Inter-American Commission On Human Rights Research Articles

The Militarization of Mexico's Border and its Impacts on Human Rights

Between 800,000 and one million people are estimated to traverse Mexico from Central America each year, endeavoring to reach the United States. These migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees are forced north for a myriad of deeply personal reasons, but most commonly a combination of rampant crime and violence, economic insecurity, government failures, environmental forces, impacts from the global coronavirus pandemic, and, of course, a hope for a better life. Government policies that militarize migration control make the already daunting journey more dangerous. To that end, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has repeatedly voiced concern about policies that aim to militarize borders and their direct negative impact on human rights. But despite the corrosive effects on human rights, the militarization of national borders is increasing throughout the globe, and it is especially stark between “first world” and developing countries.

Corruption and Human Rights in the Case Law of Inter-American Human Rights Treaty Bodies

The first attempts to combat corruption date back to ancient times and had mainly moral connotation. Despite being an old phenomena, nowadays it takes new shapes and becomes a more common feature of social life, especially in the Latin America region. Corruption is a complex, and multidimensional phenomenon that negatively impacts human rights on many levels. Therefore, serious effort have long been made at global, regional and state levels to combat corruption. The United Nations and regional organizations have adopted numerous non-binding and binding documents with a view to stifling this phenomenon but none of them refer to the issue of impact of corruption on human rights. But it should be stressed that it is very hard to establish a link between corruption and human rights violations. Some efforts has been made by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IAComHR). This article considers whether and how the IACHR and the IAComHR establish the link between corruption and violation of human rights in the inter-American system. It also determines which groups of people are, according the IACHR and the IAComHR, particularly affected by corruption, what measures should be taken to protect those exposed to acts of corruption, what obligations are incumbent on States with a view to preventing, combating and eradicating corruption.

Non-Discrimination and special protection for migrants and refugees

In the Americas, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) have established that the principle of equality and non-discrimination requires States to both ensure that migrants are not discriminated against on any of the protected grounds of the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as to take specific action to protect certain groups of migrants that are in a situation of vulnerability. Via a comparative quantitative analysis of the immigration and refugee laws, as well as implementing regulations, of 20 Latin American countries, we examine the extent of non-discrimination and special protection provided by the region’s migratory legislation. Our results reveal three main findings. First, more recent immigration and refugee laws tend to be more expansive, which reflects the period of migratory liberalisation in the region. Second, while non-discrimination clauses are more dominant in laws, special protection clauses are primarily present in implementing regulations. This suggests that countries see special protection as a tool to positive discrimination of particularly vulnerable groups. Third, although we identify an overall expansion on protection grounds, countries’ migratory laws mostly reflect traditional categories like: sex/gender; race/ethnicity/colour; nationality; economic/social condition; and religion. Overall, although laudable, the impact of these provisions on reversing structural discrimination from an intersectional approach remains questionable.

The self-image of intelligence agents in an archive of state repression in Argentina

This article examines, from a rhetorical-discursive perspective, the self-image or ethos of intelligence agents in an archive of state repression in Argentina. The archive, which has been open to the public since 2009, once belonged to the Information Service of the North Atlantic Naval Prefecture (SIPNA). The article describes some of the problems related to opening this type of archive, such as disagreements about its current purpose and the historical actors and memory processes involved. It then describes two of the predominant self-images that characterise the intelligence agents who compiled it: that of repressors and that of political experts or analysts. The corpus is composed of documents produced on the occasion of the visit of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to Argentina in 1979. This visit was in response to international complaints about human rights violations by the military government of the time.

Brazilian government violates Indigenous rights: What could induce a change?

The current presidential administration of Brazil has implemented a legislative agenda aimed at weakening protections of Indigenous peoples, in line with an ideological discourse and the direct participation of the armed forces in this process. This agenda has enabled invasions of Indigenous lands and a much higher COVID-19 mortality rate for Indigenous peoples when compared to non-Indigenous people. A bill recently approved by the Chamber of Deputies aims to extinguish all Indigenous lands established by the Brazilian government from 1988 onwards. This bill represents the official opening for violation of the rights of Indigenous peoples by the Bolsonaro administration and facilitates invasion of Indigenous lands. The president’s multiple efforts to weaken or deny protection of these peoples, to usurp their lands and to deny their rights to consultation on projects that affect them need to be judged by Brazil’s Federal Supreme Court, the UN Human Rights Council, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the International Criminal Court.

Perverse Incentives: Extrajudicial Killings in Colombia

Perverse Incentives:Extrajudicial Killings in Colombia Elvira María Restrepo (bio) "[Jacqueline] Castillo was looking for her brother, Jaime, who had disappeared a few months earlier near Bogotá, more than 600km away. His was the last body they pulled out. When he was placed on the ground next to her, Castillo fell to her knees, screaming. The doctors told her he was a member of one of the many guerrilla armies that had been fighting the Colombian state since the mid-1960s and that he had been killed in combat. But Castillo knew that was impossible. Her brother had been a homeless beggar, not a guerrilla insurgent."1 ________ On September 27, 2008, the cover of Colombia's weekly Semana unveiled the existence of extrajudicial killings by the Public Force under the title "Falsos Positivos Mortales?"2 Much of the mainstream media, with some nuances, echoed a scandal that could no longer be hidden. The term "false positives" was adopted because the victims were innocent people extrajudicially killed by members of the Colombian Public Force and then falsely labeled enemy combatants. Today we know that thousands of civilians were lured under false pretenses to remote locations and killed by members of the Public Force. Following the killings, the crime scene was manipulated; victims were dressed as armed guerrillas to pass their deaths off as combat killings. The perpetrators obtained rewards in exchange. The victims—mostly poor, unemployed, and sometimes even disabled civilians—were then labeled to be non-identified buried in communal graves, like Jaime Castillo. He was one of the nineteen Falsos Positivos of Soacha, the case that initially resonated most strongly, thanks to the courageous and dogged activism of the mothers of these victims (Madres de Los Falsos Positivos—MAFAPO) and Soacha's proximity to the capital.3 This paper argues that the cascade of revelations and judicial decisions from the new Comprehensive System of Truth, Justice, Reparation, and Non-Repetition (CS), born out of the 2016 Peace Agreement with the FARC, coupled with a vibrant civil society and the existing domestic and international opportunity structures clearly exposed a long-standing Public Force perverse culture in which citizens are seen as internal enemies, while security is equated with the presence of the Public Force.4 It also argues that Colombia's new Special Jurisdiction for Peace (Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz—JEP in Spanish), one of the three institutions that comprise the CS, introduces a new understanding of accountability in international criminal law that has the potential to shift transitional justice practice. Finally, this paper warns about the perils of leaving the security sector unreformed. Colombia's Public Force is the second largest and [End Page 219] most professionalized in Latin America, and the strongest ally of the United States in a region where political instability looms large and transnational organized crime is rampant. Extrajudicial executions amid protracted conflict: heroes and villains The Falsos Positivos have been documented by CINEP since the 1980s.5 But it was only in the 2000s that these crimes were uncovered more systematically by victims' groups, national NGOs such as Coordinación Colombia-Europa-Estados Unidos (CCEEU), and international organizations.6 While estimated numbers vary and legal ambiguities regarding their crime categorization abound, the atrocities against the Falsos Positivos reached the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) a year before the media scandal erupted due to the impunity that prevailed in Colombia. In October 2007, following the IACHR hearing, the Washington Office on Latin America issued a report urging the US State Department and Congress to pursue stricter enforcement of human rights conditions.7 At the time, Colombia was one of the three largest recipients of U.S. military aid, and Plan Colombia—a U.S. aid initiative aimed at reducing the production of illegal drugs—was as its zenith.8 In February 2021, a decision by the JEP prioritized the investigation of Case 03, related to "deaths unlawfully presented as combat casualties by State agents," and publicized the existence of at least 6,402 cases, not 2,248-the official Attorney's Office count.9 It also stated that 78 percent of the historic Falsos Positivos documented between 1978 and...

A (IN) CONSTITUCIONALIDADE DA MEDIDA PROTETIVA DE AFASTAMENTO DO LAR, CONCEDIDA PELA AUTORIDADE POLICIAL (LEI N. 13.827/2019)

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo a investigação e a análise da (in) constitucionalidade da medida de afastamento do agressor de seu lar ou da vítima, quando envolver o risco atual ou iminente à vida ou à integridade física da mulher, promovida pela Autoridade Policial (Delegado de Polícia) ou pelo Policial, por meio da Lei nº13.827, de 13 de maio de 2019, que acrescentou o artigo 12-C, na Lei Maria da Penha. Inicialmente, buscou tratar da proteção à mulher no Brasil, evidenciando a intervenção internacional, pela OEA (Organização dos Estados Americanos) e pela Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (CIDH), para coibir qualquer tipo de violência em desfavor das mulheres no contexto da violência doméstica, além de destacar sobre a vida de Maria da Penha Maia Fernandes e, como se deu a criação da Lei que a homenageia. Posteriormente, apresentou os principais mecanismos criados para o amparo às mulheres, as medidas protetivas de urgência, buscando estudar o conceito e a natureza jurídica dessas medidas de proteção a essas vítimas. Por último, buscou-se avaliar a (in) constitucionalidade da medida protetiva de afastamento do lar, realizado pela Autoridade Policial e pelo Policial, considerando os princípios da dignidade da pessoa humana, da reserva jurisdicional, da liberdade de locomoção, da inviolabilidade domiciliar e do devido processo legal. Sendo utilizado o método de estudo indutivo, na elaboração do presente trabalho, por meio da análise da doutrina, da jurisprudência e de diversas Leis presentes no ordenamento jurídico brasileiro.

Um olhar sobre a violência LGBTIfóbica no Brasil

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar os dados de violência letal no Brasil contra a população sexodiversa, nos últimos 5 anos, a partir dos relatórios do Grupo Gay da Bahia (GGB) e da Comissão Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (CIDH). A elucidação e o esclarecimento acerca das concepções de homofobia, do heterossexismo e da heteronormatividade são meios de que dispomos para compreender a violência LGBTIfóbica presente na sociedade contemporânea. Os resultados obtidos indicam que, para o enfrentamento dessa violência, políticas públicas devem ser elaboradas como meios de superação dessa realidade.

Insights from outside BJOG

Insights from outside BJOG

Resolution 1106 (2168/18) (OAS), Precautionary Measure No. 731–18, & Precautionary Measure No. 505-18 (IACHR)

In the spring of 2018, the White House and executive agencies issued a series of orders aimed at more aggressive enforcement against irregular entry of migrants at the southwest border. In analyzing the legal validity of the new U.S. immigration policy decisions, the Inter-American System questioned and strongly condemned the U.S. policy and practice of separating migrant families. On June 29, 2018, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS) issued a resolution that rejected any migration policy that resulted in the separation of families. Specifically, it urged the U.S. government to implement measures to avoid the separation of families, to seek unification of children and parents already separated, and to promote the identification of migrants and refugee seekers in accordance with international law. After the issuance of the resolution, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) granted Precautionary Measure No. 731–18, Regarding Migrant Children Affected by the “Zero Tolerance” Policy Regarding the United States of America (the children's measure), and Precautionary Measure No. 505–18, Concerning Vilma Aracely López Juc de Coc and Others Regarding the United States of America (the parents’ measure), both of which recognized that the rights to family life and personal integrity were at risk.

El derecho a la nacionalidad y prevenir la apatridia en los países de la región

Washington, D.C. – La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH)saluda las medidas adoptadas por Chile, Colombia, Haití, Panamá, Paraguayy Uruguay para garantizar el derecho a la nacionalidad. La CIDH llama a losEstados a seguir adoptando medidas dirigidas a garantizar el goce efectivo delderecho a la nacionalidad, así como a prevenir y erradicar la apatridia en la región.

The struggle to uphold a regional human rights regime: the winding role of ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR)

Abstract This paper examines the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights’ (AICHR) role in upholding human rights by using the perspective of the human rights regime theory. In this perspective, AICHR is still behind other regional human rights bodies, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). The AICHR has passed the declaratory regime, but has not been in the stages of implementation or enforcement regime. Efforts from human rights proponents are expected to elevate the role of the AICHR.

Policy Statement on the Incarceration of Undocumented Migrant Families: Society for Community Research and Action Division 27 of the American Psychological Association.

Policy Statement on the Incarceration of Undocumented Migrant Families: Society for Community Research and Action Division 27 of the American Psychological Association.

Frames y Prácticas Discursivas entre Estado y poblaciones negras en Colombia: Racismo Estructural y Derechos Humanos

Este articulo analiza la forma en que se han utilizado los discursos y contra-discursos en la construccion de frames por parte del actor-red, Proceso de Comunidades Negras, en su interlocucion con el Estado colombiano en el marco de las audiencias de la Comision Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) entre el 2007 y el 2013. Teoricamente se abordan las nociones de biopoder, biopolitica, gubernamentalidad y practicas discursivas desarrollados por Michel Foucault y la teoria de los Frames de Snow y Bendford. Metodologicamente se analizan audios y videos de las audiencias ante la CIDH. En el analisis de la interaccion Estado-peticionarios afro se identificaron frames, discursos y contradiscursos referidos al racismo, la territorialidad, la victimizacion de las poblaciones y mujeres afro y el conflicto armado. Las conclusiones identifican frames en torno al tema de derechos humanos, orientados al aprovechamiento de las oportunidades discursivas y politicas abiertas por la CIDH para incidir en las decisiones del actor estatal

Human Rights Advocacy: An Introduction for Immigration Advocates

Human rights advocacy can be a useful tool for those who seek to advance the cause of social justice for immigrants in the United States. This article summarizes the basic ways in which domestic immigration advocates can effectively incorporate human rights norms and strategies into both individual case and policy advocacy. It provides an overview of relevant international human rights standards and tribunals, strategies for incorporating human rights norms into more traditional advocacy, and the basics of how to bring a case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). To demonstrate how human rights advocacy can intertwine with domestic advocacy on behalf of immigrants, case examples are discussed as well.

La reforma al mecanismo de medidas cautelares de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: Repercusiones en el marco de protección de derechos humanos del sistema interamericano

Más de 50 años han transcurrido desde la creación de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), órgano encargado de la promoción y protección de los derechos humanos reconocidos en varios instrumentos del sistema regional. Para lograr este propósito, la Comisión realiza tareas que incluyen la recepción de quejas individuales, compilación de informes sobre el cumplimiento de las obligaciones estatales en virtud de los documentos regionales de derechos humanos, investigación y monitoreo de situaciones específicas, y adopción de medidas cautelares en casos de gravedad y urgencia. En relación a este último, en razón de varias medidas cautelares adoptadas en países como Brasil, Ecuador y Venezuela, desde el año 2010 se comenzó una campaña de desacreditación de este mecanismo de la CIDH seguida por el llamamiento a la implementación de reformas al sistema. Las propuestas de reforma incluyen el desarrollo de criterios para el otorgamiento, conservación y levantamiento de las medidas, la elaboración de parámetros objetivos para determinar qué situaciones reúnen la “gravedad” y “urgencia” requeridas para el otorgamiento de medidas, entre otras. Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar el impacto que dichas propuestas de reforma podrían tener en el mecanismo de medidas cautelares y, consecuentemente, en la protección de los derechos humanos consagrados en diversos documentos del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.

The History of the Inter-American System's Jurisprudence as Regards Situations of Armed Conflict

AbstractFaced with insurgencies and situations of internal armed conflict in a number of Organization of American States (OAS) member states, some states called upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) to take into account the operations of irregular armed groups when assessing the situation of human rights in their countries. The IACHR responded that only assessment of state actions had been included within its mandate and that the OAS member states should amend the IACHR's Statute if they wished to expand its mandate. The OAS member states failed to do so. In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons, set forth its view on the relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and international humanitarian law (IHL). In 1997, following the ICJ's Opinion, the IACHR began to apply IHL as the lex specialis in its assessments of the situation of IHRL and IHL to cases involving situations of armed conflict and continued to do so until the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) declared the IACHR incompetent to apply IHL. This article submits that the IACtHR erred in its judgment on the Preliminary Objections in Las Palmeras v. Colombia.

THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM FIFTY YEARS LATER: TIME FOR CHANGES

This article analyzes the latest reforms of rules and regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the overall functioning of the Inter-American human rights system. Particularly the article focuses on the strengths and weaknesses of the judicialization of the Inter-American amparo. The paper identifies the measures necessary to allow the Inter-American system to play a more prominent role in the promotion and protection of human rights. Specific measures include mainstreaming the work of the OAS around human rights issues, including in the Inter-American Democratic Charter a stronger link between democracy and the protection of human rights, and balancing the work on individual complaints with other tools available to the IACHR. It proposes a fundamental change in the IACHR’s profile through the modification of its participation in the individual petition system. The Commission should only act as an organ of admissibility and facilitator of friendly solutions, and the Court as a tribunal that carries out findings of fact and makes legal determinations on the merits of complaints. The IACHR needs to concentrate more heavily on political and promotional activities that complement its limited participation in the processing of individual cases.

The Maria da Penha Case and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Contributions to the Debate on Domestic Violence Against Women in Brazil

This article aims to demonstrate the contributions of the Maria da Penha case and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Report of 2001 to the debate on domestic violence against women in Brazil, with special emphasis to the adoption of the Maria da Penha Law. The IACHR was the first international human rights organ to bring to light the problem. Beside contributing to internal changes, this case has great relevance as it was the first one of domestic violence analyzed by the Inter-American Commission. It revealed the systematic pattern of violence against women in the country. Around the world at least one woman in every three has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime. Most often the abuser is a member of her own family. Increasingly, gender-based violence is recognized as a major public health concern and a violation of human rights. Heise, Ellsberg, and Gottemoeller 1

Remarks by Lucinda Low

I would like to speak about the public international law claims and remedies that have been invoked in this case, in particular the second claim filed by Chevron and Texaco under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), and the now withdrawn request for precautionary measures filed by the Lago Agrio plaintiffs against Ecuador before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), and their interaction with the domestic law claims in the case. I am not personally involved in the case. My law firm represents Chevron in other contexts, but I am not speaking on Chevron's behalf or on my firm's behalf, but in my personal capacity, based on extensive legal experience with the extractive industries. Before doing so, however, I want to focus on some of the factual aspects of the case that previous speakers have not highlighted. The theme of this Annual Meeting is complexity, and one of the dimensions of this case that is important to the issue of legal responsibility is factual complexity. In reviewing the voluminous history of this dispute, three aspects struck me as having received insufficient attention: (1) The empty chair at the table. The concession at issue in this case dates back to 1964. It is thus a very old concession, likely differing in significant respects from contracts or concessions for resource extraction that would be given today. During the entire time that Texaco, through its Ecuadorian subsidiary Texaco Petroleum Corporation (referred to herein for convenience as Texaco), was involved in Ecuador, it held a minority interest in a consortium that held the concession. From 1976, the concession was majority-owned by the state of Ecuador through its state-owned enterprise (SOE) PetroEcuador. Although Texaco was operator of the concession from 1974 to the time of its departure from Ecuador in 1990, decisions regarding the activities of the consortium would have been taken or approved by the consortium as a whole. Moreover, after Texaco left Ecuador in 1990, PetroEcuador took over as operator of the project and has since held 100% ownership. PetroEcuador has operated the project for more than two decades now. PetroEcuador is reported to have caused hundreds of spills during its tenure as operator. Yet the plaintiffs have targeted only the foreign investor, not the SOE. The judgment of the Ecuadorian courts makes no effort to determine or allocate responsibility, either among consortium members during the period Texaco was involved, or during the period after Texaco departed Ecuador and PetroEcuador was the sole owner and operator. (2) Remediation. After Texaco exited Ecuador in 1990, while Aguinda was still pending in the United States, agreements were reached between Texaco, the Ecuadorian government, and PetroEcuador allocating responsibilities for remedial work in the project area among them. It appears Texaco performed the work it contractually undertook to do, and was formally released by the state and PetroEcuador in 1998 (although Ecuador in 2008 sought to criminally impeach the lawyers for the company who signed certifications regarding the completion of remedial work which triggered the release). Texaco also sought and obtained releases from several municipalities in the project area. I have looked at these releases; they do not appear to cover anything but claims of the parties thereto; nor is there any right of indemnity. With 20/20 hindsight regarding what has since transpired (including the adoption of the legislation described below), Texaco might today draft the release somewhat differently than it did in 1995, but it probably thought at the time it had protected itself fairly well. (3) Environmental standards. It also appears that the basis of the Lago Agrio claim is legislation that was adopted in 1999, years after Texaco exited the country, and after it was released from liability by the state, creating for the first time a private right of action for environmental damage. …