the practice and procedure of the inter … · the practice and procedure of the inter-american...

THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE OF

THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

JoM.Pasqualucci provides a comprehensive critiqueof the Inter-American

Court of Human Rights, which is at once scholarly yet practical. She an-

alyzes all aspects of the Court’s advisory jurisdiction, contentious juris-

diction and provisional measures orders. When relevant, she compares

the practice and procedure of the Inter-American Court with that of the

European Court of Human Rights, the International Court of Justice and

the United Nations Human Rights Committee. She also evaluates the new

Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court and the Inter-American

Commission, which entered into force in May and June of 2001 and bring

about important procedural changes in the interrelationship of those or-

gans. In addition, she cites the effectiveness of the Convention and the

Court’s rulings in the domestic law of the States Parties to the Convention.

This book will provide an important resource for scholars, practitioners

and students of international human rights law and practice.

jo m. pasqualucci is Professor of Law at the University of South

Dakota. She earned an SJD in International and Comparative Law from

the GeorgeWashington University Law School, and she was affiliated with

the Inter-American Court of HumanRights as a Fulbright scholar in Costa

Rica. She has lived for several years in Central America. Her articles on the

Inter-AmericanCourt have been published in journals such as the Stanford

Journal of International Law, theMichigan Journal of International Law and

the Virginia Journal of International Law.

© Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org

Cambridge University Press0521825954 - The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human RightsJo M. PasqualucciFrontmatterMore information

http://www.cambridge.org/0521825954

http://www.cambridge.org


THE PRACTICE

AND PROCEDURE OF

THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT

OF HUMAN RIGHTS

JO M. PASQUALUCCI






published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge

The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP, United Kingdom

cambridge university press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge, CB2 2RU, UK

40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011–4211, USA

477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia

Ruiz de Alarcon 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain

Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa


C© Jo M. Pasqualucci 2003

This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,

no reproduction of any part may take place without

the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

First published 2003

Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge

Typeface Adobe Minion 10.75/12.75 pt. System LATEX2ε [tb]

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 0 521 82595 4 hardback

ISBN 0 521 53335 X paperback






To my father,Lorenzo Pasqualucci,

who sparked and nurtured my love of learning.






CONTENTS

Foreword xv

Preface xix

Acknowledgments xxii

Table of cases xxiii

Table of Articles of the American Convention on Human Rights xxxix

Table of 2001 Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court on Human

Rights xli

Table of 2001 Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on

Human Rights xliii

Table of other legal instruments and documents xlv

1 Introduction 1Introduction 1The Inter-American human rights system 2A concise history of the Inter-American Court 7Composition of the Court 9Overview of jurisdiction 11An illustrative contentious case 13

Facts 13Procedures before the Commission 14Procedures before the Court 15Preliminary objections 15Proceedings on the merits 16Provisional measures 16Decision on the merits 17Reparations 17

Procedural advances made by the Court and the Commission 18Proposals for change to the Inter-American system 22Conclusion 25

vii






viii contents

P A R T I The advisory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court 27

2 Advisory practice and procedure: contributing to the evolution ofinternational human rights law 29Advisory opinions in general 29Character and scope of the Inter-American Court’s advisory

jurisdiction 31Competence de la competence 33Jurisdiction ratione personae (standing) 36

Standing of Member States to request advisory opinions 37Standing of OAS organs to request advisory opinions 39

Jurisdiction ratione materiae (subject matter jurisdiction) 44Jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions interpreting the American

Convention 46Interpretation of the substantive provisions of the American

Convention 47Interpretation of the procedural provisions of the American

Convention 52Jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions interpreting other treaties 55

Other Inter-American treaties 57Non-regional treaties 57

Jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions on the compatibility of domestic lawsof a Member State 58

Jurisdiction ratione temporis following the attempted withdrawal of a requestfor an advisory opinion 60

Advisory jurisdiction subject to the Court’s discretion 61Discretion to exercise advisory jurisdiction over a case in dispute between two

States or between a State and an international organization 63Discretion to exercise advisory jurisdiction over a dispute that is before another

international body 67Court procedures applicable to an advisory opinion request 68

Requirements of the request 71Admissibility 71Notification of the submission 72Written proceedings 73Amicus briefs 74Preliminary objections to an advisory request 75Oral proceedings 77Content, delivery and publication of advisory opinions 79

Conclusion 80






contents ix

P A R T II The contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights 81

3 Preliminary objections: legitimate issues and illegitimatetactics 83Preliminary objections: an overview 83Preliminary objections to jurisdiction 87Manner in which a State may accept the jurisdiction of the Inter-American

Court 88Objections to jurisdiction ratione materiae 90

The ‘fourth instance formula’ 92Manifestly groundless petitions 95State reservations modifying the ratione materiae of

the Convention 96Objections to jurisdiction ratione personae 97

Jurisdiction ratione personae: passive legitimation 97Jurisdiction ratione personae: active legitimation 98Jurisdiction ratione personae: standing to file a complaint with

the Commission 99Jurisdiction ratione personae to consider petitions filed by any person or

group of persons 99Jurisdiction ratione personae to consider State-filed complaints 103Jurisdiction ratione personae to consider concrete cases 103Jurisdiction ratione personae to consider cases in which the victim is an

individual or shareholder in a business entity 105Objections to jurisdiction ratione temporis 107

Lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis if the violation took place before theState ratified the treaty 107

State acceptance of jurisdiction with temporal conditions 108Jurisdiction ratione temporis over continuing violations 110Jurisdiction ratione temporis over States that denounce

the Convention 113Jurisdiction ratione temporis over States that attempt to withdraw

acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court 115Objections to jurisdiction ratione loci 117

Jurisdiction ratione loci not limited to a State’s physicalterritory 117

Limitation of jurisdiction ratione loci must be expressly permittedby treaty 119

Additional jurisdictional issues 120Preliminary objections to admissibility 123

Objections that the petition to the Commission was inadmissible because thepetitioner did not comply with the formal requirements of theConvention 124Technical informational requirements 124Six-month rule 125






x contents

Lis pendens: petition not substantially the same as one previously studied orpending before another international body 127

Exhaustion of domestic remedies 129Domestic remedies must be adequate and effective 131Exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies 133

Objections that the Commission failed to follow the procedures mandated bythe Convention 135Decision on admissibility 136

The Court’s review of the Commission’s admissibility decision 139Fact-finding before the Commission 141

Hearings before the Commission are not required 142On-site investigations in the State are not required 144Presumption of the truth of the allegations in the complaint 146

Friendly settlement 147Reporting requirements 150

Extension of time for reconsideration of the report or an attempt to reacha friendly settlement 152

Treatment of claims not asserted by the Commission 153Partial referral of only some of the claims cited in the Commission’s

report 155The Commission’s decision to submit the case to the Court 156

Objections that the Commission did not comply with Conventionrequirements in submitting the case to the Court 157Deadline for submission of a case to the Court 157

Method of computing time periods 158Extension of the time period for submission of the application 159

Methods of filing the application 160Contents of the application 161Amendment of the application 163

Proceedings before the Court 163Deadline for filing preliminary objections 165Specificity of and support for preliminary objections 166Deadlines and consideration of the merits are not suspended during

consideration of preliminary objections 167Public hearings on preliminary objections 168Application of the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and good faith to preliminary

objections 169Waiver 169Estoppel 171Good faith 172

Character of the Court’s decision on preliminary objections 173Admit the objection 173Join the objection to the merits 174Reject some or all objections 176

Withdrawal of preliminary objections 177Conclusion 179






contents xi

4 Proceedings on the merits: fact-finding and attribution of Stateresponsibility 181Introduction 181Joinder of cases and proceedings before the Court 182Failure of a party to appear or to continue proceedings 184The scope of the Court’s fact-finding powers 185State obligations to comply with Court orders 187Admission of evidence 188

Order and time of submission of evidence 190Exceptions to timely submission of evidence 192The Court’s discretion to admit extemporaneous evidence 192

Oral proceedings 193Public hearings barring exceptional circumstances 195Location of hearings 196Structure of hearings 197Testimonial evidence 198Objections to testimonial evidence 200Expert witnesses 202Documentary evidence 204Demonstrative evidence 207

Presumptions and circumstantial evidence 208Burden of proof 210Standard of proof 213Judicial notice 213Amicus curiae briefs 214Written closing arguments 215

Deliberations and notification of judgment 215Request for interpretation of Judgment 216Revision of judgment on the basis of newly discovered facts or

fraudulent evidence 218Attribution of State responsibility 219

Violations committed by agents of the State including agents of territorialgovernments 221

Violations committed by non-governmental groups or individuals actingunder the direction or control of the State 222

Ultra vires acts of State agents or those empowered by the State 223Failure to investigate and punish violations by persons not acting on behalf of

the State 224No basis of reparations for violations committed by groups rebelling against

the government unless the group is successful 227Conclusion 228

5 Victim reparations 230Introduction 230The Inter-American Court’s authority to award victim reparations 233






xii contents

Persons who may be awarded reparations 235The goal of full restitution (restitutio in integrum) 239The State must ensure the injured party the enjoyment of the right or freedom

violated 240The State must take measures to remedy the consequences of

the violation 242Duty to investigate, identify, publicize and punish 242Court order that the State amend, adopt or repeal domestic laws or

judgments 245Order to adopt laws or procedures 246Order to amend laws 247Declaration that domestic law lacks legal effect 248Authority to rule on existing domestic law if the State accepts

responsibility 249No action if the domestic law or judgment is no longer in effect 250Court order to annul or execute a domestic judgment or ruling 250

Order to the State to take action or refrain from taking action 251Apology as satisfaction 253

State must pay fair compensation 254Material damages (pecuniary damages) 255

Loss of earnings and benefits 256Calculation of loss of earnings 256Distribution of lost earnings of deceased victims 260

Medical expenses of victims and family members 261Expenses of searching for the victim 262Compensation for other material injuries 263Minimal compensation when violation inferred 264

Moral damages 264Determination of amount of moral damages 265Proof of moral injury 267Beneficiaries of victim’s moral damages 269Judgment may suffice as moral damages 270Damages to the victim’s life plan 270Non-monetary compensation for moral damages 272

No punitive damages 272Ex gratia compensation 274Costs and expenses 274

Determination of costs based in equity 275Representation-related expenses 276No award for costs incurred by the Commission and Court 279

State/victim agreements 280Manner of compliance 281Court procedures in determining reparations 285Resort to political organs 288Conclusion 289






contents xiii

P A R T III Provisional measures 291

6 Provisional measures: 293Introduction 293Interim measures in general 294Precautionary measures ordered by the Commission 295Inherent authority of the Court to order provisional measures 298Statutory basis of the Court’s authority to order provisional measures 300

Current situation of extreme gravity and urgency 302Irreparable damage 303Beneficiaries of provisional measures 305

Procedures applicable to a request for provisional measures 308The President’s adoption of urgent measures pending convocation

of the Court 309Plenary Court’s consideration of provisional measures requests 310Entities authorized to request provisional measures 310Monitoring provisional measures 312

Margin of appreciation in Court-ordered provisional measures 312The duration of provisional measures 313The binding nature of provisional measures 316Circumstances repeatedly giving rise to orders of provisional measures 318

Protection of witnesses before the Court and Commission 319Protection of human rights activists and organizations 322Death penalty cases 324Protection to allow persons to return to their homes 324

Conclusion 325

7 Conclusion: the effectiveness of the Inter-American Court 326The effect of the Inter-American Court on the emergence of international human

rights law 326Domestic and institutional change resulting from the application of the

American Convention and the rulings of the Inter-American Court 331Domestic and institutional implementation of the Court’s advisory

opinions 332Domestic implementation of provisional measures 337Domestic implementation of Court orders in contentious cases 338

Limitations on the Inter-American system 340Lack of universality 340Necessity for domestic implementation 342Failure of the political organs to adequately support the human rights

system 343Inadequate funding of the Court and the Commission 346Quality control of judges elected to the Court 348

Conclusion 349






xiv contents

Appendix 1: American Convention on Human Rights 351

Appendix 2: Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights 382

Appendix 3: Statute of the Inter-American Court of HumanRights 409

Appendix 4: Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commissionon Human Rights 420

Appendix 5: Form for presenting petitions on human rightsviolations 452

Bibliography 458

Index 470






FOREWORD

In 1978, when the American Convention on Human Rights entered intoforce, much of Central America and South America was ruled by dictator-ships either of the right or the left. Of the eleven States whose ratificationshad brought the Convention into force, fewer than one-half had demo-cratically elected governments at the time. The remainder ratified for avariety of political reasons. Important also was the pressure brought tobear by the Carter Administration and the fact that some of these Stateswere convinced that ratification posed no serious risks to them sincethe system established by the Convention would never be implemented.Effective human rights institutions were not something many govern-ments in the region believed in at the time, but they were not opposedto a little window dressing for propaganda purposes. The attitude ofthese regimes towards human rights was graphically demonstrated when,shortly after the Convention entered into force, the General Assemblyof the Organization of American States failed to adopt a budget for thenewly created Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Had it not beenfor funds provided by Costa Rica, the Court would have been paralyzedeven before it began to perform its functions.

Over the years, though, the political climate in the Americas changedgradually, making it possible for the Inter-American system for the pro-tection of human rights to play an increasingly more important role.The fact that today all Latin American governments in the region, withthe exception of Cuba, have been democratically elected has producedsignificant improvements in the human rights situation in these coun-tries. These states have now also ratified the Convention and acceptedthe jurisdiction of the Court. This leaves only a small number of OASmember states – some Commonwealth Caribbean countries as well as theUnited States and Canada – out of the system established by the Conven-tion. That is also true of Cuba whose government remains excluded fromthe OAS.

xv






xvi foreword

The increase in the number of ratifications of the Convention andacceptances of the Court’s jurisdiction has made it possible for more andmore cases to be referred to the Court. Today the Court can point to asignificant body of law that has evolved from its judgments in contentiouscases, its advisory opinions aswell as its provisionalmeasures. In her book,Professor Jo Pasqualucci provides the first truly comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of this practice. Here we have a book that needed to bewritten. It puts all of us interested in the work and role of the Inter-American Court in her debt for writing it and for the fine scholarship itrepresents.

Scholars and practitioners will find in this book a valuable review ofall relevant elements of the Court’s practice, including issues relating toadmissibility, fact-finding, provisional measures, oral and written pro-ceedings, scope of judgments, etc. Also discussed are those aspects of thepractice of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that bearon thework of theCourt. The author discusses the newRules of Procedureof the Court and the Commission and the legal consequences they havefor the interrelationship between these two institutions. Besides provid-ing the reader with a practical guide to the Court’s procedure and modusoperandi which practitioners should find particularly useful, ProfessorPasqualucci also succeeds in carefully analyzing the Court’s practice in acreative and sound critical manner.

There is a great deal of material in these pages that scholars will findof value in seeking to understand the Court’s jurisprudence and how ithas evolved over the years. The book contains important insights aboutthe Court’s methodology and its transformation of the American Con-vention into an effective tool for the protection of human rights in theAmericas, as well as various examples of the Court’s contribution to in-ternational human rights law in general. No one trying to understandthe manner in which the Court functions can afford to be without thisbook.

Professor Pasqualucci had been working on this book, which started asa doctoral dissertation, on and off for more than a decade. This led meand my successors as her dissertation supervisors to become increasinglyconcerned that the book would never see the light of day. Now it is clear,however, that at the time when we encouraged her to get on with thejob, the Court’s practice had not reached the level of judicial maturity orripeness that would have enabled her to produce the truly valuable workshe has now published. An impatient former professor herewith admits






foreword xvii

his error and expresses his delight with his former student’s wisdom andpatient scholarship that has resulted in the publication of this outstandingwork.

Thomas BuergenthalJudge, International Court of JusticeThe Hague






PREFACE

Thiswork is the culminationoffifteenyears of studyof the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights. I did not set out to study the Inter-AmericanCourt. In 1986, during my final year of law school, I was in the office ofProfessor Richard Bilder at the University of Wisconsin. I had decided toapply for a Fulbright, and he was helping me formulate my proposal. Atthat moment, Professor Bilder received a telephone call from his long-time friend Thomas Buergenthal, a judge on the Inter-American Courtof Human Rights. In their conversation Professor Bilder mentioned thatthere was a student in his office who spoke Spanish and who was applyingfor a Fulbright to Central America. Judge Buergenthal immediately sawthe possibility of having assistance with legal research. He offered to writea letter to the Fulbright Commission inviting me to be affiliated with theCourt. That serendipitous telephone call led to my long-term relation-ship with the Inter-American Court and to the focus of my subsequentscholarship.

I began my tenure at the Court in 1986 when it was considering itsfirst contentious cases, the Honduran Disappearance Cases. The experi-ence opened my eyes to the realities of human rights abuse. I cried overletters in the file from the father of Francisco Fairen Garbi, a Costa Ricanyouth who disappeared on a trip through Central America. I vacillatedbetween despair at the cruelty reflected in the facts of the cases, and ex-citement and awe at being present and involved in this historic stage of theCourt’s evolution. The Court was only beginning to set its jurisdictionalparameters and to establish its rules on practice and procedure. It was likeclerking for the US Supreme Court in the days of John Marshall.

I remember long talks with Judge Buergenthal in which he expressedhis absolute faith that we were slowly step-by-step building a system thatwould someday functioneffectively toprotecthumanrights in thewesternhemisphere. At that time there was little evidence that his faith would befulfilled. Even the mention of human rights in many Latin Americancountries could result in the speaker being labelled a ‘communist’. The

xix






xx preface

Inter-American system was not functioning optimally. The Commission,which had been in existence since 1960, did not refer contentious casesto the Court for several years after the Court’s formation. Thus, in theCourt’s first seven years of existence, the Court had handed down onlyadvisory opinions. Judge Buergenthal’s quiet optimism and his belief ina positive future had a profound influence on my outlook. He explainedthe basis for his attitude in a speech that he delivered in 1986, when he, aJewish survivor of Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen, accepted an honorarydoctorate from the University of Heidelberg Faculty of Law in Germany.In it he asked:

Whowouldhave thought in1939, for example, that Iwouldbe standinghere

today; who would have believed in 1940 that there would exist a European

Community composed of democratic nations, a European Parliament and

a European Commission and Court of Human Rights, and that a new

Germanywould be a very important part of it all?Whowould have believed

then that at least a part of theEuropeof old,with its nationalistic animosities

and military rivalries, would undergo this transformation? Certainly no

realist, and probably not even your average idealist. For an international

lawyer who works in the field of human rights, these developments and the

many others I could cite are a strongmedicine against the loss of faith and a

strong incentive for believing that what may appear impossible today may

well come true tomorrow or the day after.

In every State, even those that appear to be themost recalcitrant humanrights offenders, there are those attempting to enforce the rule of law.Those persons and organizations take great risks promoting democracyand human rights.Most others, although not active out of fear ormalaise,would prefer to live in a State where human rights are observed.When thedomestic institutions donot have thewill or are not capable of prosecutinghuman rights violations and bringing human rights violators to justice,resort to international enforcement organs, such as the Inter-AmericanCommissionandCourt,maybe theonly avenue to strengthenand supportthose on the domestic plane who are fighting for justice.

It is my hope that this study of the practice and procedure of theInter-American Court will contribute to making possible the effectiveprotection of human rights in the Americas. Procedural transparency,effectiveness and efficiency are essential to the enforcement of substantivehuman rights. As such, the procedural evolution and the practice of theInter-American Court have direct bearing on the fulfillment of individualhuman rights in the Americas.






preface xxi

This book includes, when relevant, an analysis of the cases andopinionsrendered by the Court until 1 January 2003 and of the Rules of Procedureof the Court and Commission which came into effect in 2002. Portions ofearlier versions of chapters of this book have been published as ‘AdvisoryPractice of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Contributingto the Evolution of International Human Rights Law’, 38 Stanford Jour-nal of International Law, 241 (2002); ‘Preliminary Objections Before theInter-American Court of Human Rights’, 40 Virginia Journal of Interna-tional Law, 1 (1999); ‘Victim Reparations in the Inter-American HumanRights System: A Critical Assessment of Current Practice and Procedure’,18Michigan Journal of International Law, 1 (1996); ‘The Inter-AmericanHuman Rights System: Establishing Precedents and Procedure in Hu-man Rights Law’, 26University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 297(1994–1995); ‘The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth: Truth Com-missions, Impunity and the Inter-American Human Rights System’, 12Boston University International Law Journal, 321 (1994); and ‘ProvisionalMeasures in the Inter-AmericanHumanRights System:An InnovativeDe-velopment in International Law’, 26 Vanderbilt Journal of TransnationalLaw, 803 (1993).

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLsfor external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at thetime of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility forthe websites and canmake no guarantee that a site will remain live or thatthe content is or will remain appropriate.






ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It seems tome, and tomost people who knowme, that I have beenwritingthis book for my entire professional life. No sooner did I finish a chapter,than the Inter-American Court would render a judgment that wouldnecessitate rewriting and updating it. Throughout this ordeal, my friendsand colleagues have remained supportive, always asking the obligatoryquestion, ‘How is your book coming along?’ and then listening to therecital of my latest insight or frustration. I would like to thank them fortheir interest and understanding.

I am especially grateful to Thomas Buergenthal, who has been myinspiration since 1986.Without his suggestion and encouragement I neverwould have undertaken this study of the Inter-American Court of HumanRights. His comments on drafts of the initial chapters, before he waselected judge of the International Court of Justice, were invaluable. Ialso wish to thank Professor Louis B. Sohn, who unfailingly gave of hisprecious time to inspire me and encourage me, and Professor Ralph G.Steinhardt, who encouraged me to complete it. In South Dakota I amindebted to Dean Barry Vickrey, who unfailingly provided his supportand encouragement.

I must also express my gratitude to Christina Cerna, David Padilla,VeronicaGomez,ManuelVenturaRobles and the other attorneys and staffmembers of the Secretariats of the Court and Commission who patientlyanswered my questions, located documents for me, and published theirown articles that clarified the law in action. All opinions and analysis aremy own.

xxii






TABLE OF CASES

Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinions

Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights(Arts. 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention onHuman Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory Opinion OC-13/93 of 16July 1993, Ser. A, No. 13 53, 54, 150, 158, 336

Compatibility of Draft Legislation with Art. 8(2)(h) of the AmericanConvention on Human Rights, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory OpinionOC-12/91 of 6 December 1991, Ser. A, No. 12 58, 59, 63, 67

Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for thePractice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Conventionon Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of13 November 1985, Ser. A, No. 5 43, 48, 62, 78, 329, 333

Effect of Reservations on the Entry into Force of the American Conven-tion on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75), Inter-Am. Ct HR, AdvisoryOpinion OC-2/82 of 24 September 1982, Ser. A, No. 2 35, 40, 41, 46,57, 85, 97, 300, 328, 336

Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Arts. 14(1), 1(1) and2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR,Advisory Opinion OC-7/86 of 29 August 1986, Ser. A, No. 7 35, 74,79, 334

Exceptions to the Exhaustion ofDomestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a)and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of 10 August 1990, Ser. A,No. 11 53, 101, 102, 134

Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2) and 7(6) of theAmerican Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, AdvisoryOpinion OC-8/87 of 30 January 1987, Ser. A, No. 8 48, 49, 329

International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement ofLaws in Violation of the Convention (Arts. 1 and 2 of the American

xxiii






xxiv table of cases

Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory OpinionOC-14/94 of 9 December 1994, Ser. A, No. 14 36, 38, 39, 78, 103, 105

Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties ofMan Within the Framework of Art. 64 of the American Conventionon Human Rights, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of14 July 1989, Ser. A, No. 10 56, 57, 72, 77

Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of theAmerican Convention onHuman Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87of 6 October 1987, Ser. A, No. 9 49, 62, 133, 232, 329, 335

Legal Status and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002 of 28 August 2002, Ser. A, No. 7 51

‘Other Treaties’ Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art.64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR,Advisory Opinion OC-1/82 of 24 September 1982, Ser. A, No. 1 12,32, 33, 45, 56–9, 62, 63, 77, 329

Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitu-tion of Costa Rica, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of19 January 1984, Ser. A, No. 4 12, 32, 38, 50, 51, 58, 59, 60, 69, 72,73, 78, 330

Reports of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (Art. 51 ofthe American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Ad-visory Opinion OC-15/97 of 14 November 1997, Ser. A, No. 15 12,29, 37, 46, 53, 60, 61, 64–7, 78, 172

Restrictions to the Death Penalty (Arts. 4(2) and 4(4) of the AmericanConvention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory OpinionOC-3/83 of 8 September 1983, Ser. A, No. 3 11, 12, 29, 36, 50, 60, 64,65, 69, 73, 75–8, 97, 98, 330, 335, 336

Right to InformationonConsularAssistanceWithin theFrameworkof theGuarantees of Legal Due Process, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory OpinionOC-16/99 of 1 October 1999, Ser. A. No. 16 12, 33, 35, 46, 56–8, 61,62, 64, 66–8, 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 172, 328, 334

The Word ‘Laws’ in Article 30 of the American Convention on HumanRights, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of 9 May 1986,Ser. A, No. 6 47, 48, 329

Inter-American Court of Human Rights Judgments andResolutions in contentious cases

Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname (Merits), Inter-Am.CtHR, 4December 1991,Ser. C, No. 11 8, 220, 221, 332






table of cases xxv

Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 10 Septem-ber 1993, Ser. C, No. 15 163, 237, 238, 240, 252, 255, 258–60, 263–9,275, 279, 282–6, 288

Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama (270 Workers v. Panama) (PreliminaryObjections), Inter-Am.CtHR, 18November 1999, Ser. C,No. 61 127,128, 152, 156

Baena Ricardo et al. (270 Workers v. Panama) (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR,2 February 2001, Ser. C, No. 72 8, 12, 91, 100, 207, 230, 238, 241, 250,256, 259, 260, 277, 286, 343

Bamaca Velasquez v. Guatemala (Withdrawal of Preliminary Objection),Order of the Inter-Am. CtHR, 16 April 1997, reprinted in 1997 AnnualReport of the Inter-Am. Court HR, at 120 178

Bamaca Velasquez v.Guatemala (Merits), Inter-Am. CtHR, 25November2000, Ser. C, No. 70 91, 92, 181, 191, 202, 204–6, 211–13, 235–7,242–4

Bamaca Velasquez v.Guatemala (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 22 Feb-ruary 2002, Ser. C, No. 91 256–8, 260–3, 269

Barrios Altos (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. v. Peru) (Merits), Inter-Am. CtHR, 14 March 2001, Ser. C, No. 75 8, 100, 242, 243, 248, 249, 280,287, 331, 332

Barrios Altos (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. v. Peru) (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 30 November 2001, Ser. C, No. 87 239, 253, 254, 280,281

Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 19 June 1998,Ser. C, No. 38 121, 166, 214, 243, 253, 280, 332, 339

Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 1 September 2001, Ser. C, No. 81 33, 46, 88, 89, 114,159

Blake v. Guatemala (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 2 July1996, Ser. C, No. 27 110–12

Blake v. Guatemala (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 24 January 1998, Ser. C,No. 36 99, 201, 208, 210, 236

Blake v. Guatemala (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 22 January 1999,Ser. C, No. 48 199, 205, 230, 232, 233, 236, 244, 282, 287, 328

Blake v. Guatemala (Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 1 October 1999, Ser. C, No. 57 217

Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 21 January 1994, Ser. C, No. 17 133, 147, 148, 159,160, 170, 172






xxvi table of cases

Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR,8 December 1995, Ser. C, No. 22 223, 275, 279, 343

Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia (Reparations), Inter-Am.Ct HR, 29 January 1997, Ser. C, No. 31 269, 282

Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Order of the Inter-Am. Ct HR, 18 June1998, reprinted in 1998 Annual Report of the Inter-Am. Court HR, at223–5 122, 178

Cantoral Benavides v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,3 September 1998, Ser. C, No. 40 86, 130, 131, 153, 154, 173, 176

Cantoral Benavides v. Peru (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 18 August 2000,Ser. C, No. 69 91, 121, 187, 189, 190, 206, 209, 211, 228, 242

Cantoral Benavides v. Peru (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 3 December2001, Ser. C, No. 88 9, 248, 251, 254, 262, 271, 272

Cantos v. Argentina (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 7 Sep-tember 2001, Ser. C, No. 85 24, 34, 105–6, 112

Cantos v. Argentina (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 28 November 2002, Ser.C, No. 96 252, 270

Castillo Paez v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 30 Jan-uary 1996, Ser. C, No. 24 131, 165–6

Castillo Paez v. Peru (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 27 November 1998,Ser. C, No. 43 189–90, 200, 213, 230, 239, 270, 272, 286

Castillo Paez v. Peru (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct HR,Resolution of 28 November 2002 339

Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,4 September 1998, Ser. C, No. 41 92, 94, 100–1, 130–31, 153, 169–70

Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 30 May 1999,Ser. C, No. 52 208, 241, 248

Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am.Ct HR, 17 November 1999, Ser. C, No. 59 38, 339

Cayara v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 3 February1993, Ser. C, No. 14 87, 101, 123, 136, 157–8, 160–2, 166, 173

Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 26 Jan-uary 1999, Ser. C, No. 49 93, 94, 141, 153, 176, 177

Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 29 September 1999,Ser. C, No. 56 251

Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of29 September 1999), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 19 November 1999,Ser. C, No. 6 9, 217, 251, 339

Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 29 January 2000, Ser. C, No. 65 217






table of cases xxvii

Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 31 May 2001,Ser. C, No. 78 9, 213, 216, 239, 259, 267–8, 270, 276–7, 286, 338

Cesti Hurtado v. Peru (Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 27 November 2001, Ser. C, No. 86 216

Constantine et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 1 September 2001, Ser. C, No. 82 89

Constitutional Court v. Peru (Competence) (Aguirre Roca, Rey Terry andRevoredo Marsano v. Peru), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 24 September 1999,Ser. C, No. 55 12, 33, 88–9, 115–16

Constitutional Court v. Peru (Merits) (Aguirre Roca, Rey Terry andRevoredo Marsano v. Peru), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 31 January 2001, Ser.C, No. 71 132, 184–5, 189, 191–2, 207, 209, 232, 244, 256, 259,275

Del Caracazo v.Venezuela (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 11 November 1999,Ser. C, No. 58 8, 210, 332

Del Caracazo v. Venezuela (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 29 August2002, Ser. C, No. 95 172, 249, 257, 261, 262, 266–7

Durand and Ugarte v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,Judgment of 28 May 1999, Ser. C, No. 50 127

Durand and Ugarte v. Peru (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 3 December2001, Ser. C, No. 89 254, 262, 280–1

Durand and Ugarte v. Peru (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 16 August 2000,Ser. C, No. 68 259

Durand and Ugarte v. Peru (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am. CtHR, Resolution of 27 November 2002, 339, 342

El Amparo v. Venezuela (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 18 January 1995, Ser.C, No. 19 8, 220, 222, 249

El Amparo v. Venezuela (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 14 September1996, Ser. C, No. 28 47, 256–9, 265–7, 269–70, 276, 332

ElAmparo v.Venezuela (Request forRevisionof Judgmentof 14September1996), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 16 April 1997, Ser. C, No. 46 217

El Amparo v. Venezuela (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct HR,Resolution of 28 November 2002 339

Fairen Garbi and Solıs Corrales v. Honduras (Preliminary Objections),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 26 June 1987, Ser. C, No. 2 131, 138, 145, 148, 162,175, 186

Fairen Garbi and Solıs Corrales v. Honduras (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR,15 March 1989, Ser. C, No. 6 131–3, 140, 196–7, 203, 209, 213, 298

Gangaram Panday v. Suriname (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. CtHR, 4 December 1991, Ser. C, No. 12 131, 146, 151, 162, 164, 176






xxviii table of cases

Gangaram Panday v. Suriname (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 21 January1994, Ser. C, No. 16 185, 208–9, 211, 222, 264, 283, 285, 288

Garrido and Baigorria v.Argentina (Merits), Inter-Am. CtHR, 2 February1996, Ser. C, No. 26 8, 220, 222, 331

Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR,27 August 1998, Ser. C, No. 39 230, 235, 267, 269, 272–3, 275–7,282–3

Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Resolution of 27 November 2002 339

Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,27 January 1995, Ser. C, No. 21 95, 98, 109–10, 138, 148, 155, 166,173–4, 227

Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 29 January 1997,Ser. C, No. 30 134, 227, 343

Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua (Request for Revision of Judgment of29 January 1997), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 13 September 1997, Ser. C,No. 45 219

Godınez Cruz v. Honduras (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,26 June 1987, Ser. C, No. 3 131, 138, 142, 145, 148, 162, 175, 185

Godınez Cruz v. Honduras (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 29 January 1989,Ser. C, No. 5 111, 131, 133, 140, 145, 196–7, 208, 213, 252, 298, 319

Godınez Cruz v. Honduras (Compensatory Damages), Inter-Am. Ct HR,21 July 1989, Ser. C, No. 8 218, 261–2, 265, 268–9, 273

Godınez Cruz v. Honduras (Interpretation of the Compensatory Dam-ages), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 17 August 1990, Ser. C, No. 10 217–18, 282,284, 289

Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. CtHR, 1 September 2001, Ser. C, No. 80 88–9, 125

Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, Joinderof Cases, Inter-Am. CtHR, Resolution of 30November 2001, reprintedin 2002 Annual Report of the Inter-Am. Court HR 183, 202

Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago (Merits),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 21 June 2002, Ser. C, No. 94 33–4, 104, 154, 184,204, 239, 245, 247–8, 252, 331

Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru (Competence), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 24 September1999, Ser. C, No. 54 33–4, 89, 115–16

Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 6 February 2001, Ser.C, No. 74 160, 184–5, 188, 190, 205–7, 209, 221, 250, 259

‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ (Olmedo Bustos et al. v. Chile) (Merits),Inter-Am.CtHR, 5 February 2001, Ser. C, No. 73 11, 202, 215, 245–7,270, 275, 277, 331






table of cases xxix

‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ (Olmedo Bustos et al. v. Chile) (Compli-ance with Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct HR, Resolution of 28 November2002 303

Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,31 January 1996, Ser. C, No. 25 131, 140, 167, 169–70

Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Order of the Inter-Am. Ct HR, 27 June 1996,reprinted in 1996 Annual Report of the Inter-Am. Ct HR, at 112 86177

Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 17 September 1997,Ser. C, No. 33 8, 189, 200, 201, 203, 214, 241, 343

Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Order of the Inter-Am. Court HR of 8 March1998, reprinted in 1998 Annual Report of the Inter-Am. Ct HR,at 203 218

Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 27 November1998, Ser. C, No. 42 189–91, 193, 199–203, 205, 207, 230, 241, 248,251, 256, 261, 270–2, 275, 283, 285–7

Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct HR,Resolution of 17 November 1999 342

Loayza Tamayo v. Peru (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct HR,Resolution of 27 November 2002 339

Maqueda v. Argentina, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Resolution of 17 January 1995,Ser. C, No. 18 121

In the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al., Inter-Am. Ct HR, Decision of13 November 1981, Ser. A, No. G101/81 7, 20, 22, 123, 141, 147, 169,346

Mayagna (SUMO) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua (PreliminaryObjections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 1 February 2000, Ser. C, No. 66 171

Mayagna (SUMO) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 31 August 2001, Ser. C, No. 79 132–3, 190, 202, 206, 215,247, 252, 263, 272, 346

Neira Alegrıa et al. v. Peru (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,11 December 1991, Ser. C, No. 13 131, 158, 160, 171–3

Neira Alegrıa et al. v. Peru (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 19 January 1995,Ser. C, No. 20 209, 211

Neira Alegrıa et al. v. Peru (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 19 September1996, Ser. C, No. 29 256–8, 265–7, 269, 276, 282

Neira Alegrıa et al. v. Peru (Requests for Revision and Interpretation of11 December 1991 Judgment on the Preliminary Objections), Orderof 3 July 1992 83, 85

Neira Alegrıa et al. v. Peru (Compliance with Judgment), Inter-Am. CtHR, Resolution of 28 November 2002 339






xxx table of cases

Nineteen Merchants v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. CtHR, 12 June 2002, Ser. C. No. 93 136, 152, 185

Las Palmeras v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR,4 February 2000, Ser. C, No. 67 90–2, 134, 152, 174, 185

Las Palmeras v. Colombia (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 6 December 2001,Ser. C, No. 90 8, 93, 131–2, 163, 243

Las Palmeras v. Colombia (Reparations) Inter-Am. Ct HR, 26 November2002, Ser. C, No. 95 253, 277

Las Palmeras v. Colombia, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 30 May 2001 203Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala (The White Van Case) (Preliminary

Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 25 January 1996, Ser. C, No. 23 136,156, 159–62, 179

Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala (The White Van Case), Order of thePresident Inter-Am.CtHR, 16October 1997, reprinted in 1997AnnualReport of the Inter-Am. Ct HR 193

Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala (The White Van Case) (Merits),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 8 March 1998, Ser. C, No. 37 90, 91, 189, 192, 215,226, 244

PaniaguaMorales et al. v.Guatemala (TheWhite Van Case) (Reparations),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 25 May 2001, Ser. C, No. 76 47, 190, 201–2, 205,230, 233, 238–9, 242, 247, 253, 257–8, 260, 265, 267–70, 272, 275, 277,283–4, 286–8, 319

Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 12 November 1997,Ser. C, No. 35 104, 200–1, 210

Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador (Reparations) (Art. 63(1) American Conventionof Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 20 January 1999, Ser. C, No. 449, 250, 256, 284, 338

Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador (Interpretation of Judgment on Reparations),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 29 May 1999, Ser. C, No. 51 217–18, 277, 282–3,285

Suarez Rosero Case (Fulfillment of Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 4 Dec-ember 2001, Resolution 1 284

Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia (Merits), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 26 January 2000,Ser. C, No. 64 126, 134–5, 178, 254, 332

Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 27 February2002, Ser. C, No. 92 235–7, 242, 245–7, 249, 252, 255, 261–2, 264,272

Velasquez Rodrıguez v.Honduras (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. CtHR, 26 June 1987, Ser. C, No. 1 15–16, 123, 131–2, 134–5, 138–9,142, 145, 147–52, 159–60, 162–3, 169–70, 175, 185, 297






table of cases xxxi

Velasquez Rodrıguez v.Honduras (Merits), Inter-Am. CtHR, 29 July 1988,Ser. C, No. 4 13, 16–17, 53, 111, 130–3, 140, 145, 196–7, 200, 206,208, 210–14, 220–6, 232, 252, 298, 319–20, 337–8

Velasquez Rodrıguez v. Honduras (Compensatory Damages), Inter-Am.Ct HR, 21 July 1989, Ser. C, No. 7 17–18, 218, 230, 233, 239, 242, 255,260–2, 264–5, 268–9, 272–3, 282, 284, 286

Velasquez Rodrıguez v. Honduras (Interpretation of the CompensatoryDamages), Inter-Am.CtHR,17August 1990, Ser.C,No.9 18, 217–18,284, 289, 339

Villagran Morales et al. v. Guatemala (The Street Children Case) (Pre-liminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 11 September 1997, Ser. C,No. 32 93–4, 168, 178

Villagran Morales et al. v. Guatemala (The Street Children Case) (Merits),Inter-Am. Ct HR, 19 November 1999, Ser. C, No. 63 91, 122, 201,208–10, 226, 236, 242, 286

Villagran Morales et al. v. Guatemala (The Street Children Case) (Repa-rations), Inter-Am. Ct HR, 26 May 2001, Ser. C, No. 77 248, 252–3,257, 261, 267–8, 277, 283, 286–7

Provisional measures

Aleman Lacayo (Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of 2 February 1996, Ser. E 226, 312, 319

Aleman Lacayo (Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of 6 February 1997, Ser. E 314

Alvarez et al. (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Orderof the President of 22 July 1997, Ser. E 322

Alvarez et al. (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Orderof 12 November 2000, Ser. E 306

Bamaca Velasquez (Guatemala), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of 29 August 1998, Ser. E 310, 319, 321

Blake (Guatemala), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of thePresident of 16 August 1995 223

Blake (Guatemala), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of18 August 2000, Ser. E 321

Caballero Delgado and Santana (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 7 December 1994, Ser. E 301

Caballero Delgado and Santana (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 31 January 1997, Ser. E 315, 319






xxxii table of cases

Caballero Delgado and Santana (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 16 April 1997, Ser. E 315

Caballero Delgado and Santana (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 3 June 1999, Ser. E 315

Cesti Hurtado (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of14 August 2000, Ser. E 315

Chipoco (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of thePresident, 14 December 1992, Ser. E 301

Chipoco (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of27 January 1993, Ser. E 302–3

Chunima (Guatemala), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order ofthe President of 15 July 1991, Ser. E 323

Chunima (Guatemala), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of1 August 1991, Ser. E 301, 337

Clemente Teheran et al. (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. CtHR, Order of 19 June 1998, Ser. E 316, 319

Clemente Teheran et al. (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. CtHR, Order of 12 August 2000, Ser. E 316

Colotenango (Guatemala), ProvisionalMeasures, Inter-Am. CtHR,Orderof 22 June 1994, Ser. E 312–13

Colotenango (Guatemala), ProvisionalMeasures, Inter-Am. CtHR,Orderof 1 December 1994, Ser. E 314

Colotenango (Guatemala), ProvisionalMeasures, Inter-Am. CtHR,Orderof 19 September 1997, 1994, Ser. E 314

Colotenango (Guatemala), ProvisionalMeasures, Inter-Am. CtHR,Orderof 2 February 2000, Ser. E 305, 312–14

Constitutional Court (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of the President of 7 April 2000, Ser. E 295, 309, 311

Constitutional Court (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of 14 August 2000, Ser. E 13, 310, 313, 316–17

Constitutional Court (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of 14 March 2001, Ser. E 313–14

Digna Ochoa Placido et al. (Mexico), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 17 November 1999, Ser. E 297, 301, 306, 312, 319,322

Digna Ochoa Placido et al. (Mexico), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 28 August 2001, Ser. E 322

Gallardo Rodrıguez Case (Mexico), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of the President, 20 December 2001, Ser. E 337






table of cases xxxiii

Gallardo Rodrıguez Case (Mexico), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 14 February 2002, Ser. E 293

Giraldo Cardona et al. (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of the President of 28 October 1996, Ser. E 322–3

Giraldo Cardona et al. (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 19 June 1998, Ser. E 315

Giraldo Cardona et al. (Colombia), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 27 November 1999, Ser. E 323

Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian Descent in the Dominican Re-public (Dominican Republic), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 18 August 2000, Ser. E 305–6, 324

James et al. (Trinidad and Tobago), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 29 August 1998, Ser. E 317, 324, 338

James et al. (Trinidad and Tobago), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 16 August 2000, Ser. E 114, 308, 324, 338

James et al. (Trinidad and Tobago), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 24 November 2000, Ser. E 114

James et al. (Trinidad and Tobago), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am.Ct HR, Order of 2 September 2002, Ser. E 315

Liliana Ortega et al. (Venezuela), ProvisionalMeasures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of 27 November 2002, Ser. E 319

Loayza Tamayo (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of3 February 2001, Ser. E 295, 324

Luisiana Rıos et al. (Venezuela), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR,Order of 27 November 2002, Ser. E 319

Miguel Agustın Pro Juarez Human Rights Center et al. (Mexico), Pro-visional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 30 November 2001,Ser. E 322–3

La Nacion Newspaper (Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. CtHR, Order of 6 December 2001, Ser. E 293

Paniagua Morales et al. and Vasquez et al. (Guatemala), ProvisionalMeasures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 27 November 1998, Ser. E 315

Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado (Colombia), ProvisionalMeasures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 24 November 2000,Ser. E 305–7, 325

Peace Community of San Jose de Apartado (Colombia), Provisional Mea-sures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Order of 18 June 2002, Ser. E 293–4, 307

Peruvian Prisons (Peru), Provisional Measures, Inter-Am. Ct HR, Orderof 14 December 1992, Ser. E 301






the practice and procedure of the inter … · the practice and procedure of the inter-american...

Documents