Report No. 59 (2013) IACHR. Petition No. 212-06 (Venezuela)

• Report Number: 59
• Petition Number: 212-06
• Year: 2013
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Alleged Victim: Rocío San Miguel Sosa y otras
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Venezuela

29

REPORT No. 59/13

PETITION 212-06

ADMISSIBILITY

ROCÍO SAN MIGUEL SOSA ET AL

VENEZUELA

July 16, 2013

1. SUMMARY

1. On March 7, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Ligia Bolívar Osuna and Héctor Faúndez Ledesma (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging responsibility of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter, “the State” or “the Venezuelan State”) for violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5), a fair trial (Article 8), freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), freedom of association (Article 16), to participate in government (Article 23), equal protection (Article 24), judicial protection (Article 25), and progressive development (Article 26) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in connection with Articles 1.1, 2 and 29 of this instrument, to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña (hereinafter jointly “the alleged victims”).

2. The petitioners contended that the alleged victims were dismissed from their jobs at the National Border Council in retaliation for signing a petition to hold the recall referendum on the term of office of then President Hugo Chávez Frías. In this regard, they claim that the alleged victims were not heard by a court of law, which met the minimum requirements of independence and impartiality and respected due process in order to restore their rights. In the view of the petitioners, the admissibility requirements prescribed in the American Convention have been fulfilled.

3. In response, the Venezuelan State moved that the petition be found inadmissible, pursuant to Articles 46.1.a and 47.d of the American Convention. The State argued that the alleged victims had not exhausted the suitable remedy to restore the allegedly violated right. On the contrary, in the view of the State, the alleged victims used an inadequate proceeding to assert their rights under domestic law, inasmuch as they chose to pursue the remedy of constitutional relief via the amparo constitucional proceeding, whereas they should have brought their case before a trial-level labor court. The State contended that constitutional relief through amparo is in order “when no brief, summary and effective procedural means exists [that is] equivalent to constitutional protection.” According to the State, it was possible to bring an expeditious, simple and effective case before the trial-level labor courts, which presumably have jurisdiction to hear cases when dismissal from employment is involved.

4. After analyzing the positions of the parties, the Commission concluded that it is competent to decide the claim filed by the alleged victims and pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, it decided to find the case admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 13, 23, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of this instrument. It also decided to find the petition inadmissible as to the alleged violation of Articles 16 and 26 of the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission decided to notify the parties, proceed to analysis of the merits with regard to the alleged violations of the American Convention, publish the instant Admissibility Report and include it in the IACHR Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

5. The IACHR assigned the petition the number P-212-06, which was received by the Commission on March 7, 2006. On April 20, 2006, the IACHR requested additional information from the petitioners. The petitioners submitted additional information on August 10, 2006, March 5 and May 22, 2007.

6. The IACHR forwarded the petition to the Venezuelan State on January 8, 2008 and granted it a period of two months to submit its response. Said communication was received by the State on February 14, 2008. The State submitted its response to the petition on January 16, 2009, which was forwarded to the petitioners on February 24, 2010.

7. On January 29, 2009, the petitioners requested a hearing during the 134^th regular session of the Commission, in order to address issues pertaining to admissibility and the merits of the case. On February 25, 2009, the IACHR rejected said request as untimely. On August 31, 2010 the petitioners filed another request for a hearing, which was not granted.

3. POSITTION OF THE PARTIES

1. Position of the Petitioners

8. The petitioners stated that the alleged victims Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña were employees at the National Border Council, assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. They noted that Thais Coromoto Peña had worked for the government for 20 years, 9 of which were at the National Border Council. Rocío San Miguel Sosa had done so for a total of 13 years, 7 of which she served at the National Border Council. While Magally Chang Girón had also worked as a government employee for a total of 6 years, all of which were at the National Border Council.

9. The petitioners asserted that on March 22, 2004, Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña were advised of the decision of the chairman of the National Border Council to terminate their contract of employment with said institution. In their view, said decision was based on “strictly political reasons,” linked to the decision of the alleged victims to sign a petition to hold a recall referendum on the term in office of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as provided for in Article 72 of the Constitution of that country.

10. The petitioners stated that, in August of 2002, several opposition political parties and civil society organizations launched a drive to call for a nationwide ballot question referendum to ask for the resignation of the President of the Republic. For this purpose, the petitioners noted that a signature collection drive was carried out and the signatures were turned over to the National Electoral Council (hereinafter “the CNE”). On December 3, 2002, the aforementioned body decided to convene the referendum on the presidential term in office for February 2, 2003. The petitioners asserted that the Acting Chamber for Electoral Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the TSJ”) called off the above-mentioned referendum process and precluded any “electoral process, consultation or other mechanism of citizen participation in public matters” from being held until the National Assembly appointed new members to the National Electoral Council.

11. The petitioners noted that on that same day, February 2, 2003, a new signature collection drive got underway popularly known as “El firmazo” [‘the Big Signature Drive”], this time in order to convene a recall referendum rather than just a ballot question or consultation on the continuation of the president’s term in office. They also asserted that on August 20, 2003, more than three million signatures were brought before the CNE to petition for a recall referendum to be held. They contended...