Report No. 40 (2021) IACHR. Petition No. 11.562 (Honduras)

• Year: 2021
• Case Type: Friendly Settlements
• Respondent State: Honduras
• Court: Inter-American Comission of Human Rights

REPORT No. 40/21

CASE 11.562

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT REPORT

DIXIE MIGUEL URBINA ROSALES

HONDURAS

OEA/Ser.L/V/II.

D.. 44

20 M. 2021

Original: Spanish

Approved electronically by the Commission on M. 20, 2021.

Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 40/21, C. 11.562. Friendly Settlement. Dixie Miguel U.R., Honduras. M. 20, 2021.

www.cidh.org

REPORT No. 40/21

CASE 11.562

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

DIXIE MIGUEL URBINA ROSALES

HONDURAS
MARCH 20, 2021

1. SUMMARY AND RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT PROCESS

1. On November 17, 1995, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition presented by the Committee of The Family Members of Disappeared Detainees in Honduras “COFADEH” (“hereinafter the petitioners ”), in which the international responsibility of the Republic of Honduras (“ hereinafter “the S.”, “the S. of Honduras” or the “H.S.”) was alleged for the forced disappearance up to this date of D.M.U.R., who was allegedly arrested on October 22, 1995, by a patrol of the Public Security Force (FUSEP). The petitioners have not been able to find his whereabouts and those responsible for these actions so they could be identified, tried, and punished.

2. The petitioner party alleged the violation of the rights established in articles 4 (right to life), article 5 (right to humane treatment), article 8 (judicial guarantees) and article 25 (judicial protection guarantees) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”). They also alleged the violation of the general obligation of the S. to respect the rights protected in the Convention in accordance with Article 1 (1) thereof.

3. On October 9, 2002, the IACHR issued an Admissibility Report No. 46/02 on case 11,562 D.M.U.R., in which it decided to declare the case admissible on the alleged violation of Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to personal integrity), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (judicial guarantees) and 25 (guarantees of judicial protection) in accordance with Article 1.1 of the American Convention.

4. On M. 17, 2017, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement to put an end to the dispute through an alternative way to the contentious proceedings. S., on October 2, 2020, by notice to the IACHR, the petitioner party expressed its willingness to move forward with the approval of the friendly settlement agreement, taking into consideration a partial and acceptable compliance with the commitments assumed in the friendly settlement agreement by the S., requesting the supervision of the commitments pending fulfillment.

5. In this friendly settlement report, as established in Article 49 of the Convention and in Article 40.5 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, a review of the facts alleged by the petitioners is made and the friendly settlement agreement signed on M. 17, 2017 between the petitioners and representatives of the H.S. is transcribed. L., the agreement signed between the parties is approved and the publication of this report in the Annual Report of the IACHR to the General Assembly of the Organization of American S.s is agreed.

2. THE FACTS ALLEGED

6. The petitioners alleged that on October 22, 1995, a patrol of the Public Security Force (hereinafter the “FUSEP”) detained A.A.J. and D.M.U.R. in a barber shop, taking them to the Posting of this force in the La Granja neighborhood. The petitioners clarified that, given that Dixie carried a birth certificate with the name of Ramón Antonio Ortega Vázquez, his detention would have been registered under that name, and that while Mr. A.J. would have been released on the same day, Mr. D.U. remained in detention, and was later transferred to the Seventh Battalion of the Public Security Force (FUSEP).

7. According to what is alleged by the petitioners, on October 23 during the morning, D.U. was taken from prison cell number 3, where he was being held together with other people, and since then his whereabouts have been unknown. On the same day, her sister Wendy Dayanara U.R. and her husband, O.R.R., reportedly went to the Seventh Command of the FUSEP to investigate his whereabouts. At said place, they were informed that he had been released because of a "pardon" order around 7:00 a.m. A witnesses who would have met D.U. during his stay in cell number 3 of the Seventh Battalion, allegedly indicated that he was not released, but had actually disappeared from the Battalion. L., as indicated by the petitioners, Mr. A.A. Jiménez, who had been initially detained with the victim, also went to the Central Penitentiary to inquire into the situation of D.U., and the officers reported, “There is no Dixie in here”.

8. The petitioners indicated that the S. had created an “Investigation Commission to learn all the internal details and subsequently report on the alleged disappearance of the Honduran citizen Dixie M.U. Rosales, alias R.A.O.V.” (hereinafter “the Investigation Commission”), which concluded that the arrest of U.R. was due to Mr. Adamis Oyuela Carranza denouncing D.U. and A.A.J. "for insulting him at the barbershop in a threatening manner." In this regard, the petitioners alleged that the conclusion of the Investigation Commission does not correspond to the statement made by Mr. Oyuela before the First Instance Second Criminal Court, who mentioned that he had never denounced D.U.R. or A.A., and that he had simply limited himself to cutting their hair and, in fact he even had testified about the arbitrary detention of D.U. by several policemen in a patrol car and without the presentation of any arrest warrant.

9. The petitioners indicated that, on October 29, 1995, Mr. M.U., father of D.U.R., filed a complaint with the Criminal Investigation Directorate (DIC) for the disappearance of his son. S., on November 1, 1995, the victim's father would have filed an appeal for personal exhibition or habeas corpus against the Seventh Command of the Public Security Force (FUSEP), chaired by C.D.A.M., legal order that was executed on November 3, 1995, by the Public Defense Executing Judge, without positive results. L., on November 2, 1995, the victim's father filed a criminal complaint with the Second Criminal Court of Comayaguela against a lieutenant, a Colonel, a S., and other agents and officers of the Seventh Police Command who participated in the arrest and disappearance of his son. S., on November 9 of the same year, the victim's father filed a second appeal for personal exhibition or habeas corpus against the Commander of the Cobras Battalion and on November 16, he filed another complaint with the Public Ministry. On November 28, 1995, the victim's father filed a third habeas corpus appeal before the Court of Appeals of La Ceiba, Atlántica, and on M. 14, 1996, the Committee of The Family Members of Disappeared Detainees in Honduras "COFADEH" filed another appeal before the First Court of Appeals of San Pedro Sula, C.. As indicated by the petitioners, all of the actions were without positive results.

10. According to the petitioners, on January 23, 1996, the First Instance Criminal Court conducted an inspection at the Seventh Command of the FUSEP, in which it was established that, in the records book of the Seventh Command, on page 158, it was stated that D.U.R. had been admitted under the name of R.A.O., supposedly for being in the company of the young A.R., from whom a Russian manufactured weapon was confiscated (a Te.Te. gun caliber 27) and that said the arrest was made at the Charly Barber Shop, in the Villa Adela neighborhood, Comayaguela, by agent V.C., according to an arrest warrant issued by Lieutenant O.F.A.F., supposedly in response to the complaint filed by Mr. Adamis Oyuela against Dixie, for the crime of stealing sound equipment.

11. According to the petitioners, the last action recorded in the legal files is the appearance of the P.S.V., a member of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights, who on November 15, 1996, requested the First Instance Second Criminal Court, to send a judicial communication addressed to the First Criminal Court of Choluteca, so that a statement could be taken again from the witness A.A.J., who was detained in the Choluteca Penal Center. In this regard, as alleged by the petitioners, said testimony was collected on December 11, 1996, without further action to identify and punish those responsible and to find the victim's whereabouts.

3. FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT

12. On M. 17, 2017, the parties signed a friendly settlement agreement, which establishes the following:

DIXIE MIGUEL URBINA ROSALES

CASE 11,562 HONDURAS

FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

PRESENTATION

This document contains the proposed terms for a friendly settlement agreement (hereinafter, “terms of the agreement”, within the framework of the process followed before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “IACHR” or “Commission”) regarding of the case of DIXIE MIGUEL URBINA ROSALES (IACHR 11.562), which is celebrated, on one side, by the S. of Honduras (hereinafter “H.S.”, “Honduras” or “S.”), duly represented by the lawyer A.A.U., in his status as Attorney General of the Republic, appointed by Legislative Decree No. 392-2013 dated January 20, 2014, duly authorized for this act by Executive Agreement No. 001-2007 issued by the Constitutional President of the Republic on February 2007, published in Gazette No....