Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Exams of Remedies

Download Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras and more Exams Remedies in PDF only on Docsity! 1913 Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras ABSTRACT 1 This is the first case decided by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Velásquez Rodríguez case, together with the Godínez Cruz, and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales cases, all considered by the Court around the same time, form a trio of landmark cases targeting forced disappearance practices by the Honduran government during the early 1980s. I. FACTS A. Chronology of Events September 12, 1981: Mr. Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez, a student at the National Autonomous University of Honduras (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Honduras, “UNAH”), is involved in activities that the State considers dangerous to national security. 2 Between 4:30 and 5:00 pm, several heavily armed men in civilian clothes, driving a white Ford vehicle without license plates, kidnap Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez from a parking lot in downtown Tegucigalpa. 3 Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez is taken to an armed forces station located in Barrio El Manchén of Tegucigalpa, where he is detained by members of the National Office of Investigations (“DNI”) and the Honduran Armed Forces, who accuse him of political crimes, and subject him to harsh interrogation and torture. 4 September 17, 1981: Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez is moved to the First Infantry Battalion, an armed forces command area, near Tegucigalpa. 5 1. Leona Lam, Author; Elise Cossart-Daly, Grace Kim, and Sascha Meisel, Editors; Sarah Frost, Chief Articles Editor; Cesare Romano, Faculty Advisor. 2. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, ¶ 147(g)(i) (July 29, 1988). 3. Id. ¶ 147(e). 4. Id. ¶ 3. 5. Id. 1914 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 36:1913 The police and security forces deny that he was ever detained there. 6 B. Other Relevant Facts Between 1981 and 1984, approximately 150 people disappear in Honduras. 7 These disappearances all follow a similar pattern: the victims are kidnapped by force from public places in broad daylight by armed men in civilian clothes and disguises. 8 It is common knowledge that the kidnappings are carried out by military personnel or the police, or persons acting under government orders. 9 The victims are usually persons whom the authorities consider to be dangerous to State security, and who have been under surveillance for long periods of time. 10 Military and police officials either deny these disappearances or claim that they are incapable of preventing or investigating them, unable to punish those responsible, or powerless to help locate the victims or their remains. 11 The investigative committees created by the State and the Armed Forces are ineffective in producing results, and judicial proceedings regarding these disappearances are handled inefficiently. 12 II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Before the Commission October 7, 1981: A petition is submitted to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights on behalf of Mr. Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez. 13 October 4, 1983: The Commission adopts Resolution No. 30/83, which presumes the allegations contained in the petition to the Commission are true. 14 The petition concerns the detention and possible disappearance of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez, and lays out the allegations that Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez was kidnapped by government officials, taken away to armed forces’ headquarters, detained, interrogated and 6. Id. 7. Id. ¶ 147(a). 8. Id. ¶ 147(b). 9. Id. ¶ 147(c). 10. Id. ¶ 147(c)(i). 11. Id. ¶ 147(d)(v). 12. Id. 13. Id. ¶ 1. 14. Id. ¶ 4. 2014] Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras 1917 hearing, and improper application of Articles 50, which provides that the Commission may draw up a report if a settlement is not reached, and 51, which provides that if the State has not responded to the Commission’s report within three months, the Commission may by majority vote set forth its opinions regarding the question submitted. 30 June 26, 1987: The Court delivers its judgment on the State’s preliminary objections. 31 The Court unanimously rejects all of the State’s preliminary objections except one, the lack of exhaustion of domestic legal remedies, 32 which the Court orders to be joined to the merits of the case because lack of effective domestic remedy often occurs in forced disappearances. 33 With respect to the objection of the lack of a formal declaration of admissibility by the Commission, the Court finds that there is nothing in the American Convention’s procedures requiring an express declaration of admissibility when the Commission itself is involved. 34 Therefore, the Commission’s failure to make an express declaration on the question of admissibility is not a valid basis for barring proper consideration by the Court. 35 Regarding the State’s argument that the Commission did not promote a friendly settlement, the Court reasons that based on the text of the American Convention, attempting such a friendly settlement need only happen when “the circumstances of the controversy make the option suitable or necessary,” and that the decision is at the Commission’s sole discretion. 36 The Court further finds that the Commission’s failure to conduct an on-site investigation to be inconsequential on the grounds that the rules governing on-site investigations are subject to the discretionary powers of the Commission. 37 With respect to the State’s objection to the Commission’s failure to hold a preliminary hearing, the Court holds that a preliminary hearing is a procedural requirement only when the Commission considers it 30. Id. ¶ 32. 31. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 1, (Jun. 26, 1987). 32. Id. ¶ “Now, therefore, the Court,” ¶ 1. 33. Id. ¶ 94. 34. Id. ¶ 39. 35. Id. ¶ 41. 36. Id. ¶ 44. 37. Id. ¶ 49. 1918 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 36:1913 necessary or when the parties express such a request. 38 Since neither the petitioners nor the State asked for a hearing, the Commission did not consider it necessary, and was not required to hold one. 39 As for the State’s objection to the improper application of Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, the Court finds that, despite that the requirements were not fully complied with, there has been no impairment of the State’s rights such that the Court should rule the case inadmissible. 40 March 20, 1987: In response to the State’s objections, the Commission draws the conclusion that the State violated Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention because it detained Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez on September 12, 1981 and he has been missing ever since. 41 The Commission further asserts that the substantive or procedural objections raised by the State have no legal basis, and requests that the Court find that the State violated the aforementioned rights of Mr. Velásquez Rodriguez. 42 November 6, 1987 - December 18, 1987: The Commission asks the Court to take provisional measures in view of threats against several witnesses who have testified or who have been asked to testify before the Court. 43 January 15, 1988: After being informed that witnesses were assassinated on January 5, 1988 and on January 14, 1988, the Court adopts provisional measures requesting that the Government of Honduras adopt all measures necessary to prevent further infringements on the basic rights of those who have appeared or have been summoned to appear before the Court in all pending forced disappearance cases (Velásquez Rodríguez, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales and Godínez Cruz cases). 44 The Court further requests that the State do everything 38. Id. ¶ 53. 39. Id. ¶ 54. 40. Id. ¶ 77. 41. Id. ¶ 26(1). 42. Id. ¶¶ 26(2)-(3). 43. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, ¶ 39 (July 29, 1988); see also Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures, Order of the Court, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. E), “Having Regard To” ¶¶ 1-3 (Jan. 15, 1988). 44. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, ¶ 39; see also Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures, Order of the Court. 2014] Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras 1919 within its power to investigate unsolved cases, identify the perpetrators, and impose punishment on those responsible for forced disappearances. 45 January 19, 1988: The Court unanimously orders the State to adopt additional provisional measures requesting the State inform the Court, within two weeks, on the measures that have or will be adopted to protect witnesses, the judicial investigations that have been or will be undertaken with respect to threats against and assassinations of witnesses, and actions the State will take to punish those responsible. 46 III. MERITS A. Composition of the Court Rafael Nieto Navia, President Héctor Gros Espiell, Vice-President Rodolfo E. Piza Escalante, Judge Thomas Buergenthal, Judge Pedro A. Nikken, Judge Héctor Fix Zamudio, Judge Rigoberto Espinal Irías, Judge ad hoc Charles Moyer, Secretary Manuel Ventura, Deputy Secretary B. Decision on the Merits July 29, 1988: The Court issues its Judgment on the Merits. 47 The Court found unanimously that Honduras had violated: Article 4 (Right to Life), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez, 48 because: Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention protects the right of every 45. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, ¶¶ 40, 41. 46. Id. ¶ 45(1). 47. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4 (Jul. 29, 1988). 48. Id. ¶ 194(4). 1922 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 36:1913 arbitrary exercises of governmental authority. 68 For that reason, when a petitioner alleges a lack of adequate domestic remedy, international protection is not only justified, but necessary and urgent. 69 The Court noted that not all remedies are applicable in every circumstance, and not all remedies are effective. 70 The Commission was able to show that although writs of habeas corpus and criminal complaints were filed, they were ineffective. 71 While there may have been legal remedies in the State that would have theoretically allowed a detained person to be found, the State’s attempts to solve the cases of disappearance were ineffective because the imprisonments were clandestine, and suspicious procedures were used to bring those responsible to justice. 72 C. Dissenting and Concurring Opinions 1. Separate Opinion of Judge Rodolfo E. Piza Escalante In a separate opinion, Judge Piza Escalante discussed his disagreement with the majority’s opinion recognizing the Commission as the sole procedural party in the case, as opposed to only the victims. 73 Though the Judge conceded that the Commission may be in a better position to oversee the interests of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez, and that a specific agreement between the State and Commission may have greater international standing than an agreement between the State and the victim, Judge Piza Escalante opines that the Commission lacks the same standing as the victim. 74 Judge Piza Esclanate likens the Commission to a public prosecutor of the Inter-American Human Rights System and not a party in its own right. 75 In the Judges’ opinion, the Court did not interpret the Convention and the Regulations of the Commission and Rules of Procedure of the Court correctly, and the Court did not adhere to the norms of the Convention based on its ordinary textual meaning. 76 The Judge stated that he would have approved the majority’s 68. Id. ¶ 93. 69. Id. 70. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, ¶¶ 64, 66 (July 29, 1988). 71. Id. ¶ 81 72. Id. ¶ 80. 73. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Separate Opinion of Judge Piza Escalante, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, ¶ 6 (July 29, 1988). 74. Id. ¶ 8. 75. Id. ¶ 3. 76. Id. ¶ 8. 2014] Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras 1923 judgment in its entirety if the majority had framed its holding regarding compensation to the victim to say “the form and amount of such compensation, failing agreement between the parties, with the intervention of the Commission, within six months of the date of this judgment” instead of “.†.†.†agreement between Honduras and the Commission within six months.” 77 The Judge thus emphasized his stance that the victim and his assignees should be the only active party in the proceeding, and that the Commission should not be construed as a party in any substantial sense. 78 In this separate opinion, Judge Piza Escalante does not suggest that the Commission remove itself from actively participating in negotiations of a settlement with the State entirely, but rather points out that the Court should not name the Commission as the only party to consult with the State when the State must compensate the victim. 79 IV. REPARATIONS The Court ruled unanimously that the State had the following obligations: A. Specific Performance (Measures of Satisfaction and Non- Repetition Guarantee) 1. Judgment as a Form of Reparation The Court indicated that the Judgment on the Merits should be considered itself a type of reparation and give significant moral satisfaction to the families of the victim as the Judgment recognized the State’s violation of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez’s human rights. 80 2. Continue Investigation into the Fate of the Disappeared The Court noted that State must continue to investigate the fate of a disappeared person as long as their fate is unknown. 81 Since the fate of 77. Id. ¶¶ 1, 3, 4; see also Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, ¶ 194(6) (July 29, 1988). 78. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Separate Opinion of Judge Piza-Escalante, ¶¶ 1, 3-4. 79. Id. ¶ 7. 80. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 7, ¶ 36 (July 21, 1989). 81. Id. ¶ 34. 1924 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 36:1913 Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez is still unknown, the State must maintain its duty to investigate his disappearance. 82 B. Compensation The Court awarded the following amounts: 1. Pecuniary Damages [None] 2. Non-Pecuniary Damages The Court ordered the State to pay $93750 to Ms. Emma Guzmán Urbina de Velásquez, the wife of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez, for psychological damage and loss of income from losing her husband. 83 The Court ordered the State to pay $281250 dollars to the three children of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez: Héctor Ricardo, Herling Lizzett, and Nadia Waleska Velásquez, for psychological harm due to the forced disappearance of their father, and for loss of income from losing their father as a provider. 84 3. Costs and Expenses The Court did not find it necessary to render a decision concerning the costs and expenses. 85 4. Total Compensation (including Costs and Expenses ordered): $375,000 C. Deadlines The State must pay Ms. Urbina de Velásquez’s award within ninety 82. Id. 83. Id. ¶¶ 50-51, 60(2). 84. Id. ¶¶ 50-51, 60(3). 85. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, ¶ 194(8) (July 29, 1988). 2014] Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras 1927 Reparations and Costs, the Court only enforced the judgment. 103 VI. COMPLIANCE AND FOLLOW-UP [None] VII. LIST OF DOCUMENTS A. Inter-American Court 1. Preliminary Objections Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 1 (Jun. 26, 1987). 2. Decisions on Merits, Reparations, and Costs Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4 (Jul. 29, 1988). Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Separate Opinion of Judge Piza-Escalante, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4 (Jul. 29, 1988). Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 7 (Jul. 21, 1989). 3. Provisional Measures Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures, Order of the Court, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. E) (Jan. 19, 1988) (Available only in Spanish). Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures, Order of the Court, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. E) (Jan. 15, 1988) (Available only in Spanish). 4. Compliance Monitoring [None] 103. Id. 1928 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. [Vol. 36:1913 5. Review and Interpretation of Judgment Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Interpretation of Judgment of Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 9 (Aug. 17, 1990). Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Interpretation of Judgment of Reparations, and Costs, Separate Opinion of Judge Piza-Escalante, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 9 (Aug. 17, 1990). B. Inter-American Commission 1. Petition to the Commission Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Petition No. 7920, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R. (Oct. 7, 1981). 2. Report on Admissibility [Not Available] 3. Provisional Measures [None] 4. Report on Merits Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Report on Merits, Report No. 22/86, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Case No. 7920 (Apr. 18, 1986). 5. Application to the Court Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Petition to the Court, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Case No. 7920 (Apr. 24, 1986). VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY GABRIELLA CITRONI & TULLIO SCOVAZZI, THE STRUGGLE AGAINST ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE AND THE 2007 UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION 1 2 (2007). 2014] Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras 1929 CHIARA GIORGETTI, THE RULES, PRACTICE, AND JURISPRUDENCE OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 377 (2012). JO M. PASQUALUCCI, THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF THE INTER- AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 95 (2012).