Report No. 97 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 911-08 (Bolivia)

• Year: 2021
• Case Type: Admissibility
• Respondent State: Bolivia
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 97/21

PETITION 911-08

REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY

MANFRED REYES VILLA BACIGALUPI

BOLIVIA

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 102

20 May 2021

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on May 20, 2021.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 97/21, Petition 911-08. A.. Manfred Reyes Villa Bacigalupi. Bolivia. May 20, 2021.

www.iachr.org

I. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PETITION

Petitioner:	Bjorn Arp
:	Manfred R.V.B.
Respondent S.:	Bolivia
Rights invoked:	Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 7 (personal liberty), 8 (fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 20 (nationality), 21 (right to property), 23 (right to participate in government) and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights1 in relation to its article 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (obligation to abide by domestic legal effects) and other international treaties2

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR3

Filing of the petition:	A. 14, 2008
Additional information received at the stage of initial review:	A. 11, 2008, A. 15, 2008, A. 20, 2008, A.1., de 2010, A. 16, 2010, May 13, 2010, J. 10, 2013, J. 27, 2014, M. 16, 2015 and M. 17, 2015
N. of the petition to the S.:	May 31, 2018
S.’s first response:	October 15, 2019

III. COMPETENCE

Competence Ratione personae:	Y.
Competence Ratione loci:	Y.
Competence Ratione temporis:	Y.
Competence Ratione materiae:	Y., American Convention (deposit of the instrument of ratification made on J. 19, 1979)

IV. DUPLICATION OF PROCEDURES AND INTERNATIONAL RES JUDICATA, COLORABLE CLAIM, EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION

Duplication of procedures and International res judicata:	No
Rights declared admissible	Articles 4 (life), 5 (humane treatment), 8 fair trial), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 20 (nationality), 23 (right to participate in government), 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention, in relation to its articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (obligation to abide by domestic legal effects)
Exhaustion of domestic remedies or applicability of an exception to the rule:	Y., in the terms of section VI
Timeliness of the petition:	Y., in the terms of section VI

V. FACTS ALLEGED

1. The petitioner claims that the S. violated the rights of Mr. Manfred R.V.B., since it allowed irregular groups adherent to the government party to attack his integrity. L., argues that afterward it enacted Laws which caused the alleged victim be irregularly removed from his position as prefect and be criminally prosecuted without due judicial guarantees for crimes of corruption.

2. The petitioner narrates that on December 5, 2005 Mr. Reyes Villa Bacigalupi was elected Prefect and General Commander of the Department of Cochabamba for a five-year term. Petitioner claims that, in his view, the at the time President of the Republic tried to centralize the political power of the country by suspending all of the prefects belonging to opposition parties in order to, allegedly, substitute them by people of his trust.

3. Due to this, the petitioner claims that social organizations supportive of the government commenced violent actions against the alleged victim in an aim to remove him from his office. N., on J. 11, 2007 irregular military groups, coca dealers and other followers of the party of the then President started violent actions in Cochabamba against Mr. R.V.B., even setting fire to the building of the Prefecture. He claims that even, in order to avoid the protection of persons being held in that building, the then Minister of Government ordered that police officers leave the Prefecture. Petitioner holds that, in order to save his life, the alleged victim escaped through the back door of the premises onboard of an antiriot tank and that afterward he departed the country.

4. The petitioner informs that, upon achieving that the European Union intervene in the conflict and criticize the actions of the government, Mr. R.V.B. managed to return to Bolivia. N., he claims that he kept receiving threats, including an abduction attempt on his children. A. these lines, he holds that on May 12, 2008, in order to continue with the political persecution against opposing authorities, the National Congress enacted Law Nº 3850, in order to carry out a Recall Referendum by Popular Mandate in regard to the President, Vice-president and Departmental Prefects. That same day the National Electoral Court (hereinafter “NEC”) issued Resolution Nº 57/2008 which approved the Electoral Calendar and established that said referendum take place on A. 10, 2008.

5. Upon this, on J. 11, 2008 the alleged victim filed an indirect or incidental remedy of unconstitutionality against such resolution, claiming flaws worthy of annulment and requesting the suspension of the referendum. He holds that on J. 21, 2008, by means of Resolution Nº 113/2008, the NEC rejected such remedy; ordered to proceed with the referendum; and elevated such decision to the Constitutional Court (hereinafter “CC”). On this matter, the petitioner explains that, as of December 13, 2007, the CC did not have enough quorum to session validly and resolve the remedies under its competence, since a group of magistrates had resigned their positions claiming lack of judicial independence, after having been subject to a trial for responsibilities on May 17, by the government in office at such time. G. this situation, the very J. 21, 2008, the only magistrate on duty issued a Constitutional Decree which confirmed the binding nature of the decisions of the CC and, based on jurisprudential precedents, she exhorted the NEC to suspend the referendum until having a definitive judgment from such court. H., due to the issuance of such decree, the then Vice Minister of Justice filed a criminal complaint against said magistrate on the crime of prevarication, leading that official to resign her post.

6. On J. 28, 2008, the alleged victim resorted to another judicial remedy and challenged the previously mentioned Resolution Nº 113/2008 of the NEC. N., by mid-A. the NEC declared, via Resolution Nº 137/2008, its lack of jurisdiction and competence to hear on such challenge, indicating that the controverted matter required a decision by the CC. Upon this, on A. 1, 2008 the alleged victim filed a constitutional writ of amparo before the Superior Court de Cochabamba against the resolutions issued by the NEC that ordered to proceed with the referendum. In spite of this, On A. 15, 2008 such judicial instance declined its competence in favor of the Superior Court of La Paz, which also declared itself incompetent, raising a competence conflict. The petitioner argues that such matter should have been judged by the CC, but that due to the lack of functioning of such court the cited conflict did not get to be duly settled. Petitioner holds that due to the lack of effectiveness of judicial remedies on A. 10, 2008 the recall referendum took place, resulting in the destitution of the alleged victim as prefect upon not collecting enough votes as to remain in office.

7. The petitioner explains that on A. 14, 2009 presidential elections were held and that Mr. R.V.B. announced his candidateship for such office. Petitioner claims that this decision of the alleged victim caused the government of the then President to initiate new actions of persecution to hinder his candidateship, such as authorities of the government political party to file even criminal complaints against Mr. R.V.B. for alleged crimes of corruption committed during his service as prefect, causing the Prosecutor General of the Republic different proceedings against him. Two of these proceedings which advanced with greater celerity were those known as “Construction of Río Sacambaya Bridge” and “Vinto-Sacambaya Road”, referred to alleged irregularities in the construction of works during the management of Mr. R.V.B..

8. The petitioner argues that the Constitution in force at the time at which the alleged acts of corruption took place which originated such actions, granted Mr. R.V.B. political immunity; due to which the alleged victim raised exceptions of incompetence in two quoted cases, in order for the casefiles to be forwarded to the Congress so they would be conducted as a trial for Responsibilities. H., the petitioner points out that on May 16, 2009 and on May 23, 2009 the Nº 1 and Nº 3 Criminal Trial Courts rejected said remedies, under the argument that article 184 of the B. Constitution of 2009 granted no such immunity to the departmental prefects and that since it was not a substantial norm it implied immediate application. Petitioner holds that Mr. R.V.B. appealed this decision, but on A. 22, 2009 the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the District of Cochabamba, un a unified decision, confirmed the rejection of the remedies.

9. Afterward, the alleged victim initiated a constitutional amparo proceeding against said decision. N., on J. 28, 2010 the Court of Constitutional Guarantees rejected the claim because of lack of active legitimacy, for considering that Mr. R.V.B.’s representative had no representational faculties as to exert Constitutional complaints. In parallel, the Public Defender promoted another amparo in favor of the alleged victim in order to question the judgment of the Third Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of the District of Cochabamba, but...