2

José R. Araujo, Luis A. Berríos, Moisés A. Blanco, Julio P. Ceballos, Antonio Eregua, Rafael M. Moreno,
José Indalecio Guerrero, Arín O. Maldonado, Justo Mercado, Pedro Mosquera, José Puerta, Marino
Torrealba, José Torrealba and Marino Rivas, [on account of the] events that occurred on October 29,
1988 on the "La Colorada" Canal, Páez District, State of Apure, Venezuela.

3.
It also requested the Court to find that Venezuela is responsible for "the violation of the
right to humane treatment, to a fair trial, to equal protection and to judicial protection of Wollmer
Gregorio Pinilla and José Augusto Arias (Articles 5, 8(1), 24 and 25 of the Convention), survivors
of the events that occurred on October 29, 1988 on the 'La Colorada' Canal."
4.

The Commission further asked the Court:
3.
That, on the basis of the pacta sunt servanda principle it declare that the State of Venezuela
has violated Article 51(2) of the American Convention by not carrying out the recommendations made
by the Commission.
4.
That the State of Venezuela be required to identify and punish, on the basis of investigations
made, the intellectual and accessory violators, thereby preventing the consummation of acts of grave
impunity that damage the foundations of legal order.
5.
That it declare that the enforceability of Article 54, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Military Code of
Justice analyzed in confidential Report Nº 29/93, is incompatible with the purpose and objective of the
American Convention on Human Rights, and that it must be adjusted to the latter in conformity with the
commitments acquired pursuant to Article 2 thereof.
6.
That it declare that the State of Venezuela must provide reparation and indemnification to the
next-of-kin of the victims for the acts committed by State agents, as described in this petition, in
accordance with Article 63(1) of the Convention.
7.

That the State of Venezuela be sentenced to pay court costs and attorneys' fees of this action.

5.
In submitting the case to the Court, the Commission designated Oscar Luján-Fappiano and
Michael Reisman as its Delegates, and David J. Padilla, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Milton
Castillo, an attorney of the Secretariat of the Commission, as Assistants. By note of February 2,
1994, the Commission informed the Court that Claudio Grossman would replace Michael Reisman
as Delegate.
6.
On May 3, 1994, the Commission also designated Pedro Nikken (Programa Venezolano de
Educación-Acción en Derechos Humanos, PROVEA / Venezuelan Program of Education-Action on
Human Rights), Juan Méndez (Americas Watch), José Miguel Vivanco (Center for Justice and
International Law, CEJIL) and Ligia Bolívar (PROVEA), as Assistants in this case. These same
people were designated by the relatives of the victims as their representatives, in conformity with
the provisions of Article 22(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
7.
On February 17, 1994, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter "the Secretariat"), after
the President of the Court (hereinafter "the President") had concluded his preliminary study,
notified the Government of the petition. It advised the Government that it had the right to file a
written response to the petition within three months (Art. 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure) and to
file preliminary objections within 30 days following notification of the application (Art. 31(1) of the
Rules of Procedure).
8.
By note of February 28, 1994 the Government informed the Court of the designation of
Ildegar Pérez-Segnini, Ambassador of Venezuela to Costa Rica, as Agent and Luis HerreraMarcano as Attorney in this case. By communication of May 16, 1994, the Government appointed
Rodolfo Enrique Piza-Rocafort as its Legal Advisor for this case.

Select target paragraph3