The role of the compliance of reparations ordered by the Inter-American court of human rights in countering state impunity in cases of grave human rights violations

• Autor: Raimy Reyes
• Cargo: Human rights lawyer with a Master's in International Human Rights Law from Georgetown Law
• Páginas: 1-16

1

THE ROLE OF THE COMPLIANCE OF REPARATIONS

ORDERED BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF

HUMAN RIGHTS IN COUNTERING STATE IMPUNITY IN

CASES OF GRAVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Raimy Reyes*

I. INTRODUCTION

In its case law, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,

as a supranational human rights tribunal in the Americas, has

declared the international responsibility of States in cases of grave

human rights violations. Consequently, the Inter-American Court

has ordered reparations to guarantee the rights infringed, redress

the consequences of the infringements, and determine payment of

indemnification as compensation for damage caused. The

compliance of these judgments, even when partial, has helped

counter State impunity in cases of grave human rights violations,

such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Inter-American Human Rights System is composed by

the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-

American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American

Court”, “the Court”, or “the I/A Court H.R.”). The Inter-American

Court, installed in 1979 through the American Convention on

Human Rights, is an autonomous judicial institution whose

purpose is the application and interpretation of the American

Convention. It has both contentious and advisory jurisdiction.

1

The

* Human rights lawyer with a Master's in International Human Rights Law from

Georgetown Law, sponsored by the Fulbright Foreign Student Program of the

U.S. Department of State. Raimy obtained her law degree from the P ontificia

Universidad Católica Madre y Maestra in Sa nto Domingo, and is also a

Specialist in Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law from the

Ministry of Defense of the Dominican Republic. She curre ntly works as a Public

Policy Analyst at the National Institute of Mi gration of the Dominican Republic.

Her human rights practice focuses mainly on the protectio n of the rights of

2 REV. DE DERECHO INT’L & COMP. (REDIC) [Vol. 2:1

American Convention on Human Rights has been ratified by 23 of

the 35 member States of the Organization of American States.

2

States Parties to the American Convention must guarantee

compliance with the provisions thereof and their effectiveness

within their domestic legal systems. This principle applies not only

to the substantive provisions of human rights treaties, but also to

procedural provisions, such as those concerning compliance with

the Court’s decisions. These obligations should be interpreted and

enforced in such a manner that the protected guarantee is truly

practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of

human rights treaties.

3

In various cases (Barrios Altos v. Peru, Almonacid

Arellano et al. v. Chile, Guerrilha do Araguaia v. Brasil,

Massacres of El Mozote v. El Salvador, Gelman v. Uruguay), the

Inter-American Court has established that acts that meet the

elements of crimes against humanity and war crimes must be

investigated, prosecuted, and punished in keeping with the

American Convention on Human Rights. The Court has ordered

States that were found internationally responsible of such

migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons, internally displaced

persons, victims of human trafficking and other persons in need of international

protection. Email: raimyreyes@gmail.com.

1

American Convention on Human Rights, arts. 63 and 64.

2

The 23 OAS member States that have rati fied the American Convention are:

Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica,

Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti,

Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, P araguay, Peru, Suriname, and

Uruguay. Trinidad and T obago and Venezuela also rat ified the American

Convention but later denounced having effects such complaints in 1999 and

2013 respectively. See: IACHR, Annual Report 2015, Introduction: Status of

Ratification of Inter-American Instruments, available at:

http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/annual/2015/TOC.asp.

3

I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of

September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 33; Case of De la Cruz Flores v.

Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of September

1, 2010, Considering Clause six, and Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama.

Monitoring Compliance with Judgment Order of the Court of September 1,

2010, Considering Clause six.