Report No. 57 (2015) IACHR. Petition No. 15-09 (Guatemala)

• Year: 2015
• Petition Number: 15-09
• Report Number: 57
• Respondent State: Guatemala
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Verónica J. Palacios V.

REPORT No. 57/15
PETITION 15-09

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

VERÓNICA J. PALACIOS V.

GUATEMALA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156

Doc. 9

17 O. 2015

Original: Spanish

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

Cite as: IACHR, R. No. 57/15, Petition 15-09, Admissibility, V.J.P.V.. Guatemala. O. 17, 2015.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 57/15

PETITION No. 15-09

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

VERÓNICA J. PALACIOS V.

GUATEMALA

OCTOBER 17, 2015

I. SUMMARY

1. On January 6, 2009, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition that Mr. J. Israel Palacios (hereinafter “the petitioner”) lodged against the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter also referred to as “Guatemala” or “the S.”) alleging that Guatemala is internationally responsible for the abduction and extrajudicial execution of his daughter Verónica J. Palacios V (hereafter also referred to as “the alleged victim”), the subsequent denial of justice on the part of the competent judicial authorities, and the threats and other forms of retaliation of which he and his family had been victims for having requested that the competent authorities press forward with the appropriate investigations.

2. The petitioner alleges that his 17-year-old daughter, who had mental and physical disabilities, was abducted and brutally murdered in 2005 by agents of the S. and their confederates, in retaliation for certain initiatives that he, as an army officer, was promoting and that were contrary to the interests of high-ranking Army officers. He contends that from the very beginning, the National Civil Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office were blatantly negligent in their conduct and that any progress in the investigation had depended upon his initiative as an aggrieved party. The petitioner alleges further that because he was so persistent in demanding that the case be investigated and those responsible brought to justice, he and his family had been threatened and tailed by persons linked to the Army and that he himself had been separated from service in the Army, where he had the rank of colonel. The petitioner is claiming that the exception allowed to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies applies because of the unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment.

3. The S., for its part, claims that the S. cannot be held internationally responsible for the events denounced because the right to life is duly protected under its own laws and because the competent authorities have taken all steps necessary to investigate the death of young V.J.P.V.. The S. further contends that the petitioner was discharged from service as a colonel in the Army for cause, based on the rules of military discipline. The S. further alleges that it had afforded the petitioner and his family protection. As for the admissibility of the petition, Guatemala argues that internal remedies were not exhausted, because an investigation was purportedly still being conducted into the alleged victim’s death, which had not yet identified any suspect.

4. W. prejudging the merits, after examining the positions of the parties and in keeping with the requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decides to declare the case admissible for purposes of examining the allegations claiming violation of the rights protected under articles 4 (life), 5 (personal integrity), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (judicial guarantees), 11 (protection of one’s honor and dignity), 19 (rights of the child) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in connection with article 1(1) thereof, and articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, all in relation to its duty to investigate and punish possible acts of torture. The Commission further decides to notify the parties of its decision, to publish it and include it in its Annual R. to the OAS General Assembly.

II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

5. The IACHR received the petition on January 6, 2009, and forwarded the pertinent parts thereof to the S. by note of August 9, 2013. In keeping with Article 30(3) of its Rules of Procedure then in force, the Commission gave the S. three months to submit its response. The S.’s response was received by note of November 21, 2013, and forwarded to the petitioner on April 4, 2013.

6. The petitioner submitted additional information on January 10, May 16 and August 21, 2014. These communications were duly forwarded to the S..

P. measures

7. On December 22, 2008 the petitioner requested precautionary measures for him and his family; however, that request was dismissed by the Commission on April 14, 2009. F., he requested precautionary measures for the second time on May 14, 2010; but, on J.4., 2012 the Commission decided not to grant precautionary measures.

8. On August 2, 2012, the petitioners again requested the IACHR to grant precautionary measures. The request was registered as number PM-267-12 and is currently in process. On September 16, 2013 the Commission requested information from the S.. The proceeding of this request for precautionary measures is still open. According to information received from the petitioner, he was appointed in Nicaragua as military attaché from 2007 to 2011.

III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. Petitioner

9. The petitioner, a former colonel in the Armed Forces, is claiming that his daughter V.J.P.V., age 17 and suffering from “cerebral palsy, mild mental retardation and difficulty speaking and walking due to spasticity in her arms and legs,” was abducted ouside her home on J. 22, 2005, before 9:00 a.m. The National Civil Police (hereinafter “the PNC”) had allegedly refrained from helping the family, claiming that the family had to wait 24 hours before filing a missing person’s complaint. In the days that followed, the petitioner and his wife exhausted every avenue in the search for their daughter without result. Then on J. 27, a staff member at the Military Medical Center who knew the petitioner’s daughter, called him to inform him that her body was in the judicial branch’s morgue. T., it was reportedly determined that the alleged victim had been alive for the 48-hour period following her abduction. On J. 7, 2005, the petitioner and his wife filed a complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

10. By way of context, the petitioner explains that as an Army officer and the father of a daughter with a mental disability, in 2004 he embarked upon a plan to have a special education school organized and operated on the premises of the Military Medical Center, to help special needs children of military personnel. The petitioner indicates that the project was in its final stage, with all the equipment needed for the school to go into operation. However, once he had formal authorization from the Director of the Military Medical Center, the heads of the Ministry of National Defense, the Ministry of the Interior, the PNC and the Deputy Director of Criminal Investigations of the PNC presented a project under which the army would share part of the Military Medical Center’s facilities with the PNC. This project would be financially advantageous to the parties involved, since it would mean that the contributions to the Guatemalan Social Security Institute would go to the Military Medical Center instead. The special education school for special needs children was located in the spot planned for this joint army/police project. L., according to the petitioner, the eventual establishment and operation of this school for special needs children was an obstacle for certain army officers with ties to drug trafficking, who supposedly used the Military Medical Center’s facilities as a logistical point for this illicit activity.

11. The petitioner complains that after a decade of supposed investigations by the Public Prosecutor’s Officer, not one of the possible intellectual or material authors of his daughter’s abduction and murder has been identified. He indicates that his daughter’s abductors took advantage of her physical and mental disabilities; they studied the routine she followed in getting from her home to the Military Medical Center where she was receiving treatment. He also said that the perpetrators had to be persons familiar to her, who knew her, because his daughter was not initially suspicious of her abductors. The petitioner narrates how, shortly after her abduction, an army general appeared at his home to try to sell him a false version of the facts that put the blame on persons who had nothing to do with what happened.

12. The petitioner states that on May 23, 2006, he had a conversation with L.C.E.L.S., who gave him the names and particulars of the intellectual and material authors of his daughter’s killing and of the place where she was said to...