Case Summary and Outcome

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) held that Argentina violated the right of access to information, protected under Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), by denying the victims of the 1994 bombing of the Argentinian Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA)—and their families—access to classified information related to the circumstances and motives of the attack. The case was brought by the civil association Memoria Activa, which denounced Argentina’s failure to investigate, punish, and seek the truth regarding the 1994 bombing, in which 85 people died and more than 150 were injured. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Memoria Activa alleged that the State Intelligence Secretariat (SIDE) had classified all relevant information, preventing access to it and proper oversight of the investigation. In addition, they claimed that SIDE used secret funds to divert the investigation and cover up for those responsible. For its part, Argentina acknowledged its international responsibility for not preventing the attack, covering up the facts, and violating the victims’ rights to access information and to the truth.

The Court found that the SIDE’s classification and manipulation of the information hindered access to the truth and the possibility of seeking justice—which contributed to the impunity of those responsible. The IACtHR emphasized that the restrictions on access to information imposed by Argentina did not comply with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality—required by Article 13 of the ACHR to limit freedom of expression validly. Furthermore, the Court held that the right to the truth is essential not only for the victims and their relatives but also for society as a whole. It concluded that the State failed to guarantee real and effective access to state archives and to provide an official version of what happened almost 30 years after the attack.

---

Facts

On July 18, 1994, a vehicle loaded with approximately 400 kilos of explosives was detonated at the headquarters of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina (Argentinian Israelite Mutual Association, hereinafter AMIA) in Buenos Aires, killing 85 people and injuring 151 others.

On July 16, 1999, the AMIA filed a complaint before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights against Argentina, arguing that the State failed to investigate and seek the truth about what happened on July 18, 1994, and punish those responsible for the attack.

The petitioner argued that Argentina violated the rights to life, humane treatment, access to information, equality before the law, and judicial protection, under the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), by failing to seriously investigate these events and by not disclosing relevant information about them. In particular, the AMIA alleged that State authorities did not allow them access to the information gathered by the intelligence services regarding the attack because it was classified due to national security concerns. The petitioner pointed out that the State Intelligence Secretariat (hereinafter, SIDE) stored information on the attack that it not only did not disseminate to the public, but also did not include in the judicial proceedings carried out to seek the truth about what happened.  Furthermore, the AMIA claimed that the SIDE used funds earmarked for intelligence activities to bribe witnesses and divert the course of the investigation.

On March 4, 2005, Argentina fully acknowledged its international responsibility regarding the allegations presented by the AMIA before the Commission. Argentina held that its responsibility arose from its failure to take adequate preventive measures to avoid the AMIA bombing, especially when considering a prior attack against the Israeli Embassy two years earlier. In addition, Argentina admitted it covered up the facts and failed to investigate the July 18, 1994 attack, thus denying justice to the victims. Consequently, the State acknowledged its responsibility for violating the victims’ rights of access to public information and to know the truth regarding what happened.

On July 14, 2020, the Commission approved the Admissibility and Merits Report No. 187/20, which declared that Argentina was internationally responsible for breaching its duty to investigate the July 18, 1994 bombing and punish those responsible for it.

On March 25, 2021, the Commission decided to submit the case before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). According to it, there was no substantive progress in the domestic proceedings to further the corresponding investigations, punish those responsible for the AMIA bombing, and repair—in a comprehensive manner—the victims and their relatives. The Commission considered that Argentina was responsible for violating the right to life, personal integrity, access to information, equality before the law, and judicial protection, as enshrined in the ACHR. In particular, the Commission argued that, ever since the attack occurred, the State maintained a legal regime that classified all information produced by the SIDE, including information about the bombing against the AMIA.

The Commission determined that Argentina violated the right of the victims and their families to access information and to know the truth about the AMIA bombing by denying them access to classified documents. Additionally, the Commission noted that the State failed to adequately preserve key evidence, which hindered the investigation’s progress and affected the victims’ right to justice. While Argentina acknowledged its responsibility, the Commission pointed out that full reparations have not been made to the victims. The petitioner supported the Commission’s findings, highlighting that nearly two decades later, they still face difficulties accessing crucial information due to its classification under the intelligence law.

---

Decision Overview

Due to the complexity of the case, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had to examine potential violation to different rights protected by the ACHR. This case analysis will focus on the issues that concern freedom of expression. The main issue regarding this right that the Court had to analyze was whether the State’s intelligence activities—which included the refusal to provide information on the bombing, the cover-up of those responsible, and the bribery of witnesses—affected the right of access to information of the alleged victims and their relatives, as well as their right to the truth in relation to the AMIA bombing in Buenos Aires on July 18, 1994.

The Commission argued that Argentina violated the victims’ rights to access information and to know the truth due to the lack of significant progress in the investigation of the AMIA bombing. The Commission emphasized that the confidentiality imposed on the information about the bombing prevented the victims from accessing it and overseeing the investigation.

The petitioner agreed with the Commission, noting that key information regarding the bombing remained classified, which prevented real and complete access to the confidential files. In addition, it noted that Argentinian law lacked clear mechanisms for declassifying information gathered by intelligence agencies, which could be used during judicial proceedings. The petitioners criticized the State’s limited and deficient efforts to organize information about the bombing.

Argentina, for its part, acknowledged its international responsibility, admitting that the restriction to access the information, and the lack of a clear process for declassifying data, affected the rights of the victims and their families. The State also recognized the need to reform intelligence services in the country, although it stressed that such transformations required broader public debate.

At the outset of its analysis, the Court held that Argentina acknowledged all the facts regarding the case, including those mentioned in the Commission’s Merits Report—which included the bombing against the AMIA, the subsequent deficient investigations, the cover-up processes, and the lack of access to justice. The Court also established that Argentina assumed its international responsibility for all the violations of the ACHR presented by the Commission and the petitioner (rights to life, personal integrity, equality, judicial guarantees, judicial protection, access to information, and to truth). By virtue of this, the IACtHR. held that “the controversy ceased with respect to these violations.” [para. 22]

On the other hand, the Court noted that all the parties agreed on the need to grant reparations to the victims and their relatives and that it was up to the Court to decide the specific needed measures and their scope to fulfill this purpose. In turn, the Court positively valued the State’s acknowledgment, considering it an important step towards the reparation of the victims and the prevention of similar events. However, the Court considered that a judgment was necessary to clearly establish the facts, determine the necessary reparations, and analyze in detail the violations committed.

The Court considered it indispensable to outline the facts of the case in its judgment. To do this, the Court held that the facts could be subsumed into three legal categories: the “case on the local connection”, the “case on the international connection” and the “judicial proceedings to cover up the bombing.”

Regarding the “case on the local connection,” the Court held that the investigation, initially led by criminal judge Juan José Galeano, focused on the Argentinian citizens accused of logistically supporting the attack. Thus, the Court explained that Carlos Telleldín was arrested and accused of delivering the vehicle used in the attack. Then, the Court said that it was later discovered that Telleldín was bribed, by the SIDE, with $400,000 to change his testimony, which led to the annulment of the investigation and the acquittal of the defendants in 2004. The Court specified that the investigation was later resumed by another jurisdiction, but in 2020 Telleldín was again acquitted.

About the “case on the international connection,” the Court determined that this investigation sought to identify the intellectual and material architects of the attack. The Court specified that the so-called “Syrian Track” was investigated, but this line of inquiry was deliberately interrupted by Argentinian authorities. Subsequently, the Court pointed out that the AMIA Prosecutorial Unit concluded that the attack was carried out by Hezbollah with the support of the Iranian government. Because of this, international arrest warrants were issued, but the investigation progressed slowly and no accused has been arrested yet.

Regarding the “judicial proceedings to cover up the bombing,” the Court explained that in Argentina several people, including Judge Galeano, were investigated and convicted for covering up the bombing (through bribes using SIDE funds, or by hindering the investigation of the “Syrian Track”).

The Court held that it was duly proven that one of the main obstacles to the investigation of the bombing was the manipulation of information produced by intelligence activities. In light of this, the Court examined the regulations of the State’s intelligence activities considering the human rights framework and the fight against terrorism.

The Court held that Article 13 of the ACHR protects the right, with some exceptions, to request and receive information under control of the State. Hence, the IACtHR opined that the State had the obligation to provide the requested information—or to issue a reasoned response explaining its denial if it considered an exception applied. The Court recalled that in its previous jurisprudence in the case of The Last Temptation of Christ (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile, it explained that “the right of access to information under State control has an individual and a social dimension, as does the right to freedom of thought and expression, both of which must be guaranteed by the State simultaneously.” [para. 219]

The IACtHR highlighted that there was a consensus among the Organization of American States (OAS) about the importance of accessing public information in a democratic system. It also recalled that Article 4 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter stresses transparency and accountability in public administration, and respect for human rights, as democratic pillars. Moreover, the Court emphasized that “in cases of human rights violations, State authorities may not rely on mechanisms such as State secrecy or confidentiality of information, or on reasons of public interest or national security, to fail to provide the information requested by the judicial authorities.” [para. 223]

Subsequently, the Court held that intelligence activities are fundamental to the protection of society and human rights, especially in the context of the fight against terrorism. It further explained that these activities, carried out by civilian, police, or military agencies, are essential to identify and neutralize threats and to enable the authorities to make informed and timely decisions that guarantee public security and respect for rights. However, the Court also warned about the possible tensions that can arise between said activities and human rights, particularly when they are carried out in secret and limit access to information. Because of this, the IACTHR concluded that intelligence activities must be strictly regulated and controlled to avoid abuses and ensure respect for fundamental rights.

The Court established that four key requirements had to be fulfilled to guarantee the legitimacy of intelligence activities and their compatibility with human rights. The first requirement (legality) demands the existence of a regulatory framework that clearly defines when and why intelligence activities can be carried out, what actions are permitted, and what are the responsibilities of the authorities involved. The Court stated that this regulatory framework must prevent arbitrary exercises of power and allow for effective control of intelligence activities.

The Court added that the second requirement entails that intelligence activities must pursue legitimate objectives—such as the protection of national security, the maintenance of public order, public health, and the protection of human rights, all of which are necessary in a democratic society.

The third requirement (proportionality) considers that intelligence activities must be suitable, necessary, and proportionate. In practice, the Court argued, proportionality regarding intelligence tasks implies that they must be the most appropriate to achieve their legitimate ends, absolutely indispensable for that purpose, and must not impose unreasonable restrictions on human rights.

Finally, the Court remarked that the fourth requirement demands independent control or oversight of intelligence activities. The IACtHR held that it is essential that there are independent institutions, outside the direct control of the intelligence services, and the Executive Branch, that supervise these activities. The Court pointed out that these institutions must have the technical capacity—and full and direct access to the necessary information—to carry out effective control.

The Court went on to explain that access to information produced by intelligence authorities, and its preservation, were essential to guarantee the right to the truth and to fight impunity. Furthermore, the IACtHR underscored that although intelligence activities may justify in some cases restrictions to the right of access to information, they must be clearly defined by law, pursue a legitimate interest, and be necessary, and proportional. On the other hand, the Court remarked that in cases about serious human rights violations, the State had to provide all the relevant information, even if it is linked to national security. It also specified that restrictions on access to information can not be permanent and should be reviewed periodically by the authorities. Concurrently, the IACtHR argued that  States must establish clear and effective procedures to process access to information requests and to ensure the proper preservation of State intelligence files.

Then the Court applied the standards outlined above to the specific case. It held that in the case of the AMIA bombing, the lack of adequate regulations on intelligence activities, and the classification of the information, negatively impacted the rights to the truth, and to seek justice, of the victims and their families. The IACtHR concluded that from the beginning of the investigation, the SIDE acted as a State intelligence agency, carrying out secret operations and handling secret funds without adequate control.

According to the Court, these practices, along with a regulation that allowed the classification of all intelligence information, made it difficult to access relevant information for the case and contributed to the cover-up of the facts. The IACtHR highlighted that although the restrictions were supported by legal provisions, the State did not demonstrate that the limitations were necessary for the protection of public order or national security. Hence, the Court concluded, they were incompatible with the proportionality standards set by the IACtHR with regard to the right of access to information, as laid out by Article 13 of the ACHR.

For the Court, it was not enough to declassify documents: It held it was also crucial to ensure that victims, and the general public, could effectively access them. The IACtHR explained that deficiencies in the preservation and organization of the SIDE archives, including inadequate storage conditions and lack of digitization, have prevented the victims and their families from efficiently accessing key information.

Subsequently, the Court highlighted the importance of the right to the truth, which is not only vital for victims and their families but also for society as a whole—as it helps to prevent future human rights violations. It emphasized that the right to the truth required States to take all the necessary actions to clarify human rights violations and to determine responsibilities in such cases. The Court concluded that Argentina failed to comply with this obligation by not guaranteeing real and effective access to State archives and by not providing an official version of the AMIA bombing, and its cover-up, almost 30 years later.

For all these reasons, the Court unanimously concluded that Argentina violated, among others, the right of access to information, as enshrined in Article 13 of the American Convention, as well as the right to know the truth, as guaranteed by Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 13 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the surviving victims of the AMIA bombing and their relatives.

The IACtHR ordered Argentina to investigate the AMIA bombing and to remove all the obstacles that perpetuate impunity in this case. It also ordered the to State to publish this decision, carry out a public act of recognition, and create a publicly accessible historical archive regarding what happened in the AMIA bombing. In addition, the IACtHR ordered the incorporation of intelligence information so it can serve as judicial evidence and the consolidation of all related archives in an adequate space. It also granted pecuniary damages in favor of the victims to cover material and non-material damages and legal costs and expenses.

---