A. Creation of the Court

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court” or “the Tribunal”) was brought into being by the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights or the “Pact of San José, Costa Rica” (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), which occurred on July 18, 1978, upon the deposit of the eleventh instrument of ratification by a Member State of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS” or “the Organization”). The Convention was adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, which took place November 7-22, 1969, in San José, Costa Rica.

The two organs for the protection of human rights provided for under Article 33 of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and the Court.  The function of these organs is to ensure the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties to the Convention.

B. Organization of the Court

In accordance with the terms of the Statute of the Court (hereinafter “the Statute”), the Court is an autonomous judicial institution which has its seat in San José, Costa Rica, and has as its purpose the application and interpretation of the Convention.

The Court consists of seven judges, nationals of the Member States of the OAS, who act in an individual capacity and are elected “from among jurists of the highest moral authority and of recognized competence in the field of human rights, who possess the qualifications required for the exercise of the highest judicial functions in conformity with the law of the state of which they are nationals or of the state that proposes them as candidates” (Article 52 of the Convention). Article 8 of the Statute provides that the Secretary General of the OAS shall request the States Parties to the Convention to submit a list of their candidates for the position of judge of the Court. In accordance with Article 53(2) of the Convention, each State Party may propose up to three candidates.

The judges are elected by the States Parties to the Convention for a term of six years.  The election is by secret ballot and by and absolute majority vote in the OAS General Assembly immediately prior to the expiration of the terms of the outgoing judges. Vacancies on the Court caused by death, permanent disability, resignation or dismissal, shall be filled, if possible, at the next session of the OAS General Assembly (Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the Statute).

Judges whose terms have expired shall continue to serve with regard to cases that they have begun to hear and that are still pending (Article 54(3) of the Convention).

If necessary in order to preserve a quorum of the Court, one or more interim judges may be appointed by the States Parties to the Convention (Article 6(3) of the Statute).  “If a judge is a national of any of the States Parties to a case submitted to the Court, [that judge] shall retain [the] right to hear that case. If one of the judges called upon to hear a case is a national of one of the States Parties to the case, any other State Party to the case may appoint a person to serve on the Court as an ad hoc judge. If among the judges called upon to hear a case, none is a national of the States Parties to the case, each of the latter may appoint an ad hoc judge” (Article 10(1), 10(2) and 10(3) of the Statute).

States parties to a case are represented in the proceedings before the Court by the Agents they designate (Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure).

The judges are at the disposal of the Court and hold as many regular sessions a year as may be necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. They may also meet in special sessions when convoked by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) or at the request of a majority of the judges.  Although the judges are not required to reside at the seat of the Court, the President shall render his services on a permanent basis (Article 16 of the Statute and Articles 11 and 12 of the Rules of Procedure).

The President and Vice President are elected by the judges for a period of two years and may be reelected (Article 12 of the Statute).

There is a Permanent Commission of the Court (hereinafter “the Permanent Commission”) composed of the President, the Vice President and any other judge that the President considers convenient, according to the needs of the Court. The Court may also create other commissions for specific matters (Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure).

The Secretariat functions under the direction of a Secretary, who is elected by the Court (Article 14 of the Statute).

C. Composition of the Court

The composition of the Court is as follows, in order of precedence (Article 13 of the Statute):

Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President

Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President

Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua)

Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile)

Oliver Jackman (Barbados)

Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela)

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil)

The Secretary of the Court is Manuel E. Ventura-Robles (Costa Rica) and the Interim Deputy Secretary is Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia (Costa Rica), who on August 28, 1996, replaced the incumbent, Ana María Reina (Argentina), after she was granted leave by the Court.

D. Jurisdictions of the Court

The Convention confers contentious and advisory functions on the Court. The first function involves the power to adjudicate disputes relating to charges that a State Party has violated the Convention.  The second function involves the power of the Member States to request that the Court interpret the Convention or “other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states.” Within their spheres of competence, the organs listed in the Charter of the OAS may in like manner consult the Court.

1. The Contentious Jurisdiction of the Court

The contentious jurisdiction of the Court is spelled out in Article 62 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

 1. A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.

 2. Such declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases.  It shall be presented to the Secretary General of the Organization, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other member states of the Organization and to the Secretary of the Court.

 3. The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.

Since States Parties are free to accept the Court's jurisdiction at any time, a State may be invited to do so for a specific case.

Pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Convention, “[o]nly the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.”

Article 63(1) of the Convention contains the following provision relating to the judgments that the Court may render:

If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.

Paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the Convention provides “[t]hat part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the state.”

Article 63(2) of the Convention provides that:

In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters its has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.

The judgment rendered by the Court in any dispute is “final and not subject to appeal.” Nevertheless, “[i]n case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” (Article 67 of the Convention.) The States Parties “undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” (Article 68 of the Convention.)

The Court submits a report on its work to the General Assembly at each regular session, and it “[s]hall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments.” (Article 65 of the Convention.)

2. The Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court

Article 64 of the Convention reads as follows:

 1. The member states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states. Within their spheres of competence, the organs listed in Chapter X of the Charter of the Organization of American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, may in like manner consult the Court.

 2. The Court, at the request of a member state of the Organization, may provide that state with opinions regarding the compatibility of any of its domestic laws with the aforesaid international instruments.

The standing to request an advisory opinion from the Court is not limited to the States Parties to the Convention, any OAS Member State may request such an opinion.

Likewise, the advisory jurisdiction of the Court enhances the Organization's capacity to deal with questions arising from the application of the Convention, for it enables the organs of the OAS to consult the Court within their spheres of competence.

3. Recognition of the Contentious Jurisdiction of the  Court

Seventeen States Parties have now recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.  They are Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Honduras, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, Suriname, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, Trinidad and Tobago, Paraguay, Bolivia and El Salvador.

The status of ratifications and accessions to the Convention may be found at the end of this report (Appendix XLIII).

E. Budget

Article 72 of the Convention provides that “the Court shall draw up its own budget and submit it for approval to the General Assembly through the General Secretariat.  The latter may not introduce any changes in it.”  Pursuant to Article 26 of its Statute, the Court administers its own budget.

F. Relations with Other Similar Regional Organizations

The Court has close institutional ties with the Commission. These ties have been strengthened by meetings between the members of the two bodies, held at the recommendation of the General Assembly. The Court also maintains cooperative relations with the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, established under an agreement between the Government of Costa Rica and the Court which entered into force on November 17, 1980.  The Institute is an autonomous international academic institution with a global, multidisciplinary approach to the teaching, research and promotion of human rights. The Court also maintains institutional ties with the European Court of Human Rights, which was established by the Council of Europe and has functions similar to those of the Inter-American Court.

II. ACTIVITIES OF THE COURT

A. XXXIII Regular Session of the Court

The Court held its XXXIII Regular Session from January 22 to February 3, 1997, at its seat in San José, Costa Rica. The composition of the Court was as follows: Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela) and Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil). Also sitting were Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero, Judge ad hoc for the Paniagua Morales et al. Case against Guatemala; Julio A. Barberis, Judge ad hoc for the Garrido and Baigorria case against Argentina; Alfonso Novales-Aguirre, Judge ad hoc for the Blake Case against Guatemala, and Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico, Judge ad hoc for the Neira Alegría et al. Case against Peru. Also present were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Ana María Reina, Deputy Secretary.

The following matters were considered during this session:

1. Paniagua Morales et al. Case

On January 25, 1996 the Tribunal rendered a judgment on preliminary objections in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case. The objections raised by the Republic of Guatemala and contested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights were: prescription of the right of the Commission to submit this case for a decision of the Court, and absolute legal invalidity of the application in the case.

On January 26, 1996 the Court read at a public session this judgment, in which it decided by six votes to one to reject the preliminary objections presented by Guatemala and to proceed with consideration of the case. Judge ad hoc Larraondo Salguero issued a dissenting opinion (Appendix I).

2. Castillo Páez Case

On January 30, 1996 the Court rendered a judgment on the following preliminary objections: failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and inadmissibility of the petition. On February 2, 1996 the Tribunal read at a public session the judgment on preliminary objections, in which it unanimously decided to dismiss the preliminary objections raised by Guatemala, and to proceed with the consideration of the merits of the case (Appendix II). Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade presented a Separate Opinion.

3. Loayza Tamayo Case

On January 31, 1996 the Court delivered a judgment on the preliminary objections in this case. The preliminary objection raised by the Peru was failure to exhaust all domestic remedies. In that judgment the Court unanimously decided to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the Government of Peru and proceed with consideration of the case (Appendix III). Judge Antônio Cançado Trindade issued a Separate Opinion.

The judgment was read at a public session held on February 2, 1996.

4. Garrido and Baigorria Case

On February 1, 1996 the Court held a public hearing to consider the merits of the case, and on Friday, February 2 it read the judgment at a public session in which it unanimously decided to take note of Argentina's recognition of the acts set forth in the application and its international responsibility for those acts. The Court granted the Parties a period of six months from the date of the Judgment to reach an agreement on reparations and compensation, and reserved the right to review and approve that agreement and, should no agreement be reached, to continue the proceedings on reparations and compensation (Appendix IV).

5. Colotenango and Carpio Nicolle Cases. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

The Court reviewed the reports submitted by the Republic of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission on the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in the Colotenango and Carpio Nicolle Cases, before the Commission.  Through Orders of February 1, 1996, the Court decided to extend the provisional measures for a period of six months in both cases (Appendixes V and VI respectively).

6. Alemán Lacayo Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Nicaragua

On February 2, 1996 the Commission submitted to the Court a request for provisional measures in the Alemán Lacayo Case (No.11.281) before the Commission, to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Arnoldo Alemán-Lacayo, a then candidate for the Presidency of the Republic of Nicaragua.  The Court unanimously called upon the Government of Nicaragua to adopt, forthwith, such measures as were necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Alemán-Lacayo and to avoid irreparable damage to him; to investigate the events and punish those responsible for them, and to submit a monthly report concerning the provisional measures which it had taken. It called up the Inter-American Commission to forward to the Court its observations on such report within fifteen days of its receipt, and to include that matter on the agenda of the next regular session of the Court in order to analyze the results of the measures adopted by the Government of Nicaragua (Appendix VII).

7. Public Hearings on Reparations

Pursuant to its Judgment of January 19, 1995, the Court held a public hearing on January 26, 1996 to allow the Republic of Peru and the Inter-American Commission to voice their opinions on the reparations and costs in the Neira Alegría et al. Case.

On January 27, the Court heard the views of the Republic of Venezuela and of the Inter-American Commission on the reparations in the El Amparo Case, as a result of the Tribunal's Judgment of January 18, 1995, in which it had unanimously decided to take note of the recognition of responsibility expressed by the Republic of Venezuela.

8. Other Matters

On February 2, 1996 the Court issued an Order for the purpose of regulating the proceedings in regard to the admission of evidence during the processing of cases submitted to it, in which it decided that “evidence shall be admissible only if it is indicated in the application and the reply thereto, and in the communication setting out the preliminary objections.” That Order also stated that in cases of force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence “the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the other party is guaranteed the right of defense” (Appendix VIII).

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the Annual Report of the activities of the Court for 1995 which was due to be presented to the General Assembly of the OAS in Panama City, Panama, at its XXVI Regular Session. It also reviewed and approved the external audit of the Court ordered by its President, Judge Héctor Fix-Zamudio, for the period from January 1 to December 31, 1995, which was later delivered to the OAS General Secretariat. The Court also considered administrative and budgetary matters.

B. Presentation of the Court's Annual Report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters of the Permanent Council of the OAS and Presentation of the Draft Budget of the Court to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters

From March 18 to 26, 1996 Judges Héctor Fix-Zamudio, President, and Hernán Salgado‑Pesantes, Vice President, accompanied by the Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, visited the headquarters of the OAS in Washington, D.C. in order to present the Court's 1995 Annual Report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters of the Permanent Council of the OAS, and the Court's 1997 draft budget to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters.

The Committee on Juridical and Political Matters presented its recommendations on the Annual Report of the Court; those recommendations were endorsed by the Permanent Council of the OAS and approved by the General Assembly in the terms indicated below.

During this visit to Washington, D.C. the Judges of the Inter-American Court were received by the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters, to which the President of the Court explained the projected budget for the year 1997.  He also answered a number of questions about the proposed budget from the representatives of the Member States, who considered that the visit had been very important for their full understanding of the functioning and needs of the Tribunal.

C. XXVI Regular Session of the General Assembly of the OAS

At the XXVI Regular Session of the General Assembly of the OAS, which took place in Panama City, Panama, from June 3 to 6, 1996, the Court was represented by its President, Judge Héctor Fix‑Zamudio, and its Vice President, Judge Hernán Salgado-Pesantes. The Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, also attended.

1. Annual Report of the Court for the year 1995

Through Resolution AG/RES.1394 (XXVI-O/96) adopted at the eighth plenary meeting on June 7, 1996, the Assembly approved the Annual Report of the activities of the Court for the year 1995:

1. To note with satisfaction the work of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights the period covered by this report and to urge it to continue fulfilling its important function.

2. To thank the European Union for its contribution to enable the Court to execute the project entitled “Support for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Second Stage.”

3. To thank the Government of the Netherlands for its donation to the Documentation Center and Joint Library of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights of 246 volumes of the “Recueil des Cours - Collected Courses” published by the Hague Academy of International Law, as well as of volumes of the discussions of workshops held by the same institution.

4. To support the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its requests for funds to continue fulfilling the important functions entrusted to it by the American Convention on Human Rights and to formulate the corresponding recommendations.

5. To appeal to the member states of the OAS that have not yet done so to ratify or accede to the American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San José,” and to consider accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

6. To receive and transmit to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights the observations and recommendations of the Permanent Council of the Organization of the annual report.

7. To recommend to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that, in its annual report, in addition to the purpose of its periodic meetings with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it include a detailed account of the results of those meetings.

2. Approval of the Budget of the Court for 1997

The Assembly approved the budget of the Court for 1997 in the amount of US$1,035,700 (one million thirty-five thousand and seven hundred United States dollars.)

D. XIX Special Session of the Court

The XIX Regular Session of the Court was held from June 26 to July 3, 1996 at the seat of the Court in San José, Costa Rica. The composition of the Court was as follows: Héctor Fix‑Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado‑Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil), and Alfonso Novales-Aguirre, Judge ad hoc in the Blake case. For reasons beyond his control, Judge Máximo Pacheco‑Gómez (Chile) was unable to attend. Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.

The following matters were considered during that session of the Court:

1. Blake Case

On July 2, 1996 the Court rendered a judgment rejecting the following preliminary objections raised by the Government of Guatemala and refuted by the Inter-American Commission: incompetence of the Court to try the case; incompetence of the Court to deal with the application by reason of its subject, and violation by the Commission of Article 29(d) of the American Convention.  Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge Novales-Aguirre presented separate concurring opinions (Appendix IX).

2. Loayza Tamayo Case

On June 27, 1996 the Court decided to reject as unlawful the appeal for “nullification” lodged by the Government of Peru against the Judgment on Preliminary Objections rendered in this case on January 31, 1996, in which the Court unanimously decided to reject the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, raised by the Government of the Republic of Peru, and to continue to hear the case (Appendix X).

On July 2, 1996, the Court decided to reject the motion for disqualification of witnesses raised by the Government of Peru in this case.

On the same date, the Court adopted provisional measures on behalf of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo. In endorsing the Order of the President of June 12, 1996 (Appendix XI), the Court ordered that the Government adopt forthwith such measures as were necessary to effectively ensure the physical, psychological and moral integrity of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo (Appendix XII).

3. Vogt Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

On June 26, 1996 the Court held a public hearing at its seat, at which it heard the pleadings of the Government of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission in regard to the provisional measures in the Vogt Case before the Commission. The Commission itself requested the public hearing on March 28, 1996 in order to protect the life and physical integrity of Father Daniel Joseph Vogt, a Catholic priest carrying out his evangelical work in Guatemala.  On April 12, 1996 the President of the Court decided to request that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala adopt forthwith such measures as were needed to protect the life and physical integrity of Father Vogt to avoid him suffering any irreparable damage, and that it investigate the events and punish those responsible (Appendix XIII).  On June 27, 1996 the Court decided to ratify all the terms of the Order delivered by the President on April 12, 1996 (Appendix XIV).

4. Serech and Saquic Case.  Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

On June 27, 1996 a public hearing was held so the Government of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission could state their pleadings with regard to the provisional measures in the Serech and Saquic Case, requested by the Commission on April 12, 1996 to protect the lives and physical integrity of Blanca Margarita Valiente de Similox, Vitalino and Sotero Similox, María Francisca Ventura-Sicán, Lucio Martínez, Maximiliano Solís, Bartolo Solís, Julio Solís-Hernández, María Magdalena Sunún-González, Héctor Solís, José Solís, Gregoria Gómez, Juan García, Eliseo Calel and Víctor Tuctuc; all in connection with the investigation of the events relating to the murders of Reverends Pascual Serech and Manuel Saquic.

On June 28, 1996 the Court decided to ratify all the terms (Appendix XVI) of the Order delivered by the President on April 24, 1996, in which he called upon the Government of Guatemala to adopt forthwith such measures as might be necessary to protect the lives and physical integrity of the above-named persons and to avoid irreparable damage to them, to investigate the acts perpetrated against them, and to punish those responsible (Appendix XV).

5. Suárez Rosero Case.  Provisional Measures in the Matter of Ecuador

Through Order of June 28, 1996 (Appendix XIX), the Court decided to revoke the urgent measures issued by the President of the Court on April 12, 1996 in this case (Appendix XVII) and expanded by Order of the President of April 24 (Appendix XVIII), inasmuch as the Government of Ecuador had on March 26, 1996 submitted documentation regarding the release of Mr. Suárez-Rosero, and the Commission had on June 10, 1996 presented a communication declaring that it was desisting from its request for provisional measures.

6. Consideration of a New Case

The Court began hearing the Benavides Cevallos Case against Ecuador, submitted by the Commission on March 21, 1996.

7. Other Matters

In order to resolve problems relating to quorum, the Tribunal decided by Order of June 26, 1996 “[t]hat the receipt of testimonial and expert evidence in the proceedings before it may be verified by the presence of one or more of its members at a public hearing at the seat of the Court or in situ” (Appendix XX).

In view of the leave of absence granted to Ana María Reina, Deputy Secretary of the Court, Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia was appointed Interim Deputy Secretary for the period from August 28, 1996 to August 27, 1997. Some administrative matters and proposed revisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court were also discussed.

E. XX Special Session of the Court

From September 5 to 7, 1996 the XX Special Session of the Court was held at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, to hear the testimonial evidence in the Genie Lacayo Case. Since a quorum had not been attained, the Order of the Court of July 8, 1996 was invoked and the judges present at this Special Session were authorized to take the evidence on the merits of the case (Appendix XXI). The public hearing was held at the seat of the Court on September 5 and 6, 1996 and the testimony of a number of witnesses produced by the Commission were heard on the merits of the case.  On September 6, the Court also heard the oral pleadings made by the Government of Nicaragua and the Commission with regard to the testimonies on merits thus far received.

The Judges present to hear the evidence in this case were as follows:  Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia), and Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua.) Judge Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile) was unable to attend for reasons beyond his control.  Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura‑Robles, Secretary, and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.

F. XXXIV Regular Session of the Court