Freedom of Expression

7 - Chapter VI - Cases of Freedom of Expression in the Inter American System

A.         Cases before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

 

1.         Cases declared admissible by the IACHR during 2003

 

REPORT Nº 60/03[i]

ADMISSIBILITY

PETITION 12.108

MARCEL CLAUDE REYES, SEBASTIÁN COX URREJOLA,

AND ARTURO LONGTON GUERRERO

CHILE

October 10, 2003

 

 

1.                   On December 17, 1998, a group consisting of "ONG FORJA," "Fundación Terram," the "Clínica Jurídica de Interés Público" of Diego Portales University, and "Corporación la Morada" (Chilean organizations); the Institute of Legal Defense of Peru (Peruvian organization); "Fundación Poder Ciudadano" and the Association for Civil Rights (Argentinean organizations); and Chilean legislative representatives (Diputados) Baldo Prokurica Prokurica, Osvaldo Palma Flores, Guido Girardi Lavín and Leopoldo Sánchez Grunert (hereinafter "the petitioners") submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or "the IACHR").  The complaint alleges violation by the State of Chile of Articles 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 25 (the Right to Judicial Protection), and 23 (Right to Participate in Government) in relation to the overall obligations enshrined in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention") to the detriment of Marcel Claude Reyes, Sebastián Cox Urrejola, and Arturo Longton Guerrero (hereinafter "the victims").

 

2.                   The petitioners allege that the State of Chile violated the right to freedom of expression and free access to state-held information, when the Chilean Committee on Foreign Investment omitted to release information about a deforestation project the petitioners wanted to evaluate.   Also, the domestic courts' refusal to admit the subsequent case against the State allegedly constitutes a violation of the right to judicial protection.

 

3.                   The State of Chile argues that the actions of the Committee on Foreign Investment complied with the requirements of Article 13(1) and the response of the courts was thus proper.  The State also argues that the petitioners failed to exhaust the remedies available in Chile before their recourse to the Inter-American Commission.

 

4.                   After reviewing the positions of the parties in the light of the admissibility requirements set out in the Convention, the Commission decided to declare the case admissible as it relates to the alleged violations of Articles 13 and 25 in relation to the general obligations enshrined in Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention.  

 


REPORT Nº 73/03

ADMISSIBILITY

PETITION 12.213

ARISTEU GUIDA DA SILVA

BRAZIL

October 22, 2003

 

1.                   On September 23, 1999, the Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) lodged a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) against the Federative Republic of Brazil (hereinafter “Brazil” or “the State”).

 

2.                   The petitioner claimed that Mr. Aristeu Guida da Silva, a journalist by profession, was murdered on May 12, 1995, for reasons associated with the exercise of his professional activities.

 

3.                   The State provided information about the judicial proceedings pending at the domestic level in connection with the murder of Mr. Aristeu Guida da Silva.

 

4.             Having examined the petition, the Commission decided, in accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, and with Articles 30, 37 and related articles of its Rules of Procedure, to declare the petition admissible as regards alleged violations of Articles 4, 13, 8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

 

2.         Cases declared inadmissible by the IACHR during 2003

 

REPORT Nº /03

INADMISSIBILITY

PETITION 453/01

ELÍAS SANTANA AND OTHERS

VENEZUELA

October 23, 2003

 

 

1.             On July 1, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereafter "the Inter-American Commission", "the Commission", or "the IACHR") received a petition submitted by Cecilia Sosa Gómez against the Republic of Venezuela (hereafter "the State" or "the Venezuelan State") arguing that, by virtue of Judgment 1013 issued by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Venezuela on June 12, 2001, the State violated her right to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), the right of reply (Article 14), the right to equal protection (Article 24), the right to judicial guarantees (Article 8), the right to private property (Article 21.1), and the provisions relating to restrictions regarding interpretation (Article 29.a and b) and to the scope of restrictions (Article 30), all contained in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereafter the "American Convention" or "the Convention"), contrary to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) to respect those rights, and in Article 2 on the duty to adopt legislative measures to give effect to them, as well as Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.  Mrs. Cecilia Sosa attached to her petition a list of persons, with their name, nationality and signature, who declared their adherence to the complaint submitted by the petitioner to the Commission.

 

2.             On July 16, 2001, the Commission received a petition submitted by Elías Santana, acting on his own behalf and as representative of the organization known as “Queremos Elegir" [roughly “We Want to Vote”], together with Mrs. Marieta Hernandez, a broadcaster and columnist with the newspaper Tal Cual and a founding member of that association, and the lawyer Hector Faundez Ledesma, a columnist with the newspaper El Nacional and President of the Centro por la Democracia y el Estado de Derecho (Center for Democracy and the Rule of Law), complaining that the State of Venezuela, by means of that same Judgment 1013, had violated the right to judicial guarantees (Article 8), the right to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), the right of reply (Article 14), political rights (Article 23.1.a and c), the right to equal protection (Article 24), the right to judicial protection (Article 25), and provisions relating to restrictions regarding interpretation (Article 29) and the scope of restrictions (Article 30), contained in the American Convention on Human Rights, contrary to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) to respect those rights, and in Article 2 on the duty to adopt legislative measures to give effect to them.  On July 20, 2001, the Commission, in accordance with Article 29.d of its Rules of Procedure, decided to open file P-0434/2001 Cecilia Sosa and file P-0453 Elías Santana, and to process them together under the same case, P-0453/2001.

 

3.             On July 20, 2001, the IACHR received a petition on behalf of the nongovernmental association "Bloque de Prensa Venezolana”[ii] [roughly "Venezuelan Press Front"], represented by members of its Board of Directors, Messrs. David Natera Febres, Andrés Mata Osorio and Juan Manuel Carmona Perera, who were acting as well in their personal capacity as media editors, and Asdrubal Aguiar Aranguren, as their legal representative, in which they complained that the Venezuelan State, by means of the same court judgment number 1013, had violated the right to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), the right of reply (Article 14), the right to equal protection (Article 24), and the provisions relating to restrictions regarding interpretation (Article 29.a, b, c and d) and the scope of restrictions (Article 30), recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights, contrary to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) to respect those rights, and in Article 2 on the duty to adopt legislative measures to give effect to them.  Consequently, on August 6 the Commission decided to open the file P-0474/2001, and to process it together with that of Cecilia Sosa and Elías Santana (P-0453/2001).  Hereafter, these persons are referred to collectively as "the petitioners".

 

4.             For its part, the State argued that the petitioners do not meet the requirements of Article 46 (1.d) of the American Convention, and that consequently the Commission must declare the petition inadmissible, pursuant to Article 47.a.  The State rejected the charge that it had violated Article 14 of the Convention, because on September 11, 2000, the director of Radio Nacional de Venezuela granted Elías Santana the right to make a correction or reply, which would be broadcast by three stations belonging to Radio Nacional de Venezuela.  In its response to the petition, the State also insisted on the differentiation between factual information and opinions, arguing that in the present case the object of the complaint was a simple opinion rendered by the President on the statements made by Mr. Santana to the newspaper El Nacional.  On the basis of this distinction, the State argued that the right of reply applied only to inaccurate or offensive statements or information, and not to opinions.  Finally, the State argued that the operative portion of the court judgment did not violate Article 13 of the American Convention.

 

5.             After examining the positions of the parties, the Commission concluded that it was competent to examine the petitions submitted by some of the petitioners, and that these were inadmissible, in light of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention.

 


3.         Precautionary Measures granted by the IACHR during 2003

 

            Guatemala

 

1.                  On March 18, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures on behalf of María de los Ángeles Monzón Paredes, a Guatemalan journalist who has done crucial work on issues related to the observance and protection of human rights, and of her family. The information available indicates that she has received threats in the wake of publishing articles on the situation of the Azmitia Dorantes family–the petitioner in a case before the IACHR–and the assassination of indigenous leader Antonio Pop. In addition, in the early morning hours of March 2, 2003, unknown persons entered her home, checked her vehicles, and removed property of hers, allegedly to make it look like a robbery. In view of the risk to which the beneficiaries are exposed, the Commission asked the Guatemalan State to adopt the measures needed to protect the life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of María de los Ángeles Monzón Paredes and to investigate the threats against her. In response, the State reported on the implementation of perimeter security measures for her and her family. Later, the IACHR learned that Ms. Monzón had continued receiving death threats.

 

2.                  On July 24, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures on behalf of Juan Luis Font, director of the daily newspaper “El Periódico” and the newspaper’s technical and administrative staff. The information available indicates that beginning in February 2003, several investigative journalists from the newspaper received threats brought on by the exercise of their activity, and that, according to certain witnesses, its director has been in imminent danger. In addition, it is alleged that on July 11, 2003, two men entered the facilities of “El Periódico” inquiring after Mrs. María Luisa Marroquín, director of printing facilities, after which they attacked with firearms and wounded the security agent who had received them. On June 24, 2003, a dozen armed individuals who passed themselves off as agents from the National Civilian Police and the Public Ministry took control of the residence of José Rubén Zamora, journalist and president of “El Periódico,” and abused members of his family. As a result of these events and the threats received subsequently, Mr. Zamora had to leave the country. In view of the risk to which the beneficiaries are exposed, and the context of violence against journalists, the IACHR asked the Guatemalan State to adopt the measures needed to protect the lives and personal integrity of the beneficiaries.

 

3.                  On August 15, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures on behalf of Héctor Haroldo Sánchez Valencia, a journalist with Guatevisión. The information available indicates that on August 12, 2003, an email was received at the offices of that channel conveying death threats to over a dozen persons, including him, and that her was alerted by reliable sources of the death threats against him because of his coverage of the Ríos Montt case, with which several sectors were displeased. In view of the risk to which he is exposed, the IACHR asked the Guatemalan State to adopt the measures needed to protect the life and personal integrity of Héctor Haroldo Sánchez. On December 3, 2003, the Commission lifted the precautionary measures at the express request of the petitioner.

 

4.                  On September 22, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures to Jorge Eduardo Springmuhl Samayoa, general manager of the newspaper “Nuestro Diario,” and his family. The information available indicates that Jorge Andrés Springmuhl Flores, Jorge Eduardo Springmuhl’s 17-year-old son, was kidnapped on August 20, 2003, in zone 15 of Guatemala City by three armed men. The kidnapping is part of a pattern of threats and acts of intimidation directed against Jorge Eduardo Springmuhl Samayoa. In view of the risk to which the beneficiaries are exposed, the IACHR asked the Guatemalan State to adopt the measures needed to protect the life and personal integrity of Jorge Eduardo Springmuhl Samayoa and his family. In response, the State reported on the implementation of measures to carry out the requests of the IACHR. On December 5, 2003, the Commission communicated to the parties that it was lifting the precautionary measures at the request of the petitioner.

 

            Haiti

 

5.                  On January 7, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures on behalf of journalist Michèle Montas, the director of Radio Haiti and widow of journalist Jean Dominique, who was assassinated in April 2003. The information available indicates that on December 25, 2002, two armed men showed up at the beneficiary’s residence and shot one of her two security guards, Mr. Maxime Seide, as the guards tried to cut them off. The attack is allegedly related to her active work to clarify the facts in the assassination of her husband, just as the judge in charge of the investigation was to rule on concluding the preliminary investigation. In view of the risk to which the beneficiary is exposed, the IACHR asked the Haitian State to adopt the measures needed to protect the life and personal integrity of Ms. Michèle Montas. Subsequently, on December 19, 2003, the IACHR learned that the beneficiary had left the territorial jurisdiction of the Haitian State, and so proceeded to inform the parties that it had lifted the precautionary measures.

 

6.                  On May 29, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures on behalf of journalist Liliane Pierre-Paul, director of programming for Radio Kiskeya and Charles Emile Joassaint, a radio correspondent. The information available indicates that on April 30, 2003, the beneficiary received an ultimatum signed by members of several popular organizations, including “Domi nan Bwa,” threatening to disseminate an appeal to French President Jacques Chirac to free up payments to Haiti. The note, accompanied by a rifle bullet, includes not only threats against the journalist, but also against French nationals in Haiti, and sets May 6, 2003as the deadline for carrying out the demands set forth. Mr. Charles Emile Joassaint has become a target of threats made in writing and by telephone. In view of the risk to which the beneficiaries are exposed, the IACHR asked the Haitian State to adopt the measures needed to protect the life, personal integrity, and exercise of the freedom of expression of Liliane Pierre-Paul and Charles Emile Joussaint. In response, the State reported that the National Police of Haiti had already adopted measures to strengthen security for the journalist and for the radio station premises, and to investigate the threats.

 

7.                  On September 25, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures on behalf of Choubert Louis, Léon Jean Sainthyl, Mercidieu Aubain, Jean Wilkerson Alexis, Souffrant Bonivard, Charles Dunet, Pierre Francky Roland, Magalie Felix, Eric Galleus, and Esaie Raymond, all residents of Cité Soleil. The information available indicates that the beneficiaries have been subject to threats because they organized an event held July 12, 2003, in Cité Soleil, with the participation of a series of civil society organizations known as the “Group of 184.” During that event the participants were attacked as other residents of the city threw stones at them, and the beneficiaries fear further reprisals by gangs that operate in Cité Soleil. In view of the risk to which the beneficiaries are exposed, the IACHR asked the Haitian State to adopt the measures needed to protect the life and personal integrity of Choubert Louis, Léon Jean Sainthyl, Mercidieu Aubain, Jean Wilkerson Alexis, Souffrant Bonivard, Charles Dunet, Pierre Francky Roland, Magalie Felix, Eric Galleus, and Esaie Raymond.

 

            Venezuela

 

8.                  On October 3, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures on behalf of Gustavo Azocar Alcalá, correspondent for the daily newspaper El Universal, in the state of Táchira. The information available indicates that Mr. Alcalá has been harassed on numerous occasions, including one time when firearms were shot at his vehicle, on May 29, 2003, in front of his home. In addition, it is noted that as of July 2003, he received a steady flow of phone calls, emails, and anonymous messages with death threats. In view of the risk to which he is exposed, facing, the Commission asked the Venezuelan State to adopt measures to protect the rights to life, personal integrity, and freedom of expression of journalist Gustavo Azocar Alcalá.

 

9.                  On October 3, 2003, the Commission granted precautionary measures to protect the right to freedom of expression in relation to the government’s seizure of certain operating equipment at the television station Globovisión. The information available, in the context of an administrative proceeding, indicates that personnel from the National Telecommunications Commission (CONATEL) seized broadcast equipment at various facilities of the Globovisión channel, giving rise to the potential restriction on the continuity of the operations of that media outlet. In view of the situation and its possible consequences, the IACHR asked the Venezuelan State to suspend the seizure measure and to return the equipment seized, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, and it called the parties to a hearing. On October 21, 2003, the Commission held the hearing as scheduled, and determined that the seizure of the equipment, considered in isolation and by itself, did not appear to place the persons affected at imminent risk of suffering irreparable harm in the enjoyment of their rights, considering that the television station continued to broadcast news, although its live broadcasts were serious affected or delayed. Nonetheless, according to the information received, the representatives of Corpomedios G.V. Inversiones, C.A. (Globovisión) filed an action for constitutional protection (acción de amparo constitucional) before the First Court for Contentious-Administrative Matters, which was pending resolution, since on October 8, 2003, the Committee on Operation and Restructuring of the Judiciary had suspended the President of that Tribunal and one other member for 60 days.  Accordingly, on October 24, 2003, the IACHR asked the Venezuelan State to adopt measures aimed at ensuring urgently a simple and prompt remedy before competent and impartial judges or tribunals to protect against acts that the petitioners allege violate their fundamental rights related to the administrative procedure brought against Globovisión.  On October 28, 2003, the State reported that it had forwarded the request for precautionary measures to the Supreme Court of Justice.

 

B.        Cases before the Inter-American Court on Human Rights

 

1.         Cases sent to the Court during 2003

 

            Costa Rica

 

            Case of “La Nación” newspaper[iii]

 

10.              On January 28, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted to the Inter-American Court an application against the Costa Rican State in relation to the case of “La Nación” newspaper (Case 12,367), the facts of which refer mainly to the violations committed by the Costa Rican State on having convicted Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and having declared him to be responsible for four criminal offenses, for offensive publications constituting defamation, with all of the legal and practical effects thereof. Those effects include having entered the criminal conviction of Mauricio Herrera in the Judicial Registry of Criminals, having ordered that the link at “La Nación Digital,” on Internet, between the last name Przedborski and the articles written by Mauricio Herrera Ulloa be taken down, and having intimidated Mr. Fernán Vargas Rohrmoser to carry out the judgment, with the express warning of the possibility that he might be found to have committed the crime of disobedience of the judicial authority.

 

11.              The Commission considered in its application that those acts violate Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) (obligation to respect the rights) and 2 (duty to adapt domestic legislation) of the Convention. Accordingly, the Commission asked the Court, in keeping with Article 63 of the American Convention, to order the Costa Rican State to adopt the measures of reparation indicated in the application. (See supra Provisional Measures.)

 

12.              On May 19, 2003, the Costa Rican State submitted a brief by which it filed preliminary objections in relation to this case. The preliminary objections of the Costa Rican State are based on the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth at Article 46 of the American Convention. The Inter-American Commission presented the Court its written arguments on the preliminary objections invoked by the State, in keeping with Article 36(4) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. In this respect, the Commission argued that the preliminary objections invoked by Costa Rica should be rejected since they lack any legal or factual basis. The IACHR argued that the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, invoked by the State during the processing of the case before the Inter-American Court, should be rejected, since it is claiming that remedies should be exhausted that are not adequate or effective, for failure to raise the objection in timely fashion before the Commission, and because it ignores the fact that the Commission adopted an express decision on admissibility in Report No. 128/01 on this case.

 

2.         Provisional Measures adopted during 2003

 

            Luisiana Ríos et. al.

           

13.              The Court held a public hearing on February 17, 2003, where it heard statements by Armando Amaya and Luisiana Ríos, and the arguments of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Venezuela regarding the provisional measures ordered.  On February 20, 2003, the Court issued an Order wherein it resolved:

 

1.             To find that the State has not effectively implemented the provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in its November 27, 2002 Order.

 

2.             To again order the State to adopt forthwith all measures necessary to protect the life and safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe. 

 

3.             To again order the State to allow the applicants to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered.

4.             To again order the State to investigate the facts denounced, which gave rise to the [...] measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

 

 5.            To order the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to take, by no later than March 21, 2003, the necessary steps to create a suitable mechanism to coordinate and monitor the measures [...].

 

 6.            To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by no later than February 28, 2003, on the measures it has taken pursuant to the [...] Order.

  

7.             To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court its observations on the State’s report, within one week of notification thereof.

  

8.             To order the State that, subsequent to its communication of February 28, 2003 [...], it continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of receiving them.

 

[…]

 

14.              The IACHR petitioned the Court to expand the provisional measures ordered for Luisiana Ríos et al. in the Court’s November 27, 2002 Order and later reiterated in a February 20, 2003 Order.  The Commission was seeking protection of the life, safety and freedom of expression of Noé Pernía, a reporter with Radio Caracas Televisión, Carlos Colmenares, a cameraman with RCTV, and Pedro Nikken, an RCTV reporter.  The precautionary measures adopted by the IACHR had had no  effect in correcting the attacks on freedom of expression or the threats and assaults on the life and safety of the RCTV media personnel being protected; according to information the Commission had received, the three journalists had been physically assaulted while performing their functions. 

 

15.              On October 2, 2003, the President of the Inter-American Court issued an order wherein he decided:

 

1.             To again order the State to adopt, without delay, all necessary measures to protect the life and personal safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe

 

2.             To order the State to adopt, without delay, all necessary measures to protect the life, safety and freedom of expression of  Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken.

 

3.             To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of the protection measures to participate in their planning and application and, in general, keep them informed of the progress of the measures ordered.

 

4.             To order the State to investigate the facts stated in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

 

5.             To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures taken to comply with the present Order, no later than October 16, 2003.

 

6.             To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its comments on the State’s report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights within a week of being notified thereof.

7.             To order the State, subsequent to its first report (supra, operative paragraph five), to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations to said reports within six weeks of receiving them.

 

8.             To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the present Order.

 

16.              On November 21, 2003, the Inter-American Court decided:

 

1.             To ratify the October 2, 2003 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

2.             To again order the State to adopt, without delay, all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos and Argenis Uribe.

 

3.             To order the State to adopt and maintain all measures necessary to protect the life, personal safety and freedom of expression of Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken, journalists with Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV).

 

4.             To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of these protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress regarding the measures ordered by the Court.

 

5.             To order the State to investigate the facts stated in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

 

6.             To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures adopted to comply with this Order, no later than November 28, 2003.

 

7.                   To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its observations on the State’s report, within one week of being notified thereof.

 

8.             To order the State, subsequent to its first report [...], to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its observations to the State’s reports within six weeks of being notified thereof.

 

9.             To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the [...] Order.

         

17.              On December 2, 2003, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights adopted an Order to the following effect:

 

1.             To reiterate that the State has not effectively implemented the various provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in case [...].

 

2.             To declare the State to be in noncompliance with its duty under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

 

3.             To declare that the State did not comply with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on implementation of the measures the Court ordered.

 

4.             Should the current situation persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, concerning a State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

5.             To again order the State to adopt, without delay, all measures necessary to protect the life and personal safety of Luisiana Ríos, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Carlos Colmenares, Noé Pernía and Pedro Nikken. 

 

6.             To again order the State to allow the beneficiaries of these protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress regarding the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

7.             To again order the State to investigate the facts stated in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

 

8.             To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures it has taken to comply with this order, no later than January 7, 2004.

 

9.             To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its comments on the State’s report, within 15 days of notification thereof.

 

10.          To order the State, subsequent to its first report referenced in operative paragraph eight supra, to continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on

 

 

Human Rights to submit its observations on the State’s reports within six weeks of their receipt.

 

11.          To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the [...] Order.

 
18.              As the Inter-American Court is monitoring implementation of the measures ordered in the present case, the Commission has repeatedly conveyed to the Court its serious concern over the fact that the State has done nothing more than repeat information already presented to the Court and has provided no information to show actual compliance with the provisional measures the Court ordered.  It has also underscored the needed to press for all measures necessary to fully protect the persons specifically named in the Court’s orders of November 27, 2002 and November 21, 2003.

 

            Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez

 

19.              In the case of Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, the Commission sought provisional measures so that the Court would order the State to protect the life, personal safety and freedom of expression of journalists Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez, who were the victims of an attempt on their lives in the early morning hours of June 27, 2003, while on their way to the TELEVEN television station for their daily show “La Entrevista”. 

 

20.              On July 30 2003, the Presidente of the Court resolved:

 

1.             To order the State to adopt, without delay, all measures necessary to protect the life, personal safety and freedom of expression of journalists Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.

 

2.             To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of the protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the measures ordered.

 

3.             To order the State to investigate the facts reported in the complaint that gave rise to the present measures, in order to identify and punish those responsible.

 

4.             To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures it has taken to comply with this Order, no later than August 8, 2003.

 

5.             To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its observations on the State’s report within one week of notification thereof.

 

6.             To order the State that, subsequent to its first report [...], it continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of their receipt.

 

21.              On September 8, 2003, the Court issued an Order for Provisional Measures in the present case, wherein it resolved:

 

1.             To ratify the July 30, 2003 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

2.             To order the State to adopt and maintain all measures needed to protect the life, personal safety, and freedom of expression of journalists Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez.

3.             To order the State to allow the beneficiaries of the protection measures to participate in their planning and implementation and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made on the Court-ordered measures.

 

4.             To order the State to investigate the facts reported in the complaint and that gave rise to the present measures, so as to identify and punish those responsible.

 

5.             To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by September 15, 2003at the latest, on the measures it has taken to comply with the [...] Order.

 

6.             To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights its observations on the State’s report within one week of notification thereof.

 

7.             To order the State that, subsequent to its first report [...], it continue reporting to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted; to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of their receipt.

 

8.             To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this Order.

 

22.              On December 2, 2003, the Court issued another Order for Provisional Measures, wherein it decided:

 

1.             To reiterate that the State has not effectively implemented the provisional measures that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ordered in the September 8, 2003 Order.

 

2.             To declare the State to be in noncompliance with its duty under Article 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights.

 

3.             To declare that the State has not yet complied with its duty to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on implementation of the measures the Court ordered.

 

4.             Should the current situation persist, to report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States, in application of Article 65 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 30 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, concerning a State’s failure to comply with the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

5.             To reiterate to the State that it is required to effectively implement the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its September 8, 2003 Order for protection of the lives, personal safety and freedom of expression of  Marta Colomina and Liliana Velásquez. 

 

6.             To again order the State to allow the applicants to participate in the planning and implementation of the protection measures and, in general, keep them informed of the progress made with the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

 

7.             To again order the State to investigate the denunciations that prompted adoption of these provisional measures, in order to identify and punish those responsible.

 

8.             To order the State to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the measures adopted pursuant to [...] Order, by no later than January 7, 2004.

 

9.             To order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to present the observations it deems pertinent on the State’s report, within 15 days of being notified thereof.

 

10.          To order the State, subsequent to its first report (supra operative paragraph eight), to continue to report to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, every two months, on the provisional measures adopted, and to order the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to continue to present its observations on those reports within six weeks of their receipt.

 

11.          To notify the State and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of this Order.



[i] Commissioner José Zalaquett, of Chilean nationality, did not take part in the discussion and voting on the present report, pursuant to Article 17(2)(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission.

[ii] The Bloque de Prensa Venezolana is a nongovernmental association constituted on September 23, 1958, embracing most of the owners, editors and directors of national and regional newspapers and magazines of permanent circulation within Venezuela.

[iii] See supra Provisional Measures