Report No. 42 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 12.961 (Honduras)

• Year: 2021
• Case Type: Friendly Settlements
• Respondent State: Honduras
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 42/21

CASE 12.961 E

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT REPORT

ECAR FERNANDO ZAVALA VALLADARES

HONDURAS

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 46

20 M. 2021

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on M. 20, 2021.

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 42/21, Case 12.961 E. Friendly Settlement. Ecar Fernando Zavala Valladares, Honduras. M. 20, 2021.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 42/21

CASE 12.961 E

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

ECAR FERNANDO ZAVALA VALLADARES

HONDURAS
MARCH 20, 2021

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. Between 2003 and 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received five (5) petitions: P 775-03: J.G. and others, submitted by José Marcelino Vargas, on September 23, 2003; P 1004-03: Julio César Villalobos and others, submitted by Julio César Villalobos Velásquez on November, 2003; P 22-04: Juan Bautista Vargas Díaz and others, submitted by Juan Bautista Vargas Díaz on January, 2004; P 217-05: C.A.S. and others, submitted by G.O.M.A. on January 8, 2005; P 1092-05: R.D.S.B. and others, submitted by Rosa Dilia Salinas Barahona on December 15, 2005 (hereinafter the “presumed victims”). In these petitions, it was alleged the international responsibility of the Honduras S. (hereinafter “Honduras”, “S.” or “Honduran S.”) for the presumed violations of the rights established on the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or “Convention”), derived from the massive dismissal of the National Police crew classified in different scales, within the framework of the depuration of the referred institution. On October 20, 2006 the Commission decided to accumulate the petitions 22-04; 217-05 and 1092- 05 to the initial 775-03.

2. It was alleged in all the petitions that the S. committed the presumed violation of the articles 8 (judicial guaranties) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, because the presumed victims would have been dismissed in an unjustified way, in accordance with the decree 58-2001, published on the Official Diary Gazette No. 29,504 of J. 15, 2001 (hereinafter “decree 58 – 2001”), and without following the legal procedure stablished by it. The petitioners also alleged that the Honduran S. was responsible for the violation of the rights acclaimed in articles 5 (right to personal integrity), 10 (right to compensation), 11 (protection of the honor and the dignity), 17 (protection of the family), and 24 (equality in the face of law), of the American Convention, in accordance with the general obligation stablished in the articles 1.1 and 2 of that instrument.

3. On July 21, 2014, the IACHR issued the Admissibility R. No. 57/14 on Case 12.961 J.G. and others, related to the aforementioned petitions that were accumulated in said case. In its report, the IACHR concluded that it was competent to examine the alleged violation of articles 8 (judicial guarantees) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights in connection with articles 1.1 and 2 of said instrument. It also decided to declare inadmissible the allegations regarding the alleged violation of articles 5 (right to personal integrity), 10 (right to compensation), 11 (protection of honor and dignity), 17 (protection of the family), and 24 (equal protection of the law) of the American Convention, in accordance with the general obligation established in articles 1.1 and 2 of said instrument. A., the IACHR declared the petition inadmissible in respect of 42 persons who filed an unconstitutionality action against Decree 85-2001 given that, according to the IACHR's calculation, the sentence was notified more than six months before the presentation of the petition at the IACHR, thus failing to comply with the requirement set forth in article 46.1b) of the ACHR.

4. In the Admissibility R. No. 57/14, it was noted that on December 11, 2006, the petitioners informed the Commission that the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Honduras (hereinafter "CODEH") would be appointed as co-petitioner and that on May 21, 2007, Gladis Matamoros, original petitioner of petition P-217-05, indicated to the Commission that it would withdraw as petitioner and leave in its place CODEH. S., Mrs. G.M. decided to resume her participation as petitioner in case 12,961 J.G. and Others.

5. On April 29, 2018, the IACHR approved an amendment to paragraph 40 of Admissibility R. No. 57/14 and declared the petition admissible with respect to the 42 persons who had been declared inadmissible initially in report 57/14.

6. On November 2014, the parties began the process of negotiating a friendly settlement and held a working meeting with the facilitation of the Commission on September 5, 2017, within the framework of the 164th session of the IACHR. In addition, on December 5, 2018, the parties held another working meeting with the facilitation of the Commission on December 5, 2018, during the 170th session of the IACHR. Said negotiations materialized in the signing of a friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter “ASA” or “agreement”) on J. 12, 2019¹.

7. Between December 2018 and October 14, 2020, the S. submitted multiple pleadings with payment vouchers for the disbursement process of the economic compensation accepted by the beneficiaries and requesting the approval of the agreement by the IACHR. T. information was sent to the petitioner at the time.

8. On July 2, 2019, the Commission informed the parties of the disaggregation of Case 12,961 in 7 cases to facilitate the advanced negotiation processes in 6 separate agreements and the option of continuing with the contentious proceeding in one of them.

9. S., on December 3, 2019, the parties signed an addendum excluding from the FSA Lino A.F.C., F.H.E., German Rafael Cardona Velez, G.V.E., G.L., G.D.C.G.S., D.Y.V., Jose Anibal Alvarado Rivera, J.D.S.Z., Jorge Alberto Cerrato Rivera, A.C.M., C.M.S.J., A.A.C.R., J.A.L., Jose Rodolfo Castillo Lazo, J.H.R.V., J.C.M.H., Jose Antonio Canales, J.C.T.G. and, Francisco Humberto Rodriguez Madariaga.

10. L., on September 10, 2020, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding in which the parties clarified that, due to a material error; C.M.S.J. had been excluded from the FSA of J. 12, 2019, through its addendum of December 3, 2019, given that it had already received the financial compensation on July 9, 2019. In the same sense, they confirmed that Jorge Domingo Suazo Zelaya had received the material compensation granted on January 22, 2020, after the signing of said addendum; therefore, his willingness to join the ASA was verified. C., through the memorandum of understanding of September 10, 2020, the parties agreed that the effects of the addendum of December 3, 2019, do not apply to these two beneficiaries, maintaining the effects of the friendly settlement agreement signed on them.

11. P. to Article 49 of the Convention and Article 40.5 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, a brief statement of the facts alleged by the petitioner and a verbatim transcription of the friendly settlement agreement entered into on J. 12, 2019 between the petitioner and the representatives of the H.S. are reproduced hereunder in the instant report. The Commission also approves the agreement between the parties and the publication of this report in the IACHR’s Annual R. to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. THE ALLEGED FACTS

12. The petitioners alleged presumed violation by the S. of the right to due process, contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, since the presumed victims were unjustifiably dismissed based on Decree 58-2001. According to the petitioners, this decree authorized the Congress of the Republic to "dismiss the police personnel without considerations of any kind". In this regard, the petitioners stated that although the permanent purge of the National Police was necessary for its better functioning, the legal procedure established for it must have been followed. In this regard, they indicated that a regular administrative process, which would have all the guarantees of any criminal process, should have preceded the dismissal.

13. The petitioners argued that Honduras had violated the right contained in Article 24 (equal protection of the law), because they had been subjected to a decree that was exclusive and detrimental to their interests, and was never applied to different category of public officials. They also indicated that Honduras had violated Article 11 (protection of honor and dignity) of the American Convention. Since because of the dismissal based on a "decree to purge corrupt people," the alleged victims would have been "targeted of popular derision", which would have affected their prestige inside...