Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Yüklə 0,88 Mb.
|
|
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of La Cantuta v. Perú Judgment of November 29, 2006 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the case of La Cantuta, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges:* Sergio García-Ramírez, President; Alirio Abreu-Burelli, Vicepresident; Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, Judge; Cecilia Medina-Quiroga, Judge; Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Judge; and Fernando Vidal-Ramírez, Judge ad hoc.
Emilia Segares-Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary; Pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 29, 31, 53(2), 55, 56, and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers the following Judgment. I Introduction to the Case 1. On February 14, 2006, pursuant to Articles 50 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) filed an application before the Court against the State of Perú (hereinafter the “the State” or “the Peruvian State”), originated in Petition No. 11,045 and received by the Secretariat of the Commission on July 30, 1992. In the application the Commission requested the Court to declare that the State had violated the rights enshrined in Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Judicial Guarantees), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the prejudice of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Felipe Flores-Chipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa. Furthermore, the Commission requested the Court to declare that the State is responsible for violating Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 8 (Right to Judicial Guarantees), and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the prejudice of the alleged victims’ next of kin. The Commission further requested the Court to declare that the State has violated Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Obligation to Adopt Domestic Measures) of the Convention, to the prejudice of the alleged victims. 2. The application is based on the alleged “violation of the human rights of Professor Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez and of students Bertila Lozano-Torres, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Felipe Flores-Chipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa [...] as well as of the rights of their next of kin,” on the grounds of the alleged kidnapping of the alleged victims from the Universidad Nacional de Educación “Enrique Guzmán y Valle” (Enrique Guzmán y Valle National University), located in La Cantuta, Lima, in the predawn hours of July 18, 1992, an operation carried out by members of the Peruvian Army, “who [allegedly] kidnapped the [alleged] victims, some of whom disappeared and were allegedly summarily executed;” as well as on the alleged impunity regarding those events as a result of the failure of the State to conduct an effective investigation into the facts. The Commission alleges that “this case shows the abuses committed by the Military, as well as the systematic practice of committing violations of human rights, among them, forced disappearances and extra-legal executions, by State agents on instructions from military and police higher officers, as the Inter-American Commission and the Comisión de la Verdad y la Reconciliación del Perú (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Perú) have stated since the early '90s.” 3. Furthermore, the Commission submitted to the consideration of the Court the matter of the alleged damage caused by the State to the alleged victims’ next of kin and, pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention, requested the Court to order the State to adopt the reparation measures requested in the application. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to pay the costs and expenses arising from the domestic legal proceedings and from the proceedings before the Inter-American System of Human Rights. II Competence 4. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention, as Perú has been a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III Proceeding Before the Commission 5. On July 30, 1992 Gisela Ortiz-Perea, Rosario Muñoz-Sánchez, Raida Cóndor, José Oyague and Bitalia Barrueta de Pablo filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission on the grounds of the alleged detention occurred on July 18, 1992 and subsequent disappearance of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Dora Oyague-Fierro, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Felipe Flores-Chipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, and Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa. On August 4, 1992 the Commission ordered the commencement of criminal proceedings under No. 11,045 and forwarded the complaint to the State. 6. On February 4, 1993 the human rights organization Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (hereinafter “APRODEH”) filed a petition before the Inter-American Commission for the alleged detention and disappearance of the same persons (supra para. 5). 7. On October 22, 1993 the organization Centro de Estudios y Acción para la Paz (Center for the Study and Action for Peace) (hereinafter “CEAPAZ”) appeared before the Commission as “co-petitioner” and tendered additional information concerning the facts. 8. On March 11, 1999, at its 102nd Regular Session, the Commission issued the Report on Admissibility No. 42/99. On the 15th day of the same month and year the Commission served notice of the above-mentioned Report upon the petitioners and the State. 9. On February 22, 2001, at its 110th Regular Session, the Commission and the State issued a joint press release regarding the outcome of a meeting which was attended by the then Minister of Justice of Perú, Diego García-Sayán, on behalf of the State, and the then Permanent Representative of Perú before the Organization of American States (hereinafter “OAS”), Ambassador Manuel Rodríguez-Cuadros. On behalf of the Commission there appeared its President at the time, Dean Claudio Grossman; its First Vice-President, Dr. Juan Méndez; its Second Vice-President, Ms. Marta Altolaguirre; Commissioners Robert Goldman and Peter Laurie, and its Executive Secretary, Dr. Jorge E. Taiana. In subparagraph b) of the above-mentioned joint press release the instant case was included among others in which the State would acknowledge its liability and adopt measures to restore the violated rights and/or repair the damage caused. 10. On October 24, 2005, at its 123rd Regular Session, the Commission issued Report on the Merits No. 95/05 pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, wherein it concluded, inter alia, that the State had violated the rights enshrined in Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Judicial Guarantees), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Commission recommended the State to adopt a number of measures aimed at repairing the abovementioned violations. 11. On November 14, 2005 the Commission forwarded the Report on the Merits to the State, granting it a term of two months to notify the Commission of the measures adopted in compliance with its recommendations. 12. On November 28, 2005 the Commission, pursuant to Article 43(3) of its Rules of Procedure, informed the petitioners of the adoption of the Report on the Merits and of service thereof upon the State and requested them to submit a brief stating their position regarding the possible submission of the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court. On December 30, 2005, among other considerations, the petitioners stated that “if the State of Perú failed to compl[y] with the recommendations made thereto by the Inter-American Commission within the term set to that purpose in the Report [on the Merits] issued by the Commission [...they]wanted the case [to be] submitted to the contentious jurisdiction of the [...] Court.” On January 13, 2006 the State requested an extension of the term set to inform the Commission of the measures adopted in compliance with its recommendations, which was granted until January 29, 2006. On January 30 of that same year the Peruvian State filed its report on compliance. 13. On January 30, 2006 upon the possible submission of the case to the Inter-American Court, the Commission requested the petitioners to appoint a common intervener who, pursuant to Article 23(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court “shall be the only person authorized to present pleadings, motions, and evidence during the proceedings, including the public hearings.” On February 3, 7, and 10, 2006 CEJIL and APRODEH forwarded communications wherein information regarding the beneficiaries and their powers of attorney were included, and a common intervener was designated respectively. 14. On February 10, 2006, the Inter-American Commission decided to submit the instant case to the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, “in view of the failure [of the State] to satisfactorily implement” the recommendations contained in Report No. 95/05.” IV Proceeding Before the Court 15. On February 14, 2006, the Inter-American Commission filed an application before the Court (supra para. 1), attaching documentary evidence thereto and offering to submit testimonial and expert evidence as well. The Commission appointed Clare K. Roberts, Commissioner and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates; and Víctor Madrigal-Borloz and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Dominique Milá, and Lilly Ching as legal counsels. 16. On March 17, 2006 the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”), once the application had been examined by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”), served notice of said application and appendixes thereto upon the State, which was also notified of the term within which it was to answer the application and appoint its agents in the proceedings. 17. On that same date, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35(1)(d) and (e) of the Rules of Procedure, the Secretariat served the application upon the organizations appointed as representatives of the alleged victims’ next of kin, APRODEH, CEAPAZ, and the Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional (Center for Justice and International Law) (hereinafter “the representatives”), and informed them that a term of two months had been set for them to file their brief containing the requests, arguments, and evidence (hereinafter “brief of requests and arguments”). 18. On March 31, 2006 the Secretariat served notice upon the State that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 10 of the Statute of the Court and Article 18 of its Rules of Procedure, it was entitled to appoint a judge ad hoc to take part in the consideration of the case within thirty days of the date of such notice. 19. On April 21, 2006 the State appointed Iván Arturo Bazán-Chacón as Agent. 20. On April 28, 2006 the State appointed Fernando Vidal-Ramírez as judge ad hoc. 21. On May 17 and 23, 2006 the representatives filed their brief of requests and arguments, together with appendixes thereto, wherein they offered to submit testimonial and expert witness evidence. 22. On July 21, 2006 the State filed its answer to the application (hereinafter the “answer to the application”), attaching documentary evidence thereto. In said brief the Peruvian State made an acquiescence to the claims and a partial acknowledgement of international liability for certain violations alleged by the Commission (infra paras. 37 to 44). 23. On August 17, 2006 the President issued an Order, whereby it was ordered that affidavits be admitted as testimonies of Fedor Muñoz-Sánchez, Rodolfo Robles-Espinoza, and Víctor Cubas-Villanueva, who had been proposed as witnesses by the Commission and the representatives, and those of Jaime Oyague-Velazco, José Ariol Teodoro-León, José Esteban Oyague-Velazco, Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo, Carmen Amaro-Cóndor, Bertila Bravo-Trujillo, and Rosario Carpio-Cardoso-Figueroa, proposed as witnesses by the representatives, as well as the expert opinions of Eloy Andrés Espinoza-Saldaña-Barrera, proposed by the Commission, and of Kai Ambos and Samuel Abad-Yupanqui, proposed by the representatives, all testimonies which were to be forwarded to the Court by September 8 of that same year. Pursuant to operative paragraph 3 of said Order, the parties were granted a non-renewable extension of seven days, running from the moment such testimonies and expert opinions were received, to submit any comments that they might deem appropriate concerning said testimonies. Furthermore, in view of the specific circumstances of the case, the President summoned the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State to a public hearing to be held at the seat of the Court on September 29, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., to hear the final oral arguments on the merits and reparations, costs and expenses in the instant case, as well as the testimonies of Gisela Ortiz-Perea and Raida Cóndor-Sáez, proposed as witnesses by the Commission and by the representatives, and of Antonia Pérez-Velásquez, proposed as witness by the representatives. Furthermore, in such Order, the President informed the parties that they would have a non-renewable term extending until October 29, 2006 to submit their final written arguments regarding the merits of the case and the reparations and costs and expenses. 24. On August 30, 2006 the Secretariat requested the State to forward, as soon as possible, several documents to which it had made reference in its answer to the application, but which had neither been offered nor attached as evidence in the appendixes thereto. On September 27 of that same year the Secretariat reiterated said request to the State, which forwarded part of the documentation requested on November 2, 2006. 25. On September 8, 2006 the representatives submitted the affidavits rendered by Fedor Muñoz-Sánchez, Carmen Rosa Amaro-Cóndor, Dina Flormelania Pablo-Mateo, Víctor Andrés Ortiz-Torres, Víctor Cubas-Villanueva, José Ariol Teodoro-León, José Esteban Oyague-Velazco, Rosario Carpio-Cardoso-Figueroa, and Edmundo Cruz (supra para. 23). 26. On September 11, 2006 the affidavit of Rodolfo Robles-Espinoza was directly received at the Secretariat. On that same day the Secretariat informed the Commission and the State that a term of seven days had been set for them to file their comments on the affidavits submitted by the representatives (supra para. 25). 27. On September 11, 2006 the representatives informed that Bertila Bravo-Trujillo and Jaime Oyague had not been able to execute the affidavits and that Kai Ambos would not be able to give the expert opinion he had been requested. 28. On September 14 and 21, 2006 after an extension of the term set for filing expert evidence had been granted, the Commission and the representatives submitted the expert opinions of Eloy Espinosa-Saldaña and Samuel Abad-Yupanqui. 29. On September 18, 2006 the Commission informed that it had no comments to submit regarding the affidavits filed by the representatives (supra para. 25). For its part, on the following day the State submitted its comments regarding the affidavits, which had been forwarded to the parties on the 11th day of the same month and year (supra para. 26). 30. On September 26, 2006 the Court issued an Order whereby it decided to commission its President, Judge Sergio García-Ramírez, its Vicepresident, Judge Alirio Abreu-Burelli, judges Antônio A. Cançado Trindade and Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, and judge ad hoc Fernando Vidal-Ramírez to attend the public hearing which had been summoned for September 29, 2006 and which was to be held at the seat of the Court (supra para. 23). 31. On September 26, 2006 the State filed its comments on the expert opinions of Eloy Andrés Espinoza-Saldaña-Barrera and Samuel Abad-Yupanqui, submitted by means of affidavits (supra para. 28). 32. On September 29, 2006, during its LXXII Regular Session, the Court held the public hearing which had been summoned (supra para. 23), and at which there appeared: a) for the Inter-American Commission: Paolo Carozza, Delegate; Santiago Canton, Executive Secretary, Delegate; Víctor H. Madrigal-Borloz, counsel; and Norma Colledani and Lilly Ching, advisors; b) for the representatives: Gloria Cano, counsel from APRODEH; and Ana Aliverti, María Clara Galvis, Ariela Peralta, and Viviana Krsticevic, counsels from CEJIL; and c) for the State: Iván Arturo Bazán-Chacón, Agent, and Alberto Gutiérrez-La Madrid, Ambassador of Perú in Costa Rica. The Court heard the testimonies of the alleged victims’ next of kin who had been summoned, as well as the parties’ final oral arguments. 33. On October 24, 2006 the Secretariat, on instructions from the President and pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, requested the Inter-American Court, the representatives, and the State to file, not later than October 31, 2006, the following information and documentation as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the instant case:
Furthermore, the Commission and the representatives were requested to file relevant documents showing the parentage, and if appropriate, the death, of those who were stated as the alleged victims’ next of kin in the application and in the brief of requests and arguments, regarding whom no documents showing their existence or parentage have been submitted. Furthermore, they were requested to inform the reasons why Zorka Muñoz-Rodríguez was not included on the list of the alleged victims’ next of kin and, if appropriate, to forward the relevant documents showing her possible parentage or death. 34. On October 27, 2006 the organization Instituto de Defensa Legal del Perú (Peruvian Legal Defense Institute) filed a brief as amicus curiae. On November 24 of the same year the State filed its objections to said document. 35. On October 29, 2006 the State and the Commission submitted their final written arguments. On the following day, the representatives filed their objection to said document. 36. On November 1, 3, 10, 13, 20, and 24, 2006 the representatives, the Commission, and the State submitted information and documentation in reply to the request for evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the instant case (supra para. 33 and infra para. 66). V Partial Acknowledgement of Liability 37. In the instant case, the State acknowledged its international responsibility not only before the Commission but before this Court as well, on account of which it proceeds to define its terms and extent. 38. In subparagraph b) of the press release issued by the Commission on February 22nd 2001, in the framework of the 110th regular session period, together with Perú (supra para. 9),”it compromised to admit responsibility and adopt measures to restore the affected rights and/or make amends for the damage inflicted in several cases, case 11045 (La Cantuta) among them.” 39. During the processing of the instant case before the Inter American Court, the State acquiesced in the “alleged facts but disagrees with regard to the legal consequences attributed to some of the aforementioned events;” it also “declared to the Court that it acquiesces partially in some of the claims of the Commission and of the representatives of the alleged victims.” 40. In chapter V of its answer to the petition, titled “Admission of facts by the State,” which it repeats in chapter III of its final written arguments, Perú has declared: The acts admitted by the State include:
c) the abduction, including the illegal detention, mistreatment of ten people: Hugo Muñoz- Sanchez; Juan Mariños-Figueroa; Bertila Lozano-Torres; Roberto Teodoro-Espinoza; Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas; Felipe Flores-Chipana; Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea; Armando Amaro-Cóndor; Heráclides Pablo-Meza and Dora Oyague-Fierro; their forced disappearance, the infringement of the right to recognition as a person before the law (paras. 53 to 57 of the application.) d) the extra-legal execution of Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Roberto Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea and Bertila Lozano-Torres, whose bodies were subsequently found (paras. 58 to 68 of the application.) e) the persistence of the forced disappearance of Dora Oyague-Fierro, Felipe Flores-Chipana, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Hugo Muñoz-Sanchez (para. 69 of the application.) f) the violation of the right to a fair trial and legal protection. These facts were revealed in the initial acts of the investigation (paras. 90 to 105 of the application,) the subsequent intervention of military courts (paras. 106, 111 and 112 of the application,) of the Congress of the Republic (para. 109 of the application,) order of the Supreme Court of Justice (paras. 108, 109 and 110 of the application,) passing of Amnesty Law No. 26,479 by the Congress (para. 113 of the application,) and Law No. 26,492 (para. 116 of the application) and the enactment of said amnesty laws by the Executive Power, even though it is not specifically stated in the application. g) the existence of the so named “Grupo Colina” (Colina Group) (paras. 83 to 89 of the application.) h) the enactment of the amnesty laws and the effects of the decision of the Inter-American Court in the case of Barrios Altos vs. Perú (paras. 113, 116, 117 and 118 of the application.) i) the new investigations (paras. 119, 120, 121 to 126 of the application.) 41. Based on this acknowledgement of facts the State declared that: In the light of the investigations started in 1993, then interrupted and resumed by the Attorney General´s Office of Perú, - the body empowered by the Political Constitution of the State and the Organizational Law of the Attorney General´s Office to carry out that activity-, [i]t is evident, in both criminal actions pending before the courts of the Judicial Power, that during 14 years. Articles 4, 5, 3, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, have been violated by the acts and omissions of the Peruvian State, 42. Moreover, the State immediately made several statements regarding the scope of the aforementioned acknowledgement, which was titled “contradiction of the State and partial acquiescence in the legal consequences of the admitted facts and some qualifications or legal considerations on them” in the following terms: The Peruvian State, immediately after the end of the administration of former President Alberto Fujimori, adopted specific measures to restore a smooth relationship with the Inter-American system of protection, reinforce the rule of law and avoid impunity for the crimes committed against human rights and to the detriment of public property.[…] [T]hrough a Joint Communication signed before the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights and the Peruvian State on February 22, 2001, the State announced that it would acknowledge its international responsibility for some cases, including the case of La Cantuta, and it would adopt other measures in those cases that had concluded with Reports produced under Article 51 of the American Convention.[…] The State does not deny the occurrence of events nor the fact that they took place on account of acts or omissions committed by government agents, whether authorities or public officers, and therefore, the State is also involved. Nevertheless, the State explains that the reaction of the State took place in a backdrop where impunity prevailed up to the end of year 2000, when the State changed its conduct as from the beginning of the democratic transition and the restoration of the rule of law in the country. […] The State admits that no guilty sentence has been rendered against the persons who are at present accused or under investigation, but it also admits that the obligation to investigate and punish is a best efforts obligation rather than an obligation to ensure results., held by the Honorable Inter-American Court in the cases of Velasquez-Rodriguez, Godinez-Cruz, Caballero- Delgado y Santana and Baldeón-García. The State´s conduct of processing two criminal cases and starting a preliminary investigation should not be considered simple formalities bound to fail from the very beginning, but a firm and determined process to get rid of impunity, which some people tried to institutionalize in Perú in the last decade. […] The State admits that the progress of the criminal cases instituted before the Special Criminal Panel and in the Investigative Division of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic is only partial. Furthermore, it acknowledges that the preliminary investigation carried out by the Attorney General´s Office into the existence of masterminds of the investigated crimes has not led yet to a formal complaint before the Judicial Power so as to commence a new criminal proceeding. […] The State of Perú does not oppose to the characterization made by the Commission, of the period during which the events took place, which as described as one where a generalized and systematic practice of extra-legal executions and forced disappearances existed, pursuant to Item VII(E) of the application. That is to say, […] the events are contextualized in what the Commission considers a systematic and generalized practice (associated or copulative characteristics) of violations of human rights.[…] It is clear that in previous cases the Inter-American Court reached the conclusion that a systematic practice of extra-legal executions and forced disappearances existed in Perú in cases occurring at the same time that the events of the case of La Cantuta, […] the judgment of the National Criminal Panel that has recently been delivered in the case of the forced disappearance of Ernesto Castillo-Páez, judgment of March 20, 2006,[…] the National Court follows [the case law of the Inter-American Court pursuant to which] between years 1989 and 1993, the practice of forced disappearance was part of the anti-subversive strategy applied by the State of Perú. Such strategy has been considered a systematic and generalized practice of human rights violation by the Honorable Supreme Court. The events of the instant case took place during said period. Even though this assertion comes from a domestic judicial authority, it is not a final judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic, however, it shows the will of the State to acknowledge the existence of a practice by the State, notwithstanding the possibility to prove whether it was a generalized or systematic practice or, as asserted in the application, that it really was generalized and systematic.. In connection with the aforementioned, the analysis and contribution made through the final report of the CVR (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) was revealing. It is worth noting that the concept of a generalized practice of violations of human rights involves a high number of acts and victims. It is true that the concurrence of indirect and circumstantial evidence shall be enough for the Commission, which does not require the same level of evidence than that required by a domestic criminal court, but if a domestic criminal court, specialized in human rights and with a different or more rigorous level of evidence, has arrived to the same conclusion when deciding over the freedom of people or on how to protect such fundamental juridical rights as physical freedom, humane treatment and even life, it is reasonable to think that if the national criminal court concluded that the State carried out the practice of forced disappearances, the State itself is admitting its international liability for having caused such situation or for failing to adopt measures to prevent the commission of said international wrongful act. The Constitutional Court of Perú, in the case of Santiago Enrique Martín-Rivas, arrives to the conclusion that at the time of the events ”those circumstances are related to the existence of a systematic plan to promote impunity in matters involving the violation of human rights and crimes against humanity, particularly the acts committed by the Grupo Colina. (Colina Group.) […]. Therefore, both the specialized judicial body of the Peruvian judiciary and the highest body of constitutional justice admit that at the time when the events of the instant case took place, crimes against humanity were committed, and the State intended to conceal the human rights violations, with a systematic plan. Besides, it must be pointed out, that the State is not only a party to the American Convention, but also to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, whereby, pursuant to Article IV, the State commits itself to punishing any act constituting forced disappearance. 43. Moreover, during the public hearing held by the Court in the instant case (supra para. 32), the State agent expressed “his grief to the next of kin of the alleged victims” and read an “official statement on behalf of the President of the Republic” in the following terms: The President of the Republic of Perú greets the Inter American Court of Human Rights, which has met today to try the case of La Cantuta. The State of Perú deeply regrets the fate of that group of Peruvians, nine students and a professor, and on stating its grief for the pain inflicted to their next of kin, it also wishes to ratify its commitment to comply with its international obligations. 44. Moreover, in the final oral and written arguments the State: reiterated […] that such acts and omissions constitute international wrongful acts that generate the international liability of the State. They are crimes according to domestic law, and international crimes that the State must punish; reiterated its admission of the facts and, as regards the unsettled issue, it shares the concern of the victims’ next of kin. . The State is determined to do justice. However, even though it admits the facts, the State disagrees with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) regarding some of the Commission´s claims pursuant to which the Commission expects that the Peruvian State be held internationally responsible for the violation of the right to fair trial and judicial protection on account of its conduct as from the end of year 2000 to the present time: and it also expects that the Court will declare that the Peruvian State has not adopted yet sufficient measures to annul the self-amnesty laws- Moreover, the existence of the CVR and its Final Report are based on the undeniable fact that Perú underwent a domestic armed conflict and that, in said backdrop, serious violations of human rights took place, which were attributed to the Peruvian State, among other participants in the conflict. Forced disappearances, extra-legal executions and tortures took place (General Conclusion 55) as part of said violations. La Cantuta, currently pending before a supra-national court, is one of those regrettable cases where bodily injuries were inflicted to the victims. Since the controversy over the alleged acts has been settled, the State requests the Honorable Court to declare that the case limited to the aspects or consequences resulting from those acts and specified in several claims of the [Commission] and of the representatives of the alleged victims […]. 45. In the final oral and written arguments, the Commission stated, inter alia, that:
46. In their brief of requests and arguments, as well as in their oral and written closing arguments, the representatives declared that:
b) Under democracy, the State has admitted, to a great extent, its responsibility for the events subject matter of the instant case; nevertheless there are important issues that are still disputed; most of them related to the impunity still existing. c) the representatives of the victims expressed their gratitude to the State of Perú for the significance the acknowledgement of international responsibility has “for their principals and because it contributes to the preservation of the historical memory for the events denounced in the instant case brought before the Inter American system.” 47. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that [i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and costs. 48. Article 55 of the Rules provides that [T]he Court may, notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case. 49. By exercising its inherent powers of international judicial protection of human rights, the Court may determine whether the acknowledgement of international responsibility by a respondent State provides sufficient ground, under the terms of the American Convention, to proceed with the merits and the determination of the reparations and costs. To such effect, the Court shall analyze each particular case.1 50. In prior cases decided by the Court, where there have existed an acquiescence and acknowledgement of international responsibility, the Court has held that: […] Article 53[2] of the Rules of Procedure refers to the case where a respondent State communicates to the Court its admission of the facts and acquiescence to the claims of the petitioner and so, it accepts its international responsibility for the violation of the Convention, under the terms stated in the application; this situation would lead to an early termination of the proceedings on the merits, as provided in Chapter V of the Rules of Procedure. The Court points out that pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, effective as from June 1, 2001, the application includes the allegations on the issues of fact and of law and the petitions referred to the merits of the case and the appropriate reparations and costs. In this sense, when a State acquiesces to an application, it must clearly indicate whether it is only referred to the merits of the case or if it also refers to the reparations and costs. If the acquiescence only refers to the merits of the case, the Court shall have to evaluate whether to continue with the procedural stage for deciding over reparations and costs. […] In the light of the evolution of the system of protection of human rights, nowadays, the alleged victims or their next of kin can file their brief of petitions, arguments and evidence separately and independently from those filed by the Commission, and they can even file claims consistent or not with those of the Commission, consequently, in the event an acknowledgement is submitted, it must clearly state if the claims of the alleged victims or their next of kin are also admitted.1
51. The Court points out that the State admitted the facts stated by the Commission in the application (supra para. 40.) In such broad terms, and considering that the application as the factual frame of the proceeding,2 the Court deems that the controversy over all the facts described therein has ended.
54. On the other hand, the State has not admitted any responsibility for the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention.
55. In the instant case, the State did not admit the claims for reparations made by the Commission or the representatives. * * *
56. The Court considers that the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State constitutes an important step towards the development of this process and for the enforcement of the principles that are consecrated by the American Convention.3 57. Taking into account the powers vested in the Court for the best protection of human rights, and bearing in mind the context in which the events of the instant case have taken place, the Court considers that a judgment adjudicating on the issues of fact and on all the elements of the merits of the case, as well as on the corresponding consequences thereof, constitutes a way of contributing to the preservation of the historical memory, to the redress of the damage inflicted upon the next of kin of the victims and, moreover, it also contributes to avoid the repetition of similar events.4 Therefore, without prejudice of the scope and extent of the acknowledgement made by the State, the Court deems it convenient to include the following section to analyze the facts subject matter of this case, including both the facts acknowledged by the State and the proven facts. Besides, the Court deems it necessary to clarify certain matters regarding how the violations have taken place in the context and under the circumstances of this particular case, and regarding certain consequences related to the obligations established in the American Convention. The pertinent chapters shall also be included in this Judgment.
Yüklə 0,88 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|