National Responses in Latin America to International Events Propelling the Justice Cascade: The Gelman Case

Abstract

AbstractThis chapter offers an overview of the decisions taken by international human rights bodies with regard to the eradication of amnesty laws which impede the investigation and prosecution of those suspected of grave breaches of human rights. The chapter focuses on three principal questions. First, it addresses the growing interest in recent decades in seeking justice in supranational courts for cases of human rights violations. Second, the chapter attempts to identify those cases in which the obligation to respect human rights prevails because it is considered hard law. And, third, the chapter considers the resistance put up by national parliaments against modifying laws contrary to international obligations contracted in the area of human rights. In conclusion, the chapter argues that there is a strong international legal basis for the claim that amnesties that allow impunity in cases of serious violations of human rights are incompatible with international law. Although, there is no broad consensus with regard to affirming that the prohibition of these types of amnesties form part of customary law, it can be said that these amnesties violate states’ obligations derived from customary law.KeywordsTransitional JusticeGeneva ConventionTruth CommissionInternational ObligationGenocide ConventionThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.