INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF GARCÍA LUCERO ET AL. v. CHILE JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 28, 2013 (Preliminary objection, merits and reparations) In the case of García Lucero et al., the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges:∗ Diego García-Sayán, President Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice President Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge Roberto F. Caldas, Judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Judge, and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Judge; also present, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary, pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”) and Articles 31, 32, 42, 65 and 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), delivers this Judgment structured as follows: ∗ Under Article 19(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court applicable to this case, which establishes that “[i]n the cases referred to in Article 45 of the Convention, national Judges will be unable to participate in the hearing and deliberation of the case,” Judge Eduardo Vio Grossi, a Chilean national, did not take part in the processing of this case or in the deliberation and signature of this Judgment. TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE 4 II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6 III COMPETENCE 8 IV PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: LACK OF TEMPORAL AND MATERIAL COMPETENCE 8 A. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND OF THE COMMISSION 8 B. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 10 B.1.) REGARDING THE LACK OF MATERIAL COMPETENCE 10 B.2.) REGARDING THE LACK OF TEMPORAL COMPETENCE 11 V EVIDENCE 15 A. DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 16 B. ADMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 16 C. ADMISSION OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE PRESUMED VICTIMS, AND THE TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 17 VI FACTS 18 A. BACKGROUND: FACTS PRIOR TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 18 A.1) CONTEXT 18 A.2.) SITUATION OF LEOPOLDO GARCÍA LUCERO AND HIS FAMILY 19 A.2.1) Regarding Mr. García Lucero and his family 19 A.2.2) Detention, torture and exile of Leopoldo García Lucero (from September 16, 1973, to June 12, 1975) 20 A.2.3) Decree Law No. 2,191 or Amnesty Law 21 A.2.4) National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Rettig Commission) 21 B. FACTS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF JURISDICTION 22 B.1. SYSTEM OF REPARATIONS ADOPTED BY THE STATE 22 B.1.1) Law No. 19,123 - National Compensation and Reconciliation Board 22 B.1.2) Laws that regulate the pension and special bonus payment for those “dismissed for political reasons” 23 B.1.3) Laws relating to Chileans who were exiled 23 B.1.4) Human Rights program “No hay Mañana sin Ayer” 24 B.1.5) National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture (Valech Commission) 24 B.2) MEASURES OF REPARATION GRANTED TO MR. GARCÍA LUCERO BY THE STATE 25 B.2.1) Benefit as a Person Dismissed for Political Reasons under Law No. 19,234 26 B.2.2) Special compensatory bonus payment under Law No. 20,134 27 B.3.3) One-time bonus payment under Law No. 19,992 27 B.3 CURRENT SITUATION OF MR. GARCÍA LUCERO 27 C. FACTS RELATING TO THE INVESTIGATION OPENED ON OCTOBER 7, 2011 27 VII JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION TO ENSURE HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO ADAPT DOMESTIC LEGISLATION AND THE OBLIGATIONS TO INVESTIGATE AND TO PUNISH ACTS OF TORTURE AND TO GUARANTEE THEIR INTEGRAL REPARATION 34 A. INTRODUCTION 34 B. REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTS 36 B.1) ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THE PARTIES 36 B.2) CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 39 B.2.1) Regarding the immediate opening of an investigation ex officio 40 2 B.2.2) Regarding humane treatment 41 B.2.3) Regarding the measures taken in the investigation opened on October 7, 2011 42 B.2.4) Conclusion 44 C. REGARDING THE ALLEGED LEGAL OBSTACLES TO THE INVESTIGATION 45 C.1) ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THE PARTIES 45 C.2) CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 46 C.2.1) Regarding Decree-Law No. 2,191 “granting amnesty” 47 C.2.2) Regarding article 15 of Law No. 19,992 48 C.2.3) Regarding articles 150 A and 150 B of the Criminal Code and 330 of the Code of Military Justice 49 D. REGARDING THE DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS TO CLAIM MEASURES OF REPARATION 50 D.1) ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THE PARTIES 50 D.2) CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 55 D.2.1) The administrative reparation programs and the rights to judicial guarantees and protection 58 D.2.2) Access to remedies to claim measures of reparation in this case 62 D.2.2.1) Measures of compensation and rehabilitation as “rights” to be protected in this case 63 D.2.2.2) The possibilities of filing claims in relation to measures of reparation 65 D.2.2.3) Conclusion 68 VIII FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE 68 A. ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THE PARTIES 68 B. CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 68 IX REPARATIONS (APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 69 A. INJURED PARTY 70 B. OBLIGATION TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS AND TO IDENTIFY AND, AS APPROPRIATE, PUNISH THOSE RESPONSIBLE 70 B.1) ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THE PARTIES 70 B.2) CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 70 C. MEASURES OF SATISFACTION AND REHABILITATION 71 C.1) MEASURE OF SATISFACTION: PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT 71 C.1.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 71 C.1.2) Considerations of the Court 72 C.2) REHABILITATION 72 C.2.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 72 C.2.2) Considerations of the Court 72 D. GUARANTEES OF NON-REPETITION REQUESTED BY THE COMMISSION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES 73 D.1) ARGUMENTS OF THE COMMISSION AND OF THE PARTIES 73 D.2) CONSIDERATIONS OF THE COURT 73 E. COMPENSATION 74 E.1) PECUNIARY AND NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGE 74 E.1.1) Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 74 E.1.2) Considerations of the Court 74 F. COSTS AND EXPENSES 76 G. METHOD OF COMPLYING WITH THE PAYMENTS ORDERED 76 X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 77 3 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE 1. Submission of the case and synopsis. On September 20, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”), under the provisions of Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention and Article 35 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court case No. 12,519 relating to García Lucero et al. against the Republic of Chile (hereinafter “the State” or “Chile”). 2. According to the Commission, this case concerns the State’s alleged international responsibility for the failure to investigate and to make integral reparation for the various acts of torture suffered by Leopoldo Guillermo García Lucero (hereinafter also “Leopoldo García Lucero,” “Leopoldo García,” “Mr. García Lucero” or “the presumed victim”1) from the time of his arrest on September 16, 1973, until June 12, 1975, the date on which he left Chilean territory by a decision of the Ministry of the Interior. Since 1975, Mr. García Lucero has been living in the United Kingdom. According to the Commission, Chile “has failed to provide integral reparation for Mr. García Lucero, from an individualized perspective and taking into account that he lives in exile, as well as the permanent disability he suffers as a result of the torture he endured.” In addition, it indicated that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to investigate the said torture, ex officio, and had kept Decree-Law No. 2,191, which was incompatible with the American Convention, in force. The Commission added that, while the facts of the case related to the failure to investigate and make reparation for the acts of torture began before Chile had accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on August 21, 1990, these omissions had continued after that acceptance, and continued to this day. 3. The Commission asked the Court to declare the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection and to humane treatment, in relation to the general obligation to guarantee human rights, as well as the obligation to adapt its domestic legislation (Articles 8(1), 25(1), 5(1), 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention) and the obligation to investigate established in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter also “the Inter-American Convention against Torture”), to the detriment of Leopoldo García Lucero and his family; also, the violation of the right to integral, adequate and effective reparation under the general obligation to ensure rights in keeping with Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of this treaty, to the detriment of Mr. García Lucero. In addition, it asked that the Court declare the violation of the right to humane treatment established in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to the general obligation to ensure human rights established in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Elena Otilia García (hereinafter also “Elena García”), wife of Mr. García Lucero, of her daughters, María Elena Klug and Gloria Klug, and of Francisca Rocío García Illanes.2 Furthermore, the Commission asked the Court to order the State to adopt specific measures of reparation.