2
report, the IACHR declared the petition admissible vis-à-vis the possible violation of the rights enshrined in
Articles 4, 5, 8, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations established in
Article 1.1 of the same instrument.4
6.
On August 11, 2009, the Commission notified the said report to the parties and by virtue of
Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure then in force, fixed a time limit of two months for the petitioners to
present their additional observations on the merits. Additionally, in accordance with Article 48.1 f) of the
Convention, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties to reach an amicable solution.
7.
On October 16, 2009, the petitioners submitted their additional observations on the merits,
which were sent to the State of Ecuador on December 29, 2009. The Commission requested that the State file
its additional observations on the merits within two months, in accordance with Article 38.1 of the Rules of
Procedure then in force.
8.
On March 2, 2010, May 3, 2011, and June 4, 2013, the petitioners submitted additional briefs,
which were sent to the State of Ecuador for its observations. As at the date of approval of this report on the
merits, the State of Ecuador has not presented its observations on the merits of the case, nor has it responded
to any of the communications forwarded by the IACHR after the admissibility report.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

The Petitioners

9.
The petitioners observed that on June 20, 1998, the girl TGGL, then three years old, was
admitted to the Catholic University Hospital in the city of Cuenca, in the province of Azuay, and remained
there for three days, after which she was taken to the Pablo Jaramillo Crespo Humanitarian Clinic Foundation
(hereinafter “the Humanitarian Clinic”).
They pointed out that there she was diagnosed with
thrombocytopenic purpura and needed an urgent blood transfusion. Therefore her family and acquaintances
requested two pints of blood and two of platelets from the Azuay Provincial Red Cross in the city of Cuenca
(hereinafter “the Red Cross”). They stated that the blood originated from the donor HS, a family
acquaintance, and that the blood was donated to the Humanitarian Clinic on June 22, 1998, and administered
to the child, the same day.
10. The petitioners alleged that it was the day after the transfusion that the Red Cross obtained the
results of Mr. HS’s HIV test. At the time of the donation, he did not know that he was a carrier of the virus.
They indicated that a few days later, the Director of the Red Cross Blood Bank (hereinafter “the Blood Bank”)
ordered an HIV test on the child TGGL, which gave a positive result. The petitioners stated that gynecological
tests were undertaken to ascertain other possible routes for the infection.
11. The petitioners alleged that the State is responsible for the provision of ‘safe blood’ through
entities such as the Ecuadorian Red Cross and that it has therefore failed to fulfill its obligation to ensure the
right to life, to personal integrity and the health of the girl TGGL.
12. They indicated that the mother of TGGL presented a criminal claim from 1998 in order to
establish the responsibility of the workers of the Cruz Roja Provincial del Azuay. They added that she also
presented a civil action in 2002 in order to obtain compensation for damages. They stated that the state of
limitations was applied to the only person called for trial. According to the petitioners, that happened as a
consequence of the lack of action on the part of the judges. They indicated that, in such circumstances, with no
criminal conviction, the civil procedure was nullified in 2006 and, therefore, it was not possible to obtain any
moral reparation of the damages caused to TGGL.

4 IACHR, Report No. 89/09 (Admissibility), Petition 663/06, TGGL, Ecuador, August 7, 2009, operative para. 1. Available at the
following website: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2009eng/Ecuador663.06eng.htm.

Select target paragraph3