In the Suárez Rosero Case,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Court,” “the Inter-American Court,” or “the Tribunal”), composed of the following
judges*:
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, President
Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Vice President
Maximo Pacheco Gómez, Judge
Oliver Jackman, Judge
Alirio Abreu Burelli, Judge
Sergio García Ramírez, Judge
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, Judge
also present:
Manuel E. Ventura
Robles, Secretary, and
Renzo Pomi, Interim
Deputy Secretary
pursuant to Articles 29, 55, and 56 of the Rules of Procedure
of the Court (hereinafter "the Rules of Procedure”), in relation to Article
63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”
or “the American Convention”) and in compliance with its November 12, 1997
Judgment, renders the following judgment on reparations in the present case,
brought by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) against the Republic of Ecuador
(hereinafter “Ecuador” or “the State”).
I
1. Under the provisions
of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has jurisdiction to
determine reparations in the present case, inasmuch as Ecuador ratified the
American Convention on December 28, 1977, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction
of the Court on July 24, 1984.
II
2. The present case
was submitted to the Court by the Inter-American Commission by application
dated December 22, 1995, which was accompanied by Report No. 11/95 approved
September 12, 1995. The case originated
with petition (No. 11.273) against Ecuador, lodged with the Secretariat of
the Commission on February 24, 1994.
3. On November 12,
1997, the Court rendered a judgment on the merits of the case in the operative
paragraphs of which the Court;
1. [Found] that the State of Ecuador violated, to the detriment of Rafael
Iván Suárez-Rosero, Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, in the terms indicated in paragraphs
38 to 66 of [the] Judgment;
[...]
2. [Found] that the State of Ecuador violated, to the detriment of Rafael
Iván Suárez-Rosero, Article 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, in the terms indicated in paragraphs
57 to 83 of [the] Judgment;
[...]
3. [Found] that the State of Ecuador violated, to the detriment of Rafael
Iván Suárez-Rosero, Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, in the terms indicated in paragraphs
84 to 92 of [the] Judgment;
[...]
4. [Found] that the State of Ecuador violated, to the detriment of Rafael
Iván Suárez-Rosero, Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
in relation to Article 1(1) of the same, in the terms indicated in paragraphs
61 to 66 of [the] Judgment;
[...]
5. [Found] that the final paragraph of the unnumbered article after
Article 114 of the Criminal Code of Ecuador violates Article 2 of the American
Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 7(5) and 1(1) of the same;
[...]
6. Decid[ed] that Ecuador must order an investigation to determine the
persons responsible for the human rights violations referred to in [the] judgment
and, where possible, punish them;
[...]
7. Decid[ed] that Ecuador is obliged to pay a fair indemnity to the
victim and his relatives and to compensate them for any expenses incurred
in their representations relating to this proceeding;
[...]
8. Order[ed] the initiation of the Reparations State, for which purpose
it authorize[d] the President to adopt in due course such measures as may
be necessary.
III
4. On December 10,
1997, the President of the Court for this case (hereinafter “the President”),
in accordance with operative paragraph 8 of the November 12, 1997 Judgment,
decided:
1. To grant the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights until February 10, 1998 to submit a brief and any evidence
it may have in its possession, for the purpose of determining the compensation
and expenses in this case.
2. To grant Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero,
the victim in this case, and his family members or representatives until February
10, 1998 to submit a brief and any evidence they may have in their possession
for the purpose of determining the compensation and expenses.
3. To grant the State of Ecuador until April 10, 1998 to make its observations
on the briefs submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,
the victim and his family members or representatives in accordance with the
preceding paragraphs.
5. On January 9,
1998 the non-governmental organization “Rights International, The Center for
International Human Rights Law, Inc.” submitted an amicus curiae brief.
6. On January 29,
1998 the Commission informed the Court that the petitioners had reported that they would require additional time to gather
certain necessary evidence and that, for its part, the Commission also wanted
to have that evidence before “finishing and submitting its brief.” By resolution of that same day, the President
extended the time periods granted to the Commission and Mr. Suárez Rosero
for the submission of their briefs until February 25, 1998 and gave the State
until May 11 1998 to submit its respective observations.
7. On February 25,
1998 the Commission submitted its brief on reparations, in which it included
its arguments and stated that, in its opinion, at this stage “the victim and
his representatives are the appropriate persons to present the arguments and
facts related to the scope and amount of the compensation and to present the
evidence.” For the reason stated, the
Commission indicated that it was adopting the amounts and the evidence submitted
by Mr. Suárez Rosero.
8. On February 25,
1998 Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted his brief on reparations in English. The Spanish translation was received on March
20 of the same year and was sent to the State on that day. In his brief, Mr. Suárez Rosero presented his
claims, made his offer of documentary and testimonial evidence, and stated
that the expenses related to the reparations stage would be submitted subsequently
to the Tribunal. Mr. Suárez Rosero
also informed the Court that on February 3, 1998 he named Richard Wilson and
Alejandro Villacís as his representatives before the Court for the present
stage.
9. By means of a
March 7, 1998 Order, the President summoned Mr. Suárez Rosero, and his family
members or their representatives, the Inter-American Commission, and Ecuador
to a public hearing to be held on June 10, 1998 at the seat of the Tribunal.
10. On May 6, 1998
the State requested an extension of the deadline set by the President for
the submission of its brief on reparations.
In this regard, on May 11, 1998 the President granted the State an
extension until May 22, 1998. The Secretariat
of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) never received the above-mentioned
brief, however.
11. On May 14, 1998
Mr. Suárez Rosero confirmed his offer to produce as testimonial evidence the
statements of Magdalena Rosero, Ana Burbano, and Cecilia Jaramillo. By Order of May 26, 1998 the President summoned
Mrs. Rosero and Mrs. Burbano to give their testimony and Mrs. Jaramillo to
present her expert report during the public hearing to be celebrated at the
seat of the Tribunal on June 10, 1998.
12. On May 28, 1998
Mr. Suárez Rosero asked the Court to also receive his testimony during the
public hearing. The following day the
President acceded to his request and summoned Mr. Suárez Rosero to give his
statement.
13. The Court held
a public hearing on reparations in this case on June 10, 1998.
There appeared
Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero who also delivered his statement,
and his representatives:
Richard J. Wilson,
attorney and
Alejandro Ponce Villacís, attorney;
for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights:
Oscar Luján Fappiano, delegate and
Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, attorney;
for the Republic of Ecuador:
Laura Donoso de León, agent and
Ambassador Francisco Proaño A.;
as expert and witnesses:
Cecilia Jaramillo, expert,
Magdalena Rosero, witness and
Ana Burbano, witness.
During the hearing Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted two drawings
that he had made during his detention (infra 21), and the State submitted
a brief and some documents (infra 23).
14. By means of notes
of September 21, 1998 the Court required that Mr. Suárez Rosero submit the
evidence that was not available when he submitted his brief on reparations
(supra 8) and, that the State send the list of official exchange rates
for the sucre, the Ecuadorian currency, in relation to the dollar of the United
States of America for the years 1992 to 1996.
15. On October 19,
1998 Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted a brief on the costs and expenses incurred
during the reparations stage by one of his representatives, Mr. Richard Wilson.
16. On October 20,
1998 the State submitted the tables of exchange rates for the United States
dollar on the Ecuadorian exchange market for the years 1992 to 1996 issued
by the Central Bank and the Monetary Board of Ecuador, as well as several
documents from the Ecuadorian Department of Work and Human Resources, concerning
the pay scales for domestic employees and drivers from 1992 to 1996. (infra 29 et seq.)
17. On October 27,
1998 Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted information concerning his psychiatric treatment
and that of his wife, Mrs. Margarita Ramadán Burbano, and the expenses of
one of his representatives, Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís.
18. On November 24,
1998 the State submitted a communication, in which it stated that “it would
not be able to accept the [new] amounts claimed [by Mr. Suárez Rosero], especially
when the man referred to was convicted as an accessory after the fact by the
Ecuadorian Courts,” and it added that during the public hearing it had made
“a concrete offer of an amount of compensation, a maximum amount that [...]
it could accept, considering the grave economic crisis it was suffering.”
19. On December 22,
1998 the Court required that Mr. Suárez Rosero submit his marriage certificate
with Mrs Ramadán Burbano and the birth certificate of his daughter, the minor
Micaela Suárez Ramadán. This requirement
was satisfied on January 14, 1999.
IV
a) Documentary Evidence
20. Mr. Suárez Rosero
submitted the following documentary evidence with his brief on reparations:
a. documents concerning his income and labor occupation before his detention
(cfr. copy of the contract for
professional services signed in the city of Quito on March 1, 1991 between
Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero and the Challenge Air Cargo Company; 16 income receipts
from the Challenge Air Cargo Company in the name of Iván Suárez; income tax
statements from the Challenge Air Cargo Company dated April 26, May 28, June
27, July 29, August 28, September 30, October 28, November 28, December 30,
1991, January 28, February 28, March 30, April 28, May 28, and June 26, 1992;
estimate of income (unidentified document); document entitled “Challenge Air
Cargo/No. flights/UIO”);
b. a document concerning the state of his mental health
(cfr. August 4, 1997 psychological
evaluation of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero performed by psychologist Cecilia
Jaramillo);
c. document concerning the appeal of his conviction.
(copy of the appeal filed by
Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero before the President of the Superior Court of
Justice on September 11, 1996);
d. general documents concerning human rights and prison systems
(cfr. copy of the English version
of a document issued by the Economic and Social Council of the Organization
of the United Nations, cited as E/CN.4/1997/104, entitled “Question of the
Human Rights of all persons subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment;”
photocopies of the document “Crimes and Criminal Procedure,” in English, pages
486 to 492; copy of the document “Between shadows and silence, the intra-detention
violence in the Provisional Detention Center of Quito,” issued by the Regional
Foundation of Legal Assistance on Human Rights; copy of Official Letter 96-293-CG-AJ-PN
from the General Commander of the Ecuadorian National Police dated March 12,
1996);
e. documents concerning the salaries paid to the domestic help and driver
of Mrs. Margarita Ramadán Burbano
(cfr. copy of the certificate of settlement signed
by Margarita Ramadán and Mercedes Llumiquinga on November 24, 1995, before
the Labor Inspector of Pichincha; copy of the letter of resignation of Mercedes
Llumiquinga dated November 15, 1995; 22 documents concerning the benefits
and the payroll reserve for domestic service, copies of 24 checks made out
to the name of Mercedes Llumiquinga; copies of 18 checks made out to the name
of Luz María Feria, copies of 10 checks made out to the name of Carlos Saa,
sworn statement of Margarita Ramadán Burbano, made in the city of Quito on
February 16, 1998 concerning the employment of her domestic help and driver)
g. documents concerning the costs and expenses of his representatives
(cfr. copy of the power of attorney
granted by Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero to Richard Wilson and Alejandro Ponce
Villacís on February 3, 1998; sworn statement of Alejandro Ponce Villacís
of January 1998; copy of the advance expense form 0016523 EXP of American
University, dated April 22, 1997; copies of receipts for credit card and telephone
calls from the Hotel Americano del Este; receipt number 0011234 from the Hotel
Americano S.A. dated April 20, 1997; receipt number 0041 from the Editorial
Department of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights dated April 17,
1997; copies of three receipts for taxi service, dated April 16 and 20, 1997;
copy of an airline ticket on American Airlines; copy of an e-mail dated February
23, 1998 and Richard Wilson’s time sheet, that include the time he spent on
the case from April 2 to June 15, 1997 ( merits stage) and from January 6
to February 24, 1998 (reparations stage); and
h. information concerning the rate of exchange of the sucre and the
dollar of the United States of America
(cfr. three documents in English,
entitled “OANDA: 164 Currency converter/Currency Conversion Result;
concerning the exchange rate
for the sucre on December 31 1993, 1994, and 1995 respectively).
21. During the public
hearing on reparations, Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted two pictures that he had
drawn during his detention.
22. The documents
submitted by Mr. Suárez Rosero were neither contested nor challenged, nor
was their authenticity questioned, therefore the Court accepts them as valid
and orders their incorporation into the body of evidence in the present case.
23. During the public
hearing, the State brought forward a document concerning the determination
of reparations in the present case and other documents concerning legal reforms
related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
(cfr. June 10, 1998 brief of the State of Ecuador; copy
of the Official Register of the Government of Ecuador of October 15, 1997,
number 173, pages 1 through 4, that contain the text of Law No. 25 “Reformation
of the Code for the Enforcement of Punishment and Social Rehabilitation and
the Law on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances;” copy of the Official
Register of the Government of Ecuador of December 18, 1997, number 218, pages
1 and 3, that contain the text of Law No. 44 “Reformation of the Code for
the Enforcement of Punishment and Social Rehabilitation and the Law on Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances”; copy of the Supplement to the Official
Register of the Government of Ecuador of December 24, 1997, number 222, pages
1 through 4, that contain the text of Resolution No. 119-1-97 of the Constitutional
Tribunal”; copy of the Official Register of the Government of Ecuador of March
6, 1998 number 284, pages 1 through 3, that contain the text of law No. 72
“Interpretative Law of the second clause of Article 105 of the Law on Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances”).
24. During the hearing
Mr. Suárez Rosero, through his representatives, objected to the above-mentioned
documents, based on the fact that the State had not submitted its brief on
reparations during the time period specified by the President.
25. The Court deems
that the brief submitted by the State can not be included in the body of evidence
of the case, because it contains substantive arguments and a proposal for
the payment of reparations. Therefore,
the Tribunal will later specify the legal character of the brief (infra
43 et seq.) As to the references to
the copies of the laws and the judicial decision submitted by Ecuador at the
same time, the Court deems that their examination is useful for its decision
on reparations in the present case. For that reason, in the exercise of the authority granted to it by
Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, which provides that at any stage of
the proceedings, the Tribunal may “obtain, on its own motion, any evidence
it considers helpful” it orders their inclusion in the body of evidence.
***
26. On September
21, 1998 the Court asked Mr. Suárez Rosero for the submission of the evidence
that, according to his statements, had not yet been available at the time
he submitted his brief on reparations.
27. On October 19,
1998 Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted a brief on the costs and expenses of Mr.
Richard Wilson. He also submitted copies
of the “Time Sheet” of Mr. Wilson for this case, his plane ticket to the city
of the seat of the Court and his hotel bills and expenses in that city, resulting
from his attendance at the public hearing on reparations. On October 27, 1998 Mr. Suárez Rosero submitted
a brief concerning his psychological treatment and that of Mrs. Ramadán Burbano,
as well as the expenses of Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís.
28. The above-described
evidence submitted by Mr. Suárez Rosero has not been contested nor challenged,
nor has its authenticity been questioned, therefore the Court accepts it as
valid and orders its incorporation into the body of evidence in the present
case.
29. On September
21, 1998 the Court requested from the State the submission of the list of
official exchange rates for the sucre, Ecuadorian currency, to the dollar
of the United States of America during during the years 1992 to 1996.
30. On October 20,
1998 the State sent exchange rate tables for the dollar of the United States
of America on the Ecuadorian exchange market, issued by the Central Bank and
the Monetary Board of Ecuador, for the years requested by the Court. The State also submitted copies of several official
registers and documents form the Ecuadorian Department of Work and Human Resources
concerning the monthly pay and annual benefits of domestic workers and drivers
during the relevant time period.
31. The tables submitted
by the State have not been contested or challenged, nor has their authenticity
been questioned, therefore the Court accepts them as valid and orders their
incorporation into the body of evidence in the present case.
***
32. On December 22,
1998 the Court required that Mr. Suárez Rosero submit the certificate of his
marriage to Margarita Ramadán Burbano, as well as a copy of the birth certificate
of his daughter, the minor Micaela Suárez Ramadán. This requirement was fulfilled on January 14,
1999.
33. The documents
submitted by Mr. Suárez Rosero, which were referred to in the last paragraph,
were required by the Court in the exercise of the authority conferred on it
by Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as they are helpful to determine
the identity of the beneficiaries of the reparations. Therefore, the Tribunal orders their inclusion in the body of evidence
in the present case.
b) Testimonial Evidence
34. On June 10, 1998
the Court received that statements of Mr. Suárez Rosero and of the witnesses
in the present case. The Court will
now summarize their relevant points.
a. Statement of
Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero
Before his arrest he earned S/.700,000.00
(seven hundred thousand sucres) per month. He took classes for a year at a company called
“Special Control Airport,” for which he paid S/.500,000.00 (five hundred thousand
sucres) per month; his only job had been as an airport security agent.
He doesn’t have specific training to do another job.
An appeal that he made against the conviction in his case is still
pending. The bad treatment to which he was subjected
during his incarceration caused him grave psychological and physical consequences.
He has a daughter, born on February 10, 1994, who was conceived during
his imprisonment owing to the health problems of his wife.
His imprisonment resulted in an ulcer that was partially cured thanks
to a treatment that cost the equivalent of US$ 500.00 (five hundred dollars
of the United States of America). He
also suffered a ruptured disk and jaw as a result of a beating given him by
the police the day he entered the Barracks of Quito. As to the jaw, he was given therapy and with respect to the disc
they recommended an operation, which he has not had because of its high cost.
During the entire time of his detention, he felt confused, uncertain,
impotent, and suffered greatly. For the purpose of improving his mental condition
he has attended weekly sessions with a psychologist for the last eleven months.
His wife also suffered greatly during his detention.
She dealt with her pregnancy alone, with the further difficulty of
her inability to drive, raised her daughter without the presence of her father
during her first two years of live, was humiliated in the Courts, and lived
in a permanent situation of anguish and fear.
She also receives psychological treatment biweekly.
During his imprisonment, several of his workmates donated part of their
salaries to him; moreover they had his wife’s salary from her work in a high
school in Quito. They also received
help from their respective families. He
painted and sold separators and bread in his cell block. Nonetheless their resources did not suffice
to pay the necessities of their recently born daughter. On regaining his freedom, he had to begin his
life again. With respect to Mrs. Margarita
Ramadán, it was very difficult to return to live with her, owing to the situations
that they both had been through. He has to learn to be a full time father, and his daughter had to
overcome her fear that her father would abandon her. He refused to return to his work for fear of being detained again
if there was another situation involving narcotics. He worked for a time in a utensils factory with people who knew his
situation and had confidence in him; he is trying to start a business with
a cousin and is administrating a living complex. Based on his history, he was denied his request to buy twenty dollars
in the Bank of Ecuador, which caused him great insecurity and humiliation.
b.
Testimony of Ana Burbano de Ramadán, mother-in-law
of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero
She lives in a condominium next
door to the house of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero. She has a very close relationship with him and all of his family.
Her husband, who was very close to Mr. Suárez Rosero, died two years
and ten months after his imprisonment. She
visited her son-in-law once a week and brought him food.
After the birth of her granddaughter she took her daughter to the prison
on Monday mornings and brought her home in the afternoon, due to the difficulty
caused by her daughter’s inability to drive.
Since her daughter became pregnant she practically went to live with
her to help her with her chores and work, which wouldn’t have been necessary
if her son-in-law had been present. Mr.
Suárez Rosero left the prison very affected.
He was aggressive and had problems living with Mrs. Ramadán Burbano
although not with the other members of the family.
c. Testimony of Magdalena Rosero de Suárez,
mother of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero
She lives in Ambato. Her husband, Rafael Suárez, died on May 24,
1998 as a result of an illness of emotional origins provoked by the suffering
that his son’s imprisonment caused him. During
his youth, her son always behaved affectionately with his siblings and family
and was very dear to his friends and the community in Ambato.
On learning of the arrest of her son she felt distressed, desperate,
and impotent before the injustice that was being committed against him.
She and her husband tried by every means to hire an attorney but almost
all of them refused. This made them
feel humiliated. It took more than three hours to get to the
jail to visit her son, and she could only visit him after a degrading personal
search. Her husband felt great distress
at having to visit his son in prison and for that reason did not visit every
Tuesday as she did. One time it caused
her a nervous shock to find herself in the prison. Owing to his confinement her son suffered many personality changes.
35. The State did
not offer testimonial evidence.
36. The court deems
that the statement of Mr. Suárez Rosero should be evaluated in the context
of the total body of evidence in the present case. It is appropriate to remember that the facts
of the present case already were established during the merits stage. In this stage, the Tribunal will determine the
nature and amount of the “fair compensation” and the reimbursement of expenses,
which the State is obligated to make to Mr. Suárez Rosero and his relatives
in compliance with operative paragraph seven of the Judgment of November 12,
1997.
c) Expert Evidence
37. During the public
hearing, the Court also received the report of the expert, Cecilia Jaramillo,
in which she stated that
since July 10, 1997 she has treated
Mr. Suárez Rosero and Mrs. Ramadán Burbano. When the sessions began Mr. Suárez Rosero was very affected. As a consequence of his detention and the conditions
to which he was submitted, he suffered neurotic depressive reactions of anguish,
a situation diagnosed as neurosis of the astenic type, in which the person
feels weak, lacking in energy, afraid, and insecure. Mr. Suárez Rosero had been a self confident
happy person with many friends and with big life plans. They took him away from his normal life, deprived
him of his freedom, and deprived him of the possibility of developing his
plans. He became an object of ill-treatment and humiliation. Even though the therapy had helped him to overcome certain fears,
he continued to suffer. This also affects
his daughter and Mrs. Margarita Ramadán Burbano, who also needs psychological
help. The conception of their daughter
in the prison also constituted a humiliating situation for them, a violation
of their intimacy and of their plans. It imposed on them a different plan of life than they had intended.
The daughter was deprived of the possibility of having a father during
her first years of life, which aroused great fears of losing her father.
Mrs. Margarita Ramadán Burbano had to deal with her pregnancy and raising
her daughter for two years without the presence of her husband, with the additional
burden of her inability to drive and under very bad economic conditions.
The psychotherapy that they are receiving has a short, insufficient
reach. For them all to definitely overcome
this trauma they need the State’s admission that Mr. Suárez Rosero is innocent,
so that he can recover his dignity. The
appeal that is pending before the domestic courts causes them increasing fear
and insecurity. She receives a fee of twenty dollars for each
psychological therapy session.
38. The State did
not offer expert evidence.
V
39. In operative
paragraph seven of the November 12, 1997 Judgment, the Court decided that
“Ecuador is obliged to pay a fair indemnity to the victim and his relatives
and to compensate them for any expenses incurred in their representations
relating to this proceeding.”
40. In the matter
of reparations, the applicable provision is Article 63(1) of the American
Convention, which codifies one of the fundamental principles of general international
law, and is repeatedly applied in case law. (Factory as Chorzów, Jurisdiction,
Judgment No. 8, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No 9, p. 21 and Factory at Chorzów,
Merits, Judgment No. 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 17, p 29; Reparations
for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 184). This is the sense in which this Court has applied that provision
(Inter alia, Neira Alegría Case, Reparations, (Article 63(1)
American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 19, 1996, Series
C. No. 29, para. 36; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Reparations,
(Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of January 29,
1997, Series C. No. 31, para. 15; Garrido and Baigorria, Reparations,
(Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of August 27,
1998, Series C. No. 39, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations,
(Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of November
27, 1998, Series C. No. 42, para. 84, and Castillo Páez Case, Reparations,
(Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of November
27, 1998, Series C. No. 43, para. 50). When
a wrongful act occurs that is imputable to a State, the State incurs international
responsibility for the violation of international law, and thus incurs a duty
to make reparation.
41. Reparations is
a generic term that covers the different ways (restitutio in integrum,
compensation, satisfaction, and assurances of guarantees that the violations
will not be repeated, among others) in which a State can redress the international
responsibility it has incurred.
42. The obligation
to make reparations established by international courts is governed, as has
been universally accepted, by international law in all its aspects: scope,
nature, forms, and the determination of beneficiaries, none of which the respondent
State may alter by invoking its domestic law ( See, inter alia, Neira
Alegría et al. Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 37; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Reparations, supra
40, para. 16; Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, supra 40,
para. 42; Loayza Tamayo, Reparations, supra 40, para. 86; Castillo
Páez Case, Reparations, supra 40, para. 49).
VI
43. The Court deems
that it is necessary to first study the effects of the failure to submit,
on the part of the State, a brief on reparations.
44. During the public
hearing held by the Tribunal, Mr. Suárez Rosero, through his representatives,
stated that
the Ecuadorian State was granted
a time period to answer the brief on reparations [submitted by Mr. Suárez
Rosero]. Subsequently, the Illustrious
Court, by its President, granted it an additional period to respond to that
brief. Nevertheless, the Ecuadorian
State did not submit any response, neither within the initial time period,
nor within the extended period.
[...]
We believe that this Court should
apply a principle of International law set forth in the Statute of the International
Court of Justice as well as in the Regulations of the Commission, that there
is an irrebuttable presumption that if the State is silent, the decision should
be favorable, as long as other evidence does not lead to a different conclusion.
45. In this regard,
the President stated that
the representatives of Mr. Suárez
Rosero have the right to make that point in the hearing, and the Government
of Ecuador has the right to submit its argument as part of the oral hearing
[...The] Court will evaluate the argument of the Government of Ecuador at
the appropriate time as part of the oral stage of the proceedings.
[...]
The Court has stated that the written
stage of the proceedings has concluded and that the reparations brief of the
respondent Government was not submitted during the time period. The Court finds that the oral argument has been
duly presented during this hearing. The
Court finds that thus it is appropriate, based on the Court’s Rules of Procedure,
which permit that if a party fails to act at any time in the proceedings,
the Court shall, on its own motion, take such measures as may be necessary
to complete the consideration of the case. Moreover, the rules of the Court add that when a party enters a case
at a later stage of the proceedings, it shall take up the proceedings at that
stage.
46. The Court confirms
the decision of its President.
***
47. Moreover, during
the hearing on reparations, the State made the following oral statement:
the Ecuadorian State proposes fifty
thousand American dollars (sic), as the amount of reparations that
it considers covers all the categories of reparations cited by the petitioner
including the moral damages caused to him and his family, as well as his loss
of income during the time that he was detained, the payment of the remunerations
that covers domestic expenses, and the professional honoraria of his lawyers
and other professionals who assisted him during the proceedings and who helped
improve his physical and psychological health [...]
The State also broke down the amount offered and included,
as general headings the payment of compensation, the loss of earnings of Rafael
Iván Suárez Rosero, his moral damages, the injuries inflicted on Mrs. Margarita
Ramadán Burbano and his daughter, the minor Micaela Suárez Ramadán, the payment
of the costs and expenses of his attorneys, the expenses of his rehabilitation,
medical and psychological treatment, and the payment of the driver and domestic
help.
48. In this respect,
Mr. Suárez Rosero, through his representatives, stated that
the proposal of the State exclusively
concerns the question of pecuniary damages and has not set forth any reparations
that are not pecuniary in nature. Therefore, the victim considers it to be insufficient; [...] it can
not be accepted [...].
49. For its part, the Commission stated that
the brief submitted by the representatives
of the Illustrious Government of Ecuador is an appeasement [...]of the procedural
reparations and compensation claims that are made in this stage.
What it has recognized [...], is the loss of earnings, moral damages,
damages to the family, the payment of honoraria and future expenses, minor
payments, expenses of rehabilitation, etc. What can be discussed is the amount
in those categories, if this offer to pay fifty thousand dollars is reasonable
or if it should be more or less [...] However, in the view of the Commission
it is a appeasement of the procedural claims for compensation and reparations.
The Commission also stated that there were categories not
covered by the State in its offer of reparations, particularly, those referring
to the obligation to investigate and to adopt measures of non repetition.
50. The Court finds
that, as the Commission has stated, the statements of the State constitute
an express acceptance of the categories of pecuniary reparations demanded
by Mr. Suárez Rosero. Therefore, in
respect to these categories, the Court will limit its analysis to the amount
of the payments required.
51. The State did
not include in its offer any reference to non pecuniary measures of reparations.
For that reason, the Court will proceed to study their justification,
using the information at its disposition.
VII
52. These is no dispute as to who are considered to be the
beneficiaries of the measures of reparations. Mr. Suárez Rosero, the Commission, and the State have agreed in stating
that Mr. Suárez Rosero, Mrs. Ramadán Burbano, and the minor, Micaela Suárez
Ramadán, are the beneficiaries.
53. The Court finds
that this designation is in accordance with its case law and with the terms
set forth in operative paragraph seven of its November 12, 1997 Judgment.
Therefore, it names the aforementioned persons as beneficiaries of
the reparations that it will order in the present judgment.
VIII
54. For the purpose
of determining reparations in this case, the Court will have as a base of
reference the facts proved in the November 12, 1997 Judgment. However, during the present stage of the proceedings
the parties have added to the file evidence to demonstrate the existence of
complementary facts that are relevant to a determination of the measures of
reparation. The Court has examined
the arguments of the parties and the corresponding evidence and declares the
following facts proved:
A) with respect to Mr. Suárez Rosero
a) when he was detained he worked
for the company “Challenge Air Cargo,” in charge of the supervision and control
of flights. He received a monthly salary
averaging S/.676,853.35 (six hundred seventy-six thousand, eight hundred fifty-three
sucres and thirty-five cents), to which the corresponding tax deduction has
already been made. That amount is approximately equivalent of US$
449.40 (four hundred forty-nine dollars of the United States of America and
forty cents), based on the exchange rate of the sucre on the date of the detention
of Mr. Suárez Rosero. (infra f)
(cfr. copy of the professional
services contract signed in the city of Quito on March 1, 1991 between Rafael
Iván Suárez Rosero and the Challenge Air Cargo Company; 16 income receipts
from the Challenge Air Cargo Company in the name of Iván Suárez; income tax
statements dated April 26, May 28, June 27, July 29, August 28, September
30, October 28, November 28, and December 30, 1991, January 28, February 28,
March 30, April 28, May 28, and June 26, 1992; income estimate (unidentified
document); document entitled “Challenge Air Cargo/No. flights/UIO”);
b) during his imprisonment and as
a consequence of the cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment to which he was
subjected he suffered physical and psychological injuries.
(cfr. psychological evaluation
of Mr Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero dated August 4, 1997, by psychologist Cecilia
Jaramillo); expert report of Cecilia Jaramillo before the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights; statement of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero before the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights);
c) he has not tried to return to
the exercise of his profession in airport security, for which he trained for
one year, for fear of being accused if there is a new incidence of drug trafficking.
(cfr. statement of Mr. Rafael
Iván Suárez Rosero before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights);
d) at the present time he is working
(cfr. statement of Mr. Rafael Iván
Suárez Rosero before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights);
e. he filed an appeal of the conviction
in his case. The appeal is still pending
resolution
(cfr. copy of the appeal filed
by Rafael Iván Suárez Rosero on September 11, 1996 with the President of the
Superior Court of Justice) and
f) on the day he was detained the
exchange rate of the sucre, the national Ecuadorian currency to the US dollar
was S/. 1,493.18 (one thousand, four hundred ninety-three sucres and eighteen
cents) to buy and S/.1,519.09 (one thousand nineteen sucres and nine cents)
to sell
(cfr. tables of the exchange rates of the US dollar
on the Ecuadorian exchange market, issued by the Central Bank of Ecuador and
the Monetary Board during the years 1992-1996).
B) with respect to Mrs. Margarita
Ramadán Burbano and the minor Micaela Suárez Ramadán
a) Micaela Suárez Ramadán was conceived at the prison and was born on
February 10, 1994, during the imprisonment of her father
(cfr. statement of Mr. Rafael Iván
Suárez Rosero before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights); and
b) due to her physical incapacity,
Mrs. Ramadán Burbano was obligated to hire the services of a domestic worker
and a driver during the imprisonment of Mr. Suárez Rosero
(cfr. statement of Mr. Rafael Iván
Suárez Rosero before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; statement of
Mrs Ana Burbano before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; copy of the
certificate of settlement signed by Margarita Ramadán, employer, and Mercedes
Llumiquinga on November 24, 1995, before the Labor Inspector of Pichincha;
copy of the letter of resignation of Mercedes Llumiquinga dated November 15,
1995; 22 documents concerning the benefits and the payroll reserve for domestic
service; copies of 24 checks made out to the name of Mercedes Llumiquinga;
copies of 18 checks made out to the name of Luz María Feria, copies of 10
checks made out to the name of Carlos Saa; sworn statement of Margarita Ramadán
Burbano, made in the city of Quito on February 16, 1998 concerning the employment
of her domestic help and driver)
C. with respect to the representation of Mr. Iván Rafael Suárez Rosero
and the expenses related to this representation.
attorneys Alejandro Ponce Villacís
and Richard Wilson represented Mr.Suárez Rosero in the proceedings before
the Inter-American Commission and Inter-American Court, and they, or the institutions
with which they are affiliated, assumed certain expenses related to those
proceedings
(cfr. documents related to the expenses and honoraria
of Mr. Richard Wilson; copy of the power of attorney granted by Mr. Iván Rafael
Suárez Rosero to Richard Wilson and Alejandro Ponce Villacís on February 3,
1998; sworn statement of Alejandro Ponce Villacís of January 1998; copy of
the advance expense form 0016523 EXP of American University, dated April 22,
1997; copies of receipts for credit
card and telephone calls from the Hotel Americano del Este; receipt number
0011234 from the Hotel Americano S.A. of April 20, 1997; receipt number 0041
from the Editorial Department of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights
dated April 17, 1997; copies of three receipts for taxi service, dated April
16 and 20, 1997; copy of an airline ticket on American Airlines; copy of an
e-mail dated February 23, 1998 and Richard Wilson’s time sheet, that include
the time he spent on the case from April 2 to June 15, 1997 (merits stage)
and from January 6 to February 24, 1998 (reparations stage); airline ticket
of Richard Wilson to the city of the seat of the Court).