Case of Oscar Barreto Leiva

1386. 
      On October 31, 2008, the Inter-American Commission filed an application against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case number 11,663, Oscar Barreto Leiva, for the State’s responsibility in the violation of the rights to a fair trial in the criminal proceedings in which Mr. Oscar Barreto Leiva was convicted of crimes against the public patrimony as a result of his tenure as Sectoral Director General of Administration and Services of the Ministry of the Secretariat of the Office of the Presidency of the Republic, and the consequent violations of the victim’s rights to personal liberty and judicial protection.
      

1387. 
      The Commission argued that the above-mentioned facts constitute violations of rights protected in articles 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and a failure to comply with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights, undertaken with Article 1(1) of the Convention, and the obligation of domestic legal effects, set forth in Article 2 of that instrument. The text of the application is available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/11.663%20Barreto%20Leiva%2031%20oct%2008%20Venezuela%20ENGLISH.pdf.
      

1388. 
      On July 2, 2009, a public hearing was held at the seat of the Court.
      

1389. 
      On November 17, 2009, the Court issued its judgment on merits, reparations, and costs in which it declared that the State was responsible for violation of Articles 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d), 7(1), 7(5), and 8(2) of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof; and of Articles 8(2)(c), 8(2)(h), 7(1), and 7(3), in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2, to the detriment of the victim. The Court also ruled that the State had not violated Articles 8(2)(f), 8(1), and 25(1) of the Convention. Finally the Court awarded the appropriate reparations and costs. The text of the judgment is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_206_esp1.pdf
      

1390. 
      On November 9, 2007, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in case No. 12,565, María Cristina Reverón Trujillo. The case concerns Mrs. María Cristina Reverón Trujillo’s arbitrary dismissal from her post as 14th Provisional First-Instance Criminal Judge of the Caracas Metropolitan Area Criminal Circuit on February 6, 2002, by the Judicial System’s Operations and Restructuring Commission, and the lack of an effective judicial recourse to provide adequate redress. Although she won her case in the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela on October 13, 2004, which declared her arbitrary dismissal null and void, that Court did not order her reinstatement in her position in the judiciary or in another post of a similar level and salary scale, or payment of her lost earnings and benefits. That decision was based on the fact that Venezuela’s judiciary was at the time undergoing a restructuring process in which it was agreed that all judicial positions –including those held by provisional judges like Mrs. Reverón Trujillo- were to be filled on the basis of competitive examinations. However, on the date that decision was made, no competitive examinations had been held or even announced. Consequently, in spite of having obtained a judicial ruling acknowledging that her dismissal was arbitrary, the nullification remedy was ineffective in providing Mrs. Reverón Trujillo with full redress for the violations the court confirmed. In its application the Commission argued that the State had violated Article 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, to the detriment of Ms. María Cristina Reverón Trujillo, who did not have access to effective judicial recourse to remedy her arbitrary dismissal. The text of the application is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.565%20Reveron%20Trujillo%20Venezuela%209%20noviembre%202007%20ESP.pdf
      

1391. 
      On September 24, 2008, the Court convened a public hearing in the case. Later, the date of the hearing was changed and it was held at the Court’s seat on January 23, 2009. On June 30, 2009, the Court issued its judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, in which it dismissed the preliminary objection and declared that the State had violated Article 25(1) in relation with Articles 1(1) and 2; and Article 23(1)(c), in relation with Article 1(1), in detriment of the victim. It also ruled that the State did not violate Articles 8(1) and 5(1) of the Convention. As part of the reparation measures, the Court ordered that she be reinstated in her position.
      

1392. 
      The complete text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_197_ing.pdf.
      

1393. 
      On November 29, 2006, the Commission filed an application with the Court against the State of Venezuela, in Case 12,489, Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, for its removal of judges on the First Court of Administrative Disputes on October 30, 2003, without observing the necessary guarantees of independence and impartiality and in a decision that failed to explain the “inexcusable judicial error” cited as the supposed grounds for their removal. The judges removed from the bench also never received an effective judicial response to the remedy they filed to challenge their removal. In its application the Commission argued that the State had engaged its international responsibility by its failure to discharge its international obligations, and therefore had violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of that treaty, to the detriment of the victims. The text of the application is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.cidh.oas.org/demandas/12.489%20Corte%20Primera%20de%20lo%20Contencioso%20Administrativo%20Venezuela%2029%20nov%202006.pdf
      

1394. 
      On August 5, 2008, the Court delivered its judgment, in which it found that the State had violated the victims’ rights under articles 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention. The Court ordered the reparations it deemed appropriate. The text of the judgment is available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_123_ing.pdf
      

1395. 
      On December 18, 2009, the Court convened a private hearing on this case to be held on January 29, 2010 at the seat of the Court. The text of the order is available (in Spanish only) at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/apitz_18_12_09.pdf
      

1396. 
      On December 29, 2008, the Commission submitted a request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion in order for the Court to determine “whether the use of corporal punishment as a method of disciplining young children and adolescents is compatible with Articles 1.1, 2. 5.1, 5.2 and 19 of the American Convention and Article VII of the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man, consistent with the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
      

1397. 
      On January 27, 2009, the Inter-American Court issued a Resolution whereby it decided “not to answer the request for an advisory opinion […] because the criteria regarding the issue mentioned in the consultation […] could be drawn from the analysis and comprehensive interpretation of the Court’s corpus juris on the rights of the child vis-à-vis other criteria established, as well as from the obligations arising from other international instruments ratified by the States of the region.” Therefore, in its considerations the Court indicated that
      

as regards the matter of the request, the Court observes that in the development of international human rights law there have been advances relevant to the protection of the human rights of children and adolescents. In particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child [..] which has been signed and ratified by 195 States […], among them 34 States of the American Continent, […] and which establishes the obligation of the States party to respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of those persons who are legally responsible for providing the child with direction and guidance [..]. Nevertheless, it subjects such a right to the obligation to establish the superior interest of the child as a basic element during their upbringing and development, either by the parents or legal guardians. […] Similarly this obligation extends to school discipline, in order that it may be administered in a way compatible with human dignity […] Added to which the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges the States to ensure that no child is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment […] as well as to any form of physical or psychological abuse, injury, neglect, negligent treatment, mistreatment or exploitation; whether in the care of parents, legal guardians or any other person in charge of the child […]. IA Court HR, Resolution of 27 January 2009, on the Request for Advisory Opinion presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/opinion.pdf (in Spanish only).

1398. 
      On August 14, 2008, Argentina presented a request for an Advisory Opinion regarding “the interpretation of Article 55 of the Convention” on “ad hoc judges and equality of arms during the proceedings before the Inter-American Court in the context of cases originating from individual petitions”, as well as the “nationality of members [of the Court] and the right to an independent and impartial judge.”
      

1399. 
      On September 29, 2009, the Court issued Advisory Opinion No. 20 where it established that: a) pursuant to Article 55.3 of the American Convention, the possibility of States Party in a case submitted to the Inter-American Court to appoint an ad hoc judge to join the Tribunal whenever there is no judge of that nationality in its composition, is restricted to contentious cases in inter-state petitions (Article 45 of the said instrument) and that it is not possible to derive a similar right in cases originating from individual petitions (Article 44 of the said Treaty); and b) that the judge of the nationality of a State brought before the Court should not participate in the consideration of contentious cases originating from individual petitions. Full text of the opinion available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_20_esp1.pdf (Spanish only).