2
connection with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Claudina Isabel Velásquez Paiz; and that it has
breached its duty under Article 7 of the Convention of Belem Do Para in relation to Article 24 of the
American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation to observe and ensure rights envisaged
in Article 1(1) of the latter. In this report, the IACHR has concluded also that the State violated the right
recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the
detriment of Jorge Rolando Velásquez Durán, Elsa Claudina Paiz Vidal de Velásquez, and Pablo Andrés
Velásquez Paiz, as well as Articles 8(1) and 25 the American Convention taken in conjunction with the
obligation of the State under Article 1(1) thereof and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE IACHR

6.
On October 4, 2010, the Commission adopted Report on Admissibility 110/10. The
Commission forwarded the report to the petitioners and the State in a communication of October 15,
2010, and gave the petitioners three months to submit additional observations as to merits. It also
placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter in
accordance with Article 48(1)(f) of the American Convention. The petitioners’ response was received on
January 18, 2011, and forwarded on January 31, 2011, to the State, which was given three months to
submit its comments. The response of the State was received on May 3, 2011, and duly relayed to the
petitioners. In this case the parties had no desire to enter into a friendly settlement agreement.
7.
The IACHR also received information from the petitioners on the following dates: August
31 and November 4, 2011, and May 31, 2012. Those communications were duly forwarded to the State.
8.
In addition the IACHR received comments from the State on the following dates: January
19, 2012; March 19 and 27, 2012; August 30, 2012; and September 28, 2012. Those communications were
duly forwarded to the petitioners.
9.
On March 27, 2012, the IACHR, in the course of its 144th regular session, held a public
hearing that was attended by Álvaro Rodrigo Castellanos Howell as an expert put forward by the
petitioners, the petitioners themselves, and the State of Guatemala.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

The Petitioners

10.
According to the petitioners, at the time of her murder 19-year-old Claudina Isabel
Velásquez Paiz was in the fourth semester of her law degree at the Faculty of Legal and Social Sciences
of the University of San Carlos of Guatemala. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on August 12, 2005, she and
her brother left home, headed for the University where she was studying. At 7:30 p.m. that day, Jorge
Velásquez Durán, Claudina’s father, spoke to her by cellphone. After several subsequent contacts by
telephone, at around 10 p.m. that day the alleged victim contacted her parents to tell them that she was
at a party in Colonia Panorama (a gated community in Guatemala City) and that she was with a female
friend. Thereafter she contacted her parents and brother several times to tell them that she was at a
party and that she would be home by midnight. However, she never came home.
11.
According to the alleged victim’s friend Pedro Julio Samayoa Moreno, who was with her
that night, Claudina Isabel left the party at around 12:30 a.m. on August 13, 2005, and set off home
alone. At approximately 2 a.m. on August 13, 2005, Pedro Julio Samayoa’s mother appeared at

Select target paragraph3