I. ORIGIN, STRUCTURE AND JURISDICTIONS OF THE COURT
A. Creation of the
Court
The Inter-American Court of Human
Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court” or “the Tribunal”)
was brought into being by the entry into force of the American Convention
on Human Rights or the “Pact of San José, Costa Rica” (hereinafter “the Convention”
or “the American Convention”), which occurred on July 18, 1978, upon the deposit
of the eleventh instrument of ratification by a Member State of the Organization
of American States (hereinafter “the OAS” or “the Organization”). The Convention was adopted at the Inter-American
Specialized Conference on Human Rights, which took place November 7-22, 1969,
in San José, Costa Rica.
The two organs for the protection
of human rights provided for under Article 33 of the Pact of San José, Costa
Rica, are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the
Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and the Court.
The function of these organs is to ensure the fulfillment of the commitments
made by the States Parties to the Convention.
B. Organization of
the Court
In accordance with the terms of the
Statute of the Court (hereinafter “the Statute”), the Court is an autonomous
judicial institution which has its seat in San José, Costa Rica, and has as
its purpose the application and interpretation of the Convention.
The Court consists of seven judges,
nationals of the Member States of the OAS, who act in an individual capacity
and are elected “from among jurists
of the highest moral authority and of recognized competence in the field of
human rights, who possess the qualifications required for the exercise of
the highest judicial functions in conformity with the law of the state of
which they are nationals or of the state that proposes them as candidates”
(Article 52 of the Convention). Article 8 of the Statute provides that the
Secretary General of the OAS shall request the States Parties to the Convention
to submit a list of their candidates for the position of judge of the Court. In accordance with Article 53(2) of the Convention,
each State Party may propose up to three candidates.
The judges are elected by the States
Parties to the Convention for a term of six years.
The election is by secret ballot and by and absolute majority vote
in the OAS General Assembly immediately prior to the expiration of the terms
of the outgoing judges. Vacancies on
the Court caused by death, permanent disability, resignation or dismissal,
shall be filled, if possible, at the next session of the OAS General Assembly
(Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the Statute).
Judges whose terms have expired shall
continue to serve with regard to cases that they have begun to hear and that
are still pending (Article 54(3) of the Convention).
If necessary in order to preserve
a quorum of the Court, one or more interim judges may be appointed by the
States Parties to the Convention (Article 6(3) of the Statute). “If a judge is a national of
any of the States Parties to a case submitted to the Court, [that judge] shall retain [the] right to hear that case. If one of the judges called upon to hear a case
is a national of one of the States Parties to the case, any other State Party
to the case may appoint a person to serve on the Court as an ad hoc
judge. If among the judges called upon
to hear a case, none is a national of the States Parties to the case, each
of the latter may appoint an ad hoc judge” (Article 10(1),
10(2) and 10(3) of the Statute).
States parties to a case are represented
in the proceedings before the Court by the Agents they designate (Article
21 of the Rules of Procedure).
The judges are at the disposal of
the Court and hold as many regular sessions a year as may be necessary for
the proper discharge of their functions. They
may also meet in special sessions when convoked by the President of the Court
(hereinafter “the President”) or at the request of a majority of the judges.
Although the judges are not required to reside at the seat of the Court,
the President shall render his services on a permanent basis (Article 16 of
the Statute and Articles 11 and 12 of the Rules of Procedure).
The President and Vice President are
elected by the judges for a period of two years and may be reelected (Article
12 of the Statute).
There is a Permanent Commission of
the Court (hereinafter “the Permanent Commission”) composed of the President,
the Vice President and any other judge that the President considers convenient,
according to the needs of the Court. The Court may also create other commissions
for specific matters (Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure).
The Secretariat functions under the
direction of a Secretary, who is elected by the Court (Article 14 of the Statute).
C. Composition of the Court
The composition of the Court is as
follows, in order of precedence (Article 13 of the Statute):
Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President
Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador),
Vice President
Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua)
Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile)
Oliver Jackman (Barbados)
Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela)
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil)
The Secretary of the Court is Manuel
E. Ventura-Robles (Costa Rica) and the Interim Deputy Secretary is Víctor
Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia (Costa Rica), who on August 28, 1996, replaced the
incumbent, Ana María Reina (Argentina), after she was granted leave by the
Court.
D. Jurisdictions of
the Court
The Convention confers contentious
and advisory functions on the Court. The
first function involves the power to adjudicate disputes relating to charges
that a State Party has violated the Convention.
The second function involves the power of the Member States to request
that the Court interpret the Convention or “other
treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states.” Within their spheres of competence, the organs
listed in the Charter of the OAS may in like manner consult the Court.
1. The Contentious
Jurisdiction of the Court
The contentious jurisdiction of the
Court is spelled out in Article 62 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
1. A State Party may, upon depositing
its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any
subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto,
and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all
matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.
2. Such declaration may be made unconditionally,
on the condition of reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases.
It shall be presented to the Secretary General of the Organization,
who shall transmit copies thereof to the other member states of the Organization
and to the Secretary of the Court.
3. The jurisdiction of the Court shall
comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions
of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties
to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special
declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.
Since States Parties are free to accept
the Court's jurisdiction at any time, a State may be invited to do so for
a specific case.
Pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Convention,
“[o]nly
the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case
to the Court.”
Article 63(1) of the Convention contains
the following provision relating to the judgments that the Court may render:
If the Court finds
that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention,
the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his
right or freedom that was violated. It
shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation
that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that
fair compensation be paid to the injured party.
Paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the Convention
provides “[t]hat part of a judgment
that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned
in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments
against the state.”
Article 63(2) of the Convention provides
that:
In cases of extreme
gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons,
the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters
its has under consideration. With respect
to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the
Commission.
The judgment rendered by the Court
in any dispute is “final and not subject
to appeal.” Nevertheless, “[i]n case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the
Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the
request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.”
(Article 67 of the Convention.) The
States Parties “undertake to comply
with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”
(Article 68 of the Convention.)
The Court submits a report on its
work to the General Assembly at each regular session, and it “[s]hall specify, in particular,
the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments.” (Article 65 of the Convention.)
2. The Advisory
Jurisdiction of the Court
Article 64 of the Convention reads as follows:
1. The member
states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding the interpretation
of this Convention or of other treaties concerning the protection of human
rights in the American states. Within their spheres of competence, the organs
listed in Chapter X of the Charter of the Organization of American States,
as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, may in like manner consult the
Court.
2. The Court, at the request of a
member state of the Organization, may provide that state with opinions regarding
the compatibility of any of its domestic laws with the aforesaid international
instruments.
The standing to request an advisory
opinion from the Court is not limited to the States Parties to the Convention,
any OAS Member State may request such an opinion.
Likewise, the advisory jurisdiction
of the Court enhances the Organization's capacity to deal with questions arising
from the application of the Convention, for it enables the organs of the OAS
to consult the Court within their spheres of competence.
3. Recognition of
the Contentious Jurisdiction of the Court
Seventeen States Parties have now
recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.
They are Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Honduras, Ecuador, Argentina,
Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, Suriname, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, Trinidad
and Tobago, Paraguay, Bolivia and El Salvador.
The status of ratifications and accessions
to the Convention may be found at the end of this report (Appendix XLIII).
E. Budget
Article 72 of the Convention provides
that “the Court shall draw up its own budget and
submit it for approval to the General Assembly through the General Secretariat.
The latter may not introduce any changes in it.”
Pursuant to Article 26 of its Statute, the Court administers its own
budget.
F. Relations with Other Similar Regional Organizations
The
Court has close institutional ties with the Commission. These ties have been
strengthened by meetings between the members of the two bodies, held at the
recommendation of the General Assembly. The
Court also maintains cooperative relations with the Inter-American Institute
of Human Rights, established under an agreement between the Government of
Costa Rica and the Court which entered into force on November 17, 1980.
The Institute is an autonomous international academic institution with
a global, multidisciplinary approach to the teaching, research and promotion
of human rights. The Court also maintains institutional ties with the European
Court of Human Rights, which was established by the Council of Europe and
has functions similar to those of the Inter-American Court.
II. ACTIVITIES OF THE COURT
A. XXXIII Regular Session of the Court
The Court held its
XXXIII Regular Session from January 22 to February 3, 1997, at its seat in
San José, Costa Rica. The composition
of the Court was as follows: Héctor
Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President;
Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile); Oliver
Jackman (Barbados); Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela) and Antônio A. Cançado
Trindade (Brazil). Also sitting were
Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero, Judge ad
hoc for the Paniagua Morales et
al. Case against Guatemala; Julio A. Barberis, Judge ad
hoc for the Garrido and Baigorria case against Argentina; Alfonso Novales-Aguirre,
Judge ad hoc for the Blake Case
against Guatemala, and Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico, Judge ad hoc for the Neira Alegría et al. Case against Peru. Also present were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles,
Secretary, and Ana María Reina, Deputy Secretary.
The following matters
were considered during this session:
1. Paniagua
Morales et al. Case
On January 25, 1996
the Tribunal rendered a judgment on preliminary objections in the Paniagua
Morales et al. Case. The objections raised by the
Republic of Guatemala and contested by the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights were: prescription of the right
of the Commission to submit this case for a decision of the Court, and absolute
legal invalidity of the application in the case.
On January 26, 1996
the Court read at a public session this judgment, in which it decided by six
votes to one to reject the preliminary objections presented by Guatemala and
to proceed with consideration of the case. Judge ad
hoc Larraondo Salguero issued a dissenting opinion (Appendix I).
2. Castillo Páez
Case
On January 30, 1996
the Court rendered a judgment on the following preliminary objections: failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and inadmissibility
of the petition. On February 2, 1996
the Tribunal read at a public session the judgment on preliminary objections,
in which it unanimously decided to dismiss the preliminary objections raised
by Guatemala, and to proceed with the consideration of the merits of the case
(Appendix II). Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade presented
a Separate Opinion.
3. Loayza
Tamayo Case
On January 31, 1996
the Court delivered a judgment on the preliminary objections in this case. The preliminary objection raised by the Peru
was failure to exhaust all domestic remedies. In that judgment the Court unanimously
decided to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the Government of Peru
and proceed with consideration of the case (Appendix III). Judge Antônio Cançado Trindade issued a Separate
Opinion.
The judgment was
read at a public session held on February 2, 1996.
4. Garrido and Baigorria
Case
On February 1, 1996
the Court held a public hearing to consider the merits of the case, and on
Friday, February 2 it read the judgment at a public session in which it unanimously
decided to take note of Argentina's recognition of the acts set forth in the
application and its international responsibility for those acts. The Court granted the Parties a period of six
months from the date of the Judgment to reach an agreement on reparations
and compensation, and reserved the right to review and approve that agreement
and, should no agreement be reached, to continue the proceedings on reparations
and compensation (Appendix IV).
5. Colotenango and Carpio Nicolle Cases. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala
The Court reviewed
the reports submitted by the Republic of Guatemala and the Inter-American
Commission on the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in the Colotenango
and Carpio Nicolle Cases, before the Commission.
Through Orders of February 1, 1996, the Court decided to extend the
provisional measures for a period of six months in both cases (Appendixes
V and VI respectively).
6. Alemán Lacayo
Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter
of Nicaragua
On February 2, 1996
the Commission submitted to the Court a request for provisional measures in
the Alemán Lacayo Case (No.11.281) before the Commission, to protect the life
and personal integrity of Mr. Arnoldo Alemán-Lacayo, a then candidate for
the Presidency of the Republic of Nicaragua.
The Court unanimously called upon the Government of Nicaragua to adopt,
forthwith, such measures as were necessary to protect the life and personal
integrity of Mr. Alemán-Lacayo and to avoid irreparable damage to him; to
investigate the events and punish those responsible for them, and to submit
a monthly report concerning the provisional measures which it had taken. It called up the Inter-American Commission to
forward to the Court its observations on such report within fifteen days of
its receipt, and to include that matter on the agenda of the next regular
session of the Court in order to analyze the results of the measures adopted
by the Government of Nicaragua (Appendix VII).
7. Public Hearings
on Reparations
Pursuant to its Judgment
of January 19, 1995, the Court held a public hearing on January 26, 1996 to
allow the Republic of Peru and the Inter-American Commission to voice their
opinions on the reparations and costs in the Neira Alegría et al. Case.
On January 27, the
Court heard the views of the Republic of Venezuela and of the Inter-American
Commission on the reparations in the El Amparo Case, as a result of the Tribunal's
Judgment of January 18, 1995, in which it had unanimously decided to take
note of the recognition of responsibility expressed by the Republic of Venezuela.
8. Other Matters
On February 2, 1996
the Court issued an Order for the purpose of regulating the proceedings in
regard to the admission of evidence during the processing of cases submitted
to it, in which it decided that “evidence
shall be admissible only if it is indicated in the application and the reply
thereto, and in the communication setting out the preliminary objections.” That Order also stated that in cases of force majeure, serious impediment or the
emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence
“the Court may, in that particular instance,
admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that
the other party is guaranteed the right of defense” (Appendix VIII).
The Tribunal reviewed
and approved the Annual Report of the activities of the Court for 1995 which
was due to be presented to the General Assembly of the OAS in Panama City,
Panama, at its XXVI Regular Session. It
also reviewed and approved the external audit of the Court ordered by its
President, Judge Héctor Fix-Zamudio, for the period from January 1 to December
31, 1995, which was later delivered to the OAS General Secretariat. The Court also considered administrative and
budgetary matters.
B. Presentation of
the Court's Annual Report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters
of the Permanent Council of the OAS and Presentation of the Draft Budget of
the Court to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters
From March 18 to
26, 1996 Judges Héctor Fix-Zamudio, President, and Hernán Salgado‑Pesantes,
Vice President, accompanied by the Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles,
visited the headquarters of the OAS in Washington, D.C. in order to present
the Court's 1995 Annual Report to the Committee on Juridical and Political
Matters of the Permanent Council of the OAS, and the Court's 1997 draft budget
to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters.
The Committee on
Juridical and Political Matters presented its recommendations on the Annual
Report of the Court; those recommendations were endorsed by the Permanent
Council of the OAS and approved by the General Assembly in the terms indicated
below.
During this visit
to Washington, D.C. the Judges of the Inter-American Court were received by
the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters, to which the President of
the Court explained the projected budget for the year 1997.
He also answered a number of questions about the proposed budget from
the representatives of the Member States, who considered that the visit had
been very important for their full understanding of the functioning and needs
of the Tribunal.
C. XXVI Regular Session
of the General Assembly of the OAS
At the XXVI Regular
Session of the General Assembly of the OAS, which took place in Panama City,
Panama, from June 3 to 6, 1996, the Court was represented by its President,
Judge Héctor Fix‑Zamudio, and its Vice President, Judge Hernán Salgado-Pesantes.
The Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, also attended.
1. Annual
Report of the Court for the year 1995
Through Resolution
AG/RES.1394 (XXVI-O/96) adopted at the eighth plenary meeting on June 7, 1996,
the Assembly approved the Annual Report of the activities of the Court for
the year 1995:
1. To note with satisfaction the work of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights the period covered by this report and to urge it to
continue fulfilling its important function.
2. To thank the European Union for its contribution
to enable the Court to execute the project entitled “Support for the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, Second Stage.”
3. To thank the Government of the Netherlands for
its donation to the Documentation Center and Joint Library of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights of
246 volumes of the “Recueil des Cours - Collected Courses” published by the
Hague Academy of International Law, as well as of volumes of the discussions
of workshops held by the same institution.
4. To support the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
in its requests for funds to continue fulfilling the important functions entrusted
to it by the American Convention on Human Rights and to formulate the corresponding
recommendations.
5. To appeal to the member states of the OAS that
have not yet done so to ratify or accede to the American Convention on Human
Rights, “Pact of San José,” and to consider accepting the compulsory jurisdiction
of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
6. To receive and transmit to the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights the observations and recommendations of the Permanent
Council of the Organization of the annual report.
7. To recommend to the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights that, in its annual report, in addition to the purpose of its periodic
meetings with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it include a
detailed account of the results of those meetings.
2. Approval
of the Budget of the Court for 1997
The Assembly approved
the budget of the Court for 1997 in the amount of US$1,035,700 (one million
thirty-five thousand and seven hundred United States dollars.)
D. XIX Special
Session of the Court
The XIX Regular Session
of the Court was held from June 26 to July 3, 1996 at the seat of the Court
in San José, Costa Rica. The composition
of the Court was as follows: Héctor
Fix‑Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado‑Pesantes (Ecuador),
Vice President; Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Oliver Jackman (Barbados);
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil), and Alfonso Novales-Aguirre, Judge ad hoc in the Blake case. For reasons beyond his control, Judge Máximo
Pacheco‑Gómez (Chile) was unable to attend. Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and
Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.
The following matters
were considered during that session of the Court:
1. Blake Case
On July 2, 1996 the
Court rendered a judgment rejecting the following preliminary objections raised
by the Government of Guatemala and refuted by the Inter-American Commission:
incompetence of the Court to try the case; incompetence of the Court to deal
with the application by reason of its subject, and violation by the Commission
of Article 29(d) of the American Convention.
Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge Novales-Aguirre presented separate
concurring opinions (Appendix IX).
2. Loayza
Tamayo Case
On June 27, 1996
the Court decided to reject as unlawful the appeal for “nullification” lodged
by the Government of Peru against the Judgment on Preliminary Objections rendered
in this case on January 31, 1996, in which the Court unanimously decided to
reject the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies,
raised by the Government of the Republic of Peru, and to continue to hear
the case (Appendix X).
On July 2, 1996,
the Court decided to reject the motion for disqualification of witnesses raised
by the Government of Peru in this case.
On the same date,
the Court adopted provisional measures on behalf of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo. In endorsing the Order of the President of June
12, 1996 (Appendix XI), the Court ordered that the Government adopt forthwith
such measures as were necessary to effectively ensure the physical, psychological
and moral integrity of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo (Appendix XII).
3. Vogt Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala
On June 26, 1996
the Court held a public hearing at its seat, at which it heard the pleadings
of the Government of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission in regard
to the provisional measures in the Vogt Case before the Commission. The Commission itself requested the public hearing on March 28, 1996
in order to protect the life and physical integrity of Father Daniel Joseph
Vogt, a Catholic priest carrying out his evangelical work in Guatemala.
On April 12, 1996 the President of the Court decided to request that
the Government of the Republic of Guatemala adopt forthwith such measures
as were needed to protect the life and physical integrity of Father Vogt to
avoid him suffering any irreparable damage, and that it investigate the events
and punish those responsible (Appendix XIII).
On June 27, 1996 the Court decided to ratify all the terms of the Order
delivered by the President on April 12, 1996
(Appendix XIV).
4. Serech and Saquic
Case. Provisional Measures in the
Matter of Guatemala
On June 27, 1996
a public hearing was held so the Government of Guatemala and the Inter-American
Commission could state their pleadings with regard to the provisional measures
in the Serech and Saquic Case, requested by the Commission on April 12, 1996
to protect the lives and physical integrity of Blanca Margarita Valiente de
Similox, Vitalino and Sotero Similox, María Francisca Ventura-Sicán, Lucio
Martínez, Maximiliano Solís, Bartolo Solís, Julio Solís-Hernández, María Magdalena
Sunún-González, Héctor Solís, José Solís, Gregoria Gómez, Juan García, Eliseo
Calel and Víctor Tuctuc; all in connection with the investigation of the events
relating to the murders of Reverends Pascual Serech and Manuel Saquic.
On June 28, 1996
the Court decided to ratify all the terms (Appendix XVI) of the Order delivered
by the President on April 24, 1996, in which he called upon the Government
of Guatemala to adopt forthwith such measures as might be necessary to protect
the lives and physical integrity of the above-named persons and to avoid irreparable
damage to them, to investigate the acts perpetrated against them, and to punish
those responsible (Appendix XV).
5. Suárez Rosero
Case. Provisional Measures in the
Matter of Ecuador
Through Order of
June 28, 1996 (Appendix XIX), the Court decided to revoke the urgent measures
issued by the President of the Court on April 12, 1996 in this case (Appendix
XVII) and expanded by Order of the President of April 24 (Appendix XVIII),
inasmuch as the Government of Ecuador had on March 26, 1996 submitted documentation
regarding the release of Mr. Suárez-Rosero, and the Commission had on June
10, 1996 presented a communication declaring that it was desisting from its
request for provisional measures.
6. Consideration
of a New Case
The Court began hearing
the Benavides Cevallos Case against Ecuador, submitted by the Commission on
March 21, 1996.
7. Other Matters
In order to resolve
problems relating to quorum, the Tribunal decided by Order of June 26,
1996 “[t]hat the receipt of testimonial and expert evidence
in the proceedings before it may be verified by the presence of one or more
of its members at a public hearing at the seat of the Court or in situ” (Appendix XX).
In view of the leave
of absence granted to Ana María Reina, Deputy Secretary of the Court, Víctor
Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia was appointed Interim Deputy Secretary for the period
from August 28, 1996 to August 27, 1997. Some
administrative matters and proposed revisions of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court were also discussed.
E. XX Special Session
of the Court
From September 5
to 7, 1996 the XX Special Session of the Court was held at its seat in San
José, Costa Rica, to hear the testimonial evidence in the Genie Lacayo Case. Since a quorum had not been attained, the Order
of the Court of July 8, 1996 was invoked and the judges present at this Special
Session were authorized to take the evidence on the merits of the case (Appendix
XXI). The public hearing was held at
the seat of the Court on September 5 and 6, 1996 and the testimony of a number
of witnesses produced by the Commission were heard on the merits of the case.
On September 6, the Court also heard the oral pleadings made by the
Government of Nicaragua and the Commission with regard to the testimonies
on merits thus far received.
The Judges present
to hear the evidence in this case were as follows:
Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador),
Vice President; Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia), and Alejandro Montiel-Argüello
(Nicaragua.) Judge Máximo Pacheco-Gómez
(Chile) was unable to attend for reasons beyond his control.
Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura‑Robles, Secretary,
and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.
F. XXXIV Regular Session
of the Court
The XXXIV Regular
Session of the Tribunal was held at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, from
September 7 to 20, 1996. The composition
of the Court was as follows: Héctor
Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President;
Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Alirio
Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela), and Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil). Judge Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile) was unable
to attend for reasons beyond his control. Also present were Rafael Nieto‑Navia, Judge ad hoc designated by the Government of
the Republic of Colombia for the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, and Jorge
E. Orihuela-Iberico, Judge ad hoc designated
by the Government of Peru for the Neira Alegría et al. Case. Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary,
and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.
At this regular session
the Court considered the following matters:
1. Caballero Delgado
and Santana Case
The Court held a
public hearing at its seat on September 7, 1996 to hear the pleas brought
by the Inter-American Commission and the Government of Colombia on the reparations
in the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. The above hinged on the fact that
on December 8, 1995 the Court had rendered a Judgment on the Merits and decided,
by four votes to one, that the Government of Colombia was obligated to pay
fair compensation to the relatives of the victims and that the manner and
amount of the compensation would be fixed by the Court.
2. El Amparo Case
On September 20,
1996 the Court read at a public session the Judgment on Reparations of September
14, 1996 in the El Amparo Case against Venezuela (Appendix XXII). In that judgment the Court set the total reparations
at US$722,332.20 to be paid to the next of kin and the surviving victims by
the State of Venezuela within six months from the date of notification of
that judgment.
Judge Antônio A.
Cançado Trindade issued a dissenting opinion on the fifth operative paragraph
of the judgment.
3. Neira Alegría
et al. Case
On September 20,
1996 the Court read at a public session the Judgment of September 19, 1996
on Reparations in the Neira Alegría et
al. Case against Peru (Appendix XXIII).
In that judgment the Court set the total reparations at US$154,040.74
to be paid to the next of kin of the victims by the State of Peru within six
months from the date of notification of the that judgment.
Judge ad hoc Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico issued a dissenting opinion on the
first operative paragraph of the judgment, which determined the amount of
the compensation and the manner in which it was to be paid.
4. Colotenango Case.
Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala
On September 10,
1996 the Court decided to maintain for six months as of that date the provisional
measures granted in this case (Appendix XXIV).
5. Carpio Nicolle
Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter
of Guatemala
On September 10,
1996 the Court decided to maintain the provisional measures set forth in the
Order of September 19, 1995 and extended by the Order of February 1, 1996.
The Court also decided to call upon the Government
of Guatemala to report to the Court every two months from the date of notification
of this Order, on the measures it had taken in the case and upon the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights to dispatch its comments on that information to
the Court no later than one month from the date of its receipt (Appendix XXV).
6. Loayza Tamayo
Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter
of Peru
On September 13,
1996 the Court decided to call upon the Government of Peru to alter the situation
in which Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was imprisoned, particularly as
regards to the conditions of solitary confinement to which she was subjected,
in order to comply with Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights
and the Order of the Court of July 2, 1996.
The Court also called upon the Government of Peru to provide appropriate
medical treatment to Ms. Loayza Tamayo (Appendix XXVI).
7. Closure of the
Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz Cases
On September 10,
1996 the Court decided to close the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz Cases
and to communicate that decision to the General Assembly of the Organization
of American States inasmuch as both the Government of the Republic of Honduras
and the Inter-American Commission had deemed the Judgments on the Compensatory
Damages and on the Interpretations rendered by the Inter-American Court on
July 12, 1989 and August 17, 1990 respectively to have been fulfilled (Appendixes
XXVII and XXVIII respectively).
8. Castillo Páez
Case
On September 10,
1996 the Court decided to dismiss as unlawful an appeal for “nullification”
of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections rendered in this case on January
30, 1996, in which the Tribunal unanimously decided to dismiss the objections
of the Government of Peru and to proceed with the consideration of the merits
of the case (Appendix XXIX).
On that same day
the Court decided to dismiss the motion brought by the Government of Peru
for the disqualification of witnesses in this case.
9. Amendment of
the Rules of Procedure of the Court
During this Regular
Session the Court approved a sweeping reform of its Rules of Procedure, to
take effect on January 1, 1997. The amendments contained in these new Rules
included authorizing the victims or their representatives to act independently
only during the reparations phase of a case, and improved the order in which
the various topics are set out in the Rules of Procedure (Appendix XXX).
10. Draft Cooperation
Agreement between the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica and the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights
On July 10, 1996,
by authorization of the President, the Secretary of the Court met with the
Commission for Modernization of Costa Rica's Judiciary to seek its cooperation
in computerization and systematizing case files. The purpose was to computerize the processing of cases before the
Court -currently numbering 26- so that the Judges, Secretaries and Attorneys
of the Secretariat could enjoy immediate access to the up-to-date information
they may need on each specific case. The
Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica has accumulated valuable experience
in this field.
The Secretariat of
the Court prepared a draft cooperation agreement which was approved by this
Tribunal and dispatched to the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica for
its approval and, if possible, it would be signed by both parties during the
first session of the Court in January 1997.
G. Visit by the Court
to Washington, D.C. from December 2 to 6, 1996- Fulfillment of the Mandates of the OAS General
Assembly
The seven Judges
who sit on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and its two Secretaries
visited Washington, D.C. from December 2 to 6, 1996 at the invitation of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in order to:
a. Take part in the Seminar on the Inter-American System of Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights, organized by the Inter-American Commission,
which took place at OAS Headquarters from December 2 to 4, 1996.
The Judges participated in the seminar in compliance with the mandate
of the General Assembly referred to below (see point 4 of this paragraph.)
b. Meet with the OAS Secretary General, Dr. César Gaviria Trujillo, on
December 4 (see point 5 of this paragraph.)
c. To meet with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on December
5, pursuant to a number of resolutions of the OAS General Assembly, as explained
below (see points 1, 3 and 4 of this paragraph.)
d. To attend a meeting of the OAS Permanent Council's Committee on Juridical
and Political Matters, likewise pursuant to a mandate from the General Assembly
(see point 2 of this paragraph.)
e. To hold a private meeting of the Court on December 6 to approve the
Tribunal's work program for 1997.
Meeting with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
in 1996 in compliance with a number of mandates from the General Assembly
1. Fulfillment of
the Mandates of the General Assembly
AG/RES.1330 (XXXV-O/95) and AG/RES.1041 (XX-O/90)
In the above resolution
the General Assembly decided:
7. To
recommend to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that, in its annual
report, in addition to the purpose of its periodic meetings with the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, it include a detailed account of the results of
those meetings.
In compliance of
operative paragraph 7 of the Resolution, the following is the report of that
meeting:
Meeting with the Inter-American Commission in 1996
On Thursday, December
5 the Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights met for the
purpose, inter alia, of establishing a mechanism
whereby both organs could cooperate with each other, within their spheres
of competence, to better protect human rights. This meeting fulfilled, for
1996, the General Assembly's mandate contained in AG/RES. 1041 (XX-O/90.)
The agenda of that
meeting was as follows:
A) Topics proposed by the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights
a. Fulfillment of the Mandate of
the General Assembly contained in AG/RES. 1041 (XX-O/90) in which it was decided:
To request
that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights establish coordinating mechanisms conducive to mutual
cooperation within their areas of competence for the further protection of
human rights.
b. Fulfillment of the General Assembly
mandate contained in AG/RES. 1333 (XXV‑O/95) entitled “Draft Regulations
on Incompatibilities of the Members of the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights, External Advisers to the Commission, and Students Rendering Services
Free of Charge as Part of their Training at the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights,” reiterated in AG/RES. 1417 (XXVI-O/96.)
c. Fulfillment of the Mandates of the General Assembly
contained in AG/RES. 1330 (XXXV-O/95) and AG/RES. 1394 (XXVI-O/96).
To
recommend to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that, in its annual
report, in addition to the purpose of its periodic meetings with the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, it include a detailed account of the results of
those meetings.
d. Fulfillment of the Mandate of the General Assembly AG/RES.
1404 (XXVI‑O/96).
13.
To instruct the Permanent Council to evaluate
the workings of the inter-American system for the protection and promotion
of human rights so as to initiate a process leading to its improvement, possibly
by modifying the respective legal instruments as well as the methods and working
procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, for which it
shall request the cooperation of the Commission and the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights; and to instruct it to report to the General Assembly at its
next regular session.
....
15.
To promote dialogue between member states, between
those states and the Inter-American Commission on and Court of Human Rights,
and with experts in the field, so as to contribute to a process of reflection
leading to improvement of the inter-American human rights system.
e. Information on the new Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court
to take effect from January 1, 1997. Main changes. Individual participation at the reparations phase, extension of time
periods for presentation of briefs, etc.
f. Date of the next meeting of the Court and the Commission
in San José, Costa Rica.
B. Topics proposed by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights
a. Cases in general, especially the following aspects:
- Ex-parte
communications.
- Presentation of the Commission's evidence.
- Duration
of the Proceeding.
- Representation
of the Victims.
- Content of the Reparation.
- Compliance of the Judgments of
the Court.
b. Presence
of the Commission and the Court regarding follow-up of the themes of the Summit
of the Americas.
C. Agreements reached
at the meeting
At the meeting with
the Inter-American Commission on December 5, 1996 the following agreements
were reached:
- To hold an annual meeting for the purpose of
taking joint administrative initiatives on budgetary measures to enhance their
individual and shared functions.
- Pursuant to the decisions taken
at the annual meetings, to bring together the governing bodies of both organs
when they both present their annual reports to the OAS Permanent Council.
- To establish a mechanism for exchanging information
to coordinate partial or total reforms of the regulations of both organs or
amendments to the system's human rights instruments.
- To entrust the Secretaries of the Court and
the Commission with the task of providing offices at their headquarters to
provide the parties to a cases with a place they can use for their own business
during working session and public hearings.
- That the Secretaries of both
organs maintain on-going dialogue and be invited to plenary sessions.
- To exchange
non-confidential agreements, decisions and resolutions the content of which
can improve coordination.
- The Commission will contemplate
the possibility of reforming its Regulations so that it may gather testimonial
and expert evidence from both Parties in order to avoid that the Court be
obliged to do so at public hearings, thus expediting a final ruling.
2. Mandate of the Permanent Council
of the OAS to reform the Juridical Instruments for the Protection of Human
Rights- Meeting with the Commission on Juridical and Political Matters
Through resolution
AG/RES.1404 (XXVI‑O/96), the General Assembly of the OAS decided:
13.
To instruct the Permanent Council to evaluate the workings of the inter-American
system for the protection and promotion of human rights so as to initiate
a process leading to its improvement, possibly by modifying the respective
legal instruments as well as the methods and working procedures of the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, for which it shall request the cooperation of
the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and to instruct
it to report to the General Assembly at its next regular session.
The Commission on
Juridical and Political Matters, in compliance with the mandate of the General
Assembly, requested the Secretary General of the OAS, the Court, and the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights to submit papers including the practices and procedures
of the organs of the system so that they could be evaluated and reforms suggested.
The President of the Court instructed the Secretariat to prepare the
paper insofar as it refered to the Court.
Once concluded, it was presented to the Commission on Juridical and
Political Matters with the title: “The Court and the Inter-American System
of Human Rights, Projections and Goals,” and was received with satisfaction
by the Commission.
On December 5, 1996
the Commission on Juridical and Political Matters of the Organization received
the full Court and its Secretaries. The
purpose of the meeting was the hear the Commission members' observations on
the document. Several members of the Commission took the floor and praised
the Tribunal's document for its high professional and technical quality, but
they expressed concern that some Member States of the Organization had not
ratified the American Convention or accepted the contentious jurisdiction
of the Court. The President of the Commission on Juridical and Political Matters,
Ambassador Beatriz Ramacciotti, suggested that the Court should address some
concerns expressed during the working meeting and that they would be put into
writing in due course.
Lastly, the Court
presented the Commission with the book “Systematization of the Contentious
Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1981-1991”, prepared
by the Secretariat of the Court, which constitutes a practical instrument
for studying and analyzing the contentious judgments delivered by the Tribunal.
The President of
the Commission further informed the President and Secretary of the Court that
a meeting of governmental experts would be held next March, 1997, to provide
her Commission with more information for complying with the mandate handed
down by the General Assembly.
On December 12, 1996
Ambassador Ramacciotti sent a note to the President of the Court stating,
in regards to the Court's visit to the Committee on Juridical and Political
Matters, that:
As agreed
at the meeting, it would be of great interest for the Commission to receive
individual comments from the illustrious Judges of the Court on the various
aspects raised by the delegations, in particular on the subject of promotion
of human rights in the new hemispheric context.
This matter will
be discussed by the Court at its XXXV Regular Session.
3. Fulfillment
of Resolutions
AG/RES. 1333 (XXV‑O/95) and AG/RES. 1417 (XXVI‑O/96)
The General Assembly,
through resolution AG.RES. 1333 (XXV‑O/95), reiterated in resolution
AG/RES. 1417 (XXVI‑O/96). entitled “Draft Regulation on Incompatibilities
of the Members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, External
Advisers of the Commission and Students rendering Free Services as Part of
their Training at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” requested
the Inter-American Commission to propose amendments to its Statute with regard
to its members' incompatibilities with the persons indicated above, and asked
the Court and the Commission to meet in order to harmonize the appropriate
statutory texts.
This matter was discussed
at the meeting between the Court and the Commission on December 5, 1996. The Commission's view was that since it had
no external advisers among its staff there was no need to amend its Stature
and Regulations. Inasmuch as the Commission
had chose not to amend them, the Court decided not to amend its Regulations
either.
4. Meeting of Experts to Discuss Improvement of the Inter-American
System on Human Rights
Through resolution
AG/RES. 1404 (XXVI‑O/96) the General Assembly decided:
15. To
promote dialogue between member states, between those states and the Inter-American
Commission on and Court of Human Rights, and with experts in the field, so
as to contribute to a process of reflection leading to improvement of the
inter-American human rights system.
In fulfillment of
this mandate, the Court attended the Seminar on the Inter-American System
for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, held in Washington, D.C.
from December 2 to 4, 1996.
5. Visit
to the Secretary General of the OAS
On December 4, 1996
the full Court met the Secretary General of the OAS, Dr. César Gaviria Trujillo. At the meeting they discussed the difficulties
encountered by the Court in complying with the mandates of the Convention,
owing to its volume of work and the large number of witnesses and experts
it was obliged to hear at its public hearings.
The Secretary General felt that most of the testimonies could be heard
by the Inter-American Commission with the parties present. With regard to the Court's lack of funds to
pay its staff adequately, the Secretary General, who had to be away from headquarters,
arranged a meeting with the Chief of Cabinet, the OAS Subsecretary for Administration,
and the President and Secretary of the Court. At this meeting it was decided
that, before the Court signed an agreement according it administrative autonomy,
it would propose in its 1998 budget that it be allocated the funds needed
for such autonomy.
Also discussed with
the Secretary General was the future of the inter-American system for the
protection of human rights, as proposed by him in the document “Towards a
New Vision of the Inter-American System of Human Rights.”
H. Submission of New
Contentious Cases to the Court
During 1996 four
new contentious cases were submitted to the Court. They are:
1. Benavides Cevallos
Case Against Ecuador
On March 21, 1996
the Commission submitted an application concerning events that occurred as
of December 4, 1985, when agents of the Ecuadorian State are alleged to have
arbitrarily and unlawfully detained Professor Consuelo Benavides-Cevallos
and kept her incommunicado for several days before torturing and finally murdering
her. The application also alleges that the State
of Ecuador did not provide effective judicial remedies, that it denied Professor
Benavides access to judicial protection and that investigation of the case
continued to be hindered by the actions of the State. The Commission further requested the Court to
order the State of Ecuador to take such measures as may be necessary to investigate
the crimes denounced and punish those responsible; that the State publicly
accept responsibility in the case and compensate the victims of the violations
committed, including payment of due compensation to any persons who suffered
as a result of the events. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to
declare that Ecuador had violated Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights),
3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane
Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and
25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights,
to the detriment of Ms. Consuelo Benavides-Cevallos (Appendix XXXI).
Once the President
had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government
be notified and the processing of the case began.
2. Cantoral Benavides
Case Against Peru
This case was submitted
to the Court on August 8, 1996. According
to the Commission, Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides was unlawfully deprived
of his liberty and subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The application also claimed that Mr. Cantoral-Benavides
was tried twice for the same acts and his right to a fair trial violated.
The petition claims that the Government of Peru is responsible for
violating Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty),
8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides,
all of them in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, which establishes
the obligation to respect those rights. The
Commission likewise considers that the Government of Peru is also responsible
for violating Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention
(Appendix XXXII).
Once the President
had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government
be notified and the processing of the case began.
3. Durand and Ugarte
Case Against Peru
This case, submitted
for the consideration of the Court on August 8, 1996, was brought by the Commission
in connection with events that occurred as of February 14 and 15, 1986 when,
according to the application, Norberto Durand-Ugarte and Gabriel Ugarte-Rivera
were detained on suspicion of taking part in terrorist activities and imprisoned
in the San Juan (El Frontón) Penitentiary. A riot at the penitentiary was crushed in June, 1986. Since that date, Mr. Durand-Ugarte and
Mr. Ugarte-Rivera have been disappeared. However, the application adds that
on July 17, 1987, the Sixth Correctional Tribunal of Lima declared the two
men innocent and ordered their immediate release.
According to the application, the Government of Peru is responsible
for violating Articles 4 (Right to Life), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8
(Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and 27 (Suspension
of Guarantees) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment
of those two citizens, all of them in connection with Article 1(1) of the
Convention, which establishes the obligation to respect those rights. The Commission also deems the Government to
responsible for violating Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American
Convention (Appendix XXXIII).
Once the President
had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government
be notified and the processing of the case began.
4. Bámaca Velásquez
Case Against Guatemala
This case was submitted
to the Court through an application from the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights on August 30, 1996 against the State of Guatemala for the alleged
disappearance, torture and summary execution of Efraín Bámaca-Velásquez in
violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. The petition refers to events alleged to have occurred as of March
12, 1992, when members of Guatemala's Armed Forces captured Mr. Efraín
Bámaca-Velázquez following an armed confrontation, kept him alive at various
military facilities where Mr. Bámaca was tortured, then murdered, by members
of the Guatemalan Armed Forces. The Commission further asks the Court to declare that Guatemala violated
the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, that it must
investigate the events and punish those responsible; inform the relatives
of Mr. Bámaca's whereabouts and return his remains to them; reform the training
given to the Guatemalan Armed Forces, and pay fair compensation to the victims'
relatives, as well as paying the costs. The
Commission asks the Court to declare that the State of Guatemala has violated
the following rights: Article 3 (Right
to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to
Humane Treatment), Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), Article 8 (Right
to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all in connection
with Article 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) (Appendix XXXIV).
Once the President
had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government
be notified, and the processing of the case began.
I. Cases Before the
Court
To date the Court
has before it sixteen contentious cases, at varying procedural stages. They are:
1. Aloeboetoe et
al. Case against Suriname - phase of execution of judgment
2. Gangaram Panday Case against Suriname - phase of execution
of judgment
3. Neira Alegría et
al. Case against Peru - phase of execution of judgment
4. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case against Colombia
- Reparations
5. Genie Lacayo Case against Nicaragua - Merits
6. El Amparo Case against Venezuela - phase of execution
of judgment
7. Loayza Tamayo Case against Peru - Merits
8. Castillo Páez Case against Peru - Merits
9. Paniagua Morales et
al. Case against Guatemala - Merits
10. Garrido and Baigorria Case against Argentina -Reparations
11. Blake Case against Guatemala - Merits
12. Suárez Rosero Case against Ecuador - Merits
13. Benavides Cevallos Case against Ecuador - Merits
14. Cantoral Benavides Case against Peru - Preliminary Objections
15. Durand and Ugarte Case against Peru - Preliminary Objections
16. Bámaca Velásquez Case against Guatemala - Merits
J. Submission of New
Provisional Measures to the Court
During the period
covered by this report, six new requests for provisional measures were made
to the Court:
1. Alemán Lacayo Case in the Matter
of Nicaragua (Appendix XXXV)
2. Suárez Rosero Case in the Matter
of Ecuador (Appendix XXXVI)
3. Vogt Case in the Matter of Guatemala
(Appendix XXXVII)
4. Serech and Saquic Case in the Matter
of Guatemala (Appendix XXXVIII)
5. Loayza Tamayo Case in the Matter
of Peru (Appendix XXXIX)
6. Giraldo Cardona Case in the Matter
of Colombia (Appendix XL)
K. Provisional Measures Before the Court
Nine requests for
provisional measures are currently before the Court.
They are:
1. Colotenango Case in the Matter of Guatemala
2. Caballero Delgado
and Santana Case in the Matter of Colombia (case before the Court)
3. Carpio Nicolle Case
in the Matter of Guatemala
4. Blake Case in the
Matter of Guatemala (case before the Court)
5. Vogt Case in the
Matter of Guatemala
6. Serech and Saquic Case in the Matter of Guatemala
7. Alemán Lacayo Case
in the Matter of Nicaragua
8. Loayza Tamayo Case
in the Matter of Peru (Case before the Court)
9. Giraldo Cardona Case in the Matter of Colombia
L. Submission of the
Request from the Government of Chile for Advisory Opinion OC‑15
On November 13, 1996
the Government of Chile submitted, in accordance with Article 64(1) of the
American Convention, a request for an advisory opinion to the Court. In that request the Government of Chile asked
the Court to render its opinion as to whether the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights is empowered by Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention
to alter its report which had previously been unanimously approved, and publication
of which had been ordered and the parties notified (Appendix XLI).
M. Transmittal
by the Commission of a Brief from the Relatives
of the Victims in the El
Amparo Case
On December 12, 1996
the Inter-American Commission transmitted a brief, indicated as coming from
the relatives of the victims, on the interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations
delivered by the Court in this case on September 20, 1996. The document would be considered by the Court
at its Regular Session to be held from January 27 to February 7, 1997 (Appendix
XLII).
N. Compliance with
the Judgments of the Court
The Court ordered
the closing of the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz Cases against Honduras
at the request of the Parties, who considered that the Judgments on Compensatory
Damages and their Interpretations had been complied with (Appendixes XXVII
and XVIII respectively).
To date the Court
has not received any official communication from the Government of Suriname
on the current status of compliance with the judgments on reparations in the
Aloeboetoe et al. and Gangaram Panday
Cases, which the Tribunal must receive in order to decide whether to close
those cases.
O. Academic Activities of the Judges
1. Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade carried out the following
activities:
a) He delivered the inaugural lecture at the Faculty of Law of the La
Salle University in San José, Costa Rica, on January 26, on the topic “Evolution
of International Environmental Law.” He represented the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at the Ceremony
for Presentation of the National Plan of Human Rights of Brazil, in Brasilia
on May 13, 1996. From July 8 to 12,
he taught a course on the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human
Rights at the XXVII Course of the International Institute of Human Rights
in Strasbourg, France.
b) Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade
delivered three lectures on the European and Inter-American Courts of Human
Rights from August 28 to 30 at the XXIII Course on International Law of the
OAS Inter-American Juridical Committee, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He was also General Rapporteur on “Universalism and Regionalism in
the International Protection of Human Rights” at the XIX Congress of the Hispano-Luso-American
Institute of International Law (IHLADI), held in Lisbon, Portugal, on September
25
c) As a guest of the International
Committee of the Red Cross (Geneva), Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade delivered
four lectures, from November 7 to 14, in Hong Kong and Macau, South of China,
on “The Current Status and Prospects of International Humanitarian Law”, and
“The Right to Due Legal Process in International Human Rights Law.”
2. Judge Alirio Abreu-Burelli represented the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights at the Specialized Conference on the Draft American Convention
against Corruption, held in Caracas, Venezuela, from March 27 to 29, 1996,
organized by the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.
3. Judge Alejandro Montiel-Argüello attended the XIX Congress of the Hispano-Luso-American
Institute of International Law, held in Lisbon, Portugal, in September 1996.
4. The Judges of the Court attended the Seminar on “The Inter-American
System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights” held in Washington,
D.C. from December 2 to 4, 1996. Judges
Fix-Zamudio, Salgado-Pesantes and Montiel-Argüello sat on Panel VI on the
Inter-American Court ‑ Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction, while
Judge Cançado Trindade chaired Panel II on “Individual Cases-Admissibility.”
P. Academic Activities
of the Secretary, Interim Deputy Secretary, and the Attorneys of the Court
The Secretary was
invited by the Catholic Pontifical University of Chile, Program of Postgraduate
Studies in Constitutional Law, to deliver two lectures on May 7 and 14, 1996.
The topic of the first was “The Contentious Function of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights” and the second on “The Advisory Function of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights.” On May 10,
1996, at the invitation of the Faculty of Law of the University of Chile,
he also delivered a lecture on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. He was also received in special audience by
the Full Illustrious Supreme Court of Chile.
Ms. Tathiana Flores-Acuña,
an attorney of the Court, attended the Central American Human Rights Forum
organized by the Central American Commission on Human Rights (CODEHUCA) in
May 1996; the Workshop on the United Nations Human Rights Committee organized
by the Central American Commission on Human Rights (CODEHUCA) in June 1996,
and the Conference on Civilian-Military Relations organized by the Arias Foundation
from August 1 to 3 in San José, Costa Rica.
At the XIV Interdisciplinary
Course on Human Rights, organized by the Inter-American Institute of Human
Rights in June 1996, the officials of the Court, at the Institute's request,
led a workshop on the Inter-American Court, which included an analysis of
its contentious and advisory functions and its provisional measures in the
light of the Court's jurisprudence.
In July 1996, Mr.
Víctor Rodríguez-Rescia was awarded a fellowship by the Inter-American Institute
of Human Rights to attend the XXVII session of the International Institute
of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
On July 23, 1996
Mr. William Cartwright, an attorney of the Court, led a seminar at its seat
on the jurisprudence of the Court and the inter-American system for the protection
of human rights for 30 students from Loyola University, California, United
States and various representatives of the American Bar Association.
Mr. Víctor Hugo Madrigal-Borloz,
an attorney of the Court, was awarded a fellowship by the Danish Center for
Human Rights to attend the “Human Rights Course” organized by the Center from
August 4 to 22 in Denmark, at which he delivered a lecture on the Court's
activities and the inter-American system of human rights.
In October of 1996
Secretariat attorneys William Cartwright and Derek Strain gave a course at
the seat of the Court to nine North American students from Friends University
on the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights.
From October 7 to
11, 1996, at the invitation of the academic authorities of the University
of San José, the Secretary and attorneys of the Court led a seminar on the
Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights at the University
in San José, Costa Rica.
The Secretary, Mr.
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, was invited by the Central American Commission on
Human Rights (CODEHUCA) to deliver a lecture in Guatemala on the inter-American
human rights system and the proceedings of the Inter-American Court from September
30 to October 2, 1996
From December 2 to
4, 1996 the Secretary of the Court, Mr. Manuel E. Ventura-Robles presented
the topic “The Experience of the Court in regard to the Protection of Human
Rights. Challenges for the Future” at the seminar on “The Inter-American System
for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights” held in Washington, D.C.
and organized by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.