REPORT No. 30/15 1
PETITION 1263-08
ADMISSIBILITY
SANDRA CECILIA PAVEZ PAVEZ
CHILE
JULY 21, 2015

I.

SUMMARY

1.
On October 28, 2008, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the
Inter-American Commission,” “the Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition submitted by Sandra
Cecilia Pavez Pavez (hereinafter the “the alleged victim”), by Rolando Paul Jiménez Pérez, legal representative
of the Movimiento de Integración y Liberación Homosexual (MOVILH), and Alfredo Morgado (hereinafter also
“the petitioners”) alleging responsibility on the part of the Republic of Chile (hereinafter “Chile,” “the State,” or
“the Chilean State”) for an alleged violation of their right not to endure arbitrary interference in their private
life, as established in Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter also “the American
Convention” or “the Convention”) and their right to equality before the law, established in Article 24 of the
Convention, both in connection with Article 1.1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same instrument.
2.
For its part, the Chilean State indicated to this Commission that “without prejudice to
observations on the merits that the State may formulate in due time, it has no objections regarding the
petitioners’ compliance with the formal requirements.”

3.
After examining the complaint in the light of the admissibility requirements provided in
Articles 46 and 47 of the Convention and given the State’s response, the Commission concluded that it is
competent to hear the complaints submitted regarding the alleged violation of the rights established in Articles
8, 11, 24, and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof. In addition, the
Commission decided to inform the parties of this report, to make it public, and include it in its Annual Report
to the General Assembly of the OAS.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

4.
On October 28, 2008 the Commission received the initial petition, which was recorded under
number P-1263-08. On October 24, 2012, the Commission asked the petitioners to provide additional
information, which was received on July 10, 2013.

5.
On October 10, 2013, after completing the preliminary review of the petition, the Commission
proceeded to forward the relevant sections of the petition to the Chilean State, allowing it a period of three
months to submit its observations, in accordance with Article 30(3) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
On January 17, 2014 the State requested an extension. On June 4, 2014, the Commission informed both parties
that it had not granted the extension requested by the State, in accordance with the provisions of Article 30(3)
of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. On June 16, 2014, the State submitted its response.

6.
Finally, on March 18, 2015, the Alliance Defending Freedom organization presented an
“amicus curiae” brief in which it offers arguments intended to demonstrate that the rights of the alleged victim
have not been violated in this case.

1 As provided in Article 17.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Felipe González, a Chilean
national, did not participate in the discussion or the decision regarding this case.

1

Select target paragraph3