Report No. 74 (2014) IACHR. Petition No. 1294-05 (Brasil)

• Year: 2014
• Petition Number: 1294-05
• Report Number: 74
• Respondent State: Brasil
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Mário de Almeida Coelho Filho y familia

REPORT No. 74/14

PETITION 1294-05

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

MÁRIO DE ALMEIDA COELHO FILHO AND FAMILY

BRAZIL

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152

D.. 6

15 A. 2014

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2002 held on A. 15, 2014
152 Extraordinary Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 74/14, Petition 1294-05. A.. M. de A.C.F.a.F.. B.. A. 15, 2014.

www.cidh.org

REPORT NO. 74/14¹

PETITION 1294-05

ADMISSIBILITY

MÁRIO DE ALMEIDA COELHO FILHO AND FAMILY

BRAZIL

AUGUST 15, 2014

1. SUMMARY

1. On November 14, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission" or the "IACHR") received a petition filed by the Inter-American Press Association (hereinafter "the petitioner") alleging that the S. of B. (hereinafter "the S." or "B.") is internationally responsible for violating Articles 4 (right to life), 13 (freedom of expression) 8 (fair trial) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the "American Convention" or the “Convention”) to the detriment of journalist M. de A.C.F. and his relatives.

2. According to the petitioner, M. de A.C.F., a reporter, photographer, and administrative director for the newspaper A Verdade in the city of Magé, Rio de Janeiro state, was murdered on A. 16, 2001, when he was shot five times after arriving in a vehicle to his home, which also served as the newspaper’s headquarters. According to the petitioner, the probable motives behind the murder included allegations published in A Verdade against politicians in the Baixada Fluminense region, one of the most violent regions in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The petitioner indicates that the murder of the journalist and the absence of a proper investigation by the S. into the facts represent a violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention.

3. For its part, the S. maintains that the petition is inadmissible because it does not meet the basic standards for admissibility established in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. In this sense, the S. argued that: (i) domestic remedies had not been exhausted; (ii) the facts established did not represent violations of rights enshrined in the Convention; and (iii) the petition would require the Commission to act as a "fourth instance."

4. After examining the positions of the parties in light of the admissibility requirements established in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, as well as Articles 30 and 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the Inter-American Commission decides to declare the petition admissible with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 8, 13, and 25 of the American Convention, in light of the general obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. F., the Commission decides to notify the parties and publish this report and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s.

II. PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

5. The petition was received by the IACHR on November 14, 2005. On April 24, 2006, the petition was accepted for processing by the IACHR, and on that same day, the Commission sent the pertinent parts to the S., asking that it submit its response within the two months of receiving that communication. On J. 11, 2006, the S. asked for an extension of the deadline for submitting its response. On J. 25, 2006, the IACHR granted the S. a deadline extension of 60 days. On A. 4, 2006, the S. submitted its response to this petition, and its pertinent parts were sent to the petitioner on A. 11, 2006.

6. On September 26, 2006, the petitioner submitted its brief with observations, and its pertinent parts were sent to the S. on O. 11, 2006. On December 1, 2006, the S. asked that the petitioner’s brief with observations be translated into Portuguese. On January 16, 2007, the IACHR asked the petitioner for a copy of its brief in Portuguese. This was submitted by the petitioner on January 22, 2007. On M. 21, 2007, this communication was sent to the S.. On J. 29, 2007, the S. submitted additional observations, which the Commission sent to the petitioner on J. 26, 2007. On A. 27, 2007, the petitioner asked for an extension of the deadline for submitting observations. This was granted by the IACHR on September 6, 2007.

7. On J. 30, 2009, the IACHR asked for additional information from the parties regarding the petition. On A. 31, 2009, the S. asked for a deadline extension, which was granted by the Commission on September 18, 2009. On January 8, 2010, and January 19, 2010, the S. submitted additional information on the petition. This was sent to the petitioner on January 22, 2010, and on February 19, 2010. On May 9, 2012, the IACHR asked the petitioner for additional information. On J. 19, 2013, the petitioner submitted additional observations. These were sent to the S. on O. 2, 2013. On November 11, 2013, the S. submitted additional observations. On December 17, 2013, the IACHR sent the S.’s observations to the petitioner.

III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the petitioner

8. The petitioner alleged in its petition that M. de Almeida C.F., a reporter, photographer, and administrative director for the newspaper A Verdade in the city of Magé, was murdered on A. 16, 2001. It stated that the alleged victim died when he was shot five times after arriving in a vehicle to his home, which also served as the newspaper’s headquarters. According to the petitioner, the probable motives for the murder included allegations published in A Verdade against politicians in the Baixada Fluminense region, one of the most violent regions in the state of Rio de Janeiro.

9. In this sense, the petitioner indicated that in the months prior to his murder, C.F. had been accusing members of the O. of the Mayor in the city of Magé of acts of corruption, abuse of economic power, and mismanagement of public funds. It also observed that C.F. was being sued by J. Camilo Z. dos Santos - the mayor of the city of D. de Caxias and husband of N.Z., mayor of the city of Magé - over a report stating that N. had had an affair with one of her security guards. It stated that C.F. was murdered one day before he was supposed to testify in this proceeding.

10. L., according to the petitioner, at the time of his death, C.F. was investigating allegations of corruption against Z. dos Santos. The petitioner observed that a number of documents on legal proceedings brought by different individuals and organizations against Z. dos Santos were found with the journalist’s body. It also noted that petitions were found that had been filed with the O. of the Mayor of Caxias do Sul on embezzlement of education funds and corruption in the distribution of food.

11. In addition, the petitioner stated that the journalist regularly reported on the actions of G.F.N., who at the time was a city councilmember for Magé. The petitioner observed that C.F. had published reports on his relationship with another councilmember in the Municipal Chamber and had insinuated in A Verdade that the councilmember did not have a high school diploma.

12. The petitioner also observed that the journalist had received death threats by telephone four months prior to his murder. He had announced receiving these threats in his newspaper. The petitioner also indicated that the journalist had been the victim of death threats over his reports on politicians in the Baixada Fluminense region. It added that in that incident, the journalist had also been violently overtaken by a vehicle while driving his car on the highway. According to the petitioner, C.F. reported the incident to the police in the city of Magé and informed that he had published reports at that time on facts surrounding the activities of councilmember F.N., councilmember E.F., and member of the state house of deputies N.C..

13. According to the petitioner, following the conclusion of the police investigations, on December 17, 2002, the O. of the Public Prosecutor filed charges against councilmember Genivaldo F. Nogueira and former military police officer R.P.S., alleging that they were the mastermind and perpetrator of the victim’s murder, respectively. The petitioner observed that the investigations had concluded that, after following the victim for four days, former military police officer P.S. had murdered the journalist. The petitioner reported that the accused, P.S., had fled, so the criminal trial of councilmember G.F.N. was the only one that moved forward.

14. The petitioner observed that on J. 24, 2003, the Magé Criminal Court issued a “pronuncia” ruling against F.N., based on which he was brought to trial before a jury. It explained that on J. 30, 2005, F.N. was acquitted by the 3rd Jury Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro for insufficient evidence. It reported that...