Report No. 1 (2009) IACHR. Petition No. 1491-05 (Venezuela)

• Petition Number: 1491-05
• Year: 2009
• Report Number: 1
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Venezuela
• Alleged Victim: Benito Antonio Barrios y otros

REPORT Nº 1/09 PETITION 1491-05 ADMISSIBILITY BENITO ANTONIO BARRIOS ET AL. VENEZUELA January 17, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 30, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission") received a petition lodged by Eloisa Barrios, the Human Rights, Justice, and Peace Commission of Aragua State, and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter "the petitioners"), in which they allege the responsibility of agents of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter "the State") for the illegal arrest and extrajudicial execution of Benito Antonio Barrios on August 28, 1998, in the rural village of Guanayen in the municipality of Urdaneta. While the petition was being processed they added submissions concerning the alleged extrajudicial execution of Rigoberto Barrios, illegal arrests and violations of the right to humane treatment of several Barrios family members by agents of the State, and the subsequent displacement of those family members. 2. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial protection established in Articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 7.4 ,7.5, 8.1, 22.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention"), in connection with the general obligation to respect the rights, set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Benito Barrios, Rigoberto Barrios, and their family members (hereinafter "the alleged victims"). 3. After examining the parties’ positions and pursuant to the requirements stipulated in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to declare the case admissible for the purpose of considering the alleged violations of Articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 8.1, 22.1, and 25.1 and Article 19 of the American Convention, in application of the iura novit curia principle, in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument. It also decided to notify the parties of the report and publish it. II PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 4. On December 30, 2005 the Commission received a petition, which was registered as P-1491-05. On January 13, 2006 the Commission forwarded a copy of the relevant parts to the State, giving it two months to submit observations, as provided in Article 30.2 of the Rules of Procedure. 5. On March 9, 2006, the Commission received a request from the State for an extension. On March 13, 2006 the Commission notified the parties that the petition had been joined to case 12.488 (Eloisa Barrios et al.), and that in application of Article 37.3 of its Rules of Procedure, it had decided to defer treatment of admissibility of petition 1491-05 until the debate and decision on the merits, asking the petitioners to submit their observations. On May 8, 2006, the petitioners presented their observations on the merits, which were forwarded to the State on May 16, 2006. The Commission requested the State to submit its observations and copies of the files on the criminal investigations undertaken in connection with joined case 12.488 (Eloisa Barrios et al.). 6. On June 20, 2006, the Commission received arguments on the merits from the State, which were sent to the petitioners on July 5, 2006, with a request to present their observations. On August 11, 2006, the petitioners asked the Commission for a one-month extension, which was granted. On September 19, 2006, the petitioners submitted their observations, which were forwarded to the State on September 27, 2006. The State’s observations were received on April 18, 2007, and forwarded to the petitioners. 7. On July 5, 2007, the Commission notified the parties that petition 1491-05 had been separated from case 12.488 (Eloisa Barrios et al.). On September 5, 2007, the State submitted its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners on September 19, 2007. On the same date the petitioners presented additional information that was forwarded to the State for its observations on September 24, 2007. The State submitted its final observations on October 24, 2007, which were transmitted to the petitioners. On November 14, 2007, the petitioners presented their observations, which were forwarded to the State on November 19, giving it one month to comment. Those observations were not received. III. CONTEXT 8.The facts alleged in this petition are related to those of Case 12.488 Eloísa Barrios et al., which is now in the merits stage. Case 12.448 involves the deaths of Narciso and Luis Barrios and a series of house searches and acts of harassment against members of the Barrios family. The Commission found that case admissible as regards allegations of possible violations of Articles 1, 4, 5, 8, 21, and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of Narciso, Eloísa, Elvira, Justina, Luis, and Oneida Barrios, and Benito Barrios’ family members. In addition, the Commission granted precautionary measures for members of the Barrios family and as of the date of this report’s approval, they are beneficiaries of provisional measures granted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. By way of context for this case, the petitioners alleged it is in the framework of a recognized practice of extrajudicial executions and excessive and indiscriminate use of force by regional police, which has been going on for years. They contended that victims of this practice are generally young men in the economically disadvantaged social sectors, and that Aragua is particularly notorious for the greatest number of “executions” by police agents, especially by the Cuerpo de Seguridad y Orden Público [Security and Public Order Corps] (hereinafter “the CSOP”), which constitutes a pattern of extrajudicial executions. 10. The petitioners specified that it is difficult to exercise effective control over security forces in the rural village of Guanayen, in the municipality Urdaneta, south of the Aragua State, because of the geographical location. According to the petitioners, this situation has favored the development of a systematic practice of extrajudicial executions in the region, the excessive and arbitrary use of force, and mechanisms of impunity surrounding these situations. 11. The petitioners indicated that on August 28, 1998, at three o’clock in the morning, seven uniformed officers from the police stations in the towns of Barbacoa and Guanayen came to the house of worker Benito Barrios (age 28), carrying firearms and lacking an arrest warrant. According to the petitioners, two of the police shot several times at Benito’s brother Luis Alberto, without wounding him. 12. They alleged that four policemen threw Benito Barrios face down on the floor although he had not resisted, and in the presence of his sons Jorge Antonio (9) and Carlos Alberto (4), they hit him on the head with the butt of the weapons, causing Jorge Antonio to go off running to his paternal grandmother’s house to tell her what was happening. The petitioners indicated that when Benito Barrios’ nephew Victor learned of the situation, he went to his uncle’s house and saw CSOP officers “mount” him and carry off Benito Barrios in a pick-up with cabins, which belonged to that police force. 13. They alleged that at 9:00 a.m. the next day, a man named Wilmer-–representative of a funeral home—asked where some Barrios family representative lived, and was given the address of Ms. Oneida Barrios, a sister of Benito Barrios. According to the petitioners, this man went immediately to that home, and informed that at 6:00 a.m. that same day, August 29, 1998, Benito Barrios had been admitted at the Barbacoa hospital with two gunshot wounds and no vital signs. They indicated that according to the official death certificate, Benito Barrios died as a result of “acute anemia, thorax hemorrhaging, and a gunshot wound.” According to the petitioners, in the morning Benito’s sisters, Oneida and Maritza Barrios, went to the Barbacoa hospital to identify their brother’s body and were told that the police had reported the incident as an armed confrontation. They alleged the next day the body was turned over to the family for burial. 14. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies regarding the death of Benito Barrios the petitioners indicated that the Technical Judicial Police, Villa de Cura station in Aragua State, began its investigation, the findings of which were submitted on June 18, 1999 to the Urdaneta Municipal Court and on July 28, 1999, to the Tribunal Segundo de Transición [Second Transition Court] of the State of Aragua. They reported that case was later submitted to the Superior Prosecutor’s Office of Aragua and that it was still in the preparatory stage when the petition was lodged. 15. They alleged that the four of the policemen who took part in the arrest that preceded the execution of Benito Barrios were identified in the administrative file that was opened as a result of the incidents. They added that this administrative investigation remained open pending the results of the criminal investigation. 16. They indicated that on June 18, 2004, Eloisa Barrios filed a motion for amparo [constitutional injunction] against the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Aragua State District for denial of justice, procedural delay, and violation of due process. They alleged that on June 22, 2005, the Tribunal Quinto de Juicio [Fifth Law Court] rejected the amparo, finding the facts unclear. 17. The petitioners indicated that on June 29, 2005, Eloisa Barrios filed a complaint with the Public Ombudsman regarding the assassination of Benito Barrios, calling for an administrative...