Report No. 3 (2015) IACHR. Petition No. 610-01 (Argentina)

• Year: 2015
• Petition Number: 610-01
• Report Number: 3
• Respondent State: Argentina
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Natalio Kejner, Ramón Walton Ramis y Otros

REPORT No. 3/15

PETITION 610-01

REPORT ON

N.K., R.W.R., AND OTHERS

ARGENTINA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 4

9 January 2015

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its working meeting held on January 29, 2015

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 3/15, Petition 610-01. A.. N.K., R.W.R., et al. Argentina. January 29, 2015.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 3/15

PETITION 610-01

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

NATALIO KEJNER, R.W.R., AND OTHERS

ARGENTINA

JANUARY 29, 2015

1. SUMMARY

1. On September 4, 2001, a petition was presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) by the Argentine Human Rights Service (SADH) and J.C.V. (hereinafter “the petitioners”) on behalf of N.K., R.W.R., M.V. himself, and another 26 alleged victims,¹ alleging the international responsibility of the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter “the S.” or “Argentina”) for failing to meet its obligations of investigating, prosecuting, punishing, and providing redress for illegal arrests, forced disappearances, arbitrary criminal prosecutions, usurpation, housebreaking, qualified theft, and abuse of authority as crimes against humanity following the military intervention of the construction company M. S.A.C.C.I.A.I.F. (hereinafter “the M. company”) in 1977, during the military dictatorship.

2. The petitioners claim a possible violation of the rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty, to a fair trial, to freedom from ex post facto laws, to compensation, to private property, to equality before the law, and to judicial protection, as enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 21, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”), in conjunction with the obligation of respecting and ensuring rights set out in Article 1.1 thereof. T. also claim the possible violation of the rights enshrined in Articles I, II, VIII, XXIII, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”). The S. claims that their contentions are inadmissible because of the incorrect and incomplete exhaustion of domestic remedies, because of the IACHR’s lack of jurisdiction over a victim that is a corporate entity, because of the IACHR’s lack of temporal competence, and because the petitioners are seeking for the IACHR to act as a fourth instance.

3. A. analyzing the positions of the parties in light of the admissibility requirements contained in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the claim and that it is admissible as regards the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to the 29 alleged victims. In addition, the Commission will, at the merits stage, analyze the petition as regards Article XXIII of the American Declaration (right to property) and Article 21 of the American Convention, (right to private property). In addition, the Commission will also examine Articles I (right to life, liberty, and personal security), XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest), and XXVI (right to due process of law) of the American Declaration when it decides on the merits of the matter.

4. Also, as regards the three alleged victims of forced disappearance, the Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the claim and that it is admissible for the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 3 (right to juridical personality), 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect right); in Articles I, III, IV, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; and in Articles I (right to life, liberty, and personal security), XVII (right to recognition of juridical personality and civil rights), XVIII (right to a fair trial), and XXV (right of protection from arbitrary arrest) of the American Declaration.

5. In addition, as regards the other 26 alleged victims, the IACHR concludes that the claim is inadmissible with respect to Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 10 (right to compensation), and 24 (right to equal protection) of the American Convention, in relation to the alleged violations to human rights that were completed before the ratification of the American Convention, and of Articles II (right to equality before the law) and VIII (right to residence and movement) of the American Declaration. C., it resolves to notify the parties of this report, to order its publication, and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

6. The petition was recorded as No. 610-01. On A.9., 2002, the relevant parts were forwarded to the S. for its comments. The S. returned comments on J. 25, J. 3, and August 8, 2002, and on January 24, M. 20, and A.9., 2003, which were forwarded to the petitioners.

7. The petitioners submitted additional information on August 8 and 28, 2002. On November 4 and 5, 2002, M. 20 and 31, 2003, February 23 and M. 22, 2004, and September 15, 2005, they submitted information and added representatives.² Those notes were forwarded to the S..

8. On October 18, 2005, the Commission made itself available to the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement agreement, and it conveyed the information furnished by the petitioners to the S. for its comments. On October 21, 2005, the petitioners stated their interest in working toward a friendly settlement. On February 1, 2006, the S. said it had no objections to opening up a dialogue. The Commission asked the parties for comments on M. 10, 2006. On May 12, 2009, the Commission reiterated its request for information. On February 12, 2010, the S. withdrew from the friendly settlement effort, and the notification thereof was forwarded to the petitioners for their comments.

9. The petitioners submitted replies and additional information on January 27, M. 25, and April 29, 2010, and those communications were conveyed to the S.. On September 10, 2010, the petitioners requested a public hearing. On September 27, 2010, the IACHR convened a working meeting that was held on October 27 of that year. On October 5, 2010, the S. submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the petitioners for information purposes. On February 14, 2011, the petitioners asked that an admissibility report be adopted; and, on October 5, 2012, the petitioners requested a hearing, to which request the IACHR did not accede.

3. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the Petitioners

10. As background information, the petitioners state that during the dictatorship that began on M. 24, 1976, President of Argentina J.R.V. and L.B.M., the Commander of the Third Corps of the Argentine Army, carried out a series of raids, absent any warrants, on the homes of Gustavo Adolfo Roca, an attorney and the legal representative of the M. company, and his ex-wife. T. claim that those raids led to the arrest of L.G.M. and to the forced disappearance of C.F.A., R.S., and Eduardo Antonio Sanjurjo, his law-firm partners, on May 11, 1976.

11. T. state that on April 24, 1977, C.M. ordered a military intervention of the M. company, with the violent and illegal entry of soldiers “with their weapons drawn,” in which all its property and assets were confiscated. T. claim that the reason for the intervention was that the military believed the M. company was the financial base of the Montoneros guerrillas.

12. T. report that the intervention led to the illegal arrest of Julio Héctor Casse Sr., J.H.C.J., Emilio Sergio Limonti, L.M.D., E.D.V., M.d.V.U., A.T., and H.T., all company executives. T. also state that the authorities went to the homes of C.E.Z., E.B.P., M.Á.R., L.P.P., E.A.M., Á.V.S., and Ramón Walton R., who were members of the board of the M. company, and illegally arrested them on April 28, 1978.

13. The petitioners contend that these incidents were a part of the “systematic and criminal plan” that the S. adopted to persecute its political opponents. T. claim that this political persecution affected both the company and its shareholders. T. contend that the facts alleged in the petition are notorious examples of how state terrorism was practiced during the dictatorship: not only through disappearances of opponents, but also for the illegal enrichment of government officials and their friends. T. hold that the attacks on property carried out as a part of wide-scale, systematic, and planned political persecution constitute crimes against humanity.

14. T., they state that M.K., N.K.’s sister and the main shareholder in the M. company, was illegally arrested on April 28, 1977, by the Army’s Fourth Airborne Brigade and remained disappeared until J. 20, 1977, when she was officially taken to the B.P. detention center, before being released on August 8, 1977.

15. T. state...