Credit: IACtHR
The 109th Ordinary Session of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) began on June 18 and concluded on July 1, 2015, in San Jose, Costa Rica. During this session, the Court publicly heard two cases, Chinchilla Sandoval and Others v. Guatemala and Yarce and Others v. Colombia. The first case concerned the ill-treatment, followed by the death, of a diabetic woman incarcerated in Guatemala, the second case concerned the situation of five Colombian human rights defenders. The Court was also scheduled to: hold a public hearing regarding Panama’s request for an advisory opinion; analyze the possibility of issuing judgments for three cases, hold a private hearing on compliance with two Barbados judgments, and celebrate the 21st Annual Meeting of Presidents and Judges of Tribunals, Courts, and Constitutional Chambers of Latin America. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)]
Videos of the public hearings and events are available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Public Hearings
Chinchilla Sandoval and Others v. Guatemala
On June 22nd and 23rd, the Court heard final oral arguments in Chincilla Sandoval and Others v. Guatemala. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)] The case concerns the treatment of Maria Chinchilla Sandoval, who died while incarcerated at the Female Orientation Center in Fraijanes, Guatemala. In its decision on the merits, issued in 2014, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) found that Guatemala’s treatment of Ms. Chinchilla violated her rights to life, humane treatment, fair trial, and judicial protection by, among other things, failing to provide her with the special treatment and care that she needed. Given that Ms. Chinchilla suffered from diabetes, the Commission noted the State’s special duty to her. See IACHR, Report No. 7/14, Case 12.739, Chinchilla Sandoval and Others (Guatemala), Merits, 2 April 2014.
The Commission submitted the case to the Court in 2014 after Guatemala, in response to the Commission’s merits report, stated that it had not violated the American Convention and refused to pay reparations. See IACHR, Letter of Submission to the Court, Case No. 12.739, Chinchilla Sandoval and Others (Guatemala), 19 August 2014. The Commission had recommended, inter alia, that the State pay full reparations, conduct an investigation to establish responsibilities for the violations committed, and put into place measures to ensure that the violations that Ms. Chinchilla suffered not be repeated. See See IACHR, Report No. 7/14, Case 12.739, Chinchilla Sandoval (Guatemala), Merits, 2 April 2014, para. 196.
A video of this hearing is available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Yarce and Others v. Colombia
Yarce and Others v. Colombia concerns the treatment of five human rights defenders and their families in an area of Medellín, Colombia known as “Comuna 13,” in 2002 in the context of the decades long armed conflict, characterized by confrontations between armed paramilitary groups and the public. On June 26, 2015, the Court heard testimony from witnesses; final oral arguments from both parties; and the Commission’s concluding observations on preliminary objections and possible merits, reparations, and costs. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)]
In its decision, the Commission had found Colombia responsible for numerous rights violations, including harassment, forced displacement, and murder. See IACHR, Report No. 86/13, Case Nos. 12.595, 12.596 and 12.621, Ana Teresa Yarce et al. (Colombia), Merits, 4 November 2014. The Commission had issued precautionary measures asking the Colombian government to adopt measures to protect the lives and physical integrity of some of the applicants and noted its particular concern for the situation of women human rights defenders in Colombia. See id. at para. 168.
The Commission submitted the case to the Court in 2014 because Colombia had not demonstrated significant progress towards complying with the Commission’s recommendations, such as investigating the incidents, makig reparations to the victims and their families, and providing them with protection. See IACHR, Letter of Submission to the Court, Cases Nos. 12.595, 12.596, and 12.621, Ana Teresa Yarce et al. (Colombia), 3 June 2014.
A video of this hearing is available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Panama’s Request for an Advisory Opinion
On June 25th, the Court held a public hearing on Panama’s request of April 28, 2014, for an advisory opinion. Among other things, Panama asked the Court to explain whether the American Convention on Human Rights protects the rights of legal entities such as unions and companies and whether a corporation is able to exhaust domestic remedies and bring a claim to the Commission on behalf of its members, or whether each individual or shareholder must individually exhaust domestic remedies and submit a petition to the Commission. I/A Court H.R. Request for Advisory Opinion (Panama), April 28, 2014.
Panama’s request was accompanied by briefs submitted by other States, the IACHR, and a variety of non-governmental organizations and academic institutions. I/A Court H. R., Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Request for Advisory Opinion, May 21, 2015. For example, Human Rights Clinic of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa submitted an amicus curiae brief arguing that a legal entity, such as a corporation, should not be able to exhaust domestic remedies on behalf of an individual member or shareholder and that an individual “must be a party to the domestic proceeding,” in order for a claim to be brought to the IACHR. The International Commission for Labor Rights (ICLR) submitted a letter urging the Court to refrain from recognizing corporations as “people” entitled to human rights.
At the public hearing, the Court intended to: hear oral arguments from Panama; observations from other States and from the Commission; and review written comments from State agencies, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)]
A video of this hearing is available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Private Hearings
On July 1st, the Court was scheduled to hold a private audience to monitor compliance with the judgments it had issued in two cases from Barbados: Boyce et al. v. Barbados and DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados. The private audience was intended to provide the State the opportunity to provide current and detailed information about its compliance with the measures of reparation ordered by the Court and to hear the observations of the victims’ representatives and the IACHR. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)] In Boyce et al. v. Barbados, the Court found that Barbados violated four individuals’ right to life when it imposed a mandatory death penalty on them under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1994, which states that anyone convicted of murder “shall be sentenced to, and suffer, death.” See I/A Court H.R., Boyce et al. v. Barbados, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 20 November 2007, para. 71, 138. The Court reasoned that the mandatory death penalty sentence arbitrarily imposes an irreversible penalty without consideration for the particular circumstances of the crime or each individual offender’s level of culpability and participation. See id., para. 71. Finally, the Court found that the treatment of the incarcerated individuals, including confining them to their cells 23 hours of the day for over four years, not providing adequate lighting and ventilation in their cells, and allowing for cell overcrowding, violated their rights to humane treatment as well as dignity. See id. at 94, 102.
In DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, the Court, citing its opinion in Boyce et al. v. Barbados, concluded that the imposition of a mandatory death penalty constituted a violation of the right to life, and that by continuing to impose the death penalty mandatorily in cases of murder, Barbados violated, among other rights, the right to life. See I/A Court H.R. DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 24 September 2009, para. 58.
Additional Cases
The IACtHR was also scheduled to analyze the possibility of issuing judgments in three cases: Granier and Others (Radio Caracas Television – RCTV) v. Venezuela, Canales Huapaya and Others v. Peru, and Wong Ho Wing v. Peru.
Granier and Others (Radio Caracas Television – RCTV) v. Venezuela
In Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television-RCTV) v. Venezuela, the IACHR found that Venezuela violated the rights to freedom of expression and to equal protection, as well as the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection. This finding was based on Venezuela’s decision to not renew Radio Caracas Television’s (RCTV) license, as a result of which RCTV no longer transmitted as an open television station. This impacted the freedom of expression of RCTV’s stockholders, directors, journalists, and others associated with the station. See IACHR, Report No. 112/12, Case No. 12.828, Marcel Granier et al. (Venezuela), 9 November 2012.
In 2013, the IACHR submitted the case to the IACtHR because Venezuela had failed to inform the IACHR, within the required time period, about its compliance with the recommendations. These recommendations included the following: taking steps to allocate a free-to-air television frequency in which RCTV would be able to participate equally, making reparations to victims for the damages they suffered, and adopting measures to comply with international obligations. [IACHR Press Release] See IACHR, Letter of Submission to the Court, Case No. 12.828, Marcel Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Television)(Venezuela), 28 February 2013.
Information about this case and videos of the public hearing are available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Canales Huapaya and Others v. Peru
In Canales Huapaya and Others v. Peru, the IACHR found that Peru had violated the right to fair trial and judicial protection when it did not provide an adequate and effective judicial response when three Congressional employees were dismissed from their posts, as part of the breakdown of democracy after President Alberto Fujimori’s coup d’état. See Report No. 10/12, Case 12.214, Canales Huapaya et al. (Peru), Merits, November 2012.
The Commission submitted the case to the IACtHR’s jurisdiction in 2013 because Peru had not provided information about steps it had taken to implement the Commission’s recommendations including giving reparations to the victims, even after the Commission had given Peru three extensions on its original two month deadline to provide information regarding compliance. See IACHR, Letter of Submission to the Court, Case No. 12.214, Canales Huapaya et al. (Peru), 5 December 2013.
Information about this case and videos of the public hearing are available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Wong Ho Wing v. Peru
In Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, the Commission found that the State had violated Mr. Wong Ho Wing’s rights to liberty, life, humane treatment, fair trial, and judicial protection when he was arrested, detained for more than five years under “provisional arrest,” and faced extradition proceedings to China. See Report No. 78/13, Case 12.794, Wong Ho Wing v. Peru (Peru), Merits, July 18, 2013. The Commission submitted the case to the Court’s jurisdiction after Peru stated that it disagreed with the Commission’s findings and failed to provide the Commission with information regarding progress in complying with its recommendations, which included, among other things, concluding the extradition process and making reparations. See id.
Information about this case and videos of the public hearing are available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
The 21st Annual Meeting of Presidents and Judges of Tribunals, Courts, and Constitutional Chambers of Latin America
The 21st Annual Meeting of Presidents and Judges of Tribunals, Courts, and Constitutional Chambers of Latin America took place from June 18th to June 20th. The meeting, which was jointly organized by the IACtHR and the State Program of Law for Latin America of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, brought together 23 judges from tribunals, courts, and constitutional courts throughout Latin America, the IACtHR, the Caribbean Court of Justice, the Constitutional Court of Germany, and international experts. The meeting was intended to provide the participants the opportunity to discuss constitutional issues in Latin America. [IACtHR Press Release (Spanish only)]
A video from this event is available on the Court’s Vimeo page.
Additional Information
For more information on the Inter-American Human Rights System, please visit the IJRC Online Resource Hub.