Convention on the Rights of the Child, so that they should establish, among other
matters, a minimum age for criminal responsibility, the principle of the clear definition
of crimes, the right to due process, the right of defense, and the guarantee of the
exceptional nature of deprivation of liberty (which may only be used as a last resort).
163. In this regard, the Court finds that deprivation of liberty in the sphere of juvenile
criminal justice may only be justified exceptionally in the cases established by law, and
the law must establish clearly its causes and conditions, as well as the State’s specialized
jurisdiction and bodies, at both the police and judicial level, and the institutions
responsible for supervising measures of deprivation of liberty, in order to coordinate
“separate justice” for adolescents, that is clearly differentiated from the criminal justice
system for adults, at the legal and the institutional level. In addition, the State must
establish training programs for administrative and jurisdictional personnel in order to
ensure that the specific functioning of the system achieves the objective of the full
realization of the rights of children and adolescents. 201
164. The Court has verified that the evidence provided does not show that, when
Eduardo Landaeta was arrested, he was caught in flagrante delicto or that there was a
court order that would have justified his detention. The police arrest authorization,
ordered by the agent CARA, indicated that the presumed victim “was wanted” by the
Technical Unit of the Judicial Police, a police agency, in the context of an investigation
into a supposed murder; but an order was never issued by a competent authority
pursuant to domestic law (supra para. 159); in particular, article 182 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure in force at the time, which established that the investigative court
must order the detention by means of a reasoned order; thus the arrest was unlawful. In
addition, the State never proved in what capacity he was detained, or whether any wellfounded and justified reason for his detention existed, which made his detention
arbitrary. 202 Furthermore, the detention was not used as the measure of last resort,
since he was a juvenile. Consequently, the State violated the provisions of paragraphs 2
and 3 of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 19 of this instrument,
to the detriment of Eduardo Landaeta.
B.1.2 Right to be informed of the reasons for the detention (Article 7(4))
165. Regarding Article 7(4) of the Convention, this Court’s consistent case law has
established that the information on the “grounds and reasons” for the detention must be
given “when this occurs,” which “is a mechanism to avoid unlawful or arbitrary detention
from the very moment of deprivation of liberty and, also, to ensure the right of defense
of the individual concerned.” 203
166. In this regard, the Court noted that the evidence submitted does not reveal that
Eduardo Landaeta was provided with either verbal or written information on the reasons
for his detention, or any written notice of the charges against him. Furthermore, there is
no evidence that he was provided with the assistance of legal counsel or a public
defender, or that his situation as a juvenile was taken into account. Therefore, the State
failed to comply with the provisions of Article 7(4) of the American Convention, in
relation to Article 19 of this instrument, to the detriment of Eduardo Landaeta.
201
Cf. Expert opinion of Dr. Diego Camaño Viera (merits file, folios 755 and 756), and Rights and
guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or need of international protection. Advisory Opinion
OC-21/14, supra, para. 159.
202
Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 96, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al.
(Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, supra, para. 312.
203
Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs.
Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 82, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 144. In addition, the
right to be informed of the reasons for the detention allows the detainee to contest its lawfulness, availing
himself of the legal mechanism that all States must provide, in the terms of Article 7(6) of the Convention. Cf.
Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra, para. 70, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 144.
43