VI Africa
| Published date | 01 June 1996 |
| Author | Wolfgang Benedek,Gerd Oberleitner |
| DOI | 10.1177/092405199601400210 |
| Date | 01 June 1996 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Human Rights News
The Congress
of
Peru started an investigation, which concluded - in a majority opinion
- that the reaction
of
the Navy had been disproportionate: after the inmates surrendered,
the Navy had completely demolished the jail, while the inmates were in it, and there were
versions that summary executions had been carried out. Congress recommended the
military courts to investigate in depth these events.
The minority conclusion was that it was surprising the lack
of
interest
of
the Navy to
rescue possible survivors after the demolition, particularly since one person appeared on
20 June and four on 21 June, and the delay in removing the rubble left by the demolition.
It also stated that:
'it had been proved that action by the judiciary and the Public Prosecutor had been prevented
and hindered; that the Government had ordered actions which brought about an unjustifiable
number
of
dead; that the initial version
of
the Navy operation does not explain satisfactorily
the result thereof, thus opening up the possibility that summary executions did take place.'
There is ample evidence in the proceedings before the Inter-American Court
of
the
following facts: that Neira and the Zenteno brothers were inmates at San Juan Bautista
jail; that they were not found among those who surrendered and whose bodies were
identified; that the jail was demolished by the Navy and that many had been crushed to
death, which amounts to a disproportionate way to put an end to a mutiny, particularly
since the jail was on an island, and there were, consequently, no possibilities
of
escape;
that there was a lack
of
interest in rescuing possible survivors after the demolition; that
there was a lack
of
diligence in identifying the bodies. As a consequence, the Court
considered, that Neira and the Zenteno brothers died at the hands
of
state agents as a
consequence
of
adisproportionate use
of
force.
The Court, relying heavily on its considerations in the Velasquez Rodriguez Case,
concluded that Peru had violated Article 4 read jointly with Article 4(1), and Article 7(6)
read jointly with Article 27(2), and that, consequently, it should pay the families
of
the
victims a fair compensation and reimburse the expenses incurred by them in the
proceedings before national authorities. The amount
of
compensation and reimbursement
is to be determined by agreement between the Commission and Peru, reservingjurisdiction
to give its approval to this agreement.
Case Suarez Rosero vs. Ecuador. The Commission sent the Court a new case concerning
the allegedly arbitrary arrest and solitary confinement for 36 days
of
Mr. Rafael Ivan
Suarez Rosero.
VI
AFRICA
Wolfgang Benedek
and
Gerd Oberleitner
African Commission on Human
and
Peoples' Rights revises its Rules of Procedure
At its 18th Ordinary Session in Praia, Cape Verde, 2-11 October 1995, the African
Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights adopted revised Rules
of
Procedure (see also
the report on the session in NQHR, Vol. 14,
No.1,
1996). The revision
of
the Rules
of
Procedure, which date from 13 February 1988, has been on the agenda
of
the
Commission's sessions for several years. Discussion on this issue started at the 12th
session
of
the Commission in October 1992. Although a working group composed
of
members
of
the African Commission and external experts concluded its work on the
revision
of
the Rules at the 14th session
of
the Commission in Addis Ababa in December
225
To continue reading
Request your trial