REPORT No. 60/18 CASE 12.709 MERITS JUAN CARLOS FLORES BEDREGAL AND FAMILY BOLIVIA May 8, 2018 I. SUMMARY 1. On June 14, 2006, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the InterAmerican Commission," "the Commission," or "the IACHR") received a petition lodged by Olga Flores Bedregal (hereinafter "the petitioner") in which she alleged international responsibility of the Plurinational State of Bolivia (hereinafter "the Bolivian State," "the State," or "Bolivia") for the forced disappearance of her brother Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal in connection with the military coup d’état in July 1980 and for the fact that those deeds remain unpunished. 2. The Commission approved the admissibility report No. 65/09 on August 4, 20091. On August 14, 2009, the Commission notified the parties of that report and placed itself at their disposal with a view to reaching a friendly settlement.2 The parties were informed of the statutory deadlines for submitting additional observations on the merits. All information received was duly relayed between the parties. 3. The petitioner alleged that in connection with the military coup in Bolivia in July 1980 the alleged victim had been disappeared when, in his capacity as leader of the Revolutionary Workers' Party (Partido Obrero Revolucionario) and alternate national representative in Congress, he had attended a meeting of the Committee for the Defense of Democracy at the headquarters of the Bolivian Workers Confederation (Central Obrera Boliviana), when those headquarters were attacked by soldiers and paramilitary forces. She argued that the State had not fully investigated those facts, had not punished those responsible, and had not determined the whereabouts of Mr. Flores Bedregal's remains. She also complained that while judicial orders had been issued to declassify documents and information held by the Armed Forces, which would help to throw light on the facts and on the whereabouts of the alleged victim, those orders had not been obeyed by the authorities concerned. 4. The State, for its part, referred to domestic procedures aimed at investigating the facts and punishing those responsible. It specified that former de facto President Luís García Meza had been put on trial to determine his criminal liability for those events, which included what had happened to Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, and that García Meza and his collaborators had been convicted. It pointed out that criminal proceedings were initiated in 1999 regarding the same facts, which ended with a dismissal of proceedings in respect of some of the accused and with convictions handed down against most of them. Regarding the length of time taken for domestic proceedings, Bolivia asked the Commission to take into account the complexity of the case, the actions taken by the judicial authorities, and the filing of a series of remedies and incidental pleas by the accused. The IACHR argued that the IACHR cannot act as a fourth instance reviewing decisions by domestic courts. 5. After analyzing the positions of the parties and the information in the file, the Commission concluded that the State of Bolivia is responsible for violating the rights to juridical personality, life, personal integrity, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, freedom of expression, freedom of association, participation in government/public affairs, and judicial protection set forth in Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1,5.2, 7, 8.1, 13, 16, 23 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the American Convention" or "the Convention") in conjunction with Article 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument and Articles 1.a and b and III of the Inter-American IACHR Report No. 65/09. Petition 616-06. Admissibility. Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. Bolivia. The Commission stated that the facts could characterize violations of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, as well as Article I and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (ICFDP). The IACHR declared the petition inadmissible in respect of Article 24 of the Convention. 2 It transpires from the file that the parties approached one another with a view to a possible friendly settlement process. Given the lack of information regarding any concrete progress in that direction, in a communication dated September 9, 2015 the IACHR conveyed its decision to declare an end to its part in that possible process and to continue its consideration of the merits. 1 1