62. The American Convention stipulates that for a petition to be admissible it must be lodged
within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights
was notified of the final judgment. In the petition under analysis, the IACHR has recognized
applicability of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to Article
46.2.c of the American Convention. On this matter, Article 32 of the Commission’s Rules of
Procedure provides that in those cases in which the exceptions to the requirement of prior
exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable, the petition shall be presented within a
reasonable period of time, as determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the
Commission shall consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the
circumstances of each case.
63. In the instant case, the petition was received on December 30, 2005, and the alleged
illegal arrests, torture, and two executions occurred for the first one on August 28, 1998, and
for the second one (during the processing of the case by the Commission) on January 15,
2005, with investigations initiated on the same dates as the facts. The investigation of the
facts involving Benito Barrios is in the intermediate stage and that related to Rigoberto Barrios
was archived in May 2006. In addition, the investigations into some of the complaints
regarding threats and harassment are pending, and have yielded no results. On this matter,
the State’s lack of an effective judicial response if it failed to exercise due diligence in the
investigation would be continuing to the present time. Therefore, in view of the context and
the characteristics of this case, and the fact that the responsible parties have still not been
prosecuted and punished, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a
reasonable period of time and that the deadline for the presentation of petitions has been met.
4.
Duplication of proceedings and res judicata
64. Article 46.1.c establishes that admission of a petition shall be subject to the requirement
that the matter “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article
47.d of the Convention provides that the Commission shall not admit a petition that “is
substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another
international organization.”
65. In the case at hand, the State alleges the exception of duplication of proceedings
established in Article 33 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure in view of the statements
concerning the situation of Narciso, Luis Alberto, and Rigoberto Barrios made by Theo van
Boven, Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, and Philip Alston, Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary
Executions, on November 16, 2004, and February 2, 2005. The petitioners, however, argue
that the UN Special Rapporteurs did not make definitive statements on the merits of the case,
so it has not been examined by another international organization. (See IV.A supra.)
66. In this connection it must be noted that grounds for inadmissibility under Article 47.d of
the Convention on duplication of international proceedings require that in addition to having
identical subjects, purposes, and claims, the petition must be under consideration, or have
been ruled upon, by an international organization that is competent to adopt decisions on the
specific facts contained in the petition and measures for effective settlement.54
67. The Commission finds that when the Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations made
comments and statements on a particular situation they were not adopting decisions or
measures for the settlement of disputes such as the one under consideration. On this point,
the Commission considers that the grounds for inadmissibility of the petition based on Articles
46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention and 33 of the IACHR Rules of Procedure are not present.
5.
Characterization of the alleged facts
54 IACHR Report on Admissibility Nº 96/98 Case 11.827 Peter Blaine, December 17, 1998, para. 42, and IACHR
Report on Admissibility Nº 47/08 Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and family, July 24, 2008, para. 64.
12