REPORT Nº 66/081 PETITION 1072-03 ADMISSIBILITY MANUEL ANTONIO BONILLA OSORIO AND RICARDO AYALA ABARCA EL SALVADOR July 25, 2008 I. SUMMARY 1. On December 8, 2003, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the IACHR”) received a petition that theAsociación ProBúsqueda de Niñas y Niños Desaparecidos (Asociación Pro-Búsqueda) (hereinafter “the petitioners”) lodged against the Republic of El Salvador (hereinafter “the State”, “El Salvador” or “the Salvadoran State”). The petition alleges the latter’s international responsibility for the forced disappearance of two boys,2 Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Ayala Abarca,3 and for the subsequent failure to prevent, investigate, punish and redress the facts alleged. The petition asserts violations of the following rights: the right to humane treatment (Article 5); the right to personal liberty (Article 7); the right to a fair trial (Article 8); the right to protection of the family (Article 17); the right to a name (Article 18); the rights of the child (Article 19), and the right to judicial protection (Article 25), protected by the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or the “American Convention”), all in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized in that international instrument (Article 1(1)). 2. The petitioners argue that Manual Antonio Bonilla, age 11, and Ricardo Ayala Abarca, age 13, were the victims of a forced disappearance perpetrated by military troops with the Salvadoran Armed Forces’ Fifth Infantry Brigade and the Atlacatl Rapid Deployment Infantry Battalion in the course of the “Lieutenant Colonel Mario Azenón Palma Operation” conducted in Quebrada Seca in August 1982. The petitioners assert that forced disappearance of persons was a pattern practiced by the State during the armed conflict in El Salvador. They allege further that even today, 26 years after the fact, the whereabouts of the children remain unknown, despite the steps taken with the authorities seeking to elucidate the facts, including the filing of two petitions of habeas corpus. 3. For its part, the Salvadoran State contends that during the period of the armed conflict, forced disappearance of persons, including children, was not Salvadoran State practice and if any children did fall victim to such crimes the State was not to blame. El Salvador observes further that 20 years after the events were alleged to have occurred the petitioners filed petitions of habeas corpus, which were dismissed because evidence and information relating to the alleged disappearances were lacking. The State notes that although the petitioners could have reinstituted the habeas corpus process or could have availed themselves of various other remedies at their disposal, they did not do so. Summarizing, the State asks that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4. Without prejudging the merits of the case, in this report the Commission concludes that the petition is admissible based on Article 46(2) (b and c) of the American Convention. The InterAmerican Commission therefore decides to notify the parties of its decision and to proceed with the analysis of the merits of the alleged violation of articles 5, 7, 8, 17, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that international instrument. Furthermore, in application of the principle jura novit curia, in the merits phase the Commission will examine whether a violation exists of articles 3 and 4 of the Convention, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights and the duty to adopt 1 In accordance with Article 17(2)(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Florentín Meléndez, a Salvadoran national, did not participate in the discussion and decision of this report. 2 Under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, “a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.” 3 The petitioner states that the child’s name was entered incorrectly on his birth certificate as being Ricardo Abarca Ayala. 1