Report No. 124 (2006) IACHR. Case No. 11.500 (Uruguay)

• Report Number: 124
• Case Number: 11.500
• Respondent State: Uruguay
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Merits
• Alleged Victim: Tomás Eduardo Cirio, Uruguay

REPORT Nº 124/06 CASE 11.500 TOMÁS EDUARDO CIRIO URUGUAY MERITS October 27, 2006 I. SUMMARY 1. On October 12, 1993, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition presented by Tomás E.C. (hereinafter “the petitioner”), a U. citizen, a retired military officer, against the Oriental Republic of Uruguay (hereinafter “the S.”) in which the violation was alleged of the following rights protected in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”): Article II (right to equality before the law), Article IV (right to freedom of investigation, opinion, expression and dissemination), Article V (right to protection of honor, personal reputation and private family life), Article XVI (right to social security), Article XXVI (right to due process of law). M., the complaint alleged the violation of the following rights of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) on the part of the S.: Article 5 (right to humane treatment), Article 8 (right to a fair trial), Article 9 (right to due process of law), Article 10 (right to compensation), Article 11 (right to privacy), Article 13 (freedom of thought and expression), Article 24 right to equal protection) and Article 25 (right to judicial protection 2. The petition denounces that since J.4., 1972, following a meeting of the Assembly of the Military Center (Centro Militar), the petitioner, a retired army major, resigned from the Center by means of a letter in which he made general accusations about the violation of human rights in the context of the struggle against subversion by the U. Armed Forces. Since then, the petitioner alleges that he has persistently suffered punishment in reprisal for having expressed his opinion freely. The Military Center informed the General Command of the Army and proceeded to remove him from its register of members. S., the General Command submitted him to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal de Honor [non-judicial court]. He alleges that he was judged by a tribunal that lacked jurisdiction, given his status as a retired officer and in rebeldía (absence), denying him the right to defense. In N. 1972, the Tribunal de Honor cashiered him and assigned him the status known as situación de reforma. He alleges that as a result of this decision not only was his honor and reputation impaired, but also his rights to remuneration, to medical care, to occupy posts in the M. of Defense, in addition to the loss of any possibility of obtaining credit, disqualification and loss of military status. The position of the U.S. is that the petition of Mr. T.C. is baseless, and lacks any judicial foundation either in domestic or international law. Notwithstanding this, it points out that “the Government of the Republic over the last 17 years and in its various administrations, all democratically elected, has made its best efforts to consider the situation of M.T.E.C..” It points out that his rights were partially restored, though not entirely, through a M. of Defense resolution. In December 1997, in recognition of the S.’s partial responsibility, the petitioner was once again accorded the status of a retired officer, rescinding his situación de reforma, but without total reparation (restitutio in integrum). 3. Following the analysis of the respective merits of the supposed violations of Articles II, IV, XVI, XXVI of the American Declaration and Articles 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, that through the penalty imposed by the Tribunal de Honor as a disciplinary measure, the U. S. has subjected Mr. T.E.C. to a military trial as a reprisal for his complaints about human rights violations perpetrated by members of the U. Armed Forces. T.U.S. has failed to comply with its obligation to respect and uphold the right to be heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law (Article XXVI of the American Declaration) and judicial protection (Article 25 of the American Convention), freedom of expression (Article IV of the American Declaration) and his right to honor and reputation (Article V of the Declaration and 11 of the Convention). E., the Commission concludes that by virtue of the foregoing violations, the U.S. has not complied with its obligation to respect and uphold the human rights and guarantees imposed by Article 1(1) of the American Convention and to adopt the dispositions of domestic law imposed by Article 2. Having concluded that these dispositions of the American Convention have been violated, the Commission considers that the petitioner in this case has failed to sustain his allegations with respect to the violation of Article 9 of the American Convention. II. PROCEEDINGS SUBSEQUENT TO ADMISSIBILITY REPORT 4. On October 12, 1993, the complaint was received by the Commission. On October 16, 2001, the Commission approved Report 119/01 on admissibility. On October 22, 2001, the report on admissibility was transmitted to the S. and the petitioners, and the parties were notified that the Commission was disposed to assist them in reaching a friendly settlement, in accordance with Article 48 (1)(f) of the Convention, were they interested in this. The Commission requested the parties to respond to this offer with all due speed. By letter dated N. 20 2001, the petitioner expressed interest in the possibility of negotiating a friendly settlement. For its part, in a noted dated F. 13 2002, the S. rejected the possibility of a friendly settlement, and consequently, the Commission decided to proceed with the preparation of a report on the merits of the case. . 5. On F. 22, 2002, the Commission transmitted additional observations from the Government of Uruguay to the petitioner, requesting his additional observations within 30 days. On March 18 2002, the petitioner gave his response to the observations of the S.. The petitioner’s observations were transmitted to the S. on May 6, 2002, with a request to provide any additional information on the merits within a period of two months. On J. 8, 2002, the Commission received from the S. a written statement, dated J.5., 2002, which was transmitted to the petitioner on J. 15, 2002. On September 9 and 27, in two written statements, the petitioner defended himself against the “falsehoods” presented by the S., reiterated his previous positions, and requested the preparation of the report envisaged in Article 50 of the American Convention. On J. 29, 2003, the petitioner informed the Commission of his change of postal address, e-mail address and telephone number. Since this date, the Commission has received no further information from either party. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 6. Tomas E.C. is a retired military officer (ret. 1966) and U. citizen. In 1972 he resigned from the Military Center (Centro Militar del Uruguay) a private club comprised of retired and active duty members of the military, in protest against a position taken by the Center. On J.4., 1972, the General Assembly of the Military Center issued a statement, approved unanimously about what it called the “campaign carried out to discredit the Armed Forces at every level” The petitioner alleges that this was a response to a declaration by the U. Chamber of Representatives in respect to the questioning of the Defense Minister over the death of L.C.B., a U. citizen who died from maltreatment in detention by the armed forces at military unit number 33. 7. In response to the unanimous declaration by the Assembly of the Military Center, which the petitioner found deeply disturbing, he submitted his resignation to the said Center, first by telephone and than by letter dated J. 19, 1972. In this letter, the petitioner stated: Suffice it to say that I disagree completely and radically with the motion presented and then approved in the assembly, and this – I should add in times in which, sometimes for reasons that remain unclear, witches are seen everywhere – it is not because I am the instrument of any scheme contrived by those who are the enemies of the fatherland. I am a free man, and speak as such, in my own words and under my exclusive responsibility. As such, may I may it clear that although I have political views, these are not such as to associate me with colorados, blancos, communists, tupamaros, nor indeed with fascists. U. among more than 500 people is little less than a statistical impossibility when dealing with problems of such seriousness, even when the influence of the hierarchy is overwhelming. From a strictly human angle, it is also impossible for there to be unanimous agreement when faced with statements that should be described as monstrous, such as those relating to the death that prompted the declaration by the Chamber of Representatives of [a person] whose status as a citizen was sought to be denied, amid general applause, and who along with his wife was then the victim of an outrage. Even if these statements were true, how could they justify what doubtless must have been horrible suffering. H., if this were not enough, the argument was concluded – incredibly -- by attesting that the death of [the individual], doubtless after brutal torture, was due to his “falling on a stone”. And then, claiming that the issue had been properly clarified, and after making the customary invocations to dignity and honor (which were wholly absent in this instance), the matter was closed. But this was but one of the few cases that have come to light, because of the lack of any alternative. For months, one after another, serious accusations are accumulating about the behavior of the armed forces; the number and importance of these make any thinking person reject all possibility of aninsidious campaign, and...