Jump to content

Talk:Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MadDale16. Peer reviewers: MadDale16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes

[edit]

Inter-American Court of Human Rights The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an autonomous judicial institution based in the city of San José, Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it makes up the human rights protection system of the Organization of American States (OAS), which serves to uphold and promote basic rights and freedoms in the Americas. The Court rules on whether a State has violated an individual's human rights, rather than if individuals are guilty of human rights violations.[1]

Composition[edit] As stipulated by Chapter VIII of the Convention, the Court consists of seven judges from the Organization's member states. The court consists of seven judges, held to the highest moral judgement who have a high competency in human rights law.[1] These judges are elected to six-year terms by the OAS General Assembly; each judge may be reelected for an additional six-year term.

Unlike the commissioners of the Inter-American Commission, judges are not required to recuse themselves from hearing cases involving their home countries; however no member state may have more than one representative judge serving on the Court at any time. In the event a member state is party to a case as a defendant does not have a representative judge sitting on the Court, the member state is entitled to appoint a judge to the court ad hoc for the case. Recent policy changes state, when serving on the court, judges are expected to act as individuals, not representing their state. They must be OAS member states’ nationals; however, they do not need to be individuals of a state that has ratified the American Convention or accepted jurisdiction of the Court. Judges are required to recuse themselves from cases involving their home country. States parties are no longer permitted to name a judge ad hoc to their case if a sitting judge is not from their country. If a judge is a national of one of the State Parties to the case, the State Parties can only designate a judge ad hoc if there are inter-state complaints.[1] In order to be nominated as a judge, one must be a national of a member state of OAS, a jurist, have the ‘highest moral authority’, have high competency of human rights law, have ‘the qualifications required for the exercise of the highest judicial functions in conformity with the law of the state of which they are nationals or of the state that proposes them as candidates’. [2]

'Highest Moral Authority' is loosely defined by the ACHR as never having never been convicted of a crime, suspended or expelled from the legal profession, or dismissed from public office.[2]

Judges are elected by State Parties to the Convention from a list of nominated candidates. Each State Party may nominate up to three candidates, but if nominating three, at least one of the three must be a national of a state other than the nominating state. The Secretary General of the OAS organizes the candidates alphabetically and forwards it to the State Parties. The election consists of a secret ballot, requiring an absolute majority of the State Parties to the Convention. Those who receive the most votes are elected.

After the Convention came into force on 18 July 1978, the first election of judges took place on 22 May 1979. The new Court first convened on 29 June 1979 at the Organization of American States Headquarters in Washington, D.C., United States.

Criticisms[edit] The Court's behaviour has also been criticized. Among other issues, some authors have criticized the politization of the Court. Furthermore, the process of nomination and election is a subject of criticism. It is not a transparent or accountable process at both the National and International levels. There is a push for the OAS to create an independent group in charge of evaluating candidates. Another independent group in charge of overseeing the national processes and ranking the candidates that is separate from OAS is a proposed initiative by scholars to address these criticisms. These would ensure that all candidates have been through two reviews on the National and International level before being able to be elected.[2]

Fair representation when it comes to candidates is also a point of contempt. Scholars have stated that State Parties should strive for equal representation in terms of geographic sub-regions, different ethnic and cultural groups, and female and male judges; however, this should be done without straying from the high standards and qualifications required for candidates.[2]

"Highest Moral Authority", a requirement for nomination, is often criticized because its vagueness. The necessary qualifications are not clearly defined and vary from country to country. The minimum age ranges from none to 45 years old and the number of years of experience ranges from 10-15 years and only Paraguay requires candidates to have a PhD.[2]

Some of the latest criticisms come from Peru and Venezuela.Venezuela subsequently withdrew from the system after President Hugo Chavez declared the court's decision to rule Venezuela guilty of holding a prisoner in "inhumane" jail conditions.[3] Up to then, Trinidad and Tobago had been the only state to withdraw. Peru tried to do so, but did not follow the appropriate procedure. The last of these criticisms is directed against the Court's decision in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre declaring that some people were murdered with the consent of the Colombian state, a few of whom were subsequently found alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadDale16 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

hi im a law student and am interested to learn about the major movements and progresses that the inter-american court has made in the americas if any....if any one could help me out i would appreciate itand also the weaknesses of this judicial system


- Article needs at least some updating and fact-checking before posting: Trinidad and Tobago renounced both the Convention and the jurisdiction of the court in 1998. There may be other inaccuracies - Suggest a clean-up of article, by original authors if poss.

Notable cases

[edit]

I would add another case : "In Almonacid v. Chile (2006), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights announced that all judges must review domestic laws for conformity to the ACHR. If there is a conflict, the Court held, the domestic law cannot be applied." (source: [1]).----Bancki (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant paragraphs stating the primacy of the ACHR to be upheld by domestic courts (p. 54-55):

"123. The above mentioned legislative obligation established by Article 2 of the Convention [= obligation to annul all legislation which is in violation of the Convention] is also aimed at facilitating the work of the Judiciary so that the law enforcement authority may have a clear option in order to solve a particular case.
However, when the Legislative Power fails to set aside and / or adopts laws which are contrary to the American Convention, the Judiciary is bound to honor the obligation to respect rights as stated in Article 1(1) of the said Convention, and consequently, it must refrain from enforcing any laws contrary to such Convention.
The observance by State agents or officials of a law which violates the Convention gives rise to the international liability of such State, as contemplated in International Human Rights Law, in the sense that every State is internationally responsible for the acts or omissions of any of its powers or bodies for the violation of internationally protected rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention.
124. The Court is aware that domestic judges and courts are bound to respect the rule of law, and therefore, they are bound to apply the provisions in force within the legal system. But when a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, its judges, as part of the State, are also bound by such Convention. This forces them to see that all the effects of the provisions embodied in the Convention are not adversely affected by the enforcement of laws which are contrary to its purpose and that have not had any legal effects since their inception.
In other words, the Judiciary must exercise a sort of “conventionality control” between the domestic legal provisions which are applied to specific cases and the American Convention on Human Rights. To perform this task, the Judiciary has to take into account not only the treaty, but also the interpretation thereof made by the Inter-American Court, which is the ultimate interpreter of the American Convention."----Bancki (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela?

[edit]

A significant development, but we need sources. Have both govts signed up? Do they accept blanket jurisdiction? (I.e., should VZ be burgundy or coral on the map?) — kwami (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICC reference(s)

[edit]

The ICC is not a human rights court, but an international criminal law court. It is, therefore, not of "wider scope" as stated in the lead, it operates in a different plane. Both institutions cannot so easily compared. I have removed this reference in the past, but my edit was reverted. I will remove it again, altogether, as I think it has no place in the lead, but I am posting here first to give anyone the possibility of persuading me otherwise.

In addition, I do not understand why the ICC would feature in the membership table. It would arguably be more relevant to compare acceptance of the jurisdiction of quasi-jurisdictional bodies (such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee). Pugliese23 (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nations of the Caribbean Community and others in Latin America have been debating on the merits of the need to be in one, or the other, or if there's even a need to be in both hence the chart due to the politics surrounding the IACtHR and ICCt. Trinidad and Tobago decided it was going to pledge its support to the ICCt instead of the IACtHR and other states in CARICOM are making a similar decisions on their standing with IACtHR or just leaving it up to the ICCt. The USA and Canada do not subscribe to the IACtHR either so it doesn't pertain to all of the Americas only Latin America and the Caribbean. CaribDigita (talk) 05:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the prompt response. A few issues:
(1) Do you have any sources on this? Concretely, do you have any sources on any state in the Americas debating the merits to remain a state party to the American Convention in relation to their membership to the Rome Statute? I have not been aware of such debates, but would find them interesting.
(2) In any event, that does not change the fact that the ICC is not of "wider scope", but a completely different institution doing a rather different kind of thing; namely, prosecuting individuals. Pugliese23 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the media sources with their integrated talk-back features seem to have somewhat broken links since they've updated their website's designs. The push to shelve the OAS was mainly via the alternative to the OAS known as the Alternative Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas (ALBA). Even while some states have moved ahead to attempt withdrawal like: Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc. (I believe it was Bolivia too?). The interesting part is while these states have contemplated leaving the OAS system, these states still are moving to ratify the ICC Court. (dates here)

It was also under PM. Basdeo Panday who decided to unsign T&T from the IACHR over their refusal to waive T&T's right to carry out death penalty for murderers. CaribDigita (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I/A COURT H.R. composition as january 2023

[edit]

Can someone add the new composition information to the article? Vinirgon (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did Nicaragua leave after all? The nation of Nicaragua had ordered the OAS to leave their nation immediately over interference in the country's internal affairs by a foreign entity.
CaribDigita (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inter-American_Court_of_Human_Rights&oldid=1244878682"