Report No. 57 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 2185-12 (Argentina)

Year2021
Case TypeAdmissibility
Respondent StateArgentina
CourtInter-American Comission of Human Rights
Report No. 57/21
















REPORT No. 57/21

PETITION 2185-12

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY


CELIA DE LOS ANGELES MARTINEZ CHAO AND
PRISCILA DE LAS NIEVES GUIDO MARTINEZ

ARGENTINA


OEA/Ser.L/V/II

Doc. 62

17 marzo 2021

Original: Spanish



























Approved electronically by the Commission on March 17, 2021.






Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 57/21, Petition 2185-12. A.. C. de los A.M.C. and P. de las Nieves Guido Martinez. Argentina. March 17, 2021.





www.iachr.org


I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner

C. de los A.M.C. and P. de las Nieves Guido Martinez

Alleged victim

C. de los A.M.C.

Respondent S.

Argentina

Rights invoked

Articles 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 10 (compensation), 11 (privacy), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 17 (rights of the family), 21 (property), 24 (equal protection), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights,1 in relation to Article 1.1 thereof (obligation to respect rights); Articles I (life, liberty, and personal security), II (equality before the law), III (right to religious freedom and worship), IV (freedom of investigation, opinion, expression, and dissemination), V (protection of honor, personal reputation, and private and family life), XIV (work), XXIV (petition) and XVIII (fair trial) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; and other international treaties2

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR3

D. of filing

November 29, 2012

Additional information received during initial review

December 19, 2012, February 16, 2013, and December 8, 2014

N. of the petition

J. 22, 2016

S.’s first response

April 23, 2018

Additional observations from the petitioner

One communication in 2016, nine communications in 2017, ten communications in 2018, two communications in 2019, and one hundred eleven communications in 2020

Additional observations from the S.

July 23, 2020

III. COMPETENCE

Ratione personae

Yes

Ratione loci

Yes

Ratione temporis

Yes

Ratione materiae

Yes, American Convention (deposit of instrument of ratification on September 5, 1984)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and international res judicata

No

Rights declared admissible

Articles 3 (juridical personality), 8 (fair trial), 11 (privacy), 21 (property), 24 (equal protection), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) thereof

E. or exception to the exhaustion of remedies

Yes, in accordance with Section VI

Timeliness of the petition

Yes, in accordance with Section VI


V. FACTS ALLEGED

  1. The petitioning party claims that the S. violated the alleged victim’s rights in that it did not nullify a purchase and sale agreement which, having been deceived, she signed in favor of a third party that took advantage of her mental condition. M., it says that, later, the judicial authorities wrongfully restrained the alleged victim’s legal capacity because of her disability.

  2. The petitioner explains that on September 27, 2001, M.M.C. sold, as part of a fraud she fell victim to, a plot of land that comprised a house, two sheds, and woods, in the city of Junin, to Mr. C.O.A., who at that time was the head of the D. of Judicial Investigations. It claims that the said public officer took advantage of his job and the alleged victim’s mental condition, to deceive her and establish all the conditions of the transaction, even by fixing an amount lower than the fiscal and real value of her plot of land.4 The petitioner explains that although negotiations had been conducted with C.O.A., the person who appeared before the notary public as the buyer, on B. of sale Nº 134, R. Nº 23, was the father, O.R.A..

  3. On September 24, 2003, the alleged victim’s husband filed a petition for interdiction, in which he applied to serve as her curator and included health certificates according to which Ms. M.C. suffered from a mental disorder that caused her 80 percent disability. The petition says that taking this into account, on October 19, 2005, the Fourth Court for Civil and Economic Matters concluded that the alleged victim suffered from a mental disorder that put her at risk of doing legal acts to the prejudice of herself or her estate, and by virtue of article Nº 152(a) of the Civil Code in force then, it interdicted her, appointing her husband as her curator.

  4. On February 14, 2011, Junin’s Fourth Court for Civil and Economic Matters granted the alleged victim and her husband the opportunity to litigate free of charge against Mr. O.R.A. and his heirs. H., the petitioner claims that since Ms. M.C. suffered domestic violence on the part of her husband, on August 2, 2011, a complaint seeking protection was filed with the same court. It says that, therefore, the Fourth Court for Civil and Economic Matters invalidated its appointment of the husband as her curator, and that on September 29, 2011, by a resolution, it appointed the alleged victim’s oldest daughter as her curator.

  5. Later, the alleged victim’s mental health improved, and her psychiatrist issued a certificate attesting to such a situation. The petitioner claims that, with that document at hand, Ms. Martinez Chao repeatedly asked the Fourth Court for Civil and Economic Matters to check her “rehabilitation.” N., the official experts from this judicial body turned down her request several times by using purportedly erroneous and fraudulent expert opinion reports. The petitioner says that in those requests, the alleged victim, with the help of her oldest daughter, requested the Court to lift the restraint on her legal capacity, but this tribunal denied her request once more and ratified her interdiction. It points out that, consequently, the alleged victim appealed that ruling on J. 9, 2020; but, on September 1, 2020, the Federal Court of Appeals for Civil and Economic Matters rejected the appeal and ratified the trial court’s ruling. The petitioner explains that the said Federal Court contended, based on article Nº 32 of Argentina’s National Civil and Commercial Code,5 that the alleged victim’s legal situation conformed with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, as she was recognized a framework of autonomy that, nevertheless, included reasonable restraints on specific actions that, given their significance, required the implementation of a support system. The petitioner says that, because of this decision, the alleged victim filed an extraordinary appeal seeking a judgment of inapplicability, with the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires Province, which has not been decided yet.

  6. At the same time, on August 25, 2006, the alleged victim and her husband filed, with Junin’s Fourth Court for Civil and Economic Matters itself, a petition for the nullity of the abovementioned purchase and sale agreement purportedly entered by deceit. The petitioner says that on March 8, 2010, the said Court issued a resolution ruling the nullity of the purchase and sale agreement and the restitution of the estate. The Court considered, among other aspects, that the alleged victim’s disability did not allow her to fully understand the consequences of her acts. The petitioner argues that Mr. Carlos Oscar Afflitto presented an appeal against that resolution and that on October 5, 2010, the Federal Court of Appeals for Civil and Economic Matters revoked that ruling and rejected the petition. This body considered that the amount of the agreement was appropriate for the value of the estate and that the alleged victim’s interdiction had been ordered four years after that transaction. The petitioner says that the alleged victim presented an extraordinary appeal seeking a judgment ruling the inapplicability of that decision and that on October 5, 2011, the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires rejected it on formal grounds. The petitioner reports that such an error in the presentation of the appeal was due to negligence on the part of Ms. M.C.’s private lawyer, whose subsequent withdrawal made it impossible to appeal to the Supreme Court of Justice.

  7. Considering these facts, the petitioning party claims that Mr. Carlos Oscar Afflitto took advantage of the alleged victim’s mental condition, as the price that he paid her for the sale of her real estate was less than a third of its market value. It argues that the expert opinion report carried out in the nullity proceedings was fraudulent as well as reports that the Federal Court of Appeals for Civil and Economic Matters did not allow Ms. M.C. to access the record, make copies of it, nor present evidence and that the Court did not appoint a public defense counsel despite her having so requested several times. F., regarding the legal process of rehabilitation, the petitioner emphasizes that the Federal Court of Appeals that ratified her interdiction is the same Court that determined the validity of the juridical act of purchase and sale at issue. The petitioner argues that the court rulings are unfair because they are based on a fraudulent expert opinion report; thus, it is unfair that the alleged victim continues to have her legal capacity unnecessarily interdicted.

  8. It moreover says that throughout these years, even though she resorted to all the tiers of the legal system, domestic remedies have proven to be ineffective...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT