1896, of November 28, 1974, denounces the murder of a labor leader Mr. José Luis Figueroa, in Puerto Rico. The Secretariat acknowledged receipt in a letter dated December 3, 1974. The Commission through a letter of December 17, 1974, requested the United States Government to provide the appropriate information. A copy of that note was transmitted to the United States Mission to the OAS on January 2, 1975.
The United States Mission to the OAS acknowledged receipt of the letter sent by the Commission through a note dated February 13, 1975.
The Commission considered this communication during its thirty-fifth session (May 1975) and in view of the fact that the United States Government had offered to transmit the appropriate information to the CIDH before the end of the session, it decided to postpone examination of the case until another session.
Having received a reply from the Government of the United States to the request field by the CIDH on December 17, 1974, through a note of May 20, 1975, accompanied by the report of the Justice Department of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commission appointed Dr. Justino Jiménez de Aréchaga as rapporteur for case 1896.
The rapporteur presented a report (doc. 26-35 res.) during that session, based upon which the Commission decided the following:
a. That there is no evidence "prima facie", to the effect that Government authorities are in any way responsible for the events that led to the death of Mr. Figueroa.
b. To communicate to the claimants the pertinent parts of the information provided by the Government of the United States, before reaching a final decision, and,
c. Should the truth of the statement contained in those reports to the effect that proceedings are underway on the case not verified, to declare the case inadmissible.
The Government of the United States and the claimant were informed of this decision through communications dated August 8 and 28, respectively.
During its thirty-sixth session (October 1975) the Commission continued its examination of case 1896 and in view of the fact that the claimants had not formulated observations, it decided to postpone study of this case until its next session, by which time the claimants are to have provided the additional information requested of them.