2
the friendly settlement of the Correa Belisle case, which had similar issues regarding due process,
although in a different context.
Finally, with respect to the total duration of the proceedings, including both the proceedings
before the military tribunals and the cassation stage and a subsequent extraordinary appeal before
the civil justice system, the Commission considered that in this case there was no controversy
regarding the following: a) it was a complex matter (the case file had more than 14,000 pages and
there were 32 defendants), b) the victims had not delayed the proceedings, and c) the proceedings
took over 16 years. In these circumstances, the Commission concluded that the duration of the
proceedings exceeded the reasonable time period provided for by the American Convention.
The State ratified the American Convention on Human Rights and accepted the Court’s
contentious jurisdiction on September 5, 1984. In this respect, even though the proceedings were
initiated in September of 1980, the proceedings took place before the military tribunals at least until
June 5, 1989 when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forced ruled on the merits of the case. On
the other hand, the Code of Military Justice was in force until 2008. Additionally, the victims were in
preventive detention between 7 and 8 years and the infringement of the right of be trial within a
reasonable time continued until April 1998, when a final decision was handed down by the highest
court of Argentina. In these circumstances, according to the analysis of Report N° 135/11, there
are human rights violations that took place after the acceptance of the competence of the Court by
the State of Argentina.
The Commission has designated Commissioner Rodrigo Escobar and Santiago Canton,
executive secretary, as its delegate. Likewise, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary,
Silvia Serrano Guzmán and Tatiana Gos, attorneys of the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR,
have been designated to serve as legal advisors.
In accordance with Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, the
Commission is enclosing a copy of Merits Report No. 135/11, prepared in compliance with Article
50 of the American Convention, as well as a copy of the entire file before the Inter-American
Commission (Appendix I.) and the attachments used to prepare the Report on the Merits
(Attachment). The Commission adopted its Report on the Merits No. 135/11 on October 31, 2011
and transmitted to the State on December 29, 2011, granting it two months to provide information
on the measures adopted in compliance with the recommendations. In January 2012, the
petitioners requested that the case be submitted to the Court. On March 2, 2012, the State of
Argentina sent a communication requesting an extension to report on the measures adopted in
compliance with the recommendations made in Report No. 135/11 and waived the right to fill
preliminary objections with respect to this term. On March 29, 2012 the Commission notified the
State the concession of the extension for two months. On April 27, 2012, the State presented a
report which does not reveal any progress in the compliance of the recommendations.
The Executive Secretariat notes that the State only indicated that the pecuniary
determination of the reparations should be done by the initiation of domestic proceedings.
Taking into account the aforementioned, and in view of the failure of the State carrying out
the Commission’s recommendations and the need to obtain justice for the victims of this case, the
Executive Secretariat suggests the referral of the case to the Court.
While the victim’s deprivation of liberty and the proceedings before military tribunals began
before Argentina ratified the American Convention and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the

Select target paragraph3