97
245. The seriousness of the events of the present case can be clearly seen when
analyzing the form in which some of the inmates, who on the last day of the
“operative” announced to the state agents that they were going to exit pavilion 4B
and requested that the shooting stop, were executed; however, when they came out
they were received with gusts of bullets from shots fired by state agents (supra para.
197(37). The other inmates that also decided to exit pavilion 4B faced the same luck
(supra para. 197(37). On that same day another group of inmates, who were under
the control of state authorities, were separated from the group and executed by
state agents (supra para. 197(38). In this case the deliberate way in which the police
officials acted in order to deprive the inmates of their life is notorious. Due to the
situation of these inmates, there was no possible justification for the use of weapons
against them, nor was there any need of self defense, or an inminent danger of
death or serious injuries against the police officers.
246. Similarly, it has been proven that once the “Operative Transfer 1” concluded,
some inmates were taken to hospitals and they died because they did not receive the
medications or the medical attention required (supra para. 197(47). Those omissions
in the medical assistance to the injured inmates responded to deliberate decisions
and no to mere carelessness or negligence, which resulted in arbitrary deprivations
of life.
247. Regarding the dead inmates, the Court declares as victims the 41 people
identified in the Commission’s application, which coincide with the people identified
as dead by the common intervener, and regarding which there is evidence of their
death and identification.
248. The Tribunal considers it necessary to refer to that stated by the Commission
and the intervener regarding the possibility of the existence of dead inmates that
have not been identified. In its application the Commission made emphasis on the
fact that “the petitioners have argued that the fatal victims were at least 86,” but
that the Commission would refer “only to the victims whose decease has been
established in a convincing manner through the body of evidence offered by the
parties and from the report prepared by the Commission for Truth and
Reconciliation, without detriment to any new evidence that may arise in the future
and prove the identity and circumstances of death or disappearance of the other
victims referred to by the petitioners.” The Commission in its application stated as
deceased victims 41 people identified and one “N.N. autopsy report 1944 of 5/7/92.”
Likewise, it provided copy of 10 autopsy certificates of people identified, one of which
corresponds to the police officer who dies (supra para. 197(40). The Commission did
not argue that none of those 10 people were victims of this case.
249. On its part, the common intervener presented as an appendix to the brief of
pleadings and motions a list in which the same 41 dead victims identified and
included in the application appear, but it added a “N.N. Protocol 2007, (man) who
died burned” and included at the of its list 43 “unidentified prisoners”, without
indicating if there was any autopsy protocol or if the execution of one was pending.
250.
In this sense, it is important to point out that:
a)
neither the Commission nor the intervener presented a copy of the
“autopsy protocol 1944 of May 7, 1992” included in the Commission’s
list of victims;