Report No. 185 (2018) IACHR. Petition No. 967-10 (Ecuador)

• Year: 2018
• Petition Number: 967-10
• Report Number: 185
• Respondent State: Ecuador
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: G.C.A.M. e hijo

REPORT No. 185/18

PETITION 967-10

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

G.C.A.M. AND SON

ECUADOR

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 210

27 December 2018

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on December 27, 2018.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 185/18, Petition 967-10. A.. Gardenia Cecilia Alcívar Mendoza. Ecuador. December 27, 2018

www.cidh.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:	UNAMONOS Association of Persons with Disabilities (Asociación de Personas con Discapacidad UNAMONOS) 1 and Human Rights Centre (Centro de Derechos Humanos –PUCE)2
:	G.C.A.M and son3
Respondent S.:	Ecuador
Rights invoked:	Articles 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights,4 in relation to its Article 1 (obligation to respect rights) and other international treaties5

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR⁶

Filing of the petition:	J. 2, 2010
Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	A. 27 and May 13, 2013
N. of the petition to the S.:	August 12, 2013
S.’s first response:	October 14, 2015
Additional observations from the petitioner:	September 21 and October 21, 2016
Additional observations from the S.:	October 20, 2015, and J. 13, 2017

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Y.
Competence Ratione loci:	Y.
Competence Ratione temporis:	Y.
Competence Ratione materiae:	Y., American Convention (deposit of instrument made on August 12, 1977) and Inter-American Convention on the Prevention Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women of Belém do Pará7 (deposit of instrument made on J. 30, 1995)

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	Articles 3 (juridical personality), 5 (humane treatment), 8 (fair trial), 17 (family), 18 (name), 19 (child), 24 (equal protection), 25 (judicial protection) and 26 (progressive development) of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará
Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:	Y., in the terms of Section VI
Timeliness of the petition:	Y., in the terms of Section VI

V. FACTS ALLEGED

1. The petitioners allege that the Ecuadorian S. has failed to fulfill its role as guarantor of human rights to the detriment of G.C.A.M and her son, S.A.A.M. T. allege that G.C.A.M, a person with a mental disability, was subjected to sexual abuse by her brother-in-law from 1997 to 2009, including the time when she was a minor; to physical and psychological abuse; to forced abortions and deception related to information about medical treatment. T. also allege the false registration of her son S.A.A.M’s birth, as well as the subsequent separation of mother and son. A., they allege the lack of diligence in the treatment of the criminal complaint and maintain that G.C.A.M. had to endure the indifference and ignorance about the correct treatment of persons with disabilities by the authorities. She also suffered re-victimization because she was called on several occasions to make statements about the abuses suffered and to repeat the same medical evaluations. F., they allege irregularities and acts that violate the rights of G.C.A.M. in the Program for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses of the Prosecutor's Office, to which she was assigned pursuant to a court order.

2. The petitioners indicate that the alleged victim, who has a mental disability measuring 45%, moved to Quito at the age of 14 to stay with her sister Virginia and her husband, Cesar A.Y. Proaño. T. argue that as from that moment she became a victim of sexual violence perpetrated by him. When she came of age, she left to live with another sister. D. that time she met the father of her son, one of the petitioners in the case. T. argue that when her sister and the alleged perpetrator of the sexual abuse became aware that she was pregnant, and in order to prohibit the alleged victim's contact with the father, they offered to take care of the child, cover their financial expenses and secure a job for her as a domestic worker, so she returned to live with them.

3. T. allege that when she registered the child in the Civil Registry, she was persuaded to do so only with her last name and with the name of her brother-in-law. Eventually, it was discovered that the boy had two birth certificates, one as a son of G.C.A.M., and bearing the surname of the brother-in-law, and another as the son of her sister, Virginia, and her husband, C.A., the alleged victim’s brother in law. T. also indicate that the alleged victim was prevented from seeing, holding and spending time with her son. She was again the victim of repeated sexual abuse committed by her brother-in-law while he was intoxicated. T. maintain that on two occasions she became pregnant, and her sister forced her to have abortions by taking her against her will to a doctor. In addition, by deceiving her, her family members took her to a clinic where a doctor inserted a contraceptive device into her arm to prevent future pregnancies. T. allege that both her sister and the doctor assured her that it was intended to prevent cancer. T. assert that, as a consequence, the alleged victim suffered from headaches and nosebleeds, among other symptoms, forcing her to seek attention at medical center where it was established that these symptoms were due to the improper fitting of the contraceptive.

4. With regard to the criminal trials, the petitioners state that at the time of filing the petition, criminal proceedings No. 938-2012-CA, were pending in the Fifteenth Court of Criminal Guarantees. These proceedings were initiated after a complaint filed in J. 2010, for sexual abuse, and was substantiated by the Office of Sexual Offenses and Family Violence. According to the information provided, on J. 14, 2010, a preliminary investigation was started and several investigative measures were ordered. On August 2, 2012, an indictment hearing took place where the prosecutor found sufficient grounds to initiate an investigation. H., in February 2013, the prosecutor decided that there were insufficient grounds for an indictment, which was upheld by the Superior Prosecutor on A. 2, 2013. C., the Fifteenth Court of Criminal Guarantees dismissed the proceedings in A. 2013.

5. The petitioners maintain that G.C.A.M, who had little understanding of the proceedings, suffered offensive treatment by the Prosecutor’s Office. T. add that the criminal proceedings were characterized by procedural irregularities because G.C.A.M had to repeat the version of the events at least fifty times before authorities lacking experience in matters related to disabled persons and/or victims of sexual abuse. T. caused her re-victimization and showed that the authorities did not perceive her as a credible party or act with due diligence.

6. In addition, the petitioners allege a lack of due diligence on the part of the S. and the lack of an investigation in relation to the threats and violence by family members. T. indicate that G.C.A.M. reported to the Office of the Prosecutor that throughout the criminal proceedings, her sisters, mother and alleged attackers displayed a hostile attitude towards her and committed violent acts against her. The petitioners claim that she was threatened by her family members and by public officials of the Program for the Protection of Victims and Witnesses, to which she was assigned pursuant to a court order, so that she would withdraw the complaint filed against A.Y..

7. T. also allege negligent conduct by judicial officials, for example: the transfer of G.C.A.M, against her will, from her home to the home of one of her sisters, who threatened her and where her vulnerability vis-a-vis the alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse increased; the delivery of G.C.A.M’s son to the brother-in-law of the alleged victim, although he was living with his mother under a court order; as well as the fact that they allowed her to leave the protection program without psychological examination. T. argue that adequate protection was not ordered for G.C.A.M. while her integrity was in danger. T. also argue that she was prevented from exhausting domestic remedies due to the lack of S. protection against the threats she received, thus increasing her vulnerability, and her distrust caused by her criminal proceedings. T. alleged that in the case of an offense with a social stigma attached, it was the S.'s responsibility to verify and ensure that the rights contained in the Convention had not been violated, even more...