-
1
-
-
26044443422
-
The right to information on consular assistance in the framework of the guarantees of the due process of law
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 1 (Oct. 1)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 1 (Oct. 1, 1999); see also, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24, 1963, art. 36, para. 1, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 U.N.T.S. 261. The advisory opinions and contentious decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights can be viewed at the website of the Organization of American States at http://www.oas.org (last visited April 1, 2002), or the website of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at http://www.corteidh.or.cr (last visited April 1, 2002).
-
(1999)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
2
-
-
26044470806
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 2
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 2.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
3
-
-
26044451384
-
-
Id. para. 82
-
Id. para. 82.
-
-
-
-
4
-
-
26044449952
-
In a subsequent decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States had violated the rights of Germany by not providing the LaGrand brothers with information as to consular assistance
-
(Ger. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 104 (June 27)
-
U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PUB. No. 10518, CONSULAR NOTIFICATION AND ACCESS: INSTRUCTIONS FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER OFFICIALS REGARDING FOREIGN NATIONALS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE RIGHTS OF CONSULAR OFFICIALS TO ASSIST THEM (1998). In a subsequent decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States had violated the rights of Germany by not providing the LaGrand brothers with information as to consular assistance. LaGrand Case, (Ger. v. U.S.), 2001 I.C.J. 104 (June 27).
-
(1998)
LaGrand Case
-
-
-
5
-
-
84928222416
-
The advisory practice of the inter-American human rights court
-
Thomas Buergenthal, The Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court, 79 AM. J.INT'L L. 1, 25 (1985).
-
(1985)
Am. J.Int'l L
, vol.79
, Issue.1
, pp. 25
-
-
Buergenthal, T.1
-
6
-
-
26044457589
-
-
Id. at 18
-
Id. at 18.
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
5844371727
-
Thomas buergenthal: Holocaust survivor to human rights advocate
-
Thomas Buergenthal served as a judge on the Inter-American Court for its first twelve years of existence. He was generally considered to have been the Court's most influential and creative member. He is currently a judge on the International Court of Justice. Jo M. Pasqualucci, Thomas Buergenthal: Holocaust Survivor to Human Rights Advocate, 18 Hum. Rts. Q. 877, 884-890 (1996)).
-
(1996)
Hum. Rts. Q.
, vol.18
, Issue.877
, pp. 884-890
-
-
Pasqualucci, J.M.1
-
9
-
-
26044463964
-
Compulsory membership in an association prescribed by law for the practice of journalism (arts. 13 and 29 of the American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 52 (Nov. 13)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 52 (Nov. 13, 1985).
-
(1985)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
10
-
-
26044471085
-
The effect of reservations on the entry into force of the American convention on human rights (arts. 74 and 75)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, para. 29 (Sept. 24)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, The Effect of Reservations on the Entry Into Force of the American Convention on Human Rights (Arts. 74 and 75), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 29 (Sept. 24, 1982).
-
(1982)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
12
-
-
0041941121
-
The new international law: Protection of the rights of individuals rather than states
-
Louis B. Sohn, The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States, 32 AM. U. L. Rev. 1, 1 (1982).
-
(1982)
Am. U. L. Rev.
, vol.32
, Issue.1
, pp. 1
-
-
Sohn, L.B.1
-
14
-
-
26044434578
-
-
Id. at 289-97
-
Id. at 289-97;
-
-
-
-
15
-
-
26044460871
-
-
at 4-5
-
cf. Sohn, supra note 11, at 4-5.
-
Supra Note
, vol.11
-
-
Sohn1
-
16
-
-
26044446632
-
-
The doctrine of humanitarian intervention has permitted States to intervene when the "[t]yrannical conduct of a government towards its subjects and gross mistreatment of national or religious minorities have occasionally reached a level at which intervention in the name of humanity [is] considered permissible." Sohn, supra note 11, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.11
-
-
Sohn1
-
17
-
-
26044442724
-
-
S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, at 18 (1927)
-
S.S. Lotus (Fr. v. Turk.), 1927 P.C.I.J. (ser. A) No. 10, at 18 (1927).
-
-
-
-
19
-
-
26044474425
-
The inter-American human rights system at the dawn of the new century: Recommendations for improvement of its mechanism of protection
-
David J. Harris & Stephen Livingstone, eds.
-
Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade, The Inter-American Human Rights System at the Dawn of the New Century: Recommendations for Improvement of its Mechanism of Protection, in THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS 395, 417 (David J. Harris & Stephen Livingstone, eds. 1998);
-
(1998)
The Inter-American System of Human Rights
, vol.395
, pp. 417
-
-
Trindade, A.A.C.1
-
20
-
-
5844261306
-
The inter-American human rights system: Establishing precedents and procedure in human rights law
-
see also, Jo M. Pasqualucci, The Inter-American Human Rights System: Establishing Precedents and Procedure in Human Rights Law, 26 U. MIAMI INTER-AM. L. REV. 297, 316-17 (1994-95);
-
(1994)
26 U. Miami Inter-am. L. Rev.
, vol.297
, pp. 316-317
-
-
Pasqualucci, J.M.1
-
21
-
-
26044454779
-
Disappearances in honduras: The need for direct victim representation in human rights litigation
-
Claudio Grossman, Disappearances in Honduras: The Need for Direct Victim Representation in Human Rights Litigation, 15 HASTINGS INT'L & COMP. L. REV. 363, 389 (1992);
-
(1992)
15 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev.
, vol.363
, pp. 389
-
-
Grossman, C.1
-
22
-
-
26044468972
-
The individual as a party to international human rights litigation, with the particular reference to the issue of 'abuse of the right to petition'
-
Alexander H. E. Morawa, The Individual as a Party to International Human Rights Litigation, With the Particular Reference to the Issue of 'Abuse of the Right to Petition,'4 J. INT'L REL. 11, 11 (1997)
-
(1997)
J. Int'l Rel.
, vol.4
, Issue.11
, pp. 11
-
-
Morawa, A.H.E.1
-
23
-
-
26044483212
-
The inter-American human rights system
-
Patrick Robinson, The Inter-American Human Rights System, 17 W. INDIAN L.J. 8, 24 (1992).
-
(1992)
W. Indian L.J.
, vol.17
, Issue.8
, pp. 24
-
-
Robinson, P.1
-
24
-
-
26044438408
-
-
Blake v. Guatemala Case, (Reparations), Judgment of Jan. 22, (ser. C) No. 48 (separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade), para. 33
-
Blake v. Guatemala Case, (Reparations), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Judgment of Jan. 22, 1999, (ser. C) No. 48 (separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade), para. 33.
-
(1999)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R.
-
-
-
26
-
-
53349156291
-
Interpretation of peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania
-
Mar. 30
-
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, 1950 I.C.J. 65, 71 (Mar. 30).
-
I.C.J.
, vol.1950
, Issue.65
, pp. 71
-
-
-
27
-
-
53349156291
-
Interpretation of peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania
-
Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, 1950 I.C.J. 65, 71, Id.
-
I.C.J.
, vol.1950
, Issue.65
, pp. 71
-
-
-
28
-
-
26044437854
-
Restrictions to the death penalty (arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 22 (Sept. 8)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, Restrictions to the Death Penalty (arts. 4(2) and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 22 (Sept. 8, 1983);
-
(1983)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
29
-
-
26044433280
-
The inter-American court, human rights and the OAS
-
see also, Thomas Buergenthal, The Inter-American Court, Human Rights and the OAS, 7 HUM. RTS. L.J. 157, 159-60 (1986).
-
(1986)
Hum. Rts. L.J.
, vol.7
, Issue.157
, pp. 159-160
-
-
Buergenthal, T.1
-
30
-
-
26044471075
-
-
Id. at 159-60
-
Judge Buergenthal stated that, "an advisory opinion... does not stigmatize a government as a violator of human rights. . . however, it makes the abstract legal issue perfectly clear for any government wishing to avoid being held in violation of its international legal obligations." Id. at 159-60.
-
-
-
-
32
-
-
26044465737
-
The nuclear weapons opinions: Reflections on the advisory procedure of the international court of justice
-
Liz Heffernan, The Nuclear Weapons Opinions: Reflections on the Advisory Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 28 STETSON L. REV. 133, 139 (1998).
-
(1998)
Stetson L. Rev.
, vol.28
, Issue.133
, pp. 139
-
-
Heffernan, L.1
-
37
-
-
0342896938
-
European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
-
Nov. 4
-
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221,
-
(1950)
U.N.T.S.
, vol.213
, Issue.221
-
-
-
38
-
-
84861238996
-
-
May 11, (last visited April 1, 2002) [hereinafter European Convention]
-
amended by Protocol 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, May 11, 1994, Eur. T. S. No. 155, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/Treaties/html/005.htm (last visited April 1, 2002) [hereinafter European Convention].
-
(1994)
Eur. T. S. No. 155
, vol.155
-
-
-
39
-
-
26044479606
-
Advisory jurisdiction of the European human rights court: A procedure worth retaining?
-
supra note 10, at 494-511
-
Originally, the European Court did not have advisory jurisdiction. Protocol 2 provided for advisory jurisdiction. For a drafting history of advisory jurisdiction in the European human rights system, see Andrew Drzemczewski, Advisory Jurisdiction of the European Human Rights Court: A Procedure Worth Retaining?, in THE MODERN WORLD OF HUMAN RIGHTS: ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF THOMAS BUERGENTHAL, supra note 10, at 494-511.
-
The Modern World of Human Rights: Essays in Honour of Thomas Buergenthal
-
-
Drzemczewski, A.1
-
41
-
-
26044460132
-
-
Doc. A/CONF. 62/122 (entered into force on Nov. 16)
-
Doc. A/CONF. 62/122 (1982), 21 I.L.M. 1261 (entered into force on Nov. 16, 1994).
-
(1982)
I.L.M.
, vol.21
, Issue.1261
-
-
-
42
-
-
26044476824
-
-
The convention provides that the tribunal "shall give advisory opinions at the request of the Assembly or the Council on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities." (1982) 21 I.L.M. 1261, Id.
-
(1982)
I.L.M.
, vol.21
, Issue.1261
-
-
-
43
-
-
26044476281
-
-
reprinted
-
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, art. 4, adopted on June 9, 1998, by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, reprinted in 20 HUM. RTS. L.J. 269, 269 (1999)
-
(1999)
HUM. RTS. L.J.
, vol.20
, Issue.269
, pp. 269
-
-
-
44
-
-
26044442996
-
Towards an African court of human rights: Structuring and the court
-
[hereinafter Protocol to the African Charter]. For an excellent analysis of the future structuring of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, see Vincent O. Orlu Nmehielle, Towards an African Court of Human Rights: Structuring and the Court, 6 ANN. SURV. INT'L & COMP. L. 27 (2000).
-
(2000)
Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L
, vol.6
, pp. 27
-
-
Nmehielle, V.O.O.1
-
46
-
-
26044440792
-
Advisory opinions of national and international courts
-
See generally Manley O. Hudson, Advisory Opinions of National and International Courts, 37 HARV. L. REV. 970 (1924).
-
(1924)
Harv. L. Rev.
, vol.37
, pp. 970
-
-
Hudson, M.O.1
-
47
-
-
26044434804
-
-
at 486, nn. 20, 21
-
HUDSON, supra note 22, at 486, nn. 20, 21.
-
Supra Note
, vol.22
-
-
Hudson1
-
48
-
-
26044442998
-
-
Muskrat v. U.S., 219 U.S. 346, 356, 361, 363 (1911)
-
Muskrat v. U.S., 219 U.S. 346, 356, 361, 363 (1911).
-
-
-
-
49
-
-
26044477139
-
-
at 485, nn. 15, 16
-
These states include Colorado, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. In other states, including Alabama and Delaware, the authority to issue advisory opinions has been conferred by statute. HUDSON, supra note 22, at 485, nn. 15, 16.
-
Supra Note
, vol.22
-
-
Hudson1
-
50
-
-
26044457864
-
-
Apr. 30
-
The OAS is a regional organization open to states in the Western hemisphere. As of January 1999, the OAS had thirty-five members. Charter of the Organization of American States, Apr. 30, 1948, 119 U.N.T.S. 3,
-
(1948)
U.N.T.S.
, vol.119
, Issue.3
-
-
-
51
-
-
26044436801
-
-
Feb. 27
-
as amended by Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States ("Protocol of Buenos Aires), Feb. 27, 1967, 721 U.N.T.S. 324,
-
(1967)
U.N.T.S.
, vol.721
, Issue.324
-
-
-
52
-
-
26044443960
-
-
[hereinafter OAS CHARTER]
-
as amended by Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States ("Protocol of Cartagena de Indias"), Dec. 5, 1985, 25 I.L.M. 529 (1986) [hereinafter OAS CHARTER].
-
(1986)
I.L.M.
, vol.25
, Issue.529
-
-
-
53
-
-
26044466659
-
-
Id. art. 53.
-
Id. art. 53.
-
-
-
-
54
-
-
26044473002
-
-
entered into force Feb. 27
-
The Commission was established in 1959 by resolution of the OAS, and was granted status as one of the "principle organs" of the OAS in 1970, pursuant to the Protocol of Buenos Aires, supra note 33 (entered into force Feb. 27, 1970).
-
(1970)
Supra Note
, vol.33
-
-
-
55
-
-
84920870097
-
The inter-American commission on human rights: Its organization and examination of petitions and communications
-
supra note 16, at 65, 68
-
See Christina Cerna, The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Its Organization and Examination of Petitions and Communications, in THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 16, at 65, 68.
-
The Inter-American System of Human Rights
-
-
Cerna, C.1
-
56
-
-
26044452294
-
-
Nov. 22
-
The Convention provides that "[t]he Court shall consist of seven judges, nationals of the member states of the Organization, elected in an individual capacity from among jurists of the highest moral authority and of recognized competence in the field of human rights ...." American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123,
-
(1969)
U.N.T.S.
, vol.1144
, Issue.123
-
-
-
57
-
-
26044432120
-
-
(entered into force July 18), art. 52 [hereinafter American Convention]
-
9 I.L.M. 673 (entered into force July 18, 1978), art. 52 [hereinafter American Convention].
-
(1978)
I.L.M.
, vol.9
, Issue.673
-
-
-
58
-
-
26044463111
-
-
Id. art. 33
-
Id. art. 33.
-
-
-
-
59
-
-
26044437865
-
The states parties are listed in basic documents pertaining to human rights in the inter-American system
-
May 22
-
The states parties to the American Convention are Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The states parties are listed in BASIC DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM, O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser.L.V/I.4 rev. 8, 48 (May 22, 2001),
-
(2001)
O.A.S. Doc. OEA/Ser.L.V/I.4 Rev. 8
, pp. 48
-
-
-
60
-
-
84861238997
-
-
[hereinafter BASIC DOCUMENTS]. Trinidad & Tobago ratified the American Convention but then denounced it on May 26, which became effective on May 26
-
available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/document.htm [hereinafter BASIC DOCUMENTS]. Trinidad & Tobago ratified the American Convention but then denounced it on May 26, 1998, which became effective on May 26, 1999.
-
(1998)
-
-
-
61
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
arts. 4-8, 11, 12, 15, 21
-
American Convention, supra note 35, arts. 4-8, 11, 12, 15, 21.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
62
-
-
26044483761
-
-
Id. art. 44
-
Id. art. 44.
-
-
-
-
63
-
-
26044457233
-
-
Id. art. 51(1). Only the states parties to the case and the Commission have standing, Id art. 61
-
Id. art. 51(1). Only the states parties to the case and the Commission have standing, Id art. 61.
-
-
-
-
64
-
-
26044453774
-
-
Id. art. 62
-
A state party to the American Convention accepts the Court's jurisdiction as binding ipso facto when it files a special declaration to that effect. Id. art. 62.
-
-
-
-
65
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
at 48
-
The following States have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court: Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela. BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 48. Trinidad and Tobago had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court but has since denounced the Court's jurisdiction and the American Convention.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
66
-
-
26044437864
-
-
Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua Case, (Preliminary Objections), Judgment of Jan. 27, (ser. C) No. 21, paras. 49-50
-
Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua Case, (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Judgment of Jan. 27, 1995, (ser. C) No. 21, paras. 49-50;
-
(1995)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R.
-
-
-
67
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 62
-
see also, American Convention, supra note 35, art. 62.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
68
-
-
26044441556
-
International responsibility for the promulgation and enforcement of laws in violation of the convention (arts. 1 and 2 of the American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, para. 49 (Dec. 9)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (arts. 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 49 (Dec. 9, 1994).
-
(1994)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
69
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 63(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 63(1);
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
70
-
-
0347002563
-
Victim reparations in the inter-American human rights system: A critical assessment of current practice and procedure
-
see also Jo M. Pasqualucci, Victim Reparations in the Inter-American Human Rights System: A Critical Assessment of Current Practice and Procedure, 18 MICH. J. INT'LL. 1, 8-9 (1996).
-
(1996)
Mich. J. Int'll.
, vol.18
, Issue.1
, pp. 8-9
-
-
Pasqualucci, J.M.1
-
71
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 68(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 68(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
72
-
-
26044470663
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 43
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 43.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
73
-
-
26044433998
-
-
supra note 21, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
74
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 186
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, art. 62(1), approved by the Court at its Forty-Ninth Regular Session held Nov. 16-25, 2000 (entered into force June 1, 2001), reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 186.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
75
-
-
26044443685
-
Reports of the inter-American commission of human rights (art. 51 of the American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 26 (Nov. 14)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, Reports of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (art. 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 26 (Nov. 14, 1997);
-
(1997)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
77
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64;
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
78
-
-
26044476279
-
-
Adopted by the General Assembly of the OAS at its Ninth Regular Session, held in La Paz, Bolivia, Oct. (Res. No. 448), art. 2(2)
-
see also Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Adopted by the General Assembly of the OAS at its Ninth Regular Session, held in La Paz, Bolivia, Oct. 1979 (Res. No. 448), art. 2(2),
-
(1979)
Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
-
-
-
79
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
at 155
-
reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 155.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
80
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
81
-
-
84861238994
-
"Other treaties" subject to the consultative jurisdiction of the court (Art. 64 of the American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 17 Sept. 24, 1982
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, "Other Treaties" Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 17 (Sept. 24, 1982).
-
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
82
-
-
26044480032
-
-
OAS/Ser.G/V/C-d-1631, art. 53, reprinted, pt. 2, ch. 2, bklt. 13, at 20
-
OAS/Ser.G/V/C-d-1631, art. 53, reprinted in 2 HUMAN RIGHTS: THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM (THOMAS B. BUERGENTHAL & ROBERT E. NORRIS eds., 1982), pt. 2, ch. 2, bklt. 13, at 20.
-
(1982)
Human Rights: The Inter-american System
, vol.2
-
-
Buergenthal, T.B.1
Norris, R.E.2
-
83
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
84
-
-
26044446879
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 25.
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 25.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
85
-
-
84861252889
-
-
Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, Editorial Civitas, S.A., ed.
-
The Inter-American Court's advisory jurisdiction was initially more instrumental in developing international human rights law in the Americas than was its contentious jurisdiction. For an extensive analysis in Spanish of the first five years of the advisory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, see MANUEL E. VENTURA ROBLES & DANIEL ZOVATTO, LA FUNCIÓN CONSULTTVA DE LA CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS: NATURALEZA Y PRINCIPIOS 1982-1987 (Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, Editorial Civitas, S.A., ed. 1989).
-
(1989)
La Función Consulttva de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: Naturaleza y Principios 1982-1987
-
-
Robles, M.E.V.1
Zovatto, D.2
-
86
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 74
-
The Court, which came into existence after the entry into force of the American Convention in 1979, first exercised its advisory jurisdiction in 1982. The Convention entered into force when the eleventh State deposited its instrument of ratification with the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States. American Convention, supra note 35, art. 74.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
87
-
-
26044447645
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 40
-
See, e.g., Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 40.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
88
-
-
26044445450
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 27
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 27;
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
89
-
-
26044437864
-
-
Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua Case, (Preliminary Objections), Judgment of Jan. 27, (ser. C) No. 21, para. 26
-
see also Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua Case, (Preliminary Objections), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Judgment of Jan. 27, 1995, (ser. C) No. 21, para. 26 (exercising compétence de la compétence within the context of a contentious case).
-
(1995)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R.
-
-
-
90
-
-
26044437863
-
-
Nottebohm Case (Liech. v. Guat.), at 119 (Nov. 18)
-
By comparison, the International Court of Justice also held in the Nottebohm Case that the principle that "an international tribunal has the right to decide as to its own jurisdiction" is a general principle of international law. Nottebohm Case (Liech. v. Guat.), 1953 I.C.J. 111, at 119 (Nov. 18). The ICJ further stated that even if its statute had not included that provision, "[t]he judicial character of the Court and the rule of general international law referred to above are sufficient to establish that the Court is competent to adjudicate on its own jurisdiction...." Id. at 120. The American Convention and the Statute of the Inter-American Court do not include provisions specifying that the Inter-American Court has the competence to decide questions of its jurisdiction.
-
I.C.J.
, vol.1953
, Issue.111
-
-
-
91
-
-
84861242788
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), para. 6
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), supra note 50, para. 6.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
92
-
-
26044452607
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, para. 11
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, supra note 9, para. 11.
-
Supra Note
, vol.9
-
-
-
93
-
-
26044476280
-
-
Id. para. 13. The Secretary General is the depositary of all OAS treaties
-
Id. para. 13. The Secretary General is the depositary of all OAS treaties.
-
-
-
-
94
-
-
26044468357
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
95
-
-
26044461850
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
96
-
-
26044450499
-
Enforceability of the right to reply or correction (Arts. 1(1), 2, and 14(1)) of the American convention on human rights
-
Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, para. 12 (Aug. 29)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (Arts. 1(1), 2, and 14(1)) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A.) para. 12 (Aug. 29,1986),
-
(1986)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A.)
-
-
-
97
-
-
26044452013
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 42
-
quoted in Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 42.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
98
-
-
26044455057
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, paras. 13, 14
-
Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, supra note 65, paras. 13, 14.
-
Supra Note
, vol.65
-
-
-
99
-
-
26044463394
-
-
Id. para. 14
-
Id. para. 14.
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
26044467530
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
101
-
-
26044451670
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, paras. 16-17
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, paras. 16-17.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
102
-
-
26044463963
-
-
art. 29
-
The Court's Rules of Procedure provide that a judgment or interlocutory decision to discontinue a case must be "rendered exclusively by the Court." Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 49, art. 29.
-
Supra Note
, vol.49
-
-
-
103
-
-
26044447097
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, paras. 13, 16
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, paras. 13, 16.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
104
-
-
26044463110
-
-
art. 6
-
The function of the Permanent Commission is to assist and advise the President of the Court. Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 49, art. 6.
-
Supra Note
, vol.49
-
-
-
105
-
-
26044438120
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 16
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 16.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
107
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
108
-
-
0041934770
-
-
art. 14 (last visited April 1, 2002)
-
Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provided in relevant part "[t]he Court shall also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly." LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT art. 14, available at http://www.tufts.edu/departments/fletcher/multi/www/league-covenant.html (last visited April 1, 2002).
-
League of Nations Covenant
-
-
-
109
-
-
26044464445
-
-
at 488
-
Two organs, the League of Nations Assembly and Council, were authorized to make advisory opinion requests before the Permanent Court of International Justice. Although there was no express provision that the request must relate to the organ's sphere of competence, "[i]n the case relating to Danzig and the International Labor Organization, Judge Anzilotti expressed the view that as the admission of members of the League of Nations 'is a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Assembly,' it would seem to follow that 'the Assembly alone could ask the Court for an advisory opinion' relating to such admission." HUDSON, supra note 22, at 488.
-
Supra Note
, vol.22
-
-
Hudson1
-
110
-
-
26044452891
-
-
note
-
U.N. CHARTER art. 96. The General Assembly and the Security Council may request advisory opinions of the ICJ. Other U.N. organs and specialized agencies may be authorized by the General Assembly to request advisory opinions on legal questions.
-
-
-
-
111
-
-
26044470805
-
European convention
-
art. 47(1)
-
The European Convention on Human Rights restricts standing to request an advisory opinion to the Committee of Ministers. European Convention, supra note 25, art. 47(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.25
-
-
-
112
-
-
26044482636
-
-
Van Dijk and van Hoof suggest that, in addition, the European Commission on Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and perhaps even the Contracting States to the European Convention should be entitled to request an advisory opinion of the European Court. P. VAN DIJK & G.J.H. VAN HOOF, THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 265 (3d ed. 1998).
-
(1998)
Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights 265 (3d Ed.)
, vol.265
-
-
Van Dijk, P.1
Van Hoof, G.J.H.2
-
113
-
-
26044452562
-
Protocol to the African charter
-
art. 4(1)
-
Protocol to the African Charter, supra note 27, art. 4(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.27
-
-
-
114
-
-
84861254573
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), para. 4
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), supra note 50, para. 4.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
115
-
-
26044458812
-
-
Id. para. 37
-
Id. para. 37.
-
-
-
-
116
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
117
-
-
26044472738
-
-
OAS CHARTER, supra note 33. The member states of the OAS are Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, Uruguay, and Venezuela. Although Cuba ratified the OAS Charter, its membership was suspended in 1962 due to its form of government.
-
Supra Note
, vol.33
-
-
Charter, O.1
-
118
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
119
-
-
26044465990
-
The structure and functioning of the inter-American court of human rights (1979-1992)
-
Christina Cerna, Human Rights Specialist at the Inter-American Commission, explains that "[i]t is an unusual feature of this multilateral convention that it grants certain rights to States which are not parties to it, and reflects the expectation of its drafters that its complete implementation would take some time, during which non-States parties should be granted a limited access to the Court in order to facilitate their eventual entry into the system." Christina Cema, The Structure and Functioning of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1979-1992), BRIT. Y.B. INT'LL. 135, 141 (1992).
-
(1992)
Brit. Y.B. Int'll.
, vol.135
, pp. 141
-
-
Cema, C.1
-
120
-
-
26044439875
-
Proposed amendments to the naturalization provisions of the constitution of costa rica
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 11 (Jan. 19)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 11 (Jan. 19, 1984).
-
(1984)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
121
-
-
26044439875
-
Proposed amendments to the naturalization provisions of the constitution of costa rica
-
Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1984) Id.
-
(1984)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
122
-
-
26044439875
-
Proposed amendments to the naturalization provisions of the constitution of costa rica
-
Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1984), Id.
-
(1984)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
123
-
-
26044445449
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, para. 12
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, supra note 44, para. 12;
-
Supra Note
, vol.44
-
-
-
124
-
-
26044438408
-
-
Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru Case, (Compliance With Judgment), Judgment of Nov. 17, (ser. C) No. 59, para. 3
-
see also Note of Ambassador Beatriz M. Ramacciotti, Permanent Representative of Peru before the OAS, to César Gaviria, OAS Secretary General, (July 1, 1999) in Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru Case, (Compliance With Judgment), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Judgment of Nov. 17, 1999, (ser. C) No. 59, para. 3.
-
(1999)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R.
-
-
-
125
-
-
26044447367
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, para. 1
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, supra note 44, para. 1.
-
Supra Note
, vol.44
-
-
-
126
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 4(2)
-
The American Convention provides that "in countries that have not abolished the death penalty, it may be imposed only for the most serious crimes and pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court and in accordance with a law establishing such punishment, enacted prior to the commission of the crime. The application of such punishment shall not be extended to crimes to which it does not presently apply." American Convention, supra note 35, art. 4(2).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
127
-
-
26044435075
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, para. 12
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, supra note 44, para. 12.
-
Supra Note
, vol.44
-
-
-
128
-
-
26044480033
-
-
Id. para. 25
-
Id. para. 25.
-
-
-
-
129
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
130
-
-
26044436800
-
-
art. 53
-
These organs are now listed in Chapter VIII of the OAS Charter, as amended by the 1985 Protocol of Cartagena de Indias. OAS CHARTER, supra note 33, art. 53.
-
Supra Note
, vol.33
-
-
Charter, O.1
-
131
-
-
26044455843
-
-
note
-
The U.N. Charter similarly allows U.N. agencies, under certain circumstances, to request advisory opinions on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. Under the Charter of the United Nations, "(t]he General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question." Furthermore, "[o]ther organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities." U.N. CHARTER art. 96.
-
-
-
-
132
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
at 2-3
-
See BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 2-3, for a description of the functions of the OAS organs. The Specialized Organizations include the Pan American Health Organization, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, the Inter-American Indian Institute, the Inter-American Institute of Geography and History, the Inter-American Children's Institute, and the Inter-American Commission of Women. Id. at 3.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
133
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64(1);
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
135
-
-
26044446119
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, para. 14
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, supra note 9, para. 14.
-
Supra Note
, vol.9
-
-
-
137
-
-
26044469536
-
-
note
-
Id. paras. 15-16. The ICJ, when confronted with the question of the scope of an agency's responsibilities, has taken a restrictive view. For example, when the World Health Organization (WHO) requested an ICJ advisory opinion as to whether the dangerous health and environmental effects that would result from a state's deployment of nuclear weapons would breach the state's international obligations, including those set forth in the WHO Constitution, the ICJ rejected the request. The Court found that it was outside the scope of the WHO's responsibilities. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, 1996 I.C.J. 66, 84 (July 8). However, the ICJ did issue an advisory opinion on this question upon request by the U.K. General Assembly. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 I.C.J. 226, 227-29 (July 8), 35 I.L.M. 809, 814-15.
-
-
-
-
138
-
-
26044465738
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, para. 16
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, supra note 9, para. 16.
-
Supra Note
, vol.9
-
-
-
139
-
-
26044466926
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American court of human rights
-
art. 60(2)
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 49, art. 60(2).
-
Supra Note
, vol.49
-
-
-
140
-
-
26044470804
-
-
at 523
-
The Permanent Court of International Justice issued six opinions that dealt with the functioning of the International Labor Organization, two with the work of the Greco-Turkish Mixed Commission for the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, and others dealing with the Greco-Bulgarian Emigration Commission and the European Commission of the Danube. HUDSON, supra note 22, at 523.
-
Supra Note
, vol.22
-
-
Hudson1
-
142
-
-
26044452606
-
-
Id. at 4
-
Id. at 4;
-
-
-
-
146
-
-
26044479327
-
-
at 21
-
Buergenthal, supra note 5, at 21. Judge Buergenthal, who was sitting on the Court at the time, explains the background of the Commission's request. The opinion in the case does not mention the OAS Legal Counsel's prior determination.
-
Supra Note
, vol.5
-
-
Buergenthal1
-
147
-
-
26044470373
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, para. 37
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, supra note 9, para. 37.
-
Supra Note
, vol.9
-
-
-
148
-
-
84861237352
-
-
last visited April 1, 2002
-
Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome), Mar. 25, 1957, art. 234 (ex art. 177), 298 U.N.T.S. 3, 76-77 of http://www/hri/org/docs/Rome57 (last visited April 1, 2002).
-
U.N.T.S.
, vol.298
, Issue.3
, pp. 76-77
-
-
-
149
-
-
0346451315
-
Broadening the advisory jurisdiction of the international court of justice
-
AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, SUMMARY OF ACTION OF THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES, 1982 MIDYEAR MEETING 12 (Chicago 1982), as cited in Louis B. Sohn, Broadening the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, 77 AM. J. INT'LL. 124, 126 (1983);
-
(1983)
Am. J. Int'll.
, vol.77
, Issue.124
, pp. 126
-
-
Sohn, L.B.1
-
150
-
-
84856194774
-
Widening the advisory jurisdiction of the international court of justice without amending its statute
-
see also Stephen M. Schwebel, Widening the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice Without Amending its Statute, 33 CATH. U. L. REV. 355, 359 (1984) (considering the practicability of expanding the ICJ's jurisdiction).
-
(1984)
Cath. U. L. Rev.
, vol.33
, Issue.355
, pp. 359
-
-
Schwebel, S.M.1
-
151
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
at 2
-
BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 2.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
152
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
153
-
-
26044442469
-
-
LORD MCNAIR, LAW OF TREATIES 23 (1961) (stating that a protocol is essentially an amendment to a treaty to which states are bound only upon consent).
-
(1961)
Law of Treaties
, vol.23
-
-
Mcnair, L.1
-
154
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 44
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 44.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
155
-
-
26044452562
-
Protocol to the African charter
-
art. 4
-
Protocol to the African Charter, supra note 27, art. 4.
-
Supra Note
, vol.27
-
-
-
156
-
-
84933479387
-
The legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons under current international law: The arguments behind the world court's advisory opinion
-
Note
-
E.g., Edda Kristjansdottir, Note, The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Under Current International Law: The Arguments Behind the World Court's Advisory Opinion, 30 N.Y.U. J. INT'L L. & POL. 291, 291 (1997-1998) (stating that the requests for an ICJ advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons was "the result of intensive lobbying by a network of anti-nuclear activists and non-governmental organizations, known as the World Court project.").
-
(1997)
N.Y.U. J. Int'l L. & Pol.
, vol.30
, Issue.291
, pp. 291
-
-
Kristjansdottir, E.1
-
157
-
-
26044446878
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 1
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 8, para. 1.
-
Supra Note
, vol.8
-
-
-
159
-
-
26044438119
-
-
note
-
Id. paras. 14, 15, 19. For an excellent analysis of the facts underlying the case before the Commission and the submission of the request to the Court, see Cerna, supra note 82, at 173-80, proposing that one possible reason for Costa Rica's submission of the request to the Court was "its support for the continued survival of the Court, sometimes to the point of appearing adversely to affect its own self-interest.... " Id. at 176.
-
-
-
-
160
-
-
26044438967
-
Somoza's revenge: A new judge for the inter-American court of human rights
-
Douglas W. Cassel, Jr., Somoza's Revenge: A New Judge for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 13 H.R.L.J. 137, 139 (1992).
-
(1992)
H.R.L.J.
, vol.13
, Issue.137
, pp. 139
-
-
Cassel Jr., D.W.1
-
161
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 79
-
Protocol to Abolish the Death Penalty, approved on June 8, 1990 (entered into force on August 28, 1991), OAS T.S. No.73, reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 79.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
162
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 65
-
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed on Nov. 17, 1988, reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 65.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
163
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 64(2)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 64(2).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
164
-
-
26044477128
-
-
at 130-45
-
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, May 23, 1969, art. 31, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331. The Inter-American Court subsequently reiterated that "the 'ordinary meaning' of terms [of a treaty] cannot of itself become the sole rule, for it must always be considered within its context and in particular, in the light of the object and purpose of the treaty." Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 23. For a detailed analysis of the Inter-American Court's technique of treaty interpretation, see DAVIDSON, supra note 100, at 130-45.
-
Supra Note
, vol.100
-
-
Davidson1
-
165
-
-
26044441537
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, para. 29
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, supra note 9, para. 29.
-
Supra Note
, vol.9
-
-
-
166
-
-
26044452279
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 29
-
In accordance with that objective, the Court has stated that it must interpret the Convention so "as to give full effect to the system of human rights protection." Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 29.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
167
-
-
26044477680
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 48
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 48.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
168
-
-
26044469752
-
-
Id. para. 39, quoting Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of Feb. 3, (ser. C) No. 14, para. 63
-
The Court stated that it considers several equally important factors when deciding whether to accept a state's request for an advisory opinion. These factors include the need to "preserve a fair balance between the protection of human rights, which is the ultimate purpose of the system, and the legal certainty and procedural equity that will ensure the stability and reliability of the international protection mechanism," Id. para. 39, quoting Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Judgment of Feb. 3,1993, (ser. C) No. 14, para. 63.
-
(1993)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R.
-
-
-
169
-
-
26044469279
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 113
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 113.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
172
-
-
84861253060
-
The word "laws" in article 30 of the American convention on human rights
-
Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, para. 35 (May 9)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, The Word "Laws" in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 35 (May 9, 1986);
-
(1986)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
173
-
-
26044451731
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 42
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 8, para. 42.
-
Supra Note
, vol.8
-
-
-
174
-
-
26044439223
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, para. 27
-
Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, supra note 126, para. 27.
-
Supra Note
, vol.126
-
-
-
175
-
-
26044463962
-
-
supra note 126, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
176
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 30
-
The American Convention provides that in limited circumstances "a State may restrict the exercise of rights protected by the Convention." American Convention, supra note 35, art. 30. For example, Article 16 provides that the right to freedom of association "shall be subject only to such restrictions established by law as may be necessary in a democratic society, in the interest of national security, public safety or public order, or to protect public health or morals or the rights or freedoms of others." Id. art. 16. These restrictions, however, "may not be applied except in accordance with laws enacted for reasons of general interest and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been established."
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
177
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
American Convention, supra note 35, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
178
-
-
26044466098
-
Habeas corpus in emergency situations (Arts. 27(2) and 7(6) of the American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, para. 17 (Jan. 30)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 17 (Jan. 30, 1987).
-
(1987)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
179
-
-
26044442982
-
-
Id. para. 11
-
Id. para. 11.
-
-
-
-
180
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 27(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 27(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
181
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
"In times of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State party," the state may take measures derogating from certain of the rights protected by the Convention. American Convention, supra note 35, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
182
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
The derogation may be only "to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation...." American Convention, supra note 35, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
183
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 27(2)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 27(2).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
184
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
Other rights that may never be derogated from under the American Convention include: the rights to juridical personality (art. 3), freedom from slavery (art. 6), freedom from ex post facto laws (art. 9), freedom of conscience and religion (art. 12), rights of the family (art. 17), right to a name (art. 18), rights of the child (art. 20), and the right to participate in government (art. 23). American Convention, supra note 35, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
185
-
-
26044447971
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, para. 28
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, supra note 129, para. 28.
-
Supra Note
, vol.129
-
-
-
186
-
-
26044437855
-
-
note
-
Id. para. 11. The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to bring a detained person before a judge, who can then verify that the prisoner is alive, and that he or she has not been tortured. Id. paras. 33, 35. The Commission argued that certain states had laws or a practice under which detainees could be held incommunicado for as long as fifteen days. Id. para. 12.
-
-
-
-
187
-
-
26044444363
-
-
Id. para. 42
-
Id. para. 42.
-
-
-
-
188
-
-
26044446118
-
-
Id. para. 36
-
Id. para. 36.
-
-
-
-
189
-
-
0004296081
-
-
Phillip E. Berryman trans.
-
Id. para. 36. See generally HUM. RTS. WATCH, HONDURAS: THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, THE PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN HONDURAS (1994); REPORT OF THE CHILEAN NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION (Phillip E. Berryman trans., 1993);
-
(1993)
Report of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation
-
-
-
190
-
-
3142742850
-
From madness to hope: The 12-year war in El salvador: Report of the commission on the truth for el salvador
-
U.N. Doc. S/25500
-
From Madness to Hope: The 12-Year War in El Salvador: Report of the Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, The Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, U.N. Doc. S/25500 (1993), available at http://www.usip.org/library/tc/doc/reports/el_salvador/tc_es_03151993_toc.html.
-
(1993)
The Commission on the Truth for El Salvador
-
-
-
191
-
-
26044462131
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 61
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 61;
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
193
-
-
26044469535
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 13
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 13.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
194
-
-
26044451139
-
American convention
-
art. 75
-
A state may ratify a treaty with reservations that exclude or modify the legal effect of rights protected by the treaty. The American Convention provides that it is subject only to those reservations that conform to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. American Convention, supra note 35, art. 75.
-
Supra Note 35
-
-
-
195
-
-
26044459859
-
1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties
-
art. 19
-
The Vienna Convention specifies that a ratifying state may not make a reservation that is "incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty." 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 120, art. 19.
-
Supra Note
, vol.120
-
-
-
196
-
-
26044461430
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 10
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 10.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
197
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
at 84
-
Reservation of Guatemala to the American Convention on Human Rights, reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 84.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
198
-
-
26044441843
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 61
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 61.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
199
-
-
26044482190
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 55
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 55.
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
200
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 1(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 1(1). In addition, Article 24 provides that "[a]ll persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law." Id. art. 24.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
201
-
-
26044436799
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 55
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 55.
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
202
-
-
26044472031
-
-
Id. para. 56
-
Id. para. 56.
-
-
-
-
203
-
-
26044440526
-
-
Id. paras. 33, 67
-
Id. paras. 33, 67.
-
-
-
-
204
-
-
26044469278
-
-
Id
-
Id.;
-
-
-
-
206
-
-
26044472030
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 62
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 62.
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
207
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 26
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 26.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
208
-
-
26044448996
-
Additional protocol to the American convention on human rights in the area of economic, social and cultural rights
-
at 65
-
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supra note 118, at 65.
-
Supra Note
, vol.118
-
-
-
209
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
arts. 48-51
-
American Convention, supra note 35, arts. 48-51.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
210
-
-
84865549488
-
Preliminary objections before the inter-American court of human rights
-
See generally Jo M. Pasqualucci, Preliminary Objections Before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 40 VA. J. INT'L L. 1 (1999) (discussing a range of grounds upon which a state party may make preliminary objections to the Court's decision regarding a case's admissibility) [hereinafter Pasqualucci, Preliminary Objections].
-
(1999)
Va. J. Int'l L.
, vol.40
, Issue.1
-
-
Pasqualucci, J.M.1
-
211
-
-
26044472289
-
Exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a), and 46(2)(b) of the American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, para. 2 (Aug. 10)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a), and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 2 (Aug. 10, 1990).
-
(1990)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
212
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 46(1)(a)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 46(1)(a) (stating that the exhaustion of domestic remedies must be "in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law");
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
213
-
-
26044469534
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, para. 14
-
see also Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, supra note 154, para. 14.
-
Supra Note
, vol.154
-
-
-
214
-
-
79951913047
-
Velasquez rodríguez case
-
Judgment of July 29, (ser. C) No. 4, paras. 23-37
-
See Velasquez Rodríguez Case, Inter-Am, Ct. H.R., Judgment of July 29, 1988, (ser. C) No. 4, paras. 23-37.
-
(1988)
Inter-am, Ct. H.R.
-
-
-
215
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 46(2)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 46(2).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
216
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
This Article provides that domestic remedies do not need to be exhausted when (a) "the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated"; (b) "the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them"; or (c) "there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies." American Convention, supra note 35, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
217
-
-
26044459100
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, para. 2
-
Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, supra note 154, para. 2.
-
Supra Note
, vol.154
-
-
-
218
-
-
26044451669
-
-
Id. para. 42
-
Id. para. 42.
-
-
-
-
219
-
-
26044465469
-
Preliminary objections
-
at 69-96
-
See Pasqualucci, Preliminary Objections, supra note 153, at 69-96.
-
Supra Note
, vol.153
-
-
Pasqualucci1
-
220
-
-
0040370310
-
The rise of the Inter-American human rights regime: No longer a unicorn, not yet an ox
-
supra note 16, at 61-62
-
Tom Farer, a former commissioner, explains that: Before the Convention came into force, the Commission had occasionally granted audiences to individual petitioners and to governments where they could argue their cases ex parte. These audiences were as informal as they sounded. There were rules neither of evidence nor procedure. Commission members might or might not ask questions. There was no record. Tom Farer, The Rise of the Inter-American Human Rights Regime: No Longer a Unicorn, Not Yet an Ox, in THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 16, at 61-62. In time, however, especially after the entry into force of the American Convention, state parties, petitioners, and the Court came to expect and demand formal procedures, technical competence, and explicit deadlines. The Commission had difficulty adequately addressing these complaints due to the number of individual petitions filed with the Commission and its lack of staff and resources. Id. at 62.
-
The Inter-American System of Human Rights
-
-
Farer, T.1
-
221
-
-
26044448997
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50;
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
222
-
-
26044481369
-
Certain attributes of the inter-American commission on human rights
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, paras. 1, 3 (July 16)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 13, paras. 1, 3 (July 16, 1993).
-
(1993)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 13
, vol.13
-
-
-
223
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 127
-
See Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, approved by the Commission at its 109th session held December 4-8, 2000 (entered into force May 1, 2001), reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 127;
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
224
-
-
26044460769
-
Strengthening the inter-American human rights system: The current debate
-
Claudio Grossman, Strengthening the Inter-American Human Rights System: The Current Debate, 92 AM. SOC'Y INT'LL. PROC. 186, 190 (1998).
-
(1998)
Am. Soc'y Int'll. Proc.
, vol.92
, Issue.186
, pp. 190
-
-
Grossman, C.1
-
225
-
-
26044441840
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, paras. 48-49
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, supra note 161, paras. 48-49.
-
Supra Note
, vol.161
-
-
-
226
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 50(1)
-
Article 50 provides that if the parties do not reach a settlement, the Commission shall draw up a report setting forth its findings of fact and conclusions of law. American Convention, supra note 35, art. 50(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
227
-
-
84942941415
-
American convention on human rights
-
art. 50(2)
-
American Convention on Human Rights, supra note 35, art. 50(2).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
228
-
-
26044481920
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, paras. 48-49
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, supra note 161, paras. 48-49.
-
Supra Note
, vol.161
-
-
-
229
-
-
26044467831
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American commission of human rights
-
art 43(3)
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, supra note 162, art 43(3).
-
Supra Note
, vol.162
-
-
-
230
-
-
84929886734
-
Observaciones Sobre el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos en Vísperas de la Asamblea General de la OEA (San José, Junio de 2001)
-
Pedro Nikken, Observaciones Sobre el Fortalecimiento del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos en Vísperas de la Asamblea General de la OEA (San José, Junio de 2001), 1 REVISTA INTER-AMERICANA INSTTTUTO DE DERECHOS HUMANOS, Special Edition 13 (2001).
-
(2001)
1 Revista Inter-Americana Instttuto de Derechos Humanos, Special Edition
, vol.13
-
-
Nikken, P.1
-
231
-
-
26044467831
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American commission of human rights
-
art. 37(1)
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, supra note 162, art. 37(1) (which provides that the Commission shall make public its reports on admissibility and inadmissibility).
-
Supra Note
, vol.162
-
-
-
232
-
-
26044472735
-
-
Permanent Council of the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, (ser. G) CP/CAJP-1610/00 rev. 2, (April 24)
-
Dialogue on the Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, Permanent Council of the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, (ser. G) CP/CAJP-1610/00 rev. 2, 10 (April 24, 2000).
-
(2000)
Dialogue on the Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
, pp. 10
-
-
-
233
-
-
26044472735
-
-
At least three states - Brazil, Mexico, and Peru - voiced the opinion that the Commission's decision on admissibility should be "communicated exclusively to the State and to the petitioners on a confidential basis." From their perspective, the publication of the report on admissibility prejudges the state's responsibility for the alleged violation and serves as a sanction before formal procedures have been completed. Conversely, the Commission takes the position that admissibility reports are unrelated to the reports treated in the Court's earlier advisory opinions because admissibility reports do not include conclusions or recommendations. According to the Commission, an admissibility report is merely a statement that the Commission has declared the petition to be admissible, and its publication serves to disseminate the case law of the Commission. Dialogue on the Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 10 (2000). Id.
-
(2000)
Dialogue on the Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
, pp. 10
-
-
-
234
-
-
26044476557
-
-
Id. at 6
-
Id. at 6.
-
-
-
-
236
-
-
26044467831
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American commission of human rights
-
art. 46
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, supra note 162, art. 46.
-
Supra Note
, vol.162
-
-
-
238
-
-
26044451382
-
-
Id. at 30
-
Id. at 30.
-
-
-
-
240
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art 64(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art 64(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
241
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
American Convention, supra note 35, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
242
-
-
26044458152
-
-
Id. art. 64(1)
-
Id. art. 64(1);
-
-
-
-
243
-
-
26044457231
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 20
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 20.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
244
-
-
26044475107
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 8
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 8.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
245
-
-
26044463961
-
-
Peru asked the Court to determine the limits of this aspect of its advisory jurisdiction. According to the request, the phrase in question was subject to at least three possible interpretations. It could refer (a) only to treaties adopted within the Inter-American system, (b) to treaties in which only American states are parties, or (c) to all treaties to which one or more American states are parties. supra note 53, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
246
-
-
26044467529
-
-
Id. para. 52
-
Id. para. 52.
-
-
-
-
247
-
-
26044459859
-
1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties
-
art. 2(1)(a)
-
1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, supra note 120, art. 2(1)(a) (defining "treaty" as "an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation").
-
Supra Note
, vol.120
-
-
-
248
-
-
26044452292
-
Interpretation of the American declaration of the rights and duties of man within the framework of article 64 of the American convention on human rights
-
Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, paras. 27, 32 (July 14)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 10, paras. 27, 32 (July 14, 1989).
-
(1989)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A) No. 10
, vol.10
-
-
-
249
-
-
26044478362
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 35
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 35.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
250
-
-
26044447095
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 72
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 72.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
251
-
-
26044468094
-
-
Id. para. 76
-
Id. para. 76;
-
-
-
-
252
-
-
26044468985
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 34
-
see also Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 34 (citing as an example the OAS CHARTER, which has other principal purposes, but contains provisions regarding human rights).
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
253
-
-
26044464444
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, paras. 70, 76
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, paras. 70, 76 (stating that "the language of the article in question indicates a very expansive tendency, one that should also inform its interpretation").
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
254
-
-
26044470662
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 34
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 34.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
255
-
-
26044439874
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 3
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 3.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
256
-
-
26044446877
-
-
note
-
Id. para. 26. The United States asserted that "the intent of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is to establish legal rules governing relations between States, not to create rules that operate between States and individuals." The United States also argued that [n]ot every obligation of States regarding individuals is perforce a human rights obligation. Nor does the fact that one provision in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations may authorize beneficial assistance to certain individuals in certain circumstances transform the Vienna Convention into a human rights instrument or a source of the human rights of individuals. Id.
-
-
-
-
257
-
-
26044458811
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 24
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 24.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
258
-
-
26044472580
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, para. 29
-
Advisory Opinion OC-2/82, supra note 9, para. 29.
-
Supra Note
, vol.9
-
-
-
259
-
-
26044459369
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, paras. 74, 82, 84, 86, 87, 141(1), 141(2)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, paras. 74, 82, 84, 86, 87, 141(1), 141(2) (examining specifically in paragraph 74 the travaux preparatoire of the treaty in making this determination).
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
261
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 83, 25 I.L.M. 519
-
reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 83, 25 I.L.M. 519.
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
263
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 93, 33 I.L.M. 1529 (entered into force Mar. 29, 1996)
-
reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 93, 33 I.L.M. 1529 (entered into force Mar. 29, 1996).
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
265
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 101, 33 I.L.M. 1534 (entered into force Mar. 5, 1995)
-
reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 101, 33 I.L.M. 1534 (entered into force Mar. 5, 1995).
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
266
-
-
26044436797
-
-
OAS CHARTER, supra note 33. Though not specifically focusing on human rights, the OAS Charter has been amended over time to incorporate human rights provisions.
-
Supra Note
, vol.33
-
-
Charter, O.1
-
267
-
-
26044481633
-
Basic documents
-
reprinted at 15 (adopted at the 9th Int'l Conf. of American States in)
-
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 15 (adopted at the 9th Int'l Conf. of American States in 1948);
-
(1948)
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
268
-
-
26044438966
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, paras. 33, 44
-
Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, supra note 182, paras. 33, 44. The American Declaration sets forth approximately twenty-eight human rights and ten duties.
-
Supra Note
, vol.182
-
-
-
269
-
-
26044434802
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, para. 44
-
Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, supra note 182, para. 44.
-
Supra Note
, vol.182
-
-
-
270
-
-
26044447984
-
-
Id. para. 12
-
The United States contended that the American Declaration is a "statement of principles" rather than a binding legal instrument and that "[i]t would seriously undermine the process of international law making - by which sovereign states voluntarily undertake specified legal obligations - to impose legal obligations on states through a process of 'reinterpretation' or 'inference' from a non-binding statement of principles." Id. para. 12.
-
-
-
-
271
-
-
26044438660
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 40
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 40.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
272
-
-
26044447914
-
-
supra note 53, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
273
-
-
26044477417
-
-
note
-
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. GAOR, World Conf. on Hum. Rts., U.N. Doc. A/Conf. 157/23, 32 I.L.M. 1661 (1993). The Vienna Declaration states that [a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Id. art. I, para. 5.
-
-
-
-
274
-
-
26044460128
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, paras. 6, 141(7)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, paras. 6, 141(7);
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
275
-
-
26044434289
-
International covenant on civil and political rights
-
U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., U.N. Doc. A/6316, 999 U.N.T.S. 171
-
see also International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. Res. 2200A, U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., U.N. Doc. A/6316, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (1966).
-
(1966)
G.A. Res.
, vol.2200 A
-
-
-
276
-
-
26044461128
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 141(5) (referring to arts. 2, 6, 14, and 50)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 141(5) (referring to arts. 2, 6, 14, and 50).
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
277
-
-
26044451668
-
Compatibility of draft legislation with article 8(2)(h) of the American convention on human rights
-
Advisory Opinion OC-12/91, para. 13 (Dec. 6)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-12/91, Compatibility of Draft Legislation with Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention on Human Rights, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 13 (Dec. 6, 1991).
-
(1991)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
278
-
-
26044440124
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 14
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 14.
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
279
-
-
26044466657
-
-
Id. paras. 1, 7
-
Id. paras. 1, 7.
-
-
-
-
280
-
-
26044477136
-
-
Id. para. 13
-
Id. para. 13.
-
-
-
-
281
-
-
26044460416
-
-
Id. para. 28
-
Id. para. 28.
-
-
-
-
282
-
-
26044458454
-
-
Id. para. 26
-
Id. para. 26.
-
-
-
-
283
-
-
33746526828
-
Peru withdraws from the court: Will the inter-American human rights system meet the challenge?
-
Cassel explained the relationship between the Court's advisory and contentious jurisdiction in this regard: Advisory opinions can review legislation "in the abstract;" it makes sense to allow such review only upon request, rather than to grant the Court a roving power of legislative review. In contrast, in contentious cases, individuals injured by application of legislation violating the Convention seek a remedy. The Court has consistently held that in contentious cases, it will not grant remedial orders against national laws "in the abstract," i.e. if they have not actually been applied to the victim in the case. Only where the offending law has in fact been applied to the victim has the Court ordered reform. The Court's remedies in contentious cases thus do not conflict with the limitation on its advisory jurisdiction. Douglass Cassel, Peru Withdraws from the Court: Will the Inter-American Human Rights System Meet the Challenge?, 20 HUM. RTS. L.J. 167, 173 (1999).
-
(1999)
Hum. RTS. L.J.
, vol.20
, Issue.167
, pp. 173
-
-
Cassel, D.1
-
285
-
-
26044447644
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 39
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 39
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
286
-
-
26044453156
-
-
as quoted in Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 19
-
(as quoted in Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 19).
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
287
-
-
26044470799
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 30
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 30.
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
288
-
-
26044482187
-
-
Id. para. 30
-
Id. para. 30;
-
-
-
-
289
-
-
26044482921
-
-
at 14-15
-
see also Buergenthal, supra note 5, at 14-15 (noting that there was no problem with partisan politics in the Proposed Amendments case because the Costa Rican government requested the opinion at the behest of a multiparty legislative committee charged with determining the legality of the draft legislation).
-
Supra Note
, vol.5
-
-
Buergenthal1
-
290
-
-
26044434288
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 24
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 24.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
291
-
-
26044443956
-
-
LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT art. 14
-
LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT art. 14.
-
-
-
-
292
-
-
26044433994
-
-
at 486-87, 490
-
See HUDSON, supra note 22, at 486-87, 490 (citing the particular example of the League of Nations Council voting to request an advisory opinion related to issues of the merits of a dispute between the Soviet Union and Finland concerning the autonomy of Eastern Karelia).
-
Supra Note
, vol.22
-
-
Hudson1
-
293
-
-
26044433995
-
-
Id. at 495
-
Id. at 495.
-
-
-
-
294
-
-
26044475551
-
-
U.N. CHARTER art. 96
-
U.N. CHARTER art. 96.
-
-
-
-
295
-
-
26044470805
-
European convention
-
art. 47(1)
-
European Convention, supra note 25, art. 47(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.25
-
-
-
296
-
-
26044443958
-
-
Id. art. 47(2)
-
Id. art. 47(2);
-
-
-
-
297
-
-
26044458809
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 16
-
seealso Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 16.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
299
-
-
84861254564
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), para. 10
-
see also Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), supra note 50, para. 10 (suggesting that the extreme restrictions on the advisory jurisdiction of the European Court "almost deprive it of purpose, rendering it meaningless").
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
300
-
-
26044445448
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 28
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 28.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
301
-
-
26044477135
-
-
at 509-10
-
But see HUDSON, supra note 22, at 509-10. When confronted with the same issue, the Permanent Court of International Justice did permit the withdrawal of a request for an advisory opinion. Judge Hudson opined that: The Council or Assembly may withdraw a request for an advisory opinion; the withdrawal may certainly be made at any time prior to the opening of oral proceedings, and it would seem that it might be made at any time prior to the actual delivery of the opinion in open court. Id. This conclusion, however, may have been a result of the particular circumstances of the case before the Court in which the underlying problem had been resolved.
-
Supra Note
, vol.22
-
-
Hudson1
-
302
-
-
26044452293
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 24
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 24.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
303
-
-
26044479057
-
-
supra note 50, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
304
-
-
26044463671
-
-
Id. para. 28
-
Id. para. 28.
-
-
-
-
305
-
-
26044483481
-
-
Id. para. 26
-
Id. para. 26.
-
-
-
-
306
-
-
26044468648
-
-
Id. paras. 10, 12
-
Id. paras. 10, 12.
-
-
-
-
307
-
-
26044463391
-
-
Id. para. 28
-
Id. para. 28,
-
-
-
-
308
-
-
26044458808
-
-
Apr. 14
-
quoting Order of the Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Apr. 14, 1997, sect. "Considering," para. 4, in response to Request for Advisory Opinion OC-15,
-
(1997)
Order of the Inter-am. Ct. H.R.
-
-
-
309
-
-
26044463390
-
-
reprinted OAS/ser. L/V/III.39, doc. 5
-
reprinted in 1997 INTER-AM. CT. H.R. ANN. REP., 111, 113, OAS/ser. L/V/III.39, doc. 5 (1998)
-
(1998)
1997 Inter-am. CT. H.R. Ann. Rep.
, vol.111
, pp. 113
-
-
-
311
-
-
84861250010
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), para. 2
-
see also Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), supra note 50, para. 2.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
312
-
-
26044456971
-
-
Judge Cancado Trindade stated that: The decision of the Court to sustain the wide scope of its advisory jurisdiction, despite the withdrawal of the original request by Chile, represents, in my view, an advance on the matter, with positive consequences towards the strengthening of its advisory function under Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. supra note 50, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
313
-
-
26044435073
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 28
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 28.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
314
-
-
84861250011
-
Order of the inter-am. Ct. H.R
-
sect. "Considering," para. 5
-
Order of the Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., supra note 229, sect. "Considering," para. 5;
-
Supra Note
, vol.229
-
-
-
315
-
-
84861242785
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), para. 32
-
see also Advisory Opinion OC-15/97 (Judge Cançado Trindade concurring), supra note 50, para. 32. Judge Cancado Trindade reasoned that if in the exercise of its contentious jurisdiction (conditioned by the prior consent of the states parties) the Court can proceed with the examination of a concrete case even after the discontinuance (désistement) by the complainant party, a fortiori the Court can, with all the more reason, proceed with the examination of a matter in order to render an Advisory Opinion (whose proceedings are not conditioned by the prior consent of the State) even after the withdrawal of the original request.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
316
-
-
26044469275
-
-
supra note 50, Id.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
317
-
-
26044458453
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 28
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 28.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
318
-
-
26044450218
-
-
Id. para. 9
-
Id. para. 9.
-
-
-
-
319
-
-
26044456100
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 31
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 31.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
320
-
-
26044445172
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 28
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 28 (explaining that the Court's approach was consistent with that of the ICI and citing Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, 1950 I.C.J. 65 (Mar. 30)).
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
321
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
arts. 64(1), 64(2)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, arts. 64(1), 64(2). The Convention is not clear as to whether the Court has the authority to refuse to consider requests for interpretations of the American Convention or other treaties, but this conclusion would follow from the nature of the Court's jurisdiction in this area.
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
322
-
-
26044448256
-
-
2d rev. ed.
-
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE art. 65, para. 1; see also SHABTAI ROSENNE, THE LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT 652 (2d rev. ed. 1985) (explaining that "[t]he permissive character of the advisory competence included not only a discretion whether the Court would give the requested opinion at all, but also a broad discretion regarding the rules of law to be applied, and the procedure to be followed, in exercise of the advisory competence").
-
(1985)
The Law and Practice of the International Court
, vol.652
-
-
Rosenne, S.1
-
323
-
-
26044456098
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, paras. 31, 42
-
See Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, paras. 31, 42 (noting that when the Court's jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion is challenged, the Court will first determine whether it has the requisite jurisdiction, and, if it finds that it has, the Court will then determine whether it will exercise that jurisdiction).
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
324
-
-
26044453153
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 31
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 31;
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
325
-
-
26044483758
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 44
-
see also Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 44.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
326
-
-
26044454299
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 26
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 8, para. 26.
-
Supra Note
, vol.8
-
-
-
327
-
-
26044447365
-
Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American convention on human rights)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, para. 16 (Oct. 6)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 16 (Oct. 6, 1987).
-
(1987)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
328
-
-
26044447365
-
Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American convention on human rights)
-
Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1987). Id.
-
(1987)
Inter-am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. A)
-
-
-
329
-
-
26044481632
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-12/91, para. 30
-
Advisory Opinion OC-12/91, supra note 204, para. 30.
-
Supra Note
, vol.204
-
-
-
330
-
-
26044456695
-
-
Id.. paras. 1, 2
-
Id.. paras. 1, 2.
-
-
-
-
331
-
-
26044473000
-
-
Id. para. 28
-
Id. para. 28.
-
-
-
-
332
-
-
26044471084
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 30
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 30.
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
333
-
-
26044451137
-
-
supra note 53, Id.;
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
334
-
-
26044465988
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, para. 27
-
see also Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, supra note 182, para. 27;
-
Supra Note
, vol.182
-
-
-
335
-
-
26044461849
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, para. 10
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, supra note 129, para. 10. In several cases, the Court issued an advisory opinion because it found "no good reason" to make use of its discretionary powers to decline to issue an advisory opinion when the request met admissibility requirements. The ICJ has also held that "[a] reply to a request for an Opinion should not, in principle, be refused." Reservations to The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1951 I.C.J. 15, 19 (May 28).
-
Supra Note
, vol.129
-
-
-
336
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 66(1)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 66(1) (providing that "[r]easons shall be given for the judgment of the Court").
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
337
-
-
26044447094
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, para. 23
-
Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, supra note 53, para. 23 (citing the following ICJ cases: Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, 1950 I.CJ. 65 (Mar. 30); Int'l Status of South-West Africa, 1950 I.C.J. 128 (July 11); Certain Expenses of the United Nations, 1962 I.C.J. 151 (July 20); Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16 (June 21)).
-
Supra Note
, vol.53
-
-
-
339
-
-
26044473276
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 40
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 40;
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
340
-
-
26044465987
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 50
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 50.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
341
-
-
26044453428
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 26
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 26 (articulating the position of the United States that the request was "an attempt to subject the United States to the contentious jurisdiction of this Court" despite the fact that the United States had neither ratified the American Convention nor accepted the Court's contentious jurisdiction).
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
342
-
-
26044476821
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 46
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 46.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
343
-
-
26044446876
-
-
Federal Republic of Germany v. United States, 526 U.S. 111 (1999)
-
See generally Federal Republic of Germany v. United States, 526 U.S. 111 (1999);
-
-
-
-
344
-
-
26044442722
-
-
Republic of Paraguay v. Allen, 134 F.3d 622 (4th Cir. 1993)
-
Republic of Paraguay v. Allen, 134 F.3d 622 (4th Cir. 1993)
-
-
-
-
345
-
-
26044479056
-
Beyond breard
-
(exemplifying cases brought by states in U.S. courts alleging that their nationals were not informed of their right to contact their national consulate as provided in Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations); Erik G. Luna & Douglas J. Sylvester, Beyond Breard, 17 BERKELEY J. INT'LL. 147 (discussing similar cases);
-
Berkeley J. Int'll.
, vol.17
, Issue.147
-
-
Luna, E.G.1
Sylvester, D.J.2
-
346
-
-
0032281722
-
Breard and treaty-based rights under the consular convention
-
Jordan J. Paust, Breard and Treaty-Based Rights Under the Consular Convention, 92 AM. J. INT'LL. 691 (1998) (discussing similar cases).
-
(1998)
Am. J. Int'll.
, vol.92
, Issue.691
-
-
Paust, J.J.1
-
347
-
-
26044467829
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 50
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 50.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
348
-
-
26044484004
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, paras. 39, 76
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, paras. 39, 76.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
349
-
-
26044464999
-
-
Id. para. 30
-
Id. para. 30.
-
-
-
-
350
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
at 123-24
-
The Commission is authorized to conduct country studies and issue related reports by the Statute of the Inter-American Commission, arts. 18(c), 18(d), 18(g), reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 123-24;
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
351
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 41(c)
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 41(c);
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
352
-
-
26044453430
-
-
art. 112
-
and general authority of the OAS CHARTER, supra note 33, art. 112.
-
Supra Note
, vol.33
-
-
Charter, O.1
-
353
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 48
-
American Convention, supra note 35, art. 48 (providing authority to process individual petitions).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
354
-
-
26044478090
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, paras. 8, 13, 39
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, paras. 8, 13, 39.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
355
-
-
26044462565
-
-
note
-
The Commission's request dealt with the effect and scope of reservations to the American Convention's right to life. The Court clarified that "the mere fact that there exists a dispute" between the Commission and the state party regarding the meaning of a provision of the Convention would not justify a denial by the Court to exercise its advisory jurisdiction. Id. para. 39.
-
-
-
-
356
-
-
26044437656
-
-
Id. para. 39
-
Id. para. 39.
-
-
-
-
357
-
-
26044439873
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 22(c)
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 22(c).
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
358
-
-
26044480285
-
-
Id. para. 40
-
Id. para. 40.
-
-
-
-
359
-
-
26044468647
-
-
at 265
-
The Court cited Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, 1950 I.C.J. 65 (Mar. 30); Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1951 I.C.J. 15 (May 28); Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), 1971 I.C.J. 16 (June 21); Western Sahara, 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Oct. 16); Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, 1989 I.C.J. 177 (Dec. 15). In actuality, international authority, although favoring the acceptance of a request over matters in dispute, is not unanimous. The Permanent Court of International Justice refused to exercise its advisory jurisdiction when a related argument was made in the Eastern Carelia Opinion, 1923 P.C.I.J. (ser. B) No. 5 (July 23). The European Court of Human Rights, which has an extremely limited advisory jurisdiction, does not have authority to consider a case in dispute. European Convention, supra note 25, art. 47. Even leading commentators who advocate broadening the scope of the European Court's jurisdiction do so with the caveat that "the request must not directly relate to a dispute which is pending before the Commission or the Court." VAN DUK & VAN HOOF, supra note 76, at 265.
-
Supra Note
, vol.76
-
-
Van Duk1
Van Hoof2
-
360
-
-
26044466656
-
-
interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, 1950 I.C.J. 65, 71 (Mar. 30)
-
interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, 1950 I.C.J. 65, 71 (Mar. 30).
-
-
-
-
361
-
-
26044478361
-
-
note
-
Id. 71. In this regard, the I.C.J. stated that: This objection reveals a confusion between the principles governing contentious procedure and those which are applicable to Advisory Opinions. The consent of States, parties to a dispute, is the basis of the Court's jurisdiction in contentious cases. The situation is different in regard to advisory proceedings even where the Request for an Opinion relates to a legal question actually pending between States. The Court's reply is only of an advisory character: as such, it has no binding force.
-
-
-
-
362
-
-
26044481631
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
363
-
-
26044446629
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 27
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 27.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
365
-
-
26044481918
-
-
Id. para. 47
-
Id. para. 47.
-
-
-
-
366
-
-
26044453419
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
367
-
-
26044437063
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 33
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 33.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
368
-
-
26044482633
-
-
Id. para. 37 (citing and quoting Advisory Opinion OC-12/91, para. 28)
-
Id. para. 37 (citing and quoting Advisory Opinion OC-12/91, supra note 204, para. 28).
-
Supra Note
, vol.204
-
-
-
369
-
-
26044477415
-
Legality of the use by a state of nuclear weapons in armed conflict
-
July 8
-
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, 1996 I.C.J. 73, 74 (July 8).
-
1996 I.C.J.
, vol.73
, pp. 74
-
-
-
371
-
-
26044447355
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 57
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 57.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
372
-
-
26044481623
-
-
Id. paras. 26, 27
-
Id. paras. 26, 27.
-
-
-
-
373
-
-
26044483995
-
-
Id. para. 61
-
Id. para. 61.
-
-
-
-
374
-
-
26044467268
-
-
Id. para. 27
-
Id. para. 27.
-
-
-
-
375
-
-
26044462564
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
376
-
-
26044456969
-
-
Id. para. 26
-
Id. para. 26.
-
-
-
-
377
-
-
26044470371
-
-
May 28
-
The International Court of Justice also rejected this argument in Reservations to The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1951 I.C.J. 15, 20 (May 28).
-
1951 I.C.J.
, vol.15
, pp. 20
-
-
-
378
-
-
85014603409
-
Proliferation of international courts and tribunals: Is it good or bad?
-
Thomas Buergenthal, Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: Is It Good or Bad?, 14 LEIDEN J. OF INT'LL. 267, 273 (2001).
-
(2001)
Leiden J. of Int'll.
, vol.14
, Issue.267
, pp. 273
-
-
Buergenthal, T.1
-
379
-
-
26044433693
-
-
Id. at 272
-
Id. at 272.
-
-
-
-
380
-
-
26044471076
-
-
Id. at 273
-
Id. at 273.
-
-
-
-
381
-
-
26044447917
-
Basic documents
-
at 155, 162
-
See Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, O.A.S. Res. 448 (IX-0/79), reprinted in BASIC DOCUMENTS, supra note 37, at 155, 162;
-
Supra Note
, vol.37
-
-
-
382
-
-
26044466926
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American court of human rights
-
art. 63
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 49, art. 63.
-
Supra Note
, vol.49
-
-
-
383
-
-
26044473874
-
-
note
-
The Court has the authority to draft and amend its Rules of Procedure. The Rules of Procedure of the Court provide that the procedural rules for contentious cases shall be applied by analogy in advisory proceedings to the extent that the Court finds them compatible. The Inter-American Court has broad discretion to determine to what extent the specific circumstances of an advisory request lead to the analogous application of contentious procedures. Cf. STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE art. 68 (including a similar provision which provides that "[i]n the exercise of its advisory functions the Court shall further be guided by the provisions of the present Statute which apply in contentious cases to the extent to which it recognizes them to be applicable").
-
-
-
-
384
-
-
26044466926
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American court of human rights
-
art. 62(3)
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 49, art. 62(3).
-
Supra Note
, vol.49
-
-
-
385
-
-
0346952867
-
The participation of nongovernmental organizations in international judicial proceedings
-
See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 83 (7th ed. 1999) (defining an amicas curiae as a person or organization that has a strong interest in the subject matter before the court and submits a brief which suggests a rationale for deciding the case that is consistent with its views); Dinah Shelton, The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings, 88 A.J.I.L. 611, 638-39 (1994) (explaining that "[a]mici, with permission, suggest to a court matters of fact and law within their knowledge").
-
(1994)
A.J.I.L.
, vol.88
, Issue.611
, pp. 638-639
-
-
Shelton, D.1
-
386
-
-
26044483472
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 62
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 62.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
387
-
-
26044477681
-
-
Id. para. 14
-
Id. para. 14.
-
-
-
-
388
-
-
26044474137
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, para. 5
-
Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, supra note 65, para. 5.
-
Supra Note
, vol.65
-
-
-
389
-
-
26044446613
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 5
-
See Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 5.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
390
-
-
26044456325
-
-
note
-
The Court received amici curiae briefs from the International Human Rights Law Group and Washington Office on Latin America, the Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights and Americas Watch Committee, the Institute for Human Rights of the International Legal Studies Program at the University of Denver College of Law, and the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights of the University of Cincinnati College of Law.
-
-
-
-
391
-
-
26044440778
-
The role of amicus curiae in the inter-American court of human rights
-
Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, ed.
-
See Charles Moyer, The Role of Amicus Curiae in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in LA CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS: ESTUDIOS Y DOCUMENTOS 103, 113 (Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, ed., 1986);
-
(1986)
La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: Estudios y Documentos
, vol.103
, pp. 113
-
-
Moyer, C.1
-
392
-
-
26044452280
-
-
at 639-40
-
Shelton, supra note 283, at 639-40 (reporting that although the Inter-American Court has rarely quoted from or cited to amicus briefs, there is evidence in the opinions that the Court has relied on the research and analysis provided by them).
-
Supra Note
, vol.283
-
-
Shelton1
-
393
-
-
26044474423
-
-
at 108
-
See Moyer, supra note 288, at 108 (noting that the European Court of Human Rights has rejected amicus briefs filed in contentious cases).
-
Supra Note
, vol.288
-
-
Moyer1
-
394
-
-
26044466926
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American court of human rights
-
art. 62(4)
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 49, art. 62(4).
-
Supra Note
, vol.49
-
-
-
395
-
-
26044432400
-
-
Id. art. 62(3)
-
Prior consultation with the State's Agent is required in cases governed by Article 64(2) of the Convention. Id. art. 62(3).
-
-
-
-
396
-
-
26044472996
-
-
Id. art. 14(1)
-
Id. art. 14(1).
-
-
-
-
397
-
-
26044448519
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 6
-
In its advisory opinion on Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism, the Court severed the proceedings and held two public hearings. Costa Rica's request raised issues under both Articles 64(1) and 64(2). The proceedings under 64(1) were of possible interest to all OAS member states and organs, whereas the proceedings under the second clause were particularly pertinent to Costa Rica. See Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 8, para. 6.
-
Supra Note
, vol.8
-
-
-
398
-
-
26044459366
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, para. 6
-
See Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, para. 6.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
399
-
-
26044437655
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 5
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 5. In addition to the agent of the state, representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Supreme Electoral Tribunal, Legislative Assembly, Civil Registry, and the Faculty of Law of the University of Costa Rica presented oral arguments to the Court.
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
400
-
-
26044471759
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 6
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 8, para. 6 (inviting the organizations to make presentations at the public hearing only after the Court had consulted with the government of Costa Rica).
-
Supra Note
, vol.8
-
-
-
401
-
-
26044466926
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American court of human rights
-
art. 44(1)
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 49, art. 44(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.49
-
-
-
402
-
-
26044475813
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 8
-
See Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 8;
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
403
-
-
26044448520
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, para. 10
-
Advisory Opinion OC-14/94, supra note 44, para. 10.
-
Supra Note
, vol.44
-
-
-
404
-
-
26044459367
-
-
note
-
Rules of Court, 1978 I.C.J. art. 103 (as amended Dec. 5, 2000), http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ ibasicrulesofcourt_20001205.html. Under the Rules of the ICJ, when the requesting party "informs the Court that its request necessitates an urgent answer, or the Court finds that an early answer would be desirable, the Court shall take all necessary steps to accelerate the procedure, and it shall convene as early as possible for the purpose of proceeding to a hearing and deliberation on the request." Id.
-
-
-
-
405
-
-
84927457523
-
Executions in guatemala as decreed by the courts of special jurisdiction in 1982-83: A case study
-
See Charles Moyer & David Padilla, Executions in Guatemala as Decreed by the Courts of Special Jurisdiction in 1982-83: A Case Study, 6 HUM. RTS. Q. 507, 507-09 (1984).
-
(1984)
Hum. Rts. Q.
, vol.6
, Issue.507
, pp. 507-509
-
-
Moyer, C.1
Padilla, D.2
-
406
-
-
26044445447
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 2
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 2.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
407
-
-
26044442714
-
-
Id. paras. 3, 26
-
These prisoners had not been informed of their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Assistance. Id. paras. 3, 26.
-
-
-
-
408
-
-
84861242781
-
-
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, FINANCING THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM, sec. II(A)(2) (April 28, 2000), available at http://www.derechos.org.ar/nizkor/la/doc/fine.html.
-
-
-
-
409
-
-
26044453152
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, para. 1
-
For example, the request for an advisory opinion in The Right to Information on Consular Assistance was filed on December 9, 1997, and the Court's advisory opinion was not issued until almost two years later on October 1, 1999. See Advisory Opinion OC-16/99, supra note 1, para. 1.
-
Supra Note
, vol.1
-
-
-
410
-
-
26044483222
-
-
at 1719
-
Rosenne opines that the issuance of an advisory opinion without written briefs would be a "questionable development" in that it would accentuate the summary character of the advisory decision and severely reduce the Court's authority. ROSENNE, supra note 24, at 1719.
-
Supra Note
, vol.24
-
-
Rosenne1
-
411
-
-
26044446363
-
-
note
-
The OAS has now approved funds to allow the Court to hold four two-week sessions. FINANCING THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM, supra note 301, sec. II(A)(2). In addition, the Court may meet for special sessions. The judges, who generally live and work in their countries of residence, must travel to the seat of the Court in San Jose, Costa Rica for sessions. Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, supra note 51, art. 16. Most of the judges, who are paid emoluments, per diem, and travel allowances when the Court is in session, have full time positions in their countries of residence.
-
-
-
-
412
-
-
26044461426
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, paras. 30-31
-
Acción de Incost, Exp. 0421-S-90.-No. 2313-95, Roger Ajun Blanco, Art. 22 Ley Org. Col. de Periodistas, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica (May 9, 1995). Not all states have revised their internal laws to comply with the Court's advisory opinions. Some states, for instance, continue to have laws that authorize suspension of the right of habeas corpus during a state of emergency. This practice ignores two advisory opinions interpreting the American Convention as prohibiting the suspension of habeas corpus. See Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, supra note 241, paras. 30-31;
-
Supra Note
, vol.241
-
-
-
413
-
-
26044448994
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, para. 42
-
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, supra note 129, para. 42.
-
Supra Note
, vol.129
-
-
-
414
-
-
26044469271
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 85
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 8, para. 85;
-
Supra Note
, vol.8
-
-
-
415
-
-
84929901724
-
La Función Consultiva de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
-
at 161, 178 (2001) (citing Acción de Incost, Exp. 0421-S-90.-No. 2313-95, Roger Ajun Blanco, Art. 22 Ley Org. Col. de Periodistas, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica (May 9, 1995))
-
see also Pedro Nikken, La Función Consultiva de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, in 1 EL SISTEMA INTERAMERICANO DE PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS EN EL UMBRAL DEL SIGLO XXI: MEMORIA DEL SEMINARIO NOVEMBRE DE 1999, at 161, 178 (2001) (citing Acción de Incost, Exp. 0421-S-90.-No. 2313-95, Roger Ajun Blanco, Art. 22 Ley Org. Col. de Periodistas, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica (May 9, 1995)).
-
1 El Sistema Interamericano de Protección de los Derechos Humanos en el Umbral Del Siglo XXI: Memoria del Seminario Novembre de 1999
-
-
Nikken, P.1
-
416
-
-
26044470790
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, para. 85 citing Costa Rican Law No. 4420 of Sept. 22, Organic Law of the Association of Journalists of Costa Rica
-
Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, supra note 8, para. 85 (citing Costa Rican Law No. 4420 of Sept. 22, 1969, Organic Law of the Association of Journalists of Costa Rica).
-
(1969)
Supra Note
, vol.8
-
-
-
417
-
-
26044477414
-
-
at 178-79
-
Nikken, supra note 305, at 178-79.
-
Supra Note
, vol.305
-
-
Nikken1
-
418
-
-
84861254561
-
-
Id. at 179 (citing Acción de Incost, Exp. 0421-S-90.-No. 2313-95, Roger Ajun Blanco, Art. 22 Ley Org. Col. de Periodistas, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica (May 9, 1995))
-
Id. at 179 (citing Acción de Incost, Exp. 0421-S-90.-No. 2313-95, Roger Ajun Blanco, Art. 22 Ley Org. Col. de Periodistas, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica (May 9, 1995)).
-
-
-
-
419
-
-
26044447641
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, para. 67
-
Exp. 2965-S-91, Voto 3435-92, Ricardo Fliman Wargraft v. Director y el Jefe de la Sección de Opciones y Naturalizaciones, Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica (Nov. 11, 1992); Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 83, para. 67.
-
Supra Note
, vol.83
-
-
-
420
-
-
84889534746
-
International Tribunals and National courts: The intenationalization of domestic adjudication
-
U. Beyerlin et al. eds.
-
Thomas Buergenthal, International Tribunals and National Courts: The Intenationalization of Domestic Adjudication, in RECHT ZWISCHEN UMBRUCK UND BEWAHRUNG FESTSCHRIFT FÜR RUDOLF BERNHARDT 687, 695 (U. Beyerlin et al. eds., 1995)
-
(1995)
Recht Zwischen Umbruck und Bewahrung Festschrift Für Rudolf Bernhardt
, vol.687
, pp. 695
-
-
Buergenthal, T.1
-
421
-
-
26044451743
-
American convention
-
art. 14(1)
-
(citing "Ekmekdjian," CSJN 315 Fallos 1492 (1992) (Argentina)). The applicable provision of the American Convention provides that a person "injured by inaccurate or offensive statements disseminated to the public in general by a legally regulated medium of communication has the right to reply or to make correction using the same communications outlet, under such conditions as the law may establish." American Convention, supra note 35, art. 14(1).
-
Supra Note
, vol.35
-
-
-
422
-
-
26044451667
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, para. 33
-
The Inter-American Court stated in its advisory opinion that "any state party that does not already ensure the free and full exercise of the right to reply or correction is under an obligation to bring about that result, be it by legislation or whatever other measures may be necessary under its domestic legal system." Advisory Opinion OC-7/86, supra note 65, para. 33.
-
Supra Note
, vol.65
-
-
-
423
-
-
84911010010
-
International decision: The right to information on consular assistance in the framework of the guarantees of the due process of law
-
In United Stales v. Li, the defendants and several and cited the Inter-American Court's advisory opinion in The Right to Consular Assistance in their respective briefs. The First Circuit refused to consider the advisory opinion, stating that "the United States is not a party to the treaty that formed the [Inter-American Court of Human Rights], and is not bound by that court's conclusions." United States v. Li, 206 F.3d 56, 64 n.4 (1st Cir. 2000) (en bane), discussed in William J. Aceves, International Decision: The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, 94 A.J.I.L. 555, 562-63 (2000).
-
(2000)
A.J.I.L.
, vol.94
, Issue.555
, pp. 562-563
-
-
Aceves, W.J.1
-
424
-
-
26044474835
-
-
note
-
In United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, the defendant, a Mexican citizen, was arrested for transporting marijuana into the United States. Lombera-Camorlinga made self-incriminating statements, which defense counsel attempted to suppress because the defendant had not been advised of his rights under the Vienna Convention. Both the defendant and amici cited the advisory opinion alleging that the suppression of evidence would be the appropriate remedy for the failure to notify the defendant of the right to notify his consulate in violation of the Vienna Convention. Id. The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, refused to grant the remedy requested and did not address the Inter-American Court's advisory opinion. United States of America v. José Lombera-Camorlinga, 206 F.3d 882, 883-84 (2000) (en bane). The United States, while acknowledging the advisory opinion in its supplemental brief to the court, argued that the advisory opinion was not binding on the United States. Id. (citing to Supplemental Brief for Defendant-Appellants at 6, United States v. Lombera-Camorlinga, 170 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 1999) (Nos. 98-50347 and 98-50305)).
-
-
-
-
425
-
-
26044452291
-
-
LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), 2001 I.C.J. 104 (June 27)
-
See LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), 2001 I.C.J. 104 (June 27).
-
-
-
-
426
-
-
26044441065
-
-
at 13
-
See U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PUB. No. 10518, supra note 4, at 13;
-
Supra Note
, vol.4
-
-
-
427
-
-
26044435622
-
The vienna convention on consular relations in the United States courts
-
Kelly Trainer, The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in the United States Courts, 13 TRANSNAT'LLAW. 227, 251 (2000).
-
(2000)
Transnat'llaw.
, vol.13
, Issue.227
, pp. 251
-
-
Trainer, K.1
-
428
-
-
26044432390
-
-
at 3
-
U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, PUB. No. 10518, supra note 4, at 3 (summarizing requirements pertaining to foreign nationals).
-
Supra Note
, vol.4
-
-
-
429
-
-
26044476275
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, paras. 6, 76
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, paras. 6, 76.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
432
-
-
26044470798
-
-
Id. at 509
-
Id. at 509.
-
-
-
-
433
-
-
26044441553
-
-
Id. at 511
-
Id. at 511.
-
-
-
-
434
-
-
26044446103
-
-
Id
-
Id.
-
-
-
-
435
-
-
26044471366
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, paras. 27-28
-
See Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, paras. 27-28.
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
436
-
-
26044466655
-
-
Id. para. 11
-
Id. para. 11.
-
-
-
-
438
-
-
26044438111
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, paras. 74, 76(3)(b)
-
The Court held in its advisory opinion in Restrictions to the Death Penalty that reservations to the American Convention should be narrowly interpreted. Consequently, it did not permit Guatemala to use its reservation to the right to life to extend the death penalty to crimes that were not subject to the death penalty at the time the state ratified the Convention. Advisory Opinion OC-3/83, supra note 21, paras. 74, 76(3)(b).
-
Supra Note
, vol.21
-
-
-
439
-
-
84872536924
-
-
at 177 (quoting el Acuerdo Gubemativo de Guatemala, No. 281-86 de 20 de Mayo de 1986)
-
Nikken, supra note 305, at 177 (quoting el Acuerdo Gubemativo de Guatemala, No. 281-86 de 20 de Mayo de 1986).
-
Supra Note
, vol.305
-
-
Nikken1
-
440
-
-
26044465183
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, para. 1
-
Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, supra note 161, para. 1;
-
Supra Note
, vol.161
-
-
-
441
-
-
26044445704
-
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, para. 1
-
Advisory Opinion OC-15/97, supra note 50, para. 1.
-
Supra Note
, vol.50
-
-
-
442
-
-
26044467831
-
Rules of procedure of the inter-American commission of human rights
-
art. 26-48
-
Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, supra note 162, art. 26-48.
-
Supra Note
, vol.162
-
-
-
444
-
-
26044464434
-
-
Id. at 2
-
Id. at 2.
-
-
-
|