I. INTRODUCTION REPORT No. 74/21 CASE 13.638 REPORT ON MERITS JOSÉ ANTONIO GUTIÉRREZ NAVAS ET AL. HONDURAS April, 16, 2021 1. On February 5, 2013, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition lodged by José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma, and the Centro Latinoamericano de Derechos Humanos (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the international responsibility of Honduras (hereinafter “the Honduran State,” “the State,” or “Honduras”) to the detriment of José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, and Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma (hereinafter “the alleged victims”) for their purported arbitrary and illegal removal from office as justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in an act of political retaliation by the Honduran National Congress. 2. The Commission approved Admissibility Report No. 83/18 on July 17, 2018. 1 On July 20, 2018, the Commission notified the parties of the report and made itself available to them to reach a friendly settlement, but the conditions were not in place to initiate such a proceeding. The parties had the requisite time frames in which to submit additional comments on the merits. All the information the Commission received was duly forwarded to the parties. II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 3. The petitioners indicate that the alleged victims were justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Honduras. 4. They indicate that the National Congress, by means of Decree No. 89-2012, passed the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption (Ley Especial de Depuración Policial), which entered into force on May 25, 2012. They report that a number of citizens brought a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Chamber, on grounds that the law violated provisions of the Honduran Constitution. They indicate that after the legal proceedings were completed, on November 27, 2012, the Constitutional Chamber voted on the matter but that the draft judgment did not have the unanimous vote needed for it to be approved. They explain that the four alleged victims voted to declare that the aforementioned law was unconstitutional and that only one justice voted to declare it constitutional. Therefore, pursuant to established procedure, the complaint was submitted to the Plenary of the Supreme Court for its decision. 5. The petitioners allege that in retaliation for the events described above, on December 10, 2012, the Congress appointed a Committee, made up of representatives of the ruling party, with the mandate to investigate the administrative conduct of the judiciary. On the evening of December 11, 2012, that Committee presented its report to the Congress, establishing that there had been administrative irregularities in the processing of the constitutional complaint filed against the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption. According to the petitioners, the report indicated that the Constitutional Chamber’s decision with respect to that law was inconsistent with the security policy adopted by the executive and legislative branches of government and that this caused serious harm to the State. They note that this congressional session was held IACHR, Report No. 83/18, Petition 455-13, Admissibility, José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas et al., Honduras, July 17, 2018. The Commission declared the petition admissible in relation to Articles 5, 8, 9, 23, 25, and 26 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The Commission found the petition inadmissible in relation to Article 11 of the American Convention. 1 1