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.

Select target paragraph3