I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. On August 5, 2009, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the InterAmerican Commission”) presented, an application against the State of Haiti (hereinafter “the State” or “Haiti”) concerning case No. 12,459 Lysias Fleury et al. originating from the petition presented by the petitioner on October 11, 2002. On February 26, 2004, the Commission approved Report on Admissibility No. 20/04.2 On March 16, 2009, the Commission adopted Report on Merits No. 06/093 under Article 50 of the Convention and, when forwarding it to the State, granted the latter two months to report on the measures adopted to comply with its recommendations. On May 12, 2009, the Commission received a brief from the representatives stating that they wanted the case to be submitted to the Court. On July 17, 2009, the Commission decided to submit this case to the Court, because it considered that Haiti had not adopted its recommendations. The Commission appointed Clare K. Roberts, Commissioner, and Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary, as delegates, and Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, Mario López Garelli and Karla I. Quintana Osuna as legal advisors. 2. The application relates to the alleged “illegal detention, torture, and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of Lysias Fleury that occurred on June 24, 2002, in Port-au-Prince, the subsequent lack of diligence in the investigation of the events, and the denial of justice to the detriment of Lysias Fleury and his family, and also the violation of the personal integrity of his family.” 3. The Commission asked the Court to declare the State responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Personal Integrity), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4) and 7(5) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Judicial Guarantees) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), to the detriment of Lysias Fleury. The Commission also 2 In this report, the Commission decided to declare inadmissible the complaint regarding the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 8, 11, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. Admissibility Report No. 20/04 (file of attachments to the application, tome I, appendix 2, folios 30 to 36). 3 In this report, the Commission concluded that the State was responsible for the violation, to the detriment of Mr. Fleury, of the rights not to be subjected to torture and other inhuman treatment, to personal liberty, to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, based on Articles 5(1), 5(2), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the violation of Article 1(1) thereof. Also, in this report the Commission made the following recommendations to the State: that it grant Mr. Fleury a remedy that included a thorough, prompt, impartial and effective investigation under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction of Haiti to establish responsibility for the violations committed against him, and that it prosecute and punish those found responsible; that it grant full reparation to Mr. Fleury and his immediate family; that it take the necessary measures to prevent and punish illegal and arbitrary detention in Haiti; that it take the necessary measures to ensure the effective prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Haiti’s domestic law; that it adopt any necessary measures to prevent future violations such as those perpetrated against Mr. Fleury, including training for the members of Haiti’s security forces on the international standards concerning the use of force and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary arrest and detention, and that it undertake the pertinent reforms to its investigation procedures and proceedings for the violation of human rights committed by members of the Haitian security forces to ensure that they are exhaustive, immediate and impartial, in accordance with the determinations made in the application; that it take measures to avoid a repetition of acts similar to those described in the application specifically; that it adopt, as a matter of priority, a policy to protect against and prevent violence against human rights defenders, and that it adopt a public policy to combat impunity for human rights violations against human rights defenders. Cf. Report on Merits No. 09/06 of March 16, 2009 (file of attachments to the application, tome I, appendix 1, folios 3 to 28). 4