REPORT No. 89/09
August 7, 2009


1. On June 26, 2006 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission) received a petition submitted by Messrs. Iván Patricio Durazno Campoverde and
Gustavo Quito Mendieta (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging responsibility on the part of the
Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State”) for injury done to the female child TGGL due to
alleged infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency
Syndrome (hereinafter “HIV/AIDS”) through a transfusion of blood supplied by the provincial
Red Cross in the city of Cuenca, Province of Azuay, on June 22, 1998 and administered at the
Pablo Jaramillo Crespo Foundation Humanitarian Clinic. The petition also alleges a failure to
prosecute and punish those responsible.
2. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for providing blood banks with “safe
blood” through institutions such as the Ecuadorian Red Cross and is thus responsible for
violating the right to life established in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Convention”) as it relates to the duty to guarantee rights under Article 1(1) of
that convention. For its part, the State alleged that the events in the complaint cannot be
attributed to it and that in any case the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies in
accordance with Article 46(1) of the American Convention has not been met and, as a result,
the petition is inadmissible.
3. After analyzing the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements
established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission, applying the
principle of iura novit curia, decided to declare the case admissible for purposes of examining
the claim regarding the alleged violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 19, and 25(1) as they
relate to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to notify the parties, and order publication of
this report in the annual report.


4. The Commission recorded the petition under No. P663-06 and on June 19, 2008 it
proceeded to send copy of the relevant sections to the State, asking that it submit its
observations within a period of two months. On July 31, 2008, the State reported that it had
not received a complete copy of the relevant sections of the petition so that copy was again
forwarded to the State, allowing it another two months to submit its observations. On August
19, 2008, the State again reported that it had not received a complete copy of the relevant
sections of the petition and thus another copy was sent to the State along with another
5. On December 10, 2008, the State submitted its observations, which were forwarded to the
petitioner, with a deadline of one month. On January 19, 2009, the petitioners submitted their
response, which was forwarded to the State for its observations. On March 30, 2009, the State
submitted its final observations to the Commission.




1 Although not specifically requested by the petitioners, the IACHR is protecting the identity of the alleged victim
because she is a child. In order to provide greater protection to the alleged victim, the IACHR also holds back the
names of the alleged victim’s mother and the blood donors.


Select target paragraph3