Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T16:05:05.012Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In re Direct Action of Unconstitutionality Initiated Against the Declaration of Acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dinah Shelton  and
Alexandra Huneeus
Dinah Shelton
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Alexandra Huneeus
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Dominican Republic (DR) filed its declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Inter-American Court or Court) on March 22, 1999, and since then has been the subject of four judgments and a series of provisional measures. On November 4, 2014, however, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Dominican Republic (Tribunal) declared unconstitutional the government’s declaration accepting jurisdiction, implying that the Dominican Republic is not now, and perhaps never has been, under the Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction.

Keywords

Inter-American Court of Human RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsVienna Convention on the Law of Treatiesjurisdictionestoppelinternal law as justification for failure to perform treaty obligation
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 866 - 872
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser.C) No. 282 (Aug. 28, 2014); Nadege Dorzema v. Dominican Republic, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 251 (Oct. 24, 2012); González Medina v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 240 (Feb. 27, 2012); The Girls Yean v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 130 (Sept. 8, 2005).

2 Relativo a la acción directa de in constitucional idad incoada contra el Instrumento de Aceptación de la Competencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos [In re Direct Action of Unconstitutionality Initiated Against the Declaration of Acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights], Judgment No. TC/0256/14 (Trib. Const. Dom. Rep. 4 de noviembre de 2014), at http://www.tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/Sentencias. Translations from the Spanish are by the authors.

3 Constituciün el 25 de julio de 2002, Arts. 37(14), 55(6) (corresponding to the provisions in force at the time of acceptance in 1999).

4 Amicus briefs were submitted by the Consejo Latino americanode Estudiosos de Derecho Internacionaly Comparado, Capítulo República Dominicana (COLADIC-RD), a local scholarly nongovernmental organization, and by renowned lawyers and legal academics.

5 American Convention on Human Rights, Art. 62, Nov. 22, 1969, Oasts No. B-32, 1144 UNTS 123.

6 Brief of Amicus Curiae Coladicrd at 15, Judgment No. Tc/0256/14 (2014), at http://www.coladic-rd.org/images/Escrito_de_Amicus_Curiae_Coladicrd_-_Inconstitucionalidad_Competencia_Corte_Idh_depositado.pdf [hereinafter Coladicrd Brief].

7 Id. at 14.

8 Constitutional Court v. Peru, Competence, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 55, paras. 49–50 (Sept. 24, 1999).

9 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Arts. 26, 27, May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 [hereinafter Vienna Convention].

10 Id., Art. 46(1).

11 Relativo al recurso de revisión constitucional en materia de amparo incoado contra la Sentencia núm. 473/2012 dictada por la Cámara Civil, Comercial y de Trabajo del Juzgado de Primera Instancia del Distrito Judicial de Monte Plata [In re Recourse to Constitutional Revision in the Matter of Protection Initiated Against Judgment No. 473/2012 by the Civil, Commercial and Labor Chamber of the Tribunal of First Instance of the Monte Plata District], Judgment No. TC/0168/13 (Trib. Const. Dom. Rep. 23 de septiembre de 2013), at http://tribunalconstitucional.gob.do/node/1764 [hereinafter Judgment No. TC/0168/13].

12 Expelled Dominicans and Haitians, supra note 1, para. 171.

13 Presidencia República Dominicana, El Gobierno dominicano rechaza la sentencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Oct. 23, 2014), at http://presidencia.gob.do/noticias/el-gobierno-dominicano-rechaza-la-sentencia-de-la-corte-interamericana-de-derechos-humanos.

14 The perception that the Constitutional Tribunal was acting politically was enhanced by the revelation that the majority judges originally published the opinion without two of the dissenting opinions. The dissents were appended only later.

15 President Ronald Reagan terminated United States acceptance of the optional clause accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice on October 7, 1985, without referring the matter to Congress. See United States: Department of State Letter and Statement Concerning Termination of Acceptance of I.C.J. Compulsory Jurisdiction, 24 ILM 1742 (1985).

16 Vienna Convention, supra note 9, Art. 46(2).

17 See supra note 1.

18 See Presidencia República Dominicana, supra note 13.

19 Ley No. 137-11 Orgánica del Tribunal Constitucional y de los procedimientos constitucionales, Gaceta Official No. 10622, 15 de junio de 2011, considerando [operative clause] 13 (“That among the constitutional procedures to be regulated are precautionary control of international treaties and regulation of the execution of judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights”).

20 Judgment No. TC/0168/13, supra note 11, para. 1.2.3.5.1.

21 Suprema Corte de Justicia, Dios, Patria y Libertad, Resolución 1920-2003 (13 de noviembre de 2003).

22 COLADIC-RD Brief, supra note 6, at 52.

23 Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, princ. 10(2), in Report of the International Law Commission, Fifty-Eighth Session 367, 380, UN GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 10, UN Doc. A/61/10 (2006) [hereinafter Guiding Principles].

24 Ley No. 137-11, supra note 19, consider an do 7 (“That the decisions of the Constitutional Tribunal are definitive and irrevocable and constitute binding precedents for all the public authorities and organs of the state”).

25 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ Rep. 392, 418, para. 59 (Nov. 26) [hereinafter Military and Paramilitary Activities].

26 Id., para. 60.

27 The declarations by Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Mexico include statements reserving the right to withdraw from the Court at any time; the Court has not had occasion to rule on any of these statements. See American Convention on Human Rights, General Information of the Treaty: B-32, at http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights_sign.htm.

28 Constitutional Court v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 48.

29 See text at note 16 supra.

30 Vienna Convention, supra note 9, Art. 7(2).

31 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), 1962 ICJ Rep. 6, 63 (June 15) (sep. op. Fitzmaurice, J.).

32 Guiding Principles, supra note 23, princ. 10(2).

33 Military and Paramilitary Activities, supra note 25, para. 47.

34 The 2013 report was unpublished as of September 2015. For the most recent published report, see Inter-Am. Comm’n Hum. Rts., Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.104, doc. 49 rev. 1 (1999). Earlier reports are available in Spanish only at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/country.asp.

35 Press Release E-054/14, Organization of American States, OAS Permanent Council Debates Situationin Venezuela and Receives Preliminary Report on IACHR Visit to Dominican Republic (Feb. 19, 2014), at http://www.oas.org.

36 Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela denounced the American Convention because of disagreement with judgments of the Inter-American Court, and the Fujimori government of Peru tried unsuccessfully in 1998 to escape the Court’s jurisdiction without making such a denunciation.

37 See, e.g., Christina M. Cerna, Case Report: Unconstitutionality of Article 57, Section II, Paragraph a) of the Code of Military Justice and Legitimation of the Injured Party and His Family to Present an Appeal for the Protection of Constitutional Rights, 107 AJIL 199 (2013).