2
specific recommendations for the State. This report was notified to Brazil on April 10, 2007,
and the State was granted two months to inform the Commission of the actions undertaken
to implement the said recommendations. After the State had been granted three extensions
and, “after considering the information provided by the parties concerning the
implementation of the recommendations in the Report on Merits and […] the absence of any
substantive progress in complying with them,” the Commission decided to submit the case
to the Court’s jurisdiction. It considered that this case represented a valuable opportunity to
enhance inter-American case law concerning protection of the right to privacy and the right
to freedom of association, as well as on the limits to the exercise of public authority. The
Commission appointed Clare K. Roberts, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive
Secretary, as delegates and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and the
lawyers, Juan Pablo Albán and Andrea Repetto, as legal advisers.
2.
According to the Commission, the application refers to “the [alleged] unlawful
telephone interception and monitoring of the telephone lines of Arle[i] José Escher, Dalton
Luciano de Vargas, Delfino José Becker, Pedro Alves Cabral, Celso Aghinoni […] and
Eduardo Aghinoni, members of the organizations [ADECON] and [COANA], carried out by
the Military Police of the state of Paraná between April and June 1999; [the dissemination
of the telephone conversations] and the denial of justice and adequate reparation.”
3.
In the application, the Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible
for the violation of Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 11 (Right to Privacy [Honor and
Dignity]), 16 (Freedom of Association) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American
Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights and
the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions established, respectively, in Articles 1(1)
and 2 thereof, and also in consideration of the directives arising from the Federal Clause
contained in Article 28 of this instrument. In addition, the Commission asked the Court to
order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation.
4.
On April 7, 2008, the organizations Justiça Global, Rede Nacional de Advogados
Populares, Terra de Direitos, Comissão Pastoral da Terra (CPT) and Movimento dos
Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their
brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”),
pursuant to Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure. In this brief, they asked the Court, based
on the facts set out by the Commission in its application, to declare the violation of the
rights to judicial guarantees, privacy, freedom of association and judicial protection
established in Articles 8, 11, 16 and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to
Articles 1(1), 2 and 28 thereof to the detriment of Arlei José Escher and Dalton Luciano de
Vargas, and another 32 members of COANA and ADECON who were not indicated as alleged
victims in the application. Consequently, they asked the Court to order measures of
reparation. Lastly, in a power of attorney granted on April 16, 2007, these two
organizations appointed the lawyers of Justiça Global, Andressa Caldas, Luciana Silva
Garcia, Renata Verônica Cortes de Lira and Tamara Melo to be their legal representatives.
5.
On July 7, 2008, the State presented a brief in which it filed three preliminary
objections, answered the application, and made observations on the pleadings and motions
brief (hereinafter “answer to the application”). The State asked the Court to consider that
the preliminary objections were justified and, consequently: (i) not to admit the pleadings
and motions brief and its attachments; (ii) to exclude the alleged failure to comply with
Article 28 of the Convention from the analysis of the merits, and (iii) to declare itself
incompetent owing to the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It also maintained that the
domestic courts had examined the conduct of the military police who requested the
telephone interception, of the judge who authorized it, and of the Secretary for Public
Security at the time who had disseminated part of the recordings, and concluded that there
had been no unlawful conduct. It asked the Court to “acknowledged that the Brazilian State

Select target paragraph3