Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T08:01:42.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Velásquez Rodríguez Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Samuel M. Witten
Samuel M. Witten*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Commission) brought this action in 1986 against the Government of Honduras in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The Commission alleged that Honduras had violated Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention on Human Rights (Convention) with respect to the 1981 detention and subsequent disappearance of a Honduran student, Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez. The Court ruled for the Commission and unanimously held: (1) that domestic Honduran legal remedies were ineffective and did not bar the Court’s jurisdiction; (2) that a systematic pattern of disappearances was carried out or tolerated by Honduran government officials from 1981 to 1984; (3) that Honduras had violated the victim’s rights as part of that practice; and (4) that Honduras must therefore compensate the family of the victim and that any agreement on the form and amount of compensation must be approved by the Court. The Court further held, by six to one, that it would decide the form and amount of compensation if Honduras and the Commission were unable to negotiate an agreement within 6 months. Judge Piza filed a dissenting opinion.

Keywords

Human rightscompliance of Honduras with American Conventionexhaustion of domestic legal remediesproof of disappearancesproof of governmental liability
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 83 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 361 - 367
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The organization, functions, competence and procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights are detailed in Articles 34–51 of the American Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature Nov. 22, 1969, reprinted in Organization of American States, Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System [hereinafter OAS Handbook] 25, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.71, doc. 6, rev.1 (1988), and 9 ILM 673 (1970) [hereinafter Convention].

2 The Court sits in Costa Rica and is composed of seven nationals of the member states of the Organization of American States, elected in an individual capacity. Convention, Art. 52(1). Its adjudicatory jurisdiction consists of cases submitted by the Commission or by a state party concerning “the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention.” Id., Arts. 61 and 62(3). Its organization, jurisdiction and procedures are detailed in id., Arts. 52–69. For a discussion of the Court and its jurisdiction, see Buergenthal, The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 76 AJIL 231 (1982).

3 Article 4 of the Convention provides in part: “ 1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. … No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

Article 5 of the Convention provides in part:

1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.

2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.

Article 7 of the Convention provides in part: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. … 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment.”

4 The petition stated in part that Velasquez had been violently arrested without a warrant on Sept. 12, 1981, “accused of alleged political crimes and subjected to harsh interrogation and cruel torture.” Judgment of July 29, 1988, reprinted in Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Annual Report, OAS/Ser.L/V/III.19, doc. 13, at 35, para. 3 (1988) [hereinafter Judgment].

5 Comm'n Res. 30/83, Case 7920 (Honduras), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.61, doc. 44 (1983). The Commission's regulations state that petitions may generally be presumed true if the Government involved does not provide pertinent information regarding the complaint. Regulations of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Art. 42, reprinted in OAS Handbook, supra note 1, at 90.

6 Comm'n Res. 22/86, Case 7920 (Honduras), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.68, doc. 8, rev.1 (1986).

7 Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, ser. C: Judgments and Opinions, No. 1. The Court reasoned that in cases of the alleged forced disappearance of a person on instructions from public authorities, “given the interplay between the problem of domestic remedies and the very violation of human rights, the question of their prior exhaustion must be taken up together with the merits of the case.” Id., para. 94.

8 The Commission called 15 witnesses, most of whom testified about conditions in Honduras between 1981 and 1984. The Government's case was presented primarily through written pleadings. Only three witnesses testified on behalf of the Government, and those appeared only after a request for certain testimony by the Court. Judgment, paras. 28, 31, 97 and 98.

9 Id., paras. 39–49. Three assassinations were reported to the Court during the proceeding. José Isaías Vilorio, an employee of the Honduran National Office of Investigations who had been summoned by the Court to testify on Jan. 18, 1988, was murdered on the preceding Jan. 5. Id., para. 40. Then, on Jan. 14, Miguel Angel Pavón and Moisés Landaverde were murdered. Pavón had already testified before the Court about the pattern of kidnappings and disappearances in Honduras between 1981 and 1984. Id., para. 41. Other witnesses were threatened. Id., paras. 39, 43.

10 The habeas corpus petitions achieved “no result” or were denied. The first criminal complaint achieved “no result” and the second led to a complaint against General Gustavo Alvarez Martínez, who was declared a defendant in absentia. Id., para. 74.

11 Id., para. 59 (quoting Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, supra note 7, para. 88).

12 Id., paras. 60–61. See also id., para. 62.

13 Id., para. 63.

14 Id., para. 64. The Court noted that only a writ of habeas corpus would have achieved the objectives of finding Velásquez Rodríguez, determining if he was being lawfully held, and perhaps obtaining his liberty. Id., para. 65. The Court observed, however, that given the Government's requirement that a writ of habeas corpus identify the place of detention and the governmental authorities involved, even habeas corpus “would not be adequate for finding a person clandestinely held by State officials, given that in such cases there is only hearsay evidence of the detention and the whereabouts of the victim is unknown.” Id.

15 Id., para. 66.

16 Id., para. 80.

17 Id., para. 79.

18 The Court rejected these attempts to impeach the Commission's witnesses, noting that although these factors might influence a witness's truthfulness, the Government had presented no evidence that these witnesses had not told the truth and instead had limited itself to “general observations regarding their alleged incompetency or lack of impartiality.” Id., para. 143. The Court pointedly rejected the Government's arguments that certain witnesses were not credible because they were disloyal to Honduras, noting that human rights are “higher values” transcending an individual's nationality and are “based upon attributes of his human personality.” Id., para. 144 (quoting the Preamble to the Convention).

19 Id., para. 126.

20 Id., paras. 128, 131.

21 Id., paras. 147–48, 155–57.

22 Id., para. 166. See generally id., paras. 160–81.

23 Id., para. 170. See also id., paras. 182–83.

24 Id., para. 180. See generally id., paras. 178–82. The Court also noted that Honduras's liability remained unchanged, despite a change in government, under the international law principle of state continuity. Id., para. 184.

25 Id., paras. 189–92. Article 63(1) of the Convention authorizes the Court to award damages. The Court reserved the right to approve the amount of compensation or to set an amount if no agreement is reached. Although the Court's Judgment was unanimous in every other respect, Judge Piza dissented in part from the damages ruling, on the ground that compensation should be negotiated by the Honduran Government directly with the injured parties, with the Commission playing a facilitating role in the process. On Jan. 20, 1989, the Court issued its second decision in a proceeding invoking its compulsory jurisdiction, the Godinez Cruz case, and held unanimously that Honduras had violated several provisions of the Convention in connection with another disappearance and required Honduras to pay compensation to the next of kin of the victim in an amount to be determined by the Court if the parties cannot reach agreement.