REPORT No. 82/13 CASE 12.679 MERITS JOSÉ AGAPITO RUANO TORRES AND RELATIVES EL SALVADOR November 4, 2013 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 12, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Pedro Torres Hércules (hereinafter “the petitioner”), which alleged that the Republic of El Salvador (hereinafter “the State,” “El Salvador” or “the Salvadoran State”) bore international responsibility for the presumed violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, personal integrity and personal liberty of José Agapito Ruano Torres (hereinafter “the alleged victim”). 2. On October 17, 2008, the Commission approved the report on admissibility No. 77/08, where it concluded that it was competent to hear the petition lodged by the petitioner and, based on arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, decided to declare the petition admissible for the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “American Convention” or the “Convention”), in connection with the general obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of said international instrument. 3. During the processing on the merits, the petitioner argued that José Agapito Ruano Torres had been unfairly tried and convicted of kidnapping due to numerous omissions and irregularities committed during the criminal proceedings. The petitioner also alleged that Mr. Ruano Torres had been tortured at the time of his arrest and that, due to his irregular conviction, his confinement had been arbitrary. For its part, the State contended that the alleged violations never took place whereas Mr. Ruano Torres’ guilt had been proven in duly regulated criminal proceedings. 4. After examining the positions of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concluded that, first, the Salvadoran State was responsible for violating the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection enshrined in Article s 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of José Agapito Ruano Torres. Second, in the Commission’s opinion, the State was responsible for violating the right to personal liberty established in Article 7 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) of said instrument, to the detriment of José Agapito Ruano Torres. 5. Third, the Commission considered that the State had violated the right to personal integrity enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) of said instrument to the detriment of José Agapito Ruano Torres. Fourth, the Commission concluded that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations established in Articles 5 and 1(1) of said instrument to the detriment of José Agapito Ruano Torres. The Commission also concluded that the State was responsible for violating the right to personal integrity established in Article 5 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1(1) of said instrument to the detriment of the relatives of José