REPORT No. 89/09 PETITION 663-06 ADMISSIBILITY TGGL1 ECUADOR August 7, 2009 I. SUMMARY 1. On June 26, 2006 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission) received a petition submitted by Messrs. Iván Patricio Durazno Campoverde and Gustavo Quito Mendieta (hereinafter “the petitioners”) alleging responsibility on the part of the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State”) for injury done to the female child TGGL due to alleged infection with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (hereinafter “HIV/AIDS”) through a transfusion of blood supplied by the provincial Red Cross in the city of Cuenca, Province of Azuay, on June 22, 1998 and administered at the Pablo Jaramillo Crespo Foundation Humanitarian Clinic. The petition also alleges a failure to prosecute and punish those responsible. 2. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for providing blood banks with “safe blood” through institutions such as the Ecuadorian Red Cross and is thus responsible for violating the right to life established in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention”) as it relates to the duty to guarantee rights under Article 1(1) of that convention. For its part, the State alleged that the events in the complaint cannot be attributed to it and that in any case the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with Article 46(1) of the American Convention has not been met and, as a result, the petition is inadmissible. 3. After analyzing the positions of the parties and compliance with the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission, applying the principle of iura novit curia, decided to declare the case admissible for purposes of examining the claim regarding the alleged violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 19, and 25(1) as they relate to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to notify the parties, and order publication of this report in the annual report. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 4. The Commission recorded the petition under No. P663-06 and on June 19, 2008 it proceeded to send copy of the relevant sections to the State, asking that it submit its observations within a period of two months. On July 31, 2008, the State reported that it had not received a complete copy of the relevant sections of the petition so that copy was again forwarded to the State, allowing it another two months to submit its observations. On August 19, 2008, the State again reported that it had not received a complete copy of the relevant sections of the petition and thus another copy was sent to the State along with another deadline. 5. On December 10, 2008, the State submitted its observations, which were forwarded to the petitioner, with a deadline of one month. On January 19, 2009, the petitioners submitted their response, which was forwarded to the State for its observations. On March 30, 2009, the State submitted its final observations to the Commission. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Petitioners 1 Although not specifically requested by the petitioners, the IACHR is protecting the identity of the alleged victim because she is a child. In order to provide greater protection to the alleged victim, the IACHR also holds back the names of the alleged victim’s mother and the blood donors. 1

Select target paragraph3