Report No. 84 (2012) IACHR. Petition No. 677-04 (Ecuador)

• Petition Number: 677-04
• Year: 2012
• Report Number: 84
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Respondent State: Ecuador
• Alleged Victim: Luis Fernando García García y otros
• Case Type: Admissibility

11

REPORT No. 84/12

PETITION 677-04

ADMISSIBILITY

LUIS FERNANDO GARCÍA GARCÍA AND FAMILY

ECUADOR

N. 8, 2012

1. SUMMARY

1. On May 24, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by the Permanent Committee for the Defense of Human Rights [Comité Permanente por la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos] (hereinafter “the petitioners”)¹ claiming that the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the S.” or “the Ecuadorean S.”) is liable for the detention, torture and death of Luis F.G.G. (hereinafter “the alleged victim” or “Mr. G.”), allegedly perpetrated by members of the Ecuadorean Air Force after Mr. G. was detained on N. 18, 1985, as well as for the absence of a fair trial and judicial protection with regard to investigating, trying and punishing those responsible for these acts.

2. The petitioners allege that the S. is responsible for violation of the rights to life, humane treatment, a fair trial and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”), all of which are pursuant to the general obligation to respect and ensure rights, provided for in Article 1(1) thereof. For its part, the S.s alleges that the petition is inadmissible given that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. The S. likewise alleges that the Commission cannot operate as a fourth instance.

3. After studying the position of the parties in light of the admissibility requirements provided for in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission has concluded that it is competent to hear the claim and that such claim is admissible for alleged violation of rights enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of L.F.G.G., and Articles 5, 8 and 25 thereof to the detriment of his family members. The Commission shall also analyze during the merits stage the potential violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. As a result, the Commission provides that the parties be notified of the report and orders the report to be published and included in its Annual R. to the OAS General Assembly.

2. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4. The Commission received the petition and registered it under number 677-04. After a preliminary evaluation, on September 9, 2009, the IACHR sent the relevant parts of the petition to the S. so it could submit its observations. On O. 16, 2009, the S. requested an extension to submit its response, which was granted by the Commission. On December 1, 2009, the S. presented its response, which was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. The petitioners submitted their response on J. 8, 2010, and this was sent to the S. for its observations. The S.’s response was received on February 16, 2010 and was transmitted to the petitioners for their reference.

5. On M. 23, 2010, the petitioners submitted additional information, which was sent to the S. for its observations. On A. 23, 2010, the S. submitted its response, which was transmitted to the petitioners for their reference. On J. 20, 2010, the petitioners submitted additional information which was forwarded to the S. for its remarks. On September 9 and O. 27, 2010, the S. requested extensions for submitting its response, which were respectively granted by the IACHR. On N. 22, 2010, the S.’s observations were received and these were transmitted to the petitioners for their reference. On February 7, 2011, the petitioners provided additional information, which was conveyed to the S. for its reference. On February 11, 2011, the petitioners submitted additional information, which was forwarded to the S. for its observations. By means of a brief dated J., 28, 2011, the S. provided its observations, which were transmitted to the petitioners for their information.

III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A. Position of the petitioners

6. The petitioners submit their claim based on the alleged facts surrounding the death of L.F.G., which occurred in N. 1985, while Mr. G. was said to be in the custody of agents of the S., whom the petitioners maintain purportedly subjected Mr. G. to a series of acts of torture that led to his death. They affirm that these acts have gone unpunished as they have not been properly submitted to trial and all the parties responsible have not been punished. To support their arguments the petitioners state that a “Truth Commission” was created in Ecuador to investigate “crimes of the S.” and that Mr. G.’s case was addressed in a report presented by said Commission.

7. As regards the facts, the petitioners state that M.G. worked as a stevedore for the firm Asociación de Servicios Aeroportuarios (hereinafter referred to as “ASA”) in the “Simón Bolívar” Airport in the city of Guayaquil. They allege that on N. 18, 1985, M.G. was detained together with other ASA workers by officials of the Ecuadorean Air Force (hereinafter referred to by the Spanish acronym “FAE”). They allege that the detention took place as part of an investigation of a missing camera that the Commander of the Second Aerial Zone, L. General J.A.C., had ordered at the behest of a retired Air Force L. Colonel, A.M.J.. They state that the alleged victim’s detention was carried out without a court order and that, instead of being taken before a civilian court judge, he was taken to the Guayaquil Air Force Base where he was allegedly held.

8. The petitioners state that on N. 23, M.N.C.C., wife of the alleged victim, went to visit him at the FAE Base. Mr. G. told his wife that he had been the victim of alleged acts of torture at the hands of FAE officials and gave her his work uniform, which was “completely bloodied.” The petitioners further state that on N. 25, Ms. Cevallos was informed that her husband had passed away and his body had been taken to the morgue.

9. The petitioners state that on N. 26, 1985, Ms. N.C. filed a complaint with the Sixth Precinct [Comisario Sexto] of the National Police regarding her husband’s death, accusing several FAE officials as the alleged perpetrators of this act. They point out that on this same day, a “legally-mandated autopsy” was done by two National Police coroners under the oversight of the Sixth Precinct of the National Police. This autopsy concluded that the cause of death was “a heart attack,” a version of events that was repeated by the Commander of the Second Aerial Zone, L. General J.A.C., during a press C. convened as a result of the facts that occurred².

10. The petitioners state that the alleged victim’s family members “challenged” the autopsy findings, and on J. 2, 1986, the victim’s body was exhumed by experts from the Forensic Sciences Institute of the University of Guayaquil. They point out that based on the new examination of the alleged victim’s body, it was concluded that his death had come about due to “a combination of causes” that stemmed from “severe multiple trauma to different parts of his body […] principally to the cranium and right kidney, associated with asphyxiation caused by submersion.”

11. The petitioners state that the report submitted by the aforementioned Forensic Sciences Institute was later upheld by the Office of the Prosecutor General of the S. [Procuraduría General del Estado] on N. 10, 1986. In this regard, they assert that it can be deduced from the injuries shown in this autopsy that Mr. G. had been tortured while in custody of FAE officials, and that these acts caused his death. In this sense, the petitioners assert that the S. is liable for violating Mr. F.G.’s right to life and to humane...