Report No. 103 (2019) IACHR. Case No. 1224-07 (Uruguay)

• Case Number: 1224-07
• Report Number: 103
• Respondent State: Uruguay
• Case Type: Friendly Settlements
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: David Rabinovich

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 112

16 J. 2019

Original: Spanish

REPORT No. 103/19

PETITION 1224-07

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT REPORT

DAVID RABINOVICH

URUGUAY

Approved electronically by the Commission on J. 16, 2019.

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. [number/year], Petition 687-11. Friendly Settlement/Merits/Merits G.B.B. and C.B.B. [Date of report].

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 103/19, Petition 1224/07. Friendly Settlement. David R.. Uruguay. J. 16, 2019.

REPORT No. 103/19

PETITION 1224 - 07

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

DAVID RABINOVICH

URUGUAY
JULY 16, 2019

1. SUMMARY AND PROCEDURAL ASPECTS RELEATED TO THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On October 25, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "The Commission "or the" IACHR") received a petition in the name of D.R. with the sponsorship of the Uruguayan Press Association [Asociación de la Prensa Uruguaya hereinafter APU for its initials in Spanish] and the Uruguayan Institute of Legal Studies [Instituto de Estudios Legales del Uruguay, hereinafter ILESUR for its initials in Spanish], subsequently “the petitioners”, in which it was alleged that he was a victim of violations to his freedom of expression and access to information, for the alleged denial of access to information of public interest on the basis of a law incompatible with international standards. According to the allegations, the alleged victim, D.R., a journalist by profession, had requested access to the minutes, the transcription of recordings or tapes of a session of the Budget Committee of the Departmental Board of San José which was denied. The petitioner alleged that Article 11 of the Municipal Organic Law No. 9.515 of 1935 allowed to declare as secrets the matters resolved in the session, by decision of the absolute majority of those present. The petitioner alleged that the Uruguayan S. did not comply with the standards of maximum disclosure, publicity and transparency.

2. The petitioners alleged that the S. is responsible for the violation of articles 13 (right to freedom of thought and expression) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention"), all of them in accordance with the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights and freedoms, provided in Article 1 (1) and Article 2 (Duty to adopt provisions of domestic law) of the same instrument.

3. On October 1, 2015, the parties formally initiated the negotiation of a friendly settlement that materialized with the signing of an agreement on October 25, 2017, within the framework of a working meeting facilitated by Commissioner F.J.E. Praeli, Rapporteur of the IACHR for Uruguay during the 165th period of sessions of the IACHR. Through the friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter “FSA” or “agreement”), the U.S. adopted the commitment to facilitate the public dissemination of the agreement reached, with emphasis on the dissemination of the current regulations on access to public information. L., the S. acknowledged that the refusal of the Departmental Board of San José to provide access to the public information requested by M.R., resulted in a limitation to the exercise of his right to seek, receive and disseminate information and ideas of all nature, in a context of non-existence of clear procedures of access to public information prevailing at the time of the events.

4. Subsequently, on May 3, 2019, the parties signed a Minute of Understanding to establish the working route and the content of the obligations of the S. derived from the agreement to move towards full compliance.

5. On J. 11, 2019, the U.S. submitted information on compliance with the friendly settlement agreement and requested its approval by the IACHR. The petitioners, on the other hand, indicated on J. 26, 2019, their satisfaction and compliance with the approval of the FSA.

6. In this friendly settlement report, as established in Article 49 of the Convention and in Article 40.5 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, a summary of the facts alleged by the petitioner is made and the friendly settlement agreement, as signed on October 25, 2017 by the petitioner and the representative of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, is transcribed. L., the agreement signed by the parties is approved, along with the publication of this report in the Annual R. of the IACHR to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. ALLEGED FACTS

7. As alleged by the petitioner, the U.S. committed violations of the right to freedom of expression and the right of access to information in custody of the S. both enshrine in article 13 of the American Convention, first when the Departmental Board of San José did not answer to him, and later denied without a well-founded resolution, a written request from the victim to access the minutes, transcription of the recording or recorded tape, of the sessions of the Budget Commission of the Departmental Board of San José. The petitioners alleged that the S. did not comply with the principles of maximum disclosure, publicity and transparency that derive from Article 13 of the Convention.

8. The petitioner contended that the U.S. violated the right to seek and receive information from the journalist R. because a state agency - in this case at the departmental level - prevented him from accessing information on the management of public accounts based on a law incompatible with international standards, allowing declaring secret any session of the Departmental Board.

9. In its the description of the facts, the petitioner alleged that the S. also violated the victim's right of access to information because the registry that requested the information would have been destroyed.

10. The petitioner indicated that the U.S. did not guarantee an adequate administrative and judicial process to obtain a decision regarding its request for access to information in custody of the S.. A., it was indicated in the petition that there was no simple, judicial, expedite and effective remedy to guarantee access to public information and that the domestic courts refused to admit a subsequent writ of A. against the S., thus constituting a violation as well of the right to judicial protection established in article 25.2 of the Convention.

11. The petitioner indicated that the U.S., in this case its Parliament, had not adopted legislative measures - such as a law on access to public information - or of another nature, aimed at guaranteeing free, prompt and effective access to the information held by the S., allowing by omission the constant violation of this right, as occurred in the specific case.

12. F., the petitioner stated that in sum, the U.S., with regard to the Right of Access to Public Information, was flouting its commitments to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention and guarantee its free and full exercise to any person subject to its jurisdiction, as well as his obligation to adopt, in accordance with his constitutional procedures and the provisions of the Convention, the legislative or other measures that may be necessary to give effect to such rights and freedoms.

3. FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

13. On October 25, 2017, in the city of Montevideo, Uruguay, within the framework of a working meeting facilitated by Commissioner Francisco José Eguiguren Praeli, Rapporteur of the IACHR for Uruguay, the parties represented by A.B., Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the petitioner D.R., signed a friendly settlement agreement whose text establishes the following:

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

PETITION 1224 - 07

DAVID RABINOVICH

In Montevideo, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, within the framework of the 165th Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, appears on one hand: the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, A.B., oriental, of legal age, holder of the I.C. No. [...], in representation of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, and on the other hand, Mr. D.R., oriental, of legal age, holder of the I.C. No. [...] assisted by his sponsor, M.S., I.C. No. [...] of the Institute of Legal and Social Studies of Uruguay (IELSUR), who agree to celebrate this agreement:

BACKGROUND: The journalist D.R., protected by the right to information, timely requested the Departmental Board of San José access to information on the deliberations among local representatives - ediles - of that departmental legislative body of Uruguay. The Departmental Board of San José, protected by Article 11 of the Municipal Organic Law No. 9.515, denied the journalist access to the minutes, transcription of the recording or recorded tape of the meetings held between January and March 2006 by the Budget Committee of the aforementioned Board.

Subsequently, on J. 29, 2006, the journalist filed a writ of A. - in accordance with Law 16.011 – before the Departmental Law C. of San José of Second Turn. In that instance, the representatives of the Departmental Board of San Jose alleged that the digital records of a session of the Budget Commission of the Departmental Board of San José that had been requested by the journalist had been destroyed due to carelessness.

By sentence No. 177 of November 15, 2006, the C. of First Instance dismissed the writ of A., based on the fact that there was no manifest illegitimacy in the decision of the Departmental Board.

...