Report IACHR. Case No. 12.899 (Uruguay)

• Case Number: 12.899
• Submitted Date: 24 May 2020
• Alleged Victim: Diana Maidanik and others
• Case Type: Cases in the Court
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 169/19

CASE 12.889

REPORT ON MERITS

DIANA MAIDANIK ET AL.

URUGUAY

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.174

Doc. 189

November 9, 2019

Original: Spanish

Approved by the Commission at its session No. 2160 held on November 9, 2019
174 Period of Sessions

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 169/19. C. 12.889. M.. D.M. et al. Uruguay. November 9, 2019

www.cidh.org

I. INTRODUCTION 3

II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES 3

A. Petitioner 3

B. S. 4

III. PROVEN FACTS 6

A. Regarding the grave human rights violations committed during the military dictatorship 6

B. On the Prescription Law (Ley de Caducidad) 7

C. The alleged victims 9

D. Facts of the case and criminal investigations 10

1. Facts relating to L.R., S.R., and D.M. 10

2. Complaint and investigation of the facts 12

3. Regarding the disappearance of L.E.G.G. 13

4. Regarding the investigation into the disappearance of L. Eduardo González González 14

5. The disappearance of O.T.A. 16

6. The investigation into the disappearance of O.T.A. 16

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS 18

A. to life (Article I of the American Declaration) in connection with the death of L.R., S.R. y D.M. 18

B. R.s to recognition as a person before the law (juridical personality), personal liberty, personal integrity, and the right to life (Articles 3, 7, 5, and 4 of the American Convention), in conjunction with the obligation to respect and guarantee rights (Article 1.1 of the same instrument)l ; Article 1.a of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (CIDFP) and rights of recognition of legal personality and civil rights, protection against arbitrary detention and of life, liberty, security, and integrity of persons (Articles XVII, XXV, and I of the American Declaration) with regard to the disappearances of L. Eduardo González González y O.T.A.. 20

1. The disappearance of L.E.G.G. 22

2. The disappearance of O.T.A. 23

3. Conclusion 23

C. R. to justice (Article XVIII of the American Declaration), right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention) in conjunction with the obligation to respect human rights and the duty to adopt provisions under domestic law (Article 1.1 of the aforementioned instrument and Articles I.b and I.d of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 24

1. Due diligence in investigations of extrajudicial executions and forced disappearances 25

2. Enforcement of the E.L. 26

3. R. time 26

4. Conclusion 26

D. R. to humane treatment of the next-of-kin (Article 5 in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention) 27

II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27

1. INTRODUCTION

1. On August 15, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human R.s (hereinafter "the Commission," "the Inter-American Commission," or "the IACHR") received a petition lodged by the Instituto de Estudios Legales y Sociales del Uruguay (IELSUR), alleging the international responsibility of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay (hereinafter "the S.,", "the U.S.," or "Uruguay") for the alleged forced disappearance of L.E.G.G. and O.T.A., as well as the alleged extrajudicial executions of D.M., L.R.O., and S.R. (hereinafter "the alleged victims") and for failure to investigate all those acts.

2. The Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 90/12 on November 8, 2012.2 On January 23, 2013, the Commission notified the parties of that report and placed itself at their disposal with a view to reaching a friendly settlement, to no avail, given the absence of the conditions needed to resolve the case through that procedure. The parties were afforded the regulatory time to present additional observations as to merits. All the information received was duly relayed between the parties.

2. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner

3. The petitioner stated that between 1973 and 1985 the Eastern Republic of Uruguay was ruled by a civil-military dictatorship. It reported that it was during that period that the forced disappearances of L. Eduardo González and O.T.A. were committed, as well as the extrajudicial executions of D.M., Laura R. Odizzio, and S.R..

4. Regarding D.M., L.R.O., and S.R., the petitioner stated that on A. 21, 1974, while all three women were sleeping in S.R.'s apartment, they were extrajudicially executed by members of the Joint S. Security Forces, who were looking for S.R.'s husband. The petitioner pointed out that the press, at that time manipulated by the civil-military dictatorship, reported that the women had died in a confrontation. It added that on J. 20, 1985, it had filed criminal charges with respect to all the acts committed.

5. As regards the forced disappearance of L.E.G., the petitioner indicated that on December 13, 1974, he and his wife were detained and taken to Cavalry Regiment No. 6. It reported that after several efforts to ascertain his whereabouts, on December 26, 1974, the F.A.D. had issued a communique stating that M.G. had fled during a reconnaissance procedure, as a result of which, in January 1975, the Army's J.F. had issued a summons for him to appear. The petitioner pointed out that the alleged victim was seen by his wife and other detainees in the regiment, in poor physical and mental state as a result of the tortures to which he had been subjected.

6. It stated that on J. 2, 2003, the Peace Commission of the Office of the President of the Republic reported on the investigation carried out with regard to M.G., stating that after having been taken to Cavalry Regiment No. 6, he had been subjected to severe forms of torture and had subsequently died, on December 26, 1974. It stated that his remains had been buried in Battalion 14 in Toledo, exhumed toward the end of 1984, burned and tossed into the River Plate (Rio de la Plata).

7. Regarding the forced disappearance of O.T.A., the petitioner sated that he had been detained on J. 19, 1977, by persons identified as members of the J.F., who beat him and dragged him out of his home. The petitioner reported that after his detention, someone being held in the clandestine "La Tablada" detention center claimed to have heard Mr. Tassino's voice there as he was being tortured. As for steps taken to ascertain his whereabouts, the alleged victim's wife stated that she had gone to the police, where an intelligence service captain told her that Mr. Tassino had been detained in January 1974 and released four days later. Since then, he had been subpoenaed to appear. The petitioner pointed out, that notwithstanding the above, there had been a series of subsequent communications in which the S. reported that it knew nothing about the circumstances surrounding Mr. Tassino's detention or regarding his whereabouts.

8. The petitioner indicated that the Peace Commission reported that Mr. Tassino had been detained on a farm by military personnel on J. 19, 1977 and taken to a clandestine detention center, where he had been tortured and had died as a result of a heavy blow. That Commission stated that his remains had been buried in Battalion 14 in Toledo, exhumed toward the end of 1984, burnt and tossed into the River Plate. The petitioner stressed that that information differs from the contents of a subsequent report of August 2005, in which an army commander states that Mr. Tassino had died on J. 24, 1977, after committing suicide on his way to a restroom, when he was unaccompanied.

9. The petitioner added that on J. 20, 1985, it had filed criminal charges with respect to all the acts committed. it mentioned that the Amnesty Law (Law 15.737) had been issued in 1985, followed by Law 15.848 in 1986 (Extinction of Legal Actions/Expiry of Punitive Claims of the S., or Ley de Caducidad). The petitioner states that the bodies responsible for investigating the instant case construed that the facts of the case were included in the amnesty granted by the Ley de Caducidad (hereinafter Expiry Law), and therefore shelved all charges. The petitioner argued that in response to that, in 1986 he had filed appeals for the E.L. to be declared unconstitutional. H., those appeals were dismissed in Judgment No. 184 of May 2, 1988.

10. The petitioner stated that in 2005 it had requested a reopening of the inquiries shelved as a result of the E.L.. It mentioned that in the case of L.E.G., despite an opinion in favor of reopening the investigations by the prosecutor responsible for keeping track of them, the magistrate...