Search

The role of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the sustainability of Colombia's peace is uncontestable. The decisions of this regional Tribunal, related to judicial and extrajudicial mechanisms of transitional justice and to the compatibility of the Peace Agreement and the norms and policies issued to its implementation with the American Convention, are already having and will have a fundamental effect in the forthcoming years. Accordingly, it is necessary to revisit the International Tribunal's case law from a critical and proposal perspective, in order to analyze if the rules established by the Court in the past (most of them, transitions from dictatorships to democracy), have been modified or contextualized in the still incipient case law of the present (transitions from armed conflicts to negotiated peace), and to raise the challenges of the case law of the future, considering in particular the case of Colombia. This article aims to contribute to this analysis, based on the study -both of the cases that have already been decided by the International Tribunal-, as well as those that are in process in this judicial seat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the important role of domestic justice in the protection of the right to access to international justice, and in our case Inter-American justice. Within this purpose, the text explains the existence of a right to an effective international remedy in the Inter-American Human Rights System, and describes some of its peculiarities. Also, it shows the importance of national justice in the effectiveness of the international remedy and addresses certain issues with regard to the implementation of international judgments in the domestic sphere, considering that international rulings are binding and have the same nature of national judicial decisions. Finally, the paper deals with some reflections on possible internal remedies to comply with international rulings in Colombia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, ICHR, contentious jurisdiction with respect to the Inter-American Treaties, different from the American Convention on Human Rights, ACHR. Does the ICHR have conventional jurisdiction regarding those treaties? Do such treaties support that jurisdiction? Do the Rules of Procedure create such jurisdiction? Analyzing the different legal documents, the author pretends to demonstrate the lack of precision of article 23 of the ICHR' Rules of Procedure, which has created several unnecessary misunderstandings and false expectations on the Inter-American System of Human Rights' actors, especially with respect to the ICHR Contentious Jurisdiction. At the end, the author suggests an amendment of the ICHR' Rules of Procedure, in order to contribute to strengthen the Inter-American Human Rights System and secure the accuracy of its regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses one of the major legal issues concerning the debate about the legal value of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Is the UDHR ius cogens? The authors explain legal problems related to the concept of ius cogens in order to show that the Universal Declaration cannot be classified as an imperative rule of law, even though some of the prohibitions that are implied in the UDHR have this nature. The authors present the dangers of the trivialization of the concept of ius cogens and the importance of preserving its essence as a rule that does not support repeal of any kind and under any circumstances. This paper searches to reject all the interpretations that would unduly expand the content of the concept of ius cogens, which is contained in article 53 of the Vienna Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses one of the major legal issues concerning the debate about the legal value of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR): Is the UDHR ius cogens? The authors explain legal problems related to the concept of ius cogens in order to show that the Universal Declaration cannot be classified as an imperative rule of law, even though some of the prohibitions that are implied in the UDHR have this nature. The authors present the dangers of the trivialization of the concept of ius cogens and the importance of preserving its essence as a rule that does not support repeal of any kind and under any circumstances. This paper rejects all interpretations that would unduly expand the content of the concept of ius cogens, which is contained in article 53 of the Vienna Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This text seeks to illustrate one of the situations which, in the authors' view, currently involves a procedural disadvantage for the users of the Inter-American Human Rights System: The accumulation of procedural stages in the area of individual petitions and contentious cases by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, respectively. The authors attempt to demonstrate that this practice sometimes threatens the guarantees of those involved in the aforementioned processes. Therefore, a description of the practice of the accumulation phenomenon in the Inter-American Human Rights System is presented (II). Further, the authors explain the State's inability to recognize any kind of responsibility while at the same time imposing preliminary objections as an example of the violation of guarantees (III). Finally, the authors propose two procedural alternatives to resolve the presented situation (IV). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]