83. The Commission observes that a number of claims have been made regarding the
conditions of detention.The information available indicates that some petitioners have filed
judicial and/or administrative actions on particular situations such as medical care or food, and
have thus brought the alleged situation to the attention of the prison authorities. For its part,
the State argues that it maintains high standards of quality in the penitentiary system. It does,
however, report that there is overcrowding in the corrections facilities that has affected the
detainees’ living conditions.
84. As to the allegedly prolonged preventive detention of Mr. Jorge Martínez Meléndez, the
petitioners contend that domestic remedies were exhausted by means of the three habeas
corpus proceedings that were filed. The State has presented no specific allegations on this
matter. In this regard, the Commission notes that three habeas corpus petitions were filed to
complain of the alleged extension or illegality of the preventive detention. Specifically, the first
petition was filed on June 7, 2006 against the decision of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial
Circuit of June 2, 2006, which prolonged indefinitely the precautionary measure of preventive
detention until such time as the verdict should be handed down. It is alleged that this
extension was given beyond the expiry of the lawful periods and without a date certain. In its
resolution of June 23, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court denied the
petition, finding that the extension was based on applicable legal norms, and that it was also
based on “the still latent danger of flight, since the accused previously took advantage of his
state of freedom to leave the country for Canada, where he remained for four years,…”, and
that “the purpose sought with this measure is to ensure that the purposes of the trial are
fulfilled”. In addition, on August 28, 2007 and January 28, 2007, two habeas corpus petitions
were filed to challenge the fact that the alleged victim had been in detention without an order
for imprisonment that could justify such a measure. Both petitions were decided by the
Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, one on September 7, 2007, which was which
was denied, and the second on February 1, 2008, admitting the petition but not ordering the
release of the alleged victim. It is therefore considered that the requirement for exhaustion of
domestic remedies provided for in Article 46.1 of the American Convention was effectively
complied with, in respect of that aspect of the complaint.
C.
Timeliness of the petition
85. Article 46.1.b of the Convention provides that in order for the petition to be found
admissible, it must have been filed within six months of the date on which the interested Party
was notified of the final decision exhausting domestic remedies.This rule does not apply when
the Commission finds that any of the exceptions to exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth
in Article 46.2 of the Convention have occurred. In such cases, the Commission must
determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable time, in accordance with
Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure.
86. As stated, the Commission concluded that in the instant case, the exception provided for in
Article 46.2.a of the American Convention applies.In view of the date or dates on which each of
the petitions was filed –as noted in the pertinent sections on processing by the IACHR-, the
Commission considers that the petitions were filed within a reasonable time period. Regarding
the complaint concerning the prolonged preventive detention of Mr. Martínez Meléndez, it finds
that the petition was submitted in accordance with the six-month deadline, given that the final
petition for amparo ended subsequent to the submission of the original petition.
D.
Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata
87. Article 46 (1) (c) of the Convention provides that admission of the petitions is subject to
the requirement "that the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another
international proceeding for settlement", and Article 47 (d) of the Convention stipulates 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. In the petitions
considered in the present report, the Parties have not put forward either of these two
circumstances, nor are they inferred from the case files.
19