Report No. 21 (2012) IACHR. Petition No. 885-03 (Brasil)

• Petition Number: 885-03
• Report Number: 21
• Year: 2012
• Case Type: Inadmissibility
• Alleged Victim: Valentina de Andrade
• Respondent State: Brasil
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

9

REPORT No. 21/12

PETITION P-885-03

INADMISSIBILITY

VALENTINA DE ANDRADE

BRAZIL

March 20, 2012

I. SUMMARY

1. On October 24, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by W.R.M. against the Federative Republic of Brazil (hereinafter “Brazil” or “the State) on behalf of Valentina de Andrade (hereinafter “the alleged victim” or “Mrs. Andrade”). On January 17, 2007, another petition, lodged by the Lineamiento Universal Superior [Superior Universal Alignment] association (hereinafter also “LUS”), was received. It concerned the same facts and, on May 8, 2007, was joined with the present petition, in accordance with Article 29.1.d of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. As indicated in the petition lodged by W.R.M. and by LUS (hereinafter “the petitioners”),¹ Mrs. Andrade was accused of masterminding the crimes that led to the death of five children in a satanic ritual that took place in Altamira, Pará State, in 1992.

2. The petitioners contend that the Public Prosecutor did not submit any evidence whatsoever to prove the guilt of the alleged victim and further that it distorted the contents of a book she had written; that the preventive detention that Mrs. Andrade was ordered to serve for three months was arbitrary; that she was not given proper medical care during her detention; and that due process was violated, in particular because of the alleged ineffectiveness of available remedies and the excessive duration of the trial. For its part, the State claims that the alleged facts do not establish a violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention since all of the alleged victim’s procedural guarantees were respected, that the preventive detention was not arbitrary, and that the prison conditions were adequate. The State also maintains that the petitioners have not exhausted domestic remedies.

3. After reviewing the information available and verifying compliance with the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission declared the case inadmissible because, from the information provided by both parties, no elements can be identified that would tend to constitute a violation of the American Convention. The Commission decides to transmit the report to the parties, publish it, and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR

4. The Inter-American Commission received the petition on October 24, 2003. W.R.M. provided additional information on April 15, 2004, and on January 17 and May 10, 2007. Moreover, on January 17, 2007, the IACHR received a petition lodged on behalf of the Lineamiento Universal Superior association concerning the same facts. Said petition was joined with the present petition on May 8, 2007, in accordance with Article 29.1.d of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. The petitioners transmitted additional information on July 11 and 25, 2007.

5. On March 14, 2008, the IACHR transmitted a copy of the relevant parts to the State giving it a period of two months to submit its observations. On December 16, 2008, the State’s reply was received and, on January 13, 2009, the relevant parts thereof were transmitted to the petitioners.

6. The petitioners presented additional observations on March 23, August 14, and October 28, 2009; February 22, May 25, and September 1, 2010; and February 3, 2011. For its part, the State transmitted additional observations on May 29 and September 22, 2009 and on January 11, April 14, and August 10, 2010. These communications were duly transmitted to the respective opposing party.

III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the petitioners

7. As indicated in the original petition, Valentina de Andrade was accused of masterminding the crimes that led to the death of five children in a satanic ritual that took place in Altamira, Pará State, in 1992. The trial began in August 2003 and, on September 4, 2003, an order for preventive detention was issued against the alleged victim.

8. The petitioners maintain that no evidence was presented to corroborate her guilt and that the alleged attempted escape on which the preventive detention was based never existed. In that connection, they indicate that the preventive detention was not applied by way of an exception, thereby violating Mrs. Andrade’s right to the presumption of innocence. In addition, they state that the only basic piece of evidence used by the Public Prosecutor was the book “Deus, a grande farsa” [God, the Great Farse], written by the alleged victim. According to the petitioners, the contents of that book were completely distorted, as were the author’s actual intentions. They characterize the Public Prosecutor’s attitude as one of ideological persecution, which, in the petitioners’ view, would constitute a violation of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.

9. Moreover, they state that “there is an endless stream of slander and insults coming out of almost all of Brazil’s media” implicating the alleged victim and LUS in a series of crimes perpetrated against children. They indicate that during the trial the media showed bias in disclosing part of what was occurring in the plenary, thus manipulating public opinion. According to the petitioners, “Valentina de Andrade has been selected as the scapegoat for all disappearances of children in Brazil.” They point out that “the abysmal conduct of the Public Prosecutor and of the press has diverted the investigation and, instead of searching for the actual criminals, an attempt is being made to lay blame on an inexistent sect that would sacrifice children at [Mrs. Andrade’s] command.”

10. On December 5, 2003, the Jury Tribunal (Tribunal do Júri) acquitted Mrs. Andrade because of a lack of evidence, releasing her the same day, and convicted the other four defendants. With regard to her three months of preventive detention, the petitioners argue that said detention was arbitrary because of the absence of legal grounds. In addition, they condemn the existence of poor prison conditions. In this regard, they claim that the alleged victim was not provided with proper medical care. Further they point out that at the time of Mrs. Andrade’s detention, she was 70 years old, and that despite her age the judge refused to revoke the preventive detention order. In a note received on August 14, 2009, they argue that as a result of mistreatment and the lack of medical care, the alleged victim suffered fainting spells, convulsions, and memory loss.

11. The petitioners indicate that the Public Ministry and the Office of Assistance to the Prosecution [Assistência da acusação] appealed against the Jury Tribunal’s acquittal decision. Both argued that the decision was inconsistent with available evidence and that the Office of Assistance to the Prosecution argued that there had been a breach of jury secrecy. In view of suspicions about said secrecy breach, a police investigation was launched which, according to the petitioners, concluded that there had not been any contact between the jury and the parties or anyone associated with the alleged victim or her lawyers. The petitioners state that, notwithstanding the results of the police investigation, on April 28, 2005, the 1st Criminal Chamber of the Court of Justice of Pará State, on the basis of the alleged secrecy breach, declared the jury session that acquitted Mrs. Andrade null and void. Between 2005 and 2007, counsel for the alleged victim filed various appeals against said decision to nullify the acquittal, which were denied.

12. According to the information available, in one of the appeals, filed with the Higher Court of Justice, counsel for the alleged victim filed an incidental request for dismissal of the punitive claim owing to the fact that Mrs. Andrade was 70 years old, which is a ground for reducing the statute of limitations period by half. On February 10, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice (Supremo Tribunal de Justiça) decreed that the statute of limitations for punishment of the alleged victim had run out, which resulted in the dismissal of the criminal trial.

13. According to the petitioners, the dismissal of the case does not absolve the Brazilian State from its responsibility for failing to fully implement Mrs. Andrade’s procedural guarantees. In this connection, they indicate that while the alleged victim had access to judicial remedies, the procedural time periods were manipulated in such a way that the guarantees were not effective, thus violating the right of any individual to be heard within a reasonable period of time. They point out that, as of August 2009, four appeals filed by counsel for the alleged victim between 2005 and 2007—three habeas corpus petitions and an...