REPORT No. 75/15 CASE 12.923 MERITS ROCIO SAN MIGUEL SOSA ET AL VENEZUELA October 28, 2015 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 7, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the InterAmerican Commission,” “the Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Ligia Bolívar Osuna and Héctor Faúndez Ledesma (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State” or “the Venezuelan State”) is responsible for the violation of several provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention") to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña (hereinafter "the alleged victims "). 2. The petitioners claim that in 2004 the alleged victims were dismissed from their posts in the National Border Council (hereinafter "CNF", for its initials in Spanish) in retaliation for signing the petitions to carry out a recall referendum on the term of office of the President of the Republic, Hugo Chavez Frías in 2003. They also noted that the alleged victims were not heard by a court that met the minimum requirements of independence and impartiality, and that would hear them with the due guarantees for the restitution of their rights. 3. For its part, the Venezuelan State did not present observations on the merits. The State's submissions available to the Commission correspond to the admissibility stage. In those communications, in addition to issues of admissibility, that are not relevant to the merits analysis, having already been resolved, the State argued that there is no causal link between the signatures and the termination of the alleged victims, because said termination was carried out in application of the seventh clause of their respective contracts, under which the employer is empowered to terminate the services without any motivation. The State also indicated that the alleged victims filed various remedies, which were duly resolved by the judicial authorities. 4. After examining the positions of the parties, the Commission concluded that the Venezuelan State is responsible for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (right to a fair trial) , 13 (freedom of conscience and religion), 23 (right to participate in government), 24 (right to equal protection) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (domestic legal effects) thereof, to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña. In addition, the Commission concluded that it has no evidence in its possession to declare the State responsible for the violation of article 5 (humane treatment) of the American Convention, separately. Finally, the Commission made the respective recommendations. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION A. Processing of the case subsequent to the admissibility report 5. On March 7, 2006, the Commission received the petition and registered it under the number 212-06. The procedure until the decision on admissibility is explained in detail in Report No. 59/13 of July 16, 20131. In said report, the IACHR declared the petition admissible as to the possible 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 thereof. 1 IACHR, Report No. 59/13 (Admissibility), Petition 212-06, Rocío San Miguel Sosa et al, Venezuela, July 16, 2013, paras 5-7. 1