Report No. 71 (2010) IACHR. Petition No. 691-04 (Honduras)

• Year: 2010
• Petition Number: 691-04
• Report Number: 71
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Honduras
• Alleged Victim: Omar Francisco Canales Ciliezar

9

REPORT No. 71/10

PETITION 691-04

ADMISSIBILITY

OMAR FRANCISCO CANALES CILIEZAR

HONDURAS

July 12, 2010

1. SUMMARY

1. On August 4, 2004, Mr. Omar Francisco Canales Ciliezar (hereinafter “the petitioner” and/or “the alleged victim”), acting on his own behalf, lodged a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission,” or “the IACHR”) against the State of Honduras (hereinafter, “the State,” “Honduras” or the “Honduran State”), in which he claimed that on August 9, 2001, he had been dismissed, in an arbitrary fashion and without following the procedure provided for by law, from his position as the First Supernumerary Trial Judge of Juticalpa, Department of Olancho, Honduras.

2. Mr. Omar Francisco Canales Ciliezar claims that the facts described in this petition entail the violation of constitutional provisions directly related to the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”). He also alleges violations of Articles XVIII and XXIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter the “American Declaration”) and of Articles 8 and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He states that he has complied with the admissibility requirements and, in particular, that he has exhausted the resources afforded by domestic jurisdiction. In connection with this, he rejects the State’s claims regarding the need to file for amparo relief, holding that it is not applicable to his case since it is a remedy not covered by the domestic laws that apply to him, since it is a remedy of an extraordinary nature, and since, in addition, it would be heard by the same body that issued the order for his dismissal that he is challenging in this claim.

3. The State asks the IACHR to declare this petition inadmissible on the grounds that the petitioner has not exhausted the available domestic remedies. Specifically, it notes that in accordance with the Constitution, the petitioner could have filed for amparo relief to secure a domestic solution to his alleged situation.

4. After examining the parties’ positions in light of the admissibility requirements set out in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission concludes that it is competent to hear the claim and that the petition is admissible as regards the alleged violation of the rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, under the principle of iura novit curia. In addition, the Commission resolves to give notice of this decision to the parties, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS).

2. PROCESSING BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

5. On August 4, 2004, the Commission received a complaint lodged by Mr. Omar Francisco Canales Ciliezar and registered it as No. 691-04. On October 13, 2006, it forwarded the relevant parts of the complaint to the State and requested that it return its reply within a period of two months, in compliance with the provisions of Article 30.3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”). The State’s reply was received on December 12, 2006.

6. In addition, the IACHR received information from the petitioner on the following dates: April 18, 2007; September 4, 2007; January 29, 2008; June 4, 2008; December 18, 2008; and April 14, 2009. Those communications were duly forwarded to the State.

7. Similarly, the IACHR received comments from the State on the following dates: June 26, 2007; January 18, 2008, May 1, 2008; September 15, 2008; and January 21, 2009. Those communications were duly conveyed to the petitioner.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner

8. The petitioner states that he began his employment with the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Honduras, in the position of First Supernumerary Trial Judge of Juticalpa, Olancho department, on November 16, 2000, under appointment order No. 1578 of November 10, 2000. He reports that on August 9, 2001, by means of order No. 1050, he was dismissed by the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Honduras, in accordance with a recommendation made by that court’s Criminal Chamber, for allegedly having incurred in “irregularities in the performance of his duties.”

9. He claims that the Criminal Chamber recommended his immediate dismissal to the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice, alleging that he had committed irregularities in cases placed before him. However, he maintains that when those cases were referred to higher courts on appeal, his resolutions were upheld, and so he claims to be ignorant of the alleged irregularities referred to by the Criminal Chamber. He also states that the resolution issued by the Criminal Chamber – and later taken into consideration by the plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Honduras in adopting its decision – was not made available to him because he was allegedly denied a photocopy of his administrative file.

10. He adds that the Criminal Chamber summoned him to an evidentiary hearing, with which it assumed the powers of other agencies. In this regard, the petitioner states that Article 319 of the Constitution does not grant the Criminal Chamber the authority to resolve administrative conflicts, a power reserved exclusively for the Personnel Administration Directorate. He therefore claims that this constituted a violation of the principle of the presumption of innocence, which protects all accused persons from being declared guilty save by a competent authority and through due process. He further claims that the Criminal Chamber refused to allow him to present evidence in his defense and failed to hear him.

11. In connection with this, he notes that under Honduran legislation, the Judicial Career Law, regulating relations between the judiciary and its officers, provides no grounds for dismissal on account of “irregularities in the performance of duties.” He explains that this law sets out the procedure to be followed in dismissing an employee or officer of the judiciary, and that this procedure was not observed in his case. Specifically, he notes that authority to investigate the actions of judicial employees or officers lies with the Inspectorate of Courts, and the authority to hear them at trial lies with the Personnel Administration Directorate, both of which are subsidiary bodies of the Supreme Court of Justice, pursuant to the terms of Article 6 of the Judicial Career Law. He therefore maintains that his dismissal by the plenary of the Supreme Court violated the internal procedural regulations, to his detriment.

12. On account of that situation, the petitioner reports that on August 24, 2001, he filed an objection remedy with the Council of the Judicial Career, the agency responsible for overseeing the rights of judicial employees and officers, describing the arbitrary actions and violations committed by the Supreme Court of Justice. He states that on September 4, 2003, that Council ruled his application groundless. According to the petitioner, the Council did not prove the legality of the grounds for his dismissal and illegally admitted evidence submitted by the Supreme Court. He notes that the Council took more than two years to give its decision, when judgments are to be handed down within five working days after assessing the evidence.

13. He reports that he was served notice of the judgment issued by the Council of the Judicial Career, a dependent body of the Supreme Court of Justice, on February 3, 2004.

14. In light of the facts described above, he claims that he suffered violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 80, 82 and 90.1 of the Constitution of Honduras, as they correlate to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, Articles XVIII and XXIV...