2020 anual Chapter II The System of Petitions and Cases, Friendly Settlements, and Precautionary Measures Informe ANNUAL REPORT 2020 CHAPTER II THE SYSTEM OF PETITIONS AND CASES, FRIENDLY SETTLEMENTS, AND PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES1 A. Introduction 1. The IACHR has mechanisms specifically devised to the protection of human rights in the region, these are: system of cases, friendly settlements, and precautionary measures. By submitting a petition to the Inter-American Commission persons who have suffered violations of their human rights may obtain measures of justice and integral reparation. To the extent that this mechanism is operating adequately, persons whose rights have been violated may have a tool at their disposition for resolving their demands that is not only capable of benefiting them in the context of their cases, but that also offers an important tool to the states for addressing structural situations of human rights violations by effectively implementing the recommendations of the IACHR, or friendly settlement agreements approved by it, and for attending to and implementing precautionary measures. This system is a fundamental tool for attaining justice and reparation in individual cases, protecting persons, fighting impunity, and bringing about structural reforms in laws, policies, and practices. 2. The IACHR recalls the central role, in its mandate, of the system of petitions, cases, and precautionary measures, and its importance for promoting and protecting human rights in the hemisphere, both individually and in collective and structural terms. The reports of the Commission on cases, and the judgments of the Inter-American Court, in addition to the specific reparation they provide for victims, have promoted constitutional reforms and jurisprudential changes, and have represented, for the victims of human rights violations, a hope for justice and reparation. From its beginnings the states have promoted this central role and have supported the Commission in this mandate, which began with requests for information to states and then became part of the processing of individual cases. The working tools developed by the IACHR were then recognized by the Commission’s Statute adopted in 1965, and later by its Regulations of May 2, 1967, and in 1969 with the adoption of the American Convention on Human Rights. 3. The pillar of protection and defense, which includes the system of petitions, cases, friendly settlements, and precautionary measures, is a fundamental tool for the IACHR and for all inhabitants of the hemisphere. It is a matter of pride for the Americas, internationally recognized for its objectivity, seriousness, consistency, and legal quality. Mindful of this central role and of the major procedural backlog that has accumulated since the 1990s, the Commission has prioritized reducing the procedural backlog. After a process of consultations that involved more than 500 persons and 300 entities the IACHR approved its 2017-2021 Strategic Plan with five strategic objectives. Reinforcing the system of petitions, cases, friendly settlements, and 1 In keeping with Article 17(2)(a) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, Commissioner Esmeralda Arosemena de Troitiño, a Panamanian national, did not participate in the conclusions of the reports or precautionary measures referring to that country; nor did Commissioners Joel Hernández García in the matters on Mexico; Antonia Urrejola Noguera in the matters on Chile; Margarette May Macaulay, in the matters on Jamaica; Julissa Mantilla Falcón, in the matters on Peru; Stuardo Ralón Orellana in the matters on Gutemala; or Flávia Piovesan in the matters on Brazil. 23 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights precautionary measures was identified as the first such objective, and the first program in the plan is the Special Procedural Delay Reduction Program. B. Petitions and Cases 4. Next is a description of the results attained in 2020 in implementing the above- mentioned program. They represent historic gains in the Commission’s work in the system of petitions and cases. 5. In the course of 2020 the IACHR continued achieving results in its program to reduce the procedural backlog after four years of measures adopted in keeping with its 2017- 2021 Strategic Plan. 6. In the first stage of implementing the Strategic Plan the following measures were adopted to address the procedural backlog: (1) full-time dedication of an Assistant Executive Secretary for petitions, cases, and friendly settlements; (2) significant reinforcement of personnel; (3) strengthening the employment stability of existing personnel; (4) creating the Section on Precautionary Measures; (5) creating the Processing Unit; and, (6) creating a working group to support the process of overcoming the procedural backlog, made up of three Commissioners and the Executive Secretary of the IACHR. 7. In a second stage, and mainly during 2019, the following additional measures were consolidated: (1) reassigning the professionals with more experience to the system of petitions and cases, and in particular to its admissibility and merits sections; (2) creating a special group to act as a task force for overcoming the procedural backlog in the stage of initial review; (3) implementing a policy for archiving cases that changes the time of inactivity on the part of the parties required for sending the warning regarding archiving from four to three years, and archiving cases in the merits stage when petitioners fail to submit observations in application of Articles 42(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR; (4) reducing the number of requests for observations in the stages of admissibility and merits; (5) implementing a pilot plan for serial decisions with respect to the same issue in the stage of admissibility, based on model reports on similar issues; (6) maintaining the measure of joining cases when there is identity of parties, or similar facts or patterns, always respecting the right to defense and equality as between the parties; and (7) continuing to apply the policy of deactivating or clearing up cases. 8. These measures have made it possible for the Commission to achieve unprecedented results and institutional strengthening of its system of petitions and cases, as detailed next: 9. The Initial Review Section as a paradigm shift. The Initial Review Section was established in September 2018 with the task of conducting the initial review or assessment of petitions submitted to the IACHR. In addition, the Initial Review Section was given the fundamental task of bringing up to date the immense mass of petitions from different years that were pending a final decision in this first stage of the procedure. 10. The Initial Review Section was a real change from the previous Registry Group, for two fundamental reasons: (a) the evaluation of the petitions is entrusted exclusively to attorneys with extensive experience in international human rights law, and (b) a much more expeditious working dynamic is assured, with the supervisor working directly with the attorneys. 24 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 11. Current methodology: The petitions that come into the Executive Secretariat are recorded in the system and classified based on their subject matter in one of three thematic portfolios: P-A: rights to life, property, freedom of expression, civil due process, the family, and freedom of movement (displaced persons, etc.). P-B: criminal due process and the right to humane treatment broadly speaking. And P-C: administrative and labor due process, political rights, discrimination in general, judicial protection, and social security. Each of these portfolios is under the responsibility of one attorney. 12. The legal analysis is conducted in keeping with Articles 26 to 34 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. The first aspect that is analyzed is compliance with Article 28 of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes the minimum contents required of a petition for it to be considered (Art. 26(1)); in addition, according to Article 27 (and also Article 26(1)) the “condition for considering the petition” is met “only when the petitions fulfill the requirements set forth in those instruments [those of the inter-American system that are applicable], in the Statute, and in these Rules of Procedure.” 13. In other words, in the initial review stage one verifies compliance with the minimum requirements that would be examined in an admissibility report – with the difference that this initial review is preliminary, because it is done before there is a final admissibility or inadmissibility report. Indeed, the request for a new review is now regulated (Resolution 1/19). And it is more flexible than a report on admissibility/inadmissibility because only the position of the petitioner is before the Commission, without the defense of the State; plus because if it is deemed necessary we can request additional information from the petitioner (Art. 26(2)). 14. Figures on decisions: Received in 2020: of 1,990 petitions evaluated, it was decided to go ahead with the processing of 331 (17%); 1,561 (78%) were rejected; and information was requested in 98 petitions (5%). Dismissed petitions: failure to comply with Article 28 (463), failure to state a colorable claim (516), failure to exhaust domestic remedies (271), lack of competence (144), failure to file the petition in a timely manner (77), improper exhaustion (71), and duplication of procedure (19). 15. Number of notifications that a matter has been approved for processing: With the aim of reducing the wait time between the decision to go forward with processing and actual notice thereof to the parties, the Processing and Support Section of the Office of the Assistant Executive Secretary for Petitions and Cases focused on overcoming the chronic procedural backlog, prior to 2014, and adopted a series of measures to resolve the situation of the petitions submitted prior to 2014. 16. Application of Resolution 1/16: Resolution 1/16 was rigorously studied by the Commission and came to constitute precisely the “reasoned resolution” required by the Rules of Procedure for deferring the decision on admissibility to the debate and decision on the merits.