University of Minnesota



CDH-CP6/99 English

PRESS RELEASE(*)


 

 

 

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held its XLIV Regular Session at its seat in San Jose, Costa Rica, from May 23 to June 3, 1999. During this session, the Court considered the following matters:

1) Cesti Hurtado Case (Peru): Merits Phase. On May 24, the Court held a public hearing on the merits in this Case, in order to receive the declaration of the eyewitness proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, who testified about his knowledge of the facts of the application; and the eyewitness and expert witness proposed by the State of Peru. The Court also heard the final arguments of the Commission and the State of Peru.

The Case was submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on January 9, 1998, and refers to the alleged violation by the State of Peru of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy), 17 (Rights of the Family), 21 (Right to Property), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and 51(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation with Articles 1 and 2 of the same. The application alleges that these violations were a result of the detention, sentencing and deprivation of liberty of Mr. Gustavo Adolfo Cesti-Hurtado in a process before the Military Jurisdiction. According to the application, said trial was conducted not withstanding the existence of a definitive judgment issued in a habeas corpus proceeding, ordering that Mr. Cesti be withdrawn from the Military Jurisdiction and that his personal liberty not be infringed. The Commission also requested that the Court require the Peruvian State to sanction those responsible for the alleged violations, to release Mr. Cesti-Hurtado, and to compensate him for the period during which he was wrongly detained and for the respective damages to his personal life and to his financial well-being.

2) Durand and Ugarte Case (Peru): Preliminary Objections Phase. During this Session, the Court deliberated and, on May 28, passed judgment on the preliminary objections presented by Peru. The Court, by means of its judgment, decided:

by six votes to one,

1. To dismiss the first preliminary objection presented by the State of Peru.

unanimously,

2. To dismiss the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh preliminary objections presented by the State of Peru.

by six votes to one,

3. To continue to hear the merits of the case.

Judge Vidal-Ramírez informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion, which is attached to this Judgment.

3) Castillo Petruzzi et al Case (Peru): Merits Phase. During this Session, the Court deliberated, and on May 30 passed judgment on the merits of the Case. By means of said Judgment, the Court decided:

unanimously,

1. To declare that the State of Peru did not violate Article 20 of the American Convention in the present Case.

unanimously,

2. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 7(5) of the American Convention.

by seven votes to one,

3. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 9 of the American Convention.

Judge Vidal-Ramírez dissenting.

unanimously,

4. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention.

unanimously,

5. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 8(2)(b), (c), (d) and (f) of the American Convention.

by seven votes to one,

6. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention.

Judge Vidal-Ramírez dissenting.

unanimously,

7. To declare that, in the present Case, it was not proved that the State of Peru violated Article 8(3) of the American Convention.

by seven votes to one,

8. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 8(5) of the American Convention.

Judge Vidal-Ramírez dissenting.

unanimously,

9. To declare that the State of Peru violated Articles 25 and 7(6) of the American Convention.

by seven votes to one,

10. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 5 of the American Convention.

Judge Vidal-Ramírez dissenting.

unanimously,

11. To declare that the State of Peru violated Article 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention.

unanimously,

12. To declare that, in the present Case, it is not necessary to consider the alleged violation of Article 51(2) of the American Convention by the State of Peru.

unanimously,

13. To declare the invalidity of the proceedings against Mr. Jaime Francisco Sebastián Castillo-Petruzzi, Ms. María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez, Mr. Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra and Mr. Alejandro Luis Astorga-Valdez for being incompatible with the American Convention, and to order that new judicial proceedings in accordance with due process of law be guaranteed to the above individuals.

unanimously,

14. To order that the State of Peru adopt the appropriate measures to reform those norms that have been declared in violation of the American Convention in the present Judgment, and to ensure the enjoyment of the rights recognized by the American Convention for all persons, without exception, under its jurisdiction.

unanimously,

15. To order the State of Peru to pay a total sum of US$10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in Peruvian currency to the family members of Mr. Jaime Francisco Sebastián Castillo-Petruzzi, Ms. María Concepción Pincheira-Sáez, Mr. Lautaro Enrique Mellado-Saavedra and Mr. Alejandro Luis Astoga-Valdez, as compensation for the expenditures incurred for the various petitions before the Inter-American System of Human Rights, according to paragraph 224 of the present Judgment.

unanimously,

16. [. . .]To supervise compliance with this Judgment.

Judge Vidal-Ramírez informed the Court of his Partially Concurring and Partially Dissenting Opinion, and Judge de Roux Rengifo informed the Court of his Concurring Opinion, both of which are attached to the Judgment.

4) Las Palmeras Case (Colombia): Preliminary Objections Phase. The Court held a public hearing on May 31 on the preliminary objections presented by the State of Colombia, during which the arguments of the State of Colombia and of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights were heard.

The application, submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on July 6, 1998, refers to the alleged extra-judicial execution of Messrs. Artemio Pantoja-Ordoñez, Hernán Javier Cuarán-Muchavisoy, Julio Milcíades Cerón-Gómez, Edebraiz Cerón-Rojas, William Hamilton Cerón-Rojas, and Hernán Lizcano-Jacanamejoy or Moisés Ojeda and the subsequent denial of justice by the State of Colombia. The Commission presented the application for the Court to decide whether Colombia violated Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, and common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

5) Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case (Nicaragua): Preliminary Objections Phase. The Court held a public hearing May 31 on the preliminary objection presented by the State of Nicaragua in this Case. The Court heard the arguments of the State of Nicaragua and of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The application in this Case, submitted by the Commission on June 4, 1998, refers to the alleged violation by the State of Nicaragua of Articles 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 2 (Domestic Legal Effect), 21 (Right to Private Property), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of members of the Mayagna (Sumo) Indigenous Community, due to the failure to demarcate and officially recognize the territory of said community. The Commission also requested that the Court, based on Article 63(1) of the American Convention, order reparations for the violations of those rights cited in the application.

6) Suárez Rosero Case (Ecuador): Interpretation of the Judgment. The Court deliberated and on May 29 delivered a Judgment, based on Article 67 of the American Convention, on the request for an interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations that was delivered in the present Case. By means of its Judgment, the Court decided:

unanimously,

1. That the request for interpretation of the Judgment of January 20, 1999 in the Suárez-Rosero Case, presented by the State of Ecuador, is admissible.

2. That the payments ordered by the Court in the aforementioned Judgment in favor of Mr. Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero and Ms. Margarita Ramadán de Suárez must be paid in full. It is for the State of Ecuador to apply the necessary mechanisms compliance with this obligation in the most expeditious and efficient manner, under the conditions and within the time period established in said Judgment. In particular, the State of Ecuador must adopt all measures necessary to ensure that the deduction made by Ecuadorian financial institutions for monetary transactions will not diminish the right of the beneficiaries to receive the total amount of damages.

3. That the amount that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered to be paid the minor Micaela Suárez Ramadán in the aforementioned Judgment, shall be deposited in full in the trust fund mentioned in paragraph 107 of the same. Said amount will not be subject to any tax or to any tax-related deduction when the trust is established.

4. That the lawyers of Mr. Suárez-Rosero must receive full payment for their fees and expenses ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and that said payment will not be subject to any taxes.

7) James et al Provisional Measures (Trinidad and Tobago): With regard to these Provisional Measures, two Orders were declared:

On May 25, 1999, the Court resolved:

1. With respect to the Provisional Measures adopted by the Court on August 29, 1998:

a. To maintain the provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on August 29, 1998, in favour of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire and Denny Baptiste. With respect to Mr. Anthony Briggs, to maintain the Provisional Measures ordered in his favour until such time as the Court, having previously considered the reports concerning the present status of his Case, issues a decision on this matter.

b. To urge the State of Trinidad and Tobago comply with the Order of the Court of August 29, 1998, and henceforth report every fifteen days on the status of the appeals and scheduled executions of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Biggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire and Denny Baptiste, and to require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to send its observations on these reports to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within two days of their receipt.

c. To urge the state of Trinidad and Tobago and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights immediately of any significant development concerning the circumstances of Wenceslaus James, Anthony Briggs, Anderson Noel, Anthony Garcia, Christopher Bethel, Darrin Roger Thomas, Haniff Hilaire and Denny Baptiste.

2. With respect to the Commission's request for amplification of the Provisional Measures in favour of 20 persons:

a. To ratify the Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 11, 1999.

b. To order the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures necessary to preserve the lives of Wilberforce Bernard, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Clarence Charles, Phillip Chotolai, George Constantine, Rodney Davis, Natasha De Leon , Marvyn Edmund, Alfred Frederick, Nigel Mark, Wayne Matthews, Steve Mungroo, Vijay Mungroo, Wilson Prince, Martin Reid, Noel Seepersad, Gangaleen Tahaloo, Keiron Thomas and Samuel Winchester, so as not to hinder the processing of their Cases before the Inter-American system.

c. To require the State of Trinidad and Tobago to include in its fortnightly Reports to which reference is made in operative paragraph 1.b of this Order, information on the state of the appeals and scheduled executions of Wilberforce Bernard, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Clarence Charles, Phillip Chotolai, George Constantine, Rodney Davis, Natasha De Leon, Mervyn Edmund, Alfred Frederick, Nigel Mark, Wayne Matthews, Steve Mungroo, Vijay Mungroo, Wilson Prince, Martin Reid, Noel Seepersad, Gangaleen Tahaloo, Keiron Thomas and Samuel Winchester; and to require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to include its remarks on this information in its observations.

d. To require the State of Trinidad and Tobago and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights immediately of any significant developments concerning the circumstances of Wilberofrce Bernard, Naresh Boodram, Joey Ramiah, Clarence Charles, Phillip Chotolai, George Constantine, Rodney Davis, Natasha De Leon, Mervyn Edmund, Alfred Frederick, Nigel Mark, Wayne Matthews, Steve Mungroo, Vijay Mungroo, Wilson Prince, Martin Reid, Noel Seepersad, Gangaleen Tahaloo, Keiron Thomas and Samuel Winchester.

Judges Cançado-Trindade and de Roux-Rengifo informed the Court of their Concurring Opinions, which are attached to the Order.

On May 27, 1999, the Court decided:

1. To amplify the Provisional Measures ordered in James et al Cases and to order the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago to take all measures necessary to preserve the lives of Peter Benjamin, Kevin Dial, Andrew Dottin, Anthony Johnson, Amir Mohlaw, Allan Phillip, Krishandath Seepersad and Narine Sooklal, so as not to hinder the processing of their Cases before the Inter-American system.

2. To require the State of Trinidad and Tobago to include in its fortnightly Reports to which reference is made in operative paragraph 1.b of the Order of the Court of May 25, 1999 (supra, Having Seen 1), information on the status of the scheduled executions of Peter Benjamin, Kevin Dial, Andrew Dottin, Anthony Johnson, Amir Mohlaw, Allan Phillip, Krishandath Seepersad and Narine Sooklal, and to require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to include its remarks on this information in its observations.

3. To require the State of Trinidad and Tobago and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to inform the Inter-American Court of Human Rights immediately of any significant developments concerning the circumstances of Peter Benjamin, Kevin Dial, Andrew Dottin, Anthony Johnson, Amir Mohlaw, Allan Phillip, Krishandath Seepersad and Narine Sooklal.

8) Loayza Tamayo Case (Peru): Interpretation of Judgment. The Court deliberated and, on June 3, pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention, delivered a Judgment of Interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations in the present Case. By means of said Judgment the Court decided:

unanimously,

1. That the request for interpretation of the Judgment presented by the State of Peru on November 27, 1998, with regard to the Loayza-Tamayo Case, is admissible only with respect to the payment of fees and expenditures awarded to Ms. Carolina Maida Loayza-Tamayo.

2. That Ms. Carolina Maida Loayza-Tamayo must receive full payment of fees and expenses that was ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the above-mentioned Judgment, and that said payment will not be subject to any taxes.

9) Caballero Delgado y Santana Provisional Measures (Colombia): The Court studied the reports submitted by the State of Colombia and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and issued a Order in which it decided:

1. To terminate the provisional measures that were ordered on April 16, 1997 in favor of Messrs. Guillermo Guerrero-Zambrano and Javier Páez.

2. To maintain the provisional measures that were ordered on April 16, 1997 in favor of Ms. María Nodelia Parra, Mr. Gonzalo Arias-Alturo and Ms. Elida González-Vergel.

3. To require the State of Colombia to present in its next report a detailed summary of the measures that it has adopted with respect to the recent changes in the situation of Mr. Gonzalo Arias-Alturo and Ms. Elida González-Vergel. In addition, that it present in said document specific information on the participation of the beneficiaries in the decisions related to the compliance with the orders of the Court.

10) Colotenango Provisional Measures (Guatemala): The Court studied the reports that were submitted by the State of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and issued an Order in which it decided:

1. To require the State of Guatemala to maintain the necessary measures to protect the life and integrity of the persons in whose favor the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered provisional measures in its Orders of June 22 and December, 1994, and September 19, 1997.

2. To require the State of Guatemala to investigate the denounced acts that gave rise to the present Measures with the end of discovering the responsible parties and punishing them.

3. To require the State of Guatemala to immediately report on the alternate mechanisms that, as a consequence of the acts of April 30, 1999, have been adopted to effectively carry out the Provisional Measures that were ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

4. To require the State of Guatemala to allow the petitioners to participate in the planning and implementation of the measures which are referred to in the above point and that, in general, Guatemala keep them informed of the progress of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

5. To require the State of Guatemala to continue to present reports on the provisional measures taken every two months, and to require the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to include its remarks on said reports within six weeks of receipt.

11) Cesti Hurtado Provisional Measures (Peru): The Court studied the reports submitted by the State of Peru and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and issued an resolution in which it decided:

1. To require the State of Peru to adopt those provisional measures necessary to ensure the physical and psychological integrity of Ms. Carmen Judith Cardó-Guarderas, Ms. Margarita del Carmen Cesti-Cardó and Mr. Gustavo Cesti-Cardó.

2. To require the State of Peru to investigate the acts denounced by Ms. Carmen Judith Cardó-Guarderas that motivated the present amplification of provisional measures.

3. To require the State of Peru to include a detailed description of the protective and preventive measures adopted in favor of Messrs. Cardó-Guarderas and Cesti-Cardó in the periodic reports in which the state of provisional measures ordered in this Case is presented.

12) New Case: The Court examined the submission, by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, of a new case (Hilaire Case against the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago). The application in this case (N. 11,816) refers to the alleged violations of the following articles of the American Convention: 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Freedom) and 25 (Judicial Protection), all in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same, as a consequence of the arrest, detention, and death penalty imposed on Mr. Haniff Hilaire for having committed the crime of homicide, based on mandatory death penalty law.

13) Other Matters: The Court considered several procedural steps in matters pending before it and analyzed the various reports submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the States that are involved in cases in which Provisional Measures have been adopted. In addition, the Court welcomed members from the Institute of Judicial Investigations of Mexico - UNAM; the President of the European Court of Human Rights, Judge Luzius Wildhaber; and his advisor, Doctor Herbert Petzold; who attended the hearings and activities of the Court.

The composition of the Court, during this Regular Session was as follows: Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), President; Antônio A. Cançado-Trindade (Brazil), Vice President; Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela); Sergio García-Ramírez (Mexico) and Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo (Colombia). In the Cesti-Hurtado Case, José Alberto Bustamente-Belaunde, appointed by the State of Peru, participated as Judge ad hoc. In the Durand y Ugarte and Castillo-Petruzzi et al Cases, Fernando Vidal-Ramírez, appointed by the State of Peru, participated as Judge ad hoc. In the Las Palmeras Case, Julio A. Barberis, appointed by the State of Colombia, participated as Judge ad hoc. Finally, in the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case Alejandro Montiel-Argüello, appointed by the State of Nicaragua, participated as Judge ad hoc. In addition, the Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, and the Deputy Secretary, Renzo Pomi, were present.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an autonomous judicial institution of the Organization of American States established in 1979. The Court is composed of jurists of the highest moral standing and competence in the area of human rights. Judges are elected by the OAS General Assembly and cannot be elected for more than two six-year terms.

For more information, please address all requests to:

Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Apartado 6906-1000, San José, Costa Rica

Telephone (506) 234-0581. Telefax (506) 234-0584.

E-mail: corteidh@racsa.co.cr

San José, June 9, 1999


Pies de página/Footnotes

(*) The contents of this release are the responsibility of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The official text of the documents may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Secretariat at the address provided at the end of this document.

(*) El contenido de este comunicado es responsabilidad de la Secretaría de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. El texto oficial de los documentos reseñados puede obtenerse mediante solicitud escrita dirigida a la Secretaría, en la dirección que se adjunta.

 



Home || Treaties || Search || Links