Inter-American Commission On Human Rights - OHCHR
Inter-American Commission On Human RightsApplication to theInter-American Court of Human Rightsin the Case ofJesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor(Case 12.581)against the Republic of PanamaDELEGATES:Paolo Carozza, CommissionerSantiago A. Canton, Executive SecretaryLEGAL ADVISORS:Elizabeth Abi-MershedIsabel MadariagaSilvia Serrano GuzmánMark FlemingOctober 8, 20091889 F Street, N.W.Washington, D.C., 20006
I.II.III.IV.V.VI.INTRODUCTION .3PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION.3REPRESENTATION.4COMPETENCE OF THE COURT .4PROCESSING BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION.5CONSIDERATIONS OF FACT .71. Arrest and Prosecution of Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor .72. Conditions of Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor’s Imprisonment .73. Deportation of Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor .84. Reports of Torture and Other Accusations in Panama and Ecuador .9VII. CONSIDERATIONS OF LAW.91. Right to Personal Liberty (Article 7 of the American Convention).92. Right to a Fair Trial and to Judicial Protection (Articles 8 and 25 of theAmerican Convention) . 113. Right to Humane Treatment (Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the AmericanConvention, and Articles 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Conventionto Prevent and Punish Torture). 133.1. Regarding the Prison Conditions. 133.2. Regarding the Complaints of Torture and the Failure to Investigatethose Claims . 144. Duty of Adopting Domestic Legal Effects (Article 2 of the AmericanConvention). 15VIII. REPARATIONS AND COSTS . 151. Obligation of Making Reparations . 152. Reparation Measures . 162.1. Compensation Measures . 172.1.1. Material Damages . 172.1.2. Nonmaterial Damages . 182.2. Measures of Satisfaction. 182.3. Measures of Rehabilitation . 192.4. Guarantees of Nonrepetition . 193. Beneficiaries . 194. Costs and Expenses . 19IX. PETITION. 20X.EVIDENCE . 201. Documentary Evidence . 202. Witness Evidence . 233. Expert Evidence . 23XI. INFORMATION ON THE VICTIM’S REPRESENTATIVES . 232
APPLICATION FROM THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTSTO THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTSAGAINST THE STATE OF PANAMACASE 12.581JESÚS TRANQUILINO VÉLEZ LOORI.INTRODUCTION1.The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) submits to the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) thisapplication in Case 12.581, Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, against the Republic of Panama(hereinafter “the Panamanian State,” “the State,” or “Panama”) for the arrest andsubsequent prosecution of the victim – an Ecuadorian national – for crimes relating to hisimmigration status, in the absence of due guarantees and without affording him thepossibility of being heard or of exercising his right of defense. The case also deals with thefailure to investigate the allegations of torture Mr. Vélez Loor filed with the Panamanianauthorities, as well as with the inhumane detention conditions in which he was held atvarious Panamanian prisons between his arrest on November 11, 2002, and his deportationto the Republic of Ecuador on September 10, 2003.2.The Inter-American Commission asks the Court to establish the internationalresponsibility of the State of Panama, which has failed to meet its international obligationsand has consequently violated Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personalliberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the AmericanConvention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”),in conjunction with the obligations set by Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, together with Articles1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, all with respectto Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor.3.This case has been processed in accordance with the terms of the AmericanConvention and is submitted to the Court in compliance with Article 34 of its amendedRules of Procedure. Attached hereto, in the appendixes, is a copy of Report No. 37/09,drawn up according to Article 50 of the Convention. 14.The Commission believes it is justified in referring this case to the Courtbecause of the need to secure justice and redress for the victim, and because of the needfor measures of nonrepetition to be implemented to ensure that both the immigration systemand the prison system in Panama are in line with the international obligations assumed bythe State in ratifying the American Convention. The Commission also believes that this casewill enable the Honorable Court to establish jurisprudence, in a contentious case, on theguarantees under the American Convention that must be upheld in any trial of a criminal orother nature relating to the immigration status of a person and/or that could lead to theimposition of punishments arising from that status.1IACHR, Report No. 37/09 (Merits), Case 12.581, Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, March 27, 2009;Appendix 1.3
II.PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION5.The purpose of this application is to respectfully request that the Courtconclude and declare that:a)The State of Panama is responsible for violating the right to humane treatment,to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunctionwith the general obligations of respecting and ensuring those rights and ofadapting its domestic legislation set out in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, withrespect to Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor; and,b)The State of Panama is responsible for failing to conduct an investigation asrequired by Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent andPunish Torture, with respect to Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor.6.As a consequence of the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission asks theCourt to order the Panamanian State:a)To provide Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor with redress for the material and nonmaterialharm he suffered;b)To order measures of rehabilitation on behalf of Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor;c)To order measures of satisfaction on behalf of Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor;d)To conduct a serious and diligent investigation into the reports of torture allegedlycommitted against Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor under the jurisdiction of the PanamanianState;e)To guarantee that its national immigration law and the enforcement thereof are in linewith the minimum guarantees set out in Articles 7 and 8 of the American Convention;f)To ensure that Panama’s detention centers meet minimum standards that are compatiblewith humane treatment and that afford detainees a decent existence;g)To take steps so that the Panamanian authorities are aware of and abide by theirobligation of opening investigations on an ex officio basis whenever allegations orreasonable grounds exist for believing that an act of torture has been committed under itsjurisdiction; and,h)To reimburse the legal costs and expenses incurred in processing this case before theInter-American Commission and Inter-American Court.III.REPRESENTATION7.In accordance with the provisions of Articles 23 and 34 of the Court’samended Rules of Procedure, the Commission has appointed Commissioner Paolo Carozzaand Executive Secretary Santiago A. Canton to serve as its delegates in this case. AssistantExecutive Secretary Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, and the lawyers Silvia Serrano Guzmán, IsabelMadariaga, and Mark Fleming, specialists with the Commission’s Executive Secretariat, havebeen appointed to serve as legal advisors.IV.COMPETENCE OF THE COURT4
8.Under Article 62.3 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court iscompetent to hear all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions ofthe Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the states parties to the caserecognize or have recognized its jurisdiction.9.In turn, Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and PunishTorture provides that “after all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and thecorresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the internationalfora whose competence has been recognized by that State.”10.The State of Panama ratified the American Convention on June 22, 1978,and it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. Similarly, thePanamanian State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture onAugust 28, 1991. All the alleged violations in this application took place under thejurisdiction of the State of Panama and began after the dates on which those twoinstruments came into force for the State.V.PROCESSING BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION 211.The original petition was received at the Commission on February 10, 2004,and was registered as No. P-92/04. On August 3, 2004, the Commission received additionalinformation from Vélez Loor. On March 17, 2005, Mr. José Villagrán registered as apetitioner and he filed arguments on April 12, April 21, and June 14, 2005.12.On December 21, 2005, the Commission forwarded the petition to the Statein compliance with Article 30.3 of its Rules of Procedure, giving it a deadline of two monthsin which to return its response. On February 10, 2006, the State requested an extension ofone month for submitting its observations. That extension was granted. The Commissionreceived the State’s reply on March 7, 2006, and forwarded it to the petitioners on thatsame date.13.On March 13, 2006, the Commission held a hearing on the admissibility ofthe case during its 124th regular session. On May 1, 2006, the Commission sent the Statethe petitioners’ comments on its reply, along with the arguments made at the March 2006hearing.14.On October 23, 2006, the Commission declared the petition admissible and,on November 30, 2006, in compliance with its Rules of Procedure, the Commissionsuggested to the parties the possibility of beginning friendly settlement proceedings. TheState did not reply to this offer.15.In February 2007, the petitioners submitted their comments on the merits.On May 25, 2007, Mr. Vélez Loor transferred his legal representation to the Center forJustice and International Law.16.On June 15, 2007, the State submitted its comments on the merits. OnSeptember 3, 2008, the petitioners submitted additional comments.17.On October 28, 2008, a hearing on the merits was held during the 133rdregular session. On January 21, 2009, the Commission asked both parties to submit2The formalities referred to in this section may be found in the record of the case before the IACHR;Appendix 3.5
additional information. The Commission received the petitioners’ reply on February 9, 2009.The State requested an extension on February 26, 2009, and an extension was granted untilMarch 12, 2009. On that date the State submitted its response to the Commission’srequest.18.On March 27, 2009, during its 134th regular session, the Commissionadopted Report on Merits 37/09, drawn up in compliance with Article 50 of the Convention.In the conclusions of that report, the Commission established that:the Panamanian State is responsible for violations to Articles 5 (Right to HumaneTreatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to JudicialProtection), in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2, of the American Convention. TheCommission, likewise, finds the State violated Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention Against Torture for failure to investigate Mr. Vélez Loor’sallegations of torture. The Commission presents its recommendations to the Stateregarding these violations. The Commission, however, concludes that the petitionershave not provided sufficient evidence to find a violation of Article 21 of the AmericanConvention. Finally, the Commission does not address the petitioners’ new claim ofviolations of Article 9 of the American Convention because it was not presented atthe admissibility stage and petitioners do not provide a sufficient foundation to find aviolation. 319.In the report, the Commission recommended that the Panamanian State:a)Fully compensate the victim, Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, in both moral andmaterial terms for human rights violations as determined in the report on the merits.b)Implement measures to prevent inhumane treatment to occur at La JoyaJoyita and La Palma penitentiaries and to bring them into compliance with theInteramerican standards.c)Report to the Commission on the application of Decree Law No. 3 ofFebruary 22, 2008, eliminating incarceration as a form of penalty for repeated illegalentry into Panamá, and Article 66 of Decree Law 3.d)Implement laws to ensure that immigration proceedings are conducted beforea competent, independent and impartial juridical authority.e)Implement the required measures to ensure that the accusations of torture ofMr. Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor within the State’s jurisidiction are properlyinvestigated as required by Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention toPrevent and Punish Torture. 420.On April 8, 2009, the State was notified that Report 37/09 had beenadopted and it was given a period of two months to report back on the steps taken tocomply with the Commission’s recommendations.21.On that same date, in compliance with the terms of Article 43.3 of its Rulesof Procedure, the Commission informed the petitioners that a report on the merits had beenadopted and conveyed to the State, and it asked them to indicate, within the following3IACHR, Report No. 37/09 (Merits), Case 12.581, Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, March 27, 2009,paragraph 99; Appendix 1.4IACHR, Report No. 37/09 (Merits), Case 12.581, Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, March 27, 2009,paragraph 100; Appendix 1.6
month, their position and that of the victim regarding the possible referral of the case to theInter-American Court.22.On April 20, 2009, the Commission sent the petitioners, confidentially, therelevant parts of the merits report.23.By means of a communication received on May 11, 2009, the petitionersexpressed their wish, and that of the victim, for the case to be taken before the InterAmerican Court.24.On June 10 and 11, communications were received from the PanamanianState requesting an extension of the deadline for compliance with the recommendations inReport 37/09. In the second communication, the State of Panama expressly waived theright to lodge preliminary objections regarding compliance with the deadline provided for inArticle 51.1 of the Convention, should the case be referred to the Inter-American Court.25.On June 25, 2009, the Commission informed the State that by means of adecision of June 19, 2009, it had resolved to grant the requested extension for a period ofthree months. In that same communication, the Commission asked the State to submit, onJuly 25, 2009, a report on progress with its compliance with the recommendations and topresent a final report thereon on September 25, 2009.26.In communications of July 24 and 27, 2009, the State submittedinformation on some steps taken to implement the recommendations. Thus, the Statedescribed certain efforts in its prisons that could have an effect in the medium and longterms, along with the opening of an investigation into the alleged torture Mr. Vélez Loorsuffered in Panama. As regards the remaining recommendations, the State merely reportedthat it was pursuing consultations with the corresponding agencies.27.Regarding the redress ordered, the State asked the Commission for a“preliminary monetary appraisal of the material and moral damages.” On August 18, 2009,the Commission wrote to the State to inform it that “it is not the IACHR’s practice toestablish fixed parameters regarding financial reparations; instead, it speaks of fair redress,according to the circumstances of the case.” The Commission also told the PanamanianState that “in previous cases, the parties have taken into account the relevant jurisprudencein similar cases ruled on by the Inter-American Court.” On that same date, the Commissionforwarded the State’s communications to the petitioners and asked them to return theircomments within the following 20 days.28.On September 14, 2009, a communication was received from the petitionersin which they claimed that the Panamanian State had failed to comply with the InterAmerican Commission’s recommendations. They therefore reiterated their opinion regardingthe referral of the case to the Inter-American Court. On September 28, 2009, theCommission conveyed this communication to the Panamanian State.29.On September 25, 2009, a communication was received from the Statecontaining a report on its compliance with the Commission’s recommendations. In thatreport, the State indicated that, inter alia, it had set an amount of redress of 12,500balboas, equal to 12,500 U.S. dollars. This information was conveyed to the petitioners,who in a communication received on October 2, 2009, again noted the noncompliance withthe recommendations and pointed out that in its offer, the State was attempting to reducethe redress to the monetary element alone, ignoring other important aspects.7
30.After analyzing the available information regarding the implementation of therecommendations set out in the Report on the Merits, and taking into consideration theabsence of any substantive progress with their effective implementation, on October 6,2009, the Commission resolved to refer the case to the Inter-American Court.VI.CONSIDERATIONS OF FACT1. Arrest and Prosecution of Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor31.On November 11, 2002, Mr. Vélez Loor was apprehended in Darién Provinceof Panamá and transferred to the detention facility in Metetí, Darién Province. 5 On or ar
APPLICATION FROM THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST THE STATE OF PANAMA CASE 12.581 JESÚS TRANQUILINO VÉLEZ LOOR I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) submits to .
1. In this report, the Inter -American Commission on Human Rights (“Inter -American Commission,” “Commission ,” or “IACHR”) addresses the situation of human rights in Cuba, focusing in particular on the period from 2017 to 2019. The Commission presents an overview of the characteristics of the Cuban State today, identifying
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (AInter-American Commission@ or ACommission@) is an organization of the OAS whose principal function is to promote the protection of human rights, including the rights recognized in the American Declaration.
THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE INTER‐AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM: FROM RESTRICTIONS TO ABOLITION I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Inter‐American Commission on Human Rights ("Inter‐American
petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the "Commission") against the United States of America (the "United States" or the "U.S."). BAN-a non- governmental organization based in Tucson, Douglas and Nogales, Arizona that defends the rights of immigrants to the United States-seeks redress for human rights violations
112. Establishment of Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 113. Independence of Commission 114. Area of jurisdiction and offices of Commission 115. Functions of Commission 116. Governing body of Commission 117. Commissioners of Commission 118. Director of Commission 119. Acting director of Commission 120. Staff of Commission 121.
112. Establishment of Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 113. Independence of Commission 114. Area of jurisdiction and offices of Commission 115. Functions of Commission 116. Governing body of Commission 117. Commissioners of Commission 118. Director of Commission 119. Acting director of Commission 120. Staff of Commission 121.
Inter American University of Puerto Rico *Call Box 5100 San Germán, Puerto Rico 00683-9801 Tel. (787) 264-1912 AGUADILLA CAMPUS Inter American University of Puerto Rico Bo. Corrales, Sector Calero *PO Box 20000 Aguadilla, Puerto Rico 00605-20000 Tel. (787) 891-0925 BARRANQUITAS CAMPUS Inter American University of Puerto Rico Bo.
A02 Authorised: return title page only to supplier A03 Authorised: keep as complimentary copy, credit will be given in full A04 Hold pending further investigation A05 Return to supplier regardless of condition A06 Claim authorised for credit Although it remains customary for the distributor to require the return of the complete book before giving credit, the code lists also provide for .
