Report No. 102 (2019) IACHR. Case No. 13.017 A (Panamá)

• Case Number: 13.017,A
• Year: 2019
• Report Number: 102
• Respondent State: Panamá
• Case Type: Friendly Settlements
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Familiares de víctimas de la dictadura militar, octubre de 1968 a diciembre de 1989

REPORT No. 102/19

C. 13.017 A

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT REPORT

FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF THE MILITARY DICTATORSHIP, OCTOBER 1968 TO DECEMBER 1989

PANAMA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.150

Doc. 111

13 J. 2019

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on J. 13, 2019.

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 102/19, C. 13.017 A, Friendly Settlement, Families of Victims of the Military Dictatorship, October 1968 to December 1989, Panama, J. 13, 2019.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 102/19

CASE 13.017 A

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT REPORT

FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF THE MILITARY DICTATORSHIP

OCTOBER 1968 TO DECEMBER 1989

PANAMA

JULY 13, 2019¹

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On October 23, 2003 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Inter-American Commission", "the Commission," or “the IACHR") received a petition filed by A.S.A.H., Director General of the Office to Monitor the Objectives of the Truth Commission, and J.G.R., Legal Support officer of the Office to Monitor the Objectives of the Truth Commission, representing the Committee of Families of Persons Assassinated and Disappeared of Panama, H.G. (COFADEPA-HG) and the Committee of Families of Disappeared Persons of Chiriquí (COFADECHI) ("the petitioners”), on behalf of the families of victims of the military dictatorship that ruled Panama between 1968 and 1989, against the Republic of Panama (“the P. S.”, “Panama,” or “the S.”). The petition alleged that in the prevailing climate of violence and abuse of power under the military dictatorship in power Panama from October 11, 1968 until December 20, 1989, 109 people (hereinafter “the alleged victims”) were victims of extrajudicial execution or forced disappearance allegedly attributable to elements of the S. security forces.

2. The petitioners argued that the S. of Panama violated Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), and 7 (right to personal liberty) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) to the detriment of the alleged victims. T. also held that the S. was responsible for violation of Article I (right to life, liberty and personal security) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the A.D.”) and Articles I, III, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. As to the admissibility requirements, they argued that their petition was admissible inasmuch as in those cases in which domestic remedies had not been exhausted, the exceptions set out in Article 31(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”) applied.

3. On October 27, 2015, the IACHR adopted R. on Admissibility No. 68/15. In its report, the IACHR concluded that it was competent to examine the alleged violations of the following articles: (a) 3 (right to juridical personality), 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument, to the detriment of the 39 purportedly disappeared alleged victims; (b) I, III, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons to the detriment of the 39 disappeared alleged victims; (c) 19 (rights of the child) of the American Convention to the detriment of the two purportedly disappeared minors; (d) I, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration to the detriment of the 28 alleged victims purportedly executed prior to J. 1978; (e) 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the Convention to the detriment of the 39 alleged victims purportedly executed after J. 1978; (f) 19 (rights of the child) of the American Convention to the detriment of the girl allegedly extrajudicially executed; (g) 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that instrument; and (h) XVIII of the A.D. to the detriment of the families of all 106 alleged victims.

4. In December 2018, the Commission was advised that the parties had bilaterally initiated negotiations on a friendly settlement agreement. In addition, the parties informed the Commission, that the Truth Commission of Panama had been in operation from 2003 to 2005 and that in 2010 it had convened a “roundtable of understanding” [mesa de entendimiento] between organizations of victims' families and the S..

5. On February 12, 2019, the parties held a meeting in Bolivia in the context of the 171st session of the Commission, which was facilitated by C.F.P. in her capacity as rapporteur for the country. On J. 21, 2019, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter “the ASA” or “the Agreement”) that covered 13 victims represented by the organization COFADEPA-HG.

6. On J. 26, 2019, the parties sent the IACHR a joint communication requesting approval of the ASA.

7. In relation to the above, it is worth mentioning that the P. S. is engaged in other friendly settlement negotiation processes with the rest of the victims and that the effects of this approval report are purely confined to the 13 victims and 83 family members who have subscribed to the ASA to which it refers.

8. P. to Articles 49 of the American Convention and 40(5) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, this friendly settlement report includes a summary of the petitioner’s allegations and transcribes the friendly settlement agreement signed on J. 21, 2019, by the petitioner COFADEPA-HG and representatives of the P.S.. Also, the Commission hereby approves the agreement signed by the parties and decides to publish this report in its Annual R. to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. ALLEGED FACTS

9. The petitioners denounced the forced disappearance and extrajudicial execution in Panama of 109 people between October 1968 and December 1989. According to the petition, those violations were committed by officials of the military regime, under the general policy instituted by the military government of eliminating the opposition.

10. The petitioners alleged that during the dictatorship, officials of the National Guard dissolved the National Assembly, and appointed a Provisional Government Junta, which was run by the military. The petitioners also said that over that period, political activity was practically suppressed by a harsh military regime that engaged in the persecution and arbitrary, systematic detention of those who opposed the dictatorial government. T. said, in particular, that a plan of repression was conducted against community leaders, student movements, and supporters of the Civic Front (Frente Cívico) who did not support the military government, and that this repression manifested itself in many acts of violence which, it was alleged, was the reason for the increase in the number of armed clashes, incarcerations, and deaths in unexplained circumstances that occurred during this period.

11. W. this context of violence and abuse of power, the petitioners alleged violations of the fundamental rights of 109 persons. For each alleged victim, the petitioners identified the victim, described the particular facts of the rights violations that were documented to the Truth Commission, and detailed the judicial activity that took place in connection with those acts. T. also described the profile of the victims, saying that they were young people at the time of their deaths or disappearances and that most of them were from low-income social groups.

12. According to the petitioners, 39 people were victims of forced disappearance and two of those 39 were minors. T. also claimed that 70 people were victims of extrajudicial execution and that one of those whose right to life was thus violated was a girl. All of the aforementioned violations were attributed to agents of the P.A..

13. With respect to exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners say that in 103 of the 109 cases,² the facts were reported to the appropriate authorities between 1970 and 2003. T. said that most of the cases were still at the preliminary investigation stage, some more than 36 years after the time the petition was lodged; in other cases the accused were acquitted. T. also said that of all the above-mentioned proceedings, only 6 convictions had been handed down, encompassing 14 of the cases brought by the petitioners, with one judgment convicting those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of 9 alleged victims identified by the petitioners. Of the other five convictions, two were default judgments.³ With regard to the remaining 89 cases, the petitioners reported that 33 were at the pre-trial investigation stage, and that appeals had been filed in 11 of them without a decision adopted thereon. E. cases had been closed, and three had been barred by the statute of limitations. The court authorities had decided for the dismissal...