LibGuides: International Human Rights by Siomara Umaña: Case Law

Jurisprudence

These are some key cases that have been decided by the Inter-American Court, which are contentious in nature, and thus binding as hard law. Additionally, please visit the Inter-American Court's website to access their Jurisprudence Database.

Indigenous Rights

Pueblo Indígena Kichwa de Sarayaku vs. Ecuador

Country: Ecuador

Thematic Focus:

Access to Justice (Right to)
Cultural Rights
Indigenous Peoples' Rights
Land Rights and Natural Resources

Forum and Date of Decision: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 06/27/2012

Nature of the Case:

Complaint against Ecuador for having granted a concession for oil exploration and exploitation and allowing an Argentinean company to begin seismic exploration within the Sarayaku people’s territory without having consulted with the Sarayaku or obtaining their consent. Violations of the right to prior consultation, prior consent, community indigenous land, cultural identity, life, and personal integrity.

Summary:

The Sarayaku people form one of the oldest settlements of the Kichwa People in the province of Pastaza in the Ecuadorian Amazon, and include approximately 1,300 people. In 1996, Ecuador signed a contract with the Empresa Estatal de Petróleos del Ecuador (PETROECUADOR) and a group formed with CGC (Compañía General de Combustibles, a subsidiary of Chevron, in Argentina) and la Petrolera Ecuador San Jorge S.A. for oil exploration and exploitation in Sarayaku lands. Between 2002 and 2003, CGC, with the help of Ecuador’s armed forces, entered Sarayaku lands without consulting them or obtaining their permission, in order to conduct seismic exploration. The company placed almost 1.5 tons of explosives in the forest. This forcible entry also caused the destruction of sacred sites and led to various confrontations between the Sarayaku, the company, and Ecuador’s armed forces. It also culminated in threats against Sarayaku leaders and violence against Sarayaku community members.

The Inter-American Commission granted precautionary measures in favor of the community in 2003, but the Court did not hand down its sentence until June, 2012, after a historic visit by the Court to Sarayaku in April of the same year. The Court found that Ecuador violated the right to prior and informed consultation, community property rights, and the right to cultural identity. The Court also found that Ecuador was responsible for putting in serious risk the right to life and cultural integrity and that Ecuador had violated the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection of the Sarayaku People. The Court developed its prior consultation standards, reiterating its jurisprudence that consultations should be undertaken with good faith, through culturally adequate procedures, with the aim of reaching an agreement, and the consultation should be prior, informed, and culturally appropriate. It established that the consultation is the duty of the State, and cannot be delegated to third parties. Additionally, it affirmed that the State duty to effectively organize governmental apparatus in such a way that the consultation can be effectively accomplished.

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights decided that Ecuador should clear the Sarayaku lands of the explosives. Also, prior to any resource extraction projects, adequate, effective and full consultation of the Sarayaku people should be conducted with regard to environmental impact. The State should also conduct training programs on the rights of indigenous peoples for public employees working with indigenous peoples, and it should organize a public act on the Sarayaku lands, recognizing its responsibility for the violations. Finally, the Court ruled that the State should pay compensation for both material (90,000 US dollars) and non-material damages (1,250,000 US dollars).

Significance of the Case:

The decision symbolizes indigenous resistance against oil, logging, and mining throughout the Amazon and it celebrates the solidarity among members of the Sarayaku people in fighting for their lands. According to the Sarayaku’s attorney, Mario Melo, the Court’s decision and intense international attention that it received are the result of a strategy of the Sarayaku that could be used with the same success by other indigenous communities that face the imposition of “development” projects in their lands. The Sarayaku were examples of unity, organization, social cohesion and determination. Moreover, from a normative perspective, the decision clearly establishes criteria for prior and informed consultation that will serve for other cases of development-induced violations of indigenous peoples’ rights in Latin America. It also recognizes indigenous communities themselves as subjects of collective rights under international law (Interview with Mario Melo, documents by CEJIL, Amazon Watch, The Economist).

Women's Right (Domestic Violence)

Caso González y otras (“Campo Algodonero”) vs. México, 11/16/2009

A. Relevant facts

Ciudad Juárez is located in the northern part of the state of Chihuahua, on the border with El Paso, Texas. It is an industrial city where the maquiladora industry (manufacturing and/ or assembly plants) has been a place of transit for Mexican and foreign migrants. Ciudad Juárez is also a very violent city. Various types of organized crime such as drug trafficking, people trafficking and money laundering converge, creating high levels of insecurity and violence.

The bodies of three women, Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez ("the victims"), were found in a cotton field in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, on November 6, 2001. These were not isolated incidents. Since 1990, the number of disappearances and murders of women and girls has been alarming. The victims are young women aged 15 to 25 years, students or workers in the maquiladoraindustries or in other local businesses, some of whom had only lived in Ciudad Juárez for a very short period of time. A large number of the crimes are characterized by the following common factors: "the women were abducted and kept in captivity, their next of kin reported their disappearance and, after days or months, their bodies were found on empty lots with signs of violence, including rape and other types of sexual abuse, torture and mutilation... of certain parts of the body, including the absence of breasts or genitalia".Approximately 113 women, including the victims of this case, had been killed according to this pattern prior to the date of the judicial decision.

Both the State and the representatives of the victims have recognized that these criminal patterns are influenced by a culture of gender-based discrimination. The State has affirmed that in Ciudad Juárez, themaquiladora industry was established in 1965 and expanded in 1993 with the North American Free Trade Agreement. It indicated that by giving preference to hiring women, the maquiladora industries caused changes to women's working lives that also had an impact on their family lives because traditional roles began to change, with women becoming household providers.Various reports agree that although there are different motives for the murders in Ciudad Juárez and different perpetrators, many cases relate to gender violence that occurs in a context of systematic discrimination against women.

While the State created a special unit to investigate the crimes, there has been evidence of negligence in the criminal investigations and discrimination of women within the criminal proceedings. The domestic authorities have not yet made conclusions regarding the particular circumstances of the crimes of the three victims in theCotton Field case or who was responsible for them.

B. The Court's decision

The Court declared that the Mexican State was internationally responsible for the disappearance and subsequent death of the three victims. The State partially acknowledged its international responsibility. Particularly, the State admitted to the contextual facts concerning violence against women in Ciudad Juárez, mainly relating to the murders that have been recorded since the beginning of the 1990s. It also acknowledged that irregularities occurred during the investigations, but afterwards, they were fully rectified, and due to the irregularities of the criminal investigations, the personal integrity of the next of kin of the victims were affected. However, the State claimed that it had not violated the rights to life of the victims (article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights - ACHR) to physical integrity or humane treatment (article 5 ACHR), or to dignity or personal liberty (article 7 ACHR), considering that the State agents did not participate in any of the three murders. Therefore, the State acknowledged responsibility only for violations of the right to a fair trial (article 8 ACHR), the right to judicial protection (article 25 ACHR), and the right to physical integrity and humane treatment (article 5 ACHR -exclusively regarding the next of kin).

The Court embraced and valued the partial acknowledgment of responsibility of the State of Mexico but rejected the State's arguments regarding its lack of responsibility on the other claims, despite the fact that there was no evidence of the State's direct participation in any of the three murders. The Court declared that the State was internationally responsible for the following reasons: (i) not having taken measures to protect the victims, two of whom were minor children; (ii) the lack of prevention of these crimes, despite full awareness of the existence of a pattern of gender-related violence that had resulted in hundreds of women and girls murdered; (iii) the lack of response of the authorities to the disappearances; (iv) the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the homicides, as well as the denial of justice; and (v) the lack of an adequate reparation. The Court also declared the State responsible for the violation of the human rights of the mothers and next of kin of the victims.

Children's Rights

Case of the Jean and Bosico Children v. The Dominican Republic [ENG]

Country: Dominican Republic/República Dominicana

Thematic Focus: Children's Rights

Forum and Date of Decision: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 09/08/2005

Nature of the Case:

Petition alleging violation of rights to nationality and education of girls of Haitian descent born in the Dominican Republic. Right to nationality as a way to have civil and political rights acknowledged. Obligation to respect right to non discrimination in granting nationality. Precautionary measures to prevent deportation and to guarantee right to education of a girl in school age.

Summary:

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) received a petition in favor of Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosica against the Dominican Republic for denying them the Dominican nationality although they were born there. The petitioners claimed that, since their nationality was not acknowledged, the girls were exposed to the imminent threat of being expelled from the country and, lacking an identity document, could not attend school. The IACHR adopted precautionary measures to prevent the girls' deportation and to guarantee that Bosica could continue going to school, and referred the case to the Inter-American Court. The Court found that, by refusing to issue birth certificates and preventing the applicants from enjoying their citizenship rights due to their ancestors' origin, the Dominican State had violated their rights to protection measures, to equality and non discrimination, to nationality, to having a legal status and a name. The Court concluded that the right to nationality opened the way to enjoying the other rights, and that denying children their birth certificate amounted to denying them their right to be part of a political community. Therefore, the Court ordered the State to adopt measures to revert the historical discrimination caused by its birth record system and education system, and, in particular, to adopt a simple, accessible and reasonable procedure for Dominican children of Haitian descent to obtain a birth certificate. Finally, the Court requested the State to guarantee access to free elementary education for all children regardless of their background or origin. The Court considered this obligation was a consequence of the special protection children are entitled to.

Significance of the Case:

This case represents a valuable precedent in the field of social rights. On the one side, the fundamental value of nationality rights as a tool to achieve recognition of other rights was acknowledged. On the other, it is one of the first cases in which violations of the right to education were heard and the Court ordered to have their enjoyment guaranteed regardless of the child's background. This case is also a call for the Dominican State to provide a definitive solution to the widespread vulnerability of the rights of thousands of children of Haitian descent living in its territory.

Right to Life and Children's Right

Case of the Street Children (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala

Country: Guatemala

Thematic Focus: Life (Right to)

Forum and Date of Decision: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 11/19/1999

Nature of the Case:

Petition related to the death of five street children. Interpretation of right to life as including minimum conditions for a dignified life. The States' obligation to adopt special measures aimed at children. Interpretation of American Convention based on International Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Summary:

A petition was filed with the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) against the State of Guatemala alleging the kidnapping, torture and death of four minors and the murder of a fifth one in 1990, in the city of Guatemala, by members of the security forces, and the State's failure to provide adequate judicial protection to the victims' families. The IACHR submitted the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which found the State had been responsible for the death of the children and stressed the fundamental nature of the right to life, as enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). The Court stated that the right to life comprises not only the right of all persons to not being deprived of life arbitrarily, but also the right to having access to the conditions needed to lead a dignified life. The Court found violations of the rights to personal freedom and integrity, as well as of standards in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Sanction Torture. The Court also concluded the State had failed to comply with its obligation to adopt special measures to protect children whose rights are under threat or violated (cf. Art. 19 ACHR), resorting to several standards in the International Convention on the Rights of the Child to define the scope of the “protection measures” mentioned in the said article. The Court ordered the State to pay damages to the victims' families and to take the necessary measures to adjust domestic regulations to article 19 of the Convention. The Court also ordered the State to give an educational institution a name referring to the young victims, and to investigate the facts, identify and sanction those found responsible, as well as to adopt in its domestic law the regulations needed to ensure compliance with such obligation.

Significance of the Case:

This was the first time the Inter-American Court referred to the States' obligation to adopt special measures to protect children, basing its interpretation on the International Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, its interpretation did not include a precise scope of the legal framework. Furthermore, the Court defined the right to life in a comprehensive way including not only the right to not being deprived of life arbitrarily, but also the access to conditions guaranteeing a dignified life (see below: Mary Beloff, “Cuando un caso no es “el caso”. Comentario a la sentencia Villagrán Morales y otros (Caso de los “Niños de la calle”).

Right to Life and Right to Respect for Private Life

Case of ARTAVIA MURILLO ET AL. (“IN VITRO FERTILIZATION”) v. COSTA RICA

Forum: Inter-American Court of Human Rights

INTERIGHTS’ role: Third party intervener
Keywords: Bans and restrictions on assisted reproduction techniques, right to respect for private life, right to life, positive obligation on state to demonstrate proportionality of interference

Facts of the Case

This case is concerned with the across-the-board ban on the practice of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in Costa Rica. Restrictions on IVF, and the resulting impact on the human rights of those seeking to use such techniques, are issues of increasing prominence given that one in six couples experience some form of infertility problem during their reproductive lifetime. The response to this phenomenon has been an exponential rise over the past few decades, on a global scale, in the availability of medically assisted procreation treatment, including IVF. In the last five years alone, there has been a substantial increase in the number of IVF clinics worldwide, the development of more sophisticated techniques, and a corresponding increase in regulatory activity by states (whether through legislation or guidelines).

Case History

This case was initially considered by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. In its merits report issued in July 2011, the Commission held that, in imposing such a ban, Costa Rica has violated various rights under the American Convention on Human Rights: the right to have one’s private and family life respected; the right to found a family; and the right to equality and non-discrimination. Despite the Commission’s decision, Costa Rica failed to make any significant progress towards compliance, and in July 2011, the Commission submitted the case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights with the purpose of obtaining justice for the victims.

Latest Case Update

On 21 December 2012, the Inter-American Court found Costa Rica in breach of the American Convention on Human Rights, ruling that the State’s ban on IVF violated the right to privacy, the right to liberty, the right to personal integrity, and the right to form a family, in conjunction with the right to be free from discrimination.

The Court firstly considered the status of the embryo, finding that an embryo does not fall within the meaning of 'person' and is therefore not protected by the right to life provision under the ACHR. In reaching this decision, the Court considered the ACHR within the context of international and regional human rights systems, and applied various interpretive approaches. Secondly, the Court determined that the IVF ban constitutes an interference in private life as it restricts autonomous decision-making concerning treatment connected with a person’s sexual and reproductive health. It noted, among other things, that the severe and discriminatory impact of the ban was disproportionate to the legitimate aim sought to be achieved, namely the protection of embryos, as natural pregnancy also involves loss of embryos. In its analysis, the Court made reference to the comparative European jurisprudence and practice material set out in INTERIGHTS’ brief.

The Court ordered Costa Rica to legalise IVF within six months, to ensure implementation through the regulation of aspects of IVF, to provide free mental health services for the victims in this case, and to implement continued training on reproductive rights for judicial officials throughout the state. The Court’s decision is final and binding for each of the 22 countries that have accepted its jurisdiction, and can be accessed here (Spanish only).