Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:51:48.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IACHR: Barrios Altos Case (Chumbipuma Aguirre et al. v. Peru)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Christina M. Cerna
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 91 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

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

Endnotes

1 Judge Oliver Jackman informed the Court that, for reasons beyond his control, he could not attend the Twenty-fifth special session of the Court; consequently, he did not take part in the discussion and signature of this judgment.

2 Cfr. Trujillo Oroza case. Judgment of January 26, 2000.Series C No.64, para.40; El Caracazo case.Judgment of November 11,1999.Series C No.58, para.41; Benavides Cevallos case. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No.38,para.42; Garrido and Baigorria case. Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series C No. 26, para.27;ElAmparo case.Judgment of January 18, 1995.Series C No.19, para. 20; and Aloeboetoe etal. case. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No.11, para.23.

3 Cfr. Bdmaca Velasquez case. Judgment of November 25,2000. Series C No.70,para.201.

4 Cfr. Trujillo Oroza case, supra nota 1, para. 43; El Caracazo case, supra nota 1, para. 44; Garrido and Baigorria case, supra nota 1, para.30;El Amparo case, supra nota 1, para. 21;and Aloeboetoe etal. case, supra nota 1, para.23.

* Sic —ILM Editor.

1 Article 52.2 of the current Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2 Cf., previously, the cases:Aloeboetoe (1991), Series C, No. 11;ElAmparo (1995), Series C, No. 19;Garrido andBaigorria (1996), Series C, No. 26;Benavides Cevallos (1998), Series C, No. 38;Caracazo (1999), Series C, No. 58; andTrujillo Oroza (2000), Series C, No. 64.

3 Cf., in this respect, my Dissenting Opinion in theGenie Lacayo case (Review of Judgment, Order of September 13, 1997), Series C, No. 45, para. 7.

4 Cf., for example, my Concurring Opinion in Advisory Opinion No. 15 on theReport of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1997), Series A, No. 15, paras. 5-7, 9 and 37; my Concurring Opinion in the Order on Provisional Measures of Protection in theJames et al. case of May 11, 1999, paras. 6-8, in Inter-American Court of Human Rights,Compendio de Medidas Provisionales (Julio 1996/Junio 2000), Series E, No. 2, pp. 341-342.

5 And the Court added, in paragraph 44 of this judgment: “Owing to the manifest incompatibility of self-amnesty laws and the American Convention on Human Rights, the said laws lack legal effect and may not obstruct the investigation of the facts (…) or the identification and punishment of those responsible (…).“

6 Cf. Criticisms of “ignored amnesties” in the past, in Norris, R.E., “Leyes de Impunidad y los Derechos Humanos en las Américas: Una Respuesta Legal,” 15 Revista del Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (1992) pp. 62–65.Google Scholar

7 United Nations, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (1993), part II, para. 60.

8 Cf. The joint concurring opinion of Judge Cancado Trindade, A.A. and Judge Abreu Burelli, A., in the Loayza Tamayo case (Reparations, Judgment of November 27, 1998), Series C, No. 42, paras. 2–4;Google Scholar and cf. L. Joinet﹛Rapporteur), The question of impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political) —Final Report, UN/Commission on Human Rights, doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, of 26 June 1997, pp. 1-34.

9 Inter-American Court of Human Rights (ICourtHR), Advisory Opinion onThe word “Laws” in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights (1986), Series A, No. 6. The Court correctly observed that the meaning of the word “laws” in the context of a system for the protection of human rights “cannot be disassociated from the nature and origin of that system,” since “the protection of human rights must necessarily comprise the concept of the restriction of the exercise of state power” (para. 21).

10 ICourtHR, Order of April 16, 1997, Series C, No. 46.

11 ICourtHR, Judgment of February 5, 2001, Series C, No. 73.

12 ICourtHR, Judgment of January 29, 1997, Series C, No. 31.

13 Article 4 of the American Convention.

14 Article 5 of the American Convention.

15 ICourtHR, Advisory Opinion of October 1, 1999, Series A, No. 16.

16 I repeated the same point in my concurring opinion in the case ofHaitians and Dominicans of Haitian Origin in the Dominican Republic (Provisional Measures of Protection, Order of August 18, 2000, para. 12).

17 ICourtHR, Judgment on Merits of November 25, 2000.

18 The first Protocol (1998) to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides for the creation of an African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights, when the Protocol of Burkina Faso enters into force; this has still not been created.

19 Cf., for example, Cançado Trindade, A.A., “Lajurisprudence de la Cour Internationale de Justice sur les droits intangibles/The Case- Law of the International Court of Justice on Non-Derogable Rights,” Droits intangibles et états d'exception/Non-Derogable Rights and States of Emergency (eds. D. Prémont, C . Stenersen and I. Oseredczuk), Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1996, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar

20 No longer understood as the simple “practice of States,” inspired by their so-called “vital interests,” as in the systematizations of the past, but rather the practice of States and international organizations seeking to achieve common and superior goals.

21 Cancado Trindade, A. A., “Reflexiones sobre el Desarraigo como Problema de Derechos Humanos frente a la Conciencia Juridica Universal,” in A.A. Cançado Trindade and J. Ruiz de Santiago, La Nueva Dimensión de las Necesidades de Protección del Ser Humano en el Inicio del Siglo XXI, San José, Costa Rica, ACNUR, 2001, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., pp. 112 and 117.

23 Cit. in ibid., p. 298.

24 Maritain, J., Los Derechos del Hombre y la Ley Natural, Buenos Aires, Ed. Leviatán, 1982 (reimpr.), pp. 12, 18, 38, 43, 50, 94-96 and 105–108.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., pp. 81-82.

26 Sperduti, G., “La souveraineté, le droit international et la sauvegarde des droits de la personne,” in International Law at a Time of Perplexity —Essays in Honour ofShabtai Rosenne (ed. Y. Dinstein), Dordrecht, Nijhoff, 1989, p. 884, and cf. p. 880.Google Scholar

27 Zimmermann, B., “Protocol I — Article 1,” Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (eds. Y. Sandoz, Ch. Swinarski and B. Zimmermann), Geneva, ICRC/Nijhoff, 1987, p. 39.Google Scholar

28 Meyrowitz, H., “Réflexions sur le fondement du droit de la guerre,” Études et essais sur le Droit international humanitaire et sur lesprincipes de la Croix-Rouge en I'honneur de Jean Pictet (ed. Christophe Swinarski), Geneve/La Haye, CICR/Nijhoff, 1984, pp. 423–424;Google Scholar and Strebel, cf. H., “Martens’ Clause,” Encyclopedia of Public International Law (ed. R. Bernhardt), vol. 3, Amsterdam, North-Holland Publ. Co., 1982, pp. 252–253.Google Scholar

29 F. Münch, , “Le rôle du droit spontané,” in Pensamiento Juridicoy Sociedad International —Libro-Homenaje al ProfesorDr. Antonio Truyol Serra, vol. II, Madrid, Universidad Complutense, 1986, p. 836 Google Scholar; Meyrowitz, H., op. cit. supra No. (128), p. 420.Google Scholar It has already been pointed out that, inultima ratio legis, international humanitarian law protects humanity itself from the dangers of armed conflicts; Christophe Swinarski,Principales Nociones e Institutos del Derecho Humanitario Internacional como Sistema Internacional de Protección de la Persona Humana, San José, Costa Rica, IIDH, 1990, p. 20.

30 Münch, F., op. cit. supra No. (28), p. 836.Google Scholar

31 Miyazaki, S., “The Martens Clause and International Humanitarian Law,” Études et essais… en I'honneur de J. Pictet, op. cit. supra No. (27), pp. 438 and 440.Google Scholar