Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
##common.pageHeaderLogo.altText##

Articles

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2019): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Relevant factors for the impunity of state agents in latin America: an empirica study about noncompliance of judgments of the inter-american court

DOI
https://doi.org/10.19092/reed.v6i1.267
Submitted
October 25, 2017
Published
2019-05-10

Abstract

This article seeks to identify which factors are involved in the criminal prosecutions of states condemned by the Inter - American Court, which are relevant to analyze the impunity of state agents responsible for human rights violations. As a methodology, the study uses the data sample from the study of Zaverucha and Leite (2016), which revealed that in the judgments handed down by the Court between 2001 and 2013, the reparation measure for the states to investigate, prosecute and punish state agents guilty of crimes has never been fully met by countries. Thus, through a qualitative research, of the exploratorydescriptive type, using the inductive method, and from the information contained in the resolutions of supervision of compliance with the Court’s judgments, we identified the factors that may explain the noncompliance of this measure of reparation. The analysis of the data showed that the time factor is important, since the more recent the crime, the greater the tendency to succeed in carrying out the criminal prosecution. The number of defendants was also characterized as an important element, showing that more than half of the cases analyzed did not have individual defendants or investigations of violations were not completed, and when individualized, the greater the number of defendants, the greater the difficulty. The analysis also showed that most of the cases are in the investigative phase, and not in the Judiciary. Finally, the type of crime was considered as a relevant factor, and it was verified that when there is a crime of forced disappearance, the tendency is that the criminal process is not fulfilled.

References

  1. Alter, K. J. The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights. Oxfordshire: Princeton University Press. Edição do Kindle.
  2. Álvarez, J. C. (2012). El Concepto De Impunidad A La Luz Del Derecho Internacional: Una Aproximación Sistémica Desde El Derecho Internacional Penal Y El Derecho Internacional De Los Derechos Humanos. REEI, n. 24, pp. 1-31.
  3. Ambos, Kai. (1999). Impunidad y Derecho Penal Internacional. 2ª. ed. Buenos Aires: Ad Hoc.
  4. Anagnostou, D.; Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2014). Domestic Implementation of Human Rights Judgments in Europe: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter. The European Journal of International Law, vol. 25, n. 1, 2014, pp. 205–227.
  5. Basch, F.; Filippini, L.; Laya, A.; Nino, M., et al. (2010). The Effectiveness of the Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection: A Quantitative Approach to its Functioning and Compliance with its Decisions. SUR - International Journal on Human Rights, vol. 7, n. 12, 2010, pp. 9-36.
  6. Beristain, C. M. (2009). Diálogos sobre la Reparación. Qué Reparar en Los Casos de Violaciones de Derechos Humanos. San José: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.
  7. ______ . (2008). Diálogo Sobre la Reparación: Experiencias en el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos. Tomo I. San José: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.
  8. Briceño-Donn, M. (2001). El papel de los actores del Sistema Interamericano en el Proceso de Fortalecimiento. Revista IIDH, n. 30-31, pp. 237-243.
  9. Çali, B.; Koch, A. (2014). Foxes Guarding the Foxes? The Peer Review of Human Rights Judgments by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. Human Righs Law Review, vol. 14, pp. 301-325.
  10. Carulla, S. R. (2007). El sistema europeo de protección de los derechos humanos y el Derecho español. Barcelona: Atelier.
  11. Carvalho Filho, L, F. (2004). Impunidade no Brasil – Colônia e Império. Estudos Avançados, vol. 18, n. 51, 2004, pp. 181-194.
  12. Cavallaro, J. L.; Brewer, S. (2008). Reevaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: The Case of the Inter-American Court. The American Journal of International Law, vol. 102, pp. 768-827.
  13. Dothan, S. (2011). Judicial Tactics in the European Court of Human Rights. Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 12, n. 1, pp. 115-142.
  14. Garcés, A. V. (2008). Sistemas Europeo y Americano de Protección de Derechos Humanos. Coincidencias, Fraccionamientos Temporales y Mutuas Influencias. In: Sánchez, Miguel Revenga; Garcés, A. V. (eds.): Tendencias Jurisprudenciales de La Corte Interamericana y el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch, pp. 17-70.
  15. García, F. S. (2007). Derechos Humanos. Efectos de las sentencias internacionales. México: Porrúa.
  16. González-Salzberg, D. A. (2010). The Effectiveness Of The Inter-American Human Rights System: A Study Of The American States' Compliance With The Judgments Of The Inter-American Court Of Human Rights. International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internanacional, n. 15, pp. 115-142.
  17. Grewal, S.; Voeten, E. (2012). The Politics of Implementing European Court of Human Rights Judgements. Acesso em: 10 set. 2017. Paper disponível no portal SSRN: <https://ssrn.com/abstract=1988258>.
  18. Guerring, J. (2012). Mere description. British Journal of Political Science, vol. 42, n. 4, 2012, pp. 721-746.
  19. Hawkins, D.; Jacoby, W. (2010). Partial compliance: a comparison of the European and inter-American courts of human rights. Journal of International Law and International Relations, vol. 6, n. 1, pp. 35-85.
  20. Hillebrecht, C. (2014). Domestic Politics and International Human Rights Tribunals. The Problem of Compliance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Huneeus, A. (2011). Courts Resisting Courts: Lessons from the Inter-American Court’s Struggle to Enforce Human Rights. Cornell International Law Journal, n. 493, pp. 493-533.
  22. Krsticevic, V. (2007). Reflexiones sobre la ejecución de sentencias de las decisiones del sistema interamericano de protección de derechos humanos. In: Krsticevic, V.; Tojo, L. (coord.) Implementación de las decisiones del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos: Jurisprudencia, normativa y experiencias nacionales. Buenos Aires: Center for Justice and International Law – CEJIL, p. 15-112.
  23. Le Clercq, J. A.; Cháidez, A.; Rodríguez, G. (2016). Midiendo la impunidad en América Latina: retos conceptuales y metodológicos. Iconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales, n. 55, pp. 69-91.
  24. Leite, R. (2017). Análise Dos Processos E Atores Políticos Na Supervisão De Sentenças Da Corte Interamericana De Direitos Humanos. In: Simone P. V.; Michele G. M.; Sandra A. S.; Lucas R. M.; Lorena G. H.; Helga, N. A. (Org.). América Latina em foco: Novas perspectivas de análise sobre a região. 1ed. Porto Alegre: Terra da Ideia, pp. 99-119.
  25. Lessa, A. (2009). Violência e impunidade em pauta: problemas e perspectivas sob a ótica da antropologia forense no Brasil. Ciência e Saúde Coletiva, vol.14, n.5, pp. 1855-1863.
  26. Matute, J. D. (2010). El Concepto De Impunidad: Leyes De Amnistía Y Otras Formas Estudiadas Por La Corte Interamericana De Derechos Humanos. In: Fundación Konrad-Adenauer (org.). In: Sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos y derecho penal internacional. Montevideo: Fundación Konrad-Adenauer, pp. 263-294.
  27. Orentlicher, Diane. (2004). Informe de la Sra. Diane Orentlicher, experta independiente encargada de actualizar el conjunto de principios para la lucha contra la impunidad - Conjunto de principios actualizado para la protección y la promoción de los derechos humanos mediante la lucha contra la impunidad. Comissão de Direitos Humanos da ONU. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1. Disponível em: <http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_s.aspx?si=E/cn.4/2005/102/Add.1>. Acesso em 02 ago 2018.
  28. Pasqualucci, J. M. (2003). The Pratice and Procedure of The Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Poertner, M. (2013). Institutional Capacity for Compliance: Domestic Compliance with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, August 29 – September 1, pp. 1-33.
  30. Reiter, B. (2017). Theory and Methodology of Exploratory Social Science Research. Government and International Affairs Faculty Publications, University of South Florida, pp. 129-150. Disponível em: < http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/gia_facpub/132>. Acesso em: 02 ago 2018.
  31. Schneider, J. (2012). Implementation of Judgments: Should Supervision Be Unlinked From The General Assembly Of The Organization Of American States? Revista Interamericana y Europea de Derechos Humanos – Inter-American and European Human Rights Journal ,v. 5, n.1, pp. 197-215.
  32. Serrano, A. G.; Salamanca, M. I. M. (2016). La jurisdicción militar desde los fallos de la corte interamericana en relación con Colombia. Saber, Ciencia y Libertad, vol. 11, n.1, pp. 37-60.
  33. Silva, A. R.; Echeverria, A. Q. D. (2015). Tentativas de contenção do ativismo judicial da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. Revista de Direito Internacional – Uniceub, v. 5, número especial, pp. 392-409.
  34. Suárez-Enríquez, X. (2017). Overlooking Justice. Human Rights Violations Committed by Mexican Soldiers against Civilians are Met with Impunity. Disponível em: <https://www.wola.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/WOLA_MILITARY-CRIMES_REP_ENGLISH.pdf>. Acesso em: 15 out 2018.
  35. Voeten, E (2014). Domestic Implementation of European Court of Human Rights Judgments: Legal Infrastructure and Government Effectiveness Matter: A Reply to Dia Anagnostou and Alina Mungiu-Pippidi. The European Journal of International Law, vol. 25 n. 1, pp. 229–238.
  36. Zaverucha, J.; Leite, R. (2016). A impunidade de agentes estatais nos casos julgados pela Corte Interamericana. Revista Brasileira de Segurança Pública, vol. 10, n. 1, pp. 88-107.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.