In
the Trujillo Oroza case,
the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”
or “the Court”), composed of the following judges:
Antônio A. Cançado
Trindade, President;
Máximo Pacheco
Gómez, Vice President;
Hernán Salgado
Pesantes, Judge;
Oliver Jackman, Judge;
Alirio Abreu Burelli,
Judge;
Sergio García
Ramírez, Judge;
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, Judge; and
Charles N. Brower, Judge ad hoc
also
present:
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Secretary; and
Renzo Pomi, Deputy Secretary
pursuant
to Articles 55 and 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter
“the Rules of Procedure”), renders the following judgment in the instant case,
filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”
or “the Inter-American Commission”) against the Republic of Bolivia (hereinafter
“Bolivia” or “the State”).
I
Introduction
of the Case
1. On June 9, 1999, the Commission submitted
to the Court the application in this case, in which it invoked Articles 50
and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”
or “the American Convention”) and Articles 32 ff. of the Rules of Procedure.
The Commission submitted the case for the Court to decide whether Bolivia
had violated the following articles of the American Convention to the detriment
of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza: 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right
to Life), 5.1 and 5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to Personal
Liberty). It also asked to Court to determine whether
the State violated Articles 8.1 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial
Protection) to the detriment of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and his next of
kin. Furthermore, it requested that
the Court determine whether Bolivia had violated Article 5.1 and 5.2 (Right
to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin
of the victim. Lastly, it requested
that the Court decide whether Bolivia had violated Article 1.1 (Obligation
to Respect Rights) of the Convention, as a result of the violation of the
above mentioned rights.
Moreover,
the Commission requested that the Court order Bolivia:
a) to
conduct a complete, effective and impartial investigation in order to identify,
criminally prosecute and punish the State agents responsible for the detention,
torture and subsequent forced disappearance of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza,
facts that occurred as of December
23, 1971, in Santa Cruz, Bolivia;
b) to
conduct an exhaustive investigation in order to locate and identify the remains
of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and deliver them to his next of kin;
c) to
adopt urgent measures in order to prepare a draft law that classifies the
forced disappearance of persons as a crime and incorporates this into the
Bolivian Criminal Code;
d) to
adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the victim’s next of kin receive
an adequate and timely reparation that includes full satisfaction for the
corresponding human rights violations, and also payment of a fair compensation
for patrimonial and extra-patrimonial damages, including moral damages; and
e) to
assign to the State the payment of the costs and expenses that the victim’s
next of kin have incurred in order to process this case, both domestically
and before the Commission and the Court, and reasonable honoraria for their
lawyers.
II
Facts
2. In Section III of its application, the
Commission made a statement of the facts on which this case is based. In this respect, it indicated that:
a) on
December 23, 1971, José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, 21 years of age, a student
at the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés in La Paz, was arrested although no
court order had been issued by a competent authority in Santa Cruz, and transferred
to the prison compound known as El Pari;
b) on
January 15, 1972, Gladys Oroza, the mother of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza,
confirmed verbally to Colonel Rafael Loayza, Head of Intelligence of the Ministry
of the Interior, that her son had been captured. Moreover, she managed to make contact with
him and with Ernesto Morán, Chief of Police of Santa Cruz, who authorized
her to visit her son for the first time in the El Pari prison;
c) between
January 15 and February 2, 1972, Gladys Oroza managed to visit her son daily
in the El Pari prison. During the
visits, she confirmed that Mr. Trujillo Oroza had been submitted to evident
physical torture.
d) on
February 2, 1972, Gladys Oroza went to the El Pari prison to take lunch to
her son and was able to see him through the half-open door of his cell. That same day, at 5 p.m., she returned to the
prison accompanied by Guisela Brun, President of the Red Cross. She was informed by Elías Moreno, Head of the
El Pari Police Commissariat, that her son was not there and had been transferred
to the Police Station for questioning, together with two other detained men,
Carlos López Adrián and Alfonso Toledo Rosales;
e) on
February 3, 1972, Gladys Oroza returned to El Pari at 7 a.m. but none of the
three young men were there any longer. She
went to the Police Station accompanied by Beatriz de Toledo, wife of Alfonso
Toledo, who had been detained together with her son. Oscar Menacho, member of the Department of
Political Order (hereinafter “DPO”), told them that the three prisoners had
been taken to Montero, a town close to the city of Santa Cruz. Percy González
Monasterio, at that time deputy head of the DPO in Santa Cruz, told them that
“everything had been resolved and that they should wait for the head of the
DPO, Ernesto Morant.” Justo Sarmiento
Alanis, another DPO agent told them that the prisoners had been transferred
by plane to El Paraguay. Finally,
Ernesto Morant arrived at the Police Station and, at the request of Gladys
Oroza, produced a radiogram signed by Antonio Guillermo Elío, Deputy Secretary
of the Ministry of the Interior, ordering that Carlos López Adrián, Alfonso
Toledo Rosales and José Carlos Trujillo Oroza be liberated.
Subsequently, it was established that the radiogram was a piece of
evidence fabricated by the Ministry of the Interior in order to hide the crimes
and ensure the impunity of the authors.
f) in
view of the foregoing, Mrs. Oroza filed various petitions and took different
steps before the executive and legislative branches of the government, but
was unable to file a complaint before the Bolivian courts due to political
instability in the country, where fragile democratic periods were interrupted
by frequent coups d'état, the exile of direct next of kin, fear of repression
by State agents and the Judiciary’s lack of independence with regard to the
Executive; and
g) it
was only on January 8, 1999, that the State of Bolivia initiated a judicial
investigation de oficio, although
it had known about the facts immediately, in particular inasmuch as its own
agents were responsible for those facts.
III
Competence
of the Court
3. The Court is competent to hear the instant
case. Bolivia has been a State Party
to the American Convention since July 19, 1979, and recognized the obligatory
jurisdiction of the Court on July 27, 1993.
IV
Procedure
before the Commission
4. As a result of a complaint filed on September
28, 1992, the Commission began processing the case with a note of February
18, 1993, and requested Bolivia to provide pertinent information about the
facts and any element that would allow it to be determined whether remedies
under domestic law had been exhausted in the instant case.
5. On June 14, 1994, Bolivia replied to the
Commission’s request, stating that it acknowledged its “responsibility for
the facts denounced.”
6. On
September 5, 1994, in a letter to the Commission, the State acknowledged the
facts denounced and described the investigations conducted and the steps taken
with regard to the disappearance of Mr. Trujillo Oroza, which had occurred
on February 2, 1972.
7. On October 13, 1994, pursuant to Article
48.f of the Convention, the Inter-American Commission placed itself at the
disposal of the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement; however,
“after a long process of meetings and hearings before the Commission, the
parties did not reach an agreement.”
8. On
October 24, 1997, Bolivia submitted a communication to the Commission in which
it summarized the statement of Edgar Montaño, Deputy Minister of Human Rights,
who represented Bolivia in a hearing before the Commission on October 10,
1997, and who once again acknowledged the State’s responsibility for the disappearance
of the victim. However, in the same
communication, the State indicated that the proceeding before the Commission
“ha[d] not strictly adhered to the terms of the American Convention” and that
the petitioner had violated Article 46 of this Convention by not exhausting
domestic remedies, since no legal action had been initiated or concluded in
Bolivia seeking punishment of the guilty parties or compensation for the alleged
moral damages. Furthermore, it argued
that Bolivia has experienced a continuous democratic process since 1982 and
that due legal process existed under its domestic legislation for protection
of the rights that had been violated; it also called attention to the fact
that “only twenty years after the disappearance of the said person a complaint
had been brought before the Commission.”
9. On
February 25, 1998, the State offered compensation of US$40,000 (forty thousand
United States dollars) to the victim’s mother, in a hearing before the Commission.
However, Bolivia stated that there would be certain difficulties in
initiating the corresponding investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor
and suggested that it should be the victim’s mother who initiated this before
the Public Ministry. It indicated that the case was barred by the
statute of limitations and that the victim’s mother had never filed a complaint
before the corresponding judicial organs, not even after 1982, when the country
returned to the democratic system. It
added that it would be difficult and expensive to recover the victim’s remains.
10. On August 19, 1998, the Commission informed
Bolivia that, pursuant to Article 45.7 of its Regulations, it declared that
its role as organ of conciliation for a friendly settlement in the instant
case had terminated.
11. On March 2, 1999, during its 102nd
Session, the Commission held a public hearing with the parties in this case.
During this hearing, the State presented to the Commission a copy of
the communication of January 8, 1999, addressed by Mary Severich Siles, District
Public Defense Coordinator of Santa Cruz to the District Prosecutor of that
city, in which she requested the Office of the Prosecutor to order “the Judicial
Police to commence proceedings in relation to the disappearance of José Carlos
Trujillo Oroza.”
12. On March 2 and 5, 1999, Bolivia submitted
additional information regarding the “steps taken to date, since the complaint
was filed on January 9, 1999, together with a list of those sentenced for
human rights violations who are currently serving their sentences in the Republic
of Bolivia.”
13. As may be seen from the Inter-American Commission’s
application before the Court, among other elements that the Commission took
into consideration when processing the case are the following two documents
from the State:
a.
a communication
of June 9, 1994, in which the National Secretary of the Internal Regime and
Police informed the Minister of Justice that “names of persons allegedly linked
to the matter are mentioned and, consequently, it has been deemed appropriate
to instruct the National Police and the Judicial Technical Police to continue
investigations until they are concluded;” and
b.
a communication
of December 16, 1996, addressed by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs to Gladys
Oroza de Solón Romero, the victim’s mother, in which the State made a formal,
express acknowledgement of the detention, torture and forced disappearance
of the victim. Furthermore, it referred
to the authors of the facts denounced by recognizing that “the alleged masterminds
and perpetrators worked as civilian agents of the agencies of repression of
that government and, under international legislation recognized by the Republic
of Bolivia, this entails the responsibility of the Bolivian State.”
14. On
March 9, 1999, during its 102nd Session, the Commission approved
Report No. 26/99 based on Article 50 of the Convention; this was forwarded
to the State on the same day. In this
Report, the Commission recommended:
1. that a complete, impartial and effective investigation
be conducted in order to identify, criminally prosecute and punish the State
agents responsible for the detention and subsequent forced disappearance of
José Carlos Trujillo Oroza, facts that occurred as of December 23, 1971, in
Santa Cruz, Bolivia.
2. that an exhaustive investigation be carried out in order
to locate, identify and deliver the remains of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza
to his next of kin. To this end, it
would be opportune for the State to contract the services of experts in forensic
medicine, since the technical knowledge and experience of such professionals
could facilitate this procedure.
3. that urgent measures be adopted in order to prepare a draft
law that classifies the forced disappearance of persons as a crime and incorporate
it into the Bolivian Criminal Code.
4. that the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance
of Persons, an international instrument that was signed by the Bolivian State
on September 14, 1994, be ratified.
6. that the necessary measures be adopted so that the next
of kin of the victim receive an adequate and timely reparation that signifies
full satisfaction for the human rights violations established herein, and
also payment of fair compensation for patrimonial and extra-patrimonial damages,
including moral damages.
Furthermore, the Commission agreed:
to transmit this report to the
State of Bolivia and grant it a period of two months to comply with its recommendations.
This period will be calculated from the date the report is transmitted
to the State, which shall not be authorized to publish it.
Likewise, the Commission agrees to notify the petitioners that a report
has been approved, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention on Human
Rights.
15. On
March 17, 1999, Bolivia replied to the Commission’s Report indicating that
the State’s decision to unilaterally initiate an investigation to clarify
the facts had been ignored in the sections “Analysis” and “Recommendations”
of the Report, which are the most relevant, and is only mentioned in the section
“Summary.” Furthermore, Bolivia indicated
that it had already complied with the recommendations to prepare a draft law
that classifies forced disappearance as a crime and to ratify the Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Lastly, it requested that the Commission incorporate
the aforementioned information in the Report objectively, so that it could
be taken into consideration when the case was being examined.
16. On
May 7, 1999, Bolivia expanded its previous brief, requesting that the Commission
reconsider Report No. 26/99, since it allegedly omitted information and was
based on arguments that had been rectified by Bolivia “with the offer of acquiescence
to the terms of the arrangements suggested by the petitioner (the victim’s
mother), with the sole condition of confidentiality during the course of the
proceeding.” Moreover, the State manifested
its surprise regarding the Commission’s recommendations, as many of them had
already been complied with.
17. With
regard to the investigation of the facts, Bolivia indicated that, in order
to continue this, the victim’s mother should ratify the complaint before the
domestic authorities. It said that
the Commission had not referred to the 21 years that had elapsed between the
fact and the complaint presented to the Commission.
It added that no complaint had been presented before the judicial authorities
throughout the democratic period enjoyed by Bolivia since 1982, and this attitude
shows that the petitioner “is hiding some political motive.” Moreover, Bolivia stated that, in 1979, the
victim’s mother denounced that her son had been shot to death, as can be seen
in the Congress of the Republic’s file corresponding to the action on responsibilities
against the national government of that time, which showed that the petitioner
had filed the same case twice, with different characterizations (before the
Congress of the Republic and before the Commission).
18. With
regard to the State’s reply, in summary, the Commission advised that:
a) it
had not only evaluated and examined the information provided by Bolivia, but
had also recorded it when processing and analyzing the case in the Report;
b) the
effort made by the State to investigate the facts and punish those responsible
was insufficient, since in January 1999, Mary Severich, District Public Defense
Coordinator of the Ministry of Justice in Santa Cruz, requested the Prosecutor
to order the Judicial Police to commence steps to establish responsibility
and punish the guilty parties but since January and until the day the application
was presented to the Court, Bolivia did not provide evidence that would demonstrate
any jurisdictional activity tending to punish those responsible;
c) the
State did not comply with the Commission’s recommendation to prepare a draft
law classifying forced disappearance of persons as a crime and incorporate
it into the Criminal Code; it even contradicted itself, because in one communication
it indicated that disappearance was already contemplated under its criminal
laws and in a subsequent communication that it would propose a draft Criminal
Code in which crimes against personal safety such as forced disappearance
were characterized;
d) it
is unnecessary for the victim’s mother to ratify the complaint under domestic
jurisdiction, because it should be prosecuted de oficio, because it is an offense involving a criminal action;
e) the
situation in Bolivia at the time the facts occurred (violence and political
instability) did not allow the victim’s next of kin to access effective remedies
in order to determine the whereabouts of the victim, who disappeared as of
February 2, 1972. For the same reason,
they were unable to file an application for habeas corpus;
f) guarantees
of due legal process for the protection of the rights violated to the detriment
of Mr. Trujillo Oroza do not exist in the domestic legislation; and
g) Bolivia
has still not deposited the instrument ratifying the Inter-American Convention
on Forced Disappearance of Persons before the Secretary General of the Organization
of American States.
19. The
Commission considered that the reply presented by Bolivia to Report No. 26/99
did not demonstrate adequate compliance with its recommendations; consequently,
on May 9, 1999, it decided to submit the case to the Court.
V
Proceeding
before the Court
20. The application in this case was submitted
to the Court on June 9, 1999.
21. The Commission appointed Alvaro Tirado Mejía
as delegate; Hernando Valencia Villa, Deputy Executive Secretary of the Commission,
and Milton Castillo Rodríguez, Principal Specialist of the Secretariat as
lawyers; and Viviana Krsticevic, Raquel Aldana and María Claudia Pulido, members
of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and José Miguel Vivanco,
Director of Human Rights Watch/Americas, as assistants.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 22.2 of the Rules of Procedure,
the Commission advised that the assistants represented the victim’s next of
kin.
22. On June 24, 1999, the Secretariat of the
Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), following instructions of the President
of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), pursuant to the provisions of
Articles 33 and 34 of the Rules of Procedure, requested the Commission to
forward certain annexes to the application that were incomplete or illegible,
as soon as possible. On June 25, 1999,
once the President had examined them, the Secretariat notified the application
and its annexes to the State. Furthermore,
it informed the State that it should appoint an agent and a deputy agent and
designate a judge ad hoc within
one month, submit preliminary objections within two months, and reply to the
application within four months. On
June 30, 1999, the Commission replaced the incomplete or illegible annexes.
23. In a communication received by the Court
on July 20, 1999, Bolivia appointed Gastón Ríos Anaya as its agent. On July 22, 1999, the State rectified its previous
communication and advised that it was appointing Gastón Ríos Anaya as judge
ad hoc and Fabián Volio Echeverría
as agent. On July 27, 1999, Bolivia
submitted Mr. Ríos Anaya’s curriculum vitae.
24. On
August 20, 1999, on the President’s instructions, the Secretariat sent a note
to Gastón Ríos Anaya, informing him that it had observed from his curriculum
vitae that, at that time, he was Legal Advisor to the Ministry of the Presidency
of the Republic. Accordingly, based
on Articles 18 and 19 of the Statute of the Court (hereinafter “the Statute”),
in order to ensure the transparency of the proceeding and pursuant to the
Statute, it requested him to advise whether, due to the exercise of this position,
he was a member or official of the executive branch of government, and whether
he was subject to any kind of hierarchical subordination within the executive
branch.
25. On August 26, 1999, Mr. Ríos Anaya sent
a communication in which he indicated that he had performed the function of
Legal Advisor to the Ministry of the Presidency of the Republic until the
first quarter of 1998 and that, at that time, he was not “subject to any kind
of hierarchical subordination within the executive branch”; he attached a
certification confirming this fact. He
also stated that “he ha[d] no incompatibility, impediment or disqualification
for the position.”
26. On September 7, 1999, Bolivia presented
a brief in which it indicated that Gastón Ríos Anaya had resigned as judge
ad hoc and that Charles N. Brower had been
appointed to replace him.
27. On September 8, 1999, the State submitted
its brief with preliminary objections.
28. On September 9, 1999, the State transmitted
a copy of Charles N. Brower’s curriculum vitae.
29. On October 5, 1999, Charles N. Brower forwarded
the record of the sworn declaration with his acceptance of the position of
judge ad hoc in the instant case.
30. On November 9, 1999, Bolivia presented a
brief as “evidence of progress in the judicial investigation opened in order
to clarify the Trujillo Oroza case.”
31. On November 22, 1999, the Commission submitted
its brief with observations on the State’s preliminary objections.
32. On December 6, 1999, the President of the
Court invited the State and the Commission to a public hearing on the preliminary
objections, which was held on January 25, 2000, at the seat of the Court.
At that time, the declaration of a witness offered by the State would
also be heard.
33. In a brief of January 21, 2000, the State
indicated that “it had decided to withdraw the preliminary objections to [the]
application that it had filed, because the Government of the Republic wished
to reach a friendly settlement with the victim’s next of kin.” It also requested the Court to pronounce judgment
in order to “conclude this stage and open the reparations stage.”
34. In an order of January 25, 2000, the Court
decided:
1. To consider that the preliminary objections
filed by the State of Bolivia had been withdrawn.
2. To continue with the proceeding on
the merits of the case and, to this end, to change the purpose of the public
hearing on preliminary objections convened by the President of the Court in
an order of December 6, 1999, so as to consider other aspects of the brief
submitted by the State of Bolivia on January 21, 2000.
35. On January 25, 2000, the public hearing
on this case was held.
There
appeared before the Court
for the State of Bolivia:
Fabián
Volio Echeverría, Agent; and
Ambassador Oscar Daza Márquez.
for the Inter-American Commission:
Hélio Bicudo, Delegate;
Milton Castillo Rodríguez, Lawyer; and
Viviana Krsticevic, Assistant.
VI
Acquiescence
36. At the public hearing of January 25, 2000,
Bolivia acknowledged the facts presented by the Commission in Section III
of its application, which are summarized in paragraph 2 of this judgment. In the same way, the State acknowledged its
international responsibility in the instant case and accepted the legal consequences
deriving from the facts mentioned (supra, para. 2).
37. During the public hearing, the State’s agent
declared that
[a]s the Government had already manifested to
the victim’s mother, the Government representatives had stated before the
Commission, we presented in a brief on preliminary objections and we reiterate
at this time, the Government of the Republic of Bolivia formally acknowledges
responsibility for the facts and consequently withdraws the preliminary objections.
[I]n the report on preliminary objections […]
the Government of Bolivia requested […] that, if the Honorable Court dismissed
the preliminary objections, it should declare as follows: a) that the State
of Bolivia acknowledged the facts; b) that the State of Bolivia had already
given written satisfaction to the petitioner and her family, offering the
corresponding apologies and thereby providing moral satisfaction; c) that
the State of Bolivia had modified and was modifying its domestic legislation
so as to avoid the reoccurrence of such facts and so that the forced disappearance
of persons was punished; d) that the criminal judicial investigation opened
on the Government’s initiative to judge those suspected of the facts is a
satisfactory measure for investigating the facts, in order to punish the guilty
parties and find the victim’s body; e) that the State of Bolivia has offered
the petitioner and her family total compensation of forty thousand United
States dollars and that this amount is fair and reasonable.
38. In this respect, the Inter-American Commission
expressed its satisfaction for the formal declaration acknowledging responsibility
made by the State.
39. Article 52.2 of the Rules of Procedures
stipulates that
[i]f the
respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence in the claims of the party
that has brought the case, the Court shall decide, after hearing the opinions
of the latter and the representatives of the victims or their next of kin,
whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the
appropriate reparations and indemnities.
40. Based on the statements of the parties during
the public hearing on January 25, 2000, and, on the acceptance of the facts
and the acknowledgement of responsibility by Bolivia, the Court considers
that the dispute between the State and the Commission with regard to the facts
that originated the instant case has ceased (Cf. Caracazo case. Judgment
of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para.
41;
Benavides Cevallos case. Judgment
of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38,
para. 42; Garrido and Baigorria case.
Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series
C No. 26, para. 27; El Amparo case. Judgment of January 18, 1995. Series C No. 19, para. 20 and Aloeboetoe et al case. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11, para. 23).
41. Consequently, the Court considers that the
facts referred to in paragraph 2 of this judgment have been acknowledged.
The Court also considers that, as the State expressly acknowledged,
it incurred international responsibility for violating the rights protected
by Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5.1 and
5.2 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8.1 (Right
to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), in relation with Article
1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the Convention, to the detriment of
the persons mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment, and as set forth in
that paragraph.
42. The Court recognizes that Bolivia’s acquiescence
is a positive contribution to this proceeding and to the exercise of the principles
that inspire the American Convention on Human Rights.
43. In view
of Bolivia’s acknowledgement of responsibility, it is in order to proceed
to the reparations stage (Cr. Caracazo
case, supra 37, para. 44; Aloeboetoe
et al case, supra 41, para.
23; El Amparo case, supra 41, para. 21 and Garrido
and Baigorria case, supra 41,
para. 30), during which the Court will examine the petitions of the victim’s
next of kin or their representatives and of the Commission, and also the observations
of the State relating to this stage.
VII
Therefore,
THE COURT,
DECIDES:
unanimously,
1. To accept the acquiescence to the facts
and the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State.
2. To declare, in accordance with the terms
of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, that it violated the rights
protected by Articles 1.1, 3, 4, 5.1 and 5.2, 7, 8.1 and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of the persons cited in paragraph
1 of this judgment, as set forth in that paragraph.
3. To open the reparations proceedings and
authorize the President to adopt the corresponding measures.
Done
in Spanish and in English, the Spanish text being authentic, at San José,
Costa Rica, the twenty-sixth day of January 2000.
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President
Máximo
Pacheco Gómez
Hernán Salgado Pesantes
Oliver Jackman
Alirio Abreu Burelli
Sergio García Ramírez Carlos Vicente
de Roux Rengifo
Charles N. Brower, Judge ad hoc
Manuel E.
Ventura Robles
Secretary
So ordered,
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
President
Manuel E. Ventura Robles
Secretary