Report No. 41 (2019) IACHR. Petition No. 1482-09 (Panamá)

• Petition Number: 1482-09
• Report Number: 41
• Respondent State: Panamá
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Eladio Blanco Fernández

REPORT No. 41/19

PETITION 1482-09

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

ELADIO BLANCO FERNÁNDEZ

PANAMA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 41

24 A. 2019

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on A.2., 2019.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 41/19, Petition 1482-19. A.. Eladio Blanco Fernández. Panamá. A. 24, 2019.

www.cidh.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:	Eladio Blanco Fernández
:	Eladio Blanco Fernández
Respondent S.:	Panama1
Rights invoked:	Alleged articles not specified

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR²

Filing of the petition:	November 18, 2009
Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	J. 1, 2011; A.2., 2012; J. 14, 2013
N. of the petition to the S.:	September 28, 2016
S.’s first response:	J. 6, 2017
Additional observations from the petitioner:	O. 31, 2016; M.8., 2017; August 28, 2018
Additional observations from the S.:	May 19 and O. 27, 2017

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Y.
Competence Ratione loci:	Y.
Competence Ratione temporis:	Y.
Competence Ratione materiae:	Y., American Convention on Human Rights3 (deposit of instrument made on J. 22, 1978); Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture4 (deposit of instrument made on August 28, 1991)

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 5 (humane treatment), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the same instrument; Articles 1, 6, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture
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. Mr. Eladio Blanco Fernández (hereinafter "the alleged victim"), a D. national, alleges that he was imprisoned from the time of his arrest on A. 3, 1997, until his release on February 28, 2012, at the RENACER Penitentiary Center (La Joyita) of Panama City. The alleged victim was sentenced to 17 years for the crime of homicide against Mr. M. de León Ortiz, although he maintains that he was merely an eyewitness to the events and accuses another individual as being the real murderer.

2. The alleged victim states that on M. 20, 1997, he witnessed the murder of Mr. M. de León Ortiz (hereinafter "Mr. León Ortiz"), and that on A. 3, 1997, he was detained by the Judicial Technical Police (hereinafter: "the PTJ"). He argues that, in spite of being only a witness to the death, he was treated as a suspect and tortured so as to confess to being the perpetrator of the crime. In that sense, he points out that after being detained, he was transferred to the PTJ’s facilities and placed in a totally sealed and air-conditioned cell, handcuffed hand and foot behind his back all night, and deprived of food or drink. He adds that the following morning he was physically assaulted by an official inspector nicknamed "the jackal" in order to state what they wanted. He alleges that as a result of the torture, he suffered a permanent injury and signed a confession without legal representation.

3. He argues that on A. 5, 1997, again in the absence of legal representation and without being informed of his right to contact his consulate, he was taken to the prosecutor's office, where he denied any participation in the crime and identified the individuals responsible for Mr. León Ortiz’s death. Without taking into account his collaboration and the information provided, the prosecutor ordered his preventive detention.

4. The alleged victim indicates that the criminal proceedings brought against him lacked judicial guarantees and resulted in his being sentenced to 17 years in prison for the crime of homicide. In respect to the lack of judicial guarantees, he points out that: i) between 1997 and 2001, he lacked legal representation; ii) the first public defender also represented the individual he had designated as one of those responsible for the crime and had to be replaced; iii) the second public defender failed to present an adequate defense during the oral proceedings, because he failed to challenge manifestly false statements made against him, including the statement that he was a Colombian national and had been in the country for a few days; iv) during the proceedings, evidence that another person was responsible for the crime was suppressed, such as the weapon used to commit the offense, carrying the fingerprints of one of the individuals identified by the alleged victim as the perpetrator of the crime; v) expert witnesses presented highly contradictory versions: one testified that Mr. León Ortiz’s death had been the result of a gunshot, while another expert indicated that there were no bullet holes in deceased’s body; and vi) his conviction was based on a confession obtained under torture.

5. On July 4, 2002, the alleged victim filed an appeal that was dismissed on J. 28, 2003, by the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter "the Supreme Court"). S., he requested a review of his sentence, which was dismissed in August 2003. In 2004, he was notified that all appeals had been exhausted. He adds that in his appeal he argued that the confession was false and had been obtained under torture, but there was no investigation into these claims.

6. He points out that he was imprisoned in the Renacer Penitentiary Center (La Joyita) until February 17, 2012, exceeding the length of his sentence, as he should have been released on J. 17, 2012. He adds that after February 17, 2012, he was kept in the custody of the guards for about another week, and then placed at the disposal of the Immigration authorities until his deportation on February 28, 2012.

7. The petitioner describes the prison conditions as extremely precarious, such as the lack of a bed, yard or water, as well as the abundance of bed bugs. He indicates that he contracted diseases due to malnutrition and excess smoke inside the prison. L., the alleged victim states that while deprived of his liberty, he made multiple requests to the prison doctor to refer him to the orthopedist regarding his left forearm, which had been injured by the torture he suffered. He did not receive the medical attention required. Finally, he argues that during the trial the authorities impounded his vehicle and never returned it.

8. For its part, the S. provides another version of the events. First, it indicates that after the alleged victim’s arrest on A. 5, 1997, he gave a statement before the prosecutor's office in the presence of his own attorney, who represented him from A. 5, 1997, until the beginning of 1998. It adds that during the proceedings, in the presence of his defense counsel, the alleged victim was confronted with two other individuals identified by him as the perpetrators of the offense in order to answer the discrepancies in the corresponding statements. S., again in the presence of his defense counsel, on J. 16, 1997, the alleged victim amplified his indictment statement and confessed to the crime charged, stating that he did so in exchange for money offered by one of the individuals he had identified as being a perpetrator.

9. The S. adds that in J. 1998, the alleged victim failed to participate in the police lineup as he did not have a lawyer, and in M. 1998, the judicial authorities appointed a public defender for him. The S. argues that this defense attorney conducted the alleged victim’s defense until M. 21, 2001, when he requested an impediment in continuing with the alleged victim’s defense due to constant insults and objections regarding his activities at trial. It maintains that on A. 4, 2001, a decision was made to appoint a new public defender for the alleged victim and he was notified of this decision on May 7, 2001. The oral trial took place on J. 29, 2001, and a jury found the alleged victim guilty along with another individual who had paid him for the murder. The S. argues that the public defender continued to represent the alleged victim until February 6, 2002, when he requested to be withdrawn from the defense due to the alleged victim’s...