-5ii. Redress the consequences of the violations declared in the Merits Report, including both
the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary damage.
iii. Expedite the necessary amendments to the law to ensure that disciplinary proceedings
against judges are conducted by competent authorities with sufficient guarantees of
independence and impartiality.
iv. Expedite the necessary amendments to the law to ensure that the grounds for disciplinary
action against judges and the applicable sanctions are compatible with the principle of
legality, in the terms set out in the Merits Report.
Notification of the Merits Report. On December 17, 2013, the Merits Report was
notified to the State granting it two months to report on compliance with the
recommendations. The State presented a report on the measures taken to comply
with these recommendations on February 17, 2014.
3.
Submission to the Court. On March 17, 2014, the Commission submitted this case to the
Court, “owing to the need to obtain justice for the [presumed] victims.” The Commission appointed
Commissioner Tracy Robinson, Executive Secretary Emilio Álvarez Icaza and the Special Rapporteur
for Freedom of Expression at the time, Catalina Botero, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed,
Deputy Executive Secretary, Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Ona Flores and Jorge H. Meza Flores, as legal
advisers.
4.
Requests of the Inter-American Commission. Based on the above, the Inter-American
Commission asked the Court to conclude and declare that Honduras was internationally responsible
for the violations described in the Merits Report and to order the State, as measures of reparation,
to comply with the recommendations made in the report (supra para. 2).
II
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
5.
Notification to the State and to the representatives. The submission of the case was notified to
the representatives of the presumed victims and to the State on April 29 and 30, 2014,
respectively.
6.
Brief with pleadings, motions and evidence. On June 29, 2014, the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter “the representatives”) presented their brief with pleadings,
motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”) pursuant to Articles 25 and 40 of
the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The representatives were in substantial agreement with the
arguments of the Commission and asked the Court to declare that the State was internationally
responsible for violating the same articles indicated by the Commission. In addition, they alleged
the violation of the presumed victims’ rights to personal integrity and to honor, dignity and
development of their life project, recognized in Articles 5 and 11 of the American Convention, the
presumed violation of the right to personal liberty of Judge Chévez, recognized in Article 7 of the
Convention, and also the violation of the “autonomous right to defend human rights” of the
presumed victims, allegedly recognized in Articles 13(1), 15, 16(1), 23(1)(a) and 25 of the
Convention. Lastly, the representatives asked that the Court order the State to adopt various
measures of reparation and to reimburse certain costs and expenses.
7.
Answering brief. On September 25, 2014, the State submitted to the Court its brief with a
preliminary objection, answering the submission of the case by the Commission, and with
observations on the pleadings and motions brief (hereinafter “answering brief”). In this brief, the