Report No. 53 (2015) IACHR. Petition No. 706-04 (Chile)

• Year: 2015
• Petition Number: 706-04
• Report Number: 53
• Respondent State: Chile
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Mario Galetovic Sapunar y otros

REPORT No. 53/15

PETITION 706-04

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

MARIO GALETOVIC SAPUNAR ET AL

CHILE

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156

Doc. 5

17 O. 2015

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2046 held on O. 17, 2015
156 Regular Period of Sessions.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 53/15, Petition P-706-04. A.. Mario Galetovic Sapunar et al. Chile. O. 17, 2015.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. XX/15¹

PETITION 706-04

ADMISSIBILITY

MARIO GALETOVIC SAPUNAR ET AL.

CHILE

OCTOBER 17, 2015

1. SUMMARY

1. On July 21, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition from M.G.S. (hereinafter “the petitioner”), alleging the international responsibility of the S. of Chile (hereinafter “the S.” or “Chile”) for the violation of Articles 13 (freedom of expression), 21 (right to property) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”) to his detriment and to the detriment of D.R.O., C.G.J., Oscar Santiago Mayorga Paredes, H.R.F.D., and Nestor Edmundo Navarro Alvarado (hereinafter “the alleged victims”).

2. T. petition is related to the J. 21, 2004 decision in which the Chilean Supreme Court denied the alleged victims—based on the time-barring of the civil action by the statute of limitations—access to financial reparations to compensate them for the actions taken against them following the coup of September 11, 1973. According to the petitioner, the civil action he filed in 1995 sought to reverse the effects of the decrees issued by the de facto government ordering the dissolution and closure of the petitioner’s radio station La Voz del Sur, as well as the confiscation of the radio station’s assets and facilities, “in order to silence political dissidence.” The petitioner alleged that the Court’s decision violated his right of access to effective justice, and “not only deprived him of his right to property” but also prevented his “opinion from once again being communicated” through fair reparations once democracy was restored in his country.

3. For its part, the S. maintained that this petition should be declared inadmissible because it concerns events that occurred prior to the date on which the S. deposited its R.I., and that began prior to M. 11, 1990. According to the S., this case would fall within one of the limitations imposed by the Government of Chile upon recognizing jurisdiction; that is, it would be time-restricted. It also asserts that “in acknowledging the competence and jurisdiction of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Government of Chile declares that, when these bodies apply the provisions of Article 21.2 of the Convention, they may not make statements concerning the reasons of public utility or social interest taken into account in depriving a person of his property.”

4. A. examining the positions of the parties in light of the admissibility requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, as well as Articles 30 and 36 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the IACHR decided to declare the petition admissible with respect to the alleged violation of Articles 8 (right to a fair trial), 13 (freedom of expression), 21 (right to property) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in light of the general obligations enshrined in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. F., the Commission decided to give notice to the parties, publish this report, and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

5. The petition was received by the IACHR on July 21, 2004. On December 22, 2004, the IACHR forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the S., requesting the submission of its reply within two months. On February 16, 2005, the S. submitted its reply to this petition, the pertinent parts of which were forwarded to the petitioner on M. 15, 2005.

6. On A. 22, 2005 the petitioner submitted its observations to the S.’s report, the pertinent parts of which were forwarded to the S. on J. 22, 2005. A., on July 18, 2005, the petitioner submitted additional information. On May 18, 2009, the Commission requested updated information from the parties. On M. 15, 2011, the Commission again asked the petitioner for information. On September 22, 2013, the petitioner reported a change in representation for the petition in question, indicating that A.M.S.T. had assumed the position of representative. In addition, on J. 29, 2014, the petitioner submitted additional information.

7. With respect to the S., the May 18, 2009 request for information was reiterated on November 11, 2011, November 27, 2013, May 21, 2014, and J.6., 2014.

3. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the petitioner

8. According to the petition, M.M.G.S. was an administrator and partner in the radio station “La Voz del Sur,” together with Messrs. Daniel R. Oyarzo, C.G.J., Oscar Santiago Mayorga Paredes, H.R.F.D., and Nestor Edmundo Navarro Alvarado. He states that the alleged victims owned the radio station through the business corporation “R. y Compañía Ltda.” The station operated in Punta Arenas, Magallanes, “the southernmost city in Chile.”

9. The petitioner alleged that on September 11, 1973 forces that reported to the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Chile took control of the radio station’s facilities. The petitioner stated that this situation remained in effect for some months, until Order 473, issued by the Ministry of the Interior in 1974, declared “the corporation’s property status under study,” and barred it from entering into legal transactions or contracts pertaining to its assets. S., the petitioner stated that the order required them to provide an explanation, within 10 days, of the assets in their possession, “under the warning that they were considered to belong to dissolved political parties.” The petitioner stated that, given the circumstances in Chile, many of the individuals summonsed to appear were reportedly deprived of their liberty, disappeared, dead, in hiding, or in exile, and therefore the requirement was “unlawful” and “impossible to meet.” A., the petitioner asserted that the corporation was declared dissolved by virtue of Order 1163 issued by the Ministry of the Interior in 1974, which ordered that all of its assets be turned over to the C.S., and that the tax authorities had therefore become the successor to the corporation’s assets.

10. The petitioner maintained that once democracy was restored in Chile a national debate arose for the return of confiscated assets. N., in view of the apparent delays in that debate, the alleged victims decided to file a civil action in September 1995 seeking the nullification of Orders No. 473 and No. 1163, both of 1974, and consequently the restitution and return of their assets. He stated that the action was heard and decided by the Seventh Civil Court of Santiago. At that trial, according to the petitioner’s account, the Chilean tax authorities asserted as their main defense the lawfulness of the Military Government’s actions and the application of the statute of limitations in the S.’s favor. They alleged that this case “took quite a long time,” and that it was adjudicated in November 1997 in the plaintiffs’ favor, against the C.S.. According to the case file, the S. challenged that decision, but the Santiago Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

11. The petition stated that the tax authorities filed a petition for cassation in 2003 before the Chilean Supreme Court, challenging the above-cited decision. According to the allegations, during this period of time the Congress of the Republic passed Law 19.568 on the return of assets, ordering the return of—but not compensation for—assets to the affected parties, organizations, and individuals. In addition, it required those who availed themselves of the return of assets to withdraw any pending legal actions, and provided a one year final deadline for applying to the Ministry of National Assets. The petitioner observed that the Law was enacted after the Chilean Supreme Court held “invariably” that actions seeking the nullity of public laws are not subject to statutes of limitation and therefore the S. of Chile had to return the assets and compensate the affected private parties.

12. The petitioner stated that on J. 21, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on the abovementioned petition for cassation filed by the tax authorities, accepting the S.’s argument in part. The Court held that although the challenged orders are legally null and void, the property-related consequences of that nullity were subject to statutes of limitation. The...