The "Street Children" Case, Judgment of May 26, 2001, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 77 (2001).


 

 

In the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al. vs. Guatemala),

 

the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”) composed of the following judges*:

 

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, President

Hernán Salgado Pesantes, 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, Deputy Secretary

 

in accordance with 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 the judgment of November 19, 1999, delivers this judgment on reparations.

 

 

 

 

 

I

Competence

 

1.         As established in Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, the Court has competence to decide on reparations and expenses in the instant case, because on May 25, 1978, the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter “Guatemala” or “the State”) ratified the American Convention and on March 9, 1987, it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.

 

II

Background

 

2.         This case was submitted to the Court by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) in an application of January 30, 1997, accompanied by Report No. 33/96 of October 16, 1996.  It originated with a petition (No. 11,383) against Guatemala received by the Secretariat of the Commission on September 15, 1994.

 

3.         On November 19, 1999, the Court delivered judgment on the merits of the case, in which it decided:

 

1.             to declare that the State violated Article 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes;

 

2.             to declare that the State violated Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales;

 

3.             to declare that the State violated Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval;

 

4.             to declare that the State violated Article 5(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of the mothers of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Ana María Contreras, Matilde Reyna Morales García, Rosa Carlota Sandoval, Margarita Sandoval Urbina, Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia and Noemí Cifuentes;

 

5.             to declare that the State violated Article 19 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales;

 

6.             to declare that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez and Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales and their immediate next of kin;

 

7.             to declare that the State violated Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes;

 

8.             to declare that the State violated Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights regarding the obligation to investigate, and that the State should conduct a real and effective investigation to determine the persons responsible for the human rights violations referred to in this judgment and eventually punish them; and

 

9.             to open the phase of reparations and costs and authorize the President to adopt the corresponding procedural measures.

 

 

III

Proceedings at the Reparations Stage

 

4.         On January 20, 2000, the President of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “the President”), in compliance with the provisions of the ninth operative paragraph of the judgment on merits, decided:

 

1.             To grant the next of kin of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Anstrau[n] Aman Villagrán Morales or, if appropriate, their legal representatives until March 20, 2000, to submit, for themselves or in representation of the dead victims, the arguments and evidence at their disposal, for the determination of reparations and costs.

 

2.             To instruct the Secretariat of the Court to transmit to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights all the briefs and evidence received, once the period referred to in the preceding paragraph has expired.

 

3.             To grant the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights a two-month period, as of the date of receipt of the said briefs and evidence, to submit the comments it deems pertinent concerning reparations and costs.

 

4.             To instruct the Secretariat of the Court to transmit to the State of Guatemala all the briefs and evidence submitted, once the period referred to in the previous paragraph has expired.

 

5.             To grant the State of Guatemala a two-month period as of the date of receipt of the briefs and evidence referred to in the previous operative paragraph to submit its observations and the evidence at its disposal for the determination of reparations and costs in the instant case.

 

6.             To summon the next of kin of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Anstrau[n] Aman Villagrán Morales or, if appropriate, their legal representatives, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the State of Guatemala to a public hearing to be held on a date that will be announced in due course, once the written stage of the procedure concludes.

 

5.         On March 14, 2000, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin requested the Court to extend by 45 days the period for submitting its brief on reparations, which the Court had established in its order of January 20, 2000.

 

6.         On March 15, 2000, the President extended the period granted to the victims’ next of kin until May 5 that year.

 

7.         On April 7, 2000, the State informed the Court that it had appointed José Alberto Briz Gutiérrez, Chargé d’Affaires a. i. of the Embassy of Guatemala in the Republic of Costa Rica, as its agent.

 

8.         On May 5, 2000, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin submitted their brief on reparations.   

 

9.         On July 7, 2000, the Commission requested the Court to extend until August 4, 2000, the period that had been established until July 12 that year for submitting its brief on reparations.  The same day, the President granted the requested extension.  On August 2, 2000, the Commission requested a further extension until August 21 that year, because it had “to seek certain information and documents from the next of kin in Guatemala to complete [the] list of beneficiaries.”  On August 3, 2000, the President granted the extension until the date requested.

 

10.       On August 21, 2000, the Inter-American Commission submitted its brief on reparations in the instant case in English with its annexes.

 

11.       On August 23, 2000, the Secretariat requested the Commission to present the brief on reparations in Spanish, since the case was being processed in that language.

 

12.       On September 14, 2000, the Spanish version of the Commission’s brief on reparations was received.  The Commission submitted three additional annexes with the said brief (infra para. 44).

 

13.       On September 28, 2000, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and Guatemala to submit their comments on the request to incorporate the additional annexes submitted by the Commission and granted them until October 30, 2000, to do so.

 

14.       On October 27, 2000, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin informed the Court that they had no objections or comments on the additional annexes submitted by the Commission.

 

15.       On November 7, 2000, the State requested the Court to grant a 90-day extension to the period established for formulating its observations on the briefs on reparations submitted by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission, as well as on the admission of the documents contained in the three additional annexes to the Commission’s brief on reparations.  On November 15, 2000, the Secretariat advised Guatemala that the period for submitting the said comments had been extended until January 13, 2001.

 

16.       On November 13, 2000, the State informed the Court that it had appointed Jorge Mario García Laguardia, Ambassador of Guatemala to Costa Rica, as its agent.

 

17.       On November 15, 2000, the Court decided to request the State to remit any information that it had available on the current place of residence or work, or any other place, where the next of kin of Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez and Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes could be found.  It also decided to ask the State to inform the said persons who are under its jurisdiction, through the mass media (the press, radio and television), that the Court had delivered judgment on the merits of the case and that they should communicate with the Court as soon as possible.

 

18.       On November 24, 2000, the Secretariat requested the Commission to provide a final list of the witnesses and experts who would appear at the public hearing on reparations to be held in the instant case.

 

19.       On November 30, 2000, the State forwarded information that the publications in the media required by the order of November 15, 2000, had been completed.

 

20.       On December 14, 2000, the State remitted photocopies of the announcements published in the newspapers, La Hora, and Diario de Centro América; a audio-cassette with the spot broadcast on Emisoras Unidas, and a videotape containing the announcement shown on NOTI-7 of the Guatemalan national television service.

 

21.       On January 12, 2001, Guatemala submitted its observations on the briefs on reparations submitted by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission.

 

22.       On January 30, 2001, the Secretariat again requested the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission to provide the final list of the witnesses and experts who would appear at the public hearing on reparations to be held by the Court.

 

23.       On February 7, 2001, the representatives of the victims proposed Christian Salazar Volkmann and Emilio García Méndez as experts, the latter in substitution for Bruce Harris, who had been proposed originally and who, for personal reasons, could not appear before the Court; on February 8 that year, they forwarded the curriculum vitae of Mr. García Méndez.

 

24.       On February 7, 2001, the Commission submitted the list of the witnesses and experts that it wished to be summoned to the respective public hearing.  In this note, it proposed Margarita Urbina, Ana María Contreras and Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia as witnesses and Ana Deutsch as an expert.  It also said that it would propose a member of the family of Anstraun Aman Villagrán Morales, without indicating a name.  Moreover, it advised that, following the publication of the announcements ordered by the Court, Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia, the mother of Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, had presented herself at the offices of the Asociación Casa Alianza/América Latina (hereinafter “Casa Alianza”) and had stated that she wished to take part in the proceeding.  On February 8 that year, the Commission forwarded the curriculum vitae of Ana Deutsch.

 

25.       On February 9, 2001, the Secretariat sent a letter to the Commission acknowledging the witnesses and expert it had proposed and, on the instructions of the President, informed the Commission, inter alia, that, pursuant to Article 27(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the parties who enter a case at a later stage of the proceeding shall take up the proceedings at that stage and that the period for the victims’ next of kin or their representatives to submit arguments on reparations had already expired.  It also informed the Commission that, should Mrs. Túnchez Palencia or her representative submit her claims with regard to reparations, “the Court [would] evaluate them, taking into consideration the circumstances of the case and [would] decide on their admissibility.”

 

26.       On February 9, 2001, the President issued an order in which, on the one hand, he considered “[...that] with regard to the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission who ha[d] not been summoned by this order, [he would] evaluate the pertinence of summoning them when he ha[d] consulted the other parties to the case” and, on the other, he decided to summon the representatives of the victims’ next of kin, the Inter-American Commission and Guatemala to a public hearing on reparations to be held at the seat of the Court on March 12, 2001.  In this order, he summoned the witnesses, Ana María Contreras and Margarita Urbina, and the expert, Christian Salazar Volkmann.

 

27.       On February 9, 2001, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the State to forward their comments on the notes submitted by the Commission on February 7 and 8 that year. The same day, the Secretariat requested the Commission and the State to forward their comments on the notes submitted by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin on February 7 and 8, 2001.

 

28.       The same day, the Commission requested the Court to summon Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, sister of Anstraun Aman Villagrán Morales, to declare as a witness.  On February 12, 2001, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested comments on this request from the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the State, but they did not submit them.

 

29.       On February 21, 2001, the President summoned the witnesses, Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia and Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, and the experts, Emilio García Méndez and Ana Deutsch, to make their statements during the public hearing on reparations to be held at the seat of the Court on March 12, 2001.

 

30.       On March 2, 2001, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission to submit the birth certificates of Reyna Dalila and Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales, pursuant to Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure.

 

31.       On March 12, 2001, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin submitted two powers of attorney in which Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales and Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia granted full powers of representation to the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”) and Casa Alianza.

 

32.       On March 12, 2001, the Court held a public hearing on reparations.

 

 

 

 

 

There appeared before the Court:

 

for the representatives of the victims’ next of kin:

 

Viviana Krsticevic

Héctor Dionisio

Luguely Cunillera

Soraya Long, and

Juan Carlos Gutiérrez.

 

for the Inter-American Commission:

 

Claudio Grossman, delegate, and

Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, lawyer

 

for the State of Guatemala:

 

Cruz Munguía Sosa, and

Carlos Roberto Sandoval Aldana.

 

Experts proposed by the victims’ next of kin:

 

Christian Salazar Volkmann, and

Emilio García Méndez.

 

Witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission:

 

Ana María Contreras

Margarita Urbina

Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, and

Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia.

 

Expert proposed by the Inter-American Commission:

 

Ana Deutsch.

 

33.       The same day, during the public hearing and at the request of the President, the expert, Christian Salazar Volkmann, submitted copies of the following: a document entitled “Estudio sobre Adopciones and Derechos de los Niños y las Niñas en Guatemala. Guatemala, 2000” (Study of adoptions and rights of the child in Guatemala); a document entitled “Aproximación situacional del niño, niña y adolescente de la calle” (Report on the situation of street children); and a document entitled “Violación a los Derechos Humanos de los Niños de la Calle” (Violation of the human rights of street children) (infra paras. 46 and 52).

 

34.       On March 28, 2001, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission to present the duly authenticated birth certificates or appropriate documents of Guadalupe Concepción and Zorayda Izabel Figueroa Túnchez, as evidence that would be helpful, pursuant to Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure.

35.       On April 19, 2001, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin submitted copies of the birth certificates of Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales, Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, Guadalupe Concepción Figueroa Túnchez and Zorayda Izabel Figueroa Túnchez and on May 7, 2001, they forwarded a copy of the birth certificate of Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez.

 

IV

Evidence

 

 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON EVIDENCE

 

36.       Before examining the evidence received, the Court will define the general criteria for evaluating evidence and will make some observations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed previously by the jurisprudence of this Court.

 

37.       Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that:

 

Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto and, when appropriate, in the document setting out the preliminary objections and in the answer thereto. [...]  Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense.

 

38.       Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure indicates that at any stage of the case, the Court may:

 

1.             Obtain, on is own motion, any evidence it considers helpful. In particular, it may hear as a witness, expert witness, or in any other capacity, any person whose evidence, statement or opinion it deems to be relevant.

 

2.             Request the parties to provide any evidence within their reach or any explanation or statement that, in its opinion, may be useful.

 

3.             Request any entity, office, organ or authority of its choice to obtain information, express an opinion, or deliver a report or pronouncement on any given point.  The documents may not be published without the authorization of the Court.

 

[...]

 

39.       According to the consistent practice of the Court, during the reparations stage, the parties must indicate the evidence that they will offer at the first occasion granted to them to make a written statement.  Moreover, the exercise of the Court’s discretional powers, stipulated in Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, allows it to request the parties to provide additional elements of evidence to help it make a more informed decision; however, this does not grant the parties another opportunity to expand or complete their arguments or offer new evidence on reparations, unless the Court so allows[1].

40.       The Court has indicated previously that the proceedings before it are not subject to the same formalities as domestic proceedings and that, when incorporating determined elements into the body of evidence, particular attention must be paid to the circumstances of the specific case and to the limits imposed by respect for legal certainty and the procedural equality of the parties[2].  International jurisprudence has upheld the power of the courts to evaluate the evidence within the limits of sound judicial discretion and has always avoided making a rigid determination of the amount of evidence required to support a judgment[3].

 

41.       This practice extends to the briefs in which the representatives of the victims or, when applicable, their next of kin, and the Inter-American Commission formulate their claims for reparations and to the State’s answering brief, which are the principal documents at this stage and, in general, entail the same formalities with regard to the offer of evidence as the application.

 

42.       On this basis, the Court will proceed to examine and evaluate all the elements that make up the body of evidence in this case, according to the rule of sound judicial discretion[4], within the legal framework of the instant case.

 

A) Documentary Evidence

 

43.       When submitting their brief on reparations, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin attached, as evidence, eight annexes with 34 documents[5] and numerous documents supporting expenses.

44.       The Inter-American Commission attached six annexes, containing six documents, as evidence with its brief on reparations[6].  When submitting the Spanish version of this brief, it attached three more documents[7].

 

45.       The State attached one piece of documentary evidence to its brief with comments on the briefs on reparations of the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission[8].

 

46.       At the request of the President, the expert witness, Christian Salazar Volkmann, submitted copies of three documents[9] during the public hearing on reparations.

*

*          *

 

47.       In this case, the Court admits the value as evidence of those documents that were submitted by the parties at the appropriate time, that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not disputed[10].

 

48.       With regard to the annexes forwarded by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin to show that Anstraun Aman Villagrán Morales, Henry Giovanni Contreras (evidence of employment) and Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval worked, the State alleged that they were not reliable and lacked the necessary legal requirements to be admitted as evidence.  Likewise, with regard to the sworn declarations of Margarita Urbina[11], Ana María Contreras and Matilde Reyna Morales García made before the notary, Gustavo Rodolfo de León Rodas on April 6, 2000, the State objected to them and requested that they be declared inadmissible, because it considered that the witnesses were not qualified to “emit opinions with regard to their own family members, since there arguments could be entirely biased” and “they merely state that their respective family members were employed before they died”.  The State added that such declarations lacked the necessary formal elements.  In this regard, this Court considers that, in accordance with the criteria of flexibility in receiving evidence mentioned above, such annexes and declarations should be admitted and reserves the right to evaluate their value as evidence, applying the rule of sound judicial discretion, and within the context of the body of evidence[12].

 

49.       Regarding the additional evidence forwarded by the Commission with the Spanish version of its brief on reparations (supra para. 44), the Court considers that, in principle, it is useful for deciding the instant case and, therefore, adds it to the body of evidence in application of the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure.  Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that the said documentation refers to the child, Wilson Ravid Agreda Vásquez, who is the son of Henry Giovanni Contreras, according to the sworn declaration made by Ana María Contreras on August 24, 2000, and her statement at the public hearing.  However, the copy of the birth record of Wilson Ravid Agreda Vásquez states that he is the son of María del Rosario Vásquez Escobar and Ravid Lorenzo Agreda Orellana.  Since the latter is a public document and there is no document of the same standing in the file that contradicts it, this Court cannot recognize that the person in question is the son of Henry Giovanni Contreras.

 

50.       On April 19, 2001, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin submitted copies of the birth certificates of Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales, Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, Guadalupe Concepción Figueroa Túnchez and Zorayda Izabel Figueroa Túnchez and, on May 7, 2001, they submitted the birth certificate of Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, as evidence to help it make a more informed decision, in compliance with the President’s request (supra para. 34).  These documents are therefore admitted and will be evaluated within the body of evidence submitted in the instant case, in accordance with Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

 

51.       The Commission added to the file a document produced by the National Institute of Statistics of Guatemala (INE) entitled “Guatemala: Tablas Abreviadas de Mortalidad (Período 1990-1995)” (Guatemala: Summary Mortality Tables (1990-1995)) to show the life expectancy of the victims.  This Court will bear in mind the relevant information when determining the life expectancy of the victims – this is understood to be the number of additional years that each victim might have lived – and it will also take into consideration data such as the age, sex and geographical zone of residence.

 

52.       With regard to the documents submitted by the expert, Christian Salazar Volkmann, during the public hearing, at the request of the President (supra para. 46), the Court considers that they are useful within the context of the body of evidence and incorporates them, in accordance with Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure.  It proceeds in the same way with regard to the following documents: “Historia del Salario Mínimo Mensual, según año 1980 - 1995” (Record of the Minimum Monthly Wage, by year: 1980-1995) and “Guatemala: Estadísticas del Tipo de Cambio Promedio Mensual, años 1996 - 2000” (Guatemala: Statistics on the Average Monthly Exchange Rate, 1996-2000), Economic Studies Department, Balance of Payments Section.

 

53.       It should also be pointed out that the body of evidence of a case is unique and cannot be separated and is made up of the evidence submitted at all stages of the proceeding[13]; thus, the statements made by Ana María Contreras, Matilde Reyna Morales García, Rosa Angélica Vega, Julia Griselda Ramírez López, Osvelí Arcadio Joaquín Tema, Delfino Hernández García, Roberto Marroquín Urbina and Ayende Anselmo Ardiano Paz and the expert reports of Roberto Carlos Bux and Alberto Bovino during the public hearing held by this Court on the merits of the case on January 28 and 29, also form part of the evidence that will be considered during this stage.

 

 

B) Testimonial Evidence

 

54.       During the public hearing on March 12, 2001, the Court received the statements of the witnesses proposed by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Inter-American Commission.  These statements are summarized below:

 

 

 

a)         Testimony of Ana María Contreras, mother of Henry Giovanni Contreras

 

Henry Giovanni was a child who was devoted to his home and who went to school up to fourth year.  His father had already died when he was born.

 

She has three other children, all of them younger than Henry Giovanni: Shirley Marlen Agreda Contreras, 20 years of age, Mónica Renata Agreda Contreras, 18, and Osman Ravid Agreda Contreras, 16. The first two completed secretarial and computer training, respectively, and currently work selling lots; the youngest is studying in the third year of basic studies.  The victim had an affectionate relationship with his siblings. One year before his death, the witness found out that Henry Giovanni had a son, Wilson Ravid Agreda Vázquez, and she took charge of the latter when his mother gave him to her.  The child’s mother never came back for him.  At that time, the child was two years of age and he is now 12.  The witness has paid for his studies and his medical expenses since he was two, and it has been difficult to raise him, but he has been educated just as if he was another son of the family.  Currently, she pays all his school expenses.  Wilson suffers from his father’s absence.  The reason why he does not appear as Henry Giovanni’s son on the birth record is that Henry Giovanni had not attained 18 years of age in order to recognize paternity; therefore, after he died, the father of his half-brothers, the witness’s husband, recognized the child as his son.

 

Henry Giovanni lived at home officially until he was approximately 14 years of age, after which he began to live on the street, during irregular periods of time.  The witness looked for him on the streets when a certain time had passed and he had not returned home, because she was concerned about him.  Her husband - Henry Giovanni’s stepfather – humiliated him, particularly after his other three children were born, and this was the main reason that Henry Giovanni left the house.  In the months before his death, the victim was already living at home again and Casa Alianza had found him a permanent, stable job in a printing shop, where he worked for five months for a monthly wage of 60 or 70 quetzales.  Henry Giovanni began working when he was about 11 years of age in carpentry, plumbing, as a mechanic, or selling food and handicrafts in the street.  He wanted to continue studying and work for his family.  When Henry Giovanni began to study again, he helped her take care of his siblings, while she went to work as a “maid.”  From the age of 14, the victim helped his family materially and financially, constantly and regularly.  At that time he earned about 15 or 20 quetzales, and he gave his mother up to half of this amount or brought home food and clothes, and this represented almost half the household expenses, including the expenses of the siblings.  Even when he left the house, he contributed something every month or two.  When the victim died, the family’s financial situation was constrained.  In Guatemala, it is usual for children to contribute towards the household needs and, when they leave the home, they are free to continue supporting their parents in their old age or not.

 

When she found out about the death of her son, she suffered from neuralgia and facial paralysis for almost two years, and she received no specific treatment for this.  At present, she also suffers from gastritis.  She still has these health problems, but she has not been able to receive medical attention owing to lack of money or due to her work.  During that period she almost abandoned her other children.  Six or seven months after the death, her home disintegrated because “she threw” her husband out of the house.  Owing to lack of money, she could not organize the type of wake and burial that she wanted for her son.  Neither could she have his body exhumed, and he is still buried as XX. She would still like to formally bury him with a gravestone.  She and her family still feel the presence of Henry Giovanni in their lives.  It would be important to know that those responsible for the death of her son had been punished.  As a result of the proceeding before the Court, she expects justice and some measure such as a school for street children, where they can be safe during the day.  The witness believes that the State of Guatemala has not guaranteed her rights.

 

b)        Testimony of Margarita Urbina, grandmother of Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval

 

Since Julio Roberto died, his mother, Rosa Carlota Sandoval, who was her daughter, has also died. Julio Roberto had no siblings. From an early age, he lived with the witness and occasionally with his mother, because his stepfather mistreated him.  Julio Roberto never knew his father.  He was a well-behaved child.

 

They were very poor and she sent him out to shine shoes, sell candies or extract sand from the hillside to sell to the “big houses’.  From the age of six, he worked to help her and to improve their living conditions. He bought food for her every day.  Julio Roberto did not attend school because they were too poor to pay for his schooling. When they had nowhere to live, they lived on the street.

 

Julio Roberto talked to her about his expectations for the future and about his wish to continue working in order to improve their financial situation.  Julio Roberto’s death was extremely painful for her.  Moreover, he was her only financial support, and since then she has had virtually nowhere to live.

 

At present she lives on a lot “covered by nylon” and there is no one who can help her.  She extracts sand and sells it to make a living.

 

c)         Testimony of Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, sister of Anstraun Aman Villagrán Morales

 

Her mother is Matilde Reyna Morales García. She has three siblings: Lorena Dianeth Villagrán Morales, Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales and Blanca Elisa Albizurú Morales. The latter is only her sister on her mother’s side, and Anstraun Aman did not know her.  Her father abandoned them when the witness was seven years of age.  She has been working since she was nine years of age, owing to the family’s financial situation at that time.  She has four daughters and one son and they all go to school.

 

Anstraun Aman was a hardworking, studious, obedient, well-mannered and unassuming child.  She had a very good relationship with him, because he looked after his siblings while their mother worked during the day to maintain the family.  Anstraun Aman worked in the mornings from the age of eight or nine; he studied in the afternoon and had reached sixth grade of primary school.  At the time of the events, he was studying in “basic primary” at night.  He had lived on the street since he was 14 or 15 years of age, he worked and, every week, he gave part of what he earned to his mother.  The most he earned was 65 quetzales a week.  This financial support was very important to the family.  He returned to his home almost every day, except on some occasions when he remained on the street for a longer period.  His family was concerned about his welfare and safety, and went out looking for him when he did not return home.  Casa Alianza assisted Anstraun Aman and found him work in a kiosk where he helped to clean up and lift heavy loads; this improved his behavior and he returned home more often.

 

In Guatemala – in the social environment to which they belonged – it is usual for children to contribute to the living expenses of their parents and siblings until the age of 18 and, if they are not married by that age, they can continue helping their families.  When their parents are old, the children once again help them financially.

 

When her brother died, the witness was 20 or 21 years of age.  For her, the most difficult result of his death was to see her mother in a lamentable physical and psychological state.  She developed diabetes and almost ceased speaking.  At that time, the witness’s mother was pregnant, suffered several complications and al