6.
In this case, the Commission made itself available to assist the parties in reaching a friendly
settlement but none expressed their interest in such procedure.
III.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A.
Position of the petitioners
7.
The petitioners indicated that the alleged victims were subjected to a criminal procedure for
the rape and killing of Sonia Marisol Álvarez García, a girl. They indicated that on October 4, 1993, the First
Court of the First Criminal Instance sentenced the alleged victims to death and they were executed by means
of a firing squad on September 13, 1996.
8.
The petitioners stated they complied with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic
remedies as they appealed the conviction on December 1, 1993. The appeal was submitted before the
Twelfth Chamber of the Appeal Court, which upheld the original ruling. Also, on September 27, 1994, they
filed an extraordinary cassation appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice, which was dismissed as well. On
June 9, 1995, they lodged an amparo constitutional remedy against the aforementioned decision, which was
dismissed by the Constitutional Court on November 7, 1995. Subsequently, they requested a Presidential
Pardon on July 17, 1996, which was denied that same day. Finally, on August 23, 1996, they applied for
judicial review which was rejected in full by the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on August
29, 1996.
9.
On the basis of the information provided by both parties, the specifics of the facts and
proceedings of the case will be referred to in the factual analysis of the Commission. In this section, a
summary of the main arguments put forward during the merits stage is presented.
10.
The petitioners alleged that in the context of the criminal proceedings that led to the
conviction of the alleged victims, the State incurred various violations of the Rights to a Fair Trial and to
Judicial Protection which can be summarized as the following: (a) for 10 days, at the beginning of the
process, in which fundamental proceedings took place, they did not have legal defense; (b) subsequently,
legal representation was provided by law students who did not have the experience or the time necessary to
prepare an adequate defense; (c) during the trial stage they were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses
who testified during the investigation stage; and (d) the judge failed to establish the individual responsibility
of each defendant.
11.
The petitioners argued that the Right to Life was violated because the death penalty
sentence requires strict observance of judicial guarantees, which was not met in this case, and therefore,
there was an arbitrary deprivation of the life of the alleged victims.
12.
They alleged that the Right to Humane Treatment was breached because the execution by
firing squad of the alleged victims was aired on television, as an act of humiliation to them. They also argued
that, despite the fact there was an initial shooting by twenty members of the security forces of the
penitentiary system, there was the need for an additional fatal shot to kill one of the alleged victims who did
not die as a result of the initial shootings.
13.
The petitioners pointed out that the State breached its duty to adopt provisions to give
Domestic Legal Effects to the rights and freedoms of the Convention because the then in force Code of
Criminal Proceedings granted investigative functions to the judge, which breached the guarantee of an
independent and impartial judge.
14.
Finally, they referred to the violation to the Obligation to Respect Rights, enshrined in
Article 1(1) of the American Convention as the actions afore-mentioned show the State did not comply with
its duty to respect the rights and freedoms of the alleged victims.
2