8. On August 29, 2002, the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights issued an order extending
the provisional measures. The State filed a Report on the subject.3
9. The InterAmerican Court of Human Rights issued another order of provisional measures on
April 22, 2004, and summoned the parties to a public hearing which was held on June 28,
2004, at the Court’s seat.
10. The State filed twelve reports on the provisional measures, the most recent one in April
2006.
III.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
A.
The petitioners
11. The petitioners contend that the Brazilian State is in violation of the American Convention
on Human Rights by virtue of its failure to fulfill its obligation to respect and ensure the rights
protected under the Convention (Article 1(1)) its failure to ensure the victims’ right to life
(Article 4), their right to humane treatment (Article 5), their right to a fair trial (Article 8), and
their right to judicial protection (Article 25(1)).
12. The petitioners allege that the situation at “Urso Branco” Prison is one of extreme violence.
A total of 27 persons deprived of freedom died in the carnage that occurred at the prison on
January 1 and 2, 2002. Since that incident, and as of the date of this report, 60 more deaths
have occurred inside the prison’s walls. The petitioners are also denouncing the conditions at
“Urso Branco” Prison.
13. The petitioners allege that various legal inquiries and proceedings were instituted into the
deaths that occurred inside the prison. However, they contend that there has been an
unwarranted delay, mainly in the case of the investigations into the slaughter of January 1 and
2, 2002. Thus far, they contend, only the interrogatories have been completed; no plans are as
yet in place to hear testimony of witnesses or for the judgment binding defendants over for
trial. As for the deaths that happened subsequent to the massacre (i.e., after January 2,
2002), the petitioners contend that in very few cases have the guilty parties been convicted;
many of these cases have not moved beyond the policeinvestigation phase (the investigation
that precedes court proceedings) or are pending an interlocutory sentence of arraignment (the
decision that binds the accused over for trial by a jury, which has jurisdiction to prosecute
crimes against life).
14. The petitioners assert that the State did not provide any information on the investigations
into the deaths that occurred after 2002, on the pretext that it was having difficulties getting
the information. The petitioners argue that the State’s claim is preposterous since these cases
are under the responsibility of the State. The petitioners contend that the deaths at the prison
are evidence of the Brazilian authorities disregard for the lives of persons deprived of freedom
and shows that the Brazilian authorities are not disposed to prevent further deaths or even
effectively investigate incidents that have occurred within the prison’s walls and convict the
guilty parties.
15. The petitioners maintain that conditions at “Urso Branco” Prison are completely unsuitable
for persons deprived of freedom. They assert that “Urso Branco” Prison does not conform to
additional information; on August 29, 2002, the Court issued an order calling for provisional measures. On February 7,
2003, the State reported that it had formed a special committee to examine the prison situation. On February 19,
2003, the petitioners filed a preliminary report on a visit made to the prison. On June 3, 2003, the State responded to
the petitioners’ observations. Then on August 22, 2003, the petitioners presented their observations on the State’s
response. On January 7, 2004, the petitioners supplied additional information on the facts reported in the September
9, 2003 edition of the Jorrnal Diário da Amazônia. On April 15, 2004, the petitioners reported news of the death of
another beneficiary, and then on August 11, 2005, news of a possible strike by prison personnel. On August 19, 2005,
the State provided the information requested of it on August 12, 2005. On August 26, 2005, the petitioners supplied
information on the Brazilian Government’s Notification No. 188. On January 6, 2006, the State filed a report on the
events that occurred between December 25 and 28, 2005.
3
According to the Brazilian Government’s report on the Provisional Measures adopted.
2