IV Inter-American System
| Published date | 01 March 2004 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410402200108 |
| Author | Claudia Martin |
| Date | 01 March 2004 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
IV INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM
CLAUDIA MARTIN
During the period covered by this report, the Inter-American Court on
Human Rights (hereinafter ‘Inter-American Court’ or ‘Court’) issued four
decisions, namely: Sa
´nchez vs Honduras,Bulacio vs Argentina,Mack Chang vs
Guatemala, and Urrutia vs Guatemala. In addition, the Court also issued
Advisory Opinion 18, which addresses the legal conditions and rights of
undocumented workers (Condicio
´n Jurı
´dica y Derechos de los Migrantes
Indocumentados).
1
The present report will analyse the most important legal issues raised by
the Sa
´nchez and Bulacio cases and Advisory Opinion 18. In future submissions
we will consider the issues raised by the other cases decided by the Court in
2003, if necessary.
The full text of the reported decisions can be found at the website of the
Inter-American Court at www.corteidh.or.cr.
Juan Humberto Sa
´nchez vs Honduras, Judgment of 7 June 2003
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter ‘Inter-
American Commission’ or ‘Commission’) submitted this case against
Honduras on 8 September 2001. Petitioners and the Commission alleged
violations of Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right not to be tortured), 7 (right to
liberty), 8 (due process rights), and 25 (right to an effective remedy), all in
connection with Article 1(1) (duty to respect and ensure) of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter ‘American Convention’ or
‘Convention’).
Juan Humberto Sa´nchez, a Honduran national, worked as a technician in
Radio Venceremos, a radio operated by the Farabundo Martı´ National
Liberation Front (Frente de Liberacio
´n Farabundo Martı
´), a Salvadoran
guerrilla movement. For that purpose, Mr. Sa´nchez resided in Departa-
mento de la Libertad in El Salvador.
On 9 July 1992, Sa´nchez came to Santo Domingo, a small town located in
Colomoncagua, Honduras to visit his family and to obtain his national
identification card (documento nacional). Next evening, he was arrested in his
parent’s house by members of the military belonging to the De´cimo
Batallo´n de Infanterı´a de Marcala, La Paz and released the following
morning. Later on the night of 11 July 1992, a group of military personnel
broke into the house of Mr. Sa´nchez parents, threatened his family and
arrested him without providing any reasons to support the detention. His
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 22/1 (2004) 121
1
At the time of this writing, the text of Advisory Opinion 18 was not yet available in English.
122
body, with a shot in his head and visibly signs of torture, was found
decomposed on 21 July 1992.
After his stepfather reported the second arrest to the authorities of the
De´cimo Batallo´n, the victim’s family was the object of several acts of
intimidation from members of the military as well as from the civil
authorities in the region. In particular, on 28 July his stepfather was
transported to a military barrack in Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras,
for interrogations related to the victim’s death. He was requested to deny
the involvement of the armed forces in the disappearance of Mr. Sa´nchez
and to blame instead a group of members of their community for the crime.
Neither the habeas corpus submitted on behalf of the victim at the time of
his arrest nor the subsequent criminal investigations initiated as a result of
his death were conducive to the identification of the perpetrators of his
murder or the application of the appropriate criminal sanctions.
Initially, Honduras filed a preliminary objection arguing lack of
exhaustion of domestic remedies and requested the Court to reject the
petition without consideration. Petitioners and the Commission argued that
the State was foreclosed to raise this objection because it should have been
raised in the first stages of the proceedings before the Commission. Also,
they argued that an exception to the rule of exhaustion applied in this case
because of the existence of undue delay in the investigations initiated as a
result of the death of Mr. Sa´nchez. Furthermore, the Petitioners alleged that
Honduras failed to indicate the remedies that should have been used by the
petitioner and the effectiveness of those remedies. Finally, the Commission
argued that the petition of the State seeking review of its decision of
admissibility by the Court was contrary to Articles 46 and 47 of the American
Convention, which provided for the Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction to
decide the admissibility of a petition.
The Court rejected the Commission’s arguments and ruled that it has an
‘inherent jurisdiction’ to review all the aspects of the petition, including the
requirements of admissibility established in Articles 46 and 47 of the
American Convention. Next, the Court concluded that the exception of
undue delay was applicable in this case and rejected the preliminary
objection submitted by Honduras.
With respect to the merits of the case, the Court first analysed the
application of Article 7 of the American Convention to the facts of this case.
Petitioners and the Commission argued that Juan Sa´nchez was illegally and
arbitrarily deprived of his physical liberty when detained twice by members
of the armed forces. In both occasions the arrests were not based on the
existence of a warrant issued by the proper authorities; moreover, in the
second arrest, the perpetrators used forced to break into the home of the
victim’s parents and threatened the family with guns. The intention of his
captors, Petitioners and the Commission adduced, was to detain Mr.
Sa´nchez in order to keep him in isolation, interrogate him under torture,
and finally murder him. In addition, the State failed to bring the victim to a
Human Rights News
To continue reading
Request your trial