INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER et al. v. GUATEMALA[*]
JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 28, 2014
(Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs)
In the case of Human Rights Defender et al.,
the Inter-American Court of Human rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges:[**]
Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, President;
Roberto F. Caldas, Vice-President;
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Judge;
Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge, and
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Judge;
also present,
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and
Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary,
in accordance with Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) and Articles 31, 32, 42, 65 and 67 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules”), delivers this Judgment, which is structured as follows:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 4
II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 5
III JURISDICTION 6
IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 7
A) Preliminary objection regarding failure to exhaust domestic remedies 8
B) Regarding the alleged violation of the State’s right to defense 10
V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 12
A) Alleged lack of legal standing of the representatives 12
B) Factual framework 14
C) Determination of the alleged victims 15
VI EVIDENCE 16
A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 17
B) Admission of the evidence 17
VII FACTS 21
A) Background relevant to the case 21
B) Life and previous work of A.A. and B.A. 26
C) The facts of the case 29
D) The investigations 31
VIII MERITS 39
VIII.1. RIGHTS TO LIFE AND PERSONAL INTEGRITY, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO GUARANTEE RIGHTS 39
A) Status as human rights defenders of A.A. and B.A. 40
B) Rights to life and personal integrity in relation to the obligation to guarantee rights 43
VIII.2. RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO GUARANTEE RIGHTS 52
A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 52
B) Considerations of the Court 53
VIII.3. RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN GOVERNMENT, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO GUARANTEE RIGHTS 57
A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 57
B) Considerations of the Court 58
VIII.4. RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 59
A) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 59
B) Considerations of the Court 61
IX REPARATIONS 73
A) Injured Party 74
B) Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, judge and, if applicable, punish those responsible.. 74
C) Comprehensive measures of reparation: restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 75
D) Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages 78
E) Costs and expenses 79
F) Other measures of reparation requested 81
G) Method of compliance with the payments ordered 81
OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 82
IINTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE
1. The case before the Court. – On July 17, 2012, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted a brief to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court (hereinafter “submission brief”) in the case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala (hereinafter the “State” or “Guatemala”). According to the Commission, this case concerns the State’s alleged “failure to prevent the murder of the human rights defender [A.A.], on December 20, 2004, [which] remains in impunity as a result of the irregularities committed at the beginning of the investigation and the lack of diligence in investigating hypotheses related to the motive for the killing. Furthermore, it alleged that the investigation did not take place within a reasonable time and was compromised by the lack of protection afforded to the persons who were actively involved in the process.” The Commission held that the State’s failure to provide protection for the victims’ family members led to their displacement, in violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence. It also alleged that Guatemala failed in its duty to guarantee political rights, in view of the public position held by Mr. A.A., and the fact that it became impossible for his daughter, B.A., to continue to exercise those rights.
2. Proceedings before the Commission – The proceedings before the Commission were as follows:
a) Petition - On December 9, 2005, the Commission received a petition submitted by Ms. Claudia Samayoa and B.A.[1].
b) Admissibility Report. – On September 8, 2010, the Commission approved the Report on Admissibility No. 109/10 (hereinafter “the Admissibility Report”). In that report, the Commission declared the petition admissible “for the purposes of analyzing the alleged violation of the right established in Article 4 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to [Mr. A.A.]. It also decide[d] to declare the case admissible with regard to the alleged violation of the rights established in Articles 5(1), 8(1) and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of said Treaty with respect to [B.A.] and her relatives.”
c) Report on the Merits. – On March 21, 2012, in compliance with Article 50 of the American Convention, the Commission approved the Report on Merits No. 56/12 (hereinafter, “Merits Report”), in which it reached a number of conclusions and made various recommendations to the State.
i. Conclusions. – The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for:
[1.] the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [C.A.][;] [D.A.]; [E.A.]; [B.A.]; [F.A.]; [G.A.]; [H.A.]; [I.A.] and his siblings; [J.A.]; [K.A.]; [L.A.]; [M.A.] and [N.A.][;]
[2.] the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same Treaty, to the detriment of [A.A.] [;]
[3.] the violation of the right to freedom of movement and residence enshrined in Article 22 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [C.A.][;] [E.A.]; [B.A.]; [F.A.]; [G.A.], [H.A.]; [J.A.]; [K.A.]; [L.A.]; [M.A.] and [N.A.][;]
[4.] the violation of the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [C.A.][;] [D.A.]; [E.A.]; [B.A.]; [F.A.]; [G.A.], [H.A.]; [I.A.] and his siblings; [J.A.]; [K.A.]; [L.A.]; [M.A.] and [N.A.][, and]
[5.] the violation of the right to participate in government enshrined in Article 23(1) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of [A.A.] and [B.A.].
ii. Recommendations-Consequently, the Commission made a number of recommendations to the State:
1. [m]ake comprehensive reparations for the human rights violations declared in the [Merits Report] both in their material and moral aspects [;]
2. [d]evelop and complete a full, thorough and impartial judicial investigation, in a timely manner, with the aim of establishing the circumstances surrounding [Mr. A.A.’s] death; conduct a thorough investigation of the logical lines of investigation in relation to the case; and identify all persons involved at the different stages of planning and execution, and apply the appropriate punishments [;]
3. [i]ssue the appropriate administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures with regard to the actions or omissions of the state officials who contributed to the denial of justice and impunity surrounding the events of the case [;]
4. [a]dopt measures of a legislative, institutional or judicial character aimed at reducing the exposure to risk facing human rights defenders who are in a vulnerable situation. In this regard, the State must:
4.1 [s]trengthen the institutional capacity to combat the pattern of impunity surrounding cases of threats and murders of human rights defenders, through the elaboration of investigation protocols which take into account the risks inherent to the work of human rights defenders, in order to allow for a comprehensive development of the investigation under this hypothesis[;]
4.2 [s]trengthen the mechanisms for the effective protection of individuals whose statements have a significant impact on the investigations and who are at risk as a result of their connection to with these [, and]
4.3 [d]evelop swift and adequate institutional response measures, which allow for effective protection of human rights defenders in situations of risk.
d) Notification of the State –The Commission notified the Merits Report to the State on April 17, 2012, and granted it a period of two months to report on its compliance with the recommendations. The State of Guatemala submitted a report in this regard on June 20, 2012.
e) Submission of the case to the Court. – On July 17, 2012, the Inter-American Commission submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction all the facts concerning the human rights violations described in its Merits Report No. 56/12. The Commission appointed Commissioner Dinah Shelton as its delegate before the Court. Likewise, it appointed Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Assistant Executive Secretary, and Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Isabel Madariaga and Jorge Humberto Meza, attorneys of the Commission’s Executive Secretariat, as legal advisers.
3. Request of the Inter-American Commission. – Based on the foregoing, the Commission requested that the Court declare the State’s international responsibility for the violations cited in its Merits Report[2] (supra para. 2(c)).
IIPROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
4. Notification to the State and to the representatives – The submission of this case was notified to the State and to the representatives of the alleged victims on October 5, 2012, through a communication of the Secretariat.
5. Brief of pleadings, motions and evidence – On December 8, 2012, Claudia Virginia Samayoa Pineda and B.A. submitted their brief of pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”) to the Court. They substantially agreed with the arguments presented by the Commission, but included as alleged victims certain individuals who were not named in the Merits Report (supra paras. 2 (c) and 2(e) and infra para. 49). Finally, the representatives requested that the Court order the State to adopt several measures of reparation and to provide reimbursement for costs and expenses.
6. Answer brief – On May 20, 2013, the State presented its brief of preliminary objections, its answer to the submission of the case and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answer brief”). Regarding the merits of the case, the State argued that it was not responsible for any of the violations alleged. It appointed Mr. Rodrigo José Villagrán Sandoval as its Agent and notified the Court of the appointment of Mr. Antonio Arenales Forno as the new President of the Presidential Commission for the Coordination of Human Rights Policies (COPREDEH).
7. Observations to the preliminary objections – On August 28 and 30, 2013, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, submitted their observations to the preliminary objections.
8. Public hearing – By means of an Order issued by the President of the Court on December 20, 2013, the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State were summoned to a public hearing to present their final oral observations and final oral arguments, respectively, on the preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations and costs. In said Order, the Court required the statements, rendered by affidavit, of a witness proposed by the State and of an expert witness and a deponent summoned for information purposes, proposed by the representatives. The representatives and the State had an opportunity to ask questions and make observations to the deponents offered by the counterpart. The Court also summoned an alleged victim proposed by the representatives, a witness proposed by the State and an expert witness proposed by the Commission to testify at the public hearing. The public hearing took place on February 5, 2014, at the seat of the Court during its 102nd Regular Period of Sessions.[3]
9. Evidence to facilitate adjudication – On February 14, 2014, the Court’s Secretariat sent a note to the parties and to the Commission requesting documentation as evidence to facilitate adjudication. This evidence was submitted on February 28, 2014.
10. Final written arguments and observations – On March 3, 2014, the State submitted its final written arguments. On March 5, 2014, the representatives and the Commission submitted their final written arguments and observations, respectively. On that occasion the representatives presented new arguments in relation to the preliminary objections presented by the State and the reparations requested in the pleadings and motions brief (supra para. 5), and the Commission presented new arguments concerning B.A.´s status as a human rights defender. These new arguments are extemporaneous and, therefore, they will not be taken into consideration. Likewise, the representatives submitted various documents concerning, inter alia, the expenses incurred after the presentation of the brief of pleadings and motions.
11. Observations to the evidence to facilitate adjudication and attachments to the final arguments of the representatives – On March 21 and 26, 2014, the State and the Commission submitted, respectively, their observations to the evidence to facilitate adjudication and to the attachments submitted by the representatives with their final written arguments. On March 26, 2014, the representatives submitted their observations to the evidence presented by the State to facilitate adjudication.
III
JURISDICTION
12. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, given that Guatemala has been a State Party to the Convention since May 25, 1978 and accepted the Court’s binding jurisdiction on March 9, 1987.
IV
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
13. In its answer brief, the State filed preliminary objections, responded to the submission brief and made observations to the brief of pleadings and motions. With respect to the preliminary objections and related matters, it presented five separate arguments:
a) A “preliminary analysis of jurisdiction,” which it did not expressly define as a preliminary objection;
b) “Preliminary objection regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies”;
c) “Preliminary objection regarding the incongruities, contradictions and inconsistencies of the facts that constitute the factual framework established by the Commission […], with respect to the facts alleged in the brief of pleadings [and motions …]”;