Report No. 64 (2017) IACHR. Petition No. 585-06 (Honduras)

• Year: 2017
• Petition Number: 585-06
• Report Number: 64
• Respondent State: Honduras
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Juan Ramón Matta Ballesteros y familia

REPORT No. 64/17

PETITION 585-06

ADMISSIBILITY REPORT

JUAN RAMÓN MATTA BALLESTEROS AND FAMILY

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.162

Doc. 75

25 May 2017

Original:

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2085 held on May 25, 2017

162^nd Extraordinary Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 64/17. Petition 585-06. A.. Juan Ramón M.B. and Family. Honduras. May 25, 2017.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 64/17¹

PETITION 585-06

ADMISSIBILITY REPORT

JUAN RAMÓN MATTA BALLESTEROS AND FAMILY

HONDURAS

May 25, 2017

I. SUMMARY

1. On J. 7, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by the Chairman of the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights (hereinafter “the petitioner”) against the Republic of Honduras (hereinafter “Honduras” or “the S.”). The petition was filed on behalf of Juan Ramón M.B. and his family (hereinafter “the alleged victims” or “Mr. M.B.”).

2. The petitioner claims that Mr. J.R.M.B. was illegally detained, tortured and taken to the United S.s of America (hereinafter “the US”) without being granted due process. He alleges that, to date, those responsible have not been convicted and his family’s request for him to be taken to Honduras has not been resolved. The S. notes that a series of actions were carried out in the context of the criminal proceedings against those allegedly responsible and submits no allegations regarding the admissibility of the petition.

3. Without prejudging the merits of the complaint, after examining and pursuant to the requirements established in Articles 31 to 34 of the IACHR’s R. of Procedure (hereinafter “the R.”) and in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention" or “the Convention"), the Commission has decided to declare the petition in order to assess the allegations regarding the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 22 (right to freedom of movement and residence) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in accordance with the obligations set forth in Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) of said instrument. The Commission has further decided to notify the parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

II. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE IACHR

4. The IACHR forwarded a copy of the relevant parts of the petition to the S. on April 27, 2011, giving it two months to submit observations, based on Article 30.4 of the R. in force at the time. On August 10, 2011, the IACHR received the S.’s response, which was forwarded to the petitioner on October 18, 2011.

5. The petitioner submitted additional observations on December 16, 2011; on August 7, 2013; on January 28 and August 18, 2014; and on January 12, 2015. T.S. submitted additional observations on March 26, 2014. A. observations were duly forwarded to the opposing party.

6. Over the course of procedure regarding this petition, on January 6, 2014, the IACHR requested up-to-date information from the parties, who respectively responded to that request with submissions on January 28 and March 26, 2014.

III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. Position

7. The petition refers to the alleged illegal detention, torture and “covered-up extradition” to the United S.s of Mr. J.R.M.B., without due process, carried out by Honduran agents, and to the impunity of the masterminds and the perpetrators of such deeds.

8. The petitioner notes that, on March 29, 1988, the Lieutenant Colonel of the Police and the Commander of the Seventh Regional Command of the Public Security Force filed a request before the First Criminal Trial Court in Tegucigalpa, to search M.M.B.’ home, in connection with the alleged existence of a storage for arms that were allegedly used by individuals in his service.

9. The petitioner notes that the search was carried out on April 5, 1988. Mr. M.B. was not at home. H., when he arrived after receiving a call from his daughter, he was surrounded by “Cobras elements,” who alerted two people who identified themselves as law enforcement officers of the United S.s of America, and a Colonel and one other person, both of them Honduran nationals who got out of a beige Land Cruiser vehicle. The petitioner alleges that one of the law enforcement officers captured him, without an arrest warrant issued by a competent judicial authority, and that electric shocks were immediately applied to his back, hips and testicles with an electric gun.

10. The petitioner says that Mr. M.B. was forced into the vehicle in question and put on the floor of that vehicle, face down; he was handcuffed; both his legs were chained; and a torture instrument known as a “hood” was put over his head. The petitioner notes that, from that moment on, he knew they were going to Palmerola Air Base. D. the drive, he was subjected to interrogation about the murder of a DEA agent in M. and, when he replied that he knew nothing about it, he was hit and received death threats while gun barrels were put to his head.

11. He alleges that, upon arrival at the air base, one of the US law enforcement officers ordered the Colonel to hang M.M. Ballesteros, whose hands and feet were tied, so he could be “showered with a power wash without taking off the hood.” They put the vehicle in between two vans and committed such tortiuos act until he was forced to board a plane that had flown in from the United S.s and was en route to the Dominican Republic. He was later taken to S.J., Puerto Rico, and eventually to the state of Illinois, where he was detained in the United S.s Penitentiary at M. until April 6, 1988. According to the petitioner, given the deplorable condition his health was in as a consequence of the alleged torture, staff members at that penitentiary arranged to take photographs of him to “spare themselves from responsibility.”

12. The petitioner notes that the alleged victim was not notified of the reasons for his detention, nor was he granted guarantees against detention nor access to a lawyer or to his family. He alleges that the fact that he was subjected to the jurisdiction of the United S.s undermines the legitimacy and the justice of the whole legal process, from the point of view of international law, and that Honduras and the United S.s had no extradition treaty in force at the time of these events.

13. Regarding remedies that were initiated domestically, the petitioner notes that, on April 5, 1988, M.M.B.’ lawyer filed a writ of habeas corpus before Honduras’ Supreme Court of Justice where he blamed the Chief of the Public Security Force. The Chief of the Public Security Force was asked on that date to produce M.M., and on April 6, 1988, he stated that “the Cobras elements who took part in the raid to arrest him do indeed […] belong to that armed corps […] but that it is public knowledge that Mr. Mat[t]a del Pozo is in the United S.s.” The documents that were submitted in the petition indicate that, on May 31, 1988, the Public Prosecutor at the Supreme Court of Justice opined “that the appeal be granted, since it is public knowledge that the Colonel [...] has confessed that it was [...] staff [...] deployed by the Public Security Force [who] captured [M.M.].” The petitioner alleges that “the outcome has to date been negative.”

14. Further, the documents that were submitted by the petitioner show that, on April 7, 1988, the Second Criminal Trial Court was notified through a media report of the alleged kidnapping of Mr. M.B.. The court ordered that the relevant investigation be launched and that proceedings be carried out.

15. The petitioner notes that, on November 15, 1995, a complaint was formally filed before the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Human Rights. Based on that complaint, on March 2, 1998, the Second Criminal Trial Court in Comayagüela was asked to launch a criminal investigation for ill-treatment, illegal detention, taking a citizen beyond the country’s borders to be subjected to a foreign government, abuse of authority, and breach of official duties, to the detriment of Mr. M.B. and of the public administration. The complaint was declared admissible on March 3, 1998. The file submitted by the petitioner indicates that, on February 24, 1999, the Trial Court unified the 1988 file with the 1999 file.

16. Based on the information submitted by the petitioner, M.M.’s lawyer requested, on February 7, 2003, that an arrest warrant be issued against the suspects. On February 12, 2003, the Criminal Trial J. in the Tegucigalpa Judicial Section responded to that request by noting, “Let there be a thorough assessment of this case.” The lawyer filed a motion for reconsideration of that resolution, which was rejected on J. 12, 2003. On December 10, 2003, the First Court of Appeals declared inadmissible the appeal that had been filed against the ruling of February 12, 2003. On September 23, 2004, it was again requested that an arrest warrant be issued, this time before the J. of the Tegucigalpa Unified Criminal...