CARLOS GOMEZ LOPEZ vs. GUATEMALA

CASE NO. 11.303

INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

SUMMARY OF COMMISSION OPINION

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C., an organ of the Organization of American States, has published, in its 1996 Annual Report to be presented to the OAS General Assembly in June, its resolution in the case of Carlos Gomez Lopez, a Guatemalan labor leader shot and left for dead by military agents. The Commission concluded that the Government of Guatemala violated numerous provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights in its treatment of Mr. Gomez and through its inability to provide adequate and effective judicial protection of its citizens.

Brief Summary of Facts

On February 25, 1993, on a bus near Quetzaltenango, Guatemala, Carlos Gomez Lopez, a trade union leader, was shot in the chest by armed men partially clad in military uniforms. He was returning from a visit by international reporters to the Communities of People in Resistance in Quiche, during which he videotaped and photographed the people and their surroundings. The military had previously accused these people of being guerrillas and guerrilla-sympathizers. After he was shot centimeters from his heart, the armed government agents took his video and camera equipment, shot out the bus tires, and fled.

After receiving medical treatment in Guatemala, Mr. Gomez was flown to Chicago to receive additional treatment. He was hospitalized for twenty-two days, and then spent another two months in Chicago convalescing at a center for refugees. In July 1993, after the election of Ramiro de Leon Carpio as the new civilian president, Mr. Gomez decided to return to Guatemala to try to pick up the pieces of his former life as a union activist in Quetzaltenango. He only remained in Guatemala for twendy days, however, because of the constant, menacing presence of the military near his residence as well as the union office. On July 22, 1993 Mr. Gomez returned to Chicago, where he has since remained, to continue receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress and other related mental and physical ailments caused by the attempted assassination.

While Mr. Gomez was still in Guatemala immediately after the shooting, his union filed a criminal complaint on his behalf to begin legal proceedings. To his day, however, Mr. Gomez has not obtained relief from the Guatemalan judicial system, and the relief there available to him did not, and still does not, comply with the American Convention on Human Rights, which Guatemala ratified on May 25, 1978 and which entered into force on July 18, 1978. Consequently, his pursuit of justice led Mr. Gomez to file a claim before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Gomez is represented by Chicago attorney John S. Graettinger, Jr., with additional legal support from amicus International Human Rights Law Institute at DePaul College of Law.

Commission Resolution

The Commission, in its October 16, 1996 Report No. 29/26 on this case, which was only just released to the public in the 1996 Annual Report, accepted as true the facts as presented by Mr. Gomez via sworn affidavits and documentary evidence (Resolution paragraphs 54-61, pp. 432-435). Furthermore, the Commission stated that, "the perpetrators of the attack on Mr. Gomez Lopez on February 25, 1993, on the Inter-American Highway, were agents of the Government," (para. 62, p. 435) and that "the intervention of Government agents is confirmed by the fact that it has been and continues to be Government practice in Guatemala to use official agens in acts of repression and clandestine attacks against human rights and union groups" (para 67, p. 436).

In its "Conclusions of Law," the Commission found that Guatemala violated the following provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights:

• Article 4 Right to Life: "…the Government of Guatemala has not respected the right to life of Carlos Ranferi Gomez Lopez and has thereby vilated [article 4 of] the American Convention [on Human Rights]" (para. 72, p. 437);

• Article 5 Right to Humane Treatment: "The facts alleged in the present case, which the Commission has accepted as proven, constitute a violation by the Government of Guatemala of the petitioner’s right to have his integrity respected…" (para. 75, p. 437);

• Article 8 Right to a Fair Trial: "…the Government of Guatemala has not provided the necessary elements for guaranteeing these rights [to a fair trial and judicial protection], thereby violating the Convention" (para. 82, p. 438);

• Article 13 Freedom of Thought and Expression: "…the attempt on his life of February 25, 1993 constitutes a violation of the rights protected by Article 13 of the Convention" (para. 92, pp. 441-2);

• Article 16 Freedom of Association: "…the Government of Guatemala has caused certain situations in which Mr. Gomez Lopez has been prevented from exercising his right of free association" (para. 93, p. 441);

• Article 22 Freedom of Movement and Residence: "The incidents which have affected Mr. Gomez Lopez have had the effect of preventing his residence in Guatemala to the point that they have forced him to leave the country to avoid serious danger to his life and moral and physical integrity" (para. 97, p. 441);

• Article 25 Right to Judicial Protection: "The judicial protection afforded by the Government of Guatemala to Mr. Gomez Lopez is clearly ineffective" (para. 85, p. 439);

• Article 31 Obligation to Respect Rights: "The violations described above show that the State of Guatemala has not complied with the obligation assumed in Article 1.1 of the American Convention, ‘to respect the rights and freedoms recognized therein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms’" (para. 99, p. 442).

Besides relying on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (particularly its Velasquez Rodriguez decision of 1988), the Commission also looked to its own past reports on Guatemala to examine and then condemn the performance of the country’s entire judicial system. "Since 1986 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has made repeated reference in its annual reports to the basic inability of the Guatemalan judicial system to protect the rights of its citizens, noting that the courts are inefficient and non-functional, and that the judicial system has a serious credibility problem" (para. 86, p. 439).

The Commission also noted here that in 1993, after an on-site visit to Guatemala, it had found that "one of the most serious problems affecting Guatemalan society is impunity, which is due, among other causes, to inefficient administration of justice" (para. 87, p. 439). The Commission then went on to say that "the experts concur that the present justice system in Guatemala cannot protect human rights nor provide proper judicial relief for violation of those rights. They say this failure of the justice system has virtually eliminated the possibility for a victim to request relief through domestic remedies" (para. 89, p. 440).

Finally, as a result of its analysis of the facts and evidence of this case, the Commission concluded:

• That the State of Guatemala is responsible for violations of the human rights of Carlos Ranferi Gomez Lopez, to life, personal integrity, a fair trial, freedom of association, freedom of movement and residence and judicial protection, all of which are guaranteed, respectively, in Articles 4, 5, 8, 13,16, 22 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights.

• That the State of Guatemala has not fulfilled its obligations set out in Article 1 of the American Convention, to respect the rights recognized therein and to guarantee their full and free exercise. (Paras. 118a & b, p. 446).

The Commission also then directed the Government of Guatemala to:

• Undertake an immediate, impartial, and effective investigation of the facts set forth in the petition, to identify the responsible parties and punish them in accordance with the law.

• Make restitution for the consequences of the rights violated, including adequate compensation to Carlos Ranferi Gomez Lopez for the damages suffered. (Paras. 119a & b.)