REPORT No. 59/09
PETITION 489-02
ADMISSIBILITY
JOFFRE ANTONIO AROCA PALMA
ECUADOR
July 16, 2009
I.

SUMMARY

1.
On June 20, 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition lodged by Winston Joffre Aroca
Melgar and Gabriel Palacios Verdesoto (hereinafter “the petitioners”), which claimed
the responsibility of the Republic of Ecuador for the death of Joffre Antonio Aroca
Palma, on February 27, 2001, in the city of Guayaquil, Ecuador.
2.
The petitioners argued that the State was responsible for violation
of the rights to life, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial protection recognized in
Articles 4, 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter
the “Convention” or the “American Convention”). For its part, the State held that the
claims of the petitioners were inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies
and considered that the petition did not state facts that tend to establish a violation
of the rights guaranteed by the American Convention.
3.
Having examined the positions of the parties and compliance with
the requirements provided in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the
Commission decided to declare the petition admissible as regards to the alleged
violation of Articles 4(1), 7, 8(1), and 25 and, pursuant to the principle of iura novit
curia, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention; to notify
the parties, and order publication of the report.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

4.
The Commission registered the petition as No. P-489-02 and, on
December 6, 2002, proceeded to transmit a copy of the pertinent portions to the
State, giving it two months in which to submit information in accordance with Article
30(2) of the Rules of Procedure. On June 3, 2003, the State submitted its response,
which was relayed to the petitioners, who were given one month to present
observations. On June 18, 2003, the Commission received a brief containing
additional information from the petitioners.
5.
On May 18, 2004, a brief containing additional information supplied
by the petitioners was transmitted to the State. On September 29, 2004, the State
conveyed its response, which was relayed to the petitioners for observations. The
Commission received further briefs from the petitioners on March 1 and September
2, 2005, which were forwarded to the State for observations. On November 1, 2005,
the State sent its response, which was transmitted to the petitioners for observations.
6.
On December 14, 2005, the Commission received a brief containing
additional information from the petitioners which was relayed to the State for its
observations. On April 17, 2006, the State presented its response, which was passed
on to the petitioners for their observations. On June 15, 2006, the Commission
received a brief from the petitioners, which was conveyed to the State for its
observations. The request to the State to submit its observations was reiterated on
April 3, 2008. On May 6, 2008, the State presented its response which was relayed
to the petitioners. On August 5, 2008, the petitioners presented a brief containing
additional information, which was relayed to the State for observations.

1

Select target paragraph3