IV Inter-American System
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410902700208 |
| Published date | 01 June 2009 |
| Author | Diego Rodríguez-Pinzón |
| Date | 01 June 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
264 Intersentia
IV INTERAMERICAN SYSTEM
D R-P*
In this report I will discuss several cases recently decided by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights ( hereina er ‘Commission’).
e rst case, Manuel Cepeda Vargas vs Colombia, discusses the widespread
violence against leaders of t he Unión Patriótica (UP) i n Col ombi a and is an exa mple of
a case that was referred to t he Court a er the State did not comply with its ‘substa ntive
recommendations’. e Unión Patriótica was formed in May 1985 as a result of peace
negotiations between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the
government. e Commission found in its proceedings that the State failed to use
due diligence in the invest igation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible
for the 1994 extrajudicial execution of Senator Cepeda, a high-pro le member of
the Unión Patriótica, particularly considering that precautionary measures (interim
measures issued by the Commission itself) had been in place since October 1992.
Among other things, the Commission requested that the State adopt measures to
prevent the occurrence of politically-motivated violence and, in particular, violence
against members of the Unión Patriótica. is case could serve a s a reference for future
cases regarding other individuals of the UP that could be submitted to the Court in
the future, in a similar way to ‘pilot judgements’ issued by the European Court on
Human Rights.
e second case, Grand Chief Michael Mitchell vs Canada, illustrates an instance
where the Commission issued a decision in favour of the State under the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (hereina er ‘Declaration’). is case is
also interesting because the analysis allows for a number of possible interpretations.
While this could be problematic in that it does not provide a clear legal framework
for Stat es to foll ow when pas sing and i mplementi ng non-di scrimi natory l egislat ion, it
allows academics, advocates , and practitioners to study the various interpretations of
this decision and di scuss the relative merits of each. Hopefu lly, when the Commission
is n ext pre sent ed w ith the iss ues rai sed in t his cas e, i t wi ll cons ider the res pon ses t o th e
* Professorial Lectu rer in Residence of American University Washington College of Law (WCL) and
Co-Director of t he Academy on Human Rig hts and Humanita rian Law at WCL, Washing ton, USA.
He is also ad hoc Judge of the Inter-Amer ican Court on Human Rights. He wants to tha nk Sara
Ramey for her resea rch support.
To continue reading
Request your trial