Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras
Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras
Honduras
ABSTRACT1
This is the first case decided by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights. The Velsquez Rodrguez case, together with the Godnez Cruz,
and Fairn Garbi and Sols Corrales cases, all considered by the Court
around the same time, form a trio of landmark cases targeting forced
disappearance practices by the Honduran government during the early
1980s.
I. FACTS
A. Chronology of Events
September 12, 1981: Mr. Angel Manfredo Velsquez Rodrguez, a
student at the National Autonomous University of Honduras
(Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Honduras, UNAH), is involved
in activities that the State considers dangerous to national security. 2
Between 4:30 and 5:00 pm, several heavily armed men in civilian
clothes, driving a white Ford vehicle without license plates, kidnap
Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez from a parking lot in downtown Tegucigalpa.3
Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez is taken to an armed forces station located in
Barrio El Manchn of Tegucigalpa, where he is detained by members of
the National Office of Investigations (DNI) and the Honduran Armed
Forces, who accuse him of political crimes, and subject him to harsh
interrogation and torture.4
September 17, 1981: Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez is moved to the First
Infantry Battalion, an armed forces command area, near Tegucigalpa.5
1. Leona Lam, Author; Elise Cossart-Daly, Grace Kim, and Sascha Meisel, Editors;
Sarah Frost, Chief Articles Editor; Cesare Romano, Faculty Advisor.
2. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No.
4, 147(g)(i) (July 29, 1988).
3. Id. 147(e).
4. Id. 3.
5. Id.
1913
1914
[Vol. 36:1913
The police and security forces deny that he was ever detained there.6
B. Other Relevant Facts
Between 1981 and 1984, approximately 150 people disappear in
Honduras.7 These disappearances all follow a similar pattern: the
victims are kidnapped by force from public places in broad daylight by
armed men in civilian clothes and disguises.8 It is common knowledge
that the kidnappings are carried out by military personnel or the police,
or persons acting under government orders.9 The victims are usually
persons whom the authorities consider to be dangerous to State security,
and who have been under surveillance for long periods of time.10
Military and police officials either deny these disappearances or
claim that they are incapable of preventing or investigating them, unable
to punish those responsible, or powerless to help locate the victims or
their remains.11 The investigative committees created by the State and
the Armed Forces are ineffective in producing results, and judicial
proceedings regarding these disappearances are handled inefficiently. 12
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Before the Commission
October 7, 1981: A petition is submitted to the Inter-American
Commission of Human Rights on behalf of Mr. Angel Manfredo
Velsquez Rodrguez.13
October 4, 1983: The Commission adopts Resolution No. 30/83, which
presumes the allegations contained in the petition to the Commission
are true.14 The petition concerns the detention and possible
disappearance of Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez, and lays out the allegations
that Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez was kidnapped by government officials,
taken away to armed forces headquarters, detained, interrogated and
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Id.
Id. 147(a).
Id. 147(b).
Id. 147(c).
Id. 147(c)(i).
Id. 147(d)(v).
Id.
Id. 1.
Id. 4.
2014]
1915
tortured.15
November 18, 1983: The State requests reconsideration of Resolution
No. 30/93 on the grounds that domestic remedies have not been
exhausted, and further claims that the National Government of
Investigations has no knowledge of the whereabouts of Mr. Velsquez
Rodrguez, and that the State is making every effort to locate
Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez.16 The State further contends that
Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez is rumored to be with Salvadoran guerilla
groups.17
May 30, 1984: The Commission informs the State that it has decided
in light of the information submitted by the Honorable Government to
reconsider Resolution No. 30/83 and to continue its study of the case.18
April 18, 1986: The Commission adopts Resolution No. 22/86, finding
that the new information presented by the Government is insufficient to
warrant reconsideration of Resolution No. 30/83. To the contrary, the
Commission finds that all evidence points to the State being responsible
for the disappearance of Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez, who is still
missing.19 The Commission confirms Resolution No. 30/83 and refers
the matter to the Court.20
B. Before the Court
April 24, 1986: The Commission submits the case to the Court after the
State failed to adopt its recommendations.21
1. Violations Alleged by Commission22
Article 4 (Right to Life)
Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment)
15. Id. 3, 4.
16. Id. 5.
17. Id.
18. Id. 6.
19. Id. 10.
20. Id.
21. Id. 1.
22. Id. 2. The Merits Judgment does not indicate that the Commission alleged that the
State violated Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to
Personal Liberty) in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights). Id.
1916
[Vol. 36:1913
2014]
1917
1918
[Vol. 36:1913
necessary or when the parties express such a request.38 Since neither the
petitioners nor the State asked for a hearing, the Commission did not
consider it necessary, and was not required to hold one.39
As for the States objection to the improper application of Articles
50 and 51 of the Convention, the Court finds that, despite that the
requirements were not fully complied with, there has been no
impairment of the States rights such that the Court should rule the case
inadmissible.40
March 20, 1987: In response to the States objections, the Commission
draws the conclusion that the State violated Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5
(Right to Humane Treatment), and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the
American Convention because it detained Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez on
September 12, 1981 and he has been missing ever since.41 The
Commission further asserts that the substantive or procedural objections
raised by the State have no legal basis, and requests that the Court find
that the State violated the aforementioned rights of Mr. Velsquez
Rodriguez.42
November 6, 1987 - December 18, 1987: The Commission asks the
Court to take provisional measures in view of threats against several
witnesses who have testified or who have been asked to testify before
the Court.43
January 15, 1988: After being informed that witnesses were
assassinated on January 5, 1988 and on January 14, 1988, the Court
adopts provisional measures requesting that the Government of
Honduras adopt all measures necessary to prevent further infringements
on the basic rights of those who have appeared or have been summoned
to appear before the Court in all pending forced disappearance cases
(Velsquez Rodrguez, Fairn Garbi and Sols Corrales and Godnez
Cruz cases).44 The Court further requests that the State do everything
38. Id. 53.
39. Id. 54.
40. Id. 77.
41. Id. 26(1).
42. Id. 26(2)-(3).
43. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No.
4, 39 (July 29, 1988); see also Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures,
Order of the Court, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. E), Having Regard To 1-3 (Jan. 15, 1988).
44. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, 39; see also Velsquez
Rodrguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures, Order of the Court.
2014]
1919
MERITS
1920
[Vol. 36:1913
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
Id. 157.
Id.
Id. 188.
Id.
Id. 185.
Id. 194(3).
Id. 156(1).
Id. 156(2).
Id. 156.
Id. 185, 187.
2014]
1921
1922
[Vol. 36:1913
2014]
1923
judgment in its entirety if the majority had framed its holding regarding
compensation to the victim to say the form and amount of such
compensation, failing agreement between the parties, with the
intervention of the Commission, within six months of the date of this
judgment instead of ...agreement between Honduras and the
Commission within six months.77 The Judge thus emphasized his
stance that the victim and his assignees should be the only active party
in the proceeding, and that the Commission should not be construed as a
party in any substantial sense.78
In this separate opinion, Judge Piza Escalante does not suggest that
the Commission remove itself from actively participating in
negotiations of a settlement with the State entirely, but rather points out
that the Court should not name the Commission as the only party to
consult with the State when the State must compensate the victim.79
IV.
REPARATIONS
The Court ruled unanimously that the State had the following
obligations:
A. Specific Performance (Measures of Satisfaction and NonRepetition Guarantee)
1. Judgment as a Form of Reparation
The Court indicated that the Judgment on the Merits should be
considered itself a type of reparation and give significant moral
satisfaction to the families of the victim as the Judgment recognized the
States violation of Mr. Velsquez Rodrguezs human rights.80
2. Continue Investigation into the Fate of the Disappeared
The Court noted that State must continue to investigate the fate of a
disappeared person as long as their fate is unknown.81 Since the fate of
77. Id. 1, 3, 4; see also Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am.
Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, 194(6) (July 29, 1988).
78. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Separate Opinion of Judge Piza-Escalante,
1, 3-4.
79. Id. 7.
80. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct.
H.R. (ser. C) No. 7, 36 (July 21, 1989).
81. Id. 34.
1924
[Vol. 36:1913
Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez is still unknown, the State must maintain its
duty to investigate his disappearance.82
B. Compensation
The Court awarded the following amounts:
1. Pecuniary Damages
[None]
2. Non-Pecuniary Damages
The Court ordered the State to pay $93750 to Ms. Emma Guzmn
Urbina de Velsquez, the wife of Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez, for
psychological damage and loss of income from losing her husband.83
The Court ordered the State to pay $281250 dollars to the three children
of Mr. Velsquez Rodrguez: Hctor Ricardo, Herling Lizzett, and
Nadia Waleska Velsquez, for psychological harm due to the forced
disappearance of their father, and for loss of income from losing their
father as a provider.84
3. Costs and Expenses
The Court did not find it necessary to render a decision concerning the
costs and expenses.85
4. Total Compensation (including Costs and Expenses ordered):
$375,000
C. Deadlines
The State must pay Ms. Urbina de Velsquezs award within ninety
82. Id.
83. Id. 50-51, 60(2).
84. Id. 50-51, 60(3).
85. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No.
4, 194(8) (July 29, 1988).
2014]
1925
days from the date of notification of the Judgment.86 If the State decides
to pay the award in six monthly installments, the first payment must be
paid within ninety days of the Judgment and the remaining payments in
the five successive months, with the balance of the award accruing
appropriate interest.87 The award for Ms. Urbina de Velsquez should be
given to her directly, and the funds awarded to the children shall be held
in a trust fund at the Central Bank of Honduras.88 Mr. Velzquez
Rodrguezs children are to receive monthly payments from this trust
fund and will receive their proportionate share when they turn twentyfive.89
V. INTERPRETATION AND REVISION OF JUDGMENT
August 17, 1990: The Court admitted the Commissions request for
interpretation of the Judgment, and issued an interpretation of its July
21, 1989 Judgment on the Merits.90 The Interpretation of the Judgment
assessed the compensatory damages against the State.91 In requesting an
interpretation of the Judgment, the Commission wanted the Court to
clarify the meaning and scope of the judgment in regard to the future
value of compensation that was placed in a trust for Mr. Velsquez
Rodrguezs children.92 The Commission requested that the Court tie the
amounts in the trust to an appropriate index to protect the purchasing
power of the amounts, because hyperinflation has historically occurred
in Latin American countries.93 In response, the Court interpreted the
expression under the most favorable conditions to refer to any
decision by the trustee to ensure that the amount awarded to the
beneficiaries maintains an equivalent level of purchasing power as when
it was assigned and that generates sufficient earnings or dividends to
increase the amount assigned.94
In their petition, the Commission emphasized that eight months
have elapsed since the damages became due and payable, that the State
86. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct.
H.R. (ser. C) No. 7, 57 (Jul. 21, 1989).
87. Id.
88. Id. 58.
89. Id.
90. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Interpretation of Judgment of Reparations, and
Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 9 (Aug. 17, 1990). Judge Thomas Buergenthal
was unable to participate in the Interpretation of Judgment of Reparations. See id.
91. Id.
92. Id. 18.
93. Id. 18, 19, 34.
94. Id. 31.
1926
[Vol. 36:1913
has not yet complied with the judgment, and that for this reason, the
Court should order payment of interest for delay as well as adjust the
payment to reflect the purchasing power of the lempira so that its
current value is on par with what the lempira was worth when the
payment should have been made.95
The Court declared the Commissions request for amplification of
the petition for clarification of the judgment inadmissible because,
while Article 67 of the Convention empowers the Court to interpret its
judgments whenever there is disagreement as to the meaning or scope of
a judgment, the Commissions petition requesting amplification of the
previous request for interpretation did not mention any controversy as to
the meaning or scope of the judgment.96 Instead, the Commission is
claiming that there has been nonperformance of clearly stated terms of
the judgment.97
Nonetheless, because the State has yet to comply with the payment
of damages, the Court retains jurisdiction over the case,98 and since the
State has not made any payments to the beneficiaries, the Court found it
appropriate to demand payment of interest on the entire amount of the
capital due.99
Judge Piza Escalante concurred with the unanimous vote of the
Court on their general lines of reasoning, but the Judge disagreed with
the paragraphs of the Interpretation of the Judgment of Reparation and
Costs that invoked the immediate applicability of Article 67 of the
Convention, which governs requests for interpretation of judgments, in
a separate statement.100 In his separate statement, Judge Piza Escalante
discussed his disagreement with allowing the Judgment of Reparations
and Costs to be interpreted at all because Article 67 interpretation
procedures should only apply to final judgments, and in the Judges
opinion, the final judgment was made on July 29, 1988, in the Judgment
on the Merits.101 There was no interpretation requested, and none
required, of the July 29, 1988 decision.102 In Judge Piza Escalantes
opinion, on July 21, 1989, when the Court issued the Judgment of
95. Id. 34.
96. Id. 36.
97. Id.
98. Id. 37.
99. Id. 40.
100. Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Interpretation and Revision of Judgment,
Separate Opinion of Judge Piza-Escalante, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 9, 1 (Aug. 21,
1989).
101. Id. 3, 4.
102. Id. 4.
2014]
1927
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
A. Inter-American Court
1. Preliminary Objections
Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Judgment,
Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 1 (Jun. 26, 1987).
2. Decisions on Merits, Reparations, and Costs
Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct.
H.R. (ser. C) No. 4 (Jul. 29, 1988).
Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Merits, Separate Opinion of Judge
Piza-Escalante, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4 (Jul. 29, 1988).
Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Reparations and Costs, Judgment,
Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 7 (Jul. 21, 1989).
3. Provisional Measures
Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures, Order of the
Court, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. E) (Jan. 19, 1988) (Available only in
Spanish).
Velsquez Rodrguez v. Honduras, Provisional Measures, Order of the
Court, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. E) (Jan. 15, 1988) (Available only in
Spanish).
4. Compliance Monitoring
[None]
103. Id.
1928
[Vol. 36:1913
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2014]
1929
OF
OF THE INTER-