Report No. 95 (2014) IACHR. Petition No. 671-05 (Costa Rica)

• Year: 2014
• Petition Number: 671-05
• Report Number: 95
• Respondent State: Costa Rica
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights
• Alleged Victim: Matt Shirzad

REPORT No. 95/14

PETITION 671-05

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

MATT SHIRZAD

COSTA RICA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.153

Doc. 11

6 November 2014

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2013 held on November 6, 2014
153 Regular Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 95/14, Petition 671-05. A.. Costa Rica. November 6, 2014.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 95/14

PETITION 671-05

ADMISSIBILITY

MATT SHIRZAD

COSTA RICA

November 6, 2014

1. SUMMARY

1. On J. 13, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by M.S. (hereinafter “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) in which he alleged the international responsibility of the S. of Costa Rica (hereinafter “Costa Rica,” “the S.,” or “the Costa Rican S.”) for alleged violations of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) arising from purported ill-treatment and torture committed against him, from an alleged illegal arrest, from the alleged failure to investigate and punish those facts, and from the alleged imposition of disproportionate precautionary measures.

2. In particular, the petitioner claims that due to the excessive use of force, he was tortured by state agents at the time of his arrest, which he claims was illegal. He also contends that the precautionary measures imposed in the proceedings brought against him were disproportionate and gravely affected his health, which in turn led to a permanent physical disability, in that he is now unable to move his right arm. Consequently the petitioner maintains that the S. of Costa Rica is internationally responsible for alleged violations of Articles 1 (obligation to respect rights), 2 (domestic legal effects), 5 (right to humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 10 (right to compensation), 11 (right to privacy), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 22 (freedom of movement and residence), 24 (right to equal protection), and 25 (right to judicial protection). In addition, he claims violations of Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.

3. In turn, the S. contends that it committed no human rights violations; that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies offered by domestic jurisdiction; and that he is seeking to use the IACHR as a fourth instance.

4. W. prejudging the merits of the case, after analyzing the positions of the parties and in compliance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47, the Commission decided to rule the petition admissible in order to examine the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 22, and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof. It also decided to find the petition admissible with respect to the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. In addition, it decided to rule it inadmissible as regards the alleged violation of Articles 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 24, and 26 of the American Convention. Finally, it resolved to notify the parties of this report, to order its publication, and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.

2. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

5. On J. 13, 2005, the Commission received the petition and recorded it as No. 671-05. On M. 27, 2009, it forwarded the petition to the S. and requested that it reply within a period of two months, in compliance with the provisions of Article 30.2 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. T.S.’s reply was received on August 6, 2009, and forwarded to the petitioner on August 27, 2009. In addition, further information from the petitioner was received on the following dates: November 18, 2009; A.3., 2010; September 8, 2010; M.2., 2011; J. 11, 2011; M. 25, 2012; and J. 23, 2013. Those communications were duly forwarded to the S.. In turn, Costa Rica submitted information on February 1 and 22, 2010; J. 15, 2010; M. 11, 2011; February 22, 2012; August 7, 2012; and March 1, 2013. Those communications were duly conveyed to the petitioner.

3. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Position of the Petitioner

6. The petitioner, a U.S. national and living in Costa Rica at the time of the facts, states that proceedings were brought against him for the alleged offense of making criminal threats in the letters he sent to the coordinating judge of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San J., in connection with the alleged illegal search carried out at the premises of the company Ofinter S.A., which was accused of money laundering and in which the petitioner claims to have been an investor. As a consequence of those proceedings, he claims he was illegally arrested and subjected to ill-treatment and torture by officials of the Judicial Investigation Agency (hereinafter “OIJ”).

7. In particular, he contends that his arrest was illegal in that he was never formally summoned to appear in the proceedings brought against him and that, on the contrary, on August 21, 2003, while he was presenting to the Court of Justice of San J. a complaint “for corruption” against the judicial authorities involved in the case against the company Ofinter S.A., he was arrested by four officials of the OIJ, absent any warrant, “in a sudden and violent way,” and with the sole aim of intimidating him for presenting the aforesaid complaint. He also states that he was not informed of the charges or read his rights; neither was he shown an order issued by a judge, provided with the assistance of a translator to help him understand Spanish, or allowed to contact his attorney or the U.S. embassy. The petitioner claims that on that same day, six hours after his arrest, he was released at approximately 7:00 p.m.

8. Regarding the mistreatment and torture he allegedly suffered, he indicates that he told the OIJ agents that he would be unable to bend his arms for them to handcuff him behind his back because his right arm had previously been operated on in the United S.s; in spite of this warning, however, he claims that the OIJ agents brutally forced his arm in order to cuff him, rupturing the nerve that controlled his elbow, forearm, and fingers. He also contends that they beat him while still at the Court of Justice, pushed him down the stairs with excessive force, put him in a prisoner transport vehicle, and finally pushed him into a cell.

9. The petitioner claims that during the proceedings, for more than ten months he was placed under precautionary measures preventing him from leaving the country, as a result of which he was unable to obtain the medical treatment needed to take care of his injury. He states that Costa Rican specialists said it was “totally necessary” for him to be seen by the specialist physician who had operated on his arm fifteen years previously in his home country, since that doctor was the only one who could carry out the transplant of the elbow nerve. The ban on leaving Costa Rica, according to the petitioner, had an irreparable impact on his health, which caused him a disability: his arm lost strength and, as a result, he was unable to work as a chiropractic physician. In connection with the precautionary measures imposed on him and subsequently extended, the petitioner states that he lodged three appeal remedies with the Criminal Court on August 28, 2003, and February 11, 2004, but that they were dismissed. He also claims to have filed two habeas corpus suits with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the Constitutional Chamber”): the first of these, presented on December 3, 2003, was dismissed on December 16, 2003; and the second habeas corpus filing, lodged on February 25, 2004, was upheld on M.2.6, 2004. However, in spite of that favorable judgment, the alleged victim claims he remained under the aforesaid precautionary measure for a further 80 days. The measures were effectively lifted on J. 17, 2004, when the petitioner requested a notarial deed in which the prosecutor, pursuant to the resolution of M.2.6, 2004, indicated that he could now leave the country. In addition, he notes that he filed amparo relief and habeas corpus remedies on December 1, 2003, claiming alleged violations of his rights to life, to physical integrity, and to health as a result of the impact of the precautionary measures imposed on him.

10. The petitioner states that as a result of the alleged illegal detention and the torture he suffered during and after his arrest, he filed a complaint alleging abuse of authority and grievous bodily injuries with the Prosecutor for Crimes against Life on December 18, 2003, but that it was dismissed on February 15, 2004, because of the “insufficient evidence and lack of interest of the complainant.” According to the petitioner, he did not receive notification of this decision. He claims that on J.8., 2005, he sought redress as a civil complainant and that, on August 3, 2006, he filed with the Criminal Court for reactivation, submitting the irrevocable dismissal of his case as a new piece of evidence; he states, however, that this evidence was not even...