7. On June 14, 2000, the petitioners submitted new information in the case, which was
forwarded to the State on June 20 of that year. On August 15, 2002, the petitioners
again submitted new information, which was forwarded to the State on September 23
of that year. On December 12, 2002, the State presented a report-response to the
petition and the petitioners’ subsequent communications, in which it requested that the
petition be declared inadmissible. The State’s observations were forwarded to the
petitioners on February 13, 2003. The petitioners submitted their views on the State’s
report-response on June 30, 2003, and presented new information concerning the case
on April 7 and May 6, 2004. On June 16, 2004, the State requested that the IACHR
grant it a 30-day extension to respond to the petitioners’ correspondence. On June 7,
July 27, and September 27, 2004, respectively, correspondence was received from the
petitioners containing updated information on the case and requesting adoption of an
admissibility report. On October 26, 2004, the State presented new observations in
which it reiterated its position concerning the inadmissibility of the petition.
III.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

A.

Position of the petitioners

8. On February 15, 1998, Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández, a 19 year old student in the
final level of the National Guard Training School of Cordero [Escuela de Formación de
Guardias Nacionales de Cordero (ESGUARNAC)], was taken, together with his fellow
students, from the Cordero School to the Caño Negro Rural Commandos [Comandos
Rurales] facilities for practice exercises included in the third and final phase of his
training as a National Guardsman. During one of these practice exercises, the student
died in an “unfortunate accident,” according to the version given by school authorities.
9. According to the official version given to the student’s family, at approximately
12:45 p.m., Johan Alexis was crossing a section of the “Special Soldier” field when he
was hit by two projectiles from an AFAG M-61 machine gun. In the military exercise,
the students crawled underneath barbed wire fencing while an instructor with an
automatic weapon fired in their direction, over the fencing. The version presented to
the family was that the student stood up for no reason and was hit by two shots on the
right side of his body at the level of the clavicle.
10. The parents maintain that their son’s death was not accidental. They argue that a
series of facts, elements, and circumstances compelled them to analyze the version
given by the school authorities and they discovered that they had been the victims of
concealment of information and had been given contradictory accounts, leading them
to believe that the events had taken place intentionally. Among the circumstances they
report are alleged inconsistencies in the information regarding the military authorities
who participated in the exercise and compliance with orders related to it. Although the
petitioners were informed that the exercise was carried out in compliance with orders
and regulations, they subsequently received information indicating that certain
instructions for conducting practice exercises had not been followed and that the
location of the exercises had been changed.
11. The student’s family claimed that at the time of the incident, there were no
medical or paramedical personnel on site, much less an ambulance to respond to any
kind of emergency. Because of this, Johan was unable to receive timely care and the

Select target paragraph3