THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM: A STUDY OF THE AMERICAN STATES' COMPLIANCE WITH THE JUDGMENTS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS*

LA EFECTIVIDAD DEL SISTEMA INTERAMERICANO DE PROTECCIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS: UN ESTUDIO SOBRE EL CUMPLIMIENTO DE LAS SENTENCIAS DE LA CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS POR LOS ESTADOS MIEMBROS

Damián A. González-Salzberg**

* Research paper produced within the academic work of the author during his MA in Public Administration and Public Policy, at the University of York, UK.
** Lawyer (cum laude Diploma), University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. MA in Public Administration and Public Policy, University of York, UK. Currently undertaking an MA in International Relations, The Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals, IBEI, Spain. The basis of the current research was conducted during studies at the University of York.
Contact: dags161@yahoo.com.ar.

Reception date: March 4^th, 2010 Acceptance date: May 1^st, 2010

TO CITE THIS ARTICLE / PARA CITAR ESTE ARTÍCULO

Damián A. González-Salzberg, The effectiveness of the Inter-American Human Rights System: a study of the American States' compliance with the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 16 International Law, Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, 115-142 (2010).

ABSTRACT

The paper undertakes a comprehensive quantitative research on the subject of American States' compliance with international judgments on human rights' issues. The research analyses the level of effectiveness of the Inter-American Human Rights System, showing that the data annually published by the Inter-American Court in its Reports might not be the only way of understanding the actual degree of effectiveness of the system. Furthermore, some ideas are evaluated regarding possible paths in order to improve the current situation.

Key words author: Inter-American Court of Human Rights; Inter-American Human Rights System; Compliance with international judgments; Effectiveness of the Inter-American System.

Key words plus: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Human Rights System, International law, Judgments.

RESUMEN

El presente trabajo abarca una extensa investigación cuantitativa acerca del cumplimiento de sentencias internacionales en materia de derechos humanos, por parte de los Estados del Continente Americano. La investigación analiza el nivel de efectividad del Sistema Interamericano de Protección de los Derechos Humanos, observando que los datos que la Corte Interamericana publica cada año en sus Informes pueden no ser el único modo de entender el grado de efectividad del sistema. Asimismo, se discuten algunas ideas respecto de posibles vías para mejorar la situación actual.

Palabras clave autor: Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos; Sistema Interamericano de Protección de los Derechos Humanos; Cumplimiento de sentencias internacionales; Efectividad del Sistema Interamericano.

Palabras clave descriptor: Corte interamericana de derechos humanos, sistema interamericano de derechos humanos, derecho internacional, sentencias.

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION.- I. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE IAHRS.- II . THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IAHRS.- III . THE EFFECTIVENESS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY.- IV . THE EFFECTIVENESS IN NUMBERS.- V. PROGRESS MADE DURING 2009.- CONCLUSIONS.- BIBLIOGRAPHY.

INTRODUCTION

The paper is aimed at analysing the effectiveness of the Inter- American Human Rights System (IAHRS) in achieving its goals, namely to protect and ensure the free and full exercise of human rights in the American Continent. It will be discussed that the mentioned system imposes obligations upon its Member States, which appear prima facie mostly unfulfilled. Nevertheless, an in-depth analysis will show that the degree of effectiveness of the system is higher than it is assumed to be.

The paper will argue that the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, main organ of the mentioned regional system, could be seen as effective regarding the modification of the Member States conduct in some areas. In particular, making the States publicly recognize the violations of human rights committed within their jurisdiction and also in economically repairing the victims of such violations. However, at the same time, the system currently lacks of effectiveness in other specific goals, such as compelling the States to undertake the needed judicial measures in order to prosecute the individuals responsible for the committed violations, and regarding the amendment of States' domestic legislation to avoid further human rights violations.

The starting point of this essay will consist in giving a brief outline of the IAHRS. Following that step, the present work will be destined to the analysis of the effectiveness of the system, using empirical data obtained from the judgments of the Court.

I. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE IAHRS

It is important to remember that the creation of a regional system aimed at the protection of human rights was a European idea that came into existence with the creation of the European Court of Human Rights in the year 1959, and was later implemented by the American and African Continents. These regimes evidence a clear area where States have surrendered part of their sovereignty, with the goal of achieving a stronger protection of individuals' essential rights, by giving an international organ the power to make decisions that would be legally compulsory for them.

Regarding the American Continent, the IAHRS was created within the framework given by the Organization of American States (OAS), an international organization created in 1948, mainly aimed at achieving an order of peace and justice in the American Continent. It has to be noticed that human rights' issues were an actual concern in the American Continent since the creation of the OAS itself. As a matter of fact, The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the first international document in the Continent regarding human rights, was proclaimed at the same conference that produce the constitutive charter of the organization,¹ and it was also prior to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted the same year by the United Nations.

However, the regional system as it exists nowadays was not created until the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights in 1978. It would be fair to say that the main goal of the system is the protection and enforcement of human rights within its Member States on behalf of the individuals -irrespective of their nationality-. In order to accomplish this purpose, the system has established two main organs: a Commission -Inter- American Commission on Human Rights- which is actually an organ of the OAS and was created in 1959,² and a Court -Inter- American Court of Human Rights-, which is the principal organ and only has jurisdiction over Member States of the system.³

Between the different functions of the Commission, it has to be highlighted the prerogative of elaborating country reports regarding the level of protection of human rights within the different States of the OAS, as well as -since the year 1965-⁴ it can examine individual petitions and make recommendation to the States regarding them. However, since the entry into force of the American Convention, the role of the Commission was extended. Should its recommendations not be followed by the States, it may submit the case to the Inter-American Court, provided that the involved State has ratified the American Convention and accepted the jurisdiction of the mentioned Tribunal.

On the other hand, the Inter-American Court could be seen as the ultimate monitoring organ, as it has the final and compulsory decision regarding the States' behaviour and its compliance with the protection of human rights. The legal obligation of the States to follow the Court's decisions is founded in the international duty assumed by them at the moment of ratifying the American Convention.⁵ Besides, this Tribunal has not only the power to establish that human rights recognized by the American Convention had been violated and need to be ensured, but it also can rule that the consequences of the abridgment should be remedied and compensation should be paid.⁶

Furthermore, Non Governmental Organizations have acquired a main role in the system, especially regarding the representation of the victims before the Tribunal and the submitting of expert opinions -amicus curiae- on the different cases. In particular, it can be thought that the role that the civil society -comprehensive of individuals and NGOs- could have in demanding the States to act accordingly to the Court's decisions might be seen as extremely important for the effectiveness of the system.

II. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE IAHRS

Following Oran R. Young,⁷ this essay will consider effectiveness as a measure of the role that institutions play as determinants of the content of the actor's behaviour in the international society. Therefore, an institution would be perceived as an effective one if its functions impel actors to act differently than they would if the institution did not exist. In particular, it has to be acknowledged that effectiveness is actually a matter of degree, rather than an all-or-nothing proposition. Furthermore, Young especially suggests that the effectiveness of a particular system would vary in relation with the ease of monitoring the compliance with its prescriptions; the probability of the imposition of a sanction in the case of non-compliance; and the magnitude of such sanction.⁸

In view of the given definition, the degree of effectiveness of the system under analysis will be considered regarding the compliance of the Member States with its decisions. It will be observed if the existence of the Court's judgments made the States act in a different way than they would have if the ruling would not have been issued. Particular attention would be paid to the monitoring procedure -from which all the empirical data has been collected-, and also to the fact that sanctions exist for particular prescriptions but not for all of them, in order to analyse if this factor is relevant regarding the degree of compliance. Furthermore, the conclusions of the paper will comment on strategies to improve the effectiveness of the system that could be thought for the future.

III. THE EFFECTIVENESS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY

According to the data published by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its 2008 Report,⁹ up to the end of that year the organ has adopted final decisions on 105 cases. However, from those judgments, 102 have actually been on the merits of the cases,¹⁰ and 100 of those decisions were convictions of the demanded States.¹¹

The same statistics of the Court state that from all the rulings up to the end of 2008, 94 of them have not been complied with by the convicted States.¹² This would mean that only 6% of the orders of the Court have been effective. Nevertheless, it is possible that the data is not completely accurate and has not yet took into account the full compliance by the States of Chile, Paraguay and Ecuador with the rulings of the cases Claude Reyes,¹³ Canese¹⁴ and Acosta-Calderón,¹⁵ which occurred in 2008. If that were the case, the actual number of non-complied judgments would be a total of 91, leaving 9% as the level of effectiveness of the system. In any case, the IAHRS appears as highly ineffective, as over 90% of the judgments of the Tribunal remain unenforced by the States.

However, it should be considered that the criterion adopted by the Court in order to establish compliance might be extremely severe, as it employs a criterion of all-or-nothing. As long as there is any ordered measure that has not been completely fulfilled, it is considered that the State did not comply with the judgment. That is the reason why this work proposes a different analysis, covering the monitoring decisions issued by the Inter-American Court regarding the compliance of its judgments. The proposed analysis will considered the different measures ordered by the Tribunal and their compliance with by the States, in order to help realizing if the States are actually modifying their behaviour because of the Court's decisions, which would show the degree of effectiveness of the system.

The conducted research reviewed all the Court's orders on the monitoring compliance of cases issued up to the end of 2008, covering the compliance with 70 judgments on merits that took place between the years 1989 and 2006. The chosen method to display the results of the research consist in dividing the different measures ordered by the Court into six categories: pecuniary compensation; costs and expenses; publicity of the international judgment; public acknowledgement of international liability; the obligation of prosecuting the individual perpetrators of the human rights violation; and the order to amend domestic legislation.

Although it has to be recognize that it is usual for the Tribunal to order different measures, as diverse as the obligation to provide the victim or its family with medical and psychological treatment;¹⁶ the duty to nullify a judicial conviction;¹⁷ or the order to memorialized the victims with monuments or street names;¹⁸ the present paper will limit the analysis to the previously mentioned measures, as those are the ones the Court has ordered with more frequency.¹⁹

The results of the research are shown in Table 1 and, in order to quantify them, they were classified according to the degree of compliance into three categories regarding the conduct of the State, fully complied (FC in the Table), in the cases where the States have completely fulfilled the ordered measure; partially complied (CP),²⁰ when some steps were taking in order to comply, but the result has not yet been accomplished; and pending fulfilment (PF), for the cases where no relevant actions were taken.

IV. THE EFFECTIVENESS IN NUMBERS

The results shown in Table 1 have been processed in Table 2 to allow seeing that the different measures have a quite distinctive degree of compliance.²¹ The pecuniary compensations and the payment of costs and expenses show a relatively high level of compliance, having been fully complied with on the 59% and 70% of the cases, respectively.²² Regarding these types of measures, it has to be considered that these are the only ones in which the Tribunal establishes a sanction for non-compliance, stating that in case of arrears in the payment an interest should be paid.²³ However, the results concerning the publicity of judgments and the public acknowledgement of international liability could indicate that the existence of a sanction might not be the reason for the higher degree of compliance. Indeed, the degree of fulfilment of these last mentioned orders is similar to the previous ones -around 60% and 70% respectively.

On the other hand, the obligation of conducting domestic investigations regarding the human rights violation, in order to prosecute and punish the wrongdoers, appears as the most unfulfilled by the States -close to three quarters of all the cases. As a matter of fact, up to the end of 2008, not even in one case a State has completely fulfilled that measure. The order regarding the amendment of the domestic legislation shows similar results. In almost two thirds of the cases, the States have not taken serious steps in order to comply with this measure; and they have fully accomplished so in only five out of twenty two occasions.

Nevertheless, it should be understood that the data clearly shows that the rulings of the Court are far from being indifferent to the Member States. Even though, up to the end of 2008, in only eight out of sixty eight cases the States have fully complied with the judgment as a whole, it also has to be noticed that in sixty five of them the States have actually modify their conduct, taking steps in order to comply with the Court's decisions.²⁴ Moreover, observing the advances made in the year 2009, it could be confirmed that all the States -with the exception of Trinidad and Tobago that abandoned the system- have taken steps in order to comply with the orders of the Court.

V. PROGRESS MADE DURING 2009

Even though the quantitative analysis has been conducted up to the end of the year 2008 -which is the last year covered so far by the Reports of the Inter-American Court-, it is important to observe that there has been progress made on the analysed cases during 2009, as it is shown on Table 3. In particular, attention should be drawn to three specific facts. Firstly, there is a new judgment that has been fully complied with, the case Mayagna.²⁵ Secondly, for the first time, a State has complied with the order of the Court regarding the prosecution of the perpetrators of human rights violations, in the case Castillo-Páez.²⁶ Finally, it could be highlighted that steps have been taking towards compliance with the judgments in all the cases analysed within this paper.²⁷ This last fact could be understood as indicating a certain level of effectiveness of the IAHRS that cannot be denied, in the sense that the rulings of the Court do make States modify their conduct.

CONCLUSIONS

In brief, the paper has analysed the level of effectiveness of the Inter-American Human Rights System. In opposition to what the data provided by the Court’s Reports shows, this work has given reasons to believe that the IAHRS appears as highly effective in achieving an important portion of its goals through its ordered measures. Nevertheless, it is evident that its levels of effectiveness need to be improved.

A special comment must be reserved for the factors that Young presents as relevant for the effectiveness of a system, namely the ease of monitoring compliance; the probability of the imposition of a sanction; and the magnitude of such sanction. It can be said that the system has developed a method of monitoring compliance, which might be assumed that has particular relevance in its degree of effectiveness.

Furthermore, the regime does not include specific mechanisms related to the enforcement of judgments, as the American Convention does not give the OAS political organs express powers to impose sanctions in the case of non-compliance.²⁸ However, an amendment of the regional treaties in order to give a political organ the power to enforce judicial decisions concerning human rights might be seen as highly inconvenient. Such a procedure needs to be based on the moral legitimacy of political actors regarding human rights policies, which could be argued to be absent in the American Continent. Up to the end of 2009, twenty of the twenty one Member States of the IAHRS have been convicted by the Court²⁹ and none of them have fully complied with all the remedies ordered by the Tribunal. The situation is even worse concerning the other fourteen Member States of the OAS, which decided to not even give such authority to the Tribunal. Moreover, the hegemonic actor of the OAS, the United States of America, which sustains economically around sixty percent of the total expenses of the organization,³⁰ has not only decided not to join the system, but it is also under serious accusations of using torture as a State practice in their fight against terrorism.³¹

On the other hand, the Court itself has created a system of sanctions applicable to the measures with pecuniary incidence. However, even if this mechanism could be seen as successful, as these measures are highly fulfilled by the Member States, it has also been said that the measures regarding publicity of judgments and public acknowledgement of international liability have a similar degree of effectiveness, but lack of particular sanctions. It could be thought that if the Court starts to impose sanctions for non-compliance with the different measures -as it already does with the monetary ones- this could lead the judgment to a new level of effectiveness. Nevertheless, this may not necessarily be true as it has been seen that measures without sanctions can also be effective.

Perhaps, it is time to start thinking that the "motivation" to comply with human rights' standards, does not need to come from above the States, with the imposition of sanctions, but from inside them. A more conscious civil society, one that pressures national governments to fully comply with the Court's judgments, and therefore with international human rights norms, could be the most effective mechanism to improve the protection of human rights within the American States.

Foot notes

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

Buergenthal, Thomas & Shelton, Dinah, Protecting Human Rights in the Americas: Cases and Materials (N.P. Engel, Kehl, Arlington, Virginia, 1995).        [ Links ]

CONTRIBUTIONS IN COLLECTIVE BOOKS

Gómez, Verónica, The Interaction between the Political Actors of the OAS (Organization of American States), the Commission and the Court, in The Inter- American System of Human Rights, 173-211 (David J. Harris & Stephen Livingstone, eds., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998).        [ Links ]

Malinowski, Tom, Banned State Department Practices, in Torture: Does it make us safer? Is it ever OK? A Human Rights Perspective, 139-144 (Kenneth Roth & Minky Worden, eds., New Press, New York & London, 2005).        [ Links ]

Roth, Kenneth, Getting away with Torture, 11 Global Governance, 3, 389-406 (2005).        [ Links ]

Young, Oran R., The Effectiveness of International Institutions: Hard Cases and Critical Variables, in Governance without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, 160-194 (James N. Rosenau & Ernst Otto Czempiel, eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).        [ Links ]

JOURNALS

Boniface, Dexter, Is There a Democratic Norm in the Americas? An analysis of the Organization of American States, 8 Global Governance, 3, 368-381 (2002).        [ Links ]

Roth, Kenneth, Getting away with Torture, 11 Global Governance, 3, 389-406 (2005).        [ Links ]

TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS

American Convention on Human Rights, entered into force July 18^th, 1978, OAS Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 UNTS 136.        [ Links ]

American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, Bogotá, April 30^th, 1948.        [ Links ]

Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 1992-1993.        [ Links ]

Charter of the Organization of American States, adopted on April 30^th, 1978, 119 UNTS 3.        [ Links ]

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Annual Reports 1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2008.        [ Links ]

Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Application to the Inter-American Court, Case 12.607.        [ Links ]

Resolution XXII of the Second Special Inter-American Conference in 1965, OAS Official Records, OEA/ser.C/I.13, 32-34 (1965).        [ Links ]

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE LAW

19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109.        [ Links ]

19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006; July 10, 2007; and July 8, 2009.        [ Links ]

Acosta-Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129.        [ Links ]

Acosta-Calderón v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2008.        [ Links ]

Alfonso Martín del Campo-Dodd v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 2004. Series C No. 113.        [ Links ]

Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11.        [ Links ]

Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15.        [ Links ]

Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72.        [ Links ]

Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 21, 2002; November 22, 2002; November 28, 2005; October 30, 2008; and July 1, 2009.        [ Links ]

Baldeón-García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147.        [ Links ]

Baldeón-García v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 7, 2008 and April 3, 2009.        [ Links ]

Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70.        [ Links ]

Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91.        [ Links ]

Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003; March 3, 2005; July 4, 2006; July 10, 2007; and January 27, 2009.        [ Links ]

Barrios Altos v. Peru. Judgment March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75.        [ Links ]

Barrios Altos v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87.        [ Links ]

Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002; September 28, 2003; November 17, 2004; September 22, 2005; and August 4, 2008.        [ Links ]

Benavides-Cevallos v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38.        [ Links ]

Benavides-Cevallos v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003.        [ Links ]

Blake v. Guatemala. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36.        [ Links ]

Blake v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48.        [ Links ]

Blake v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002; November 27, 2003; November 27, 2007; and January 22, 2009.        [ Links ]

Boyce v. Barbados. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 169.        [ Links ]

Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100.        [ Links ]

Bulacio v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004 and November 26, 2008.        [ Links ]

Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22.        [ Links ]

Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31.        [ Links ]

Caballero-Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003; December 10, 2007; February 6, 2008; and November 17, 2009.        [ Links ]

Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123.        [ Links ]

Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007.        [ Links ]

Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69.        [ Links ]

Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88.        [ Links ]

Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003; November 17, 2004; February 07, 2008; and November 20, 2009.        [ Links ]

Cantos v. Argentina. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97.        [ Links ]

Cantos v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter- American Court of Human of November 28, 2005; July 12, 2007; and July 6, 2009.        [ Links ]

Caracazo v. Venezuela. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58.        [ Links ]

Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95.        [ Links ]

Caracazo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; July 6, 2009; and September 23, 2009.        [ Links ]

Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117.        [ Links ]

Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007 and July 1, 2009.        [ Links ]

Castañeda-Gutman v. Mexico. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184.        [ Links ]

Castillo-Páez v. Peru. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34.        [ Links ]

Castillo-Páez v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43.        [ Links ]

Castillo-Páez v. Peru, Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru, Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru and the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of June 1, 2001.        [ Links ]

Castillo-Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002; November 27, 2003; November 17, 2004; and April 3, 2009.        [ Links ]

Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52.        [ Links ]

Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of November 17, 1999. Series C No. 59.        [ Links ]

Cayara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14.        [ Links ]

Cesti-Hurtado v. Peru. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56.        [ Links ]

Cesti-Hurtado v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78.        [ Links ]

Cesti-Hurtado v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; September 22, 2006; and August 4, 2008; and February 4, 2010.        [ Links ]

Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151.        [ Links ]

Claude-Reyes et al. v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 2, 2008 and November 24, 2008.        [ Links ]

Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71.        [ Links ]

Constitutional Court v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; February 7, 2006; and August 05, 2008.        [ Links ]

De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115.        [ Links ]

De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2007.        [ Links ]

Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68.        [ Links ]

Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 89.        [ Links ]

Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002 and August 05, 2008.        [ Links ]

El Amparo v. Venezuela. Judgment of January 18, 1995. Series C No. 19.        [ Links ]

El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28.        [ Links ]

El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002; July 4, 2006; and February 4, 2010.        [ Links ]

Fairén-Garbi and Solís-Corrales v. Honduras. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6.        [ Links ]

Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126.        [ Links ]

Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006 and May 9, 2008.        [ Links ]

Five Pensioners v. Peru. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98.        [ Links ]

Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; September 12, 2005; July 4, 2006 and November 24, 2009.        [ Links ]

Gangaram-Panday v. Suriname. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16.        [ Links ]

García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137.        [ Links ]

García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007.        [ Links ]

Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series C No. 26.        [ Links ]

Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39.        [ Links ]

Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004 and November 27, 2007.        [ Links ]

Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130.        [ Links ]

Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2007.        [ Links ]

Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5.        [ Links ]

Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 8.        [ Links ]

Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153.        [ Links ]

Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 6, 2008 and November 19, 2009.        [ Links ]

Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136.        [ Links ]

Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2007 and July 1, 2009.        [ Links ]

Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110.        [ Links ]

Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2005; September 22, 2006; and May 3, 2008.        [ Links ]

Gutiérrez-Soler v. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005 Series C No. 132.        [ Links ]

Gutiérrez-Soler v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 31, 2008 and June 30, 2009.        [ Links ]

Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107.        [ Links ]

Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005; September 22, 2006 and July 9, 2009.        [ Links ]

Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94.        [ Links ]

Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003.        [ Links ]

Huilca-Tecse v. Peru. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121.        [ Links ]

Huilca-Tecse v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006 and February 7, 2008.        [ Links ]

Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74.        [ Links ]

Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005 and November 24, 2009.        [ Links ]

Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99.        [ Links ]

Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; September 12, 2005; and November 21, 2007.        [ Links ]

Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112.        [ Links ]

Juvenile Reeducation Institute v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 4, 2006; February 6, 2008; and November 19, 2009.        [ Links ]

Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90.        [ Links ]

Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96.        [ Links ]

Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; August 4, 2008; and February 3, 2010.        [ Links ]

Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33.        [ Links ]

Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42.        [ Links ]

Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2002; November 27, 2003; March 3, 2005; September 22, 2006; and February 6, 2008.        [ Links ]

López-Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141.        [ Links ]

López-Álvarez v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 6, 2008.        [ Links ]

Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119.        [ Links ]

Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006.        [ Links ]

Maqueda v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections. Order of January 17, 1995. Series C No. 18.        [ Links ]

Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103.        [ Links ]

Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 21, 2005; November 21, 2007; and January 22, 2009.        [ Links ]

Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79.        [ Links ]

Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 7, 2008 and April 3, 2009.        [ Links ]

Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124.        [ Links ]

Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 21, 2007.        [ Links ]

Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106.        [ Links ]

Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108.        [ Links ]

Molina-Theissen Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 10, 2007 and November 16, 2009.        [ Links ]

Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101. Myrna Mack        [ Links ]

Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 12, 2005; November 26, 2007; and November 16, 2009.        [ Links ]

Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20.        [ Links ]

Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29.        [ Links ]

Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2002 and January 19, 2009.        [ Links ]

Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161.        [ Links ]

Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135.        [ Links ]

Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 30, 2007 and September 21, 2009.        [ Links ]

Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105.        [ Links ]

Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116.        [ Links ]

Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2007; August 05, 2008; and July 1, 2009.        [ Links ]

Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 133.        [ Links ]

Raxcacó-Reyes v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 9, 2008.        [ Links ]

Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111.        [ Links ]

Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2006; September 22, 2006; February 6, 2008; and August 6, 2008.        [ Links ]

Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146.        [ Links ]

Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 2, 2007 and February 8, 2008.        [ Links ]

Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120.        [ Links ]

Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006; July 3, 2007; and February 3, 2010.        [ Links ]

Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152.        [ Links ]

Servellón-García et al. v. Honduras. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 29, 2008 and August 5, 2008.        [ Links ]

Street Children (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63.        [ Links ]

Street Children (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77.        [ Links ]

Street Children (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003; June 14, 2005; and January 27, 2009.        [ Links ]

Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35.        [ Links ]

Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44.        [ Links ]

Suárez-Rosero v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003 and July 10, 2007.        [ Links ]

The Last Temptation of Christ (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73.        [ Links ]

The Last Temptation of Christ (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 28, 2003.        [ Links ]

Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114.        [ Links ]

Tibi v. Ecuador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights of September 22, 2006 and July 1, 2009.        [ Links ]

Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64.        [ Links ]

Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92.        [ Links ]

Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2004; September 12, 2005; November 21, 2007 and November 16, 2009.        [ Links ]

Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155.        [ Links ]

Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 30, 2008.        [ Links ]

Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4.        [ Links ]

Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7.        [ Links ]

White Van (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37.        [ Links ]

White Van (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76.        [ Links ]

White Van (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003 and November 27, 2007.        [ Links ]

Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149.        [ Links ]

Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 02, 2008 and September 21, 2009.        [ Links ]

Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125.        [ Links ]

Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 8, 2008.        [ Links ]

Yatama (Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Aslatakanka) v. Nicaragua. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127.        [ Links ]

Yatama (Yapti Tasba Masraka Nanih Aslatakanka) v. Nicaragua. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Orders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 29, 2006 and August 4, 2008.        [ Links ]

Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180.        [ Links ]