Report No. 7 (2016) IACHR. Case No. 12.213 (Brasil)

• Case Number: 12.213
• Year: 2016
• Report Number: 7
• Respondent State: Brasil
• Case Type: Merits
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Aristeu Guida da Silva y familia

REPORT No. 7/16

CASE 12.213

REPORT ON MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ARISTEU GUIDA DA SILVA AND FAMILY

BRAZIL

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.157

D.. 11

13 A. 2016

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2061 held on A. 13, 2016
157 Regular Period of Sessions.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 7/16, C. 12.213. Merits (Publication). A.G. da S. and family. B.. A. 13, 2016.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 7/16

CASE 12.213

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ARISTEU GUIDA DA SILVA AND FAMILY

BRAZIL
A. 13, 2016

INDEX

I.SUMMARY 1

II.PROCESSING SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY REPORT……………………………………………………...1

III.POSITION OF THE PARTIES……………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

A..... .....P. of the petitioner 3

B. Position of the S. 4

IV.FACTS PROVEN…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...5

A..... .....J. work of the alleged victim, threats received, and the motive for his murder 6

B. Circumstances of the murder 10

C. The police investigation 10

D. The criminal proceedings 15

i. Criminal case against defendant I. dos A.R. (case No. 1997.051.000171-0) 19

ii. Criminal case against defendant C.M. de Pinho (case No. 1997.051.000241-6) 23

iii. Criminal case against defendant V.R.P.S. (case No. 1997.051.000172-2) 24

iv. Threats and harassment of witnesses and judges during the investigations and the criminal proceedings 25

E. Actions of the death squads in the S. of Rio de Janeiro 28

V.ANALYSIS OF THE MERITS………………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

A. Analysis of the violations of the right to life (Article 4) and to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), in relation to the S.’s general obligation to respect rights (Article 1.1), enshrined in the American Convention. 30

i. Inter-American standards on the obligations of the S.s in cases of the murder of journalists for the exercise of their right to freedom of expression 31

a. Obligation to prevent 34

b. Obligation to protect 35

c. Obligation to investigate, prosecute, and if appropriate, punish the perpetrators 36

ii. F. analysis of the instant case 41

a. Obligation to respect the rights to life and freedom of expression 41

b. Obligation to protect and prevent violations of the rights to life and freedom of expression……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………43

c. Obligation to investigate violations of the rights to life and freedom of expression 44

B. Analysis of the alleged violation of the rights to a fair trial (Article 8) and judicial protection (Article 25), in relation to the general obligation to respect rights (Articles 1.1), of the American Convention 45

i. Protection from threats, intimidation, or pressure on judges, prosecutors, and witnesses 47

ii. I. of perpetrators and exhaustion of lines of investigation 49

iii. R. time period 52

iv. Obligation to facilitate the participation of the victims in the investigations 53

C. Analysis of the violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5), in relation to the general obligation to respect rights (Articles 1.1), of the American Convention 53

VI.ACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT Nº 39/14…………………………………………………………………………55

VII.ACTIONS SUBSEQUENT TO REPORT Nº 23/15…………………………………………………………….…………..56

VIII.ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………..57

IX.CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………………………………………..57

X. PUBLICATION 58

REPORT No. 7/16¹

CASE 12.213

MERITS (PUBLICATION)

ARISTEU GUIDA DA SILVA AND FAMILY

BRAZIL
A. 13, 2016

I. SUMMARY

1. On September 23, 1999, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition filed by R.T., representing the Inter American Press Association (hereinafter “the petitioner”), alleging the responsibility of the Federative R. of B. (hereinafter “the S.” or “the B.ian S.”) for violations of the human rights of journalist A.G. da S. and his relatives.

2. According to the petitioner, M.G.d.S. was murdered in M. 1995 for reasons related to the practice of journalism. The petitioner alleged that the S. failed to take measures to protect the alleged victim’s life, and that the S.’s failure to diligently investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators of this crime has allowed the murderers to go unpunished, and has hindered the work of other journalists in the region where the events occurred. It asserted that this constitutes a violation of the rights to life, to a fair trial, to freedom of thought and expression, and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in relation to the general obligation to respect rights provided for in Article 1.1 thereof. A., the petitioner asked the IACHR to recommend several reparations measures to the S..

3. The S. alleged that the murder of M.G. da S. was committed by private individuals, and therefore the S. cannot be held internationally responsible for that crime. It also indicated that the national courts have acted with due diligence in the investigation and criminal prosecution of the alleged perpetrators, and thus asserts that the human rights violations alleged by the petitioner cannot be established in the instant case.

4. On O. 22, 2003, the IACHR adopted Report No. 73/03, in which it declared the petition admissible in relation to Articles 4 (Right to life), 8 (Right to a fair trial), 13 (Freedom of thought and expression), and 25 (Judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof.

5. U. examining the merits of the case, the Commission concluded that the S. is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 and 13 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Mr. G. da S. and Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to his relatives.

2. PROCESSING SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY REPORT

6. On December 4, 2003, the Commission gave notice to the parties of the Admissibility Report; granted them a period of two months to submit additional observations on the merits of the petition, and made itself available to the parties to facilitate a friendly settlement process.

7. On February 6, 2004, the Commission received the petitioner’s submission of J. 30, 2004, providing additional observations on the merits of the petition and underscoring their interest in the friendly settlement process. On February 20, 2004, the Commission transmitted the pertinent parts of the petitioners’ submission to the S. with a request for any observations to be submitted within one month. The S. did not submit any observations on the petitioner’s communication.

8. On September 10, 2004, the Commission asked the parties to submit, within one month, several documents that related to the analysis of the merits of the case. N. party responded to the Commission’s request within the specified time period.

9. On J. 31, 2006, the Commission reiterated its request that the S. submit its observations to the petitioner’s J. 30, 2004 submission, and submit its final observations on the merits of the petition within two months.

10. On M. 22, 2006, the Commission received the S.’s communication dated M. 15, 2006, in which it agreed to enter into a friendly settlement process in the case. The submission was forwarded to the petitioner on J.2., 2006, and the petitioner was given two months to present their observations on the matter.

11. On J. 11, 2006, the IACHR received another submission from the S. reiterating its interest in the friendly settlement process. That communication was forwarded to the petitioner on J. 26, 2006.

12. On A. 3 and 17, 2006, the Commission received a submission from the petitioner dated J....