REPORT Nº 2/01*
CASE 11.280
January 19, 2001


1. On April 5, 1994, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “InterAmerican Commission,” the “Commission,” or the “IACHR”) received a petition that Mr. Juan
Carlos Bayarri (hereinafter “the petitioner”) filed against the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter
“the State” or “Argentina”) alleging violation of his rights to humane treatment (Article 5), to
personal liberty (Article 7), to a fair trial (Article 8) and to judicial protection (Article 25),
recognized in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the
“American Convention”).
2. The petitioner alleges that he was arbitrarily detained on November 18, 1991, without a
court order. He further alleges that he was tortured and, under torture, confessed to police
that he had participated in a number of kidnappings. The following day, the competent judge
issued arrest and search warrants against him and criminal proceedings were instituted against
him for the commission of several crimes. The charges were based on statements he made in
the confession given under torture. The petitioner’s legal attorney and his father, Juan José
Bayarri, filed legal actions alleging these crimes: one case was instituted for unlawful
deprivation of liberty and another for unlawful treatment. Those cases have been subject to
unwarranted delays, and as yet no final ruling has been delivered. The petitioner further
alleges that he has been incarcerated for more than 8 years. Although he has applied for
release several times, the courts have arbitrarily denied his application every time.
3. The State requests that the IACHR declare the case inadmissible on the grounds that the
remedies under domestic law in the criminal case against Mr. Bayarri have not been
exhausted. The State alleges that the delay in that case is justified. Rulings in the cases for
unlawful deprivation of liberty and for unlawful treatment are still pending. The State also
alleges that the petitioner’s preventive detention is warranted on several counts and that the
petitioner has failed to exhaust the remedies under domestic law. The State also requests that
the petition be considered inadmissible because the facts alleged do not constitute violations of
rights protected under the Convention.
4. Having examined the instant case, the Commission concludes that it is competent to
consider it and that the petitioner’s allegations regarding violations of Articles 5, 7, 8 and 25 of
the Convention are admissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention.


5. The Commission forwarded the petition to the State on April 13, 1994. The latter forwarded
its observations in a note dated September 27, 1994. The petitioner sent his comments on
November 4, 1998 and January 18, 1995, and the State submitted its response on March 2,
1995. The petitioner filed his comments and additional documentary evidence on March 10,
June 23 and November 25, 1995. By note dated February 9, 1996, the State filed its reports
with the Commission. The petitioner forwarded additional information on March 18, April 13,
and July 13, 1996, and on January 22, 1997.
6. On July 21, 1998, the IACHR requested specific information from both the State and the
petitioner concerning the various proceedings instituted in connection with this case. The
petitioner sent the requested information on September 15, 1998. The State requested two
consecutive extensions, the first on September 24 and the second on October 27, 1998. Both
extensions were granted. The petitioner supplied additional information on November 11,
1998. The State sent its observations on December 9, 1998 and April 1, 1999. On May 4,
1999, the petitioner supplied more information, to which the State responded on July 2, 1999.
The petitioner provided additional information on July 14, August 9 and October 12, 1999. The


Select target paragraph3