![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article is a contribution to an area of research that remains neglected in both the literature on reparations under international law and on the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: the coexistence of reparation regimes at the international and domestic level and the problems this creates. In particular, it reflects on the jurisprudential turn of the Inter-American Court in the area of reparations as a result of considering allegations regarding Domestic Reparations Programmes (DRPs) in states undergoing transitions, particularly Chile, Colombia, Guatemala and Peru. In addition to considering the role of subsidiarity in the most recent jurisprudence of the court, it addresses three questions: Why has the Inter-American Court tried to reconcile the coexistence of these reparations systems? How has it done so? And, what are the consequences of this jurisprudential turn for international law and for the institutional design of the Inter-American System?
Acknowledgements
This article benefited from the comments I received from various people. I am particularly grateful for the great feedback I received from the anonymous reviewers, Courtney Hillebrecht, Michael Duttwiler, Sabine Michalowski and Paola Limon, and from those present at the II Leverhulme Inter-American Human Rights Network Workshop at University College London in October 2015.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Clara Sandoval is a senior lecturer at the School of Law and member of the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex and Director of the Essex Transitional Justice Network.
Notes
1. For example, J.P. Perez-Leon, ‘The Emerging Reparations Case-Law of the ICC Appeals Chamber in Comparative Perspective’, in EJIL: Talk, 12 June 2015, http://www.ejiltalk.org/category/international-tribunals/inter-american-court-of-human-rights/
2. Dinah Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law. 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005), 299.
3. OAS General Assembly, American Convention on Human Rights, OAS Treaty Series, No. 36, 22 November 1969, entry into force on 18 July 1978.
4. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Plan de Sanchez v. Guatemala, judgment on the merits, 29 April 2004.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., [62], [676] and [686].
7. Ibid., [74] and [88].
8. Ibid., [74–6] and [88–9].
9. Ibid., [94–9].
10. Ibid., [102].
11. Ibid., [103].
12. Ibid., [104].
13. Ibid., [105] and [109–11].
14. Ibid., [106–8].
15. Thomas M. Antkowiak, ‘Remedial Approaches to Human Rights Violations: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Beyond’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 351 46, no. 2 (2008): 371.
16. Rashida Manjoo, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences, A/HRC/14/22, 19 April 2010.
17. According to the Colombian National Registry of Victims, there are 7,844,527 victims of the internal armed conflict in Colombia of whom 6,230,919 are entitled to reparations through the DRP. See http://rni.unidadvictimas.gov.co/RUV (accessed 22 August 2016).
18. Colombian Congress, Ley de Victimas y Restitucion de Tierras, Ley 1448/2011, http://www.unidadvictimas.gov.co/es/ley-1448-de-2014-ley-de-v%C3%ADctimas/9022
19. Comisión de Esclarecimiento Histórico, Guatemala Memoria del Silencio, Conclusiones y Recomendaciones (Guatemala, June 1999), [86].
20. Naomi Roht-Arriaza and Marci Mersky, ‘Guatemala’, in Victims Unsilenced: The Inter-American Human Rights System and Transitional Justice in Latin America (Washington, DC: Due Process of Law Foundation, 2007), 19.
21. The difficult co-existence between decisions on reparations by the judiciary at the domestic level and the Inter-American Court’s law on reparations is not addressed in this article but it does take place. An important case to be studied in this regard is that of decisions by the Colombian judiciary on reparations for victims of the armed conflict.
22. Presidencia de la Republica, COPREDEH, 21 May 2004, RED-A-28-2004, point 7, 15; or Presidencia de la Republica, Comision Presidencial Coordinadora de la Politica del Ejecutivo en Materia de Derechos Humanos COPEDEH, Alegatos Finales del Estado de Guatemala dentro del Caso 12.599 Florencio Chitay v. Guatemala, Presentado ante la Honorable Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 3 de marzo de 2010, 6 and 10; and Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, judgment on merits, reparations and costs, 2 September 2015 [173].
23. RPP Noticias, ‘Humala sobre Chavín de Huántar: No Voy a Dar ni un Sol a los Terroristas’, 26 June 2015, http://rpp.pe/politica/actualidad/humala-sobre-chavin-de-huantar-no-voy-a-dar-ni-un-sol-a-los-terroristas-noticia-811351. See also Correo, ‘Gustavo Adrianzan: No Pagaremos a Terroristas ni ONG que los Patrocinan’, 28 June 2015, http://diariocorreo.pe/politica/gustavo-adrianzen-no-pagaremos-a-terroristas-ni-ong-que-los-patrocinan-598046/
24. Plan Integral de Reparaciones, Ley 28592, Ley que crea el programa integral de reparaciones – PIR, Article 4, http://www.acnur.org/t3/fileadmin/Documentos/BDL/2012/8868.pdf?view=1
25. Consejo Permanente de la Organisación de los Estados Americanos, Comisión de Asuntos Jurídicos y Políticos, ‘Informe de la Secretaria sobre el dialogo sobre el funcionamiento del sistema interamericano de derechos humanos entre los estados miembros y los miembros de la comisión interamericana de derechos humanos y de la corte interamericana de derechos humanos’, OEA/Ser.G CP/CAJP-3002/11, 13 May 2011, 4–5; and Ariel Dulitzky, 2011 ‘The Inter-American Human Rights System Fifty Years Later: Time for Changes’, Quebec Journal of International Law 127 (2011): 138.
26. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Resolution, Monitoring Compliance in Rio Negro and Gudiel Alvarez v. Guatemala, 21 August 2014, paras 2–18.
27. In Almonacid Arellano v. Chile, for example, in a case litigated before the IAHRS near the time of the adoption of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy (2005), and decided by the court in 2006, the focus of the litigation was on the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the killing of Mr Almonacid and not on reparations. The next of kin felt that they had already obtained redress from the state regardless of whether such redress was adequate, prompt and effective, and explicitly stated that ‘it is not in the interest of Mr. Almonacid-Arellano’s next of kin to obtain pecuniary benefits’. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, 26 September 2006.
28. As happened with the atrocities that occurred in Argentina during Videla’s dictatorship.
29. Thomas Antkowiak, ‘An Emerging Mandate for International Courts: Victim-Centered Remedies and Restorative Justice’ Stanford Journal of International Law 47 (2011): 279.
30. The PNR was established in Guatemala by Acuerdo Gubernativo 258–2003 (not a law), and has been reformed by other Acuerdos Gubernativos such as 539–2013.
31. Impunity Watch, Monitoreo de la Justicia Transicional en Guatemala, Vol. III, Derecho a la Reparación para las Víctimas del Conflicto Armado Interno, 2014, 31, http://www.impunitywatch.org/docs/Tomo_III-compressed.pdf
32. Congreso Nacional, Ley No. 19.123 of 8 de febrero de 1992, por la que se crea la Corporación Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación, Establece Pensión de Reparación y Otorga otros Beneficios en Favor de Personas que Señala, http://www.ddhh.gov.cl/filesapp/Ley_19123.pdf
33. Elisabeth Lira, ‘The Reparations Policy for Human Rights Violations in Chile’, in The Handbook of Reparations, ed. Pablo de Greiff (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 55–101.
34. National Congress of Peru, Ley 28592 de 29 de Julio de 2005, Ley que Crea el Plan Integral de Reparaciones PIR.
35. International Center for Transitional Justice, Reparaciones en Peru: El Largo Camino entre las Recomendaciones y la Implementacion, June 2013.
36. Congreso de la Republica, Ley 1448 de 2011, por la cual se dictan medidas de atención, asistencia y reparación integral a las víctimas del conflicto armado interno y se dictan otras disposiciones, 10 June 2011, http://www.justiciatransicional.gov.co/sites/default/files/LEY-1448-DE-2011-LEY-DE-VICTIMAS-DIARIO-OFICIAL.pdf
37. Harvard Kennedy School Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, Reparaciones Integrales en Colombia: Logros y Desafios: Evaluacion Comparativa y Global, Draft 24 October 2014.
38. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Garrido v. Argentina, judgment on reparations and costs, 27 August 1998.
39. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, judgment on reparations and costs, 27 November 1998.
40. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, reparations and costs, 3 December 2001.
41. Antkowiak, ‘Remedial Approaches to Human Rights Violations’, 371.
42. For example, in Castro Castro Prison v. Peru the court did not entertain the allegations, probably because the DRP was in the process of just being set up in the country, as the legal framework had just been adopted and neither the commission nor the legal representatives of the victims referred to it in their pleadings. Final pleadings of the State of Peru in Castro Castro Prison, presented by Oscar Ayzanoa Vigil, State Agent, 3 August 2006, 13, http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/expedientes/alefi_est.pdf; and Inter-American Court on Human Rights, Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, judgment on merits, reparations and costs, 25 November 2006, [410–12].
43. ‘En consecuencia de lo anterior el Estado propone que la ejecución de las medidas de reparación se encausen dentro del Programa Nacional de Resarcimiento, con el apoyo y participación de todos los Organismos del Estado, quienes en el marco de su mandato deberán de implementar las medidas que les correspondan.’
Presidencia de la Republica, COPREDEH, 21 May 2004, RED-A-28-2004, point 7, 15.
44. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Plan de Sanchez Massacre v. Guatemala, reparations.
45. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, 25 May 2010.
46. Presidencia de la Republica, COPEDEH, Alegatos Finales del Estado de Guatemala dentro del Caso 12.599 Florencio Chitay v. Guatemala, 9–10.
47. Alegatos finales de las víctimas, Chitay Nech v. Guatemala, 000855-000857.
48. Ibid., [267–72].
49. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Bamaca Velasquez v. Guatemala, judgment on reparations and legal costs, 22 February 2002 [51b].
50. Ibid.
51. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, judgment on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, 4 September 2012.
52. Ibid., [299].
53. Ibid., [298].
54. Ibid., [304].
55. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Garcia Lucero and Others v. Chile, judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, 26 August 2013.
56. Ibid., [2].
57. Ibid., [185–206].
58. Ibid., [246].
59. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Afro-Descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, reparations and costs, 20 November 2013.
60. Ibid., [431].
61. Ibid., [414].
62. República de Colombia, Alegatos Finales, Marino López y Otros (Operacion Genesis), March 2013, [469].
63. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (n. 59) 453 (emphasis added).
64. When the court dealt with compensation it distinguished, without providing reasons, between the next of kin of Marino, who had been killed, and the displaced Afro-descendants. As a consequence, it awarded non-pecuniary damages different to those of the DRP to his next of kin but not to the Afro-descendants, claiming that the violations they suffered were different to those covered under the DRP. Ibid., [476].
65. Ibid., [461].
66. This case concerns serious human rights violations suffered by five women who were human rights defenders and leaders in Comuna 13, in Medellin (Colombia). One of them was killed, and the others were threatened and displaced. All of these violations took place at a time of intensified military and paramilitary operation in the region. The case arrived before the court on 3 June 2014 and is to be decided. The hearing took place in June 2015, and a key issue at stake was the effectiveness of the DRP in Colombia. Various expert opinions and amicus curiae were presented addressing this issue.
67. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Tenorio Roca and Others v. Peru, judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits, reparation and costs, 22 June 2016.
68. Ibid., [277–8].
69. Ibid., [279–80, 284].
70. Ibid., [296–8].
71. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, judgment on the merits, reparations and costs, 2 September 2015.
72. Ibid., [173].
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid., [175].
75. Ibid., [178–9].
76. Paolo Carozza, ‘Subsidiarity as a Structural Principle of International Human Rights Law’, American Journal of International Law 97 (2003): 38.
77. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, preliminary objections, 26 June 1987, [93].
78. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, judgment on reparations, 21 July 1989, paras 44–55.
79. Ibid., paras 28–30.
80. Inter-American Court, Genesis.
81. Ibid., [453].
82. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, judgment on preliminary exceptions, merits and reparations, 30 November 2012 [309].
83. The court establishes these requirements for the first time in its judgment Cepeda v. Colombia where tensions between reparations through the judiciary and those to be awarded by the court were at stake. The first time the court refers to these standards in relation to DRPs is Garcia Lucero.
84. Inter-American Court, Almonacid.
85. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Genesis, [469–76].
86. Resolución de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Supervisión de Cumplimiento de Sentencia Casos Masacres de Rio Negro y Gudiel Alvarez y Otros, 21 August 2014, [2c].