indice de temas - Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala
Judgment of November 25, 2003 (Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the Myrna Mack Chang case, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court" or "the
Inter-American Court"), composed of the following judges: Antônio A. Cançado Trindade, President;
Sergio García Ramírez, Vice-President;
Hernán Salgado Pesantes, Judge;
Máximo Pacheco Gómez, Judge;
Oliver Jackman, Judge;
Alirio Abreu Burelli, Judge;
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, Judge; and
Arturo Martínez Gálvez, Judge ad hoc; also present,* Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Secretary, pursuant to Articles 29, 55, 56 and 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court (hereinafter "the Rules of Procedure") and to article 63(1) of the
American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the
American Convention") issues the instant Judgment. I
Introduction of the Case 1. On June 19, 2001, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(hereinafter "the Commission" or "the Inter-American Commission") filed
before the Court an application against the State of Guatemala (hereinafter
"the State" or "Guatemala"), originating in complaint Nº 10.636, received
at the Secretariat of the Commission on September 12, 1990. 2. The Commission filed the application on the basis of Article 51 of
the American Convention, for the Court to decide whether the State violated
Articles 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Right to Fair Trial), 25 (Judicial
Protection) in combination with Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights)
of the American Convention to the detriment of Myrna Elizabeth Mack Chang
(hereinafter "Myrna Mack Chang") and her next of kin, "due to the extra-
legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang [that took place] on September 11, 1990
in Guatemala City." 3. The Commission also asked the Court to order the State to make all
the pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations stated in the application.
Finally, it asked the Inter-American Court to order Guatemala to pay the
costs arising from processing of the case both domestically and
internationally before the bodies of the Inter-American System for
Protection of Human Rights. 4. According to the Commission, Guatemala is responsible for the
arbitrary deprivation of the right to life of Myrna Mack Chang, because the
murder of the victim, committed on September 11, 1990, was the consequence
of a military intelligence operation, springing from a prior plan and
carefully prepared by the high command of the Presidential General Staff.
Said plan involved, first, selecting the victim in a precise manner due to
her professional activity; second, brutally murdering Myrna Mack Chang; and
third, covering up the direct perpetrators and accessories of the murder,
obstructing the judicial investigation and insofar as possible ensuring
that impunity prevailed with respect to the murder. The Commission added
that the State has not resorted to all the means available to it with the
aim of conducting a serious and effective investigation that could be the
basis for complete elucidation of the facts, prosecution, trial, and
punishment of those responsible, both direct perpetrators and accessories,
within a reasonable term. This situation has been made worse by the
existence of de facto and legal mechanisms, tolerated by the Guatemalan
State, that obstruct adequate administration of justice.
II Competence 5. Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May
25, 1978, and it accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on
March 9, 1987. Therefore, the Court is competent to hear the instant case,
pursuant to the terms of Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention. III
Proceeding before the Commission 6. On September 12, 1990, the Comisión Guatemalteca de Derechos Humanos
[or Guatemalan Human Rights Committee] filed the complaint before the Inter-
American Commission and since April, 1991, the Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights and Georgetown University continued the case. Several United States
law firms participated in the proceeding, as co-applicants, together with
the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. 7. On September 17, 1990, the Commission opened the case as Nº 10.636. 8. On March 5, 1996, the Commission adopted Report Nº 10/96 in which it
declared the case admissible. The Commission also made itself available to
the parties with the aim of attaining a friendly settlement of the matter,
pursuant to Article 48(f) of the American Convention. 9. On March 3, 2000, the Guatemalan State recognized its "institutional
responsibility" in the instant case, during a public hearing at the seat of
the Inter-American Commission. On that same date, the State and the
applicants reached an agreement to advance the criminal proceedings under
domestic jurisdiction, for which they established a verification committee
in which they agreed to "come together through willingness to reactivate
the respective investigation and further the judicial proceeding underway
in Guatemala." 10. On May 26, 2000, the applicants and the State signed an agreement on
the way the verification should take place, and on June 22 of that same
year they signed an agreement on the framework and the start of the
"verification," on impelling reactivation of the judicial proceeding, on
verification actions and reports as well as on procedural thrust,
communication among the parties, and publication of said reports. 11. On July 25 and 26, 2000, the Inter-American Commission officially
appointed Alfredo Balsells Tojo and Gabriela Vásquez Smerilli as the
verifiers. 12. On August 23 and October 4, 2000, the verifiers submitted their first
and second reports, respectively, to the Commission. In the latter report,
the verifiers reached the conclusion "that the proceeding against the
military accused of being the accessories of the murder of anthropologist
Myrna Elizabeth Mack Chang began in 1994 and to date we cannot envision
that it will move forward in the future without judicial obstacles, because
from the start there have been all sorts of challenges that have obstructed
compliance with due process in the development of the case." 13. On October 5, 2000, during a hearing before the Commission, Gabriela
Vásquez Smerilli presented the second verification report regarding the
criminal proceeding. At that same hearing, the applicants affirmed that
they did not see any serious commitment and willingness of the State to
move the case forward so as to try and to effectively punish the
accessories of the murder of Myrna Mack Chang, for which reason they would
no longer consider the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement in
this case. 14. On March 8, 2001, the Commission, pursuant to Article 50 of the
Convention, adopted Report Nº 39/01, in which it reached the conclusion
that:
[t]he acknowledgment of responsibility by the Guatemalan State has
full juridical value in accordance with the principles of
international law and place[s] it under to obligation to effectively
redress the violations it committed, pursuant to the provisions of the
American Convention. Over a year after the acknowledgment of
responsibility, the Guatemalan State has undertaken no effective
actions to lift the cloak of impunity that still exists regarding the
accessories of the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack. Such inaction
by the Guatemalan State leads the Commission to affirm that the State
of Guatemala continues to lack a serious willingness to investigate
and effectively punish all those responsible for the murder of Myrna
Mack Chang in accordance with the provisions of the American
Convention on Human Rights.
[...]
Based on these conclusions, the Commission made the following
recommendations to the State:
1. To conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation
with the aim of trying and punishing all participants in the murder of
Myrna Mack Chang.
2. TO ADOPT ALL NECESSARY MEASURES FOR THE NEXT OF KIN OF MYRNA
MACK CHANG TO RECEIVE ADEQUATE AND TIMELY REPARATION FOR THE
VIOLATIONS FOUND HERE.
3. TO REMOVE ALL OBSTACLES AND DE FACTO AND LEGAL MECHANISMS THAT
MAINTAIN IMPUNITY IN THE INSTANT CASE.
4. To replace the Presidential General Staff as soon as possible in
compliance with the agreement and as set forth in the Peace Accord. 15. On March 19, 2001 the Commission sent the aforementioned report to
the State and granted it two months to comply with its recommendations. On
May 18 of that same year, the State requested of the Commission a ten-day
extension to submit its report on compliance with the recommendations, and
the request was granted. 16. On May 30, 2001, the State submitted its reply to Report N° 39/01 by
the Commission. 17. On June 14, 2001 the Commission decided to submit the case to the
jurisdiction of the Court. IV PROCEEDING before the Court
18. The Commission filed the application before the Court on June 19,
2001, and attached 52 annexes. The