No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al. v. United States (Inter-Am. Comm’N H.R.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
On July 21, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (‘‘IACHR’’ or the ‘‘Commission’’) issued a landmark decision finding that the United States had breached its international legal obligations to exercise due diligence to protect women from domestic violence. The decision holds profound ramifications for states’ responsibility to protect individuals from harm imposed by private actors and to protect women and girl-children from domestic violence.
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights website (visited Jan. 26, 2012) http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2011/USPU12626EN.doc.
1 Jessica Lenahan filed her initial petition as “Jessica Gonzales” but remarried during the course of proceedings and has since been known as Jessica Lenahan.
2 See, e.g., Jessica Gonzales v. United States, Petition No. 1490-05, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 52/07, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.128, Doc. 19, ¶¶ 10-25 (2007) [hereinafter IACHR Admissibility Decision]; Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States, Case 12.626, Inter-Am. Comm’n H.R., Report No. 80/11, ¶¶ 62-100 (2011) [hereinafter Gonzales IACHR Merits Decision].
3 See Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, No. 00-D-1285, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26018 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2001).
4 Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, 545 U.S. 748 (2005).
5 Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United America and the State of Colorado, with Request for an Investigation and Hearing of the Meritsat 4-5 (2005).
6 Id. at 4.
7 Id. at 25.
8 See IACHR Admissibility Decision, supra note 2.
9 Gonzales IACHR Merits Decision, supra note 2.
10 Id. ¶ 118.
11 Id. ¶ 119.
12 Id. ¶ 126.
13 Id., ¶¶ 160-70.
14 Id. ¶ 141.
15 Id. ¶ 147.
16 Id. ¶¶ 138-59.
17 Id. ¶ 150. The Commission based this finding in part upon international, national, and Colorado’s own law enforcement guidelines concerning the enforcement of restraining orders, id. ¶¶ 148-49, as well as on a review of the action of Castle Rock Police on June 22, including their failure to thoroughly review the terms of the restraining order that Ms. Gonzales had against her husband and their corresponding enforcement obligations, their failure to extend their search for the Gonzales girls beyond Castle Rock despite learning that Ms. Gonzales had taken them to Denver, their failure to thoroughly check Mr. Gonzales’ criminal history, the absence of police protocols for handling alleged restraining order violations involving missing children, insufficient training of the Castle Rock police, and their incorrect assumption that it was Ms. Gonzales’ obligation to determine whether the order had been violated. The Commission also cited as state failure the fact that, after abducting his daughters, Mr. Gonzales was approved by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation to purchase a gun, despite his criminal record. Id. ¶¶ 152-59.
18 Id. ¶¶ 160, 164, 170.
19 Id. ¶ 178.
20 Id. ¶ 180.
21 Id. ¶¶ 194-96.
22 Id. ¶ 196.
23 Id. ¶ 197.
24 Id. § VI.
25 Id. ¶ 207.
26 Id. § VIII.
1 By note dated October 26, 2006, the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University Law School was accredited as a copetitioner, and on July 6, 2011 Peter Rosenblum was accredited as co-counsel and Director of said Clinic. By note dated October 15, 2007, Ms. Araceli Martínez-Olguín, from the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, was also accredited as a representative. The University of Miami School of Law Human Rights Clinic was later added as co-petitioner, with Caroline Bettinger-Lopez as a representative of the Human Rights Clinic and lead counsel in the case. Sandra Park from the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union was also accredited later as co-counsel in the case.
2 The Commission will refer throughout the report to the presumed victim as Jessica Lenahan, which she has indicated is the name she currently uses. See, December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzales).
3 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 1.
4 The amicus curiae brief was also presented by the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL); The Latin American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Women’s Rights (CLADEM); Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ), Argentina; Asociación por los Derechos Civiles (ADC), Argentina; Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Argentina; Fundación Mujeres en Igualdad, Argentina; Fundación para Estudio e Investigación de la Mujer, Argentina; Instituto de Derechos Humanos, Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina; Tracy Robinson, Faculty of Law, University of the West Indies, Barbados; La Oficina Jurídica Para la Mujer, Cochabamba, Bolivia; Constance Backhouse, Professor of Law and University Research Chair, University of Ottawa, Canada; Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centres, British Columbia, Canada; Harmony House, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Professor Elizabeth Sheehy, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, Canada; Centro de Derechos Humanos y Litigio Internacional (CEDHUL), Colombia; Corporación Sisma – Mujer, Colombia; Liga de Mujeres Desplazadas, Colombia; Fundación Paniamor, Costa Rica; La Fundación PROCAL (Promoción, Capacitación y Acción Alternativa), Costa Rica; Centro de Apoyo Aquelarre (CEAPA), Dominican Republic; Movimiento de Mujeres Dominico – Haitiana (MUDHA), Dominican Republic; Núcleo de Apoyo a la Mujer (NAM), Dominican Republic; Jacqueline Sealy-Burke, Director, Legal Aid and Counseling Clinic (LACC), Grenada; Comisión Mexicana de Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Humanos, A.C. (CMDPDH), México; Organizaciéón Popular Independiente, A.C., Ciudad Juárez, México; Organización Red de Mujeres Contra la Violencia, Nicaragua; Centro de la Mujer Panameña (CEMP), Panamá; Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH), Lima, Perú; Red Nacional de Casas de Refugio para Mujeres y Niñas Víctimas de Violencia Familiar y Sexual, Perú.
5 The amicus curiae brief was also presented by Legal Momentum; World Organization for Human Rights USA; Break the Cycle; Harriet Buhai Center for Family Law; California Women’s Law Center; The Feminist Majority Foundation; the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic; National Center for Women & Policing; The National Congress of Black Women, Inc.; National Organization for Women Foundation, Inc.; National Women’s Law Center; and Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles.
6 The amicus curiae brief was also presented by the Asociación para el Desarrollo Integral de Personas Violadas, (ADIVAC); Break the Cycle; Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law; California Women’s Law Center; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Central American Resource Center; Professor John Cerone; Monica Ghosh Driggers, Esq., Honorable Marjory D. Fields; The Feminist Majority Foundation; Harvard Law School Gender Violence Clinic; Professor Dina Francesca Haynes; Human Rights Watch; The Immigration Law Clinic at the University of Detroit Mercy; The International Women’s Human Rights Clinic; The International Committee of the National Lawyers Guild; The Leitner Center for International Law and Justice at Fordham Law School; The Walter Leitner International Human Rights Clinic; Los Angeles Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild; The Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic; National Center for Women & Policing; The National Congress of Black Women, Inc.; National Organization for Women Foundation, Inc.; National Women’s Law Center; Professor Sarah Paoletti; Professor Susan Deller Ross; Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Social Justice; Professor Deborah M. Weissman; Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles; and World Organization for Human Rights USA.
7 The amicus curiae brief was also presented by Break the Cycle; The Children’s Rights Project of Public Counsel Law Center; Coalition Against Child Abuse and Neglect (CCAN); Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment Appeals Project (DV LEAP); Family Violence Prevention Fund; Human Rights Watch; Illinois Clemency Project for Battered Women; In Motion; Justice for Children; Men Stopping Violence; The Nassau County Coaliton Against Domestic Violence; Pace Women’s Justice Center; Rockland Family Shelter; Safe House Center; South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse (SCCADV ASA); Willamette University College of Law, Child and Family Advocacy Clinic.
8 The amicus curiae brief was also presented by The New York Legal Assistance Group; the University of Texas School of Law Domestic Violence Clinic; the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence; the Domestic Violence Report; the National Association of Women Lawyers; the Sanctuary for Families; Professor Elizabeth Schneider; University of Baltimore Family Law Clinic; University of California at Berkley Law School (Boalt Hall) Domestic Violence Practicum; University of Cincinatti College of Law Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order Clinic; University of Toledo College of Law Domestic Violence Clinic; and the Victims Rights Law Center.
9 The amicus curiae brief was also presented on behalf of the Alaska Native Women’s Coalition (ANWC); Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP); Cangleska, Inc., Clan Star, Inc.; La Jolla Indian Tribe (the “Tribe”); Legal Momentum; Mending the Sacred Hoop, Inc. (MSH); National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence; National Congress of American Indians (NCAI); National Organization of Sisters of Color Ending Sexual Assault (SCESA); Ohitika Najin Win Oti; Our Sister’s Keeper Coalition (OSKC); Pauma Band of Mission Indians (the “Tribe”); Qualla Women’s Justice Alliance; Shelter of Safety (SOS); Tribal Law and Policy Institute (TLPI); White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, Inc. (WBCWS); Women Spirit Coaltion (WSC); and YMCA Clark County.
10 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
11 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 9.
12 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999 and Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit B: Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent.
13 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999.
14 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999.
15 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999.
16 See C.R.S. § 18-6-803.7 (Colorado’s Central Registry Statute), Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005.
17 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
18 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit: B, Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent.
19 The exact language of the order was “Respondent, upon reasonable notice, shall be entitled to a mid-week dinner visit with the minor children. Said visit shall be arranged by the parties.” See Exhibit B, Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent.
20 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 8.
21 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. F: Progress Report CR #99-26856, p. 3 (containing statement from Jessica Lenahan’s best friend, who was with her when the girls disappeared and who remained with her throughout the course of the evening, stating that “Simon normally has the children on Wednesday nights”).
22 An All Points Bulletin is an electronic dissemination of wanted-person information, known as “APB.”
23 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
24 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, CRPD, Castle Rock, Colorado, Third Call at 12:57 hrs., CR #99-3226.
25 December 11, 2006 Observations from the petitioners, citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/1/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of offense: 6/23/99 (statement from Dispatcher Lisk noting that “on June 23, 1999 at 0034 hours . . . . . . Jessica Gonzales called dispatch and stated that she was at her husband’s residence in her maroon Explorer and her ex-husband picked up their three kids and had not returned them. She was told to wait for an officer at his location”).
26 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
27 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
28 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Exhibit A: Declaration of Tina Rivera, March 17, 2008.
29 The petition refers to the case of United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), according to which the United States Supreme Court struck down a federal law which created a cause of action to sue perpetrators for domestic violence by holding that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to adopt such law. The petition also refers to the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989) where the Supreme Court allegedly held that the government is under no substantive obligation to protect an individual from violence committed by a non-State actor.
30 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, page 2.
31 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205.
32 Petitioners’ observations presented on February 19, 2010 and June 5, 2010.
33 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 133th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 22, 2008.
34 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 1.
35 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 14.
36 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, pp. 14-15, citing Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit B: Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent on June 4, 1999.
37 BOLO is an acronym for “Be On The Look Out.” An Attempt to Locate BOLO is directed to other jurisdictions so that they may notify the requesting police department if they locate the individual in question. Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 9.
38 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 60.
39 For example, the State alleges that Jessica Lenahan never filed a complaint with the Castle Rock Police Department or with the Town of Castle Rock which would have prompted an investigation of her complaint by either entity. In addition, although Jessica Lenahan chose not to pursue a claim under Colorado law, such as a civil suit in State court against the police officers under State tort law, the State alleges that “had she been able to establish that the Castle Rock police officers acted ‘willfully and wantonly’ outside the scope of their employment, she should have filed a civil suit against them in state court.”
Furthermore, the State argues that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Statute would have permitted such a suit had she been able to meet this standard.
The State also alleges that, had Simon Gonzales survived, an additional range of remedies such as criminal prosecution and criminal or civil contempt proceedings would have been available to Jessica Gonzales.
40 State Observations presented on April 2, 2010.
41 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 41.
42 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 41.
43 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 133th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 22, 2008; Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
44 Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights provides that: ‘’The Commission shall deliberate on the merits of the case, to which end it shall prepare a report in which it will examine the arguments, the evidence presented by the parties, and the information obtained during hearings and on-site observations.
In addition, the Commission may take into account other information that is a matter of public knowledge.‘“
45 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999.
46 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit B: Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent on June 4, 1999.
47 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999.
48 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999.
49 See C.R.S. § 18-6-803.5 (3), Colorado’s Mandatory Arrest Statute, Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005.
50 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit B: Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent.
51 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit B: Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent.
52 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit B: Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent.
53 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab F: Progress Report, CR #99-26856, Report by Investigator Rick Fahlstedt, Dated July 1, 1999 (Interview with Heather Edmuson, Jessica Gonzales’ best friend).
54 See C.R.S. § 18-6-803.7 (Colorado’s Central Registry Statute), Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005.
55 See C.R.S. § 13-14-102 (1)(a) Civil Protection Orders – Legislative Declaration.
56 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lehahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006, para. 5.
57 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lehahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006, para. 5.
58 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lehahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006, para. 9.
59 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
59 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
60 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. A Jessica Gonzales, Verified Complaint for Restraining Order, May 21, 1999; Ex. E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006.
61 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. A: Jessica Gonzales, Verified Complaint for Restraining Order, May 21, 1999.
62 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. A: Jessica Gonzales, Verified Complaint for Restraining Order, May 21, 1999.
63 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. A: Jessica Gonzales, Verified Complaint for Restraining Order, May 21, 1999.
64 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. H: Castle Rock Police Department Individual Inquiry on Simon Gonzales, Dated June 23, 1999.
65 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006, para. 13.
66 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006.
67 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. Q: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Violation of a Restraining Order, Domestic Violence), Dated May 30, 1999.
68 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners; Ex. I: Critical Incident Team Report, Dated June 23, 1999, R. E. Garrett, Detective, Declaration of Josey Ranson, baby-sitter for the girls and family friend (indicating that ‘’Jessica Ruth made previous police reports noting: Simon deliberately broke the sprinklers while Jessica and the girls were at church. Simon changed the locks on the house after he had moved out, causing Jessica and the girls to be locked out for several hours. The police found Simon in the bedroom after a restraining order had been issued ordering Simon to stay away from the home . . . .Simon had ‘lost’ control ‘’); Ex. F: Progress Report, CR #99-26856, Report by Investigator Rick Fahlstedt, Dated July 1, 1999, Interview with Ernestine Rivera, Jessica Gonzales’ mother (indicating that ‘’Simon had been driving around the house, stalking her [Jessica Gonzales]. That Simon had moved out of the house, but still snuck into the house and hid so he could jump out and scare Jessica or the kids . . . ..That Jessica had the locks changed on her house as soon as Simon moved out. That Jessica believes that Simon stole a key from one of the kids. That several weeks ago, Jessica found Simon in her room smoking cigarettes and drinking beer. That Simon was very compulsive and possessive ‘‘).
69 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Exhibit S: Castle Rock Police Department Municipal Summons, Dated April 18, 1999.
70 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab G: Statement Signed by Cpl. Patricia A. Lisk.
71 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. Q: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Violation of a Restraining Order, Domestic Violence), Dated May 30, 1999.
72 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Exhibit R: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Trespass on Private Property; Obstruction of Duties of Public Official), Dated May 30, 1999.
73 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Exhibit R: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Trespass on Private Property; Obstruction of Duties of Public Official), Dated May 30, 1999.
74 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Exhibit R: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Trespass on Private Property; Obstruction of Duties of Public Official), Dated May 30, 1999.
75 Since Simon Gonzales did not listen to the officer, the officer describes how ‘‘I placed my right hand on the rear of his neck and my left hand on his left elbow. I turned him around and escorted him to a chair where he was told to sit ‘’ and two other officers responded to the lobby to assist with the situation. December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Exhibit R: Castle Rock Police Department Offense Report (Trespass on Private Property; Obstruction of Duties of Public Official), Dated May 30, 1999.
76 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006; Ex. F: Progress report, CR #99-26856, Report by Investigator Rick Fahlstedt, Dated July 1, 1999 (including statement from Jessica Gonzales’ mother, Ernestine Rivera, ‘‘That around January 1997, Simon Gonzales attempted to hang himself in the garage. That Denver police department should have a report on this incident’’); Ex. J : Police Emergency Mental Illness Report, June 16, 1996.
77 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab G: Statement signed by Cpl. Patricia A. Lisk, p. 7.
The report including the investigation by the 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team of the shooting death of Simon Gonzales found that records indicated that Simon Gonzales had been contacted by the police prior to June 22, 1999 for the following incidents, among others: on November 7, 1986, Simon Gonzales was arrested for driving under the influence in Pueblo, Colorado; on September 23, 1989, he was arrested for driving under the influence in Denver, Colorado; on April 18, 1999, he was contacted by the CRPD for a traffic altercation; on May 30, 1999, he was contacted by the CRPD for allegedly violating a restraining order issued by Jessica Lenahan; and on May 30, 1999, he was arrested for trespassing in a restricted area of the police building without permission. See, Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. C, 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team Shooting of Simon Gonzalez Castle Rock PD Case #99-3226.
78 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by the 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m; Investigation by the Critical Incident Team (CIT) of 18th Judicial District. See, Exhibit C of the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 32. 79 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by the 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m.; Investigation by the Critical Incident Team (CIT) of 18th Judicial District. See, Exhibit C of the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 32.
80 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by the 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Chirstian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m.
81 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzales), Dated December 6, 2006.
82 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab A: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription; Tab B: CRPD Incident Report 06/22/99, 19:42 hrs; Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District, Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense 06/23/99, p. 7 (Statement from Dispatcher Lisk that: At 20:43 Jessica Lenahan called back on a 911 line and stated her children were at Elitches Park with their father); Tab C: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, CR# 99-3226, Call from Officer Brink to Jessica Gonzales; Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Third Call at 21:57 hrs., CR# 99-3226; and Tab F: Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs. See also, December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. B: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription, CR# 99-3223.
83 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab A: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription; Tab B: CRPD Incident Report 06/22/99, 19:42 hrs; Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District, Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense 06/23/99, p. 7 (Statement from Dispatcher Lisk that: At 20:43 Jessica Lenahan called back on a 911 line and stated her children were at Elitches Park with their father); Tab C: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, CR# 99-3226, Call from Officer Brink to Jessica Gonzales; Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Third Call at 21:57 hrs., CR# 99-3226; and Tab F: Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs. See also, December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. B: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription, CR# 99-3223.
84 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab B: CRPD Incident Report 06/22/99, 19:42 hrs.
85 Petitioner’s Observations concerning the September 22, 2006 Response of the United States Government, December 11, 2006, Exhibit G, Castle Rock Police Department Dispatch Log June 22 and June 23, 1999; U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab A: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription.
86 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab A: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription.
87 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 10, citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab A: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription.
88 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 10, citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab A: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription, at 1.
89 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008.
90 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 10, citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab A: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription.
91 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab B: CRPD Incident Report 06/22/99, 19:42 hrs; Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/01/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of offense: 6/23/99, p. 10.
92 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab B: CRPD Incident Report 06/22/99, 19:42 hrs; December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab E: Declaration of Jessica Ruth Lenahan (Gonzalez), dated December 6, 2006.
93 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/01/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of offense: 6/23/99.
94 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab C: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Call from Officer Brink to Jessica Gonzales.
95 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
96 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab C: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Call from Officer Brink to Jessica Gonzales.
97 Petitioner’s Observations concerning the September 22, 2006 Response of the United States Government, December 11, 2006, Exhibit G, Castle Rock Police Department Dispatch Log June 22 and June 23, 1999; Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 10, citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/01/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 6/23/99, p. 7.
98 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
99 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
100 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
101 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
102 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
103 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
104 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
105 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 10 citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/01/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of offense: 6/23/99, p. 10.
106 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, p. 10 citing U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/01/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of offense: 6/23/99, p. 10.
107 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. B : Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription, CR# 99-3223; U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/01/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of offense: 6/23/99, p. 2.
108 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 7/01/99, Report by Karen Meskis, Date of offense: 6/23/99, p. 2.
109 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. B: Jessica Gonzales/Dispatch, Tape Transcription, CR# 99-3223.
110 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 06/23/99, p. 3; See also, Tab F, Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs.
111 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 06/23/99, p. 3; See also, Tab F: Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs.
112 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab F, Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs.
113 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab F, Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs.
114 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab F, Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs.
115 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab F, Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs.
116 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab G: Statement signed by Cpl. Patricia A. Lisk.
117 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 06/23/99, p. 6.
118 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab G: Statement signed by Cpl. Patricia A. Lisk.
119 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 06/23/99, p. 6.
120 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 06/23/99, p. 6.
121 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 06/23/99.
122 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab E: Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District. Report Date: 07/01/99. Report by Karen Meskis, Date of Offense: 06/23/99, pp. 6-7.
123 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 11, mentioning detailed investigation undertaken by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), dated July 19, 1999, which can be found at Exhibit B of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008.
124 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 11, mentioning detailed investigation undertaken by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI), dated July 19, 1999, which can be found at Exhibit B of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008.
125 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 11, mentioning detailed investigation undertaken by the Critical Incident Team (CIT) of the 18th Judicial District, which can be found at Exhibit C of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008.
126 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 11, mentioning detailed investigation undertaken by the Critical Incident Team (CIT) of the 18th Judicial District, which can be found at Exhibit C of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008.
127 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 11, mentioning detailed investigation undertaken by the Critical Incident Team (CIT) of the 18th Judicial District, which can be found at Exhibit C of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008.
128 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 11, mentioning detailed investigation undertaken by the Critical Incident Team (CIT) of the 18th Judicial District, which can be found at Exhibit C of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008. 129 Report of investigation undertaken by the Critical Incident Team (CIT) of the 18th Judicial District, which can be found at Exhibit C of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008.
130 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008; Exhibit E: Douglas County Coroner’s Report for Rebecca Gonzales.
131 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008; Exhibit F: Douglas County Coroner’s Report: Katheryn Gonzales, and Exhibit G: Douglas County Coroner’s Report: Leslie Gonzales.
132 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008; Exhibits E, F, and G: Douglas County Coroner’s Reports for Rebecca, Katheryn and Leslie Gonzales. 133 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit C: District Court Order, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock et Al., January 23, 2001, citing DeShaney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, 201 (1989).
134 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit C: District Court Order, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock et Al., January 23, 2001, p. 69.
135 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit D: 10th Circuit Panel Decision, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, et. Al., October 15, 2002.
136 The Tenth Circuit held that a substantive due process argument fails when the plaintiffs are unable to ‘‘point to any affirmative actions by the defendants that created or increased the danger to the victims ‘‘. See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit D: 10th Circuit Panel Decision, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, et. Al., October 15, 2002, p. 6.
137 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit D: 10th Circuit Panel Decision, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, et. Al., October 15, 2002, p. 6.
138 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit E: 10th Circuit Court En Banc Decision, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, et. Al., April 29, 2004.
139 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit E: 10th Circuit Court En Banc Decision, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, et. Al., April 29, 2004.
140 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit E: 10th Circuit Court En Banc Decision, Gonzales v. City of Castle Rock, et. Al., April 29, 2004.
141 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit F: U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), 125 S. Ct. 2796.
142 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit F: U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), 125 S. Ct. 2796, 2805-2806.
143 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit F: U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), 125 S. Ct. 2796, 2806.
144 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit F: U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), 125 S. Ct. 2796, 2806.
145 Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005 and Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, citing statistics from Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence against Women in the United States 18 (2003) (estimating 5.3 million intimate partner assaults against women in the United States each year); Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000.
146 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, p. 12.
147 Feminist Majority Foundation, Domestic Violence Information Center, Domestic Violence Facts, http://www.feminist.-org/other/dv/dvfact.html cited in Amicus Curiae Presented in Favor of Petitioner by William W. Oxley and others, October 17, 2008, p. 4; Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 197838, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, 1 [Feb. 2003]. See also, U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, p. 12 citing U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics, Mathew Durose and Others (June 2005); Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, citing Lawrence A. Greenfield et al., U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates 38 (1998).
148 A United States Department of Justice report on family violence statistics discussed by both parties in their pleadings, found that family violence accounted for 11% of all reported and unreported violence between 1998 and 2002, and that the majority of the victims – 73% – were female. In regards to fatal family violence, the same report indicates that about 22% of the murders in 2002 were family murders and 58% of those victims were female. See, U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, p. 12, citing U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics, Mathew Durose and Others (June 2005). The United States Department of Justice has also previously indicated that women are five to eight times more likely to be victims of domestic violence than men. See, Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, citing Lawrence A. Greenfield et al., U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates 38 (1998).
Other studies have found that domestic abuse is the leading cause of injury to American women; that at least one in three American women experience physical abuse by a partner; and that approximately one-third of the women murdered in the United States each year are killed by an intimate partner. See, C.J. Newton, Domestic Violence: An Overview, FINDCOUNSELING. COM Mental Health Journal, February 2001, http://www.findcounseling.com/journal/domestic-violence/; Montana State University-Northern, Statistics, http://www.msun.edu/stuaffairs/response/stats/stats/html, cited in Amicus Curiae Brief presented in favor of petitioners by Women Empowered against Violence (WEAVE) before the IACHR, October 17, 2008.
149 A 2000 national domestic violence survey identified several groups of women that are at a particular risk of domestic violence acts, including women pertaining to lower-income groups and women pertaining to minority groups. See, Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000, p. 33 (The survey consists of telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 8,000 U.S. women and 8,000 U.S. men about their experiences with intimate partner violence. The survey compares victimization rates among women and men, specific racial groups, Hispanics and non-Hispanics, and same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. It also examines risk factors associated with intimate partner violence, the rate of injury among rape and physical assault victims, injured victims’ use of medical services, and victims’ involvement with the justice system).
The United States Congress identified Native American women as a group at particular risk of domestic violence by including a specific title within the VAWA 2005 geared towards the ‘‘Safety of Indian Women. ‘’ VAWA 2005 indicates that Indian women experience the violent crime of battering at a rate of 23.2 per 1,000, compared with 8 per 1,000 among Caucasian women. See, Violence against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, P.L. No. 109 – 162 § 901 (2) (2006), Title XI – Safety for Indian Women; Amicus Curiae Brief of November 13, 2008, submitted by Lucy Simpson and Kirsten Matoy Carlson from the Indian Law Resource Center and Jacqueline Agtuca and Terri Henry from the Sacred Circle National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women. Native American women are also the most likely to report experiencing domestic violence, followed by African American women, Caucasian women, and Latina women. See, Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, 10 NCJ 207846 (June 2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov.bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf, cited in Amicus Curiae Brief presented in favor of petitioners by Women Empowered Against Violence (WEAVE) before the IACHR, October 17, 2008, p. 9. 150 National Center for Children Exposed to Violence, Domestic Violence (2007); Bonnie E. Carlson, Children Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: Research Findings and Implications for Intervention 1 Trauma, Violence & Abuse 321, 323 (2000), cited in Amicus Curiae Brief presented in favor of petitioners by William W. Oxley, and others before IACHR, on October 17, 2008, p. 5.
151 Barbara J. Hart, Minnesota Center against Violence & Abuse, Parental Abduction and Domestic Violence (1992), http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/hart/hart.html, cited in, Amicus Curiae Brief presented in favor of petitioners by William W. Oxley and others before IACHR on October 17, 2008, p. 4, note 10.
152 Barbara J. Hart, Minnesota Center Against Violence & Abuse, Parental Abduction and Domestic Violence (1992), http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/hart/hart.html cited in Amicus Curiae Brief presented in favor of petitioners by William W. Oxley, and others before IACHR, October 17, 2008, para. 32, p. 8.
153 Barbara J. Hart, Minnesota Center Against Violence & Abuse, Parental Abduction and Domestic Violence (1992), http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/hart/hart.html cited in Amicus Curiae Brief Presented in Favor of Petitioner by William W. Oxley, and others before IACHR, October 17, 2008, para. 32, p. 8.
154 For example, the United States Attorney General documented in 1984 that the law enforcement’s perception of the problem as a ‘‘private matter ‘’ translated into inaction from the police and law enforcement agencies in general to domestic violence reports.
See, U.S. Department of Justice, Final Report: Attorney General’s Task Force on Family Violence 3 (1984).
155 See, e.g., Thurman v. City of Torrington, 595 F. Supp. 1521 (D. Conn. 1984) (Case where police refused to respond to woman’s repeated requests for protection. Police watched as estranged husband stabbed and kicked victim in her neck, throat, and chest, paralyzing her from the neck down and causing permanent disfigurement.), cited in, Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by Maya Raghu from Legal Momentum and others on behalf of petitioners on October 15, 2008, p. 40, note 22.
156 Michaela M. Hoctor, Comment, Domestic Violence as a Crime Against the State: The Need for Mandatory Arrest in California, 85 Ca. L. Rev. 643, 649 (1997); Daniel D. Polsby, Suppressing Domestic Violence with Law Reforms, 83 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 250, 250-251 (1992); Dennis P. Saccuzzo, How Should the Police Respond to Domestic Violence: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Analysis of Mandatory Arrest, 39 Santa Clara L. Re. 765, 767 (1999) cited in, Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by Maya Raghu from Legal Momentum and others on behalf of petitioners on October 15, 2008, pp. 41-42.
157 A restraining order can include provisions restricting contact; prohibiting abusive behavior; determining child custody and visitation issues; mandating offender counseling; and even forbidding firearm possession. By 1989, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had enacted statutes authorizing civil restraining orders as a means of protecting victims of domestic violence and preventing further abuse.
158 David M. Zlotnick, Empowering the Battered Woman: The Use of Criminal Contempt Sanctions to Enforce Civil Protection Orders, 56 Ohio Street L.J. 1153, 1170 (1995) cited in, Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief submitted by Maya Raghu from Legal Momentum and others on behalf of petitioners on October 15, 2008, p. 46.
159 This national survey also showed that approximately one million victims of violence against women obtain protective or restraining orders against their attackers annually and approximately 60% of these orders are violated by the assailants. See, Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000, pp. 52-53.
160 U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Research Preview: Civil Protection Orders: Victims’ Views on Effectiveness, January 1998, http:/.www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/fs000191.pdf. 161 Martha Smithey, Susanne Green, & Andrew Giacomazzi, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Collaborative Effort and the Effectiveness of Law Enforcement Training Toward Resolving Domestic Violence 19 (Jan. 14, 2002), available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/191840.pdf., cited in, Amicus Curiae Brief presented in favor of petitioners by Women Empowered Against Violence (WEAVE) before the IACHR, October 17, 2008, p. 6.
162 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab P: Declaration of Randy James Saucedo, Advocacy and Audit Director of the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Dated December 6, 2006, citing as sources Project Safeguard, Fatality Review Project, Colorado 2005.
163 Margaret L. Abrams, Joanne Belknap & Heather C. Melton, Project Safeguard, When Domestic Violence Kills: The Formation and Finding of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee 13 (2001), available at http://www.members.aol.com/projectsafeguard/fremanual.pdf, discussed by petitioners in their Observations Concerning the March 2, 2007, Hearing Before the Commission, May 14, 2007.
164 Margaret L. Abrams, Joanne Belknap & Heather C. Melton, Project Safeguard, When Domestic Violence Kills: The Formation and finding of the Denver Metro Domestic Violence Fatality Review Committee 13 (2001), available at http://www.members.aol.com/projectsafeguard/fremanual.pdf, discussed by petitioners in their Observations Concerning the March 2, 2007, Hearing Before the Commission, May 14, 2007.
165 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab P: Declaration of Randy James Saucedo, Advocacy and Audit Director of the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Dated December 6, 2006, citing as sources Project Safeguard, Fatality Review Project, Colorado 2005.
166 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab P: Declaration of Randy James Saucedo, Advocacy and Audit Director of the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Dated December 6, 2006, citing as source State of Colorado Court Administration Office Website, County Court Civil Filings by Type, FY 2005.
167 Scorned Czech Boyfriend Confesses Killing Brazilian Au Pair Ex-Girlfriend in US, Associated Press, December 15, 2005, discussed by petitioners in their Observations Concerning the March 2, 2007, Hearing Before the Commission, May 14, 2007, p. 22, note 79.
168 Nick Bonham, Police Label Homicide ‘‘Fatal-Attraction Killing’’, The Pueblo Chieftan, April 4, 2006, discussed by petitioners in their Observations Concerning the March 2, 2007, Hearing Before the Commission, May 14, 2007. p. 22, note 80. 169 John C. Esslin&Tillie Fong, Police Think Man Killed Spouse, Stepdaughter, Rocky Mountain News, Sep. 14, 2006, and Don Mitchell, Murder, Kidnap Charges Filed in Colorado Dragging Death, Suspect Accused of Killing Girlfriend, Associated Press, September 26, 2006, discussed by petitioners in their Observations Concerning the March 2, 2007, Hearing Before the Commission, May 14, 2007, page 22, notes 81 and 83.
170 See, IACHR Report 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004, para. 163; IACHR Report 67/06, Case 12.476, Oscar Elías Bicet et al. (Cuba), October 21, 2006, para. 228; IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, Doc. OEA/Ser.L./V/II.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr. , 22 October 2002, para. 335. 171 See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 2 and 26); International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Articles 2.2 and 3); European Convention on Human Rights (Article 14); African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Article 2).
172 IACHR, Report N° 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004, para. 162.
173 IACHR, Report N°40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004, para. 162.
174 IACHR, Report N° 57/96, Case 11.139, William Andrews (United States), December 6, 1996, para. 173.
175 IACHR, Report N° 67/06, Case 12.476, Oscar Elías Bicet et al. (Cuba), October 21, 2006, paras. 228-231; IACHR Report N° 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004, paras. 162 and 166.
176 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, para. 90. 177 See, e.g., United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Human Rights Council, Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in prevention, A/HRC/14/L.9/Rev.1, 16 June 2010; United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, General Assembly Resolution 48/104, December 20, 1993, A/RES/48/104, February 23, 1994; United Nations, Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women, September 15, 1995, A/CONF.177/20 (1995) and A/CONF.177/20/Add.1 (1995); CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 19: Violence against Women, (11th Session 1992), U.N. Doc.A/47/38 at 1 (1993).
178 See generally, IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others, (Mexico), March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), Annual Report of the IACHR 2001; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007); I/A Court H.R.,Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, Judgment of November 16, 2009.
179 See generally, CEDAW Committee, Communication 2/2003, Ms. A.T. v. Hungary, 26 January 2005; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009; IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007; I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico, Judgment of November 16, 2009. 180 See generally, IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009.
181 United Nations General Assembly, Elimination of Domestic Violence against Women, U.N. Doc. A/Res/58/147 (February 19, 2004).
182 See generally, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009; European Court of Human Rights, Kontrová v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts); CEDAW Committee, Views on Communication No. 5/2005, Sahide Goekce v. Austria, July 21, 2004.
183 IACHR, Report 97/03, Case 11.193, Gary T. Graham (Shaka Sankofa) v. United States, December 29, 2003, para. 26; IACHR, Report 62/02, Case 12.285, Michael Domingues (United States), October 22, 2002, para. 38.
184 See, e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 3; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 6; European Convention on Human Rights, article 2; African Charter on Human Rights and Peoples’ Rights, article 4, among others.
185 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, Doc. OEA/Ser.L./V/II.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., 22 October 2002, para. para. 38, note 103.
186 IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 251-252; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paras. 195-197; IACHR, Violence and Discrimination against Women in the Armed Conflict in Colombia, OEA/Ser/L/V/II. 124/Doc.6, October 18, 2006, paras. 102-106; IACHR, Report on the Rights of Women in Haiti to be Free from Violence and Discrimination, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 64, March 10, 2009, para. 90.
187 IACHR, Report on Admissibility N° 52/07, Petition 1490-05, Jessica Gonzales and Others (United States), July 24, 2007, para. 56.
188 See I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 ‘‘Interpretation of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights’’, July 14, 1989, Ser. A N° 10 (1989), paras. 35-45; James Terry Roach and Jay Pinkerton v. United States, Case 9647, Res. 3/87, 22 September 1987, Annual Report of the IACHR 1986-87, paras. 46-49.
189 Charter of the Organization of American States, Arts. 3, 16, 51.
190 See e.g. OAS General Assembly Resolution 314, AG/RES. 314 (VII-O/77), June 22, 1977 (entrusting the Inter-American Commission with the preparation of a study to ‘‘set forth their obligations to carry out the commitments assumed in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man’’); OAS General Assembly Resolution 371, AG/RES (VIII-O/78), July 1, 1978 (reaffirming its commitment to ‘‘promote the observance of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man’’); OAS General Assembly Resolution 370, AG/RES. 370 (VIII-O/78), July 1, 1978 (referring to the ‘‘international commitments’’ of OAS member states to respect the rights recognized in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man).
191 IACHR, Report N° 19/02, Case 12.379, Lare-Reyes et al. (United States), February 27, 2002, para. 46.
192 See I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 ‘‘Interpretation of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights’’, July 14, 1989, Ser. A N° 10 (1989), para. 45 (The Court held that ‘‘for the member states of the Organization, the Declaration is the text that defines the human rights referred to in the Charter’’).
193 See, as reference, Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1979), article 1, providing that the Commission was created ‘‘to promote the observance and defense of human rights’’ and defining human rights as those rights set forth both in the American Declaration and the American Convention. See also, American Convention on Human Rights, article 29 (d), stating that no provision of the Convention should be interpreted ‘‘excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have;’’ See also, Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (2009), articles 51 and 52, empowering the Commission to receive and examine petitions that allege violations of the rights contained in the American Declaration in relation to OAS members states that are not parties to the American Convention.
194 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr. 22 October 2002, para. 339. The report cites as examples Articles XVIII and XXIV of the American Declaration.
195 IACHR, Report N° 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004, para. 162; IACHR Report N° 67/06, Case 12.476, Oscar Elías Bicet et al. (Cuba), October 21, 2006, paras. 227-231.
196 See, e.g., IACHR, Report 63/08, Case 12.534, Andrea Mortlock (United States), July 25, 2008, paras. 75-95; IACHR, Report 62/02, Case 12.285, Michael Domingues (United States), October 22, 2002, paras. 84-87.
197 See, e.g., IACHR, Report N° 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz, et al. (United States), July 12, 2010 paras. 61-65; IACHR, Report N° 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004, paras. 122-135, 162, and 193-196; IACHR, Report N° 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States, December 27, 2002, paras. 124-145.
198 See, generally, IACHR, Report N° 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendariz, et al. (United States), July 12, 2010; IACHR, Report N° 63/08, Case 12.534, Andrea Mortlock (United States), July 25, 2008; IACHR, Report N° 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004; IACHR, Report N° 75/02, Case 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dann (United States, December 27, 2002; IACHR, Report N° 62/02, Case 12.285, Michael Domingues (United States), October 22, 2002.
199 IACHR, Report N° 40/04, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), October 12, 2004, paras. 136-156 (The Commission found the State of Belize responsible under the American Declaration when it granted logging and oil concessions to third parties to utilize the land occupied by the Maya people, without the effective consultation and the informed consent of this indigenous community, resulting in significant environmental damage); IACHR, Resolution 12/85, Case 7615 (Brazil), March 5, 1985 (The Commission found the State of Brazil responsible under the American Declaration when it failed to undertake timely and effective measures to protect the Yanomami indigenous community from the acts of private individuals settling in their territory – due to the construction of a highway – which resulted in the widespread influx of epidemics and disease).
200 See, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), Annual Report of the IACHR 2001, paras. 3, 37-44.
201 See, e.g, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, May 26, 2004; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4. 202 For a more detailed discussion, see generally J. Hessbruegge. 2004. ‘‘The Historical development of the doctrines of attribution and due diligence in international law’’, New York University Journal of International Law, vol. 36; Robert P. Barnidge, Jr., The Due Diligence Principle under International Law, International Community Law Review (2006); Johanna Bourke-Martignoni, The History and Development of the Due Diligence Standard in International Law and its Role in the Protection of Women against Violence, Due Diligence and its Application to Protect Women from Violence (2008); Report from Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertu¨rk, The Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence against Women, E/CN.4/2006/61.
203 See, e.g., Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, A/CONF.157/23, 12 July 1993, paras. 18 and 38.
204 See, e.g., United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Human Rights Council, Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in prevention, A/HRC/14/L.9/Rev.1, 16 June 2010 (adopted without a vote); United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, A/RES/64/137, 11 February 2010 (adopted without a vote); United Nations, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, General Assembly resolution 48/104, December 20, 1993, A/RES/48/104, February 23, 1994 (adopted without a vote). See also, Elimination of Domestic Violence against Women, G.A. Res. 58/147, U.N. GAOR, 58th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/Res/58/147 (February 19, 2004) (adopted without a vote).
205 See, e.g., United Nations, Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women, September 15, 1995, A/CONF.177/20 (1995) and A/CONF.177/20/Add.1 (1995), paras. 112-126.
206 See, e.g., Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (herein-after ‘‘Convention of Belém do Pará’’), Article 7(b).
207 See, e.g., United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation 19, Violence against women, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1//Rev.1 (1994), para. 11.
208 Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, The Due Diligence Standard as a Tool for the Elimination of Violence against Women, Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, E/CN.4/2006/61, January 20, 2006, para. 29 (The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women therein established that the duty of due diligence has attained the status of a norm of customary international law, which obligates States to prevent and respond with due diligence to acts of violence against women).
209 See, e.g., European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009, para. 246; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Views on Communication No. 6/2005, Fatma Yildrim v. Austria, July 21, 2004, para. 12.1.1; Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Views on Communication No. No. 2/2003, A.T. v. Hungary, January 26, 2003, para. 9.2.
210 United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Human Rights Council, Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in prevention, A/HRC/14/L.9/Rev.1, 16 June 2010.
211 See, e.g., United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Human Rights Council, Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in prevention, A/HRC/14/L.9/Rev.1, 16 June 2010, paras. 1-16; United Nations, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, General Assembly resolution 48/104, December 20, 1993, A/RES/48/104, February 23, 1994, Article 4; United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, A/RES/63/155, January 30, 2009, paras. 8-16; CEDAW, General Recommendation 19: Violence against Women, (11th Session 1992), U.N. Doc.A/47/38 at 1 (1993), paras. 1-23.
See also, IACHR, Report 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others, March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007; I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. ( ‘‘Cotton Field ‘’) v. Mexico, Judgment of November 16, 2009. For references to the European and African systems of human rights see, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009; Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa, Adopted by the 2nd Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the Union, Maputo, 11 July 2003, Article 4.
212 See, e.g., IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 160-255; IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, paras. 55-58; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paras. 26-58; IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico: The Right to be Free from Violence and Discrimination, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.117, Doc. 44, March 7, 2003, para. 104; IACHR, Violence and Discrimination against Women in the Armed Conflict in Colombia, OEA/Ser/L/V/II. 124/Doc.6, October 18, 2006, para. 24; IACHR, Report on the Rights of Women in Chile: Equality in the Family, Labor and Political Spheres, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.134, Doc. 63, March 10, 2009, para. 44; IACHR, Report on the Rights of Women in Haiti to be Free from Violence and Discrimination, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 64, March 10, 2009, para. 80. See also generally, I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. ( ‘‘Cotton Field ‘’) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205.
213 See generally, IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007; European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009; CEDAW Committee, Views on Communication 6/2005, Fatma Yildirim v. Austria (July 21, 2004).
214 See, e.g., United Nations, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, General Assembly resolution 48/104, December 20, 1993, A/RES/48/104, February 23, 1994, articles 3 and 4; United Nations, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, General Recommendation 19, Violence against women, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1//Rev.1 (1994), paras. 1, 11, and 23; IACHR, Report N° 4/01, Maria Eugenia Morales de Sierra (Guatemala), January 19, 2001, para. 44. 215 See, e.g., United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, A/RES/63/155, January 30, 2009, paras. 11, 14, 15 and 16; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), paras. 123-216; IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), Annual Report of the IACHR 2001, paras. 36-44.
216 United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Human Rights Council, Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in prevention, A/HRC/14/L.9/Rev.1, 16 June 2010, para. 10; IACHR, Violence and Discrimination against Women in the Armed Conflict in Colombia, OEA/Ser/L/V/II.124/Doc.6, October 18, 2006, para. 140; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 272; CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation 25, on Temporary Special Measures, U.N. Doc./CEDAW/C/2004/I/WP.1/Rev.1 (2004), section II, para. 12.
217 See, IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 247-255; I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. ( ‘‘Cotton Field ‘’) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 245.
218 See, IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 247-255.
219 See, IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 247-255; I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. ( ‘‘Cotton Field ‘’) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 245.
220 See, IACHR, Report N° 62/02, Case 12.285, Michael Domingues (United States), October 22, 2002, para. 83.
221 See, e.g., United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Human Rights Council, Accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women: ensuring due diligence in prevention, A/HRC/14/L.9/Rev.1, 16 June 2010; United Nations General Assembly Resolution, Intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, A/RES/64/137, 11 February 2010 and A/RES/63/155, January 30, 2009; United Nations, Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, General Assembly resolution 48/104, December 20, 1993, A/RES/48/104, February 23, 1994; United Nations, Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Fourth World Conference on Women, September 15, 1995, A/CONF.177/20 (1995) and A/CONF.177/20/Add.1 (1995); CEDAW, General Recommendation 19: Violence against Women, (11th Session 1992), U.N. Doc.A/47/38 (1993).
222 In this case, the Commission noted that more than 17 years had passed since the launching of the investigation into the attacks suffered by the victim and to date the case against the accused remained opened without a final ruling.
223 IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 56.
224 IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 55.
225 See CEDAW Committee, Views on Communication No. 5/2005, Sahide Goekce v. Austria, July 21, 2004; CEDAW Committee, Views on Communication No. 6/2005, Fatma Yildrim v. Austria, July 21, 2004.
226 See, European Court of Human Rights, Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, Application No. 46598/06, 15 January 2009. 227 See, European Court of Human Rights, Kontrová v. Slovakia, Application No. 7510/04, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts).
228 See, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009.
229 European Court of Human Rights, Case of E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 33218/96; Z and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], Application no. 29392/95 ECHR 2001-V.
230 See, European Court of Human Rights, Kontrová v. Slovakia, Application No. 7510/04, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts); European Court of Human Rights, Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, Application No. 46598/06, 15 January 2009; see also I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205.
231 See, European Court of Human Rights, Kontrová v. Slovakia, Application No. 7510/04, ECHR 2007-VI (extracts); European Court of Human Rights, Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, Application No. 46598/06, 15 January 2009.
232 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009, para. 136; E. and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 33218/96, para. 99.
233 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009, para. 132.
234 See, generally, European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009.
235 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Opuz v. Turkey, Application No. 33401/02, 9 June 2009, para. 191.
236 IACHR, Report 63/08, Case 12.534, Andrea Mortlock (United States), July 25, 2008, para. 80; IACHR, Report 98/03, Statehood Solidarity Committee (United States), December 29, 2003, paras. 91-93. 237 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999. 238 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005: Exhibit B: Decision of District Court, County of Douglas, State of Colorado making temporary restraining order permanent on June 4, 1999. 239 See Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005, Exhibit A: Temporary Restraining Order dated May 21, 1999.
240 See C.R.S. § 18-6-803.5 (3), Colorado’s Mandatory Arrest Statute, Petitioners’ petition dated December 27, 2005.
241 See, Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, pages 25-34.
242 International Association of Chiefs of Police, A Law Enforcement Officer’s Guide to Enforcing Orders of Protection Nationwide (2006), presented as Exhibit K of December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners.
243 Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Law Enforcement Training Manual, 2nd Edition (October 2003), mentioned in Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 32.
244 The State mentions this manual as an example of positive steps taken at the state level to respond to domestic violence and to provide adequate training to police officers. The State claims that aside from mandatory training programs, there are several elective training programs that many police departments in Colorado provide as additional training to police officers. One example is the training provided by the Colorado Coalition against Domestic Violence (CCADV), a non-profit organization, with this law enforcement manual, which the State describes as ‘‘comprehensive.’’ The State also claims that this manual ‘‘explores in depth the dynamics of domestic violence and the legislative history of Colorado statutory provisions on domestic violence, the law enforcement response, domestic violence risk factors, restraining and protection orders, full faith and credit, violation of protection orders, other Colorado statutes governing protection orders, and the procedure of enforcement of protection orders and other considerations.’’ See Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, pp. 24, 32–33. 245 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab F, Castle Rock Police Department Incident Report 90623004, 06/23/99, 00:06 hrs.
246 See, for example, U.S. Response to petition alleging violations of the human rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab G: Statement Signed by Cpl. Patricia Lisk.
247 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab G: Statement signed by Cpl. Patricia A. Lisk.
248 Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, p. 7.
249 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
250 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68, January 20, 2007, para. 170.
251 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m; Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. C: 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team Shooting of Simon Gonzales Castle Rock PD Case #99-3226, p. 32.
252 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by the 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m.
253 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m; Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. C: 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team Shooting of Simon Gonzales Castle Rock PD Case #99-3226, p. 32.
254 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m; Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. C: 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team Shooting of Simon Gonzales Castle Rock PD Case #99-3226, p. 32.
255 December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Tab N: Interview with William George Palsulich by 18th Judicial District Critical Incident Team Detectives Bobbie Garret and Christian Contos, June 23, 1999, 7:04 p.m; Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. C: 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team Shooting of Simon Gonzales Castle Rock PD Case #99-3226, p. 32.
256 See U.S. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Task Force on Domestic Violence: Final Report, pages. 18-19 (1984). For a more detailed review of this issue, see section on ‘‘findings of fact’’ supra paras. 91-99.
257 See, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey (2007); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Costs of Intimate Partner Violence in the United States (2003); Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000; Lawrence A. Greenfield et al., U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates 38 (1998). For a more detailed review of this issue, see section on ‘‘findings of fact’’ supra paras. 91-99.
258 IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 57.
259 IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 47.
260 See, Study of Dr. Paulo Sergio Pinheiro as Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence against Children pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 60/231, 29 August 2006, paras. 38-47.
261 United Nations, Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Yakin Ertürk, The Due Diligence Standard as a tool for the Elimination of Violence against Women, E/CN.4/2006/61, para. 49; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc. 68, January 20, 2007, para. 53.
262 See generally, IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette Gonzalez and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 247-255; I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. ( ‘‘Cotton Field’’) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 285.
263 The recent United Nations Study on Violence against Children confirms that the majority of violent acts experienced by children are perpetrated by people who are part of their lives, including parents, and that intimate partner violence heavily affects children. See, Study of Paulo Sergio Pinheiro as Independent Expert for the United Nations Study on Violence against Children, pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 60/231, 29 August 2005, para. 28. A recent United Nations Study on Violence against Women has highlights that ‘‘[c]hildren are often present during episodes of domestic violence’’ and that ‘‘[d]omestic or intimate partner violence can . . . .be fatal for children’’. See, United Nations, Report of the Secretary-General, In Depth Study on All Forms of Violence against Women, A/61/122/Add.1, July 6, 2006, para. 169.
264 See, e.g., National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Missing and Abducted Children, A Law Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Case Management, Third Edition (2006).
265 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 127th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, March 2, 2007.
266 U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006, Tab D: Investigator’s Progress Report, Castle Rock Police Department, Castle Rock, Colorado, Cr #99-3226, Third Call at 21:57 hours.
267 During her first call, Jessica Lenahan described the situation to the dispatcher as ‘‘scary’’ and ‘‘that she did not know what to do.’’ During her telephone conversation with Officer Brink, she communicated that she considered Simon Gonzales’ taking of his daughters and their friend to the park, ‘‘unusual’’, ‘‘wrong’’ and ‘‘weird.’’ During her third call at 9:57 p.m. that evening, Jessica Lenahan informed the dispatcher that she was a ‘‘little wigged out’’ because her daughters were still not home and that she ‘‘did not know what to do,’’ that she was a ‘‘mess,’’ and that she was ‘‘freaking out.’’ During her last call to the CRPD at midnight, she reported that her daughters were still not home, that Simon Gonzales had run off with the girls, and that she was very worried about her children. When Jessica Lenahan visited the CRPD at 12:30 a.m., she was crying, and she informed Officer Ahlfinger that she still ‘‘didn’t know what to do’’ and was ‘‘scared’’ for her children, that she was afraid Simon Gonzales had ‘‘lost it,’’ and that he might be ‘‘suicidal.’’ For a more detailed discussion, see paragraphs 71-79 of this report.
268 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, paras. 172-180.
269 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, para. 134.
270 IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 56.
271 IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 37.
272 IACHR, Report N° 40/4, Case 12.053, Maya Indigenous Community (Belize), para. 174; IACHR, Report N° 54/01, Case 12.051, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 37.
273 See, IACHR, Report N° 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendatriz, et al., United States, July 12, 2010, para. 62; IACHR, ACHR, Report on Admissibility N° 52/07, Petition 1490-05, Jessica Gonzales and Others (United States), July 24, 2007, para. 42; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 26; I/A Court H.R., The ‘‘Street Children’’ Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 235.
274 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juarez, OEA/Ser. L/V/II.117. Doc. 44 (March 7, 2003), para. 51.
275 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 56.
276 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 56.
277 IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Case 12, 496, Claudia Ivette González and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, para. 242, Recommendation 2.
278 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 77; United Nations, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Measures to Eliminate Violence against Women, resolution approved by the United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/52/86, February 2, 1998, Annex, Section II.
279 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 77; United Nations, Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Measures to Eliminate Violence against Women, resolution approved by the United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/52/86, February 2, 1998, Annex, Section II.
280 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juarez, OEA/Ser. L/V/II.117. Doc. 44 (March 7, 2003), para. 142; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), Recommendation 1.
281 IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Case 12, 496, Claudia Ivette Gonzá-lez and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, para. 206; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 40.
282 IACHR, Report N° 53/01, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez (Mexico), Case 11.565, April 4, 2001, paras. 84-88; IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico: The Right to be Free from Violence and Discrimination, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.117, Doc. 44, March 7, 2003, para. 132.
283 IACHR, Report N° 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella et al. (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 412.
284 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 40; I/A Court H.R., Godínez Cruz Case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 188.
285 IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, para. 247. 286 IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 216-217; IACHR, Report N° 10/95, Case 10.580, Manuel Stalin Bolaños, Ecuador, Annual Report of the IACHR 1995, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91, Doc. 7, rev. 3, April 3, 1996, paras. 32-34.
287 United Nations, Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Recommended by Economic and Social Council Resolution 1989/65.
288 United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, Doc. E/ST/CSDHA/12 (1991).
289 IACHR, Report N° 28/07, Cases 12.496-12.498, Claudia Ivette González and Others (Mexico), March 9, 2007, paras. 218; I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. ( ‘‘Cotton Field’’). Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 301.
290 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. B: Colorado Bureau of Investigation: Report of Investigation, prepared by Agents J. Clayton Jr. & D. Sollars, July 19, 1999 and Ex. C: 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team Shooting of Simon Gonzales Castle Rock PD Case #99-3226.
291 Investigation by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Investigation by Critical Incident Team (CIT) of 18th Judicial District, Exhibits B and C respectively of Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008. The State also presents a supplemental report related to the CIT investigation dated July 1, 1999 in Tab E of its U.S. Response to the Petition Alleging Violations of the Human Rights of Jessica Gonzales by the United States of America and the State of Colorado, September 22, 2006.
The Commission observes that on August 3, 2009, it requested from the United States the entire investigation file related to the death of Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca Gonzales, but this request has not been met. Therefore, the Commission bases the analysis of these two investigations on the information that has been provided to date by the parties. 292 The documents related to these two investigations read in conjunction also show that their main objective was to investigate the exchange of gunfire between the police and Simon Gonzales. See, for example, Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Exhibit H: Letter to Colorado Bureau of Investigations from Agents Contos and Vanecek, June 28, 1999; Reply by the Government of the United States of America to the Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case by the Petitioners, October 17, 2008, Tab I: Letter from the District Attorney, 18th Judicial District to Castle Rock Police Department, August 13, 1999.
293 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Exhibit C: 18th Judicial Critical Incident Team Shooting of Simon Gonzales Castle Rock PD Case #99-3226, p. 38.
294 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Exhibit E: Douglas County Coroner’s Report: Rebecca Gonzales, Exhibit F: Douglas County Coroner’s Report: Katheryn Gonzales, and Exhibit G: Douglas County Coroner’s Report: Leslie Gonzales.
295 See, December 11, 2006 Observations from Petitioners, Ex. I: Critical Incident Team Report, Dated June 23, 1999, R. E. Garrett, Detective.
296 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Exhibit B: Colorado Bureau of Investigation: Report of Investigation, prepared by Agents J. Clayton, Jr. & D. Sollars, July 19, 1999.
297 Expert Report by Peter Diaczuk, Forensic Scientist and the Director of Forensic Science Training at the Center for Modern Forensic Practice, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, presented by petitioners to the Commission on July 16, 2009 (hereinafter ‘‘Expert Report by Peter Diaczuk’’).
298 Expert Report by Peter Diaczuk, para. 54.
299 IACHR, Report on Admissibility N° 52/07, Petition 1490-05, Jessica Gonzales and Others (United States), July 24, 2007, Annual Report of the IACHR 2007, para. 48.
300 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), paras. 54, 134, 139, 172 and 177.
301 See, i.e., IACHR, Report on the Merits N° 136/99, Case 10.488, Ignacio Ellacuria and Others (El Salvador), December 12, 1999, paras. 224-226.
302 See, i.e., IACHR, Report on the Merits N° 136/99, Case 10.488, Ignacio Ellacuria and Others (El Salvador), December 12, 1999, para. 224.
303 Hearing on the matter of Jessica Gonzales v. United States at the 133th Ordinary Period of Sessions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, October 22, 2008; Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. A: Declaration of Tina Rivera, March 17, 2008. 304 Final Observations Regarding the Merits of the Case submitted by the petitioners, March 24, 2008, Ex. A: Declaration of Tina Rivera, March 17, 2008. 305 Statement from Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes, and consequences, at the conclusion of her fact finding mission to the United States of America, February 8, 2011, available at http://www.ohchr.org.
306 See, IACHR, Report N° 81/10, Case 12.562, Wayne Smith, Hugo Armendatriz, et al., United States, July 12, 2010, para. 62; IACHR, Report on Admissibility N° 52/07, Petition 1490-05, Jessica Gonzales and Others (United States), July 24, 2007, para. 42; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 26; I/A Court H.R., The ‘‘Street Children’’ Case (Villagra´n Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 235.
307 IACHR, The Situation of the Rights of Women in Ciudad Juarez, OEA/Ser. L/V/II.117. Doc. 44 (March 7, 2003), para. 51.