REPORT Nº 50/07
PETITION 232-05
ADMISSIBILITY
CARLOS BARAONA BRAY
CHILE
July 24, 2007
I.

SUMMARY

1.
On March 4, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”), received
a petition filed by the Public Interest and Human Rights Clinic at the Diego Portales University
(hereinafter “the petitioner”) against the State of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “the Chilean
State”) relating to the criminal prosecution and sentence imposed on Mr. Carlos Baraona Bray
for making statements indicating that a State official was allegedly involved in the commission
of illegal acts. The petition stated that the facts reported constitute violations of rights
guaranteed under Articles 1(1), 13, and 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), to the detriment of Mr. Carlos
Baraona Bray.
2.
The State alleged that the petition is inadmissible because it was submitted
after the six months deadline stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. It
also indicated that the petition is manifestly groundless and that the petitioner is actually
looking for an opinion from the Commission as an appeals court in order to review a decision
adopted by competent Chilean courts under the guarantee of due process.
3.
After analyzing the petition and pursuant to the provisions of Articles 46
and 47 of the American Convention as well as Articles 30, 37, and related articles of its Rules
of Procedure, the IACHR declared the petition to be admissible with respect to the alleged
violation of the right enshrined in Article 13 in conjunction with the general obligations
established under Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. Furthermore, the IACHR
declared the petition inadmissible regarding Article 24 of the same treaty. The Inter-American
Commission also decided to notify the parties of this decision and to include it in its Annual
Report to the OAS General Assembly.
II.

PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4.
The Commission received the petition on March 4, 2005, and assigned it
the number 232-05. On September 15, 2005, the petition was forwarded to the State,
allowing a period of two months for the State to submit its observations. On February 3, 2006,
the State sent its response, which was sent to the petitioner on August 4, 2006.
5.
On April 5 and August 21, 2006, the Commission received amici curiae briefs
from the Association for Civil Rights and from the organizations Media Law Resource Center,
Canadian Media Lawyers Association, and Canadian Journalists For Free Expression. On
October 13, 2006, the Commission sent these briefs to the State and allowed it one month to
submit its observations.
III.
A.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner

1

Select target paragraph3