REPORT No. 21/17 CASE 11.738 MERITS ELBA CLOTILDE PERRONE AND JUAN JOSE PRECKEL ARGENTINA MARCH 18, 2017 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 23, 1996 and January 13, 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received two petitions lodged by the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights (Asamblea Permanente por los Derechos Humanos,1 hereinafter “the petitioners”), alleging that the Republic of Argentina (hereinafter “the State,” “the Argentine State” or “Argentina”) is internationally responsible for not paying Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel their wages during the time they were held in custody and then, in his case, lived in exile. 2. According to the petitioners, during the time of the Argentine military dictatorship, Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel were public sector employees at the General Tax Directorate. They claimed that both of them were arbitrarily detained and held into custody, tortured and, after their release, banished into exile. The petitioners argued that Mrs. Perrone and Mr. Preckel pursued several remedies in the domestic courts in order to receive their lost earnings and other employee benefits from that period of time. They contended that the administrative and judicial decision-making bodies denied their claims and that it was tantamount to a denial of justice. They explained that these decisions were not adequately justified and reasoned and did not adhere to standards of due process of law. 3. The State argued that under Law No. 24.043, compensation was paid to both of the alleged victims for the different infringements endured by them during their deprivation of liberty, including the bodily harm inflicted upon them. It contended that said payment satisfied both of their claims for reparation stemming from the violation of their human rights. It alleged that the administrative and judicial rulings regarding their claims of lost wages were issued in keeping with due process and that the content of the rulings was grounded in provisions of domestic law. 4. After examining the available information, the Commission concluded that the Argentine State is responsible for the violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, as established in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISISON 5. In communications received on December 23, 1996 and January 13, 1997, the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights filed the complaint in the instant matter. Admissibility Report No. 67/99 of May 4, 19992 describes the processing of the case during the admissibility stage. The IACHR found the petition admissible in regard to the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 8, 21, 24 and 25 of the American Convention and in Article XIV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. 6. On May 13, 1999, the Commission notified the parties of the admissibility report. Additionally, the IACHR placed itself at the disposal of the parties to aid in possibly reaching a friendly settlement. On April 14, 2000, the petitioners submitted a communication to the IACHR putting forth their 1 At a later date, the Fundación Angela María Aieta de Gullo para la Defensa y Promoción de los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (FAMAG), as well as Juan Méndez, became petitioners. 2 IACHR, Report No. 67/99, Case 11.738, Admissibility, Elba Clotilde Perrone and Juan José Preckel, Argentina, May 4, 1999. 1