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