REPORT No. 70/10
PETITION 11.587
ADMISSIBILITY
CÉSAR GUSTAVO GARZÓN GUZMÁN
ECUADOR
July 12, 2010

I.

SUMMARY

1.
On November 8, 1994, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Commission”) received a petition lodged by the Ecumenical Commission for Human Rights
(CEDHU) (hereinafter, “the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of the Republic of Ecuador for
the disappearance of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán on November 10, 1990, in the city of Quito,
Ecuador, and for failing to adequately investigate the facts.
2.
The petitioners alleged that the State was responsible for violating the rights to life,
to judicial guarantees, and to judicial protection established in Articles 4, 8(1) and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American Convention”) in
connection with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. For its part, the State alleged that the
petitioners’ claims were inadmissible because the domestic remedies had not been exhausted,
because the petition duplicated a similar international proceeding initiated with the United Nations
Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and, also, because it considered that the
petitioners were requesting the Commission to rule on the matter as a Court of Fourth Instance.
3.
After analyzing the position of the parties and establishing compliance with the
requirements set forth under the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the
Commission decided to declare admissible the claims of presumed violations of Articles 4(1), 8(1)
and 25 in connection with Article 1(1), under the principle of iura novit curia, Articles 3, 5 and 7 of
the American Convention, and Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance
of Persons, to notify the parties and to include the report in its Annual Report to the General
Assembly.
II.

PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4.
The Commission assigned the petition number 11.587 and on April 24, 1995, it
forwarded copies of the relevant parts of the complaint to the State, granting it ninety days to submit
observations in accordance with Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure in force. On March 5, 1996, the
IACHR reiterated its request that the State submit observations. On April 19, 1996, the State
forwarded its response. On May 20, 1996, the IACHR requested that the State provide additional
information which the State forwarded in communication dated July 2, 1996. The Commission
forwarded the information provided by the State to the petitioner and granted it 45 days to submit
its observations.
5.
On August 13, 1996, the Commission received a communication from the petitioners
indicating that the documents provided by the State were already known to them and that there had
been no progress in the investigation. On April 30, 1999, and on July 17, 2001, the Commission
requested that the State provide updated information on the case. On April 2, 2009, the IACHR
requested the petitioners to provide updated information on the case in question. On August 3, 2009,
the IACHR received written communication from the petitioners with updated information which
was forwarded to the State for its observations. On April 16, 2010, the State submitted its final

Select target paragraph3