11.
Based on the foregoing, the petitioners allege that the State violated, to the detriment of the
alleged victim, the rights embodied in Articles 4, 8, 24 and 25 of the American Convention in agreement with
Article 1.1 of the same treaty. They also argue that under the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal
Court, the alleged violations may tend to establish a crime against humanity due to the context in which these
took place. In this regard, they say that during the coup, there were 23 alleged violent deaths among the
members of the LGBTI community, “which is the highest frequency rate of murders of transsexuals and
homosexuals in a semester in Honduras”. As a result, they allege that these may be “systematic and generalized
conducts, committed with particular intensity after the seizure of power”.
B.

Position of the State

12.
According to the State, the petition must be declared inadmissible in view that the State
complied with its duty to investigate concerning the death of Vicky Hernández Castillo, making significant
efforts to search the truth. It believes, however, that the procedure has been extended and delayed due to the
complexity of the case, as the facts are described as “extremely harmful and, therefore, demand more severe
punishment”.
13.
In particular, the State describes several investigation procedures that it carried out to identify
the victimizers. It adds that in the preliminary investigation, Rosa Hernández, mother of the alleged victim, bore
witness; that she declared that on June 27, 2009, “the victim arrived in the morning and asked her 100 lempiras,
and after that she never saw him again”; and that later, in her witness statement to the National Office of
Criminal Investigation (hereinafter “DNIC”), she declared that “her son had told her that there was another
travesty, whose name she does not remember, who had robbed him and who threatened to kill him if he saw
him again”. The State argues that later many several calls were made to a friend of the victim, a religious
ministry, and a group from a neighborhood in the city; but that the telephone lines were out of service, which
did not allow finding out their addresses so that they bore witness.
14.
The State stresses that the lack of witnesses at the place of the events has hindered the
clarification of the facts and the identification of the persons responsible for the death of the alleged victim, in
spite of which the investigation continues. In this regard, it alleges that it has duly complied with its duty of
protection and safeguard of human rights in favor of Vicky Hernández Castillo, as it carried out several
investigation procedures aimed at searching the truth, in conformity with all the requirements of the
substantive, and criminal procedural laws. In particular, as to the autopsy report, the State says that by
December 2015, the report had been included in the case file.
15.
Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State argues that the domestic law has
effective, adequate and necessary remedies to solve the case. In addition, it states that the action of criminal
prosecution has not prescribed, and that therefore, it is possible to protect the rights of the victim by means of
domestic remedies.
16.
In conclusion, the State argues that given that domestic remedies have not been exhausted,
the petition is inadmissible, and requests the IACHR so declare.
IV.

ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY

A.

Competence

17.
Under Article 23 of the IACHR’s Rules and Article 44 of the American Convention, the
petitioner is entitled to lodge complaints with the Commission. In the petition, the alleged victim is an
individual person whose rights are protected under the American Convention. The State of Honduras agreed
to respect and ensure the rights embodied in said Convention. As to the State, the Commission declares that
Honduras is a State Party to the Convention since September 8, 1977, when it deposited the instrument of
ratification. As a result, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. Moreover, the
State is party to the Convention of Belém do Pará since July 12, 1995; therefore, the Commission is competent

3

Select target paragraph3