2
alleged violations had not been exhausted, given that the alleged victims should have filed appeals or
motions for reversal and, subsequently, motions for cassation and reconsideration of dismissal of appeal,
to overturn the judicial decision that had accepted the pleadings on compliance successfully argued by
the municipality. The State adds that apart from the remedies mentioned, the petitioners also had
recourse to the appeal for protection [recurso de protección] recognized in the Constitution of Chile
against acts or omissions that they regarded as violations of their basic rights.
5.
With respect to the teachers from the other municipalities who have been named as
alleged victims by the petitioners, the State argues that the claim is inadmissible, saying that it is nothing
more than generalization.
6.
In accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, as well as in Articles
30 and 36 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission, having examined the positions of the parties, decided
to declare the petition admissible in relation to the alleged violations of Articles 5 (right to humane
treatment), 8(1) (right to a fair trial), 21 (right to property), and 25 (right to judicial protection) in conjunction
with 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (duty to adopt domestic legal provisions) of the American
Convention, but not with respect to Article 26 of that instrument. The Commission also decided to notify
the parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of
the Organization of American States.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

7.
The petition was lodged by the petitioners with the Executive Secretariat of the
Commission on November 23, 2005. The Commission began to process the petition on May 8, 2006, when
it transmitted to the State the relevant parts of the petition and requested it to respond within a period
of two months. In a communication of July 27, 2006, the State requested an extension and, by note 273
of August 9, 2006, submitted its observations, which were relayed to the petitioners on August 29.
8.
The petitioners presented observations and additional information in communications
dated August 8, 2006; February 20, 2007; December 22, 2008; and July 6, 2009, which were duly conveyed
to the State. For its part, the State presented additional observations in communications dated April 26,
2007; and August 29, 2008, which were duly transmitted to the petitioners. In a communication of May
18, 2010, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioners regarding exhaustion of
domestic remedies in the cases of the municipalities of Chanco, Pelluhue, Parral, Vallenar, and Cauquenes.
That information was presented on January 21, 2011, and forwarded to the State for comment on March
22 of that year.
9.
On March 10, 2008, in the framework of its 131st regular session, the Commission held a
public hearing on this petition, which was attended by both the petitioners and the State. Furthermore,
on October 26, 2011, in the course of its 143rd regular session, the Commission held a working meeting
with the parties.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

The Petitioners

10.
According to the petition, under Statutory Decrees 1979 and 1980, on August 19, 1981,
the State of Chile transferred all teachers employed at educational facilities that reported to the Ministry

Select target paragraph3