Report No. 56 (2014) IACHR. Petition No. 886-04 (Honduras)

• Year: 2014
• Petition Number: 886-04
• Report Number: 56
• Respondent State: Honduras
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Ronald Jared Martínez Velásquez y Marlón Fabricio Hernández Fúnez

REPORT No. 56/14

PETITION 886-04

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

RONAL JARED MARTÍNEZ AND FAMILY AND MARLÓN FABRICIO HERNÁNDEZ FÚNEZ

HONDURAS

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.151

Doc. 21

21 J. 2014

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 1991 held on J. 21^st, 2014
151^st Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 56/14, Petition 886-04. A.. Ronal Jared Martínez and M.F.H.F.. Honduras. J. 21^st, 2014.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 56/14

PETITION 886-04

ADMISSIBILITY

RONAL JARED MARTÍNEZ AND FAMILY AND MARLÓN FABRICIO HERNÁNDEZ FÚNEZ

HONDURAS

JULY 21, 2014

1. SUMMARY

1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by J.R.M. (hereinafter “the petitioner”) on September 15, 2004, alleging the international responsibility of the S. of Honduras (hereinafter "Honduras," "the S.,” or "the Honduran S. ") to the detriment of R.J.M.V. and M.F.H.F. (hereinafter “the alleged victims”) all of them minors at the time of the events, for alleged violations of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) stemming from the alleged excessive use of force by members of the Army and National Police, as well as the subsequent failure to investigate and punish the persons purportedly responsible.

2. In particular, the petitioner claims that due to the alleged “abuse of authority” (“abuso de poder”) by police agents and officers of the National Army, the child Ronal Jared Martínez had acquired a physical disability (irreversible paraplegia). In addition, it is noted that even though the very agents of the S. of Honduras are said to have been directly responsible for this wrongdoing, the case continues to be in impunity.

3. The S. has not responded to the facts alleged by the petitioner, nor has it called into question the admissibility of the petition under consideration.

4. W. prejudging on the merits, after analyzing the parties’ positions and satisfying the requirements set forth at Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, the Commission decided to find the claim admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of Articles 5, 8, 19, and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with its Article 1(1). F., it decided to notify the parties and order the report published in its annual report to the General Assembly of the OAS.

2. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

5. On September 15, 2004, the Commission received the complaint from the petitioner and assigned it number 886-04. On September 2, 2010, the IACHR forwarded the petition to the Honduran S., and asked that it respond within two months from the receipt of the communication, in keeping with Article 30(3) of its Rules of Procedure. On January 30, 2012, the request to Honduras to submit its response was reiterated. As of the date of the consideration of this report, the S. had not provided any information related to the petition.

3. THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS

1. The petitioner’s position

6. The petitioner states that due to the alleged “abuse of authority” (“abuso de poder”) by police agents and members of the National Army, his youngest son Ronald J.M.V. was left paraplegic for life. As regards the incident said to have caused this permanent physical disability, it appears in the documents produced by the petitioner that on J. 20, 2002, the petitioner was driving a car in which his son R.J.M.V. and a neighbor’s child, M.F.H.F., ages 10 and 5 years respectively, were accompanying him. Since the petitioner drove his vehicle the wrong way, members of a patrol squad purportedly made up of one agent of the National Police and five Army officers (J.J.C.I., Ángel Gabriel Padilla, M.I.A.S., H.N.M., and A.R.R.) are said to have fired six shots, with five 5.56 millimeter caliber projectiles towards the rear of the vehicle and one projectile of the same caliber in the small window of the right-side door.

7. According to information provided by the petitioner, he was detained and taken to the police station in Jutiapa. Due to the lesions suffered by the alleged victims, they are said to have been transferred to the Hospital Atlántida Integrado. R.J.M. was “gravely wounded by a projectile that lacerated his colon, right kidney, lumbar vertebrae […] and affected his spinal cord [...] which cause[d] the permanent disability”; and the child M.F.H.F. was said to have “been wounded in the abdomen, by a projectile, causing him a temporary disability for 21 days.” It also appears in the information provided by the petitioners that a complaint was filed against army officer J.J.C.I..

8. In addition, as regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner alleges that even though the S. agents were responsible for having fired against the alleged victims, they are still free.

9. The petitioner also mentions that from the date on which the facts alleged occurred, in addition to the permanent disability of his son, he had been caused extremely high expenditures and economic losses to his family, yet the S. had not given his family any type of monetary aid, except for a donation of 15,000 lempiras by the F.L.. In addition, the petitioner indicates that one of his greatest challenges has been not being able to send his son to school since they do not have the resources needed to be able to take him there.

B. The S.

10. The S. did not present any response to the facts alleged by the petitioner, nor has it questioned the admissibility of the petition under consideration.

4. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY

1. Preliminary considerations

11. The IACHR observes that at no time has the S. responded to the petitioner’s allegations nor has it questioned the admissibility of the petition. The IACHR recalls that Honduras is responsible for its international obligations assumed in keeping with the terms of the American Convention. Article 48(1)(a) of the Convention is especially relevant as it establishes the procedures that should be followed when a petition or communication is submitted to the Commission. The IACHR “shall request information from the government of the state indicated as being responsible for the alleged violations” and “[t]his information shall be submitted within a reasonable period […]” The provisions of Article 48(1)(e) stipulate that the Commission “may request the states concerned to furnish any pertinent information.” This requires that states party to the Convention give the Commission the information it needs to analyze the individual petitions¹.

2. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci

12. In principle the petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition identifies as the alleged victims individual persons with respect to whom the S. of Honduras undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the S., the Commission notes that Honduras has been a state party to the American Convention since September 8, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. T., the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention said to have taken place in the territory of Honduras, a state party to that treaty.

13. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the S. as of the date on which the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. F., the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention.

14. F., the IACHR might whether the Honduran S.’s international responsibility was triggered under the American Convention, other instruments that are part of the corpus juris on the rights of children and adolescents in relation to the situation of Ronal J.M.V. and Marlón Fabricio Hernández Fúnez, and in relation to the rights of persons with disabilities, as regards Ronal J.M.V..

3. A. requirements

1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies

15. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint lodged with the Inter-American Commission in keeping with Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, one must have pursued and exhausted domestic remedies, in keeping with generally recognize principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the national authorities to learn of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to solve it before it is heard by an international body. Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes three situations in which the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply: (a) when the domestic legislation of the state concerned...