3
6.
That the States Parties to the Convention must guarantee compliance with its
provisions and its effects (effet utile) within their own domestic jurisdictions. This
principle applies not only in relation to the substantive provisions of human rights
treaties (i.e. those dealing with the protected rights), but also in relation to procedural
rules, such as those concerning compliance with the decisions of the Court. These
obligations must be interpreted and applied in a manner so that the guarantee protected
is truly practical and effective, taking into account the special nature of human rights
treaties.5
7.
The Court appreciates the significant efficacy of the hearing held on January 29,
2010, for monitoring compliance with the Judgment in the instant case.
*
*
*
8.
That as regards the obligation to continue with the investigation of the events
referred to in the instant case and punish those responsible (Operative Paragraph No. 4
of the Judgment), the State expressed at the private hearing that “it is now time to find
justice”. It stated that the delay in the commencement of investigations was due to the
fact that “the priority [in the preceding years] was not to investigate that”, “[the
Government] had giv[en] priority to the reestablishment of social rights”. It added that,
“the Prosecutor’s Office and the courts were busy [with other matters]”; therefore, it
was difficult to “open the investigations of this massacre”. That notwithstanding, it
remarked the current “political willingness” to commence investigations. As evidence of
such political willingness, the State made reference to a communication of the General
Prosecutor’s Office whereby it is stated that Prosecutor’s Office No. 62 with absolute
domestic jurisdiction, Prosecutor’s Office No. 83 of the judicial district of the Metropolitan
Area of Caracas and the Prosecutor for the temporary procedural regime of the State of
Táchira had been commissioned to the instant case. According to that communication,
“the commissioned prosecutor’s offices have requested and performed useful and
necessary procedures”.
9.
That the State added that “it is true that perpetrators have been fully identified,
but the General Prosecutor’s Office needs time to continue with the investigations”. In
that regard, it indicated that the investigations would not be difficult because some of
the evidence was already within the military jurisdiction; therefore, “it c[ould] be
perfectly gathered and reconstructed”. Lastly, given the proposal of the Inter-American
Commission, it accepted the possibility of “defining a schedule to make official all the
activities carried out for the purposes of the investigation, [to] define a term and carry
out a follow-up”.
10.
That the representatives indicated that “[a]fter twenty-one years of the massacre,
the State has not proven significant progress regarding the obligation to investigate and
punish those responsible”. Similarly, they stated that failure by the State to comply with
the Judgment purports, not only a violation of its duty to fulfill the orders of the Court,
but also “a discriminatory enforcement of justice”. They indicated that in 2005, the case
of the Yumare massacre was reopened and in 2009, proceedings were carried out
regarding the Cantaura massacre, both similar to the instant case, which indicates the
State’s full capacity to investigate and initiate judicial proceedings in the case of the El
Amparo massacre. Hence, the State’s noncompliance “is inexcusable”. The
representatives indicated that the surviving victims of the instant case appeared at the
Attorney General’s Office on August 20, 2008, requesting an investigation of the case in
the ordinary jurisdiction and to impose punishment on those responsible. Additionally, on
February 5, 2009, the representatives met with Prosecutor No. 49 with domestic
jurisdiction, who had been assigned to the case, and informed that the Attorney
5
Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54,
para. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra note 2, Considering clause No 5, and Case of the Moiwana
Community v. Suriname, supra note 2, Considering clause No. 6.