Inter-American Court of Human Rights


Compensation for pecuniary damages



Download 3.09 Mb.
Page76/96
Date07.08.2021
Size3.09 Mb.
#90382
1   ...   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   ...   96

Compensation for pecuniary damages


Deceased inmates

Victim

Lucrum cessans

Damnum

emergens

Total

1) Antonio Damián Escobar Morinigo

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

2) Benito Augusto Adorno

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

3) Carlos Raúl de la Cruz

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

4) Diego Walter Valdez

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

5) Elvio Epifanio Acosta Ocampos

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

6) Héctor Ramón Vázquez

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

7) Juan Alcides Román Barrios

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

8) Marco Antonio Jiménez

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

9) Mario del Pilar Álvarez Pérez

US$ 40,000.00

US$ 1,000.00,

to be paid to Mrs. María Teresa de Jesús Pérez.



US$ 41,000.00

10) Richard Daniel Martínez

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

11) Sergio Daniel Vega Figueredo

US$ 40,000.00




US$ 40,000.00

12) Sergio David Poletti Domínguez

US$ 40,000.00

US$ 1,000.00,

To be divided in equal parts between Teofista Domínguez and Guillermo Augusto Poletti.



US$ 41,000.00

TOTAL PECUNARY DAMAGES IN THE CASE OF THE DECEASED

US$ 482,000.00


COMPENSATION FOR PECUNIARY DAMAGES


Injured inmates

Victim

Lucrum cessans

Damnum emergens

Total

1. Abel Achar Acuña

US$ 13,000.00




US$ 13,000.00

2. Alberto David Martínez

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

3. Alfredo Duarte Ramos

US$ 13,000.00




US$ 13,000.00

4. Antonio Delgado

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

5. Aristides Ramón Ortiz Bernal

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

6. Arsenio Joel Barrios Báez

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

7. Carlos Raúl Romero Giacomo

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

8. Carlos Román Feris Almirón

US$ 11,000.00




US$ 11,000.00

9. César Fidelino Ojeda Acevedo

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

10. Claudio Coronel Quiroga

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

11. Clemente Luis Escobar González

US$ 11,000.00




US$ 11,000.00

12. Demetrio Silguero

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

13. Eduardo Vera

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

14. Ever Ramón Molinas Zárate

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

15. Francisco Noé Andrada

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

16. Francisco Ramón Adorno

US$ 15,000.00

US$ 1,000.00,

to be paid to the mother



US$ 16,000.00

17. Heriberto Zarate

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

18. Hugo Antonio Vera Quintana

US$ 13,000.00




US$ 13,000.00

19. Hugo Olmedo

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

20. Ismael Méndez Aranda

US$ 13,000.00




US$ 13,000.00

21. Jorge Daniel Toledo

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

22. José Amado Jara Fernández

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

23. José Milciades Cañete Chamorro

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

24. Juan Carlos Zarza Viveros

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

25. Juan Ramón Lugo

US$ 11,000.00




US$ 11,000.00

26. Julio César García

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

27. Miguel Ángel Martínez

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

28. Miguel Ángel Coronel Ramírez

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

29. Nelson Rodríguez

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

30. Osmar López Verón

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

31. Osvaldo Daniel Sosa

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

32. Osvaldo Mora Espinola

US$ 13,000.00




US$ 13,000.00

33. Pablo Ayala Azola

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

34. Pablo Emmanuel Rojas

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

35. Pedro Iván Peña

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

36. Oscar Rafael Aquino Acuña

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

37. Raúl Esteban Portillo

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

38. Rolando Benítez

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

39. Sergio Vincent Navarro Moraez

US$ 15,000.00




US$ 15,000.00

40. Sixto Gonzáles Franco

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

41. Cándido Ulises Zelaya Flores

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

42. Walter Javier Riveros Rojas

US$ 9,000.00




US$ 9,000.00

TOTAL PECUNIARY DAMAGES IN THE CASE OF THE INJURED INMATES

US$ 471,000.00



TOTAL PECUNIARY DAMAGES

US$ 953,000.00


C) NON-PECUNIARY DAMAGES
295. The Court will now consider the adverse consequences of the facts in this case that are neither financial nor asset-related. Non-pecuniary damages can include the pain and suffering caused to the immediate victims and their next of kin, the harm done to the values that the individuals cherish most, as well as non-pecuniary changes in the circumstances of the victim or the victim’s family. As no exact monetary equivalent can be assigned to non-pecuniary damages, to fully redress the harm done to the victims non-pecuniary damages can only be compensated in two ways: first, by paying a sum of money or providing goods or services that have a monetary value, which the Court determines using its discretion and in equity; second, by other means whose purpose is to exact from the State a commitment to efforts to prevent similar events from ever happening again.

Pleadings of the Commission

296. The Commission reasoned that in order to determine moral damages in the instant case, the Court should consider such factors as the seriousness of the violations and the emotional suffering experienced by the victims and their next of kin. The Commission argued that the loss of a loved one was not the only suffering that caused non-pecuniary damages; it was also the inhumane detention conditions, the offensive treatment and the ever-present sense of vulnerability that one felt because of being housed in adult prisons, because of the fires and because one lacked the means to defend oneself properly. All these conditions caused extreme pain and suffering, not just to the victims but to their next of kin as well, who shared their loved ones’ suffering. The Commission therefore petitioned the Court:


a) to order the State to pay, in equity, moral damages to the next of kin of the inmates who died. The Commission also asked that the Court take into account the following: the suffering caused by the kind of painfully slow death that burns sustained in a fire can cause; the suffering the next of kin experienced knowing that their children were in the custody of the State when they died of burns sustained in the fires; the inmates who were injured in each of the fires; and each and every inmate interned in the Center, because of the suffering, anguish and indignities they were forced to endure;
b) to order the establishment of a special reparations fund for the victims of the Center, in consideration of the massive breach of rights that the center’s very existence caused. The Commission maintained that the purpose of that fund should be to finance educational programs, job-training programs and psychological and medical assistance for all the children and adolescents who were unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of their liberty at the center; and
c) in the case of the victims who were housed at the ‘Panchito López’ facility between August 14, 1996 and July 25, 2001, who were neither injured nor killed in the fires and were not sent to adult prisons, to order the State to compensate them for the inhuman conditions they were forced to endure during their time at the Center. Because it is difficult to quantify this reparation in monetary terms, the Commission asked the Court to fix an amount in equity for each victim.


Pleadings of the representatives
297. The representatives asserted that the pain and suffering of the victims and their next of kin were evident. They reasoned as follows:
a) the children endured the inhumane detention conditions, the indignities of their treatment and the constant threat of danger, as they were housed in adult penal institutions. They also suffered the after-effects of the successive fires in which inmates were injured and burned. The representatives therefore asked the Court to order, in equity, a sum to compensate for the “severe psychological impact,” the “protracted and complex trauma”, and the devastating consequences that all the children experienced due to the detention conditions, torture and abuse, which left them with feelings of bitterness, resentment, humiliation, depression, handicapped, a sense of powerlessness, vulnerability and violence;
b) the State neither conducted an inquiry nor promptly punished those responsible for the human rights violations that occurred; and
c) because of the difficulties in making contact with the former inmates and their next of kin, the representatives were of the view that the amount that the Court ordered should take into account the kinship with the children who were detained at the center. In the case of Teofista Domínguez, Felipa Valdez, Dionicio Vega and Rosalía Figueredo, the representatives asked the Court to fix compensation based on their testimony before the Court.


Directory: docs -> casos -> articulos
docs -> #17622 Relational Leadership: New Developments in Theory and Practice
docs -> Leadership Development Programs and ecq-based Readings
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru Judgment of November 27, 1998
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados Judgment of September 24, 2009
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Albán-Cornejo et al v. Ecuador Judgment of August 5, 2008
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Baldeón-García v. Perú Judgment of April 6, 2006
casos -> Operation Condor
casos -> Humberto antonio sierra porto and eduardo ferrer mac-gregor poisot case of the kali
articulos -> Official summary issued by the inter-american court

Download 3.09 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   ...   96




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message

    Main page