REPORT No. 62/12 1 PETITION 1471-05 ADMISSIBILITY YENINA ESTHER MARTÍNEZ ESQUIVIA COLOMBIA March 20, 2012 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 22, 2005, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission”) received a petition lodged by Yenina Esther Martinez Esquivia (hereinafter “the Petitioner”) on her own behalf, alleging that the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter “the State,” the Colombian State” or “Colombia”) is responsible for violating several rights recognized by the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”). Specifically, during the admissibility stage, the petitioner alleged that the State had violated the rights set forth in Articles 1, 8, 19, 24, 25, 26 and 29 of the Convention and, while invoking several international instruments for the protection of women’s rights, she contended that the State had not taken into account her condition as a mother and head of household. 2. The petitioner notes that her appointment to office as Deputy Prosecuting Attorney before the Criminal Courts of the Circuit of Cartagena was rendered null and void without any cause or due process. Additionally, she asserts that she was removed from office after participating in an investigation of the crime of abuse of authority against a government official, who granted a permit to construct a sanitary land fill without engaging in prior consultation with the affected communities. In response, the State argues that the claims are inadmissible because the facts alleged in the petition do not tend to establish violations of the American Convention. 3. After analyzing the positions of the parties and whether the requirements provided for in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention have been met, the Commission decided to find the claim admissible as to examination of the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the American Convention and, decided to declare inadmissible Articles 19, 24 and 26 in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, as well as Article 7 of the Convention of Belem do Para, to serve the parties with a copy of this report and to have it published in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 4. On December 22, 2005, the IACHR received a petition, registered it under the number 1471-05 and, after a preliminary review, on April 19, 2010, it proceeded to forward a copy of the relevant portions to the State granting it a period of two months to submit information pursuant to Article 30.3 of the Rules of Procedure. On June 25, 2010, the IACHR received the response of the State, which was forwarded to the petitioner for her observations. On August 10, 2010, the IACHR received the petitioner’s response, which was conveyed to the State. On September 13, 2010, the State submitted its observations, which were then forwarded to the petitioner. On September 30, 2010, the petitioner provided additional information, which was conveyed to the State. On November 17, 2010, the State submitted its final response, which was forwarded to the petitioner for her reference. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 5. The petitioner states that after serving in several positions as a prosecuting attorney since 1992, on February 8, 2004, she was transferred to the Crimes against Public Administration Unit in Cartagena being appointed as Sectional Prosecutor No. 16, a career position that she held with temporary 1 Pursuant to Article 17.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, Commissioner Rodrigo Escobar Gil, a Colombian national, did not participate in the discussion or the decision-making process on the instant petition

Select target paragraph3