2

Commission”) against the Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “Venezuela”, “the State” or
“the Government”).
I
1.
The instant case was submitted to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Court” or the “Inter-American Court”) by the Inter-American Commission
by note of January 14, 1994, transmitting its Report No. 29/93 of October 12, 1993. It
originated in Petition No. 10.602 against Venezuela, lodged with the Secretariat of the
Commission on August 10, 1990.
2.
In its petition the Commission asserted that Venezuela had violated the following
articles of the American Convention: 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to
Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 24 (Right to Equal Protection), 25 (Right to
Judicial Protection) and 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), with the deaths of José R.
Araujo, Luis A. Berrío, Moisés A. Blanco, Julio P. Ceballos, Antonio Eregua, Rafael M.
Moreno, José Indalecio Guerrero, Arín O. Maldonado, Justo Mercado, Pedro Mosquera, José
Puerta, Marino Torrealba, José Torrealba and Marino Rivas, which occurred at the “La
Colorada” Canal, Páez District in the State of Apure, Venezuela.
It also claimed in the petition that Articles 5, 8(1), 24 and 25 of the Convention had been
violated to the detriment of Wolmer Gregorio Pinilla and José Augusto Arias, sole survivors
of the aforementioned events.
3.
It further contended that the instant case referred to events that began on October
29, 1988. On that day sixteen fishermen from the village of “El Amparo”, Venezuela, were
on their way to the “La Colorada” canal along the Arauca river in Apure State on a “fishing
trip.” At approximately 11:20 a.m., when some of the fishermen were leaving the boat,
members of the military and the police of the “José Antonio Páez Specific Command”
(CEJAP), opened fire on them, killing fourteen of the sixteen fishermen.
4.
On August 1, 1994, the State submitted its answer to the petition and, by note of
January 11, 1995, reaffirmed that Venezuela “d[id] not contest the facts referred to in the
complaint and accept[ed] the international responsibility of the State.”
5.

On January 18, 1995, the Court delivered a judgment in which it declared that it:
1.
Takes note of the recognition of responsibility made by the Republic of Venezuela, and
decides that the concerning the facts that originated the instant case has ceased.
2.
Decides that the Republic of Venezuela is liable for the payment of damages and to pay a
fair indemnification to the surviving victims and the next of kin of the dead.
3.
Decides that the reparations and the form and amount of the indemnification shall be
determined between the Republic of Venezuela and the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights by mutual agreement within six months as of the notification of this judgment.
4.
Reserves the right to review and approve the agreement, and in the event that an
agreement is not reached, the Court shall determine the scope of the reparations and the amount
of the indemnities, court costs and attorneys' fees, to which effect it retains the case on its docket.
(El Amparo Case, Judgment of January 18, 1995. Series C. No. 19, Operative part).

Select target paragraph3