5.
The State and the representative of the presumed victims were notified of the
submission of the case by the Inter-American Commission on October 12, 2011. On
December 20, 2011, Stella Maris Martínez, in her capacity as Argentina’s national
Ombudsperson and as representative of the presumed victims in this case (hereinafter “the
representative”), submitted her brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter
“pleadings and motions brief”) under Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. The
representative concurred, in general, with the facts and human rights violations alleged by
the Inter-American Commission. However, she also underscored that “[…] it is unacceptable
that the some of the details of life in detention that placed the fundamental rights of [the
presumed victims] at risk are excluded.” In this regard, the representative advised the
Court of incidents that had occurred while the presumed victims were serving their
sentences. The representative agreed with human rights violations alleged by the
Commission, and added other rights violations. 5
6.
Lastly, the representative asked that the Court order the State to undertake different
measures of reparation and that the Court authorize the presumed victims to access the
Victims' Legal Assistance Fund of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Court’s Assistance Fund” or “the Fund”) to ensure the presence of two witnesses and
two expert witnesses during the public hearing and to cover the expenses incurred in
producing some expert evidence and for the testimony of the presumed victims.
7.
On April 20, 2012, the State filed its brief with preliminary objections, answering the
brief submitting the case, and with observations on the pleadings and motions brief
(hereinafter “the answering brief”). In this brief, the State filed five preliminary objections,
two indicating that the representative had raised ‘for the first time” issues that had
supposedly not been included in the Merits Report; one alleging the existence of
international res judicata; one alleging that the procedural claims of the representative with
regard to Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal had become moot and another alleging that the
representative should have presented her pecuniary claims before the organs of the State.
Also, in general terms, it acknowledged that there had been a “error of judgment” in the
5
The representative alleged that the State had violated: (a) Articles 1(1), 2, 5(6), 7(3), 19 and 24 of the
American Convention, in light of Articles 3, 37(a), 37(b), 40(1), 40(3)(b) and 40(4) of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl
Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernandez; (b) Articles 1(1), 2, 5(1), 5(2), 5(6), 19 and 24 of the
American Convention, in light of Articles 3 and 40(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, due to the life
sentences handed down to César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian
Roldán Cajal and Ricardo David Videla Fernandez; (c) Articles 1(1), 4, 5(1), 5(6), 17(1), 19, 24 and 26 of the
American Convention, and 6, 7, 13 and 15 of the Protocol of San Salvador, in light of Articles 3, 8(1), 28(1),
29(1)(a), 29(1)(d) and 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza;
(d) Articles 1(1), 4, 5(1), 5(2), 5(6), 8(1), 17(1), 19, 24, 25 and 26 of the American Convention, Articles 6, 7, 13
and 15 of the Protocol of San Salvador, and the obligations established in Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, in light of Articles 3, 8(1), 28(1), 29(1)(a), 29(1)(d) and 40 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, to the detriment of Claudio David Núñez; (e) Articles 1(1), 4, 5(1), 5(2),
5(6), 8(1), 17(1), 19, 24, 25 and 26 of the American Convention, Articles 6, 7, 10, 13 and 15 of the Protocol of
San Salvador Protocol, and the obligations established in Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to
Prevent and Punish Torture, in light of Articles 3, 8(1), 8(1), 24(1), 28(1), 29(1)(a), 29(1)(d) and 40 of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, to the detriment of Lucas Matías Mendoza; (f) Articles 1(1), 5(1), 5(2), 5(5),
5(6), 19 and 24 of the American Convention, in light of Articles 3, 37(a), 37(c) and 40 of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, to the detriment of Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal; (g) Articles 1(1), 4, 8(1), 19 and 25 of the
American Convention, in the light of Articles 3 and 6 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to the detriment
of Ricardo David Videla Fernández; (h) Articles 1, 2, 8(1), 8(2)(h) 19 and 25 of the American Convention to the
detriment of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and
Ricardo David Videla Fernández; (i) Articles 1(1), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e) and 19 of the American Convention, in relation
to Article 40(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to the detriment of César Alberto Mendoza and Saúl
Cristian Roldán Cajal, and (j) Articles 1(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin
of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal and Ricardo
David Videla Fernández.
9