IACHR publishes merits report about unwarranted duration of inhibition of assets in Argentina

November 13, 2025

Washington, DC—The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) published Admissibility and Merits Report 112/25, on Case 13,092, concerning the international responsibility of the State of Argentina for keeping in place for more than 30 years judicial restrictions that prevented Héctor Leonardo Kemelmajen and Rafael Chaikin from being able to sell and use their property.

The petition that was filed before the IACHR alleged that Kemelmajen and Chaikin had been affected by a court warrant that banned them from using or selling their property for more than 30 years. The warrant had been issued in the context of bankruptcy proceedings involving a financial institution. The petition alleged that the restriction had been adopted without sufficient evidence or adequate notification and that this had caused serious personal and professional harm to Kemelmajen and Chaikin. Both men had their economic activity restricted, and both were prevented from freely using their assets and accessing banking and other financial services.

In its admissibility and merits report, the IACHR noted that proceedings had lasted almost 27 years and that no definitive solution had been found, which was excessive and amounted to a violation of the State’s obligation to ensure timely and effective judicial proceedings. The IACHR found that the State had failed to submit evidence to justify case complexity or the duration of proceedings, and noted that delays had mainly been due to the lack of procedural action by judicial authorities. The IACHR further stressed that the victims had exercised the available remedies without causing unwarranted delays and that the lengthy proceedings had caused them severe property restrictions.

Based on these considerations, the IACHR concluded that the State of Argentina is responsible for violations of the rights held in Articles 8.1 (right to a fair trial) and 25.1 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in keeping with the obligations held in Article 1.1 of the Convention.

In its report, the IACHR recommended that the State provide comprehensive reparations for all human rights violations, paying financial compensation and ensuring training so that similar proceedings in the future are handled in a timely manner that reflects the applicable inter-American standards.

The State suggested a compliance agreement to establish the required training and create an arbitration tribunal that determines the applicable financial compensation. The parties failed to come to an agreement, due to a controversy regarding the compensation that should be paid to comply with recommendation 1, although the IACHR had found that the reparations that had been proposed were appropriate based on the nature of the rights violations mentioned in the report.

After assessing the information about compliance with the recommendations and the position of each of the parties, the IACHR decided to not refer the case to the Inter-American Court and to work toward the publication of this report. Since no compensation has been paid and no training has been provided, the IACHR finds that compliance with both recommendations is still pending and will therefore continue to monitor this case until full redress has been attained.

The IACHR is an autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS) whose mandate is based on the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. Its mission is to promote and defend human rights throughout the Americas and to serve as an advisory body to the OAS in this area. The IACHR consists of seven independent members elected by the OAS General Assembly who serve in a personal capacity and do not represent their countries of origin or residence.

No. 229/25

3:20 PM