REPORT No. 103/13 CASE 12,816 MERITS ADÁN GUILLERMO LÓPEZ LONE ET AL. HONDURAS November 5, 2013 I. SUMMARY 1. On July 6, 2010, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “IACHR”) received a petition presented by the Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia (AJD) and the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging the responsibility of the State of Honduras (hereinafter “the State”, “Honduras” or “the Honduran State”) for the decisions taken in the disciplinary proceedings pursued against judges Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, and magistrate Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza (hereinafter “the alleged victims”) in the context of the 2009 coup d’état. 2. For its part, the State alleged that the action taken by the Judiciary in response to the conduct of the alleged victims observed the principles of due process of law. It maintained that the alleged victims had access to the remedies under domestic law, without any unwarranted delay, and that they had the opportunity to defend themselves and present evidence to competent, impartial and independent authorities. The State also indicated that the authorities involved issued their decisions in accordance with the laws governing the judicial career service, which are laws that all judicial officials are bound to observe. 3. After examining the parties’ positions, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Honduran State is responsible for violating the right to a fair trial, freedom from ex post facto laws, freedom of expression, the right of assembly, freedom of association, the right to participate in government and the right to judicial protection, recognized in articles 8, 13, 15, 16, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). Also, the State is responsible in application of iura novit curie for violating the right to principle of legality and political rights enshrined by articles 9 and 23 of the same instrument, all those rights in conjunction with articles 1 and 2 thereof. Lastly, the Commission finds that it does not have sufficient information to make a determination concerning the rights recognized in Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention. The Commission is making the recommendations warranted by its findings. II. PROCESSING WITH THE IACHR 4. The Asociación de Jueces por la Democracia (AJD) and CEJIL filed the original petition on July 6, 2010. The processing of the petition, from the time of its presentation through the decision on the petition’s admissibility, is set out in detail in Admissibility Report 70/111. On April 14, 2011, the Commission notified the parties of the admissibility report and, in keeping with Article 37(1) of its Rules of Procedure then in force, set a three-month period for the petitioners to present any additional observations they might have concerning the merits. The Commission also made itself available to the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement of the matter. 1 IACHR, Report No. 70/11 (admissibility), Petition 975-10, Adán Guillermo López Lone, et al. Available at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2011/HOAD975-10EN.DOC