Report No. 105 (2011) IACHR. Petition No. 233-04 y otras (Costa Rica)

• Report Number: 105
• Year: 2011
• Petition Number: 233-04 y otras
• Alleged Victim: La Reforma
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Respondent State: Costa Rica
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

25

REPORT No. 105/11

PETITIONS 233–04 (M.A.P., R.F.P., CARLOS OSBORNE ESCALANTE, CARLOS MANUEL GONZALEZ LIZANO AND ARTURO FALLAS ZÚÑIGA); 669-04 (R.A.R.M.); 1174-04 (DAMAS VEGA ATENCIO); 221-05 (M.M.C.); 587-05 (M.H.Q.); 1083-06 (JORGE ALBERTO MARTINEZ MELENDEZ); 1111-06 (GUILLERMO RODRÍGUEZ SILVA AND MARTÍN ROJAS HERNÁNDEZ); 1256-06 (C.E.Y.C., L.A.J., E.F.A.J., FERNANDO SALDARRIAGA SALDARRIAGA AND MIGUEL ANTONIO VALVERDE)

ADMISSIBILITY

COSTA RICA

J. 22, 2011

I. SUMMARY

1. The present report refers to the following eight petitions received by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, the “Commission”, “Inter-American Commission” or “IACHR”): P 233-04¹: M.A.P., R.F.P., Carlos Osborne Escalante, C.M.G.L. and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga; P 669-04²: R.A.R.M.; P 1174-04³: Damas V.A.; P 221-05⁴: M.M.C.; P 587-05⁵: M.H.Q.; P 1083-06⁶: J.A.M.M.; P 111-06⁷: G.R.S. and M.R.H.; P 1256-06⁸: C.E.Y.C., L.A.J., Enrique Floyd Archbold Jay, F.S.S. and Miguel Antonio Valverde, (hereinafter, the “alleged victims”), in which they allege that the S. of Costa Rica (hereinafter, "Costa Rica", "the S." or "the Costa Rican S.") was internationally responsible for alleged violations of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (the “American Convention” or the “Convention”). The Commission decided to join the eight separate petitions and examine them in a single report.

2. All the petitions allege that the S. violated the judicial guarantees established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, and in particular, Article 8(2)(h), because of the alleged lack of an ordinary appeals procedure for the comprehensive examination of the convictions imposed on the alleged victims. Some of the petitions also made specific allegations about presumed violations of the guarantee of impartiality of the judges; alleged deficiencies in the office of the public defender; alleged failure to give a formal reading of the charges and of legal counsel, and/or alleged inadequate conditions of detention, among others.

3. The S. refutes the petitioners’ allegations, argues that it has not committed human rights violations, and that the intention is to use the IACHR as a superior instance, because of the petitioners’ subjective disagreement with the convictions handed down in the various criminal cases. It therefore contends that the allegations do not constitute violations of the American Convention, and requests the IACHR to declare the various complaints inadmissible. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, it contends that with the adoption of Law 8.503 “Law for the Opening of the Criminal Appeal [Casación]”, the legal system was brought into line with the Convention, and that the subsequent adoption of Law 8.837 “Creation of an appeals procedure, other reforms to the appeals system and implementation of new rules on oral proceedings in criminal cases”, strengthened the protection of the fundamental rights and guarantees of due process, in order to assure the principle of legal certainty. It also presents specific allegations concerning each of the petitions.

4. W. prejudging the merits of the complaints, having examined the positions of the parties, and in conformity with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decides to declare the case admissible for the purpose of examining the alleged violation of Article 8 (2) (h) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. By virtue of the allegations made by some of the petitioners, it further decides that when it examines the merits, it will examine the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention, also in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. The Commission decides to declare the other articles invoked by the petitioners to be inadmissible. The Commission further decides to notify the Parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual R. to the OAS General Assembly.

2. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

Petition 233-04: M.A.P., R.F.P., Carlos Osborne Escalante, C.M.G.L. and Arturo Fallas Zúñiga

5. The petition was received on M. 24, 2004. On September 17, 2004, it was forwarded to the S., along with a deadline of two months in which to submit its observations. The response was received on February 8, 2005. Information was also received from the petitioners on A. 22 and August 4, 2005; September 13, 2006; J. 16, 2007; and J. 20, 2010. These notes were transmitted to the S.. Costa Rica forwarded information on J. 20 and September 22, 2005; February 5 and May 4, 2007; and May 21 and August 5, 2010. These notes were transmitted to the petitioners.

Petition P-669-04: R.A.R.M.

6. The petition was received on J. 29, 2004⁹, and was forwarded to the S. on November 17, 2008, along with a deadline of two months in which to submit its observations. An extension having been granted, the response was received on M. 9, 2009. The petitioner also forwarded information to the Commission on J. 5, February 6, May 19, J. 23 and 30, August 31, September 4, and October 7, 2009; and February 28, J. 10, J. 20 and October 28, 2010; J. 11, 2011 and A.7., 2011. The notes were transmitted to the S.. Costa Rica forwarded information on August 6 and September 24, 2009; A. 29 and September 15, 2010; J. 17, 2011, and J. 14, 2011. The notes were transmitted to the petitioner.

Petition P-1174-04: Damas V.A.

7. The petition was received on November 3, 2004 and was transmitted to the S. on August 4, 2010¹⁰, along with a deadline of two months in which to submit its observations. The response was received on October 30, 2010. The Commission also received information from the petitioner on M. 16, 2011; that information was transmitted to the S.. Costa Rica forwarded information on J. 14, 2011. The note was transmitted to the petitioner.

Petition P-221-05: M.M.C.

8. The petition was received on M. 3, 2005 and was transmitted to the S. on October 8, 2008, along with a deadline of two months in which to present its observations. The response was received on December 8, 2008. The Commission also received information from the petitioner on M. 3 and J. 1, 2009; and on M. 15, August 10, and November 29, 2010. The notes were transmitted to the S.. Costa Rica forwarded information on A. 22 and August 10, 2009; on September 15, 2010 and on J. 25, 2011, which information was transmitted to the petitioners.

Petition P-587-05: M.H. Quesada

9. The IACHR received the petition on May 24, 2005¹¹. The petition was transmitted to the S. on November 4, 2008, along with a deadline of two months in which to present its observations. Its response was received on December 9, 2008. The Commission also received additional information from the petitioner on J. 30, August 31 and November 30, 2009; J.7., 2010 and J. 19, 2011. The communications were transmitted to the S.. Costa Rica forwarded notes on May 12 and September 24, 2009; J. 25 and September 15, 2010, and February 19, 2011, which were transmitted to the petitioners.

Petition P-1083-06: Jorge Alberto Martínez M.

10. The petition was received on October 11, 2006. It was transmitted to the S. on J. 3, 2008, along with a deadline of two months in which to present its observations. Its response was received by the IACHR on September 2, 2008. The Commission also received information from the petitioner on J. 22 and August 4, 2009; February 16, M. 10 and J. 29, 2010; and February 21; A. 12 and J.2., 2011. The communications were transmitted to the S.. Costa Rica forwarded communications on December 3, 2008; A. 13, J.1., August 6 and September 24, 2009;...