Over the next three weeks, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights will hold two sessions, one at its seat in Costa Rica and the other in Paraguay, to continue its review of six pending cases and one advisory opinion request. These cases challenge a range of human rights problems, including lack of due process in immigration and extradition proceedings, failure to investigate killings – including when committed by police – and indigenous communities’ land rights.
The Court’s 104th Regular Session, which is taking place from August 18 to 29, will be immediately followed by its 51st Special Session, to be held from September 1 through 4. During the 104th Regular Session, the Court will consider four forthcoming judgments, an advisory opinion, and several orders relating to provisional measures and other matters. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)] The agenda for the 51st Special Session includes public hearings in two cases and a seminar on the role and impact of the Inter-American human rights system.
104th Regular Session
During its 104th regular session, the Court will meet privately at its headquarters in San Jose, Costa Rica to deliberate on four cases that were submitted to it by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and which raise issues of racial profiling in deportation, killings by police, a human rights defender’s murder, and an indigenous community’s land rights.
Tide Mendez et al. v. the Dominican Republic
The case of Tide Mendez et al. v. the Dominican Republic involves the mass expulsion of persons, including Benito Tide Mendez, from the Dominican Republic to Haiti based on discriminatory profiling practices. The Inter-American Commission submitted the case to the Court on June 12, 2012 after the State failed to comply with the recommendations included in the Commission’s merits report.
Considering the merits of the case, the Commission found a pattern of discrimination resulting from the Dominican authorities’ use of skin color and other physical characteristics to determine which persons to detain and expel, as part of the State’s efforts to target individuals of Haitian descent for removal. IACHR, Report No. 64/12, Case 12.271, Benito Tide Méndez et al.(Dominican Republic), 29 March 2012, para. 268. Additionally, the Commission found that the detention, treatment and subsequent mass expulsion of the petitioners resulted in multiple violations of their human rights, including to: juridical personality, humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, protection of the family, rights of the child, nationality, property, freedom of movement and residence, equality and nondiscrimination, and juridical protection. Id. para. 333.
The Commission admitted the petition back in 2005, but has continued to study the issues raised by this case and others, including through a recent country visit to the Dominican Republic.
Additional information and videos of the Court’s 2013 public hearing in the case are available on the Court’s Vimeo page. See IJRC’s coverage of the Court’s hearing here.
Landaete Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela
The case of Landaete Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela involves the extrajudicial execution of two brothers, which allegedly took place in a larger context of killings by police in Venezuela. The Inter-American Commission filed a letter of submission (Spanish only) with the Court on June 10, 2012 after the State failed to comply with the recommendations in the Commission’s merits report (Spanish only). [IACHR Press Release: Landaeta Mejías]
Brothers Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías and Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías were both killed by police officers in 1996 in the Venezuelan state of Aragua, in separate incidents a few weeks apart. Criminal proceedings against the responsible police officers were dismissed in the case of one brother and, as of 2012, ongoing in the case of the other. In its analysis regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies in the case of Igmar Alexander, the Commission noted a pattern of impunity in Venezuela “due to unwillingness to prosecute and punish perpetrators” in the phenomenon of extrajudicial killings by police, particularly in Aragua, and held that this excused the brothers’ family members from further pursuing criminal proceedings before presenting the petition to the Commission. See IACHR, Report No. 22/09, Petition 908-04, Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías and Others (Venezuela), 20 March 2009, paras. 49-53. See also IACHR, Report No. 23/07, Petition 435-06, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías and Others (Venezuela), 9 March 2007, paras. 44-47.
The Commission found that the State violated the victims’ rights to life and humane treatment, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías’ right to personal liberty and special protection for children, and the family members’ rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. The Commission recommended that the State conduct an investigation into the human rights violations described in the merits report, punish the individuals responsible for the violations, provide a mechanism to prevent repetition, and make other appropriate reparations. [IACHR Press Release: Landaeta Mejias]
The Commission and Court have heard other cases involving the phenomenon of extrajudicial killings in Aragua, including the case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. In that case, the Court found Venezuela responsible for violating a range of rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights, including the rights to life, personal integrity, liberty, and judicial protection, and ordered the State to complete an effective criminal investigation, examine and sanction – as appropriate – irregularities committed in the handling of the case, provide medical and psychological care to the victims, publicly acknowledge its international responsibility for the violations, award scholarships to some of the victims, implement training for the Aragua police, and pay damages to the victims. See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 393.
Information about this case and videos of the public hearings held earlier this year are available on the Court’s Vimeo page. See IJRC’s coverage of the Court’s hearing in the case here.
Gudiel Ramos and Others v. Guatemala
The Commission submitted the case of Gudiel Ramos and Others v. Guatemala to the Court on July 17, 2012. The case concerned the State’s failure to prevent the murder of human rights defender Florentin Gudiel Ramos in 2004. The Commission found the crime had gone unpunished due to irregularities and a lack of due diligence during the investigation. Additionally, the Commission held that the lack of protection for the family of the victim resulted in their displacement and a violation of their right to freedom of movement and residence. Also, the State’s actions resulted in a violation of its obligation to guarantee political rights for the victim and his family. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)]
The Commission admitted the petition in 2010. See IACHR, Report No. 109/10, Petition 1420-05, Florentin Gudiel Ramos, Makrina Gudiel Alvarez et al. (Guatemala), 8 September 2010. The Court has also decided a related case, involving the son of Mr. Gudiel Ramos, who was one of the student victims of forced disappearance in the “Diario Militar” case. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253.
Information about this case and videos of the public hearing held earlier this year are available on the Court’s Vimeo page. See IJRC’s coverage of the Court’s hearing in the case here.
Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayno and Their Members v. Panama
Finally, the Court will deliberate with regard to the case of the Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayno and Their Members v. Panama, which was submitted to the Court on February 26, 2013 after the State failed to comply with the recommendations included in the Commission’s merit report. The Commission found that the State had violated the rights of two indigenous groups with regard to their ancestral land and its natural resources, by failing to: recognize and demarcate their title to the lands, prevent other settlements and illegal logging on the lands, and compensate them for dispossession and flooding. Moreover, the Commission determined that Panama provided no appropriate and effective means for indigenous communities to claim their lands and seek redress for these violations, and that this situation was perpetuated in part by the State’s “assimilationist” approach to indigenous populations. IACHR, Case No. 12.534, Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayno and Their Members (Panama), Letter of Submission of February 26, 2013.
Credit:IACtHR
The Commission included several recommendations for the State in making reparation including: completing the process of formalizing, delimiting, and physically demarcating the territories; granting the petitioner’s appropriate compensation; adopting suitable measures to protect the petitioner’s territory; and taking steps to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. IACHR, Report No. 125/12, Case 12.354, Kuna Indigenous People Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayno and Their Members v. Panama, 13 November 2012, para. 307.
Information about this case and videos of the public hearings held earlier this year are available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Advisory Opinion on the Rights of Child Migrants
During this session, the Commission will also continue considering the advisory opinion on the rights of child migrants requested by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)] The States requested that the Court “determine the precise obligations of the States in relation to the possible measures to be adopted regarding children, their immigration status, or the status of their parents in light of the interpretation of Articles 1.1, 2, 4.1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 17, 19, 22.7, 22.8, 25, and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Articles 1, 6, 8, 25, and 27 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; and Article 13 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.” See I/A Court H.R., Observaciones a la Opinión Consultiva. This page collects the written comments relating to the advisory opinion submitted by States, international organizations and other interested parties.
Information about the request for an advisory opinion and videos of earlier public hearings are available on the Court’s Vimeo page. See IJRC’s coverage of the Court’s 2013 hearing on the advisory opinion here.
51st Special Session
During this special session in Paraguay, the Inter-American Court will hold public hearings to receive testimony and arguments from the parties in two pending cases. The first case involves the property rights of an indigenous community in Honduras, while the second raises alleged due process violations in the extradition of a Chinese national from Peru. View the agenda and other information on the dedicated 51st Special Session webpage, and watch the hearings on the Court’s livestream channel.
Garifuna Punta Piedra Community and Its Members v. Honduras
On September 2, the Court will hold a public hearing in the case of the Garifuna Punta Piedra Community and Its Members v. Honduras. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the case to the Court on October 1, 2013. In this case, involving the property rights of indigenous people, the Commission found that the State had not taken the necessary steps to ensure that the petitioners’ land was cleared of non-indigenous people and accessible to the petitioners. Furthermore, the Commission determined that the petitioners did not have access to an effective remedy to obtain peaceful possession of the land. [IACHR: Case Involving Honduras]
To remedy the situation and make reparations for the violations that occurred, the Commission recommended that the State take “the necessary legislative, administrative, or other measures to ensure that the land is not occupied by outsiders, in accordance with common-law rights, values, uses, and customs, and to guarantee to the members of the Community that they can continue their traditional way of life, in keeping with their cultural identity, social structure, economic system, and distinctive customs, beliefs, and traditions.” Additionally the Commission recommended that the State take measure to protect the property rights of the petitioners, prevent similar violations from occurring in the future, and safeguard the petitioners and the members of their community from acts of discrimination on the basis of their ethnic origins. [IACHR: Case Involving Honduras]
The Commission admitted the petition in 2010. See IACHR, Report No. 63/10, Petition 1119-03, Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and Its Members (Honduras), 24 March 2010. It has not yet published the letter of submission or merits report.
Wong Ho Wing v. Peru
The Court will also be holding a public hearing in the case of Wong Ho Wing v. Perú on September 3. At this hearing, the Inter-American Commission will state its reasons for bringing the case before the Court and any matter that it considers relevant to its resolution. Then, the Court will hear statements and final oral arguments from the representatives of the alleged victim and the State of Peru, as well as the final oral observations of the Inter-American Commission. [IACtHR: Caso Wong Ho]
The case was sent to the Court on October 30, 2012 after the Commission concluded that the State failed to comply with recommendations. This case involves a Chinese national taken into custody in Peru whose human rights were allegedly violated during the extradition process. The Commission found that omissions and irregularities in the proceedings resulted in violations of his rights to a fair trial, personal liberty, humane treatment, life, and judicial protection. [IACHR: Case Involving Peru]
This case is the Inter-American Court’s first chance to develop case law relating to the standards that must be applied in extradition cases and decisions in order to prevent States from violating international obligations under the American Convention on the Rights and Duties of Man. [IACHR: Case Involving Peru]
The Commission admitted the petition in 2010. See IACHR, Report No. 151/10, Petition 366-09, Wong Ho Wing (Peru), 1 November 2010. It has not yet published the letter of submission or merits report.
Public Seminar
Following the public hearings, the Court will hold an international seminar on the 4th of September. The seminar consists of three panels, on the following topics:
- The organs of the Inter-American System and their importance
- Judicial review and the impact of the decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A comparative look
- The jurisprudence of the Court in relation to groups requiring special protection and other matters of jurisprudence
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the judicial organ of the Inter-American human rights system. Its may only decide cases brought against Organization of American States Member States that have specifically accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. The Inter-American Commission must first process cases before they may be submitted to Court. Only States parties and the Commission may refer contentious cases to the Court.
Of the 23 OAS Member States that have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, 20 have accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction in accordance with Article 62 of the American Convention.
For more information on the Inter-American Commission or Court visit the Inter-American Human Rights System page of the IJRC Online Resource Hub.