REPORT N° 76/031 PETITION 12.054 ADMISSIBILITY MARIA SALVADOR CHIRIBOGA AND GUILLERMO SALVADOR CHIRIBOGA ECUADOR October 22, 2003 I. SUMMARY 1. On June 3, 1998, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the IACHR”), received a complaint alleging violation of rights protected in the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention”) by the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State” or “Ecuador”) to the detriment of Ms. Maria Salvador Chiriboga and Mr. Guillermo Salvador Chiriboga (hereinafter “the putative victims”), who are Ecuadorian nationals and siblings, represented by Mr. Alejandro Ponce Villacís and Mr. Juan Manuel Marchán, their lawyers, (hereinafter “the petitioners”). The petition claims that the State of Ecuador violated Articles 21, 8(1), 25, and 2 to the detriment of the petitioners, in disregard of the international obligations incumbent upon the State, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 2. The putative victims maintain that their property has been confiscated, in that they have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of their land without having received just compensation from the State, as the law of Ecuador requires. In spite of the fact that they have sought judicial remedies since the year 1994, the Ecuadorian courts have failed to produce a final resolution of the issue or to have paid them just compensation for the property. 3. On May 13, 1991, the then Municipal Council of Quito (Concejo Municipal de Quito) resolved to declare certain properties to be of public utility in order to expropriate them, for the purpose of converting approximately 571 hectares into a public park to be named “Metropolitan.” Pursuant to the law, the affected landowners could appeal the decision to the Ministry of Government. Six years later, on September 16, 1997, the Ministry issued “Ministerial Agreement 408” annulling the decision to declare the property to be of public utility. Two days thereafter, the same Ministry issued “Ministerial Agreement 417” rendering without effect the previous agreement. 4. The petitioners have filed multiple lawsuits in this matter, commencing in 1994. None of these lawsuits has resulted in a final decision. Attempts to reach a mediated friendly settlement also have failed to bear fruit. The petitioners allege that their property has been expropriated without payment of just compensation, in violation of Article 21(2) of the American Convention. In addition, petitioners allege that the judicial proceedings failed to be completed and failed to produce a resolution of the matter, in violation of Article 8(1), that the writ ofamparo which they presented and which was resolved by the Constitutional Tribunal, did not consider the alleged violations of the American Convention raised by the petitioners, in violation of Article 25, and that Article 794 of the Ecuadorian Code of Civil Procedure violates Articles 25 and 2, all in alleged violation of the international obligations incumbent upon the State, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. The State, for its part, argued that the petition is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and for failure to denounce facts that constitute a violation of the American Convention. 5. The Commission decides in this report that the petition meets the admissibility requirements set forth in Article 46 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Commission decides to declare the petition admissible, to open the case and to notify the parties of this decision, and to continue with its analysis of the merits regarding the alleged violations of Articles 2, 8(1), 21(2), 25(1) and 1(1) of the American Convention. The Commission also decides to publish the instant report. 1 Dr. Julio Prado Vallejo, an Ecuadorian national, did not participate in the discussion of this case in accordance with Article 17 of the Rules of the Procedure of the IACHR. 1