Report No. 116 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 2382-12 (Argentina)

Case TypeInadmissibility
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
R. No. 116/21














REPORT No. 116/21

PETITION 2382- 12

REPORT ON INADMISSIBILITY


CARLOS GUILLERMO SUÁREZ MASON

ARGENTINA


OEA/Ser.L/V/II

D.. 124

13 J. 2021

Original: Spanish






























Approved electronically by the Commission on J. 13, 2021.








Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 116/21. Petition 2382- 12. I.. C.G.S.M.. Argentina. J. 13, 2021.



www.iachr.org


I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:

Carlos Guillermo S. Mason

:

Carlos Guillermo S. Mason

Respondent S.:

Argentina

Rights invoked:

Articles 1 to 9, 13 to 18, 21, 24, 25, 28 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights1; and Articles II, IV, V, IX to XII, XVI, XVII, XX, and XXIII to XXVIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man2

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR3

Filing of the petition:

December 26, 2012

N. of the petition to the S.:

February 26, 2016

S.’s first response:

W., October 5, 2016.

Additional observations from the petitioner:

Thursday, May 25, 2017.

Additional observations from the S.:

Tuesday, February 2, 2021.

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:

Yes

Competence Ratione loci:

Yes

Competence Ratione temporis:

Yes

Competence Ratione materiae:

Yes, American Convention (instrument of ratification deposited on September 5, 1984)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA , COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and international res judicata:

No

Rights declared admissible:

Article 7 (personal liberty) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) thereof

Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:

Yes, in the terms of Section VI

Timeliness of the petition:

No

V. ALLEGED FACTS

1. The petitioner, who was arrested, tried and recently convicted by the Argentine criminal justice system for his active participation in arbitrary arrests, torture, killings, inhuman interrogations, cruel treatments and other crimes against humanity perpetrated inside the S. of Mechanics of the Navy (Escuela de Mecánica de la Armada - ESMA) during the military dictatorship, submits a petition to the IACHR alleging the S.’s responsibility for the violation of his human rights due to his detention, trial and prolonged preventive detention.

2. Mr. S.M. states that he was an Argentine Navy officer and retired with the rank of Navy captain in 2004. On November 7, 2006, he was ordered to present himself before the General S. of the Navy where he was informed that he was detained under a court order for the crimes committed at ESMA. He was moved to the Rio Santiago Naval Academy, where he was deprived of his liberty. He claims the following: “I have not been subjected to military law or military justice for the facts for which I was charged which took place in September/October 1977. I have not had a judicial proceeding before my natural judges, nor have I been guaranteed the enforcement of the military law of the years 77 (sic).” He also states that neither the national legislation nor the Constitution have been respected (in general terms), that criminal legislation has been applied retroactively, and that “over the years, my detention conditions have worsened, with me being transferred from Rio Santiago Naval Academy to Military Prison Campo de Mayo, then to M.P.F.P.I. and finally to Ezeiza Federal Prison I due to medical reasons.” He says that he and his family have been “ill-treated” in a progressive manner, every time his place of detention has been changed. In his additional remarks, M.S. challenges the reliability and veracity of the statements collected against him during the criminal investigation.

3. Mr. S. alleges that he has requested being released due to the expiration of the time-terms of the statute applicable to preventive detention. His petition was initially granted to him by the examining magistrate on May 3, 2010, under the payment of a bail bond. H., after an appeal submitted by Argentina’s Attorney General, his release was eventually denied. “[He] submitted a formal complaint against this decision, which reached Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice, who denied the petition.” At the same time, he indicates that his preventive detention has been automatically renewed every year since 2006, “which also violates the time limits set for it.” He claims that the examining magistrate and the prosecutor in charge of the case have inadequately managed the criminal case due to the long duration of the proceeding, among other reasons. By the date on which the petition was submitted to the IACHR, he had been in preventive detention for six years, and in his opinion, the applicable law had not been enforced. In his additional observations before the Commission, M.S. says that by that date (May 2017), he had been in preventive detention for 10 years and 6 months without conviction, with a trial that had elapsed for 4 years and 6 months. He adds that “the conceptual contents of the denial of my release and of the order to hold oral proceedings by Argentina’s judiciary lack objectivity and veracity, and show a marked tendency to defend the facts committed by subversive groups in this country.”

4. Mr. S. also reports that prison authorities have “indirectly exercised psychological torture on the undersigned and on the other detainees. T. visited the inmates, took pictures of the places of detention and edited these photos on weekly magazines. T. have always ill-treated the inmates and have not had any consideration or respect for them as human beings.” He claims that health care services provided to him are deficient with regard to professional quality, administrative commitment, the quality of the medicines given and the existing medical resources. He also states that “we live under ‘permanent stress’, which will affect us physically at some point in time, over the years. This in turn will affect the psyche of the inmates.” He claims that his surname, S.M., has also worsened his situation, since his namesake father was a commander of the Corps I of the Argentine Army in the 1970s and led operations against the guerrilla groups in the Buenos Aires area. He died in prison after being convicted (after the fall of the dictatorship) for several crimes.

5. In its reply, the S. presents an accurate description of the facts concerning Mr. S.’s arrest and criminal prosecution. It indicates that he was charged in several proceedings for crimes against humanity committed between 1976 and 1983 at the S. of Mechanics of the Navy, and prosecuted under the casefile titled “Unified ESMA.” By the time of the reply (October 2016), M.S. was undergoing trial before Oral Federal Criminal Court No. 5 of Buenos Aires. Given the complexity and the number of facts, defendants, victims and procedural subjects involved, the case covered different lines of investigation with different degrees of progress. According to the S. of Argentina, Mr. S.M., son of a former general of the same name, served in that S., participated in the abuses committed therein, and was identified and accused by numerous survivors of said crimes. He was arrested on November 6, 2006 for allegedly committing such crimes; and by an order dated on December 28, 2006, Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 12 of Buenos Aires ordered his prosecution with preventive detention, requiring him to be detained at Marcos Paz Federal Prison II. He was still detained there as of October 2016 awaiting the resolution of the cases for which he had been accused.

6. T.S. indicates that, in the context of the aforementioned criminal case, a “health-related incidental proceeding” was initiated, and therefore a series of measures to preserve the health of Mr. S.M. had been taken since October 4, 2008. This case resulted in Mr. S.’s filing a habeas corpus before the Federal Court of M.; it initially admitted his claim in a judgment dated J. 20, 2013, but subsequently, in a decision of July 23, the motion was declared void. Mr. S. also filed a criminal complaint for abandonment and other crimes against the penitentiary and judicial authorities involved, which was dismissed by the representative of the Office of the Attorney General in September 2013.

7. On November 5, 2008, Mr. S.M.’s counsel requested his release, which was denied. Against this decision, the petitioner filed four different remedies; his cassation appeal was admitted on May 28, 2009, but then revoked on July 28, 2009. On September 16, 2009, the Court in charge confirmed the criminal prosecution with preventive detention of Mr. S. as part of one of the cases related to the crimes committed at ESMA. In addition, on November 9, 2009, Federal Criminal Court No. 5 extended his preventive detention for one year. Against this decision, the petitioner filed a cassation appeal and obtained a favorable judgment on March 2, 2010, which ordered his immediate release under the payment of a bail bond. As a result, Federal Criminal Court No. 5 filed an incidental proceeding to enforce the termination of the preventive detention and to establish the amount of the bail bond to be paid by Mr. S.. H., the prosecutor filed an extraordinary appeal against the termination of M.S.’s preventive detention before the Federal Court of Criminal Cassation Appeals, which decided to suspend the decision. As a result, Oral Criminal Court No. 5 rejected the defendant's release. Mr. S.’s...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT