Report No. 15 (2008) IACHR. Petition No. 1163-05 (Costa Rica)

• Petition Number: 1163-05
• Year: 2008
• Report Number: 15
• Respondent State: Costa Rica
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Alleged Victim: Alex Solís Fallas

REPORT Nº 15/08 PETITION 1163-05 INADMISSIBILITY ALEX SOLIS FALLAS COSTA RICA March 4, 2008 I. SUMMARY 1. On October 18, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or “the Inter-American Commission” or the “IACHR") received a petition from Mr. Alex Solís Fallas (hereinafter “the petitioner”) against the State of Costa Rica (hereinafter “the State," "the Costa Rican State," or "Costa Rica") in which is alleged violation of Article 1 (obligation to respect rights), Article 2 (domestic legal effects), Article 8 (right to a fair trial), Article 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), Article 10 (right to compensation), Article 11 (right to privacy), Article 13(2)(a) (freedom of thought and expression), and Article 23 (right to participate in government), all of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). 2. The petitioner alleges that he was removed from office as Comptroller General of the Republic without having committed any of the serious infractions that would constitute grounds therefore under Costa Rican law, and that he was removed in the context of a political trial, in violation of his right to a fair trial and to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 3. For its part, the Costa Rican State considers unfounded the allegations of the petitioner, as he did not meet the requirements to hold this office, since his conduct tended to constitute incompetence and impropriety, constitutional grounds for removal. It also indicates that the right to a fair trial was respected in the context of the investigation conducted by the Special Investigative Committee of the Legislative Assembly. The State also considers that the petition should be declared inadmissible since the petitioner did not exhaust domestic remedies and the facts he alleges do not constitute violations of articles of the American Convention. 4. Having analyzed the positions of the parties, the Commission concludes that it has competence to consider the complaint lodged by the petitioner, and that the case is inadmissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Commission decides to notify the parties of its decision, to publish this inadmissibility report, and to include it in its Annual Report. II PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 5. On October 28, 2005, the Executive Secretariat of the Inter-American Commission received the initial petition, and assigned it No. 1163-05. 6. On April 7, 2006, a communication was received from the petitioner that contributed an amicus curiae brief in connection with the matter of reference. 7. On December 7, 2006, the Commission forwarded to the State of Costa Rica the relevant parts of the petition, setting a period of two months for it to provide its observations. In reply, on February 7, 2007, the Commission received the observations of the State regarding the initial petition, and on March 7, 2007, forwarded to the petitioner the information sent by the State, setting a period of one month for him to provide his considerations. 8. On April 11, 2007, the petitioner submitted his observations on the reply of the State, which were transmitted to it on May 23, 2007, setting a period of one month for it to provide its observations thereon. 9. In a communication of May 22, 2007, the petitioner requested a hearing at the 128th period of sessions of the Inter-American Commission; and on May 30, 2007, the Commission informed him that it would not be possible to agree to that request owing to the large number of hearings requested. 10. On June 25, 2007, the observations on the petitioner’s reply were received from the State, and, on July 18, 2007, they were forwarded to the petitioner, setting a period of one month to submit such information as he considered appropriate. Also on July 18, 2007, the petitioner submitted observations on the earlier communications of the State, which were transmitted to the State on August 13, 2007, setting a period of one month for it to submit observations thereon. 11. On August 20, 2007, the Commission received the observations submitted by the petitioner regarding the State’s reply of June 25, 2007, and on October 3, 2007, the State was advised thereof, setting a period of one month for it to submit appropriate observations. 12. On September 14, 2007, the State forwarded its reply to the observations submitted by the petitioner on July 18, 2007; and on October 3, the Commission forwarded to the petitioner said observations, setting a period of one month for him to submit his observations. 13. On October 20, 2007, the petitioner submitted his observations on the reply of the State, which were forwarded to the State on November 28, 2007. 14. On November 2, 2007, a communication was received from the State requesting the Commission to confirm the validity of the exception of failure to exhaust domestic remedies and to declare the instant petition inadmissible, and, on November 28, said communication was forwarded to the petitioner. 15. On December 10, 2007 and on January 10, 2008, the IACHR received observations of the petitioner on the reply of the State, which were forwarded to the State on January 14, 2008. 16. On January 24, 2008, the IACHR received a communication from petitioner, which was forwarded to the State on February 7, 2008. 17. On February 19, 2008, the IACHR received an additional communication from the State; and on February 21 and 25, 2008, the IACHR received additional communications from the petitioner. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioner 18. The petitioner states that on June 2, 2004, after a long and difficult administrative competition, the Legislative Assembly elected him Comptroller General of the Republic. He indicates that on June 3 of that year, Deputy Humberto Arce reported to the Assembly that his appointment was unlawful, since he was of questionable integrity. Despite such reports, on June 7, 2004, the petitioner was sworn in as Comptroller. However, negative reports about him continued, triggering strong reactions on the part of several deputies and in the media. The petitioner adds that, for political and electoral reasons and to harm his brother, Ottón Solís Fallas, a contender for the Presidency of the Republic, one segment of the press exerted heavy pressure on the deputies, to the petitioner’s detriment. According to the petitioner, this led the Legislative Assembly, on June 15, 2004, to decide to establish a Special Investigative and Political Oversight Committee (which the petitioner characterizes as a political court), to investigate the aforesaid negative reports. 19. The petitioner indicates that on June 20, 2004, the Legislative Assembly, in violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence, and without having heard him, adopted a motion urging him to resign from office. 20. Continuing the chronological account of the facts, the petitioner notes that after six months, that is, on December 13, 2004, he was removed from office without due grounds having been established. In that connection, he states that the dismissal was not based on any of the grounds for removal of a Comptroller, and that the facts on which his removal was based, i.e., falsification of signatures, which took place prior to 2000, was a private matter unrelated to the lawful grounds for removal, and for which he was never investigated, prosecuted, or punished. 21. In initiating processing in the IACHR framework, the petitioner alleges that the Legislative Assembly does not have the authority to cancel or reverse a Comptroller’s appointment. However, in subsequent communications, he indicates that this body is competent to reverse his appointment, provided grounds exist and based on valid constitutional procedure. 22. According to the petitioner, the procedural motion through which he was removed from office was based on reports of deputies. However, the petitioner states that these were not read, discussed, or adopted by the Legislative Assembly in plenary. In that connection, he notes that the Legislative Assembly in plenary did not consider the reports or their respective files. The petitioner also indicates that the process by which he was removed from office violated his right to a fair trial, since his right to his natural judge, the principle of subjective impartiality, the presumption of innocence, ordinary proof, the right to a fair and appropriate judgment, the guarantee of an independent and impartial court, the right to object, and the right to appeal the judgment were not respected. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner alleges violation of Article 8 of the American Convention. 23. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to freedom from ex post facto laws, enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, the petitioner states that, in removing him from office as Comptroller General, the Legislative Assembly took that view that certain acts he had committed years earlier constituted infractions as a public official. Also in connection with the principle of lawfulness, the petitioner indicates that the Assembly decided to remove him from office by roll-call vote, in which the vote of the deputies was public, constituting a violation of the Rules of Procedure, which establish that when the Legislative Assembly exercises its sanctioning authority, the ballot must be secret. 24. With regard to Article 10 of the Convention, the petitioner requests that the State be ordered to make comprehensive and sufficient compensation for the damage and injury caused. 25. The petitioner indicates that the State violated Articles 11 and 13(2)(a) of the American Convention, since the Legislative...