REPORT Nº 88/09
PETITION 405-99
ADMISSIBILITY
PATRICIO FERNANDO ROCHE AZAÑA ET AL.
NICARAGUA
August 7, 2009
I.

SUMMARY

1.
On December 23, 1998, the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the
IACHR”) received a petition lodged by Mr. Patricio Barrera Tello (hereinafter
“the petitioner”), representing Messrs. Pedro Bacilio Roche Azaña and Patricio
Fernando Roche Azaña (hereinafter “the alleged victims”), in which he
asserted the State of Nicaragua (hereinafter “Nicaragua” or “the State”)
violated the human rights of the alleged victims due to an alleged police
attack, supposedly motivated by the alleged victims undocumented
immigration status, in which the first alleged victim lost his life and the second
was left physically disabled. The petitioner further asserts the State violated
basic due process rights by acquitting the alleged perpetrators.
2.
The petitioner claims that the State is responsible for
violating the rights enshrined in Articles 1.1, 4.1, 5.1, 22.1, and 22.4 of the
American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter, “the American
Convention”) and Article XVII of the American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man (“the American Declaration”), in conjunction with Articles 24
and 8.1 of the American Convention. The petitioner also asserts the petition
should be deemed admissible because all available domestic remedies have
been exhausted.
3.
In turn, the State claims that the petitioner had access to
adequate and effective domestic remedies, and that just because the final
judgment was not what was desired by the alleged victims, it cannot be
considered an abridgment of their human rights.
4.
After analyzing the available information and verifying
compliance with the admissibility requirements set out in Articles 46 and 47
of the American Convention, the Commission rules the case admissible for the
reasons set forth below. Based on the allegations and information presented
by the parties, the Commission concludes that the petition raises colorable
claims of potential violations of Articles 1.1, 4.1, 5.1, 8.1 and 24 of the
American Convention. Additionally, by application of the principle iura novit
curia, the Commission will analyze, in the merits stage, if there is a possible
1

Select target paragraph3