Burgos v. General Hermogenes Esperon et al.

Key Judgment

Legal Relevance

Keywords: Deprivation of Liberty | Refusal to Disclose Fate

Themes: Characteristics of the Crime

The Court determined that the victim’s abduction, the uncertainty about his whereabouts and his well-being, and the armed forces’ denial of custody over him made it possible to classify this as an enforced disappearance. It held that the case was covered by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, the objective of which was the determination of whether an enforced disappearance has taken place and who is responsible or accountable for it. The Court found evidence of the military’s involvement in the abduction of the victim, and identified the army major as one of those responsible for the enforced disappearance. It held that, although at the time of the disappearance the major was no longer part of the Battalion suspected of the abduction, this did not rule out the possibility that he was part of the group that perpetrated it. The Court further found the army accountable for the victim’s enforced disappearance for failing to exercise the requisite extraordinary diligence in conducting an internal investigation. It also held that the unwillingness of the army to cooperate in the investigation conducted by the Commission on Human Rights was proof of the cover-up of their involvement. The Court further found that the Commission on Human Rights’ investigation did not free the police from its own duty to conduct investigations, and directed the latter to exercise extraordinary diligence to identify and locate the victims’ abductors. Finally, the Court directed the army, the police and the Commission on Human Rights to submit a report on the results of their respective investigations.