REPORT N 101/99
CASE 11.425
September 21, 1999
1. Juan Francisco Bueno Alves (hereinafter “the petitioner”) submitted a petition to the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) on August 24, 1994,
accusing the Argentine Republic (hereinafter “Argentina” or “the State”) of allegedly violating the
following rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Convention”): the right to humane treatment (Article 5), the right to personal liberty (Article 7),
and the right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25).
2. The petitioner describes a series of events to the Commission, chiefly involving the alleged
arbitrary arrest and torture carried out against him by officers of the “Divisi de Defraudaciones y
Estafas.” These incidents allegedly took place on April 5 and 6, 1988, respectively. In reply, the
State maintains that the remedies available under domestic law have not been exhausted and that
consequently, under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, the case is not admissible.
3. The Commission concludes that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies offered under
domestic law in connection with the alleged threats made against him by the police. This aspect of
the case is therefore inadmissible under Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention and Article 37 of the
Commission’s Regulations. The Commission concludes that the allegations of arbitrary arrest do
not constitute a violation of rights enshrined in the Convention, as required by Article 47(b) of the
Convention and Article 41(b) of the aforesaid Regulations. On the contrary, in the Commission’s
view those allegations are manifestly groundless, as described in Article 47(c) of the Convention
and Article 41(c) of the Regulations.
4 The Commission also concludes that the petitioner’s allegations of torture, the denial of a fair
trial, and ineffective judicial recourse do meet the admissibility requirements set forth in Article
47(b) of the Convention and Articles 31 and 41(b) of the Regulations in that they do describe
incidents that could tend to establish a violation of rights protected by the Convention.


5. The Commission received the petition on August 24, 1994. It forwarded the relevant parts of it
to the State the following September 20.
6. The petitioner sent the Commission additional information whose receipt was acknowledged on
October 31.
7. The State sent the Commission its initial reply on December 15; receipt of this was
acknowledged and it was forwarded to the petitioner on December 21.
8. On January 20, 1995, the Commission received the petitioner’s comments on the State’s reply.
On that same date the case was opened and, on January 30, the petitioner was informed thereof
and the relevant parts were forwarded to the State. On April 3 the State asked for additional time
to prepare its reply; this extension, for 45 days, was granted by the Commission on that same
date. On July 21 the Commission resent its request for information to the Argentine State;
subsequently, on July 24, the Commission received the State’s reply.


Select target paragraph3