REPORT No. 60/14
PETITION 1415-04
ADMISSIBLITY
ALEJANDRO NISSEN PESSOLANI
PARAGUAY
July 24, 2014

I.

SUMMARY

1.
On December 27, 2004, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission” or “the IACHR”) received—by post—a petition dated December 16 2004, lodged by Alejandro
Nissen Pessolani (hereinafter “the petitioner” or “the alleged victim”) claiming that the Republic of Paraguay
(hereinafter “the State” or “Paraguay”) bore international responsibility with regard to two proceedings against
the petitioner before the Jury of Judgment of Magistrates (hereinafter “JEM”), allegedly in violation of the rights
to a fair trial and judicial protection, brought for the purpose of removing him from his post as a Criminal
Prosecutor.
2.
The petitioner alleges possible violation of the rights to judicial independence, compensation,
and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8, 10, and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the American Convention”), as well as of the obligation to respect and ensure the rights envisaged
in Article 1.1 thereof. The State claims, on the one hand, that the judicial process respected the rights to a fair
trial and judicial protection and that the IACHR cannot be used as a final judicial instance and, on the other
hand, that there was a failure to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to the alleged compensation.
3.
After examining the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements
established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to declare the petition
admissible for purposes of examining the alleged violation of Articles 2, 8, 9, and 25 of the American
Convention, in relation to Article 1.1 thereof, and inadmissible with regard to Article 10. Likewise, it decided to
notify the parties of this decision and to publish and include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly.
II.

PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION

4.
The petition was registered as number 1415-04. On May 31, 2006, the pertinent parts thereof
were transmitted to the State for its observations. The petitioner presented his observations on November 6,
2006; March 27, April 19, June 5, July 31, September 10 and 20, and November 1, 2007; March 26, April 8,
November 25, and December 8, 2008; September 30, 2009; and July 23, 2010, and these were forwarded to the
State.
5.
The State submitted its observations on September 19, October 12, and November 30, 2006;
July 9, November 15, and December 27, 2007; and January 15, 2008, and these were forwarded to the
petitioner. In this last note, the State requested a hearing, which the IACHR did not grant. Likewise, the State
presented its observations on March 11, 2009, which were transmitted to the petitioner.
6.
On August 5 and 31, 2010, the petitioner expressed an interest in seeking a friendly
settlement. On August 5, 2011, a working meeting was held between the parties with respect to the possible
friendly settlement, through the good offices of the IACHR.
7.
The petitioner submitted its observations on August 8, 2011, which were transmitted to the
State. On August 29, 2011, the State indicated that it could not reach an interagency agreement on the friendly
settlement and it therefore asked the IACHR to continue moving forward with the petition.

Select target paragraph3