REPORT No. 45/14
JULY 18, 2014



On July 3, 2000, Rufino Jorge Almeida, Myriam Carsen, and Octavio Carsen (hereinafter “the
petitioners”) submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or
“the IACHR”) a communication in which they allege the international responsibility of the Argentine Republic
(hereinafter “the State” or “Argentina”) for the alleged discrimination in the reparations proceeding under Law
No. 24,043,on not making reparation for the alleged illegal imposition of the “release-under-surveillance”
regime (régimen de “libertadvigilada”), to which Rufino Jorge Almeida (hereinafter “the alleged victim”) was
alleged to have been unlawfully subjected from July 28, 1978 to April 30, 1983, during the dictatorship.

The petitioners allege the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, equality before the law,
and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention”) as well as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights, provided
for at Article 1(1). The State alleges that the petition is inadmissible because it fails to make out a violation of
the American Convention and seeks to use the IACHR as a court of appeals, it is time-barred, and it duplicates
another case decided by the IACHR;and because petitioners have failed to exhaust domestic remedies.

After examining the parties’ positions in light of the admissibility requirements set out at
Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission concludes that it is competent to take
cognizance of the claims and that these are admissible for the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in
Articles 2, 8, 24, and 25 of the American Convention in relation to its Article 1(1). Accordingly, it orders that
the parties be notified, that it be published, and that it be included in its Annual Report to the General Assembly
of the OAS.


The petition was registered and assigned number 325-00. On July 23, 2003, the pertinent parts
were forwarded to the State for its observations. The State answered on March 23, 2004, in a response that
was forwarded to the petitioners for their observations. The petitioners answered on September 15, 2004 and
sent additional information on April 17, 2007, which was forwarded to the State.

On May 4, 2009, the petitioners asked that a dialogue be established to seek a friendly
settlement, a request that was sent to the State for observations. On June 29,2009, the State requested an
extension for filing its response, which was granted by the IACHR. On September 1, 2009, the Commission
reiterated its request for information to the State. On September 17,2009, the State responded that it was
evaluating the petitioners’ request.

The petitioners asked the Commission to continue processing the matter in view of the State’s
failure to respond, on June 28, 2010, and again on July 15,2013; those communications were forwarded to the
State for observations. In its communication of July 23, 2013, the Commission reiterated to the State its
commitment to respond to the request to establish a dialogue between the parties. On September 3,2013, the
IACHR forwarded the petitioners’ note to the State.

Select target paragraph3