REPORT Nº 67/99
CASE 11.738
ELBA CLOTILDE PERRONE and JUAN JOSE PRECKEL
ARGENTINA
May 4, 1999
I.
SUMMARY
1.
On December 23, 1996, and January 13, 1997, the
Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (Asamblea Permanente por los
Derechos Humanos; hereinafter “the petitioner”) submitted a petition to
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) alleging that during
the period of time that Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel were
illegally detained and exiled under orders from the de facto government
that held power between 1976 and 1983, they failed to receive their
earnings from the General Tax Directorate. The claims and suits they
presented in order to obtain payment were arbitrarily rejected by the
Argentine authorities.
2.
The petitioner claimed that by doing so, the Argentine
Republic violated the right to a fair trial (Article 8), to property (Article
21), and to equality before the law (Article 24), together with the
obligation of respecting the rights and of adopting domestic legal
provisions (Articles 1 and 2) contained in the American Convention on
Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American
Convention”), together with the rights to work and fair remuneration
(Article XIV), to the recognition of juridical personality and civil rights
(Article XVII), to a fair trial (Article XVIII), and to property (Article
XXIII) enshrined in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of
Man (hereinafter “the Declaration” or “the American Declaration”), with
respect to Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel.
3.
In examining this case, the Commission concluded that it
has competence in the matter and that in accordance with Articles 46
and 47 of the American Convention, the petitioner’s allegations
regarding Articles 8, 21, and 3 of the Convention, which protect the
same rights as Articles XVII, XVIII, and XXIII of the Declaration, are
admissible. With respect to the aforesaid violations, the Commission will
refer solely to the provisions of the Convention and not to those of the
Declaration; this is because once the American Convention came into
force for the Argentine State, it–and not the Declaration–became the
Commission’s main source of applicable law, provided that petitions
refer to alleged violations of rights that were substantially identical in
1