CDH-CP-01/02 ENGLISH
PRESS RELEASE(*)
The Inter-American Court
of Human Rights will hold its LIV Regular Session at its seat in San Jose,
Costa Rica, from February 18 to March 1, 2002. During this Session, the following public hearing
will take place at the seat of the Court:
1.            Hilaire,
Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case.Â
Merits and Possible
Reparations Stage. At 10:00 o’clock on
February 20 and 21, 2002, the Court will hold a public hearing to receive
statements from the expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights and the final arguments of the Commission, the State of Trinidad
and Tobago, and the representatives of the alleged victims, on the merits
of the case, as well as on possible reparations in the case.
The
application in the Hilaire case was filed by the Inter-American Commission
on May 25, 1999, and it argues that the State of Trinidad and Tobago is responsible
for breaching the American Convention on Human Rights for convicting Haniff
Hilaire (hereinafter “Mr. Hilaire�) to a “mandatory death penalty� and, therefore,
violating the rights protected by Articles: 4(1), to not be arbitrarily deprived
of his life; 5(1) to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected;
5(2), to not be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or unusual punishment or treatment;
5(6), which establishes that reform and social re-adaptation are an essential
objective of punishment involving deprivation of liberty; 7(5), for detaining
Mr. Hilaire for 4 years and 3 months as a defendant awaiting trial, in violation
of his right to be tried within a reasonable time or to be released, and 25,
because domestic legislation does not provide the right to be tried within
a reasonable time or be released, in violation of his right to judicial protection,
all these in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention.Â
The Commission also argues that the State is responsible for violation
of Article 2 which sets forth the obligation of the State to adopt legislative
and other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights and freedoms
protected by the Convention.
The application in the
Constantine et al. case, filed by the Inter-American Commission on February
22, 2000, refers to the alleged violation, by the Republic of Trinidad and
Tobago, of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right
to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection)
of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1 (Obligation to Respect
Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of that same Convention, as a consequence
of the arrest, detainment, trial, indictment and conviction to the death penalty
of George Constantine, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Clarence Charles,
Steve Mungroo, Anthony GarcÃa, Mervyn Edmund, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Natasha De
León, Wenceslaus James, Keiron Thomas, Denny Baptiste, Wilson Prince, Darrin
Roger Thomas, Samuel Winchester, MartÃn Reid, Rodney Davis, Noel Seepersad,
Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Vijay Mungroo, Philip Chotalal and Narresh
Boodram and Joey Ramiah, “pursuant to a law which makes the death sentence
mandatory for all persons declared guilty of murderâ€?.Â
The Commission also requested that the Court, pursuant to Article 63(1)
of the American Convention, repair the consequences of the violations of the
rights involved in their application.
The application in the
Benjamin et al. case was lodged by the Inter-American Commission on October
5, 2000, and it pertains to the arrest, detainment, trial, indictment and
conviction to the death penalty of Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad,
Francis Mansingh, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mohlaw, and Mervyn Parris,
“pursuant to a law which makes the death sentence mandatory for all persons
convicted of murder� in Trinidad and Tobago. In its application, the Commission argues that
the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago violated, to the detriment of the alleged
victims, the rights protected by the American Convention, specifically the
provisions of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7
(Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Fair Trial), and 25 (Judicial Protection),
in connection with Articles 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic
Legal Effects) of this same Convention.
On September 1, 2001,
the Court delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in the Hilaire,
Constantine et al. and Benjamin et al. cases, fully dismissing the preliminary
objection raised by the State of Trinidad and Tobago in the three cases, and
ordering that each case continue to be heard and processed.
On
November 30, 2001 the Court delivered an Order in which it decided the joinder
of the Hilaire, Constantine et al. and Benjamin et al. cases, as well as that
of their proceedings. Therefore, the
case resulting from this joinder came to be called Hilaire, Constantine and
Benjamin et al. vs. Trinidad and Tobago.
The Court will also
hear, among others, the following matters:
2.            Bámaca Velásquez Case Reparations
Phase. During this Session, the Court will hear and study the possibility
of delivering a Judgment on reparations, costs and expenses in this case,
pursuant to the provisions of its November 25, 2000 Judgment, in which it
unanimously decided “that the State
should remedy the damages caused by the violations indicated [in that Judgment].�.
In that Judgment, the
Court unanimously decided that Guatemala had violated Articles 7 and 4 of
the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of EfraÃn Bámaca
Velásquez. The Court also ruled, unanimously,
that the State failed to fulfill, to the detriment of EfraÃn Bámaca Velásquez,
its obligation to prevent and punish torture under Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8
of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and ordered
an investigation to determine the persons responsible for the human rights
violations referred to in the Judgment, as well as to make known to the public
the results of that investigation and to punish those responsible. It also declared, unanimously, that the State
of Guatemala breached Articles 5(1), 5(2), 8, and 25 of the Convention to
the detriment of EfraÃn Bámaca Velásquez, Jennifer Harbury, José León Bámaca
Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez, and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, and
it failed to comply with Article 1(1) of this Convention in connection with
the violations of the aforementioned substantive rights. Finally, the Court also ruled unanimously that the State of Guatemala
did not violate Article 3 of the American Convention to the detriment of EfraÃn
Bámaca Velásquez.
3.            Trujillo
Oroza Case: Reparations Stage.
During this Session, the Court will deliberate and study the possibility
of delivering a Judgment on reparations and costs in this case, pursuant to
the provisions of its January 26, 2000 Judgment, in which it unanimously decided
“[t]o open the reparations proceedings�, in view of
the recognition of international responsibility made by the State of Bolivia.
In that judgment, the
Court decided, pursuant to the recognition of responsibility made by the State,
that the latter had violated the rights protected by Articles 3, 4, 5(1),
5(2) and 7 of the American Convention to the detriment of José Carlos Trujillo
Oroza, as well as Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention to the detriment
of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and of his next of kin, and Article 5(1) and
5(2) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victim.Â
The Court also ruled that Article 1(1) of the Convention was breached
in connection with the aforementioned violations of substantive rights.
The
following cases have recently begun to be heard by the Court:
4.            Torres
Benvenuto et al. Case: On December 4, 2001, the Inter-American
Commission, pursuant to Article 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights,
filed before the Court the Torres Benvenuto et al. case (No. 12.034) vs.
Peru, pertaining to the alleged “modification in the pension regime under
which Messrs. Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo
Alvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez, and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (hereinafter “the pensioners� […]) had been
receiving their pensions, under Peruvian law, until 1992, and of the failure
to enforce judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru and the Constitutional
Court of Peru ordering organs of the Peruvian State to pay [the] pensioners a pension
in an amount calculated as established in the legislation in force at the
time they began to receive pension benefits under a given pension regime�.
It is also stated that “[t]hat situation
has meant, for the petitioners, the violation of their rights to judicial
protection, to property, and to the progressive development of economic, social,
and cultural rights, enshrined, respectively, at Articles 25, 21, and 26 of
the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established at
Articles (1) and 2 of the same treaty�. The Commission also requested in its application
that the Court order the State to guarantee the victims and their next of
kin the enjoyment of the rights allegedly infringed, “and the consequent payment
that the […] State should make to the [alleged] victims and their next of
kin, of the difference that it has not paid them in the amount of their pensions
since November 1992, as well as the payment of their pensions in an equalized
amount hence forth�. The Commission
also requested that the Court order the State to annul and retroactively cancel
the effects of Article 5 of Decree Law N˚ 25792 of October 23, 1992,
which according to the Commission “constituted an unjustified rollback with
respect to the degree of development of the right to social security that
had been attained by the [alleged] victims ender Decree-Law
No.20,530 and its related and similar provisions�, as the Commission considered
it to be incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights.Â
Finally, the Commission requested that the Court order the State to
investigate who was responsible for the alleged human rights violations stated
in the application, and to pay costs incurred by the alleged victims in processing
of the legal cases under domestic jurisdiction, as well as those incurred
at an international level in processing the case before the Inter-American
Commission and Court.
5.            Maritza Urrutia Case: On January 9, 2002, the Inter-American Commission
filed before the Court, pursuant to Article 51 of the American Convention
on Human Rights, the Maritza Urrutia case (No. 11.043) vs. Guatemala. This application is in connection with the alleged arbitrary detention
and torture of Maritza Ninette Urrutia GarcÃa, “who was held in a clandestine
detention center for eight days and was forced to issue a communiqué to public
opinion which had previously been prepared by her captors, which was a violation
of the rights to personal liberty, to humane treatment, to freedom of expression,
to fair trial, and to judicial protection of the victim and her next of kin,
pursuant to Articles 7, 5, 13, 8, and 25, respectively, of the American Convention,
in connection with the generic obligation set forth in Article 1(1) of that
same Treaty to respect and protect the rights recognized in itâ€?.Â
The application also includes a request for the Court to declare that
there was a violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention
to Prevent and Punish Torture. The Commission further requests in its application
to the Court that it declare that the State of Guatemala is under the obligation
to repair the consequences of those violations and to indemnify the alleged
victim and her relatives, as well as to reimburse them for costs and expenses
incurred in their action in international proceedings for this case before
the Commission and those resulting from the proceedings in the application
before the Court.
The Court will also
consider several procedures in matters pending before the Court, and it will
analyze the various reports submitted by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights and by the States involved in matters on which provisional measures
have been adopted. The Court will
furthermore analyze the various reports submitted by the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, the States involved, and the victims or their representatives
in those cases which are in the stage of compliance with the Judgment.Â
The Court will also consider various administrative matters.
The composition of the
Court for this Session is as follows: Antonio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil),
President; Alirio Abreu Burelli (Venezuela), Vice-President; Hernán Salgado
Pesantes (Ecuador); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Sergio GarcÃa RamÃrez (Mexico),
and Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo (Colombia). In the Trujillo Oroza case,
Charles N. Brower will participate as an ad hoc Judge, appointed by the Bolivian
State. The Secretary of the Court
is Manuel E. Ventura Robles, and the Deputy Secretary is Pablo Saavedra Alessandri.
The Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, which is an autonomous judicial institution of the Organization
of American States established in 1979, is formed by jurists of the highest
moral standing and widely recognized competence in the area of human rights.Â
The judges are elected in an individual capacity by the General Assembly
of the OAS, and cannot serve for more than two six-year terms.
For further information,
please contact:
Manuel E. Ventura Robles,
Secretary
Inter-American Court
of Human Rights
Apartado 6906-1000,
San José, Costa Rica
Phone (506) 234-0581.Â
Fax (506) 234-0584.
Web site: www.corteidh.or.cr.
E-mail: corteidh@racsa.co.cr
San Jose, February 15,
2002.
(*)Â The content of this press release is the responsibility of the Secretariat
of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The official text of the documents mentioned
can be obtained through a written request to the Secretariat, at the address
below.