protection and redress for victims of crime and human rights violations

Chapter 15 • Protection and Redress for Victims of Crime and Human Rights Violations“176. The State is obligated to investigate every situation involving aviolation of the rights protected by the Convention. If the State apparatusacts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victims’ fullenjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State hasfailed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of thoserights to the persons within its jurisdiction. The same is true when the Stateallows private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to thedetriment of the rights recognized by the Convention.177. In certain circumstances, it may be difficult to investigate acts thatviolate an individual’s rights. The duty to investigate, like the duty toprevent, is not breached merely because the investigation does not producea satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken in a seriousmanner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. Aninvestigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State asits own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests thatdepends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon theiroffer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by thegovernment. This is true regardless of what agent is eventually foundresponsible for the violation. Where the acts of private parties that violatethe Convention are not seriously investigated, those parties are aided in asense by the government, thereby making the State responsible on theinternational plane.” 159In the same case, the Court concluded that the procedures available inHonduras were “theoretically adequate” but that the evidence showed “a completeinability” of the procedures to carry out an investigation into the disappearance ofManfredo Velásquez and to fulfil the State’s duty to pay compensation and punishthose responsible, as set out in article 1(1) of the Convention. 160 For instance, the courtsdid not process one single writ of habeas corpus, no judge had access to the places ofdetention where Mr. Velásquez might have been held, and the criminal complaint wasdismissed. 161 The Court also pointed out that “the duty to investigate facts of this typecontinues as long as there is uncertainty about the fate of the person who hasdisappeared”. 162In the Velásquez case, the Court unanimously decided that Honduras hadviolated articles 4, 5 and 7 read in conjunction with article 1(1) of the Convention. 163Although a Government may conduct various judicial proceedings relating tothe facts, it may still be in violation of its duty under article 1(1) of the AmericanConvention to investigate crime. This was the situation in the Street Children case, inwhich the persons responsible for the abduction and killing of the children had notbeen punished because they had “not been identified or penalized by judicial decisions159 I-A Court HR, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C, No. 4, pp. 155-156, paras. 176-177; emphasis added.160 Ibid., p. 156, para. 178.161 Ibid., p. 156, para. 179.162 Ibid., p. 157, para. 181; emphasis added.163 Ibid., pp. 162-163.Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 797