jueves, 26 de mayo de 2016

Artículos sobre la competencia de la Corte IDH ratione temporis y sobre el efecto erga omnes de sus sentencias


Reporte elaborado por Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga. 

En el último volumen de International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional (Vol. 27, 2015), se publicaron los siguientes artículos sobre la Corte IDH: 

Case of Indigenous Communities Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano and Its Members v. Panama 
Andrés Sarmiento-Lamus 

Resumen: “The judgment of 14 October 2014 in the Case of Indigenous Communities Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano and its members v. Panamá, concerned the alleged international responsibility of Panama for, inter alia, the continuous violation of the right to collective property of the indigenous communities due to the failure to compensate them for stripping and flooding of their territories, for the construction of a hydroelectric dam. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights decided in its judgment to be without jurisdiction ratione temporis to proceed to the merits of this claim. The article argues the decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights was incorrect from the standpoint of the continuous violations doctrine, as well as it argues that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights missed a unique opportunity to set forth the scope of its jurisdiction ratione temporis with regard to expropriations and the obligations deriving from it for States. Therefore, an appraisal and acknowledgment of judge Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot partial dissenting opinion is made, as sole dissenter in this aspect of the judgment.” 

El efecto erga omnes de las sentencias de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
María Angélica Benavides-Casals 

Resumen: “Las fuentes de derecho internacional público (en adelante, derecho internacional o DIP) son vinculantes para los Estados, mediando su consentimiento. En el caso de las principales fuentes del DIP —esto es tratados, costumbre, actos jurídicos unilaterales y principios generales del derecho—, es claro el consentimiento necesario para su obligatoriedad. Respecto de las sentencias de tribunales internacionales, y de acuerdo al artículo 59 del Estatuto de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (en adelante, CIJ), su obligatoriedad es, de acuerdo a texto expreso, vinculante para los Estados involucrados en la controversia abordada por el fallo que la resuelve. Esto se expande a toda la judicatura internacional. En este trabajo de reflexión se analizará la obligatoriedad, es decir, el carácter de fuente del derecho del contenido de las sentencias de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (en adelante, la Corte o CIDH), para aquellos Estados no parte en la controversia: efecto erga omnes de las sentencias de la Corte.”

Artículo: "Constitutional Lawyers and the Inter-American Court’s Varied Authority"


Reporte elaborado por Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga. 

En la revista Law and Contemporary Problems (Vol. 79, No. 1, 2016, pp. 179-207), se publicó un artículo de Alexandra Huneeus titulado “Constitutional Lawyers and the Inter-American Court’s Varied Authority”. Este es un extracto de la introducción del artículo: 

“The power of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) to shape government behavior varies greatly from country to country. All states subject to the Court’s jurisdiction accept its authority to adjudicate disputes, and all take at least some meaningful steps toward judgment compliance. Even the Chávez government, despite loudly campaigning against the Inter-American System (IAS) and eventually removing Venezuela from the Court’s jurisdiction, occasionally paid victims pursuant to Court orders. But in some states the Court’s judgments play a far greater role: they are untethered from the particular dispute that gives rise to them and take on a life as law-like rules that guide the subsequent behavior of public actors and the outcomes of disputes that never reach the Court. In some states the Court’s judgments even come to shape policymaking and public debates, constraining the range of options that are put on the table. The Colombian Constitutional Court, for example, regularly reviews national laws for compatibility with the American Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the IACtHR. And actors from all sides of Colombia’s currently unfolding peace process—from the uribistas who oppose it to the guerrilla leadership that is negotiating it—refer to IACtHR rulings as they debate whether and how to prosecute war crimes.”

Artículo: "Science and Harm in Human Rights Cases"



Reporte elaborado por Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga.

En la revista The Yale Law Journal (Vol. 125, 2016, pp. 331-342) se publicó un artículo de Eden Medina e Ilan Sandberg W. titulado “Science and Harm in Human Rights Cases: Preventing the Revictimization of Families of the Disappeared”. A continuación un extracto de la Introducción del artículo: 

“International human rights law and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights obligate states to investigate cases of forced disappearance (also called enforced disappearance) until the victim has been found and identified. However, neither specifies the precise mechanisms that states must use to comply with this obligation. Rather, the state’s commitment to international law is to guarantee that its agents will honor human rights principles and conduct due diligence in their investigations, regardless of the methods used.  
The motivation for this obligation is to end the uncertainty that families face, make the events of past atrocities public, and, in some cases, collect evidence for criminal proceedings. However, fact finding as a means of reparation can also lead to the revictimization of those affected, thereby causing a secondary harm. Since science and technology can assist with fact finding, they are commonly viewed as furthering processes of truth, justice, and reparation by advancing knowledge of human rights violations committed in the past. Yet, scientific findings can also be at odds with state aims and obligations and can result in the serious secondary harm of revictimization.”