REPORT No. 9/16 PETITION 149-02 ADMISSIBILITY EDUARDO RICO ARGENTINA APRIL 13, 2016 I. SUMMARY 1. On March 4, 2002 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the InterAmerican Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition presented on behalf of Eduardo Rico (hereinafter, “the alleged victim” or “Mr. Rico”) against Argentina (hereinafter, “Argentina” or “the State”). The petition was presented by Mr. Rico and his representatives (hereinafter, “the petitioners”)1 who alleged the violation of several rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) during the proceeding for the removal of Mr. Rico from his judgeship. 2. The petitioners allege that Mr. Rico was dismissed in a political procedure without having the opportunity to be heard by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, and that he could not challenge the dismissal decision in court. The State says that Mr. Rico’s dismissal was carried out by an independent, impartial, and competent organ in accordance with due process, and that the alleged victim is appealing to the IACHR as a fourth instance. 3. Without prejudging the merits of the case, after examining the positions of the parties and pursuant to the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decides to declare the case admissible in order to examine the alleged violation of the rights contained in Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. The IACHR finds the present petition inadmissible with respect to Articles 11, 21, and 24 of the Convention. The Commission also decides to notify the parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE IACHR 4. The IACHR received the petition on March 4, 2002, and on February 17, 2004, transmitted a copy of the pertinent parts to the State, giving it two months to submit its observations, based on Article 30 of its Rules of Procedure then in force. On February 1, 2005, the reply was received from the State, which was forwarded to the petitioners on September 22, 2005. 5. The IACHR received additional observations from the petitioners on October 20, 2004, December 20, 2005, November 3, 2006, May 16, 2007, October 28, 2013, March 2, 2015, and July 21, 2015. The IACHR received additional observations from the State on November 22, 2006, April 27, 2007, August 22, 2014, and December 15, 2015. These communications were duly transmitted to the other party. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 6. The petitioners state that Mr. Rico began his career as a magistrate in Labor Court Nº 1 of the Judicial Department of San Martín and performed his duties there until, with the advent of the military regime, he was dismissed by decree in August 1976. In 1996 Mr. Rico was recalled to the bench, as one of three judges of Labor Court Nº6 of the Judicial Department of San Isidro, in Buenos Aires. 1 During the processing of the case, the IACHR received observations from Mr. Rico and his representatives, namely: Susana María Barneix, Adrián Leopoldo Azzi, Jorge Dario Pisarenco and Carlos Federico Bossi Ballester.