Case 11.556, Report No. 32/04, Corumbiara (Brazil)

170. 
     In Report No. 32/04, of March 11, 2004, the Commission concluded that the Brazilian State was responsible for: (a) violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, judicial protection, and judicial guarantees, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 25, and 8,  respectively, of the American Convention, to the detriment of the landless workers identified in the report due to extrajudicial executions, injury to their personal integrity, and violations of the duty to investigate, the right to an effective remedy, and the right to judicial guarantees, committed to their detriment; (b) the violation of its duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, in the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention, and of the obligation imposed on it by Article 1(1) to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention; and (c) the violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
     

171. 
     The Commission made the following recommendations to the State:
     

1. Conduct a complete, impartial, and effective investigation into the events, by nonmilitary organs, to determine responsibility for the deaths, personal injuries, and other acts that occurred at Santa Elina ranch on August 9, 1995, and to punish all the material and intellectual authors, whether civilian or military.

172. 
     The State did not submit information on compliance with those recommendations of the IACHR. The petitioners submitted information on compliance with those recommendations of the IACHR on December 25, 2009.
     

173. 
     With respect to recommendation No. 1 supra, the petitioners indicated that no complete, impartial or effective investigation of the facts in dispute was ever carried out beyond the one described by the IACHR in Report No. 32/04, and, consequently, compliance with this recommendation is still pending.
     

174. 
     As regards recommendation No. 2 supra, the petitioners indicated that no consensus has been reached with the State regarding the number of victims in the conflict, and that the family members of the deceased victims have yet to be compensated. The petitioners allege there were more than 50 injured victims. In this respect, the Commission reiterates that Report on the Merits No. 32/04 mentions 28 victims; 11 killed and 17 injured (Report on the Merits No. 32/04, para. 306). The petitioners reported on the status of different civil reparation proceedings, but did not identify specific victims in their account about these proceedings. The IACHR urges the parties to overcome the remaining obstacles so as to comply with this recommendation, and requests that the parties offer specific information on this recommendation regarding the 28 victims specifically identified in Report No. 32/04.
     

175. 
     On recommendation No. 3 supra, the petitioners noted that the State has yet to comply, inasmuch as the situation of violence associated with agrarian conflict continues to be serious in Brazil.
     

176. 
     On recommendation No. 4 supra, the petitioners indicated that no progress has materialized since approval of Law No. 9,299, of 1996, which partially reformed the scope of jurisdiction of military justice.
     

177. 
     In view of the foregoing, the IACHR concludes that the State has partially implemented the recommendations noted. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to monitor the items still pending compliance.
     

178. 
     In Report No. 33/04 of March 11, 2004, the Commission concluded that: (a) the Brazilian State was responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life, special measures of protection for children, judicial protection, and judicial guarantees, enshrined, respectively, in Articles 7, 5, 4, and 19, to the detriment of Jailton Neri da Fonseca, and in Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) to the detriment of his next-of-kin; and that (b) the State violated its duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, in the terms of Article 2 of the American Convention, and also violated the obligation imposed on him by Article 1(1) to respect and ensure the human rights enshrined in the Convention.
     

179. 
     The Commission made the following recommendations to the State:
     

1. That it make full reparations, in consideration of both moral and material damages, to the next-of-kin of Jailton Neri da Fonseca, for the human rights violations determined in this report, and, more specifically, that it do the following:

180. 
     The State submitted information on the implementation of the IACHR’s recommendations on September 24, 2009. The petitioners submitted information on the implementation of the IACHR’s recommendations on January 7, 2009¹⁷ December 10, 2009.
     

181. 
     With respect to recommendations Nos. 1 and 3 supra, both parties acknowledged compliance was met through the payment of reparations for moral and material damages to the mother of the victim during a ceremony held August 25, 2009, in which the Governor of Rio de Janeiro made a formal and public apology for the arbitrariness perpetrated against the victim. However, the petitioners noted that neither they nor the victim were consulted regarding the organization and planning of the ceremony.
     

182. 
     None of the parties made specific reference to the other recommendations.
     

183. 
     Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the recommendations have been partially carried out. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to monitor the items still pending compliance.
     

184. 
     In Report No. 66/06 of October 21, 2006, the IACHR concluded that the Brazilian State was responsible for violating the human rights to equality before the law, judicial protection, and judicial guarantees, enshrined, respectively, in Articles 24, 25, and 8 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Simone André Diniz. In addition, the Commission determined that the State had violated the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, in the terms of Article 2 of the Convention, and also in violation of the obligation imposed by Article 1(1) to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in that instrument. 
     

185. 
     The Commission made the following recommendations to the Brazilian State:
     

1. Fully compensate the victim, Simone André Diniz, in both moral and material terms for human rights violations as determined in the report on the merits, and in particular,

186. 
     The State presented information on compliance with the aforementioned recommendations on February 17, 2009 and September 4, 2009. The petitioners submitted information regarding implementation of those recommendations by the IACHR on June 9, 2009, and December 10, 2009.
     

187. 
     With respect to recommendations Nos. 1, 2, and 4 supra, both parties acknowledged that the victim received reparations of R$ 36.000 (thirty-six thousand reais) for the moral and material damages suffered on March 18, 2008; and that the Governor of São Paulo publicly acknowledged responsibility for violations of the victim’s human rights in a ceremony held on December 19, 2007. The IACHR notes, however, that neither the victim nor the petitioners were present at the ceremony, because they had not been invited.
     

188. 
     With respect to recommendation No. 3 supra, both parties acknowledged that compliance is still pending, inasmuch as the victim was taking the university entrance examination for the University of Guarulhos on December 10, 12, and 13.
     

189. 
     With respect to recommendation No. 5 supra, both parties acknowledged that Proposed Law (PL) No. 309 of 2004 and No. 6,624 of 2005 (statute on racial equality) had yet to be approved by the Legislative Branch. Furthermore, the petitioners maintained that these proposed laws, if approved, would be insufficient to remedy the obstacles indicated in paragraphs 78 and 94 of the Report on the Merits.
     

190. 
     With respect to recommendation No. 6 supra, both parties acknowledged that compliance is still pending.
     

191. 
     With respect to recommendations Nos. 7 and 9 supra, the State indicated courses on human rights, racial/ethnic diversity and racial equality had already been included within curricula of the Civil and Military Police of São Paulo, and also listed a series of seminars held by the Secretariat of Justice and Citizenship of São Paulo in 2007 and 2008 for civil servants of the criminal justice system and members of the Public Ministry, the Judicial Branch, and the Secretariat of Public Security of São Paulo. In counter to this claim, the petitioners asserted that these events were limited to the state of São Paulo, and that the State should not only provide information on national initiatives in this regard, but also promote compliance with this recommendation in all states of the Federation through the Special Secretariat for the Promotion of Racial Equality (SEPPIR), since racism and racial discrimination are national problems.
     

192. 
     With respect to recommendation No. 8 supra, the State indicated that since 2006 such a document already exists regarding discrimination in advertising, which was prepared during the seminar “Reflections on the Role of Advertising in the Dissemination and Fight against Discrimination,” organized by the Secretariat of Justice and Citizenship of São Paulo. The petitioners noted that they did not participate in any event with Brazilian press organizations, and that the document referred to by the State was limited to São Paulo.
     

193. 
     With regard to recommendation No. 10 supra, the State indicated that, in São Paulo, Decree No. 50,594 of March 22 2006 established the Special Precinct for Racial Crimes and Intolerance. It also pointed out that SEPPIR is currently working on a financial assistance project to encourage the establishment of specialized precincts for racial and related crimes in all states of the Federation. For their part, the petitioners claimed they are unaware of the existence of such police precincts in any other state of the Federation.
     

194. 
     With regard to recommendation No. 11 supra, the State pointed out that, in São Paulo, Supplemental Law No. 1,083 of December 17, 2008, established the Office of the Special Prosecutor on Human Rights Issues. The petitioners, however, argued that this measure is limited to São Paulo, and that the Office of the Special Prosecutor of São Paulo on Human Rights Issues may not necessarily have any special expertise in fighting racism and racial discrimination.
     

195. 
     With regard to recommendation No.12 supra, the State indicated that compliance had been fully carried out though the launching of the “Racism: If You Don’t Report it Who Will?” campaign by the Government of São Paulo on May 13, 2009; and through three national public awareness campaigns carried out by the Federal Government in 2008.
     

196. 
     In view of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the recommendations outlined have been partially carried out.
     

197. 
     In Report No. 35/08 of July 18, 2008, the IACHR concluded that, with respect to Mr. Antonio Ferreira Braga, the Brazilian State violated his rights to physical integrity, to personal freedom, to judicial guarantees, and to judicial protection enshrined in Articles 5, 7, 8.1, and 25 of the American Convention, pursuant to the general obligations set forth under Article 1.1 of said Convention, and failed to comply with its obligation to prevent and punish all acts of torture committed within its jurisdiction, as set forth in Articles 1, 6, 7, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.
     

198. 
     The Commission made the following recommendations to the Brazilian State:
     

1. That it adopt the necessary measures to give legal effect to the obligation to effectively investigate and punish those who unlawfully detained and tortured Antonio Ferreira Braga; in this regard, the State must ensure due criminal process so as to prevent the statute of limitations from being invoked as grounds for annulling criminal punishment for crimes such as torture, and from any unjustified procedural delays in this regard.

2. That it open an investigation to determine the civil and administrative responsibility for the unreasonable delay in the criminal proceeding regarding the torture inflicted on Antonio Ferreira Braga, especially among those judicial authorities who had knowledge of the file, in order to appropriately punish those who are found to be responsible, with a view to determining whether said judicial authorities acted with negligence.

4. That it provide training to Civil Police officers to provide them with basic knowledge regarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the American Convention, particularly with respect to proper treatment.

199. 
     To date, neither the State nor the petitioners have furnished information on compliance with the foregoing recommendations of the IACHR. Consequently, the Commission concluded that the compliance with the indicated recommendations is still pending.
     

200. 
     In Report No. 61/01 of April 16, 2001, the Commission concluded that the Chilean State had violated, with respect to Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo, the rights to personal liberty, life, and personal security, enshrined at Article I of the American Declaration and Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention. In addition, the IACHR concluded that the Chilean State violated, to the detriment of Mr. Catalán Lincoleo’s next-of-kin, the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in keeping with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument. In addition, the IACHR reiterated that Decree-Law No. 2,191, on self-amnesty, issued in 1978 by the past military regime of Chile, is incompatible with Articles 1, 2, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. All the foregoing was in connection with the forced disappearance of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo, 29 years of age, who was an agricultural technical expert with ties to the Communist Party when he was detained on August 27, 1974, in his domicile in the city of Lautaro, Chile, by members of the Carabineros, soldiers, and civilians. The family members turned to the Chilean courts in 1979 with a complaint stating the facts, but the matter was archived in October 1981 by application of Decree-Law 2,191 of 1978, which ordered amnesty for the violations committed since the September 1973 coup in Chile. In 1992 an effort was made to bring a new judicial action, which culminated in November 1995 with the dismissal with prejudice by application of the self-amnesty decree-law cited above. Finally, the Supreme Court of Justice of Chile decided on a motion for cassation on the merits of the case with its ruling of January 16, 1997, which found that the legal action had prescribed.
     

201. 
     The IACHR made the following recommendations to the Chilean State:
     

1. Establish the parties responsible for the murder of Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo through due judicial process, so that the guilty parties may be effectively punished.

202. 
     In 2009, the IACHR asked the parties to submit up-to-date information on the implementation of those recommendations.
     

203. 
     By means of a note dated March 13, 2009, the Chilean State presented the following information: Regarding the first recommendation, it reported that on January 29, 2001, a complaint was filed with the Santiago Court of Appeal against Mr. Augusto Pinochet Ugarte and others for the crimes of qualified abduction, illicit association, and illegal burials of persons, including that of Samuel Catalán Lincoleo, whose proceedings were registered as No. 2182-98. On August 25, 2003, the proceedings were totally and definitively dismissed, on the grounds that the 4th Military Court of Valdivia had already established res judicata in connection with those same incidents. On August 31, 2005, the Ninth Chamber of the Santiago Court of Appeal, in resolving the jurisdictional consultation placed before it, upheld the definitive dismissal of the proceedings.
     

204. 
     Regarding the second recommendation, related to amending its domestic law, the State reported that since 1990, Chile’s democratic governments have made great efforts to leave Decree Law No. 2.191 – known as the amnesty decree and enacted by the military regime – void of all effect. However, the State indicated that, regrettably, the congressional majorities necessary for such a change had not been attained. It also reported that a congressional motion for the interpretation of Article 93 of the Criminal Code had been presented, in order to ensure compliance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Almonacid Arellano v. Chile. That judgment by the Inter-American Court ordered the Chilean State to amend its laws so that the decree in question would not pose an obstacle for investigating and punishing those responsible for the human rights violations committed during the 1973 to 1978 period. As of the date of its communication, the State reported, the legislative bill seeking to exclude crimes against humanity and war crimes covered by international instruments ratified by Chile from statutory limitations was at its first reading in the Senate and was on the docket for examination by the Constitution, Legislation, and Justice Committee.
     

205. 
     As regards the third recommendation appearing above, the State identified each of the reparation measures specifically adopted on behalf of the next-of-kin of Mr. Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo: Sofía Lincoleo Montero, the victim’s mother; Gabriela Isidoro Bucarey Molinet, mother of the victim’s daughter; Elena del Carmen Catalán Bucarey, the victim’s daughter; Adriana del Carmen Albarrán Contres, mother of Samuel Miguel Catalán Albarrán, the victim’s son; and Mr. Catalán Lincoleo’s eight siblings. In particular it stressed the amounts given to each of the reparations beneficiaries through both the lifetime compensation pension provided for in Law 19.123 and the redress bonus of Law 19.980. it also referred to physical and mental health care benefits they received, and the educational benefits extended to the victim’s children.
     

206. 
     From the available information, the Commission believes that the Chilean State has implemented the recommendation requiring redress to be given to the victim’s next-of-kin, who have benefited from economic compensation, health care, and access to education. At the same time, the IACHR notes with concern that its recommendation requiring the determination of responsibility for Samuel Alfonso Catalán Lincoleo’s murder has not been addressed, since the Chilean judicial authorities ordered the definitive dismissal of the proceedings and, consequently, the incident remains unpunished. Finally, the Commission notes the efforts made to bring domestic law into line with the American Convention, which is an international obligation of the State still pending compliance that requires the participation of all branches of government, particularly the legislature.
     

207. 
     In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the Chilean State has partially implemented the above recommendations. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to monitor the items still pending compliance.