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

• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Case Number: 12.324
• Year: 2012
• Report Number: 66
• Respondent State: Argentina
• Case Type: Merits
• Alleged Victim: Rubén Luis Godoy

41

REPORT No. 66/12

CASE 12.324

RUBÉN LUIS GODOY

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ARGENTINA

M. 29, 2012

I. SUMMARY

1. On October 18, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human R.s (hereinafter the "Inter-American Commission," the "Commission" or "the IACHR") received a complaint filed by Mr. R.L.G. and the "Office of the General Public Defender of the Rosario Appellate C.s." The complaint was added to by the "Permanent Assembly on Human R.s 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 S." or "the S.") should be held internationally responsible for having condemned Mr. R.L.G. 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 M.G. 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. A., they allege that M.G. 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 R.s (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 S., for its part, indicated that the petition does not include facts indicating violations of rights protected under the Convention. In this sense, the S. argued that there is no evidence of physical abuse to pressure M.G., nor that such abuse has been duly denounced. The S. holds that the conviction was based on many different evidentiary elements, not on the confession allegedly obtained under torture. The S. says that R.L.G. enjoyed all legal guarantees and that the remedies accessed by him were duly resolved. The S. 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 S. of Argentina didn’t adequately investigate the torture, cruel or inhuman treatment allegation made by Mr. G., 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. G. under allegations of torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, was used by the court in his trial, in violation of 8.3 of the Convention. F., the Commission concludes that M.G. 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. L., the Commission concludes iura novit curiae that the S. violated articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of R. Luis G..

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

7. On February 24, 2004, the IACHR approved R. No. 04/04, in which it declared petition 12.324, referent to R.L.G., admissible. The decision was communicated to the parties via a letter dated M. 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 M. 25, 2004. On J. 10, 2004, the petitioners indicated their desire to continue proceeding with the case, given that an agreement had not been reached with the S.. 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 J. 13, 2007, and May 5, 2010. All the communication mentioned in this paragraph was duly transmitted to the S..

9. The S., for its part, requested that the deadline be extended to May 24, 2004, and the request was granted. On May 12, 2005, the S. 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, R.L. G. 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 C., 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 C. of the Nation.

11. According to the petition, the criminal trial of Mr. G. began due to his confession of having attempted the rape and murder of 19-year-old S.N.R. 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. G.B., located at No. 2832 Almafuerte Street, V.G.G., 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. G.’s defense. L., 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 M.G.’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. L., they allege that they were prevented from questioning a witness who supplied testimony that was important for identifying G. 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 M.G. with the procedure but also by the Public Prosecutor and the plaintiff (the mother of S.R.. 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. G. 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 having committed the crime in order to stop the torment.

15. The complaint reveals that the coercion was made known to the Lower Court Investigative Judge for the Second Criminal District of Rosario on February 19, 1992, when Mr. G. appeared to give his preliminary statement. H., the...