7. The petitioners argue that the facts of the instant case are consistent with a pattern of
extrajudicial murders of ecologists and indigenous activists, and subsequently there has been
an “atmosphere of impunity concerning each of the murders.” 1
8. The petitioners state that Carlos Antonio Luna López was a town councilor (regidor) in the
town of Catacamas in the Department of Olancho, Honduras, who introduced policies to control
“ghost cooperatives” and denounce the illegal felling of trees. As a consequence of these
activities, the alleged victim began to receive threats because his investigations and actions
were affecting the interests of local politicians and businessmen, and on May 18, 1998, around
10.45 pm, he was shot down while leaving the Municipality where there had been a meeting of
the town council. He died while he was being taken to hospital.
9. The criminal case was opened on May 19, 1998. On October 27, of the same year, one of
those allegedly responsible for the death of Mr. Luna, was captured. His name was Mr. Oscar
Aurelio Rodriguez, alias “Machetío”, and he was sentenced to 20 years in prison for murder.
The petitioners also claim that three other alleged participants in the crime, Mr. Italo Iván
Lemus, Mr. Marcos Morales, and Mr. Wilfredo Pérez are currently fugitives from justice and
that the warrants for their arrest, issued on February 21, 2001, have proved to be ineffective.
They also claim that the commitment order against Mr.Jorge Chávez, one of the alleged
instigators of the crime, was cancelled. This cancellation was subsequently appealed by the
prosecution [Fiscal] and the file was sent to the Third Court of Appeal, which resolved to
revoke the order to release the accused, who then filed a writ of amparo [recurso de amparo]
before the Supreme Court of Justice in appeal. The writ of amparo was heard by the Supreme
Court on April 2, 2003, which revoked the findings of the Third Court of Appeal and sent the
case back so that the Court could correct the errors in its finding. 2 According to the information
supplied by the petitioners, the accused remains in prison, awaiting a decision on the writ of
amparo he presented.
10. With regard to Mr. José Angel Rosa, who is named as the other alleged instigator, the
petitioners state that he is currently in prison but for crimes other than the murder of Mr.
Carlos Antonio Luna López, and for that reason no warrant for his arrest has been issued.
11. The petitioners claim that more than four and a half years have elapsed without all the
guilty parties having been punished for this act because the authorities have no interest in
solving this crime. They claim that on several occasions the case has remained dormant for
different reasons. Consequently, the petitioners allege that there has been an unwarranted
delay in the investigation and bringing to trial of all those who are alleged to have been
responsible, as well as in resolving the instant case. They therefore request the Commission to
admit the petition based on the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies
contemplated in Article 46.2.c of the Convention.
B.
State
12. Honduras denies the existence within its jurisdiction of the alleged pattern of extrajudicial
executions or persecution and harassment of community or environmental leaders. The State
claims that since the 1990s the human rights situation in the country has improved.
13. The State claims that the case concerning Mr. Luna López has been handled diligently by
the Office of the Attorney General [Ministerio Público] and that several remedies brought by
the accused with a view to winning their freedom were rejected by courts of appeal.
14. With regard to the perpetrator of the crime, Mr. Oscar Aurelio Rodríguez, alias “Macheteo”,
the State advises that he has been sentenced to 20 years imprisonment without right of appeal
for the crime committed against Mr. Carlos Antonio Luna López and to seven years for “the
1
2
Indictment, January 14, 2003, p.2.
In considering the writ of amparo, the Supreme Court indicated that the Third Court of Appeal did not adequately
substantiate its decision and in addition used “terms such as “vil asesinato”[foul murder] which implies a degree of
subjectivity that should not be part of a judicial proceeding, damaging a fair trial and the principle of legality.”
2