HAVING SEEN:
1. The June 22, 1994 order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”)
whereby:
1. [It] require[d] the Government
of Guatemala to adopt without delay measures to protect the right to life
and the personal integrity of PATRICIA ISPANEL MEDIMILLA, MARCOS GODINEZ PEREZ,
NATIVIDAD GODINEZ PEREZ, MARIA SALES LOPEZ, RAMIRO GODINEZ PEREZ, JUAN GODINEZ
PEREZ, MIGUEL GODINEZ DOMINGO, ALBERTO GODINEZ, MARIA GARCIA DOMINGO, GONZALO
GODINEZ LOPEZ, ARTURO FEDERICO MENDEZ ORTIZ and ALFONSO MORALES JIMENEZ.
2. [It] request[ed] the Government
of Guatemala to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the aforementioned
persons may continue to reside at or return to their homes in Colotenango,
providing them the assurances that they shall not be persecuted or threatened
by agents of the Government or by individuals.
[...];
2. The Court’s December 1, 1994 order extending
the provisional measures adopted and expanding them to include Mrs. Francisca
Sales Martín;
3. The Court’s February 1, 1996 order requesting
the State of Guatemala (hereinafter “the State) that, in addition to the
measures already taken, it establish mechanisms to control and police the
civil patrols
operating in Colotenango;
4. The Court’s April 16, 1997 decision to order the State to
maintain the provisional measures in the instant case as long as the extremely
grave
and urgent situation that led to the adoption of provisional measures persisted;
5.
The Court’s September 19, 1997 order wherein
[...]
2. [It] call[ed] upon the State of Guatemala
to expand the measures adopted in this Case for the purpose of ensuring
the
right to life and physical integrity of Andrés Ramos-Godínez, Rafael Vásquez-Simón,
Juan Mendoza-Sánchez, Julia Gabriel-Simón, Miguel Morales-Mendoza, Lucía Quila-Colo
and Fermina López-Castro.
3. [It] call[ed] upon the State of Guatemala
to investigate the facts denounced by the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights and publish those responsible.
[...];
6. The application filed by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) on May 19, 1999, wherein it
reported the following:
a. In 1998, twelve former civil patrolmen
were sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment for the murder of Mr. Juan
Chanay Pablo and for numerous other human rights violations committed against
citizens of the community of Colotenango; they were taken to a prison facility
where security was inadequate, and
b.
While on a protest march on April 30, 1999, a group of some
600 former patrolmen arrived at Huehuetenango and marched to the facility
where the former civil patrolmen were being held. There they suddenly began to brandish clubs, machetes, chainsaws
and other tools, which they then used to break into the facility and released
the patrolmen.
7. The State’s brief of May 31, 1999, wherein it confirmed the
information reported in the Commission’s application (supra 6) and stated the following:
a. On May 13, 1999, the Attorney General’s
Office reported that on the very day the twelve patrolmen escaped, it immediately
took statements from those members of the National Police who were guarding
the facility at the time and ordered the Chief of the National Police to
search
the area around the departmental capital of Huehuetenango in order to find
and apprehend the escapees. However,
with so few police officers and no patrol cars, any patrol work was out of
the question;
b. The COPREDEH delegate in Huehuetenango,
Vayron Roderico Herrera Mérida -whose job is to accompany officials of
the National Police on their periodic visits to those for whom measures
have been
ordered by the Court- was told by townspeople sympathetic to the former patrolmen
that he would be killed if he showed his face in Colotenango;
c. Through COPREDEH, the State is currently
examining alternative ways it can continue to carry out the provisional measures
ordered by the Court, since the presence of the National Police or COPREDEH
officials could set off serious incidents in the community of Colotenango,
and
CONSIDERING:
1. That Article 63(2) of the American Convention
provides that “[i]n cases of extreme
gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,”
the Court may, if requested by the Commission, adopt such provisional measures
as it deems pertinent in cases not yet submitted to the Court”;
2. That under Article 25.1 of the Court’s
Rules of Procedure:
At any
stage of the proceedings involving cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and
when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court may, at the
request of a party or on its own motion, order such provisional measures as
it deems appropriate, pursuant to Article
63(2) of the Convention.
3. That Article 1(1) of the Convention sets
forth the States Parties’ duty to respect the rights and freedoms recognized
therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the
free
and full exercise of those rights and freedoms;
4. That by virtue of the Court’s orders
of June 22 and December 1, 1994, and September 19, 1997, the State has
the obligation
to adopt the measures needed to preserve the life and safety of those persons
on whose behalf the Court ordered provisional measures;
5. That the “case of extreme gravity and urgency” that persists warrants continued
enforcement of the provisional measures adopted and called for in the Court’s
orders of June 22 and December 1, 1994 and September 19, 1997;
6. That the briefs submitted by the Commission
and the State on May 19 and 31, 1999, respectively, contain information that
suggests that the risk to the safety of the persons being protected has escalated
since the events of April 30, 1999. The
Court therefore considers that alternative mechanisms need to be adopted for
continued compliance with the provisional measures ordered;
7. That the State must take all appropriate
steps to involve the claimants in planning and executing the Court-ordered
measures, so that the latter may be provided diligently and effectively; and
8. That the State’s obligation to investigate
threats and intimidation experienced by persons under its protection is
an
essential part of the duty to protect,
NOW THEREFORE:
THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS,
based
on Article 63(2) of the Convention and Article 25 of its Rules of Procedure,
DECIDES:
1. To call upon the State of Guatemala to
continue the measures required to protect the life and safety of the persons
on whose behalf the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered provisional
measures in its decisions of June 22 and December 1, 1994, and September 19,
1997.
2. To call upon the State of Guatemala to
investigate the events that led to the adoption of those provisional measures,
with a view to ascertaining the identity of those responsible and punishing
them.
3. To call upon the State of Guatemala to
urgently report on the alternative mechanisms necessitated by the events of
April 30, 1999, and adopted in order to effectively carry out the provisional
measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
4. To call upon the State of Guatemala to
involve the claimants in the planning and execution of the measures referred
to in the preceding paragraph and, in general, to keep them informed of the
progress made with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights.
5. To call upon the State of Guatemala to
continue to file reports on the provisional measures every two months, and
to request the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations
on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.