Report No. 159 (2010) IACHR. Petition No. 1250-06 (Uruguay)

Report Number159
Petition Number1250-06
Year2010
Case TypeInadmissibility
Respondent StateUruguay
Alleged VictimIris Martínez y otros,
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
Report No. 159/10

8


REPORT No. 159/10

PETITION 1250-06

INADMISSIBILITY

IRIS MARTÍNEZ ET AL.

URUGUAY

November 1st, 2010



I. SUMMARY


  1. This report refers to the admissibility of Petition 1250-06, before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”), received on November 10, 2006, from Ms. Elizabeth Iturrioz and Ms. Susana Dorado (hereinafter “the petitioners”) on behalf of the next-of-kin of the victims who were killed and of 13 persons injured as a result of an airplane accident1 (hereinafter “the alleged victims”), against the State of Uruguay (hereinafter "the State" or "the Uruguayan State"). The petitioners allege that the State is responsible, in the framework of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), for the alleged lack of access to justice to the detriment of the alleged victims.


  1. The petitioners report that on November 14, 1971, the General Command of the Uruguayan Navy performed a display of maneuvers with two helicopters, one of which crashed, resulting in eight deaths (including three children) and more than 40 persons injured, approximately 10 of whom suffered amputations. They allege that the State did not conduct the proper investigation into the facts in the regular justice system, but rather limited the investigation to the military courts, without the victims or their next-of-kin having had any access to justice or proper compensation by the State for what happened, to this day. They allege that even though they requested information from various government offices with respect to the expert examinations and investigations conducted in the military justice system, they had not obtained any response whatsoever, and that it was not until 2005 that they came to learn relevant information, through a television program.


  1. The State indicates that it was proper for the military courts to undertake the investigation, since it was an accident that involved military personnel and military aircraft. It adds that even though it was an accident, the State paid compensation to the victims, by means of Law 14,106, passed in March 1973, with which it assumed its responsibility for the facts. The State alleges that the petitioners did not pursue any remedy in the domestic jurisdiction until 2004, when the judicial authorities ruled that the action filed against it had prescribed. In view of the foregoing, the State asked the Commission to find the petition inadmissible.


  1. After analyzing the parties’ positions, the Commission concluded that it is competent to hear the claim, but that it is inadmissible for failing to meet the requirement provided for at Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. The Commission resolved to notify the parties of this report, to make it public, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.


II. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION


  1. The complaint was presented by the petitioners to the Executive Secretariat of the Commission on November 10, 2006; they submitted additional information on August 3, 2007. The IACHR began processing the petition on August 28, 2007, when it transmitted the pertinent parts to the State and asked it to submit its response within two months. As the State indicated to the Commission that part of what was forwarded to it was illegible, the petition was forwarded to it again on June 10, 2008. The State submitted its response by means of Note No. 157-08 of September 16, 2008, which was forwarded to the petitioners by communication of October 27, 2008.


  1. The petitioners submitted additional information by communications received March 13, September 24, and December 17, 2008, and May 27 and October 23, 2009, which were duly forwarded to the State.


  1. The State, for its part, sent additional information by communications of February 17 and 24, 2009, and August 27 and December 14, 2009, all of which were duly forwarded to the petitioners.


III. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS


A. The petitioners


  1. The petitioners indicate that on November 14, 1971, when the General Command of the Uruguayan Navy was conducting a demonstration of maneuvers with two helicopters one of them crashed, leaving eight dead (three of them children) and more than 40 injured, approximately ten of whom suffered amputations.


  1. They also state that 17 months after the accident the last dictatorial period in Uruguay began, during which the alleged victims “made efforts to obtain justice and compensation, without success.”


  1. They allege that while an inquiry was launched into the facts, it was carried out in the military criminal justice system, and exonerated the crew members of the craft of any liability, without any expert examination or witnesses. In this regard, the petitioners state that the investigation into the facts should not have been conducted by the military justice system, but by the regular justice system, and that no charges were filed or criminal investigation opened to look into the facts.


  1. They add that in 2005 they found out that an investigation was carried out by the naval aviation authorities and the Ministry of Defense at the time, and that from the record one can observe that the resolution does not mention: (a) any expert examinations, (b) the inebriated state of the pilot, (c) the co-pilot’s lack of experience, (d) human error in failing to activate the emergency pedals, (e) erroneous selection of the area of operations; or (f) lack of fire-fighting equipment.


  1. Moreover, they report that in 1973, the General Command of the Navy had granted some of the victims the sums of $2,000 pesos for each death (regardlessof the victim’s age) and $3,000 pesos for each person mutilated, as compensation. They also note that only one person received medical care in the United States, paid for by the Uruguayan government.


  1. The petitioners indicate that the compensation received was not in line with the amounts received in cases of major accidents and damages such as those suffered by the victims. They indicate that one should not have turned to the parameters of the Banco de Seguros del Estado since these were not occupational accidents, but an accident for which the State was responsible. Moreover, they allege that the list of persons compensated in 1973 names 24 persons injured, whereas there were actually 48.


  1. They indicate that in 1978 most of the persons injured filed a complaint in New York against the manufacturer of the aircraft, United Technology Corporation. In this regard, they report that in October 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the claim in part, due to the running of the limitations period, allowing only the claim of the victims who were under 18 years of age at the time of the accident. They explain that the action filed before the courts in the United States was based on a manufacturing defect in the aircraft; accordingly it did not involve or affect the responsibility of the Uruguayan State.


  1. They further note that with the return to democracy, in 1985, they took some steps and presented letters to the Ministry of Defense and various political figures to collect information about the accident; specifically, they requested the files, the expert reports, and the hearings held. They allege that they were repeatedly denied the information on grounds that it was a military matter.


  1. With regard to the investigations, they note that there was no judicial investigation whatsoever at the time of the accident other than the military one. The petitioners allege that the State violated the principle of officiality (principio de oficialidad) for it should have forwarded the record to the regular justice system, which it did not do either before or after the measures to suspend individual guarantees of the de facto government. They clarify that in December 2004 they brought a criminal action before the First Criminal Court of First Instance (Juzgado Letrado de Primera Instancia en lo Penal de Primer Turno) for it to pursue the inquiry into the accident. In October 2005, the judge had ruled to archive the matter due to prescription of the criminal action. The alleged victims asked that the inquiry be reactivated, which was done on February 1, 2006; nonetheless, they indicate that the result was the same, for the Office of the Prosecutor (Fiscalía), in its second report, reiterated that the action was barred by the tolling of the limitations period. They add that they were therefore unable to continue, and the case was archived.


  1. They indicate that on not having a technical or...

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