Report No. 80 (2009) IACHR. Case No. 12.337 (Chile)

• Case Number: 12.337
• Year: 2009
• Report Number: 80
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Chile
• Case Type: Friendly Settlements
• Alleged Victim: Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz

REPORT No. 80/09 CASE 12.337 FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT MARCELA ANDREA VALDÉS DÍAZ CHILE August 6, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. On October 4, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by the Fundación Instituto de la Mujer (hereinafter “the petitioner”), represented by attorneys Juan Pablo Olmedo Bustos and Ciro Colombara López. The petition alleges that the State of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “the Chilean State”) violated Articles 1(1), 2, 5, 8, 11, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter the “Convention of Belém do Pará”) to the detriment of Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz (hereinafter “the alleged victim”). 2. The petitioner argues that Mrs. Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz was a member of Carabineros de Chile [the Chilean police] and that upon getting married in 1994 to Claudio Vázquez Cardinalli, a captain in Carabineros de Chile, she became subject to physical and psychological abuse on the part of the latter, a fact that was brought to the attention of both Carabineros de Chile and the judicial authorities. The petitioner says that Mrs. Marcela Andrea Valdés obtained a court order of permanent protection in 1999. The petitioner says that subsequently, both Mrs. Valdés and her husband asked their superiors for permission to live separately, which was granted. 3. The petitioner claims that based on the foregoing request, the (police) Prefecture of Valdivia opened a summary proceeding to investigate Mrs. Valdés marital relationship, which resulted in the adoption of resolution 14 of June 4, 1999, whereby she was sentenced to 15 days of detention, while two other police officers were given lesser penalties. Before the final decision was delivered, she filed for relief from the courts, whereupon she was sentenced to additional time under arrest for having sought judicial remedies before exhausting the administrative channels. The petitioner says that as a result of these sanctions, she was ultimately discharged. The petitioner adds that Mrs. Valdés went to court to file an appeal challenging her discharge, but her appeals were denied without an examination of the merits of her claims. 4. On October 10, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights adopted Report 57/03, in which it decided to admit the petition with respect to the alleged violations of Articles 5, 8, 11, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of said instrument, and also with respect to the alleged violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Subsequently, in 2006, the State of Chile expressed its readiness to open a dialogue with a view to exploring the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement under the terms of Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention, which was accepted by the petitioners. The Commission facilitated this process through the exchange of written information as well as through working meetings held at the headquarters of the IACHR. 5. On March 11, 2008, the representatives of the State and the petitioners signed a friendly settlement agreement in the course of the 131st regular session of the Inter-American Commission. 6. Pursuant to Articles 49 of the Convention and 41(5) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, this friendly settlement report includes a summary of the petitioners’ allegations, the friendly settlement agreement reached, and the IACHR’s decision to publish it. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 7. Following the adoption of Admissibility Report 57/03, in a communication dated October 27, 2003, the Commission transmitted said report to the parties and granted both the State and the petitioners a short period to respond to the offer of the Commission to place itself at the disposal of the parties pursuant to Articles 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. The petitioners submitted additional observations on merits in a communication dated December 8, 2003, which were relayed to the State in a communication of April 29, 2004, with the request that it present its comments within two months. On April 29, 2004, the IACHR acknowledged receipt of another communication from the petitioner, dated December 8, 2003, in which it authorized Mrs. Carolina Contreras Dupre to act as co-petitioner. 8. In a communication of February 1, 2006, the State expressed its will to the IACHR to submit to a friendly settlement procedure. On February 28, 2006, the IACHR placed itself at the disposal of the parties in order to initiate a friendly settlement procedure. On March 2, 2006, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP and associate professors Valorie K. Vojdik and Julie Goldscheid from West Virginia University and CUNY law schools, respectively, submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the petitioner’s arguments, which was forwarded to the parties on March 23, 2006. The petitioners sent the Commission another communication on April 19, 2006. On May 11, 2006, the Commission acknowledged receipt of the petitioner’s communication of April 19, 2006, and again placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to initiating a friendly settlement procedure. The petitioners reiterated their willingness to initiate a friendly settlement procedure in a communication received on July 5, 2006, and sent another communication on July 10, 2006. The IACHR transmitted the above communications to the State on August 4, 2006. The parties met at the 126th regular session of the IACHR in October 2006. 9. The parties also met in the course of the 127th session of the IACHR in March 2007. The Commission received a a communication from the petitioner on May 3, 2007. On June 7, 2007, the State sent the IACHR a communication which was sent to the petitioner on June 28, 2007. On June 25, 2007, the State requested a working meeting during the 128th regular session of the IACHR. In view of the fact that, by then, the IACHR had already approved, within the regulation time limits, the work program for the 128th regular session, the Commission informed the State in a communication of June 28, 2007, of its refusal of the above request. On September 4, 2007, the petitioner requested a working meeting, which was held in October 2007, in the course of the 130th regular session of the IACHR. On September 28, 2007, the petitioner sent information on progress in the friendly settlement procedure, which was transmitted to the State on November 19, 2007. The State sent a communication on September 11, 2007. 10. On January 2, 2008, the State sent the IACHR a draft friendly settlement agreement which had already been brought to the attention of the petitioner. The Commission acknowledged receipt of this communication on January 10, 2007. On February 14, 2008, the IACHR received a new communication from the State, enclosed in which was the draft friendly settlement agreement to be signed by the parties. The State and the petitioner signed the friendly settlement agreement on March 11, 2008, at a working meeting held at the request of the State of Chile during the 131st regular session of the IACHR. 11. On August 5 and 18, 2008, the IACHR received communications from the State in which it provided information on progress in implementation of the friendly settlement agreement. Those communications were transmitted to the petitioner on August 20 and November 19, 2008, respectively. On September 23, 2008, the State sent the Commission a communication which was forwarded to the petitioner on November 19, 2008. III. THE FACTS 12. The petitioner states that the alleged victim was a member of Carabineros de Chile since 1991 and married Claudio Vázquez Cardinalli, a Carabineros captain, in 1994. The petition notes that since the beginning of her marriage the alleged victim suffered physical and psychological abuse from her husband. The petitioner says that in 1999, Mrs. Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz was a lieutenant serving in the First Precinct of Valdivia Prefecture No. 23. 13. The petitioner claims that Carabineros de Chile was aware of the physical and psychological abuse which Mrs. Marcela Valdés suffered from her husband. According to the petitioner, the foregoing is proven by Resolution No.15 of the Office of Valdivia Prefecture No. 23, which says that on March 29, 1999, the Chief of Valdivia’s First Precinct reported a complaint filed by Marcela Valdés Díaz concerning the couple’s marital problems. The matter was referred to Social Services. The same resolution also mentions that on April 23, 1999, the division in which Mrs. Valdés served was informed that on April 11, 1999, the Precinct Chief himself had gone to the couple’s residence because of a marital dispute caused by a telephone conversation between Mrs. Valdés and a fellow Carabinero and friend. 14. The petitioner also says that the abusive treatment is on record in Carabinero report No. 801 of May 19, 1999, and led to to the filing of a complaint of abuse with the Valdivia First Court of First Instance on May 19, 1999. The petitioner says that this proceeding ended on May 25, 1999, with a court settlement reached in the conciliation hearing required under Chilean law on domestic violence. The petitioner notes that as a result of this conciliation hearing, the alleged victim obtained a court order of permanent protection whereby she was authorized to leave the city with her children in order to avoid “future troubles or physical and psychological aggression.” 15. The petitioner says that in the wake of the above court decision, the alleged victim and her husband requested their superiors authorization to live separately, which was granted on...