REPORT No. 169/19
CASE 12.889
REPORT ON MERITS
DIANA MAIDANIK ET AL.
URUGUAY
November 9, 2019
I.

INTRODUCTION

1. On August 15, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission," "the
Inter-American Commission," or "the IACHR") received a petition lodged by the Instituto de Estudios Legales y
Sociales del Uruguay (IELSUR), alleging the international responsibility of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay
(hereinafter "the State,", "the Uruguayan State," or "Uruguay") for the alleged forced disappearance of Luis
Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu, as well as the alleged extrajudicial executions of Diana
Maidanik 1 , Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes (hereinafter "the alleged victims") and for failure to
investigate all those acts.
2. The Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 90/12 on November 8, 2012.2 On January 23, 2013,
the Commission notified the parties of that report and placed itself at their disposal with a view to reaching a
friendly settlement, to no avail, given the absence of the conditions needed to resolve the case through that
procedure. The parties were afforded the regulatory time to present additional observations as to merits. All the
information received was duly relayed between the parties.
II. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Petitioner
3. The petitioner stated that between 1973 and 1985 the Eastern Republic of Uruguay was ruled by a civilmilitary dictatorship. It reported that it was during that period that the forced disappearances of Luis Eduardo
González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu were committed, as well as the extrajudicial executions of Diana Maidanik,
Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes.
4. Regarding Diana Maidanik, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes, the petitioner stated that on April 21,
1974, while all three women were sleeping in Silvia Reyes's apartment, they were extrajudicially executed by
members of the Joint State Security Forces, who were looking for Silvia Reyes's husband. The petitioner pointed
out that the press, at that time manipulated by the civil-military dictatorship, reported that the women had died
in a confrontation. It added that on June 20, 1985, it had filed criminal charges with respect to all the acts
committed.
5. As regards the forced disappearance of Luis Eduardo González, the petitioner indicated that on December
13, 1974, he and his wife were detained and taken to Cavalry Regiment No. 6. It reported that after several efforts
to ascertain his whereabouts, on December 26, 1974, the First Army Division had issued a communique stating
that Mr. González had fled during a reconnaissance procedure, as a result of which, in January 1975, the Army's
In its Admissibility Report No. 90/12, the IACHR referred to the alleged victim as “Diana Maidanic.” Later on, however, the Parties referred
to the alleged victim as Diana Maidanik.
2 IACHR Report No. 90/12, Petition 1056-07, Admissibility, Diana Maidanic et al., Uruguay, November 8, 2012, par. 3. In that report, the
IACHR declared the petition admissible with respect to the possible violation of the rights recognized in Articles I, IX, XVII, XVIII, and XXV of
the American Declaration and Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 25 in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention, and Articles I,
III, IV, V, and XI of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons and 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention
to Prevent and Punish Torture, in respect of Oscar Tassino Asteazu and Luis Eduardo González González; in Article I, IX, and XVII of the
American Declaration with respect to Diana Maidanic, Laura Raggio Odizzio, and Silvia Reyes; and in Articles I and XVIII of the American
Convention, Articles 5, 8, and 25,in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention and Articles I, III, IV, V, and XI of the
Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish
Torture, with respect to the family members of the alleged victims; and inadmissible with regard to alleged violations of the rights upheld
in Article 1.3 of the American Convention.
1

Select target paragraph3