IV Inter-American System
| Date | 01 June 2005 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410502300208 |
| Author | Claudia Martin |
| Published date | 01 June 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
288
IV INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM
CLAUDIA MARTIN
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter ‘Inter-American
Commission’ or ‘Commission’) has submitted substantially more cases for
consideration by the Inter-American Court on Human Rights (hereinafter ‘Inter-
American Court’ or ‘Court’) since the amendment of its Regulations in 2001. As a
result, the Court decides more cases and issues more judgements, making the
reporting on every case decided by this regional court more difficult. Therefore, in
the future, this section will mainly focus on the relevant developments in the case law
of the Court and will only refer to the facts of the cases if necessary. As in previous
years, however, I will continue to list the cases decided in the corresponding period
for informational purposes.
During the period covered by this report, the Court issued several decisions on
the merits, which include: De la Cruz Flores vs Peru,Carpio Nicolle vs Guatemala,Lori
Berenson Mejı
´avs Peru,Hermanas Serrano Cruz vs Peru,Huilca Tecse vs Peru,Masacre de
Mapiripa
´nvs Colombia, and Caesar vs Trinidad y Tobago. Moreover, the Court
continues to review requests for Advisory Opinion 19 and 20, submitted by Venezuela
and the Inter-American Commission, respectively.
The present report will analyse current developments in the case law of the Court
regarding de novo review of admissibility issues, the scope of the jurisdiction rationae
temporis of the Court and the protection afforded by the right to freedom of
expression under the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter
‘American Convention’ or ‘Convention’).
The full text of the decisions mentioned in this report can be found in the
website of the Inter-American Court at www.corteidh.or.cr.
1.
DE NOVO
REVIEW OF ADMISSIBILITY ISSUES
Since its initial decision in Vela
´squez Rodrı
´guez,
1
the Court has asserted its jurisdiction
to review all aspects of a case, including ‘the procedural rules that justify its hearing a
case and (...) all procedural norms involved in the ‘interpretation or application of
(the) Convention’. On this basis, the Court developed a practice for reviewing de
novo admissibility issues, particularly those related to the exhaustion of domestic
remedies already adjudicated by the Commission. This review was initiated by the
submission of preliminary objections from the concerned State. The de novo review
of admissibility issues was criticised because it added to the existing time delay for
the Court to decide cases once submitted for consideration.
1
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Vela
´squez Rodrı
´guez Case, Preliminary Objections,
Judgement of 26 June 1987, Series C, No. 1, para. 29.
To continue reading
Request your trial