The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held its LV Regular Period of Sessions at its headquarters in San José, Costa Rica, from June 6 to June 21, 2002.  During this Session, the following public hearings took place at the Court:

 

1.             19 Tradesmen Case. Preliminary Objections.  On June 11, 2002 the Court held a public hearing on the preliminary objection submitted in this case by the State of Colombia, which was refuted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.  The objection submitted was that of “due process violation, due to the omission of the procedures established in good faith for the better accomplishment of the American Convention on Human Rights’ purposes”.  In its preliminary objection, Colombia stated that the Court should reject in limine the application due to the fact that the Commission did not comply properly with the procedure established in Article 50 of the American Convention prior to filing the application with the Court.  Preliminary objections are procedural defenses that can be submitted by the respondent State, and have the effect, when deemed meritorious by the Court, of ending the contentious procedure prior to the consideration of the merits of the matter.

 

Likewise, during this period of sessions, the Court deliberated and on June 12, 2002 rendered Judgment on the preliminary objection. In this Judgment, the Court unanimously decided in its only operative paragraph:

 

To dismiss the preliminary objection submitted by the State of Colombia and to continue to examine and process the […] case.

 

Background

 

The application in this case (No. 11,603), was filed by the Inter-American Commission filed the application on January 24, 2001.  It refers to the events that occurred on October 6 and October 18, 1987, when 19 tradesmen were allegedly detained, disappeared, and subsequently executed in the municipality of Puerto Boyacá, Department of Boyacá, in the Magdalena Medio region of Colombia.  These acts were allegedly planned jointly by a paramilitary group operating in the zone and by members of the Army’s Fifth Brigade.  The Commission considers that these acts violate Articles 4 (Right to Life) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention on Human Rights with regard to the alleged victims Álvaro Lobo Pacheco, Gerson Rodríguez, Israel Pundor, Ángel Barrera, Antonio Florez Ochoa, Carlos Arturo Riatiga, Víctor Ayala, Alirio Chaparro, Huber Pérez, Álvaro Camargo, Rubén Pineda, Gilberto Ortiz, Reinaldo Corso Vargas, Hernán Jáuregui, Juan Bautista, Alberto Gómez, Luis Sauza, Juan Montero and Ferney Fernández.  The Commission also considers that Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial Protection) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention were violated to the detriment of both the alleged victims and their next of kin.

 

 

2.             The Peace Community of San José de Apartadó Matter.  Provisional Measures.  On June 13, 2002 the Court held a public hearing on provisional measures and heard arguments from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the State of Colombia about the recent events that occurred in the Peace Community, according to information received by the Court from the Inter-American Commission.  Provisional measures are ordered by the Inter-American Court, in accordance with Article 63(2) of the American Convention and Article 25 of the its Rules of Procedure, in cases of extreme seriousness and urgency, and whenever it is necessary to prevent people from suffering irreparable harm.

 

During the period of sessions, the Court studied various reports and additional information presented by the State of Colombia, observations on those reports and additional information presented by the Inter-American Commission, as well as the arguments made by both parties during the public hearing, and on June 18, 2002, it issued an Order regarding these provisional measures.  In this Order the Court decided:

 

1.             To require the State to maintain all measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of the members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, in the terms of the Order of the President of the Court of October 9, 2000 and the Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2000.

 

2.             To require the State to adopt any measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of all the persons who provide services to the members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, in the terms of the eighth, ninth and eleventh considering paragraphs of the […] Order.

 

3.             To require the State to investigate the facts prompting the expansion of these provisional measures, in order to identify those responsible and to impose the corresponding sanctions.

 

4.             To require the State to maintain all measures necessary to guarantee that the beneficiaries of the present measures may continue living in their usual place of residence and to continue to guarantee the conditions necessary so that the people of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, who had been forced to move to other areas of the country, can return to their homes.

 

5.             To require the State to guarantee the necessary security conditions on the route between San José de Apartadó and Apartadó, in the transportation terminal in Apartadó and in the place known as Tierra Amarilla, so that public transportation is not subject to new acts of violence, such as the ones described in the […] Order ([…] Having seen 6 and 13), as well as to assure that the members of the Peace Community receive and may effectively and continually transport products, supplies and food.

 

6.             To require the State to continue allowing the beneficiaries of these measures or their representatives to participate in the planning and implementation of said measures, and, in general, that it keep them informed on the progress of the measures issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

7.             To require the State to establish, in agreement with the beneficiaries or their representatives, a mechanism for continuous surveillance and permanent security in the Peace Community of San José of Apartadó, in compliance with the terms of the […] Order.

 

8.             To require the State to continue presenting reports on the provisional measures it has adopted in compliance thereof to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights every two months, from the date of notice of the […] Order.

 

9.             To require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to continue submitting its observations on the reports of the State within six-weeks of the date they are received.

 

[…]

 

Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Concurring Opinion, which is attached to the […] Order.

 

 

Background

 

The request for provisional measures to protect the members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó, Department of Antioquia, Colombia was submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on October 3, 2000, in order to protect their lives and personal integrity.  Based upon this request, the President of the Court issued an Order on October 9, 2000 adopting urgent measures, in which he required the State to adopt, without delay, any measures necessary to protect the lives and personal integrity of 189 members of said community.

 

After having held a public hearing, in which it heard the parties’ viewpoints on the facts and circumstances that prompted the request for provisional measures, the Court issued an Order on November 24, 2000.  In this Order the Court decided to ratify the Order of the President of the Court of October 9, 2000 and required that the State of Colombia adopt any measures necessary to guarantee that the beneficiaries of the provisional measures continue to live in their places of residence, and to ensure that those who were forced to move to other regions of the country, may return to their homes.  Likewise, the Court ordered the State to investigate the facts that prompted the adoption of the provisional measures in order to identify those responsible and to impose the corresponding sanctions.  Finally, the Court required the State of Colombia to keep it informed of its compliance with the measures ordered thereof, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations on the State’s reports.

 

 

3.             Las Palmeras Case.  Reparations Phase.  On June 14, 2002, the Court held a public hearing to hear testimony from the witnesses and the expert offered by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin; said testimony was also adopted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.  During the hearing the Court also heard closing arguments from the representatives of the victims’ next of kin, the Inter-American Commission, and the State of Colombia on reparations and costs in this case, in compliance with the Judgment on the merits of this case, rendered by the Court on December 6, 2001.  In this Judgment the Court decided, unanimously, “[t]o open the reparations phase, to which end it commission[ed] its President to duly adopt any measures necessary”. The State did not offer witness or expert testimonies in this phase of the procedure.

 

Background

 

In the judgment on the merits, the Court unanimously declared the State’s responsibility for the deaths of Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Wilian Hamilton Cerón Rojas and Edebraes Norverto Cerón Rojas.  Said finding corresponds to a violation of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, and was demonstrated by two final judgments from the Sala de lo Contencioso Administrativo del Consejo de Estado (an administrative tribunal) issued on December 14, 1993, and January 15, 1996.  It also held unanimously that the State was responsible for the death of N.N./ Moisés or N.N./ Moisés Ojeda in violation of Article 4 of the American Convention, and that the State violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Wilian Hamilton Cerón Rojas, Edebraes Norverto Cerón Rojas, N.N./ Moisés or N.N./ Moisés Ojeda and Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy.  Finally, the Court unanimously decided that there was insufficient evidence to allow it to affirm that Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy had been executed in combat or extra-judicially by State agents in violation of Article 4 of the American Convention.

 

 

4.             Cantos Case.  Merits and Eventual Reparations Phase.  On June 17, 2002, the Court held a public hearing and heard arguments from the representatives of the alleged victim, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the State of the Republic of Argentina, on the merits and eventual reparations in this case, as well as the declarations of the witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission.  The State did not offer witness or expert testimonies during this phase of the procedure.

 

Background

 

The application in this case was lodged by the Inter-American Commission on March 10, 1999, and refers to the alleged violation of Mr. José María Cantos’ human rights by the State of Argentina, stemming from searches and seizure of documents pertaining to his commercial activities, which took place during March 1972.  These acts were executed by the Province of Santiago de Estero’s Dirección General de Rentas (the government agency with oversees and enforces laws regarding taxes imposed on rental property) in Mr. Cantos’ places of business, in connection with alleged tax violations regarding the Ley de Sellos (a tax law).  In its petition, the Commission argues that the State of Argentina violated, to the detriment of Mr. Cantos, Articles 8 (Right to Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), and 21 (Right to Property) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with Article 1(1) (Obligation of the State to Respect Rights). The Commission also requested that the Court declare a violation of Article 2 of that same Convention, based on the principle of pacta sunt servanda, for the State’s alleged non-compliance with recommendations made by the Commission (Article 50(3)) contained in its Report No. 75/98.  The Commission also argued that Argentina had violated the rights protected by Articles XVIII (Right to Fair Trial) and XXIV (Right of Petition) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man). It also requested that the State fully indemnify Mr. Cantos, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the American Convention, and that it be ordered to pay legal fees and expenses.

 

In the present case the State submitted two preliminary objections, which the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights objected to, and which argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case because the events occurred prior to the Argentina’s acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.  The State also argued that the alleged victim was not within the scope of the definition of a victim established in Article 1(2) of the American Convention  (jurisdiction ratione personae).  On September 7, 2001 the Court rendered Judgment on the preliminary objections submitted by the State of Argentina in this case.  In this Judgment, the Court unanimously decided, to declare inadmissible the preliminary objection alleging lack of jurisdiction ratione personae based on Article 1(2) of the American Convention, and to declare partially admissible the preliminary objection alleging lack of jurisdiction to judge events occurred prior to the State’s acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, in the sense that the Court could only exercise its jurisdiction over the events that surrounding the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina after the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction (September 5, 1984) if it were alleged that said proceedings could constitute per se violations of the American Convention.  Finally, the Court decided to continue to examine and process the present case.

 

 

5.             Request for Advisory Opinion OC-17.  On June 21, 2002 the Court held a public hearing with regard to the request for Advisory Opinion OC-17, filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and heard the observations of the United States of Mexico, Costa Rica, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Rafael Preciado Hernández Foundation, Mexican University Institute of Human Rights, A.C., the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) and the United Nation’s Latin-American Institute for Crime Prevention and the Treatment of Criminals (ILANUD),  all of them as amici curiae. 

 

Background

 

In its request for an Advisory Opinion, presented on March 30, 2001, pursuant to Article 64(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission requested that the Court interpret Articles 8 and 25 of said Convention in order to determine if these provisions constitute “limits on States’ capacity or discretion to issue special measures of protection” with respect to children in light of Article 19 of the same.  Likewise, it requested the Court to formulate general criteria governing the issue within the framework of the Convention.

 

The Court also heard, among others, the following matters:

 

6.             Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case.  Merits and Eventual Reparations Phase. During this Session, the Court deliberated, and on June 21, 2002, rendered judgment in this case.  In this judgment, the Court, unanimously:

 

declare[d] with respect to the merits

 

[…]

 

1.             that the State violated the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) and 4(2), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, for reasons stated in paragraph 109 of the […] Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

2.             that the State breached its obligation established in Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights for the reasons stated in paragraph 118 of the […] Judgment to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

3.             that the State violated the right to be tried within a reasonable time protected in Articles 7(5) and 8(1) in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights for the reasons stated in paragraph 152(a) of the […] Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

4.             that the State violated the right to an effective recourse established in Articles 8 and 25 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights for the reasons stated in paragraph 152(b) of the […] Judgment, to the detriment of George Constantine, Wilson Prince, Mervyn Edmund, Martin Reid, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Natasha De Leon, Phillip Chotalal, Wilberforce Bernard, Amir Mowlah, and Mervyn Parris;

 

[…]

 

5.             that the State violated the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) and 5(2), in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, for reasons stated in paragraph 172 of the […] Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

6.             that the State violated the right of all persons sentenced to the death penalty to apply for amnesty, pardon or commutation of their sentence enshrined in Article 4(6) in conjunction with Articles 8 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, for reasons stated in paragraph 189 of the […] Judgment, to the detriment of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

7.             that the State arbitrarily deprived Joey Ramiah of his right to life in violation of Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, for reasons stated in paragraph 200 of the […] Judgment.

 

With respect to reparations the Court [held]

 

[…]

 

8.             that the State should abstain from applying the Offences Against the Person Act of 1925 and within a reasonable period of time should modify said Act to comply with international norms of human rights protection for the reasons stated in paragraph 212 of the […] Judgment;

 

[…]

 

9.             that the State should order a retrial in which the new criminal legislation resulting from the reforms to the Offences Against the Person Act of 1925 will be applied, for the reasons stated in paragraph 214 of the […] Judgment, in the criminal proceedings in relation to the crimes imputed to Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

10.           that the State should submit before the competent authority and by means of the Advisory Committee on the Power of Pardon, for the reasons stated in paragraph 214 of the […] Judgment, the review of the cases of Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

11.           on grounds of equity, that the State should abstain from executing, in all cases, regardless of the results of the new trials, for the reasons stated in paragraph 215 of the […] Judgment, Haniff Hilaire, George Constantine, Wenceslaus James, Denny Baptiste, Clarence Charles, Keiron Thomas, Anthony Garcia, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Mervyn Edmund, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Natasha De Leon, Vijay Mungroo, Phillip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Steve Mungroo, Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, Mervyn Parris, and Francis Mansingh;

 

[…]

 

12.           on grounds of equity, that the State should pay for non-pecuniary damage to the wife of Joey Ramiah, Carol Ramcharan, the sum of US $50,000 (fifty thousand United States of America dollars) or its equivalent in Trinidad and Tobago dollars (TTD) to support and educate their child, Joanus Ramiah, for the reasons stated in paragraph 216 of the […]  Judgment;

 

[…]

 

13.           on grounds of equity, that the State pay Joey Ramiah’s mother, Moonia Ramiah, the sum of US $10,000 (ten thousand United States of America dollars) or its equivalent in Trinidad and Tobago dollars (TTD) for non-pecuniary damage, for the reasons stated in  paragraph 216 of the […] Judgment;

 

[…]

 

14.           that the State should modify the conditions of its prison system to conform to the relevant international norms of human rights protection on the matter, for the reasons stated in paragraph 217 of the […] Judgment;

 

[…]

 

15.           on grounds of equity, that the State should pay the representatives of the victims the sum of US $13,000 (thirteen thousand United States of America dollars) or its equivalent in Trinidad and Tobago dollars (TTD) as reimbursement for the expenses they have incurred in bringing this case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, for the reasons stated in paragraph 219 of the […] Judgment;

 

[…]

 

16.           that the State, from the date of notification of the […] Judgment, shall provide the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with a report every six months regarding the measures taken to implement the […] Judgment, and

 

[…]

 

17.           that the Court shall oversee implementation of this Judgment and will deem the case to be closed once the State has duly complied with the terms of the […] Judgment.

 

Judge Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Concurring Opinion, and Judges García-Ramírez and de Roux-Rengifo of their Separate Opinions, which are attached to [the] Judgment.

 

Background

 

This case is a result of the joinder of three different cases, which was ordered by the Inter-American Court on November 30, 2001, in accordance with Article 28 of its Rules of Procedure.  In said Order the Court considered, among other factors, that the procedural parties in the Hilaire, Constantine et al., and Benjamin et al. cases, were the same, namely the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.  Likewise, the Court considered that the subject-matter is essentially the same in the three cases, in the sense that all of them concern the judicial guarantees of the due process in cases of imposing the “mandatory death penalty” on all individuals found guilty of the crime of murder in Trinidad and Tobago, and that the only differences were the individual circumstances of each case.  Finally, the Articles of the American Convention on Human Rights that were allegedly violated are fundamentally the same. 

 

The application in the Hilaire Case was filed by the Inter-American Commission on May 25, 1999, and it alleged that the State of Trinidad and Tobago (hereinafter “the State” or “Trinidad and Tobago”) is responsible for violating the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) for the arrest, detention, trial, conviction, and sentencing to death of Haniff Hilaire (hereinafter “Mr. Hilaire”) “pursuant to a law which makes the imposition of the death penalty mandatory for all persons convicted of murder” therefore violating the rights of the alleged victim protected by Articles: 4 (Right to Life); 5 (Right to Humane Treatment); 7(5) (Right to Personal Liberty), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection); all in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention.  The Commission also argues that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention.

 

The application in the Constantine et al. Case was filed by the Inter-American Commission on February 22, 2000, and it alleges that Trinidad and Tobago is responsible for violating the American Convention due to the arrest, detention, trial, conviction, and sentencing to death of George Constantine, Nigel Mark, Wilberforce Bernard, Clarence Charles, Steve Mungroo, Anthony Garcia, Mervyn Edmund, Gangadeen Tahaloo, Natasha De Leon, Wenceslaus James, Keiron Thomas, Denny Baptiste, Wilson Prince, Darrin Roger Thomas, Samuel Winchester, Martin Reid, Rodney Davis, Noel Seepersad, Wayne Matthews, Alfred Frederick, Vijay Mungroo, Philip Chotalal, Naresh Boodram, and Joey Ramiah, “pursuant to a law which makes the death sentence mandatory for all persons declared guilty of murder” and therefore of violating 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. 

 

The application in the Benjamin et al. Case was lodged by the Inter-American Commission on October 5, 2000, and it alleged that Trinidad and Tobago is responsible for violating the American Convention for the arrest, detention, trial, conviction, and sentencing to death of Peter Benjamin, Krishendath Seepersad, Francis Mansingh, Allan Phillip, Narine Sooklal, Amir Mowlah, 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 argued 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 conjunction with Articles 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of this same Convention.

 

The State submitted a preliminary objection in each of the three cases.  The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights objected to each preliminary objection at the appropriate procedural moment.  In said preliminary objections the State contended that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights lacked jurisdiction to hear the three cases submitted before it.  On September 1, 2001, the Court rendered judgment on the preliminary objections submitted by the State in the Hilaire, Constantine et al. and Benjamin et al. Cases, fully dismissing the preliminary objection presented by the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago in each case, and deciding to continue to examine and process each case.

 

On February 20 and 21, 2002, the Court held a public hearing on the merits and eventual reparations, heard testimony from three experts offered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as final arguments of the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victims on the merits and eventual reparations in this case[1].

 

 

7.             Durand and Ugarte Case.  Compliance with Judgment Phase.  The Court studied the reports filed by the State of Perú on May 17 and June 12, 2002, in which it provided information on compliance with the judgment on the merits, issued by the Court on August 16, 2000 and the judgment on reparations, issued on December 3, 2001.  In its last report, the State requested the Court declare if “it has been relieved of its responsibility established in this case’s judgment.”  Consequently, on June 13, 2002 the Court issued an Order in which it decided:

 

1.        To declare that, in accordance with the principle of pacta sunt servanda, and with the dictates of Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, the State has the duty to promptly comply with all orders in the Judgments of August 16, 2000 and December 3, 2001, issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Durand and Ugarte Case.

 

2.        To require the State of Perú to continue investigating the events and bring to trial and punish the responsible parties, therefore reopening the corresponding judicial proceedings.

 

3.        To require the State of Perú to continue to take all measures possible to locate and identify the remains of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte-Rivera and deliver them to their next of kin.

 

4.        To require the State of Perú to present proof of payment receipts of the indemnities made to the victims’ next of kin no later than July 15, 2002.

 

5.        To grant the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights a term of one month, from the date they receive notification of [the] Order, to send their observations regarding the status of compliance with said judgments in accordance with the first, second and third operative paragraphs of [the] Order.

 

6.        To instruct the Secretariat of the Court to transmit to the State of Perú all documents presented with respect to the prior operative paragraph, at the end of the term granted.

 

[…]

 

Background

 

The application in this case was submitted to the Court on August 8, 1996, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and was based on events that occurred on February 14 and 15, 1986.  According to the application, on said dates, Nolberto Durand-Ugarte and Gabriel Ugarte-Rivera were detained for their alleged participation in terrorist activities and were imprisoned at the San Juan Bautista Prison (El Frontón).  In June 1986, an uprising occurred in the prison and since that date, Mr. Durand-Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte-Rivera have been missing.  However, on July 17, 1987, the Sixth Correctional Tribunal of Lima declared them innocent and ordered their immediate release.

 

On August 16, 2000, the Court rendered judgment on the merits of this case and unanimously decided, “that the State must make reparations for the harm caused by the violations” and “open the phase of reparations”.  Likewise, in said Judgment the Court declared that Perú violated Articles 4(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(5), 7(6), 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Nolberto Durand-Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte-Rivera; Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of their next of kin; and that it had failed to comply with the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention regarding violations of the aforementioned substantive rights.  Furthermore, the Court held that the State was compelled to make every possible effort to locate and identify the victims’ remains and deliver them to their next of kin, as well as to investigate the events and try and punish those responsible.

 

On November 26, 2001, the State presented an “Agreement on comprehensive reparations for the victims’ next of kin of the Durand and Ugarte Case,” signed that same day by the State, the victims’ next of kin and their representatives.  The Court deliberated, and on December 3, 2001 endorsed the agreement.

 

8.             Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Compliance with Judgment Phase.  The Court studied the reports filed by the State, the Inter-American Commission and the victims and their representatives on compliance with the judgment issued by the Court on February 2, 2001, and on June 21, 2002, issued an Order, in which it decided:

 

1.                    That the State shall present a detailed report to the Court, no later than August 15, 2002, in accordance with the considering paragraphs two and three of the […] Order.

 

2.                    That the victims or their legal representatives and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall present their observations to the State’s report within seven-weeks from its receipt.

 

 

Background

 

The Commission submitted the application in this case on January 16, 1998, which refers to the violations, by the State of Panamá, of various Articles of the American Convention as a result of the events that occurred beginning on December 4, 1990, which led to the allegedly arbitrary dismissal of 270 public employees who had participated in a demonstration and a strike for labor benefits.

 

In the judgment of February 2, 2001, the Court unanimously declared that the State violated the principles of legality and non-retroactivity enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention on Human Rights; the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection provided for in Articles 8(1), 8(2) and 25 of the American Convention; the right to freedom of association enshrined in Article 16 of the American Convention; and that the State failed to comply with the general obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, in connection with the violations of the aforementioned substantive rights, to the detriment of 270 workers.  Furthermore, the Court declared that the State did not violate the right of assembly provided for in Article 15 of the American Convention on Human Rights.  Also, the Court decided: