjoyed that right and that the State was therefore responsible.

 

b. That the Genie-Lacayo family had not been afforded effective remedies, that is, remedies capable of producing the results for which they were created; since the right to life was violated, the appropriate judicial remedy was the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators and reparations to the relatives.

 

c. That in this case the courts of first instance and appeal declared themselves without competence to hear the case, considering it to belong to the military jurisdiction. The arguments of both the Office of the Attorney-General and the victim's father showed that the Political Constitution of Nicaragua establishes that all persons are equal in the eyes of the law, so that application of the Law on the Organization of the Military Judge Advocate violated this precept, since a special court would be set up for any crime in which there was evidence of involvement of a member of the military.

 

d. That the denial of justice or access to the courts is not the only judicial act for which the State may incur responsibility; other such acts are unwarranted delay in the administration of justice, grave irregularities in the process, and manifestly unjust or unlawful judgments.

 

e. That the conclusions issued by the team of Venezuelan investigators invited by the Special Commission of Inquiry of the National Assembly to investigate the facts of the Genie Lacayo Case were considered by the Committee to "conform entirely with its opinions, assessments and conclusions."

 

f. That Decrees 591 and 600 created conditions conducive to the violation of the right to a fair trial, to due process and to equal treatment by granting broad margins of discretion and leaving it to the Army's High Commanders to sanction those "involved" or to let them go unpunished, and by placing "the soldiers of the Sandinista Popular Army on a different level to the rest of Nicaraguan society, with adverse effects on the rights enshrined in the American Convention."

 

16. The Government gave notification of its appointment of José Antonio Tijerino-Medrano as its Agent; it then designated Marco Gerardo Monroy-Cabra as its Adviser and Víctor Manuel Ordóñez and Carlos José Hernández-López as their Assistants. Mr. Hernández-López was appointed Alternate Agent by note of May 30, 1995.  By note of January 23, 1997, it gave notification of the appointment of Julio Centeno-Gómez and Alvaro J. Sevilla-Siero as Agent and Alternate Agent.

 

17. By note of February 7, 1994, the President, at the request of the State, granted the Government a 90-day extension of the term prescribed in Article 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure for answering the complaint, and a 30-day extension for filing preliminary objections.

 

18. According to the answer to the application of May 23, 1994, the Government did not accept the Commission's statements with regard to the Government agents' alleged obstruction of the judicial process, nor did it accept that there had been undue delay in the administration of justice, nor that rules incompatible with the object and purpose of the American Convention had been applied.  It further claimed that neither had legal due process been ignored nor had the principle of equality been breached.  It did not accept that the acts that were the subject of the petition had begun on July 23, 1991, the date on which the Office of the Attorney-General of Justice filed the complaint with the Judiciary.  It also maintained that the ordinary criminal process showed continuous and ongoing procedural activity and that justice had been promptly and fully administered.

 

19. On all the facts indicated by the Commission, the Government responded:

 

a. That the T-shirt worn by the youth Genie-Lacayo on the day of his death was burned because it had been severely contaminated by the effects of the hematic remains with which it was impregnated and that it had already been subjected to a forensic examination the results of which appeared in the report from the Central Forensic Laboratory on October 31, 1990. Consequently, its destruction did not constitute a disappearance of evidence, inasmuch as it had already been examined.  The Government further stated that the T-shirt was burned prior to July 23, 1991, the first day of the judicial inquiry which is the subject of the petition.

 

b. That the sale of the military vehicles was not unlawful; they were not in perfect running order and there was no proof that they were used in the commission of the homicide. In that regard, "the witnesses did not agree on the make of the vehicles, none of the witnesses saw the crime committed, and General Humberto Ortega's entire escort declared that the only vehicle they used was silver-colored and had not been sold." It added that there was no evidence that the sale had been made in order to cover up any crime, and that the vehicles were sold prior to July 23, 1991.

 

c. That the members of General Ortega's escort had testified on a number of occasions before the police court of inquiry and, subsequently, before the Seventh Court of the Criminal District of Managua; if any of them did not do so it was because they had not been duly summoned. Examination of the docket showed that virtually all the members of the escort had twice testified, and later a third time, before the Military Judge Advocate; it was therefore inaccurate "to state that there was disobedience on the part of military witnesses." The reasons for the witnesses' delay in appearing was explained by the General Cuadra when on April 24, 1992, he sent a note to the judge in the case declaring that some of the soldiers summoned did not appear on the personnel and officers' files, others because they were not active soldiers or because they had been removed, for which reason he requested more detailed information so as to be able to locate them. In that letter he reiterated what the Public Relations Department of the Sandinista Popular Army had said "concerning the scope of the powers for summoning soldiers who have not the slightest connection with the case being investigated and which rather confirms our impression that this is a case of harassment designed to keep the case on a single line of investigation which is, coincidentally, the same as that pursued by a part of the media."  The Government also pointed out that the deadline for evidence-gathering had been extended at the request of the Attorney-General on August 16, 1991, so that justice had not been obstructed; indeed, all the time needed for collecting evidence had been available in the case.

 

d. That the inquiry had been exhaustive and the procedural activity in the Seventh Court of the Criminal District of Managua, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Justice conformed to the rules in force in Nicaragua.  The duration of the police inquiry and the judicial proceeding was in keeping with the complexity of the case, the large number of investigative measures, the plethora of witnesses that gave statements, and the petitions of the parties to the case.

 

e. That owing to the thousands of petitions heard by the Nicaraguan courts of justice, the time spent on this Case was normal for criminal cases in the country, as shown by the certification accompanying the brief on preliminary objections. That the fact that the case was heard in courts of first and second instances, had been appealed, had been the subject of a request by the Assistant Attorney-General for an extension of the legal term for inquiry proceedings to procure certain evidence, and had been the subject of debate on jurisdiction and the continuous petitions by the victim's father show that there had been neither unwarranted delay in the administration of justice nor any denial of justice.

 

f. That the report issued by the Venezuelan experts lacked probative value and could not have legal effects inasmuch as it had not been produced during the judicial process nor did it meet the requirement of contradiction or bilaterality, and had usurped the role of the Nicaraguan courts in indicating those possibly responsible for the death of the youth Genie-Lacayo.  The State therefore did not accept that the experts (who are auxiliaries of justice) should replace the Nicaraguan courts and indicate the possible perpetrators without possessing the competence to do so.

 

g. That Decrees 591 and 600 were in force at the time the case was tried and Nicaragua's judicial authorities "were obliged to apply them under pain of committing abuse of power for the denial of justice." The decrees stipulated "military courts for military personnel" and no civilians had been accused in the instant Case. Those decrees did not ignore rights or judicial guarantees; the accused had their attorneys and were able to participate in all stages of the judicial proceedings. Equal treatment had not been withheld and due legal process had been observed. The case had been processed in the Office of the Military Judge Advocate from January 18, 1994, when the Secretary of the Supreme Court of Justice submitted the file. The military investigating prosecutor had been appointed on January 28 and on January 31 the case was called and both parties appeared.

 

20. On November 11, 1994, the Commission submitted to the Court the following documentation concerning the processing of the Genie Lacayo Case before the Military Judge Advocate of Nicaragua: Judgment of June 27, 1994, delivered by the Military Tribunal of First Instance of the Office of the General Advocate of the Sandinista Armed Forces; conclusions of the Military Prosecutor of Instruction; appeal filed by the accuser; a file from the Officer of the General Command of the Sandinista Popular Army separating Army General Humberto Ortega-Saavedra from jurisdictional duties; and an order of July 6, 1994, from the Army General Commander rejecting the appeal on the ground of inadmissibility.

 

21. On January 12, 1995, the Government presented a brief in which, inter alia, it makes a juridical analysis of the task performed by the Tripartite Commission, composed of representatives of the Government, Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, and the International Support and Verification Commission (CIAV). It added that the purpose of the Tripartite Commission was not germane to the case of Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo; it had not investigated it because it did not fall within its purview; it had, however, studied the provisions contained in Decree 591, Law on the Organization of the Military Judge Advocate and Military Criminal Procedure, and Decree 600, Provisional Military Criminal Law, and recommended the reform of the legislation.

 

22. The Court, in its Judgment of January 27, 1995, unanimously disposed of the preliminary objections lodged by Nicaragua in the following terms:

 

1. Declares that it is competent to hear the instant Case, except regarding the abstract compatibility of Decrees 591 and 600 of Nicaragua with the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights.

 

2. Rejects the preliminary objections interposed by the Government of Nicaragua, except for the objection relative to the non-exhaustion of internal jurisdictional remedies, which shall be resolved together with the merits of the Case.

 

3. Considers that the objections of the Government of Nicaragua posed in opposition to the statements in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights' complaint concerning the mandatory nature of its recommendations are not preliminary objections but rather essential questions on the merits that shall be resolved in due time.

 

4. Does not consider it appropriate to award court costs and attorneys' fees.

 

5. Resolves to continue hearing the present Case (Genie Lacayo Case, Preliminary Objections, supra 4, para. 53).

 

23. By note of March 15, 1995, the Commission presented the list of the following witnesses who should be summoned by the Court to appear at the public hearings on the merits: Raymond Genie-Peñalba, Alicia Duarte-Bojorge, Hernaldo Zúñiga-Montenegro, Humberto Ortega-Saavedra, Joaquín Cuadra-Lacayo, Boanerges Ojeda-Baca, Sidney Lacayo-Guerra, Omar Hallesleven-Acevedo, and Carlos Hurtado-Cabrera. On March 17, 1995, the Government submitted to the Court a brief in which it objected to the appearance of witnesses Sidney Lacayo-Guerra, Omar Hallesleven-Acevedo and Carlos Hurtado-Cabrera on the ground that they did not appear on the list of witnesses submitted in the Commission's petition. On that same day it presented a further brief in which it challenged the following witnesses: Humberto Ortega-Saavedra, because of his role as accused in the investigation into the death of Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo, and Joaquín Cuadra-Lacayo and Boanerges Ojeda-Baca, in their capacity as members of the tribunals that had heard the Case and because neither was a third party.

 

24. By Order of May 18, 1995, the Court decided to continue to hear the merits of the Case with the composition of the Court that had delivered the Judgment on preliminary objections.

 

25. By Order of June 30, 1995, the President of the Court convened public hearings on November 27 and 28 of that year to hear the comments of the parties on the objection to the witnesses and their appearance in the proceedings, and to take the statements of witnesses Raymond Genie-Peñalba, Alicia Duarte-Bojorge and Hernaldo Zuñiga-Montenegro.

 

26. On November 27, 1995, Nicaragua presented, as part of the last judicial proceedings as of that date in the Genie Lacayo Case, a brief from Mr. Raymond Genie-Peñalba in which he maintained the admissibility of the appeal in process, together with briefs from two judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua disqualifying themselves from hearing the Case on the ground that they had participated in it at an earlier stage.

 

27. On November 27, 1995, the Commission presented two notes accrediting Mr. Ariel Dulitzky as its Assistant for the hearings to be held on that day and the next. The Government's Agent objected to the accreditation as time-barred. On that same day the Court decided to reject the accreditation because "it is important [for a party] to be informed of the names of the persons who would represent the adversary and the capacity in which they do so, if it is to adequately prepare its defense."

 

28. On November 27, 1995, the Court held a public hearing to listen to the pleadings of the Government and the Commission on the objection to the appearance, and the impugnment of witnesses. On November 28, the Court decided "to dismiss the objection filed by the Government of Nicaragua [supra 23] to the aforesaid witnesses and their appearance, reserving the right to assess the value of their statements at a later date" and authorized the President to convene a public hearing to take their evidence.

 

29. The Court heard the statements of the witnesses at a public hearing on November 28, 1995.

 

There appeared before the Court,

 

for the Government of Nicaragua:

 

José Antonio Tijerino-Medrano, Agent

Marco Monroy-Cabra, Adviser, and

Víctor Manuel Ordóñez, Assistant;

 

for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

 

Leo Valladares, Delegate,

Milton Castillo, Attorney,

Oscar Herdocia, Assistant,

Daniel Oliva, Assistant, and

José Miguel Vivanco, Assistant;

 

witnesses called by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

 

Raymond Genie-Peñalba,

Alicia Duarte-Bojorge, and

Hernaldo Zúñiga-Montenegro.

 

30. On December 9, 1995, the President decided to convene the representatives of the Government and the Commission to a public hearing to be held from September 5, 1996, to take the statements of the following witnesses:  Sidney Lacayo-Guerra, Omar Hallesleven-Acevedo, Carlos Hurtado-Cabrera, Humberto Ortega-Saavedra, Joaquín Cuadra-Lacayo and Boanerges Ojeda-Baca.

 

31. On December 20, 1995, the Government transmitted to the Court certification of the proceedings in the military courts on the Genie Lacayo Case between March 9, 1994, and November 28, 1995.

 

32. On January 20, 1996, the President decided that the Government and the Commission, after receiving the witnesses' statements, should present their closing arguments on the merits of the Case (infra 35).

 

33. On July 8, 1996, the Inter-American Court issued an Order in which it entrusted the judges present at the XX Special Session of the Court with hearing the oral evidence.

 

34. On August 27, 1996, the Government submitted, at the Court's request, copies of the following original texts of the Official Registry "La Gaceta": Law 181 of August 23, 1994, Code of Military Organization, Jurisdiction and Social Welfare; Law 37 of April 13, 1988, Law of Criminal Procedural Reform; Law 124 of March 8, 1991, Law of Criminal Procedural Reform; Law 164 of December 1, 1993; Law of Reforms of Criminal Instruction; Decree 521 of April 7, 1990, Establishment and Organization of the Institute of Social Welfare of the Sandinista People's Army, and Decree 1130 of October 5, 1982, Law of Criminal Procedural Reform.

 

35. At the public hearing which began on September 5, 1996, Judges Héctor Fix-Zamudio, Hernán Salgado-Pesantes, Rafael Nieto-Navia and Alejandro Montiel-Argüello received the depositions of the witnesses who appeared in compliance with the Order of the President of the Court of December 9, 1995, and heard the conclusions of the parties on the evidence taken.

 

There appeared before the Court,

 

for the Government of Nicaragua:

 

José Antonio Tijerino-Medrano, Agent,

Carlos José Hernández-López, Alternate Agent,

Marco Monroy-Cabra, Adviser, and

Víctor Manuel Ordóñez, Assistant;

 

for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

 

Alvaro Tirado-Mejía, Delegate,

Domingo Acevedo, Deputy Executive Secretary,

Milton Castillo, Attorney,

Bertha Santoscoy-Noro, Attorney,

Oscar Herdocia, Assistant,

Héctor Faúndez-Ledezna, Assistant,

José Miguel Vivanco, Assistant, and

Ariel E. Dulitzky, Assistant;

 

witnesses called by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:

 

Sidney Lacayo-Guerra,

Omar Hallesleven-Acevedo,

Carlos Hurtado-Cabrera, and

Boanerges Ojeda-Baca.

 

The following witnesses called by the Commission did not appear at this hearing, despite the summons delivered by the Court:

 

Humberto Ortega-Saavedra, and

Joaquín Cuadra-Lacayo.

 

36. On September 5, 1996, the Inter-American Commission presented a brief in which it reiterated its request made at the public hearing that the Court again summon Mr. Humberto Ortega-Saavedra and Mr. Joaquín Cuadra-Lacayo.  On September 6, 1996, the Government once more filed a written objection to the request. On that same day the President of the Court decided that the oral pleadings of the parties based on the evidence already collected should be heard, reserving the Commission's request to be decided on by the full Court.

 

37. On September 6, October 7 and November 18, 1996, the Government dispatched copies of the latest documents presented to the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua in the Genie Lacayo Case, concerning the processing of the as yet unsettled appeal pending decision and its effects.

 

38. On October 3, 1996, the Commission presented the Court with the pleading on the evidence collected up to that time, in which it stated:

 

a. That there was abundant evidence that the purpose of the actions of the Nicaraguan authorities was precisely to thwart the investigation and guarantee the impunity of the authors of the crime.

 

b. That had there been a serious and impartial investigation, Nicaragua would have helped to dissipate any doubt as to those State agents' participation in the acts that motivated the instant Case. Nicaragua, as a State Party to the Convention, was called upon to organize its legal system to ensure its tribunals provide proper administration of justice, a goal that cannot be attained if cases are not handled with all due guarantees and within a reasonable time. It is evident that as of February 1992, when so permitted by the law, the petitioner not only cooperated in the case but also promoted it, and that it was the authorities' conduct that had prevented the case from being concluded.

 

c. That although Article 243 of Decree 591 governing the Army High Command's intervention in the administration of justice was not enforced, there is reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of the system; and that the military prosecutor and the military courts of first and second instances assessed the value of the evidence in accordance with the "Sandinista juridical conscience" established in Article 52 of the aforementioned decree.

 

d. That the domestic judicial process far exceeded the average time for judicial proceedings in Nicaragua in the light of the information supplied by the country's Attorney-General, and that the many cases left unresolved owing to the Judiciary's workload does not exonerate the State from its obligation to try cases expeditiously.

 

e. That Decree 591 did not afford the guarantees of an independent and impartial tribunal in compliance with Article 8 of the Convention and that with the application of that decree and of Decree 600 to the instant Case, the threat of violation of guaranteed rights ceased to be hypothetical and became a reality to the detriment of the rights of the Genie-Lacayo family.

 

39. On October 7, 1996, the Government submitted its summation to the Court, the main points of which were as follows:

 

a. That it had been demonstrated that domestic remedies were not exhausted, inasmuch as the criminal case was still before the Supreme Court of Justice of Nicaragua and that none of the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention on Human Rights were applicable.

 

b. That it has been demonstrated that criminal due process before the Nicaraguan judicial authorities had been respected and the father of the youth Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo had been afforded access to all the remedies established in the criminal procedural legislation and that there had been no unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment in the case.

 

c. That it has been demonstrated that the duration of the case had been reasonable if the police inquiry and the action of the Attorney-General's prior to July 23, 1991, were excluded, and recalling that the dispute over jurisdiction had lasted "from July 2, 1992, to December 20, 1993."  That it was necessary to study the many pieces of evidence provided, the remedies and incidents proposed, the difficulty encountered in convening the members of the Supreme Court of Justice for it to rule on the appeal lodged by the father of the youth Jean-Paul Genie-Lacayo, the congestion of the criminal courts in Nicaragua, and their dearth of staff.

 

d. That there was no evidence to show that by taking the case to the military court it was appealing to the "Sandinista juridical conscience," since the text of the judgments delivered in the first and second instances shows that the evidence had been subject to a valuative analysis in accordance with the rules of healthy criticism and the law.

 

e. That the full Supreme Court of Justice had been fully constituted as of September 19, 1996.

 

f. That both the ordinary and military courts had acted independently and impartially. There was no proof of any interference or intervention on the part of the Executive Branch or the Army.

 

40. On January 22, 1997, the Court decided not to call on the witnesses General Humberto Ortega-Saavedra and General Joaquín Cuadra-Lacayo again to testify and declared the evidentiary phase to be at an end in order to begin to hear the merits of the Case, with a view to delivering a judgment.

 

41. On November 17, 1994, the International Legal Advisors Esq. and the Foundation for the Development of International Law presented an Amicus Curiae, alleging the non-exhaustion of domest