The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) held its 53rd Extraordinary Session in Honduras, which began on August 24 and concluded on August 29, 2015. During this session the Court held public hearings in two cases: Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru and Ángel Alberto Duque v. Colombia. The Court also held a private hearing concerning compliance on the part of Honduras with sentences in six cases: Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, López-Álvarez v. Honduras, Servellón-García and others v. Honduras, Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, Pacheco Teruel and others v. Honduras, and Luna López v. Honduras. The Court prepared judgments in two cases: Gonzáles Lluy (TGGL) and family v. Ecuador and Galindo Cárdenas and others v. Peru. Additionally, the Court started proceedings in two cases: Garífuna Community of “Triunfo de la Cruz” and its members v. Honduras and Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members v. Honduras. The Court also reviewed various pending cases and administrative issues.
Prior to the start of the session, on August 21, 2015, the Court hosted an international seminar on Inter-American justice and jurisprudence. This included an international seminar on the impact of the Court’s jurisprudence on the situation of vulnerable groups.
Videos of the public hearings and seminars are available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Public Hearings
Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru
The Court held a public hearing on Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, in which Mr. Vilcapoma lost vision in his right eye after he was struck by his military instructor, a Peruvian army official, for mistakes that he made during firing practice. The IACHR, in its 2013 decision, found that the State had violated Mr. Vilcapoma’s rights to personal integrity and judicial guarantees and protection. The Commission noted that these acts constituted a pattern of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment within military culture; that the authorities had failed to conduct an investigation; and that the case had remained under the military’s jurisdiction for almost seven years. The Commission found that Mr. Vilcapoma’s mother’s right to personal integrity had also been violated. See IACHR, Report No. 84/13, Case 12.482, Valdemir Quispealaya Vilcapoma (Peru), 4 November 2013, at paras. 3, 146.
The IACHR referred the case to the Court in August 2014 after Peru failed to comply with the Commission’s recommendations which included: reopening an impartial and effective investigation; providing adequate moral and material reparations, including just compensation; developing human rights training materials and establishing human rights courses that emphasize the limitations of military discipline; putting into place mechanisms that ensure due process and prevent reprisals for members of the military to report abuse; and enabling the judiciary to efficiently investigate complaints of torture and violations of personal integrity filed by members of the military. [IACHR Press Release]
In June 2015, the Court issued an order (only in Spanish) concerning evidentiary matters, expert witnesses, and oral and written observations.
Ángel Alberto Duque v. Colombia
The Court held a public hearing on Ángel Alberto Duque v. Colombia, in which Mr. Duque was prohibited from receiving the pension to which he was entitled as the survivor of his same-sex partner. Further, as a result of his not receiving this pension, Mr. Duque’s ability to receive necessary health services as a person living with HIV was also affected. The IACHR, in its 2014 decision, found that Mr. Duque’s rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees, judicial protection, and equality and non-discrimination were violated. See IACHR, Report No. 5/14, Case 12.841, Ángel Alberto Duque (Colombia), 2 April 2014, at paras. 1, 102.
The IACHR referred the case to the Court in October 2014 after Colombia failed to comply with the Commission’s recommendations which included providing reparations to Mr. Duque for monetary and non-monetary damages, survivor’s pension, and uninterrupted access to healthcare services and HIV treatment. The Commission had also recommended that the State take steps to ensure non-repetition of violations committed in this case including complying with subsequent court decisions recognizing the right to a survivor’s pension for same-sex partners and training those who administer social security services to process applications of same-sex couples in a non-discriminatory manner, including by allowing same-sex partners to present the same type of proof as heterosexual couples. [IACHR Press Release]
The Court issued an order (only in Spanish) concerning evidentiary matters, expert witnesses, and oral and written observations, as well as another order (only in Spanish) about the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund.
Private Hearings Concerning Honduras’s Compliance with IACtHR Orders
Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras
The Court held a private hearing on Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, which concerns the forced disappearance and extrajudicial killing of Mr. Sánchez. The Court found that Mr. Sánchez’s rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life, fair trial, and judicial protection had been violated. The Court also found that the rights of his next of kin had been violated, including the rights to humane treatment, fair trial, and judicial protection. The Court ordered: reparations for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, an effective investigation, public acknowledgement of responsibility, and the creation of a record of detainees to ensure the legality of detentions. See I/A Court H.R., Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, at paras. 1, 201.
According to the Court’s most recent monitoring order, Honduras had not yet paid non-pecuniary damages, continued the investigation, or implemented a system to register detainees. See I/A Court H.R., Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of August 22, 2013.
López-Álvarez v. Honduras
The Court held a private hearing on López-Álvarez v. Honduras, in which Mr. Álvarez, a leader and member of the Honduran Garifuna community, who was arrested for drug possession and illegal trafficking on April 27, 1997, remained in custody until August 26, 2003, even after he was acquitted of the charges in January 2003. The Court found that the State had violated Mr. Álvarez’s rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, fair trial, judicial protection, freedom of thought and expression, and freedom of equal protection. With respect to members of Mr. Álvarez’s family, the Court found that the State violated their right to personal integrity. The Court ordered that the State: pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages; investigate the case; publish the relevant parts of the Court’s judgment in two newspapers; implement measures to ensure that inmates receive an adequate diet, medical care, and live in physical and sanitary conditions consistent with international standards; and implement a training program about human rights for officers working in penitentiaries. See I/A Court H.R., López-Álvarez v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, at paras. 2, 25.
According to the most recent order that the Court issued to monitor the State’s compliance with this judgment, Honduras has not investigated the facts of the case, implemented measures to ensure certain conditions and standards for inmates, or presented an updated report informing the Court of its compliance with the recommendations. See I/A Court H.R., López-Álvarez v. Honduras, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of May 29, 2013.
Servellón-García and others v. Honduras
The Court held a private hearing on Servellón-García and others v. Honduras, in which the Public Security Force arrested, detained, tortured, and extrajudicially killed four individuals, including a 16, 17 and 19 year old, as part of a preventative detention operation. The Court found that their rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life, fair trial, and judicial protection were violated. With respect to their next of kin, the Court found that the State violated their rights to humane treatment, fair trial, and judicial protection. The Court ordered that the State: pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, identify and punish all perpetrators, publish the facts and operative parts of the judgment, and place a plaque in Tegucigalpa in remembrance of the victims. Additionally, the Court ordered the State to: create a training program for police, judicial personnel, the Public Prosecutors’ Office, and those working in the penitentiary regarding special protection for children, equality, non-discrimination, judicial protections, detention conditions, and human rights; conduct an awareness raising campaign about the importance of protecting children; and develop a database for institutions involved in investigating, identifying, and punishing those involved in killing children. See I/A Court H.R., Servellón-García and others v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, at paras. 2, 215.
The Court’s most recent order states that while Honduras has complied with the awareness raising campaign, it has yet to identify and punish perpetrators. See I/A Court H.R., Servellón-García and others v. Honduras, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 22, 2011.
Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras
The Court held a private hearing on Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, in which the State failed to investigate the murder of an environmental activist. The Court found that the activist’s rights to life, humane treatment, freedom of association, judicial protection, and fair trial had been violated. With respect to some of her family members, the Court found that their rights to humane treatment, judicial protection, and fair trial were violated. The Court ordered Honduras to: pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, initiate criminal proceedings, provide psychological and/or psychiatric care to the victims, publish the operative parts of the judgment in a newspaper, publicly acknowledge international responsibility, construct a monument and place signs in the national park to remember the deceased, and conduct a national awareness and sensitivity campaign about the human rights contributions of environmentalists in Honduras. See I/A Court H.R., Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196 at paras. 2, 227.
The Court’s most recent monitoring order on State compliance notes that the State did not provide psychological treatment to the next of kin because they did not want it and that the Court would continue to monitor compliance with other provisions of the judgment. See I/A Court H.R., Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of October 23. 2012.
Pacheco Teruel and others v. Honduras
The Court held a private hearing on Pacheco Teruel and others v. Honduras, in which 107 inmates died at the San Pedro Sula Prison due to structural deficiencies, of which the authorities were aware. The Court found that the State had violated the rights to: life, humane treatment, and judicial guarantees and protection. With respect to the next of kin of the inmates, the Court found that Honduras violated their rights to judicial guarantees and protection as well as to an effective remedy. The Court ordered Honduras to: take measures to implement the friendly settlement; provide guarantees of non-repetition, including by improving the physical conditions of prisons and adopting legislative reforms; providing medical and psychological care to the victims, including the next of kin; publicizing the operative parts of the judgment; publicly acknowledging its international responsibilities; investigating the facts and punishing the perpetrators; and paying pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. See I/A Court H.R., Pacheco Teruel and others v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, 2, 143.
In 2013, the Court granted a request for provisional measures for the protection of Sandra Lorena Ramos Cárcamo, a relative of one of the deceased inmates who had testified during a public hearing, and her three minor daughters. See I/A Court H.R., Pacheco Teruel and others v. Honduras, Request for Provisional Measures Regarding Honduras. Order of February 13, 2013. The Court later lifted the provisional measures, when representatives of Ms. Ramos stated that she believed that the threats to her family had ceased and that she no longer wanted to receive support from the authorities. See I/A Court H.R., Pacheco Teruel and others v. Honduras, Provisional Measures Regarding Honduras. Order of August 21, 2013.
Luna López v. Honduras
The Court held a private hearing on Luna López v. Honduras, which concerns the State’s failure to adequately investigate and punish those responsible for the 1998 assassination of an environmental activist and member of the Catacamas City Council. The Court found that while the activist’s right to life had been violated, the State did not violate his right to personal integrity, to participate in government, or to a fair trial. With respect to his family members, the Court found that their right to personal integrity had been violated. The Court ordered Honduras to: provide psychological care at no cost to the named family members, publicly acknowledge international responsibility, publish a summary of the judgment, adopt pending legislation concerning the protection of human rights defenders, and pay pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. See I/A Court H.R., Luna López v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 10, 2013. Series C No. 269, 1, 265.
In January 2015, the Court issued an order in which it discussed the distribution of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and ordered the State to report about steps it has taken to comply with reparations.
Preparing Judgments
The Court prepared judgments for the following two cases:
Gonzáles Lluy (TGGL) and family v. Ecuador
In Gonzáles Lluy (TGGL) and family v. Ecuador, a three-year-old child was infected with HIV through a blood transfusion with blood supplied from the Red Cross. The IACHR, in its 2013 decision on the merits, found that the State had violated the rights to life, dignity, personal integrity, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection. The Commission also found that the State failed to comply with its special obligations to protect TGGL, which it owed her because she was a child. With respect to the child’s mother and brother, the Commission found that the State violated their rights to moral integrity and judicial guarantees and protection. See IACHR, Report No. 102/13, Case 12.723, Gonzáles Lluy (TGGL) and family (Ecuador), 5 November 2013, para. 1. [IJRC]
The IACHR referred the case to the Court in 2014 after Ecuador failed to comply with the Commission’s recommendations which included compensating the child and her mother, providing the child with specialized medical treatment and free education, and fully and effectively investigating the human rights violations. [IACHR Press Release] The Commission also recommended that the State implement mechanisms to periodically inspect and supervise blood banks and public and private hospitals, train people working at blood banks about international standards of security, and provide free treatment to children living with HIV who lack economic resources. Gonzáles Lluy (TGGL) and family (Ecuador), 5 November 2013, para. 222.
The Court issued an order (only in Spanish) concerning evidentiary matters, expert witnesses, and oral and written observations, as well as another order (only in Spanish) about the Victims’ Legal Assistance Fund.
Galindo Cárdenas and family v. Peru
Galindo Cárdenas and family v. Peru concerns a Peruvian judge who was arbitrarily detained and tortured by the Peruvian military for 31 days in 1994 in the context of Peru’s counter-terrorism crackdown of the 1980s and 1990s. The IACHR, in its 2012 decision on the merits, found that the State had violated the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, fair trial, and judicial protection. With respect to his family members, the Commission found that the State violated their right to humane treatment. See IACHR, Report No. 57/12, Case 11.568, Galindo Cárdenas and family (Peru), 21 March 2012, paras. 1, 5. [IJRC]
The Commission referred the case to the IACtHR in February 2014 after Peru failed to comply with its recommendations including: paying pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to Mr. Cárdenas; providing mental health treatment; conducting an impartial and effective investigation; punishing the perpetrators; and ordering administrative, disciplinary, or criminal measures against the State officials who neglected their duties. Galindo Cárdenas and family (Peru), 21 March 2012, para. 269. [IACHR Press Release]
The Court issued an order (only in Spanish) concerning evidentiary matters, expert witnesses, and oral and written observations.
Commencement of Proceedings
Garífuna Community of “Triunfo de la Cruz” and its members v. Honduras
The petitioners, the Garífuna Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, alleged that Honduras failed to protect their ancestral lands when it made decisions to develop tourism projects on the land without consulting the community. The Commission found that the petitioners did not have effective access to justice regarding the sale of their land, and that the State did not adequately protect community leaders from harassment and ongoing violence caused by third parties. As a result, the Commission found that the community’s right to property and right to be included in decision-making were violated. Additionally, the State failed to recognize, award title for, and demarcate the community’s territory, and it did not conduct a serious investigation into alleged human rights violations.
The IACHR submitted the case to the Court in 2013, because the State failed to inform the Commission of the measures it had taken to implement the recommendations. See IACHR, Report No. 76/12. Case No.12.548, Garífuna Community of “Triunfo de la Cruz” and its Members (Honduras), 7 November 2012, para. 294. [IACHR Press Release; IJRC]
In 2006, the Commission granted precautionary measures to the Garífuna community, requesting the State to protect the indigenous community’s ownership of their ancestral land and to prevent the implementation of any actions that could affect ownership interests. See IACHR, Precautionary Measures 2006, para. 33.
The Court issued an order (only in Spanish) concerning evidentiary matters in 2014.
Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members v. Honduras
In Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members v. Honduras, the Commission found that the community’s rights to property and judicial protection were violated when the State did not take the necessary steps to ensure that the community’s land was cleared of non-indigenous people and accessible to community members. The Commission also determined that the petitioners did not have access to an effective remedy to obtain peaceful possession of the land. [IACHR Press Release]
The IACHR submitted the case to the Court in October 2013 because of the failure of Honduras to comply with its recommendations, which included: adopting measures to ensure the community’s right to communal property and possession, including legislation to clear title; protecting the community from discrimination and violence by third parties and protecting the land from State infringements; investigating and punishing those who threatened and harassed the community; and implementing measures to prevent similar violations in the future. See IACHR, Report No. 30/13, Case 12.761, Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members (Honduras), 21 March 2013, para. 128. [IJRC]
In November 2014, the Court rejected a request for provisional measures with respect to Merced Miranda Chamorro and the members of the Punta Piedra community. See I/A Court H.R., Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members (in Spanish), Request for Provisional Measures. Order of November 14, 2014.
Additional Information
For more information about the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the Inter-American human rights system, visit IJRC’s Online Resource Hub.