|
|
¡Qué hay de nuevo!
|
|
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
|
|
Boletín No. 178, Año 9, 2016
|
|
|
Si tiene problemas para visualizar este mensaje haga clic
aquí |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TWITTER
|
|
CORREO
|
|
|
|
Constitutional lawyers and the Inter-American Court's varied authority.
Alexandra Huneeus.
|
|
|
|
En: Law and Contemporary Problems.
Vol. 79, No. 1 (2016)
|
Resumen: 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.
|
|
|
Inverting human rights: The Inter-American Court versus Costa Rica.
Robert S. Barker.
En: University of Miami Inter-American Law Review.
Vol. 47, No. 1 (2015-2016)
|
|
|
Resumen: Costa Rica has for many years been
deeply and genuinely committed to the worldwide rule of law and, in
particular, to the protection of human rights through the inter-American
legal system and to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights. In the year 2000 Costa Rica's Constitutional Chamber
declared unconstitutional the country's program of in-vitro
fertilization, primarily because the program violated the right to life
as guaranteed by the national Constitution and by international
conventions, in that the in-vitro fertilization process exposed large
numbers of embryos to death, as only a very small percentage of in-vitro
fertilizations resulted in live births. The following year a Costa
Rican citizen brought proceedings against his country before the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, arguing that the decision of
the Constitutional Chamber violated the right of privacy, the right to
raise a family, and other rights guaranteed by the American Convention
on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission agreed with the
complainant, and, after unsuccessful attempts to negotiate a change in
Costa Rica's policy, referred the matter to the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights. In 2012, the Inter-American Court, by vote of five-toone,
decided that the 2000 decision of Costa Rica's Constitutional Chamber
was a violation by Costa Rica of the American
Convention on Human Rights. The work that follows analyzes and evaluates
the decisions of the Constitutional Chamber and the Inter-American
Court, and discusses the juridical aftermath of those decisions.
|
|
 |
A comparative approach to
prisoners' rights in the European Court of Human Rights and
Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence.
Francesco Seatzu y Simona Fanni.
En: Denver Journal of International Law and Policy.
Vol. 44, No. 1 (2015)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Resumen: In its landmark decision of 1984 on
the Campbell and Fell case, the European Court of Human Rights ("ECtHR")
correctly observed that: "Justice cannot stop at the prison gate." This
statement perfectly captured the rationale for a human rights approach
to prison management. It also vividly expresses the auspices of all the
actors involved in ensuring respect for human rights in prisons and
similar institutions: Public authorities, civil society organizations,
and prominently, judicial and quasijudicial human rights bodies. The
ECtHR's remark also helps to understand why legal scholars from all
countries have produced detailed commentaries and critical examinations
of the rules of international law, including the numerous non-binding
international standards, guidelines, and provisions applying directly to
the prison sector or intended to provide protection in cases where the
detainees' rights are at risk. The international community clearly feels
the need to identify international standards on the protection of the
fundamental rights of detainees. This need stems firstly from the fact
that a number of monitoring bodies including the ECtHR and the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights ("ACtHR"), but not the United
Nations human rights bodies-have usually been partially or sometimes
even totally unaware of their practical significance for the detainee
population and have therefore not exercised their functions with full
effectiveness. |
|
|
Tentativas de contenção do ativismo judicial da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos.
Alice Rocha da Silva y Andrea de Quadros Dantas Echeverría.
En: Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas.
Vol. 5 (2015, número especial)
|
|
|
|
Resumen: O ativismo judicial resultante da
atuação de alguns juízes da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos
pode ser prejudicial para a legitimidade do Sistema Interamericano
devendo ser contido a fim de limitar eventuais efeitos nocivos. Embora o
ativismo judicial esteja presente tanto no âmbito doméstico como no
internacional, no contexto nacional, existem mecanismos capazes de
conter os efeitos desse ativismo como, por exemplo, o sistema de freios e
contrapesos representados pela tripartição dos poderes. Já no âmbito
internacional, tal contenção somente poderia ser realizada por meio de
vinculação da atuação de tais tribunais às capacidades conferidas pelos
Estados soberanos que os compõem. Ou seja, o juiz da Corte
Interamericana de Direitos Humanos não possui liberdade irrestrita para
proferir suas decisões, estando seu poder de decidir limitado pela
aplicação e interpretação dos acordos ratificados pelos Estados Membros
da Convenção. Nesse sentido, o artigo parte da análise do ativismo e da
judicialização da política no sentido lato, fazendo um comparativo das
causas e limites desse ativismo no âmbito nacional e internacional,
para, então, analisar os efeitos de tal prática e de que forma ela pode
ser contida, sobretudo no âmbito internacional. |
|
|
Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica: The
Inter-American Court on Human Rights' promotion of non-existent human
rights obligation to authorize artificial reproductive technologies.
Ligia M. de Jesús.
En: UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs.
Vol. 18, No. 2 (2014)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Resumen: In Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica, the
Inter-American Court on Human Rights examined the question of whether
Costa Rica may, under the American Convention on Human Rights, protect
human embryos from destruction by banning in vitro fertilization (IVF)
in its jurisdiction. The case provoked the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights' first debate on the existence of international human rights
obligations to authorize and fund artificial reproductive technologies
as well as its first interpretation on the right to life from
conception, established in Article 4(1) of the American Convention. In
the judgment, issued over one year ago, the Inter-American court held
that "personal decisions" to produce biological children by in vitro
fertilization (IVF) were protected under the American Convention on
Human Rights, and ordered Costa Rica to authorize IVF and subsidize IVF
services through its Social Security system. In addition, it gave the
most restrictive interpretation possible to Article 4(1) of the American
Convention on Human Rights, which protects prenatal life from
conception. This Article critically analyzes the court's creation of
international human rights obligations to facilitate artificial
reproduction in Artavia, according to international norms of treaty
interpretation, as stated in the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties and the American Convention on Human Rights, article 29.
Specifically, this Article focuses on the creation of state obligations
to authorize and fund IVF, not on the court's interpretation of Article
4(1), which merits separate analysis. |
|
|
A executividade das sentenças da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos no Brasil.
Augusto César Leite de Resende.
En: Revista de Direito Internacional.
Vol. 10, No. 2 (2013)
|
|
|
|
Resumen: Considerando que o ordenamento jurídico
brasileiro aparentemente não tem mecanismos apropriados para executar no
âmbito de sua jurisdição interna obrigação extrapecuniária estipulada
pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos ao Brasil, uma vez que o
art. 68.2 da Convenção Americana sobre Direitos Humanos atribui eficácia
executiva somente à parte pecuniária das sentenças proferidas pela
referida Corte, não fazendo menção à eventual condenação de natureza
extrapatrimonial, o presente artigo científico tem como objetivo
principal apresentar, a partir de uma pesquisa dedutiva, doutrinária e
legislativa, argumentos favoráveis à concepção de que as sentenças da
Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, independentemente da natureza
da obrigação imposta ao Brasil, são títulos executivos judiciais. Para
isso, abordaram-se os aspectos gerais do sistema interamericano de
direitos humanos, seus principais documentos normativos e órgãos
incumbidos da proteção e da promoção dos direitos humanos nas Américas.
Em seguida, tratou-se do papel da Corte Interamericana na implementação
dos direitos humanos no Brasil e a força executiva de suas sentenças no
âmbito da jurisdição interna brasileira. Ao final, conclui-se que as
condenações extrapecuniárias da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos
podem ser executadas perante o Poder Judiciário brasileiro porque são
títulos executivos judiciais. Destinado aos estudiosos de direito
internacional dos direitos humanos, o presente paper é original e
contribui para a efetividade e proteção dos direitos humanos no Brasil. |
|
|
Inter-American System of Human Rights: Challenges to compliance with the Court's decisions in Brazil.
Elisa Mara Coimbra.
En: Revista Internacional de Derechos Humanos: Sur.
Vol. 19, No. 1 (2013)
|
|
|
|
Resumen: The reciprocal interactions between the
Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) and the National Legal
System, more than a promise, currently constitute a reality, which must,
however, be perfected. With the growing profusion of legal norms and
modification of classic legal structures, human rights represent an
effort toward a "truly common law" (DELMAS-MARTY, 2004), whose purpose
is not to compromise the cultural and legal identity of each State, nor
empty them entirely of sovereignty, since important global actors are
involved. On the contrary, a "truly common law" responds to the need to
coordinate regulation imposed by globalization, safeguarding pluralism
and prioritizing the protective character of human rights in raising the
visibility of groups marginalized by national structures. Thus, "the
IAHRS offers institutional bases for the construction of a transnational
public sphere' that can contribute to the broadening of Brazilian
democracy". In this way, the improvement of mechanisms for complying
with decisions of the IAHRS corresponds to a movement at the heart of
the formal structures of the State, to make viable public policies
affecting the most vulnerable groups, oftentimes invisible on the
internal plane, whoever they are. "Subjects that haven't found space in
the national political agenda can be highlighted in these transnational
spaces and, afterwards, included in the domestic political debate within
a new configuration of power". It is the boomerang method of influence,
in which, for a national political objective to be met, it may be
necessary, when opportunities are blocked in the national sphere, to
launch mobilizations in international spheres which can apply pressure
to national States. |
|
|
The Inter-American Human Rights Law of Indigenous Peoples.
Dinah Shelton.
En: University of Hawai'i Law Review.
Vol. 35, No. 2 (2013)
|
|
|
Resumen: The relationship of an indigenous
community with its land must be recognized and understood as the
fundamental basis of its culture, spiritual life, integrity and economic
survival. For such peoples their communal nexus with the ancestral
territory is not merely a matter of possession and production, but
rather consists in material and spiritual elements that must be fully
integrated and enjoyed by the community, so that it may preserve its
cultural legacy and pass it on to the future generation.' Over 40
million of the estimated 370 million indigenous people in the world are
located in member countries of the Organization of American States
("OAS"), where over 400 indigenous groups' inhabit highly vulnerable
ecosystems rich in mineral, biological and water resources. European
colonization resulted in widespread dispossession of indigenous
ancestral lands, but recent decades have witnessed renewed pressure on
remaining traditional territories as outsiders have sought to extract or
convert natural resources to supply growing global demands. Once almost
inaccessible indigenous territories have become major sources of
hydroelectric power, minerals, hardwoods and pasture lands. Some
indigenous regions are also being threatened or lost due to climate
change. The invasion of the outside world and the changes it has wrought
have brought disease, exploitation, loss of language and culture, and
in too many instances, complete annihilation of indigenous communities
as distinct entities. Even now, some of the most marginalized and
vulnerable people are losing their lands, their liberty, their identity
and too often their lives.
|
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario