ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Application to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Gabriela Perozo, Aloys Marín, Óscar Dávila Pérez, et al . (Case 12.442) against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela DELEGATES: Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, Commissioner Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary Ignacio J. Alvarez, Special Rapporteur For Freedom Of Expression LEGAL ADVISORS: Elizabeth Abi-Mershed Juan Pablo Albán A. Debora Benchoam Ariel E. Dulitzky Alejandra Gonza Silvia Serrano April 12, 2007 1889 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 II. PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION................................................................................ 2 III. REPRESENTATION ................................................................................................... 3 IV. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.................................................................................. 3 V. PROCESSING BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ................................................ 4 A. Petition No. 487/03 and Case No. 12.442 ........................................................ 4 B. Precautionary measures.................................................................................. 7 C. Provisional measures...................................................................................... 8 VI. CONSIDERATIONS OF FACT...................................................................................... 9 A. The political situation and the context of threats against social communicators ...... 9 B. The Globovisión television channel and its workers............................................11 C. Declarations by the President of the Republic and other officials..........................12 D. Incidents during 2001 ...................................................................................17 E. Incidents during 2002 ...................................................................................17 F. Incidents during 2003 ...................................................................................21 G. Incidents during 2004 ...................................................................................21 H. Incidents during 2005 ...................................................................................23 I. Investigations carried out in connection with some of the incidents......................25 VII. CONSIDERATIONS OF LAW......................................................................................26 A. Violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5 of the Convention)...............26 B. Violation of the right of free expression (Article 13 of the Convention) .................30 1. Content of the right to freedom of thought and expression ......................30 2. Restrictions of the right to freedom of thought and expression .................31 2.1. Acts committed by private citizens and state agents during the work of Globovisión’s journalist teams constituting undue restrictions of the right to freely seek, receive, and impart information .......................................33 2.2. Barriers to access to official sources and/or state facilities as undue restrictions of the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information ..........................37 2.3. Acts of violence against Globovisión’s property and premises as undue restrictions of the right to freely seek, receive, and impart information.......................38 2.4. Statements by the President of the Republic and other senior officials as indirect ways of restricting the right to freely seek, receive, and impart information .......................................................................................38 Page C. Violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention) ......................................................................................................40 VIII. REPARATIONS AND COSTS .....................................................................................44 A. Obligation of making reparations.....................................................................44 B. Reparation measures.....................................................................................45 1. Compensation measures .....................................................................46 1.1. Material damages...............................................................................46 1.2. Nonmaterial damages .........................................................................47 2. Measures of cessation and satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition ....48 C. Beneficiaries ................................................................................................49 D. Costs and expenses......................................................................................50 IX. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................50 X. LIST OF DEMANDS .................................................................................................50 XI. EVIDENCE..............................................................................................................52 A. Documentary evidence ..................................................................................52 B. Witness evidence..........................................................................................59 C. Expert evidence............................................................................................60 XII. INFORMATION ABOUT THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS AND VICTIMS ..............................60 APPLICATION FROM THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA CASE 12.442 GABRIELA PEROZO, ALOYS MARÍN, ÓSCAR DÁVILA PÉREZ, ET AL. I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the “Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) hereby submits to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”) this application in Case No. 12.442, Gabriela Perozo, Aloys Marín, Oscar Dávila Pérez, et al. , against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State,” “the Venezuelan State,” or “Venezuela”). This application is related to a series of incidents involving harassment, persecution, and aggression that began in 2001 and that were aimed at 44 individuals with ties to the Globovisión television channel, including reporters, associated technical support staff, employees, and executives (hereinafter “the victims”), and to the subsequent lack of due diligence in investigating those incidents. 2. On account of their activities in seeking, receiving, and imparting information, the victims were subjected to various forms of aggression, including attacks with explosives made against the premises of the Globovisión television channel. The State, in turn, failed to take the steps necessary to prevent the harassment, and it failed to investigate and punish those acts with due diligence. 3. The Commission requests that the Court rule that the Venezuelan State failed to abide by its international obligations by violating Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 8 (right to a fair trial), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring human rights set out in Article 1(1) thereof. 4. This case has been processed in accordance with the terms of the American Convention and is submitted to the Court in compliance with Article 33 of its Rules of Procedure. Attached hereto, in the appendixes, is a copy of report No. 61/06, drawn up according to Article 50 of the Convention. 1 5. The Commission believes it is justified in referring this case because of the need to ensure justice and secure redress for the victims. The facts of the case indicate that the Globovisión reporters and support staff were unable to freely seek, receive, and impart information, and had to work under the intimidating effect of attacks intended to hinder the exercise of their freedom of expression. The Commission therefore believes that the case offers an opportunity for developing inter-American jurisprudence regarding the scope of the restrictions that can be placed on free expression by state agents and private citizens through direct or indirect actions that hinder or intimidate media workers and support staff, and about barriers to access to official sources of information. 1 IACHR, Report No. 61/06 (merits), Case 12.442, Gabriela Perozo, Aloys Marín, Óscar Dávila Pérez, et al. , Venezuela, October 26, 2006; APPENDIX 1. 2 II. PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 6. The purpose of this application is to respectfully request that the Court conclude and declare that: (a) The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is responsible for violating the right to freedom of thought and expression enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with the general obligation of respecting and ensuring human rights under Article 1(1) thereof, with respect to the following individuals associated with the Globovisión television channel: Aloys Marín, Ana Karina Villalba,