4. As set forth below, pursuant to its examination, the Commission concluded that it is
competent to take cognizance of the petitioners’ complaints concerning alleged violations of
Articles 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, and to the extent necessary
Articles I, XXV and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
(hereinafter “American Declaration”), and that the case is admissible pursuant to the terms of
Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. The Commission determined that the claims
concerning Article 9 of the American Convention are inadmissible.
II.
PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION
5. The principal communications that form the basis of petition 12.167 were received as
follows (some alleged victims are named more than once): (1) June 5, 1998, Hugo Oscar
Arguëlles; (2) September 10, 1998, Miguel Angel Maluf; (3) September 11, 1998, Hugo Oscar
Arguëlles, Miguel Ramon Taranto, Ambrosio Marcial and Miguel Oscar Cardozo; (4) September
11, 1998, Julio Cesar Allende and Luis Jose Lopez Mattheus; (5) September 11, 1998, Enrique
Jesus Arecena and Felix Oscar Moron; (6) September 11, 1998, Nicolas Tomasek; (7)
September 11, 1998, Juan Italo Obolo and Alberto Jorge Perez; (8) September 11, 1998,
Gerardo Félix Giordano, Enrique Jesús Aracena, José Arnaldo Mercau, Carlos Julio Arancibia,
Félix Oscar Morón, Miguel Oscar Cardozo, Luis José López Mattheus, Julio Cesar Allende,
Ambrosio Marcial, Alberto Jorge Pérez, Horacio Eugenio Oscar Muñoz and Juan Italo Obolo; (9)
September 15, 1998, Carlos Alberto Galluzzi; (10) October 28, 1998, Ricardo Omar Candurra,
Carlos Julio Arancibia, Jose Eduardo di Rosa, Enrique Lujan Pontecorvo and Anibal Ramon
Machin. An additional presentation on behalf of 15 of those already named was filed on
December 1, 1998.
6. To recount the principal steps in processing, on June 7, 1999, the Commission transmitted
the pertinent parts of petition 12.167 to the State, with information in response requested
within 90 days. By note of that same date, the respective petitioners were informed that the
processing of the petition had been initiated.
7. By note of September 7, 1999, the State requested an extension for its response. By notes
of September 13, 1999, the Commission granted the State an additional 60 days and informed
the petitioners that this action had been taken. By note of November 11, 1999, the State
requested an additional extension. The State was granted an additional 30 days, and the
petitioners were informed accordingly.
8. The State presented its response on December 28, 1999. This was transmitted to the
petitioners on January 5, 2000, with observations in response requested within 60 days.
Observations were presented by various petitioners on February 7, February 22, March 3,
March 6, March 8 and May 1, 2000. These were duly transmitted to the State on May 24,
2000, with observations in response requested within 60 days. Additional information was
received from the petitioners on June 5, 2000, and transmitted to the State on June 9, 2000.
By note of July 7, 2000, the Commission clarified that observations in response to both
communications would be due 60 days following June 9, 2000. By note of August 11, 2000,
the State requested an extension for its response. On August 15, 2000, the Commission
granted the State 30 additional days and informed the petitioners that this had been done.
9. The State presented its observations by note of September 19, 2000. The Commission
transmitted those to the petitioners by note of October 27, 2000, with any observations in
response requested within 60 days.
10. Observations were presented by the petitioners on October 31 and November 10, with two
presentations received on November 29, 2000. These were transmitted to the State on
December 27, 2000, with any observations in response requested within 60 days. In response
to the State’s February 27, 2001 request for an extension, the Commission issued a new
deadline of April 5, 2001, and informed the petitioners that this had been done. The State’s
observations were presented on April 18, 2001, and transmitted to the petitioners for their
information on May 17, 2001.
2