Report No. 11 (2007) IACHR. Petition No. 01/06 (Costa Rica)

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Year: 2007
• Petition Number: 01/06
• Report Number: 11
• Respondent State: Costa Rica
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Alleged Victim: Nicaragua C. Costa Rica

REPORT N° 11/07 INTERSTATE CASE 01/06 NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA March 8, 2007 I. SUMMARY 1. On February 6, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the "Inter-American Commission", “Commission” or “IACHR”) received a communication from the S. of Nicaragua which alleged that the State of Costa Rica has committed violations of Articles 1(1) (Obligation to respect rights), 8 (R. to a fair trial), 24 (Right to equal protection), and 25 (R. to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”); Articles 2, 7, 8, and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Articles II (R. to equality before law) and XVIII (R. to a fair trial) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; and Article 9 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which refers to the elimination of all forms of discrimination, due to the alleged failure on the part of the S. of Costa Rica to fulfill its duty to ensure protection for the human rights of the Nicaraguan migrant population under its jurisdiction. 2. By virtue of the fact that both the State of Costa Rica and the State of Nicaragua deposited their declarations concerning recognition of the competence of the Commission to receive and examine communications from one state against another, on February 13, 2006, the IACHR decided to process the communication in accordance with Articles 45 et seq. of the Convention and to transmit the communication presented by the State of Nicaragua to the State of Costa Rica. 3. The Commission held a hearing on the case on July 18, 2006, in the framework of its 125th Regular Session and placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. On September 7, 2006, owing to the fact that the State of Costa Rica mentioned on that occasion that it was not timely to initiate the friendly settlement procedure, the Inter-American Commission, in keeping with Article 41(4) and (6) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to conclude its intervention in the friendly settlement procedure and to continue to process the interstate communication. 4. In light of the fact that the considerations on admissibility and merits are closely connected in the case, the Commission decided, pursuant to Article 37(3) of its Rules of Procedure, to defer its treatment of admissibility until the debate and decision on the merits, particularly since the Commission found from its examination of the arguments and evidence presented by both States that the allegation regarding the existence of a generalized practice of discrimination against the Nicaraguan migrant population in Costa Rica was neither manifestly groundless nor obviously out of order. 5. The Commission considered it necessary to receive information from both states on the merits of the allegations in order to determine if there is enough evidence to verify the existence of a practice of discrimination tolerated by the State of Costa Rica, to the point where it would be futile to attempt to exhaust the remedies under domestic law. H. examined the arguments and evidence presented during the merits stage of the case, the Commission finds that the evidence presented by the State of Nicaragua is not sufficient to show the existence of a generalized practice of discrimination against the Nicaraguan migrant population in Costa Rica, and, therefore, it was not appropriate to assume that no suitable and effective remedies exist to repair the violations alleged in this case. 6. A., the Commission concludes that the allegations of the Nicaraguan State concerning violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to observe rights), 8 (R. to a fair trial), 24 (Right to equal protection), and 25 (R. to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, are inadmissible under Articles 46 of the Convention and 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 7. On February 6, 2006, the Inter-American Commission received a communication from the State of Nicaragua “denouncing the State of Costa Rica [ ] for breach of the duty to offer due guarantees for the protection of human rights contained in the American Convention on Human Rights and other international treaties [ ] to the detriment of Nicaraguan citizens resident in Costa Rica.” The Commission registered the communication with the number PI 01/06 (Interstate Petition 01/06). 8. On February 6, 2006, the Commission also received a note from the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the Organization of American States (OAS), in which it enclosed a copy of the note sent to the S. General of the OAS, which, according to the communication of the State of Nicaragua, was received by the General S. of the Organization on F., February 3, 2006. The purpose of the note to the Secretary General was to bring to his attention the declaration of January 26, 2006, in which the State of Nicaragua recognizes the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to receive and examine communications in which a state party alleges that another state party has committed a violation of a human right set forth in the Convention. F., the note requests the S. General to transmit the contents of that declaration to the other states parties to the Convention and the members of the Organization of American States, to which end it enclosed a photocopy of Official Gazette of Nicaragua (La Gaceta) No. 22 of January 26, 2006, in which the declaration was published. 9. On February 9, 2006, the Commission received a note from the Permanent Mission of Nicaragua to the Organization of American States in which it requested information about the subsequent processing of the interstate communication. [5] 10. On February 13, 2006, the Commission decided to transmit to the State of Costa Rica the communication presented by the State of Nicaragua together with its annexes, including the copy of the note addressed to the General S. by the State of Nicaragua bringing to its attention the declaration concerning recognition of the competence of the Commission to receive and examine interstate communications. On that occasion the Commission informed both parties that the communication of the State of Nicaragua would be processed in accordance with the procedure set down in Articles 45 et seq. of the American Convention and, in keeping with Articles 30(3) and 48 of its Rules of Procedure, requested the State of Costa Rica to present a reply to the interstate communication within two months, counted from the date of transmission of said communication. The note in which the instant interstate communication and its annexes were conveyed to the State of Costa Rica was transmitted on February 15, 2006. 11. On February 24, 2006, the State of Nicaragua sent a note to the Commission to request it to rectify the steps taken in the proceeding in the instant interstate communication inasmuch as the communication was not lodged under Articles 45 et seq. of the Convention, but pursuant to Articles 48 to 50 of the Convention. On that occasion, the State of Nicaragua mentioned that it “invokes, for this case, the procedure determined by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of V.G. et al, on which occasion Costa Rica, a state party, filed an application against Costa Rica before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which ordered said state to proceed in accordance with Articles 48 to 50 [of the Convention]”. 12. On March 24, 2006, the State of Nicaragua sent a note to the Commission in which it again asked the Commission to comply with its request with respect to the processing of the instant interstate communication. F., in a note of March 31, 2006, the State of Nicaragua requested the Commission to rectify the processing of this communication since “the measures adopted by the Executive Secretariat are not in keeping with the petition or complaint of Nicaragua or with the Convention inasmuch as, before taking the matter to the Court, the State of Nicaragua decided to comply with Articles 48 to 50, which are obligatory according to Article 61 of said Convention.” The State of Nicaragua reiterated this request in notes dated May 11, 2006, May 16, 2006, and several other notes, as well as at the public hearings held by the Commission on July 18 and October 18, 2006. 13. On March 31, 2006, the Commission wrote to the State of Nicaragua to inform it that at its 124th Session, the IACHR considered its submissions in connection with the processing of the instant interstate communication and resolved to await the reply of the State of Costa Rica in order then to adopt decision on the arguments regarding the processing of the interstate communication. 14. On April 6, 2006, the State of Nicaragua sent a note to the Commission requesting an explanation as to why it had been informed that the period granted to the State of Costa Rica would expire on April 15, 2006, when the note in which the E.S. transmitted the communication to the State of Costa Rica was dated February 13, 2006. On April 7, 2006, the Commission informed the State of Nicaragua that the note of February 13, by which the communication presented by the government of Nicaragua was brought to the attention of the government of Costa Rica, was actually transmitted on February 15. Therefore, the two-month period granted to the State of Costa Rica began to run on February 15 and was due to expire on April 15, 2006. 15. On April 18 and A. 20, 2006, the State of Nicaragua wrote to the Commission to request information as to whether or not State of Costa Rica had presented its reply to this interstate communication in the requisite time and manner. On April 20, 2006, the State of Nicaragua again wrote to the...