RULING OF THE
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS*
OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006
CASE OF “19 TRADESMEN” V. COLOMBIA
COMPLIANCE WITH JUDGMENT
CONSIDERING:
1.
The Judgment on merits, reparations, and costs issued on July 5, 2004 by the
Inter-American Court on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court”, “the Inter-American
Court”, or “the Tribunal”), through which the Court declared:
unanimously, [that]
1.
the State violated the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and life
embodied in Articles 7, 5 and 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation
to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Álvaro Lobo Pacheco, Gerson Javier Rodríguez
Quintero, Israel Pundor Quintero, Ángel María Barrera Sánchez, Antonio Flórez
Contreras, Víctor Manuel Ayala Sánchez, Alirio Chaparro Murillo, Álvaro Camargo,
Gilberto Ortíz Sarmiento, Reinaldo Corzo Vargas, Luis Hernando Jáuregui Jaimes, Luis
Domingo Sauza Suárez, Juan Alberto Montero Fuentes, José Ferney Fernández Díaz,
Rubén Emilio Pineda Bedoya, Carlos Arturo Riatiga Carvajal, Juan Bautista, Alberto
Gómez (whose second last name was possibly Ramírez) and Huber Pérez (whose second
last name was possibly Castaño), in the terms of paragraphs 134, 135, 136, 145, 146,
150, 155 and 156 of the […] Judgment.
By six votes to one, [that]
2.
the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection embodied in
Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article
1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Álvaro Lobo Pacheco, Gerson Javier Rodríguez
Quintero, Israel Pundor Quintero, Ángel María Barrera Sánchez, Antonio Flórez
Contreras, Víctor Manuel Ayala Sánchez, Alirio Chaparro Murillo, Álvaro Camargo,
Gilberto Ortíz Sarmiento, Reinaldo Corzo Vargas, Luis Hernando Jáuregui Jaimes, Luis
Domingo Sauza Suárez, Juan Alberto Montero Fuentes, José Ferney Fernández Díaz,
Rubén Emilio Pineda Bedoya, Carlos Arturo Riatiga Carvajal, Juan Bautista, Alberto
Gómez (whose second last name was possibly Ramírez) and Huber Pérez (whose second
last name was possibly Castaño) and their next of kin, in the terms of paragraphs 173,
174, 177, 200, 203, 204 and 205 of the […] Judgment.
[…]
Unanimously, [that]
*
The Judge Diego García-Sayán excused himself from knowing of the present case, pursuant to
Articles 19 of the Statute and 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, thus he did not participate in the
issuing of the Judgment or of the present Ruling.