Este reporte fue elaborado por Oswaldo Ruiz-Chiriboga.
El último número de la Revista Interamericana y Europea de Derechos Humanos – Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal (Vol. 5, No.1-2, 2012), ya se encuentra disponible. Este es el índice de la Revista con el respectivo resumen de cada artículo académico:
Translation Challenges of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Cost-Effective Proposals for Improvement, Á. Paúl
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, a regional adjudicating body, is fairly influential in domestic legal systems in the Americas. Its case law has also importance in other international forums, which the Court promotes by translating its judgments into English. The effort involved in translating the Court's case law is praiseworthy. However, translating legal documents is a difficult task, and the translations of the Court's case law are not always felicitous. In some cases they have even mislead scholars in the interpretation of the Court's case law. This paper, after pointing out some translation issues of the Inter-American Court, suggests ways in which the translations of the Court's decisions could be improved, without necessarily requiring a higher expenditure. These suggestions include the temporary release of preliminary versions of the English translations of the Court's decisions, the simplification of the language used in the judgments, and the reorientation of the publicity remedy which the Court usually orders.
American Convention on Human Rights Articles 46(1)(a) and 46(2)(c): Achilles Heel or Trojan Horse?, A. Singh
American Convention on Human Rights (henceforth the Convention) Articles 46(1) and 46(2) seek comprise yet appear to create ambiguity. In fact, Article 46(1) requires a complainant to exhaust domestic remedies and file their petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (henceforth IACommHR or Commission) within six months of a final domestic judgment. Conversely, Article 46(2) provides three exceptions to 46(1) when the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not viable. A superficial comparison of these provisions may find them unworkable, arbitrary, and creating legal uncertainty in practice. However, recent implementation of these provisions within the Inter-American system is remarkably consistent.
This paper shall (I) describe Articles 46(1) and 46(2); (II) highlight the implementation of these provisions within Inter-American jurisprudence through both a quantitative and qualitative analysis; and finally (III) attempt to identify best practices. This paper seeks to establish that, while many States attempt to utilize the exhaustion of domestic remedies as an Achilles Heel to the Inter-American human rights regime, recent jurisprudence within the system illustrates that this potentially fatal flaw is mitigated through the exemption found within Article 46(2).
Measures of Reparation for Victims of Gross Human Rights Violations: Developments and Challenges in the Jurisprudence of Two Regional Human Rights Courts, G. Citroni
The notions of victims of and measures of reparations for gross human rights violations have consistently evolved over the years. This contribution aims to analyse such development and the existing discrepancies in the jurisprudence of the European and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as the possibilities for further evolution. It is held that victims of gross human rights violations are not only those - individuals or communities - who directly suffer the harm, but also other people, such as relatives, who have suffered harm, be it physical, mental or economic, as a result of the violations. To a larger extent, also society as a whole shall be included in the notion of victim. Accordingly, also measures of reparations in cases of gross human rights violations cannot be limited to pecuniary compensation, but shall encompass measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. The participation of victims and their relatives in the design and implementation of programmes of reparation or in the choice of the most appropriate measures to pursue this end is critical to ensuring that measures of reparation have a real impact.
The Institutionalization of People with Mental Disabilities: Comparative Analysis between Its Treatment under the Inter-American and European System of Human Rights, E. Acuña-Pereda
People with mental disabilities are among the groups whose rights are most violated today. Mainly, they are not considered capable of making their own decisions, and they are placed in mental institutions without their consent and without the opportunity to challenge this measure. This disturbing figure, called institutionalization, has not been addressed adequately by states despite the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Within this background, this article compares and analyses the major efforts and contributions in relation to the institutionalization of people with mental disabilities in the two more recognized regional systems: the Inter-American and the European Systems of Hum an Rights. Through the instruments and jurisprudence their bodies have adopted it can be identified and concluded that the major difficulty was to decide on the absolute prohibition of institutionalization of people with mental disabilities. However, there has been progress in certain areas, mainly the ones regarding the rights to personal liberty, community life and access to justice. Both regional systems have gradually incorporated the principles of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in order to protect and ensure the rights of people with mental disabilities.
Interpreting the European Convention: What can the African Human Rights System Learn from the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on the Interpretation of the European Convention?, L. Burgorgue-Larsen
The methods of interpretation under the European Convention on Human Rights range from multifaceted judicial activism to judicial restraint aimed notably at avoiding needless antagonisation of the States. On the one hand, the Court's judicial activism developed through the use of several different types of interpretations. Alongside the 'cosmopolitical' method of interpretation, a very bold approach that ensured that the European Convention on Human Rights was always on the cutting edge and never ossified or became outdated, there were also several more targeted interpretive techniques that served the same end, i.e. to broaden the Convention's purview. On the other hand, the Court disposes of an array of tools allowing it to exercise strategic self-restraint to avoid arousing the ire of States intent on making sovereign decisions about their own societal choices. These include the national margin of appreciation, whose handling has not gone without criticism.
Gobernar desde abajo: Del control de convencionalidad a la instrumentalización de la inversión estructural de la pirámide kelseniana, N.E. Garay Boza
El control de convencionalidad, creado por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, es una plataforma desde la cual se pueden vislumbrar nuevas maneras de pensar al derecho, exponiéndose acá una de ellas, específicamente un modelo mediante el cual normas de rangos inferiores puedan tener validez constitucional o supraconstitucional por su compatibilidad con el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos, tal modelo se denomina inversión estructural de la pirámide kelseniana.
Advocacy for a U.S. Commission of Inquiry on Torture in the Context of the “War on Terror” Inspired by the Latin American Experience: Chile and El Salvador, Y.A. Romaña-Rivas
The main purpose of this paper is to discuss how a truth commission could be a pertinent and an effective tool to reveal the truth about allegations of torture by the United States (U.S.) government in the context of the war on terror. Two examples of truth commissions that contributed to reveal the truth of violation of human rights in two countries, Chile and El Salvador, are discussed. Additionally, this paper discusses the obligation that the U.S. government has under international law to investigate the allegations of torture, provide redress for the victims and their families, and sanctions for those most responsible for torture.
El sistema africano: Pilar más incipiente de la trilogía de mecanismos regionales de salvaguardia de los derechos humanos, E. Tardif
Después de Europa y América, África es el tercer continente en implementar un sistema de protección de los derechos humanos, basado en una serie de instrumentos jurídicos que tienen como punto central la Carta africana sobre los derechos humanos y de los pueblos, un grupo de instituciones políticas y cuasi jurisdiccionales encargadas de fomentar la cultura de los derechos humanos y fiscalizar su respeto y, de forma más reciente, un tribunal que tiene como misión emitir sentencias de carácter vinculante para los Estados, y evidenciar cuando éstos no cumplan con los compromisos adquiridos en la materia. El presente trabajo trata todas estas facetas de la situación de los derechos humanos en África, a través de ejemplos y datos que permiten plantear una valoración del sistema.
Implementation of Judgments: Should Supervision be Unlinked from the General Assembly of the Organization of American States?, J. Schneider
Implementation of judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights remains the weakest point of the Inter-American human rights protection system. At the end of 2011, out of 136 cases decided by the Court, 124 were still open for supervision. This evidences that purely judicial supervision, as is currently applied by the Court, is not sufficient. Complementary political action is inevitable.
After serious conflicts between the Court and the General Assembly on exhortation of recalcitrant states at the beginning of the 2000s, the Court had completely left the Assembly out of the process for years, developing its own supervision procedure. Nevertheless, in view of several cases pending without progress for years, the question of application of Article 65 ACHR has recently been discussed again among the Judges of the Court.
This paper will briefly present the background of the Court's dismay with the General Assembly, recount former reform proposals, critically assess the Judges' arguments for and against submission of cases to the Assembly, and finally make a proper proposal of how a more efficient political supervision mechanism might be conceived.