REPORT No. 59/13 PETITION 212-06 ADMISSIBILITY ROCÍO SAN MIGUEL SOSA ET AL VENEZUELA July 16, 2013 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 7, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or the “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Ligia Bolívar Osuna and Héctor Faúndez Ledesma (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging responsibility of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter, “the State” or “the Venezuelan State”) for violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5), a fair trial (Article 8), freedom of thought and expression (Article 13), freedom of association (Article 16), to participate in government (Article 23), equal protection (Article 24), judicial protection (Article 25), and progressive development (Article 26) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), in connection with Articles 1.1, 2 and 29 of this instrument, to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña (hereinafter jointly “the alleged victims”). 2. The petitioners contended that the alleged victims were dismissed from their jobs at the National Border Council in retaliation for signing a petition to hold the recall referendum on the term of office of then President Hugo Chávez Frías. In this regard, they claim that the alleged victims were not heard by a court of law, which met the minimum requirements of independence and impartiality and respected due process in order to restore their rights. In the view of the petitioners, the admissibility requirements prescribed in the American Convention have been fulfilled. 3. In response, the Venezuelan State moved that the petition be found inadmissible, pursuant to Articles 46.1.a and 47.d of the American Convention. The State argued that the alleged victims had not exhausted the suitable remedy to restore the allegedly violated right. On the contrary, in the view of the State, the alleged victims used an inadequate proceeding to assert their rights under domestic law, inasmuch as they chose to pursue the remedy of constitutional relief via the amparo constitucional proceeding, whereas they should have brought their case before a trial-level labor court. The State contended that constitutional relief through amparo is in order “when no brief, summary and effective procedural means exists [that is] equivalent to constitutional protection.” According to the State, it was possible to bring an expeditious, simple and effective case before the trial-level labor courts, which presumably have jurisdiction to hear cases when dismissal from employment is involved. 4. After analyzing the positions of the parties, the Commission concluded that it is competent to decide the claim filed by the alleged victims and pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, it decided to find the case admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 13, 23, 24 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of this instrument. It also decided to find the petition inadmissible as to the alleged violation of Articles 16 and 26 of the American Convention. Accordingly, the Commission decided to notify the parties, proceed to analysis of the merits with regard to the alleged violations of the American Convention, publish the instant Admissibility Report and include it in the IACHR Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.