Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Established 22 May 1979 (1979-05-22)
Country The Americas
Location San José, Costa Rica
Authorized by American Convention on Human Rights
Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Judge term length Six years
No. of positions Seven
Website Official Website
President
Currently Judge Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas
Since 2016
Lead position ends 2018
Vice-President
Currently Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot
Since 2016
Lead position ends 2018

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an autonomous judicial institution based in the city of San José, Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it makes up the human rights protection system of the Organization of American States (OAS), which serves to uphold and promote basic rights and freedoms in the Americas.

Purpose and functions

The Organization of American States established the Court in 1979 to enforce and interpret the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two main functions are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears and rules on the specific cases of human rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.

Adjudicatory function

The adjudicatory function requires the Court to rule on cases brought before it in which a state party to the Convention, and thus has accepted its jurisdiction, is accused of a human rights violation.

In addition to ratifying the Convention, a state party must voluntarily submit to the Court's jurisdiction for it to be competent to hear a case involving that state. Acceptance of contentious jurisdiction can be given on a blanket basis – to date, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and Uruguay have done so[1] (though Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela have subsequently withdrawn) – or, alternatively, a state can agree to abide by the Court's jurisdiction in a specific, individual case.

Trinidad and Tobago originally signed the Convention on 28 May 1991 but suspended its ratification on 26 May 1998 (effective 26 May 1999) over the death penalty issue. In 1999, under President Alberto Fujimori, Peru announced it was withdrawing its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction. This decision was reversed by the transitional government of Valentín Paniagua in 2001.

The United States signed but never ratified the Convention.

Under the Convention, cases can be referred to the Court by either the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or a state party. In contrast to the European human rights system, individual citizens of the OAS member states are not allowed to take cases directly to the Court.

The following conditions must be met:

  • Individuals who believe that their rights have been violated must first lodge a complaint with the Commission and have that body rule on the admissibility of the claim.
  • If the case is ruled admissible and the state deemed at fault, the Commission will generally serve the state with a list of recommendations to make amends for the violation.
  • Only if the state fails to abide by these recommendations, or if the Commission decides that the case is of particular importance or legal interest, will the case be referred to the Court.
  • The presentation of a case before the Court can therefore be considered a measure of last resort, taken only after the Commission has failed to resolve the matter in a noncontentious fashion.

Proceedings before the Court are divided into written and oral phases.

Written phase

In the written phase, the case application is filed, indicating the facts of the case, the plaintiffs, the evidence and witnesses the applicant plans to present at trial, and the claims for redress and costs. If the application is ruled admissible by the Court's secretary, notice thereof is served on the judges, the state or the Commission (depending on who lodged the application), the victims or their next-of-kin, the other member states, and OAS headquarters.

For 30 days following notification, any of the parties in the case may submit a brief containing preliminary objections to the application. If it deems necessary, the Court can convene a hearing to deal with the preliminary objections. Otherwise, in the interests of procedural economy, it can deal with the parties' preliminary objections and the merits of the case at the same hearing.

Within 60 days following notification, the respondent must supply a written answer to the application, stating whether it accepts or disputes the facts and claims it contains.

Once this answer has been submitted, any of the parties in the case may request the Court president's permission to lodge additional pleadings prior to the commencement of the oral phase.

Oral phase

The president sets the date for the start of oral proceedings, for which the Court is considered quorate with the presence of five judges.

During the oral phase, the judges may ask any question they see fit of any of the persons appearing before them. Witnesses, expert witnesses, and other persons admitted to the proceedings may, at the president's discretion, be questioned by the representatives of the Commission or the state, or by the victims, their next-of-kin, or their agents, as applicable. The president is permitted to rule on the relevance of questions asked and to excuse the person asked the question from replying, unless overruled by the Court.

Ruling

After hearing the witnesses and experts and analyzing the evidence presented, the Court issues its judgment. Its deliberations are conducted in private and, once the judgment has been adopted, it is notified to all the parties involved. If the merits judgment does not cover the applicable reparations for the case, they must be determined at a separate hearing or through some other procedure as decided on by the Court.

The reparations the Court orders can be both monetary and nonmonetary in nature. The most direct form of redress are cash compensation payments extended to the victims or their next-of-kin. However, the state can also be required to grant benefits in kind, to offer public recognition of its responsibility, to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future, and other forms of nonmonetary compensation.

For example, in its November 2001 judgment[2] in the Barrios Altos case – dealing with the massacre in Lima, Peru, of 15 people at the hands of the state-sponsored Colina Group death squad in November 1991 – the Court ordered payments of US$175,000 for the four survivors and for the next-of-kin of the murdered victims and a payment of $250,000 for the family of one of the victims. It also required Peru:

  • to grant the victims' families free health care and various forms of educational support, including scholarships and supplies of school uniforms, equipment, and books;
  • to repeal two controversial amnesty laws;
  • to establish the crime of extrajudicial killing in its domestic law;
  • to ratify the International Convention on the Nonapplicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity;
  • to publish the Court's judgment in the national media;
  • to publicly apologize for the incident and to undertake to prevent similar events from recurring in the future;
  • and to erect a memorial monument to the victims of the massacre.

While the Court's decisions admit no appeal, parties can lodge requests for interpretation with the Court secretary within 90 days of judgment being issued. When possible, requests for interpretation are heard by the same panel of judges that ruled on the merits.

Advisory function

The Court's advisory function enables it to respond to consultations submitted by OAS agencies and member states regarding the interpretation of the Convention or other instruments governing human rights in the Americas; it also empowers it to give advice on domestic laws and proposed legislation, and to clarify whether or not they are compatible with the Convention's provisions. This advisory jurisdiction is available to all OAS member states, not only those that have ratified the Convention and accepted the Court's adjudicatory function. The Court's replies to these consultations are published separately from its contentious judgments, as advisory opinions.

Members

Most Latin American countries are members, as are a few countries in the Caribbean.[3]

StateRatification
of convention
Recognition
of jurisdiction
Withdrawal
 Argentina19841984
 Barbados19812000
 Bolivia19791993
 Brazil19921998
 Chile19901990
 Colombia19731985
 Costa Rica19701980
 Dominica1993
 Dominican Republic19781999?[6]
 Ecuador19771984
 El Salvador19781995
 Granada1978
 Guatemala19781987
 Haiti19771998
 Honduras19771981
 Jamaica1978
 Mexico19811998
 Nicaragua19791991
 Panama19781990
 Paraguay19891993
 Peru19781981
 Suriname19871987
 Trinidad and Tobago199119911999
 Uruguay19851985
 Venezuela197719812013

Criticisms

The Court's behaviour has also been criticized. Among other issues, some authors have criticized the politization of the Court.[7] Some of the latest criticisms come from Peru [8] and Venezuela.[9] Venezuela subsequently withdrew from the system. Up to then, Trinidad and Tobago had been the only state to withdraw.[10] Peru tried to do so, but did not follow the appropriate procedure.[11] The last of these criticisms is directed against the Court's decision in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre declaring that some people were murdered with the consent of the Colombian state, a few of whom were subsequently found alive.[12]

Composition

As stipulated by Chapter VIII of the Convention, the Court consists of seven judges from the Organization's member states. These judges are elected to six-year terms by the OAS General Assembly; each judge may be reelected for an additional six-year term.

Unlike the commissioners of the Inter-American Commission, judges are not required to recuse themselves from hearing cases involving their home countries; however no member state may have more than one representative judge serving on the Court at any time. In the event a member state is party to a case as a defendant does not have a representative judge sitting on the Court, the member state is entitled to appoint a judge to the court ad hoc for the case.

After the Convention came into force on 18 July 1978, the first election of judges took place on 22 May 1979. The new Court first convened on 29 June 1979 at the Organization of American States Headquarters in Washington, D.C., United States.

Current Judges

NameStatePositionTerm
Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas BrazilPresident2013–2018
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot MexicoVice-President2013–2018
Eduardo Vio Grossi ChileJudge2016–2021
Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto ColombiaJudge2013–2018
Elizabeth Odio Benito Costa RicaJudge2016–2021
Eugenio Raúl Zaffaroni ArgentinaJudge2016–2021
Patricio Pazmiño Freire EcuadorJudge2016–2021

Former Presidents of the Court

YearsCountryJudge
2014–2015  ColombiaHumberto Sierra Porto
2010–2013  PeruDiego García-Sayán
2008–2009  ChileCecilia Medina
2004–2007  MexicoSergio García Ramírez
1999–2003  BrazilAntônio Augusto Cançado Trindade
1997–1999  EcuadorHernán Salgado Pesantes
1994–1997  MexicoHéctor Fix Zamudio
1993–1994  ColombiaRafael Nieto Navia
1990–1993  MexicoHéctor Fix Zamudio
1989–1990  UruguayHéctor Gros Espiell
1987–1989  ColombiaRafael Nieto Navia
1985–1987  United StatesThomas Buergenthal
1983–1985  VenezuelaPedro Nikken
1981–1983  HondurasCarlos Roberto Reina
1979–1981  Costa RicaRodolfo E. Piza Escalante

Former members of the Court

YearStateMembers of the CourtPresident
1979–1981 ColombiaCésar Ordóñez
1979–1985 VenezuelaMáximo Cisneros Sánchez
1979–1985 JamaicaHuntley Eugene Munroe
1979–1985 HondurasCarlos Roberto Reina1981–1983
1979–1989 Costa RicaRodolfo E. Piza Escalante1979–1989
1979–1989 VenezuelaPedro Nikken1983–1985
1979–1991 United StatesThomas Buergenthal1985–1987
1981–1994 ColombiaRafael Nieto Navia1987–1989, 1993–1994
1985–1989 HondurasJorge R. Hernández Alcerro
1985–1990 UruguayHéctor Gros Espiell1989–1990
1985–1997 MexicoHéctor Fix-Zamudio1990–1993, 1994–1997
1989–1991 HondurasPolicarpo Callejas
1989–1991 VenezuelaOrlando Tovar Tamayo
1989–1994 Costa RicaSonia Picado Sotela
1990–1991 ArgentinaJulio A. Barberis
1991–1994 VenezuelaAsdrúbal Aguiar Aranguren
1991–1997 NicaraguaAlejandro Montiel Argüello
1991–2003 ChileMáximo Pacheco Gómez
1991–2003 EcuadorHernán Salgado Pesantes1997–1999
1998–2003 ColombiaCarlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo
1995–2006 BarbadosOliver H. Jackman
1995–2006 VenezuelaAlirio Abreu Burelli
1995–2006 BrazilAntônio Augusto Cançado Trindade1999-2003
2001-2003 ArgentinaRicardo Gil Lavedra
2004–2009 MexicoSergio García Ramírez2004-2007
2004–2009 ChileCecilia Medina Quiroga2008-2009
2004-2015 Costa RicaManuel Ventura Robles
2004-2015 PeruDiego García-Sayán2010-2013
2007–2012 JamaicaMargarette May Macaulay
2007-2012 Dominican RepublicRhadys Abreu Blondet
2007-2012 ArgentinaLeonardo A. Franco
2010-2015 UruguayAlberto Pérez Pérez

Notable cases heard by the Court

CaseDateRuling
Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras29 July 1988
Caracazo v. Venezuela11 November 1999
"The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile5 February 2001
Barrios Altos v. Peru14 March 2001
Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala25 November 2003
Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala29 April 2004
Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica2 July 2004
Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru25 November 2004
Moiwana Community v. Suriname15 June 2005
"Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia15 September 2005
Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile26 September 2006
Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil24 November 2010
Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile24 February 2012
Marcel Granier and other (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela22 June 2015

See also

References

  1. "B-32: AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS "PACT OF SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA"". Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
  2. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/C/87-ing.html
  3. IACHR Annual Report, 2017
  4. "DR withdraws from IACHR". The Nassau Guardian. 17 November 2014. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
  5. Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (see paragraphs 133-134 on page 70)
  6. The Dominican Republic stated in 2014 that it was withdrawing from the IACHR,,[4] the withdrawal would have come into effect the following year. However, the IACHR notes that the withdrawal was never legally implemented,[5] and as of its 2017 annual report, the IACHR still counted the Dominican Republic as a member.
  7. José Francisco García G. y Sergio Verdugo R., Libertad y Desarrollo, “Radiografía Política al Sistema Interamericano de DD.HH.” (in Spanish) Archived 10 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
  8. http://www.andina.com.pe/Espanol/Noticia.aspx?id=44ntCADmrvg=
  9. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 11 May 2010. Retrieved 7 January 2011.
  10. http://www.minrel.gov.cl/prontus_minrel/site/artic/20090422/pags/20090422085224.php
  11. http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/iachr/Annuals/Sapp16-99.html
  12. http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/19965-10-not-50-slaughtered-in-mapiripan-massacre-prosecutors.html

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.