REPORT No. 23/17 CASE 12.311 MERITS EDUARDO BENJAMIN COLINDRES EL SALVADOR MARCH 18, 2017 I. I. SUMMARY 1. On May 4, 2000, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Commission,” “Inter-American Commission,” or “IACHR”) received a petition lodged by the Human Rights Institute of José Simeón Cañas Central American University (hereinafter “the petitioners”), which alleged that the Republic of El Salvador (hereinafter “the Salvadoran State,” “El Salvador,” or “the State”) bore international responsibility by reason of the disciplinary proceedings that culminated in the separation from office of Judge Eduardo Benjamin Colindres as well as for the lack of judicial protection in connection with the alleged facts. 2. The State of El Salvador held that the decision dismissing Judge Colindres from his position did not violate any of the provisions contained in the American Convention, since the proceedings were verified by a competent authority as being in accordance with the Constitution and his right to a hearing was ensured. The State also maintained that the alleged victim had access to adequate and effective domestic remedies. 3. Having examined the positions of the parties, the Commission has concluded that the Salvadoran State is responsible for violation of the right to a fair trial, the principle of legality, the right to participate in government, and the right to judicial protection recognized in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(h), 9, 23(1)(c), 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) taken in conjunction with Articles 1 and 2 of that treaty. Based on the foregoing, the Commission formulated appropriate recommendations. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION SUBSEQUENT TO APPROVAL OF ADMISSIBILITY REPORT No. 25/06 4. The processing of the petition, from the time it was lodged to the decision on admissibility, is described in detail in Report on Admissibility 25/06.1 On March 22, 2006, the Commission notified the parties of the aforementioned report and, pursuant to Article 38 (2) of its Rules of Procedure then in force, gave the petitioners two months in which to submit additional observations on merits. The IACHR also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement. 5. On May 23, 2006, the petitioners expressed their willingness to reach a friendly settlement of the case, and on August 21, 2006, submitted a draft agreement. On May 23, 2006, the State presented its observations on merits, and on November 2, 2007, expressed its intention to proceed with the friendly settlement process. After a series of working meetings, the petitioners wrote to the Commission on March 22, 2010, requesting that it consider the friendly settlement stage concluded and that it resume its processing of case. The IACHR received further communications from the petitioners on July 14, August 26, and October 24, 2008; February 26, 2009; March 22, 2010; March 14 and May 22, 2012; and November 6, 2013. The IACHR received additional communications from the State on August 28, 2008, and on February 14 and July 19, 2012. Those communications were duly forwarded between the parties. 1IACHR, Report No. 25/06 (Admissibility), Petition 12.311, Eduardo Benjamín Colindres, El Salvador, March 14, 2006.