Report No. 1 (2011) IACHR. Petition No. 295-03 (Ecuador)

• Petition Number: 295-03
• Report Number: 1
• Year: 2011
• Respondent State: Ecuador
• Alleged Victim: Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Admissibility

7

REPORT No. 1/11

PETITION 295-03

ADMISSIBILITY

SAÚL FILORMO CAÑAR PAUTA

ECUADOR

January 4, 2011

I. SUMMARY

1. On April 21, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition lodged by the Ecumenical Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State,” “the Ecuadorian State,” or “Ecuador”) for the lack of judicial clarification of the facts surrounding the disappearance and subsequent death, on November 26, 1998, of Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta (hereinafter “the alleged victim”). They contended that the State failed to act with due diligence in responding to the facts and in investigating and punishing the persons responsible for the alleged victim’s disappearance and death.

2. The petitioners claimed that the State was responsible for violating the rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, and to judicial protection, established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same treaty. In turn, the State claimed that the petitioners’ contentions were inadmissible in that they had failed to comply with the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement set out in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention.

3. After analyzing the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission resolved: to rule the claims admissible with respect to the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25, in conjunction with Article 1.1, and, under the principle of iura novit curia, with respect to Articles 3 and 16 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and Articles 2 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture; to notify the parties; and to order the publication of the decision in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the OAS.

II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

4. The IACHR recorded the petition as No. P295-03 and, after carrying out a preliminary analysis, on December 8, 2003, it duly forwarded the relevant parts to the State, along with a deadline of two months for it to submit information in compliance with Article 30 of the Rules of Procedure. The State submitted its response on May 18, 2004, which was conveyed to the petitioners for their observations. The IACHR received the petitioners’ observations on May 9, 2006, which it forwarded to the State.

5. On March 27, 2007 the Commission received additional information from the petitioners, which was forwarded to the State for observations. On August 28, 2009, in compliance with Article 30.5 of the Rules of Procedure, the Commission asked the State to provide up-to-date information. On September 24, 2009 the petitioners submitted up-to-date information, which was conveyed to the State for its observations. The State requested extensions on November 9 and December 3, 2009, which the Commission granted. On January 4, 2010, the State filed its final observations, which were forwarded to the petitioners for their information.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Petitioners

6. The petitioners state that Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta was a leader of the January 14 Housing Cooperative and of the Ecuadorian Confederation of Single Class Workers’ Organizations (CEDOCUT), in which capacity he supported and led a group of individuals facing eviction from the Salento Hacienda, which they had previously invaded, in La Maná canton, province of Cotopaxi. They further state that the alleged victim set up a trade union for workers at the local tobacco company, where he championed the claims made by the inhabitants of the districts of La Esperanza, La Soledad, Tres Coronas, and El Zapotal against that tobacco company for its closure of a public road that denied them access to their homes.

7. They report that on November 26, 1998, Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta attended a meeting at the Ministry of Social Welfare in the city of Quito, after which he left for the January 14 Cooperative, where he never arrived. They state that Mélida Bravo Ruilova, the alleged victim’s partner, consequently went to the police, where she was told that she had to wait 48 hours before she could report the disappearance. After 48 hours had gone by, Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta had not returned home, and so on November 30, 1998, his partner filed a disappearance claim, in which she indicated that the alleged victim, out of habit and as a security measure, invariably informed her where he was going and whom he was with.

8. The petitioners report that on December 3, 1998, in the city of Latacunga, Cotopaxi province, some 100 kilometers from Quito, a municipal worker found a burlap sack in a river, and that the sack contained a body, its hands and feet tied and showing signs of torture. They claim that in spite of the publicity given to Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta’s disappearance in the media, it was not until December 7, 1998, that the police informed his family that the body had been found. They state that the autopsy report indicated that the alleged victim died of asphyxiation caused by strangulation, and that the body was marked with numerous wounds caused by direct, heavy blows.

9. The petitioners state that the President of CEDOCUT told the media that he had received a telephone call from individuals who were with the alleged victim at the time of his disappearance, who claimed that at 1:30 p.m. on November 26, 1998, the alleged victim was detained in the Villaflora district of the city of Quito by eight unidentified armed individuals traveling in two blue Toyota jeeps. The witnesses, who declined to provide their names out of security concerns since they had received death threats, reported that one of the unidentified men said, “Colonel, this is the son a b… we’re looking for.” They then began to beat him and bundled him into one of their vehicles.

10. The petitioners report that on December 9, 1998, the Second Criminal Court of Cotopaxi ordered the issuing of a trial commencement deed and the institution of proceedings against the perpetrators, accomplices, and accessories after the fact in the death of Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta. They claim that during the investigations, the police issued reports setting out various theories on the alleged victim’s death and that the final report, dated April 13, 1999, concluded that the killers were people who lived in La Maná canton, since the alleged victim had made many enemies on account of his work fighting the Corporación San Juan tobacco company.

11. They state that on April 19, 1999, the Minister of Defense sent a report to the Ombudsman indicating that according to information from residents of La Maná, groups of hit men working for the tobacco company were operating in the area and that in addition, the area was home to an association called the Pangua Peasants’ Defense Council, with 1,700 members. They also claim that the report further indicates that company workers refused to assist in the investigation of the case at hand because they were threatened by the company’s manager. In addition, they contend that during the investigation, the President of CEDOCUT provided the police with the license plate number of one of the vehicles in which Saúl Filormo Cañar Pauta was abducted; it was established that the registration was for a blue Toyota jeep belonging to the tobacco company and that,...