Report No. 66 (2012) IACHR. Case No. 12.324 (Argentina)

• Case Number: 12.324
• Report Number: 66
• Respondent State: Argentina
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Rubén Luis Godoy

41

REPORT No. 66/12

CASE 12.324

RUBÉN LUIS GODOY

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ARGENTINA

March 29, 2012

I. SUMMARY

1. On October 18, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the "Inter-American Commission," the "Commission" or "the IACHR") received a complaint filed by Mr. Rubén Luis Godoy and the "Office of the General Public Defender of the Rosario Appellate Chambers." The complaint was added to by the "Permanent Assembly on Human Rights PAHR" (hereinafter "the petitioners") and assigned case file number 12.324.

2. In their complaint, the petitioners argued that the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter "the Argentine State" or "the State") should be held internationally responsible for having condemned Mr. Rubén Luis Godoy to life in prison and the payment of 90,000 pesos in damages for the dual crimes of attempted rape and first degree murder, through a process that had violated his right to a fair trial. Among the guarantees violated, they allege that Mr. Godoy had been coerced into giving a false confession and that that confession had been decisive in the ruling convicting him. They add that although these facts were revealed to the court, the court did not launch an investigation. Additionally, they allege that Mr. Godoy did not have access to a remedy for appealing the ruling convicting him.

3. The petitioners allege that the facts in the complaint constitute a violation of several rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention"), including humane treatment (Article 5), fair trial (Article 8), equal protection (Article 24) and judicial protection (Article 25), all in violation of the general duty to respect and guarantee human rights (Article 1.1) to the detriment of the alleged victims.

4. The State, for its part, indicated that the petition does not include facts indicating violations of rights protected under the Convention. In this sense, the State argued that there is no evidence of physical abuse to pressure Mr. Godoy, nor that such abuse has been duly denounced. The State holds that the conviction was based on many different evidentiary elements, not on the confession allegedly obtained under torture. The State says that Rubén Luis Godoy enjoyed all legal guarantees and that the remedies accessed by him were duly resolved. The State adds that there are other remedies that were not accessed.

5. In report No. 4/04, approved on February 24, 2004, the Commission concluded that the petition was admissible in keeping with that established in articles 46 and 47 of the Convention, and that it would continue to analyze the alleged violations of articles 5.1, 5.2, 8, 25, 1.1 and 2 of the Convention. It also declared the petition with regard to Article 24 of the American Convention inadmissible.

6. In light of the issues of fact and law set forth in this report, the Inter-American Commission concluded during its 140^th Ordinary Period of Sessions that the State of Argentina didn’t adequately investigate the torture, cruel or inhuman treatment allegation made by Mr. Godoy, and thus violated the rights enshrined in articles 8.1 and 25.1 in relation to article 5.1 of the American Convention. In addition, the Commission concludes that the confession made by Mr. Godoy under allegations of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, was used by the court in his trial, in violation of 8.3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that Mr. Godoy had no access to a judicial revision of elements of fact, law and proof and reception of proof that the tribunal considered, thus violating Article 8.2.h and Article 2, all with regard to Article 1.1 of the Convention. Likewise, the Commission concludes iura novit curiae that the State violated articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Rubén Luis Godoy.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING ADMISSIBILITY REPORT No. 04/04

7. On February 24, 2004, the IACHR approved Report No. 04/04, in which it declared petition 12.324, referent to Rubén Luis Godoy, admissible. The decision was communicated to the parties via a letter dated March 12, 2004, which initiated the time period of two months during which the petitioners could present their observations on the merits of the case. At the same time, the IACHR gave the parties the opportunity to reach a friendly settlement in the matter, in keeping with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention.

8. The petitioners accepted the proposal to initiate a process toward a friendly settlement in a brief dated March 25, 2004. On June 10, 2004, the petitioners indicated their desire to continue proceeding with the case, given that an agreement had not been reached with the State. On September 2 and November 1, 2004, as well as on January 6 and May 6, 2005, the petitioners sent additional information. On September 15, 2005, the petitioners requested a hearing, which was not granted. On November 7, 2005, the petitioners repeated that they did not wish to continue with the friendly settlement process and asked the IACHR to continue processing the case. The petitioners presented additional information on July 13, 2007, and May 5, 2010. All the communication mentioned in this paragraph was duly transmitted to the State.

9. The State, for its part, requested that the deadline be extended to May 24, 2004, and the request was granted. On May 12, 2005, the State proposed opening a space for dialogue in order to explore the possibilities of a friendly settlement. On February 13, 2008, it requested a deadline extension, which was granted. The communication mentioned in this paragraph was duly transmitted to the petitioner.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. The petitioners

10. The petitioners indicated that on December 22, 1994, Rubén Luis Godoy was convicted of the dual crimes of attempted rape and first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison and a fine of 90,000 pesos for pain and suffering and damages by the Second Court of the Rosario Criminal Appellate Chamber, Santa Fe Province in proceeding No. 309/93, registered in that jurisdiction, under the provisions of articles 42, 55, 119 subparagraph three, and 80(7) of the Criminal Code of the Nation.

11. According to the petition, the criminal trial of Mr. Godoy began due to his confession of having attempted the rape and murder of 19-year-old Silvia Noemí Roldan in incidents that took place on February 10, 1992, during the early morning hours in the garden of a piece of property owned by Mrs. Gladys Balbuena, located at No. 2832 Almafuerte Street, Villa Gobernador Gálvez, Santa Fe Province.

12. The petitioners charge that the investigation into this crime carried out by the police was incomplete and suffered from several technical deficiencies. Among them was that the victim’s body was washed before carrying out the usual examinations, for which reason important expert testimony could not be counted on for Mr. Godoy’s defense. Likewise, they allege that tests for blood on the clothes of the accused were not made, nor semen tests from the victim, nor an examination for foot or finger prints at the scene of the crime.

13. They also hold that when confronted with the alleged victim, the witnesses for the prosecution could not identify him as Silvia Roldán’s attacker. They also indicate that at the time it examined the evidence on Mr. Godoy’s responsibility, the court ignored the fact that there were several procedural records and statements from witnesses calling into question his presence at the time and place where the crime occurred. Likewise, they allege that they were prevented from questioning a witness who supplied testimony that was important for identifying Godoy as the guilty party. They highlight that the court itself in the judgment it handed down recognized the many errors from which the investigation of the case suffered. According to the ruling, these errors were denounced not only by the official defense attorney aiding Mr. Godoy with the procedure but also by the Public Prosecutor and the plaintiff (the mother of Silvia Roldán). They add that during the process of preparing the judgment, the magistrates did not respect the rules of procedure as provided for in the constitution, convicting Mr. Godoy on the basis of probability and not the certainty of his participation.

14. The petitioners allege that the main evidence on which the conviction was based was a confession given by the accused - in the absence of a defense attorney - before the Provincial Police, after he had been subjected to torture. They specifically denounce that after his arrest; the alleged victim was blindfolded, beaten and insulted by at least six individuals who told him to implicate himself as the person...