REPORT Nº 3/02*
PETITION 11.498
ADMISSIBILITY
JORGE FERNANDO GRANDE
ARGENTINA
February 27, 2002
I.
SUMMARY
1. The present report addresses the admissibility of petition 11.498. The matter was opened by
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “Inter-American Commission,
“Commission” or “IACHR”) pursuant to the filing by Jorge Fernando Grande of a petition dated
October 31, 1994, and received on November 2, 1994, against the Republic of Argentina
(hereinafter “Argentina” or “State”). Mr. Grande was initially represented by attorney Martin
Federico Böhmer, and as from a communication received on July 5, 1995, by attorney Eduardo
Oteiza. As from a communication received on November 16, 1998, Mr. Grande has been
represented by attorney Pedro Patiño Mayer. (Hereinafter the foregoing will be referred to as “the
petitioners.”)
2. The petition alleges that Mr. Grande was detained on July 29, 1980, held for two weeks under
brutal conditions, and subjected to a prolonged prosecution on the basis of evidence obtained
illegally, namely documents seized by the police in the absence of a written judicial order. They
report that he was prosecuted for crimes of “economic subversion” in a process that lasted from
August 29, 1980 until the definitive dismissal of the charges against him on January 24, 1989.
They indicate that the charges were dismissed precisely because the evidence that served as the
basis for the prosecution was found by the Federal Chamber of Appeals to have been obtained in
violation of the Argentine Constitution. Mr. Grande thereafter filed an action for damages against
the State. While the court of first instance determined that he was indeed entitled to
compensation, the court of second instance revoked that finding in favor of the position of the
State. Mr. Grande’s attempts to seek further review were rejected. The petition contends that, as
a consequence of the foregoing, Mr. Grande was subjected to violations of his rights to due
process, and to compensation for a miscarriage of justice under Articles 8 and 10 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “American Convention”).
3. The State, for its part, largely limited its substantive intervention in this matter to a brief
recounting of the procedural history, indicating among other points that domestic remedies were
exhausted in 1994. Its submissions have focussed primarily on its efforts to seek a possible
friendly settlement of the matter. While both parties were actively engaged in the process to seek
a friendly settlement, their respective submissions reflect that these efforts failed to produce
concrete results. Finally, in a submission of December 10, 2001, the State presented arguments
challenging the admissibility of the petition, on the one hand, on the basis that the Commission
lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis, and on the other, on the basis that the petitioners failed to
present facts tending to demonstrate the violation of a protected right.
4. As set forth below, pursuant to its examination, the Commission concludes that it is competent
to take cognizance of the petitioners’ complaints concerning alleged violations relating to Articles
8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention, and that the petition is admissible in this regard
pursuant to the terms of Articles 46 and 47 of that Convention. To the extent necessary, the
Commission will also examine the corresponding articles of the American Declaration in its
decision on the merits. The claims raised concerning Article 10 of the American Convention are
inadmissible.
* Pursuant to the terms of Article 19(2) of the Regulations of the Commission, its President, Juan E. Méndez, a national of
Argentina, did not participate in the discussion or decision on the present case.
1