Report No. 86 (2014) IACHR. Petition No. 496-01 (Venezuela)

• Year: 2014
• Petition Number: 496-01
• Report Number: 86
• Respondent State: Venezuela
• Case Type: Archive
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Ayari Coromto y otros

REPORT No. 86/14

PETITION 496-01

REPORT ON ARCHIVE

AYARI COROMTO ET AL

VENEZUELA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152

Doc. 18

15 August 2014

Original: Spanish

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

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 86/14, Petition 496-01. A.. Ayari Coromto et al. Venezuela. August 15,2014.

www.iachr.org

REPORT No. 86/14

PETITION 496-01

DECISION TO ARCHIVE

AYARI COROMTO ET AL

VENEZUELA

AUGUST 15, 2014

ALLEGED VICTIM: Ayari Coromto et al

PETITIONER: Herviz González

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS: Articles 3, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Articles XIV and XXIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man

DATE PROCESSING BEGAN: J. 30, 2001

I. POSITION OF THE PETITIONER

1. On J. 30, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by H.G.C. (hereinafter “the petitioner”) on behalf of Ayari Coromto Assing Vargas, O.A.B.D., A.Z.C.B.D., F.R.P.M., G.E.T.T., W.C.M.P., A.J.P.P., A.A.S.S., A.A.B.V., Carlos Jose Padilla Marval, L.M.C.M., N.V., V.J.V.M., J.A.M., Jose Francisco Sánchez Starke and R.E.R. Prado (hereinafter “the alleged victims”), claiming international responsibility of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the S.”) for alleged violations of the rights set forth in Articles 3, 8, 24, 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles XIV and XXIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the Declaration”).

2. The petitioner contended that the alleged victims had obtained their architecture and engineering degrees, respectively, at the technical school of higher education known as the Instituto Universitario Politécnico “S.M.” (hereinafter “the Institute”), which were approved by the Venezuelan Ministry of Education. H., they were unable to become members of the official association of the profession because the Office of Professional Membership of the College of Engineers had rejected their degrees. The petitioners claim that this act constitutes a violation of the alleged victims’ right to work, inasmuch as membership in the professional association was mandatory in order to be able to practice in the field.

3. The petitioner claimed that on J. 11, 1997, she filed a petition for constitutional relief (amparo), which was partially granted on J. 23, 1997. C., the College of Engineers was directed to process the applications for membership and issue a decision on each one. By the account of the petitioner, the applications were processed and they were denied membership once again. In response, the alleged victims filed a motion for “execution of judgment granting constitutional relief,” which was denied on May 21, 1999, as it was ruled that the College of Engineers had indeed complied with the order in the amparo judgment. The petitioner filed an appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the decision.

4. The petitioner also claimed that on April 29, 2001, the College of Engineers took out an article in the daily newspaper “El Nacional” voicing its “concern over the hiring of graduates from certain institutes of higher education, [which are] not authorized by this Institution” and issued the recommendation to “not engage any graduates not certified by this professional association in positions in which they perform competencies typical of engineers and architects.” A., on May 8, 2001, a new communiqué was released by the College of Engineers publicly discrediting the Instituto Politécnico “S.M..” The petitioner argued that this conduct of the College of Engineers violated the alleged victims’ right to equal protection. L., the petitioner claimed that excessive delay in the decision-making process amounted to a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention.

II. POSITION OF THE STATE

5. The S. argued failure to exhaust domestic remedies, on the grounds that the refusal to grant membership by the College of Engineers had been contested through administrative proceedings and, after that avenue had been exhausted, an appeal could have been brought through judicial proceedings by filing a motion to overturn an administrative decision, and the decision on this motion could have also been appealed.

6. As for...