REPORT No. 138/10
PETITION 12.363
ADMISSIBILITY
JUAN JOSÉ MEZA
ECUADOR
November 1, 2010
I.
SUMMARY
1.
On February 15, 2001 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Commission”) received a petition filed by Juan José Meza and Carlos S. Díaz Guzmán
(hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging responsibility on the part of the Republic of Ecuador for
failure to enforce the decision issued by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of
Guayaquil dated April 24, 1996, which would have affected payment of salaries and benefits that the
Club Sport Emelec owed to Juan José Meza. The petitioners allege that the judges responsible for
enforcing the decision acted with partiality in favor of the Club Sport Emelec and delayed and
distorted the enforcement process, which constitutes a violation of due process guarantees.
2.
The petitioners alleged that the State was responsible for violating the rights to
judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American
Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Convention” or the “American Convention”). They
also alleged that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article
46(1)(a) of the American Convention has been met. For its part, the State alleged that the petitioners’
claims were inadmissible due to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies and because the petitioners
were trying to use the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Commission as a fourth instance.
3.
After analyzing the positions of the parties and satisfaction of the requirements
provided in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission decided to declare
admissible the complaints regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 as they relate to
Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to notify the parties, and to order the publication of the
report in its Annual Report to the General Assembly.
II.
PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION
4.
The Commission recorded the petition under number 12.363 and proceeded on
February 16, 2001 to forward copy of the relevant sections to the State, allowing it a period of 90
days to submit information in accordance with Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure in force. On July
30, 2001 the State submitted its response to the Commission, which was sent to the petitioners for
their observations. On September 21, 2001 the Commission received a brief containing the
petitioners’ observations, which was forwarded to the State for its observations.
5.
On October 18, 2001 the Commission received a brief from the petitioners with
additional information, which was forwarded to the State for its observations. On June 26, 2003 the
Commission received a brief from the petitioners in which they indicated their desire to reach a
friendly settlement, which was forwarded to the State for its observations. On April 3, 2007 the
Commission received a brief from the petitioners, which was forwarded to the State for its
observations. On May 4, 2009 the Commission reiterated its requests to the State for information
dated December 3, 2003 and May 21, 2007.
6.
On July 9, 2009 the Commission received a brief from the State, which was
forwarded to the petitioners for their observations along with a request for updated information. On