Report No. 54 (2013) IACHR. Petition No. 174-08 (Ecuador)

• Report Number: 54
• Petition Number: 174-08
• Respondent State: Ecuador
• Alleged Victim: Julio garcía Romero y familia
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

14

REPORT No. 54/13

PETITION 174-08

ADMISSIBILITY

JULIO GARCÍA ROMERO AND FAMILY

ECUADOR

July 16, 2013

1. SUMMARY

1. On February 5, 2008, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by Mrs. Rosario del Pilar Parra Roldán, the Fundación Regional de Asesoría en Derechos Humanos [Regional Foundation of Advisory Services in Human Rights] (INREDH) and the Human Rights Center of the Universidad Católica de Ecuador (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging that the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”) was responsible for the alleged violation of articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to humane treatment), 13 (freedom of expression) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of journalist Julio García Romero, his wife Rosario del Pilar Parra Roldán and their two daughters, Sisa Isadora García Parra and Sami Elena García Parra (hereinafter jointly “the alleged victims”). The violations were said to have been perpetrated by agents of the State

2. According to the petitioners, Julio García Romero (hereinafter “Julio García” or “the alleged victim”) was killed on April 19, 2005, as a consequence of a police crackdown of the demonstrations that ended in the fall of the regime of President Lucio Gutiérrez. The petitioners observe that Julio García had his camera and was covering the demonstrations when police agents sprayed bursts of tear gas on his body, knocking him off his feet. He died of asphyxiation. The petitioners therefore claim that the journalist’s killing by agents of State and the State’s failure to properly investigate these events constitute a violation of the rights recognized in the American Convention.

3. The State, for its part, argues that the petition is inadmissible because it does not meet the basic eligibility requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. The State’s contention is (i) this is a complex matter; (ii) the police control used by the State to contain the demonstrations and social protests was done within constitutional and international boundaries; (iii) the domestic remedies were not exhausted; (iv) the facts as set out do not constitute violations of rights recognized in the Convention; and (v) the petitioners’ request requires that the Commission act as a court of “fourth instance.”

4. After examining the positions of the parties in light of the admissibility requirements established in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission decides to declare the petition admissible in respect of the alleged violation of articles 4, 5, 8, 13 and 25 of the American Convention, in light of the general obligation undertaken in Article 1(1) thereof. Lastly, the Commission decides to notify the parties, to publish the present report and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States.

II. PROCESSING WITH THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

5. The IACHR received the petition on February 5, 2008. The petition was opened for processing on October 10 of that year, whereupon the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of the petition to the State with a request that it present its response within two months from the date on which that communication was sent. On May 13, 2009, the State presented its response to the present petition. The relevant parts of the State’s response were sent to the petitioners on May 15, 2009. On June 23, 2009, the petitioners asked the IACHR for a 30-day extension of the date on which they were to deliver their observations on the State’s response. The Commission acceded to the petitioners’ request and the deadline was extended on July 6, 2009, the date on which the IACHR advised the two parties that the extension had been granted.

6. The petitioners presented their brief of observations on March 18, 2010, the relevant parts of which were forwarded to the State on May 27, 2010. For its part, the State sent observations on August 18, 2010, which were forwarded to the petitioners on August 19, 2010. On January 28, 2010, the petitioners presented additional observations on the brief presented by the State; for its part, the State submitted its additional observations on April 11, 2011. Both communications were duly forward to the respective counterpart.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The petitioners

7. In their complaint, the petitioners allege that photo-journalist Julio García Romero was killed on April 19, 2005, as a result of a police crackdown of the demonstrations that ended with the fall of the regime of President Lucio Gutiérrez. The petitioners asserted that Julio García had his camera with him and was covering the demonstrations when police agents sprayed him with tear gas; the burst of tear gas knocked him to the ground and caused his death by asphyxiation.

8. According to the petitioners, the main factors leading up to the April 2005 demonstrations were the dissolution of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court on November 25 and December 8, 2004, respectively, and a decision taken by the new Supreme Court that had enormous political repercussions. In that April 1, 2005 decision, the new Supreme Court had reportedly nullified the cases being prosecuted against two former presidents of Ecuador, Abdalá Bucaram and Gustavo Noboa, and a former Vice President, Alberto Dahik. With that, former President Abdalá Bucaram returned to the country. According to the petitioners, this aggravated the existing social and political tensions in the country and triggered an explosion of violence and radicalization of citizen protest.

9. The petitioners recount how, on April 5, 2005, hundreds of judicial workers went to protest in front of the Supreme Court building, and thousands of demonstrators marched on the National Congress, but were dispersed by a contingent of 1500 police wielding tear gas. On April 13, 2005, some 5,000 persons reportedly turned out to protest and were headed for the Supreme Court. Among them were women, children, the elderly and the young; the protests were again suppressed with the use of tear gas. The petitioners asserted that on April 15, the President of the Republic, Colonel Lucio Gutiérrez, declared a state of emergency in the Metropolitan District of Quito. Under the state of emergency, the exercise of civil rights was curtailed and police and military were deployed by the Joint Command of the Armed Forces to control and maintain order. However, in the face of heavy public opposition, the President decided to end the state of emergency, which he did by executive decree No. 2754 of April 16, 2005. The petitioners allege that on April 15, 2005, the President removed all the members of the Supreme Court who had been appointed in December 2004; on April 17, 2005, the National Congress vacated the December 8, 2004 resolution that had named the members to the Supreme Court. The petitioners made the point that these decisions notwithstanding, no order was ever given to reinstate the justices who were originally on the Supreme Court bench; as a result, Ecuador was left with no Supreme Court. The petitioners point out that the demonstrations continued until President Gutiérrez resigned on April 20, 2005.

10. The petitioners explained that on April 19, 2005, the independent photographer and “defender of the rights of the dispossessed,” Julio García, participated in a peaceful demonstration of at least 100,000 people, who were speaking out against the Government. According to the petitioners, at around 8:00 p.m., demonstrators came face-to-face with 5,000 heavily armed uniformed troops with tear gas grenades and tear gas grenade guns. The petitioners contend that the state agents had orders not to break up the demonstration, but to aim for the places where the demonstrators were most heavily concentrated. According to the petitioners, the demonstrators were forced to separate into two groups, which were ambushed by the police forces armed with tear gas. The strategy, the petitioners say, was to corner the demonstrators. The police were accompanied by “anti-riot vehicles, cavalry, trained dogs and personnel of the Special Corps”....