2

IACHR transmitted the petition to the Paraguayan State, giving it 90 days to submit its observations. In a
note of December 7, 2000, the State expressed its willingness to reach a friendly settlement in the case;
that note was forwarded to the petitioner on January 18, 2001. The petitioner responded in a note received
on November 14, 2001, making some requests with respect to a friendly settlement; that note was
forwarded to the State the same day.
6.
The State presented additional information in notes of January 23, February 12, April 12,
June 26, and August 23, 2001; June 5, 2003; and September 16, 2004. These communications were duly
forwarded to the petitioner.
7.
In communications of April 29, 2003, and August 4, 2004, the Commission requested
specific information about the case from the Paraguayan State, and received a response in due course.
8.
In a communication of September 22, 2005, the petitioner notified the Commission she
was withdrawing from efforts to reach a friendly settlement with the Paraguayan State, owing to the lack of
progress in the procedure. On September 4, 2007, when the Rapporteur at the time was visiting Paraguay,
he met with representatives of the State and the petitioner to discuss the matter.
9.
In a note of May 18, 2009, the Commission asked the petitioner for specific information on
the case, and repeated this request on May 18, 2010. The Commission received communications from the
petitioner on August 18, September 24, October 7 and 11, and December 1, 2010.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

Position of the petitioner

10.
The petitioner said her son, Vicente Ariel Noguera, was born on April 29, 1978, and at the
age of 15 entered compulsory military service in perfect health. She said that on January 2, 1996 he was
transferred from the CIMEFOR (Reserve Officers Military Training Center) to Lagerenza in the Paraguayan
Chaco and died nine days later. She said that the official versions of her son’s cause of death ranged from
“sudden death,” to Hantavirus, to generalized infection, with the last one prevailing.
11.
With respect to the legal actions pursued, the petitioner said she filed a complaint on
January 17, 1996, with the ordinary justice system on which little action was taken, and according to the
petitioner, the matter was virtually paralyzed until January 26, 1998. Among the steps taken in the
investigation, the petitioner noted the autopsy, with findings that the cause of death was “acute intersticial
pneumonitis of a viral type,” even though there was evidence of a blow on the head and traces of blood.
She said that an investigation was started in the military justice system, which had been dropped because
“there was neither offense to investigate nor any criminal to punish.”
12.
The petitioner said that some of the soldiers had told her that two lieutenants had punished
Vicente Ariel to “give him a lesson” but “they got carried away”; that they had seen the lieutenants kick him
and take him to the punishment cell. Others had said they were sure her son was victim of rape and torture,
and all of them said that Vicente Ariel was not sick on the day he died. The petitioner said that
notwithstanding this, those soldiers had not provided that information in their statements to the authorities
and some had even denied it. The petitioner said that one of her son’s comrades had told her that they all
had been threatened with discharge if they told what had really happened to Vicente Ariel.
13.
The petitioner added that since 1989 there had been 102 deaths of underage soldiers, and
that she, along with other mothers, had founded the AFAVISEM organization and that as result of its efforts,
she had managed to obtain a pension.
B.

Position of the State

14.
In its first communications, the Paraguayan State expressed its interest in a dialogue
leading to friendly settlement of the case, and sent the Commission general information about compulsory

Select target paragraph3