Report No. 15 (1989) IACHR. Case No. 10.208 (República Dominicana)

• Report Number: 15
• Case Number: 10.208
• Case Type: Merits
• Respondent State: República Dominicana
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Salvador Jorge Blanco

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76; Doc. 10; 18 September 1989; Original: Spanish ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION; ON HUMAN RIGHTS 1988-1989 RESOLUTION Nº 15/89 CASE 10.208 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC April 14, 1989 HAVING SEEN: 1. That on July 15, 1988, Mr. Salvador Jorge Blanco denounced to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights the violation of his right to due process, to judicial protection, to security and personal liberty, nondiscriminatory treatment on political grounds, to personal honor and dignity, and freedom from ex post facto laws, and freedom of movement, recognized under Articles 8, 25, 7, 11, 24, 9, and 22 of the American Convention on Human Rights. These violations were, he said, attributable to judicial authorities in the Dominican Republic. 2. The claimant further noted that the underlying motive for these trials was in fact political persecution in the guise of more than seven lawsuits, one of which involved more than 38 criminal charges against him, and especially, the decision handed down by the judicial authorities of the Dominican Republic aimed at initiating trial proceedings against him in absentia. 3. The claimant states that he tried every available recourse afforded under the law of the Dominican Republic to ensure that he would be tried by an independent and impartial court, with all the remedies required under the Constitution and the American Convention itself. The claimant further added in his account that he was not expecting the Commission to rule on the merits of the case; what he was asking for was respect for due process and the rights appurtenant to that process. 4. In brief, the claim states the following: a. In relation to the first charge, a case file exists, arising out of the complaint by Dr. Marino Vinicio Castillo, of October 3 and 27, 1986, which concerns charges stemming from purchases made by the Armed Forces and the National Police from Juan Tomás Peña Valentín or the companies of Juan Tomas Peña Valentín, which a Military Junta considered to be overpriced. That Junta forwarded the file to the Military Tribunal, as reported textually in the national newspapers Listín Diario and Ultima Hora on January 7 and 8, 1987. Subsequently, the Government engineered to alter the published report and the case was referred to the civilian justice system, in open violation of Article 7 of the Code of Military Justice, which provides that all infractions attributed to active or retired military personnel come under the jurisdiction of the military courts; in this case, the former Secretary of the Armed Forces, the former Chief of National Police, and other officers are being accused along with myself and two businessmen. Thus, the case was referred to the Criminal Trial Court of the Second Judicial Division of the National District. I repeatedly asked for a trial with full guarantees and that I be informed of the complaint and the determination of the Military Junta, as is mandatory in the phase prior to the secret investigative proceedings (these requests were, however, turned down). I have maintained since then that, in accordance with Article 8.2.b of the American Convention on Human Rights, every person has the right to “prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him.” I should note at this point that in the Dominican Republic, the preliminary criminal investigation is secret. The secrecy ends from the time that the judge of first instance is empowered to hear the case publicly. The judge of the Seventh Criminal Division, empowered to hear the case of the purchases by the Armed Forces and National Police, has yet to proceed to convey the records. Clearly, with respect to other case files that are in the investigative phase, that secrecy remains in effect. What is public are the documents of the report, complaint or of the charge that the public prosecutor receives beforehand and must make known to the accused for elementary reasons stemming from the right to defense. This has not been done in my case. On January 28, I appealed, before the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of the National District, the judgment of the 4th Criminal Division of January 26, 1987, denying me that report. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court through a Judgment dated May 4, 1987. I appealed that decision on May 5. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court of Justice has not been able to take cognizance of that appeal because the Court of Appeal has not yet given grounds for the judgment. On August 4, 1987 and on December 14, 1987, the examining magistrate in question and the public prosecutor issued, respectively, the decision and the indictment, which alleged 38 criminal violations of the Constitution of the Republic, the Code of Criminal Law and Law 672 of July 29, 1982. The basis for these charges is, as follows: I. Constitution of the Republic a. Powers of the President - Article 55.3 (collection and investment of national revenues). b. Prohibition from granting titles of nobility or hereditary distinctions - Article 100. c. Unlawful enrichment - Article 102. d. Rules concerning expenditures of public funds - Article 115. II. Code of Criminal Law a. Complicity - Articles 59, 60, 61, 62, and 63. b. Crimes and violations of the Constitution (infringements upon freedom) - Article 114. c. Forgery of public documents - Articles 145, 146, 147, and 148. d. Breach of trust - Articles 166 and 167. e. Embezzlement - Articles 169, 170, 171, 172, and 173. f. Extortion - Article 174. g. Offenses by public officials involved in matters that are incompatible with their status - Articles 175 and 176. h. Corruption or bribery - Articles 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, and 183. i. Association of malefactors - Article 265. j. Fraud - Article 405. k. Misuse of trust - Article 408. l. Offenses by suppliers and providers - Articles 431, 432, and 433. III. Morals Code, Law 672 a. Obligation to denounce acts of corruption - Article 7 Enclosed herewith is a detailed analysis of each of the charges, the legislation governing these and the defense. I might note that although my innocence and the findings of the trials are not being aired before the Commission, I am making the report to reveal to the Commission the groundless nature of the charges and the grounds for my own innocence. I should like to state, however, that I am not, nor have I been Mr. Leonel’s associate. I am completely divorced from his business dealings and his business affairs. We are old friends; he participated in, or, supported my electoral campaigns. When the examining magistrate interrogated me on April 29, 1987, despite the fact that I was unfamiliar with the complaint since they repeatedly refused to convey it to me, I had this, among other things, to say to him, and I did so with utter spontaneity: “... Mr. Leonel Almonte’s assets have absolutely nothing to do with me; by the same token, the little that I own, with my wife, comes from nowhere other than my work ...” (Page 26 of the interrogation duplicated in Appendix Nº 2). My net worth is set forth in the statement I made at the end of my term on August 16, 1986. It is set forth in the minutest detail. The mortgage on my home in Santiago is with the Banco Popular Dominicano. The mortgage on my house in Santo Domingo is with the Banco Dominicano de Construcción. I have never intervened in the purchase operations of military or police institutes, nor have I given instructions directly or indirectly in that regard. In the above-mentioned interrogation before the Examining Magistrate on April 29, 1987 (page 26), I said the following: ... and I challenge any of the military who, in the course of my government, has or have held high office involving the handling of money if at any time they have shared or given me so much as a pinhead. That was the same conduct I observed vis-a-vis the other State institutions. The public letter of February 4, 1987, signed by the former State Secretaries, former Administrators and former General Directors offers the best example. It states the following: The power to receive, evaluate and select price quotations from business establishments for the purchase of equipment and products was always exclusively in the hands of the State Secretaries and/or General Directors, through the respective purchase departments, of course. We the officials of the Gobierno de Concentración Nacional exercised fully and freely, during Dr. Salvador Jorge Blanco’s term, the authority conferred upon the offices we held by the Constitution of the Republic, the Organic Law of the State Secretariats and other laws and regulations in effect. Clearly, these statements are not consistent with those of certain persons accused of violating Article 114 of the Code of Criminal Law of the Dominican Republic. By merely copying the last paragraph of that Article, the reason for this becomes clear: Should public servants, government agents or representatives, however, justify that they have acted upon the order of superiors to whom they owed obedience by virtue of hierarchy for matters in their competence, they shall be exempt from the penalty, which shall in this case be applied to the superiors who gave the order. The careful execution of Fund 1401 during my government’s four years falls within the same category of my functions in office. That Fund totals RD$939,374,824.48, as may be seen from the table published on February 2, 1987 (Appendix # 2). b. Prohibition to leave the country Later, on December 23, 1986, the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic issued a decree, based on Law 200 of March 27, 1964, prohibiting me from leaving the...