único). The State maintains that domestic remedies have not been
exhausted.
6.
Without prejudging the merits of the case, the IACHR
concludes in this report that the case is admissible, for it meets the
requirements of Article 46 of the American Convention.
The
Commission consequently has decided to notify this decision to the
parties and to continue its analysis of the merits of the case relating to
the alleged violation of the right to due process (Article 8), the right to
freedom of thought and expression (Article 13) in connection with
political rights (Article 23), the right to private property (Article 21) and
the right to judicial protection (Article 25), recognized in the American
Convention, in relation with the general obligations enshrined in Articles
1 and 2 of that instrument. The Commission has also decided to publish
this decision and to include it in its annual report to the OAS General
assembly.
II.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
7.
The complaint was submitted by the petitioners to the
Executive Secretariat of the Commission on August 4, 1998. The IACHR
received additional information on December 29, 1998, and transmitted
the petition and the additional information to the State on January 26,
1999, requesting that it report to the Commission within 90 days. On
May 7, 1999 the State requested an extension for presenting its
response, and the Commission granted this extension on May 10 for a
period of 30 days. On June 7, 1999, the State requested a further
extension, which the Commission granted on June date for a period of
30 days. Finally, the State responded to the IACHR on July 7, 1999. On
July 29, 1999 the IACHR transmitted that response to the petitioners,
giving them 20 days to present their observations.
8.
The petitioners presented their observations on August
18, 1999, indicating among other things that they were willing to initiate
the INAI mediation process offered by the State in its communication of
July 7, 1999, on the condition that the government undertake in
advance to stop the works that gave rise to this petition, and to abstain
from any further acts in the territory, and particular the delivery of
dwellings to the members of the community individually. The
petitioners also asked the Commission to grant precautionary
measures. Those observations were transmitted to the State on August
24, 1999.
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents