REPORT No. 174/10 CASE 12.688 MERITS NADEGE DORZEMA ET AL or THE GUAYUBIN MASSACRE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC November 2, 2010 I. SUMMARY 1. On November 25, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a complaint lodged by the Support Group for Repatriates and Refugees represented by Cherubin Tragelus and by the DominicanHaitian Cultural Center represented by Antonio Pol Emil, alleging the responsibility of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter “the Dominican State,” “the State” or the “Dominican Republic”). The petition alleges that the State is internationally responsible for the events that took place on June 18, 2000, in which Jacqueline Maxime, Fritz Alce (Gemilord), Roselene Theremeus, Ilfaudia Dorzema, Máximo Rubén de Jesús Espinal, Pardis Fortilus and Nadege Dorzema lost their lives, and in which the personal integrity of Joseph Pierre, Selafoi Pierre, Silvie Thermeus, Roland Israel, Rose Marie Dol, Josué Maxime, Michel Florantin, Cecilia Petithomme/Estilien, Sonide Nora, Alphonse Oremis, Renaud Timat and Honorio Winique was harmed. The petition also alleged that some of the victims’ personal liberty had been violated and that the State had not provided the judicial guarantees and judicial protection to make possible reparation of the damage caused. On October 23, 2006, the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR received the accreditation of the International Clinic for the Defense of Human Rights of UQAM, represented by Bernard Duhaime and Carol Hilling as co-petitioners (hereinafter, they and the initial petitioners will be referred to as “the petitioners”). 2. On December 22, 2008, the Commission approved the Admissibility Report No. 95/08, in which it concluded that the Commission was competent to hear the complaint lodged by the petitioners and decided, based on arguments of law and of fact, and without prejudging the merits of the case, to declare admissible the complaint alleging the presumed violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention”), in connection to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Furthermore, in application of the iura novit curia principle, the Commission concluded that the petition was admissible based on the alleged failure to comply with the provisions of Article 2 of the American Convention. 3. In that regard, during the analysis on the merits, the petitioners alleged that on June 18, 2000, at the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic, Dominican troops massacred Haitian nationals and, at the same time, injured others; that the facts remained unpunished because they were investigated by the military justice system, and that the persons arrested were expelled from the country with no legal or administrative determination made regarding their juridical status. In that regard, the petitioners alleged that the victims injured and executed were subjected to an attempt against their lives; to expulsion from the country without due guarantees, and that they were denied justice because they were Haitian nationals. The petitioners considered that the facts fit within the general context of discriminatory conduct against Haitians or persons of Haitian origin by Dominican agents. Therefore, the petitioners considered that the State was responsible for the violation of the rights mentioned above. 4. For its part, the State considered that the allegations were inadmissible because the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention had not been met. Likewise, the State argued that the judicial proceedings before a military tribunal have legal and constitutional grounds, and are also in accordance with international human rights laws. Therefore, the State affirmed that the facts were duly investigated and the responsible individuals brought before civil and military justice. Furthermore, the State ruled out the notion that the facts in the present case had been the result of deliberate actions.

Select target paragraph3