REPORT No. 33/16 CASE 12,797 MERITS LINDA LOAIZA LÓPEZ SOTO and RELATIVES VENEZUELA July 29, 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
OEA/Ser.L/V/II. REPORT No. 33/ 16 Doc. 38 July 29, 2016 CASE 12,797 Original: Spanish REPORT ON THE MERITS LINDA LOAIZA LÓPEZ SOTO AND RELATIVES VENEZUELA Approved by the Commission on July 29, 2016. Cite as: IACHR, Report No. 33/16, Case 12,797. Merits. Linda Loaiza López Soto and relatives. Venezuela. July 29, 2016. www.cidh.org REPORT No. 33/16 CASE 12,797 MERITS LINDA LOAIZA LÓPEZ SOTO AND RELATIVES VENEZUELA July 29, 2016 INDEX I. SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 II. PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING THE REPORT ON ADMISSIBILITY 4 III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES ................................................................................................................................. 4 A. The petitioners .............................................................................................................................................................. 4 B. The State .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7 IV. PROVEN FACTS ..........................................................................................................................................................10 A. Relevant legal framework ......................................................................................................................................10 B. Linda Loaiza López Soto, her disappearance, deprivation of liberty, and rescue ......................... 12 1. Background .................................................................................................................................................12 2. Disappearance of Linda Loaiza López Soto and actions taken by her relatives ........... 12 3. The facts of March 27, 2001, and the testimony of Linda Loaiza López regarding her deprivation of liberty ..............................................................................................................................13 4. Rescue of Linda Loaiza López Soto, reunion with her family, and physical and psychological injuries suffered ..........................................................................................................16 C. Investigation and judicial proceedings launched into the facts of violence committed to the detriment of Linda Loaiza López Soto ..............................................................................................................21 1. Steps and actions taken during the Office of the Public Prosecutor’s criminal investigation (Case File No. F-935.781) .........................................................................................21 2. Actions related to the deprivation of liberty of Luis Carrera Almoina ............................. 27 3. The first oral trial and other allegations of irregularities during the judicial process ..........................................................................................................................................................................29 4. Oral trial and acquittal in Judicial Process No. 20,253 ............................................................ 33 5. Actions following the sentence of November 5, 2004, and appeals process ................. 37 6. Hearing in the second trial and judgment to convict in judicial process No. 313-05 38 D. Compliance with the sentence handed down to Luis Carrera Almoina ............................................. 40 E. Protective measures for Linda Loaiza López and other alleged facts ................................................ 40 F. Context: State response in cases of violence against women ................................................................. 41 V. ANALYSIS OF LAW ...................................................................................................................................................45 1. Rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, privacy, dignity and autonomy, equal protection and nondiscrimination, and to not be subject to torture or violence (articles 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 11, 24, and 1(1) of the American Convention; 7(a) and (b) of the Convention of Belem do Pará, and 1 and 6 of the ICPPT) ........................................................ 46 1.1. Analysis of the initial duty of the State to respond to the disappearance of Linda Loaiza López ...............................................................................................................................................46 1 1.2. Analysis on the violations suffered by Linda Loaiza López and conclusion on the attribution of responsibility ................................................................................................................50 1.3. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................61 2. The rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and the duty to investigate acts of torture and violence against women (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará and Article XVIII of the American Declaration) .........................................................................63 2.1. General considerations on the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection specific considerations on the duty to investigate cases of violence against women and sexual violence..................................................................................................................................63 2.2. Analysis of the investigation and criminal process carried out domestically ............... 67 3. Rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection, humane treatment, privacy, equal protection and non-discrimination, and duty to adopt domestic legal provisions (Articles 8(1), 25(1), 5(1), 11, 24, and 2 of the American Convention) ................................. 72 3.1. General considerations on re-victimization and discrimination in the context of the investigation of cases of violence against women ..................................................................... 72 3.2. Analysis of the investigations and criminal processes pursued in this case ................. 73 4. Right to humane treatment with regard to the relatives (Article 5 of the American Convention) ................................................................................................................................................................77 VI. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................78 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................78 2 REPORT No. 33/16 CASE 12,797 MERITS LINDA LOAIZA LÓPEZ SOTO AND RELATIVES VENEZUELA July 29, 2016 I. SUMMARY 1. On November 12, 2007, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission,” “the Inter-American Commission,” or “the IACHR”) received a petition filed by Linda Loaiza López Soto and Juan Bernardo Delgado (hereinafter “the petitioners”)1 alleging that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State,” “the State of Venezuela,” “the Venezuelan State,” or “Venezuela”) was internationally responsible. 2. The petitioners alleged that Linda Loaiza López was abducted by Luis Carrera Almoina in Caracas on March 27, 2001, who kept her deprived of her liberty until July 19 of the same year at which time she was able to call for help and was rescued by local authorities. They held that during the kidnapping, Linda Loaiza López was subjected to a variety of kinds of physical, sexual and psychological violence, causing serious injuries whose effects persist to this day. They indicated that the State is responsible for having failed its duty to guarantee against these serious facts, although her sister tried unsuccessfully to report the disappearance. They alleged that the serious acts of sexual violence committed by a private individual remain in impunity, and that for the purposes of establishing the scope and content of the State’s obligations to investigate and assign punishment, said acts should be considered a form of torture. In light of this, they alleged that the State violated several rights enshrined in the the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”),2 as well as in failure to comply with the obligations contained in the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication Of Violence against Women (hereinafter the “Convention of Belém do Pará”) and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “ICPPT”). 3. The State of Venezuela held that it is not responsible for violations of the American Convention, the Convention of Belem do Para, or the ICPPT. Throughout the proceeding before the Commission, it submitted detailed information on the steps taken, the investigation, and the domestic legal proceedings. In reiterated that the facts were committed by a private individual—not an agent of the State— who was convicted and sentenced for the crimes of illegal deprivation of liberty and serious bodily injury, a sentence that effectively was