UN Expert consultation on human rights consideration relating to the administration of justice through military tribunals and role of the integral judicial system in combating human rights violations

1
UN Expert consultation on human rights
consideration relating to the administration of
justice through military tribunals and role of
the integral judicial system in combating human
rights violations

• SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COURTS IN
  THE AMERICAS

Christina M. Cerna GENEVA, November 24, 2014
2
THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
3
35 Member States of the OAS

• Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, The Bahamas,
  Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile,
  Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba(), Dominica,
  Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
  Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras,
  Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay,
  Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint
  Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad
  and Tobago, United States of America, Uruguay,
  Venezuela

4
Map of the Americas
5
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2014
6
Inter-American Court of Human Rights2014
7
The evolution of the inter-American human rights
system
DECLARATION MEMBER STATES CONVENTION MEMBER STATES COURT MEMBER STATES
Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Argentina
Bahamas Barbados Barbados
Belize Bolivia Bolivia
Canada Brazil Brazil
Cuba Chile Chile
Guyana Colombia Colombia
St. Lucia Costa Rica Costa Rica
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Dominica Dominican Republic
St. Kitts and Nevis Dominican Republic Ecuador
Trinidad and Tobago Ecuador El Salvador
United States El Salvador Guatemala
Venezuela Grenada Haiti
Guatemala Honduras
Haiti Mexico
Honduras Nicaragua
Jamaica Panama
Mexico Paraguay
Nicaragua Peru
Panama Suriname
Paraguay Uruguay
Peru
Suriname
Uruguay

8
Hearings (http//www.cidh.oas.org)
9
On-Site Visits
10
The Commission prepares country reports on the
situation of human rights in member states
11
COUNTRYREPORTS

• Guatemala 1993
• Haiti 1993
• Peru 1993
• CAYARA
• Haiti 1990
• Panama 1989
• Haiti 1988
• Paraguay 1987
• Chile 1985
• Guatemala 1985
• Suriname 1985
• Guatemala 1983
• Cuba 1983 (Seventh)
• Nicaraguan population of  Miskito origin 1983
• Suriname 1983
• Colombia 1981
• Guatemala 1981

• Colombia 2014
• Jamaica 2012
• Honduras 2010
• Venezuela 2009
• Honduras 2009
• Haiti 2008
• Colombia 2004
• Guatemala 2003
• Venezuela 2003
• Guatemala 2001
• Paraguay 2001
• Peru 2000
• Canada 2000
• Dominican Republic 1999
• Colombia 1999
• Mexico 1998
• Brazil 1997
• Bolivia 1996

12
INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS

• CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
• AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF
  MAN
• AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
• ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON
  HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE AREA OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
  CULTURAL RIGHTS "PROTOCOL OF SAN SALVADOR"
• PROTOCOL TO THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN
  RIGHTS TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY
• INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH
  TORTURE
• INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE
  OF PERSONS
• INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION,
  PUNISHMENT AND ERADICATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST
  WOMEN "CONVENTION OF BELÉM DO PARÁ"
• INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF
  ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WITH
  DISABILITIES

13
IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS MANDATE THE IACHR

• Processes cases from individuals alleging
  violations of their human rights (as defined by
  the American Declaration or the American
  Convention) against Member States of the OAS
• Holds public or closed hearings (on cases,
  precautionary measures or thematic issues)
• prepares and publishes country, thematic and
  follow-up reports as well as individual case
  reports
• Issues precautionary measures to prevent
  irreparable harm
• conducts in-loco visits to Member States and
  prepares reports
• issues press communiqués on matters of concern
• organizes country and thematic Rapporteurships
• organizes and participates in conferences and
  seminars
• Litigates contentious cases before the
  Inter-American Court
• requests advisory opinions from the
  Inter-American Court.

14
Comparison between petitions accepted for
processing and those not accepted for processing
15
Requirements for the admissibility of a petition

• Exhaustion of domestic remedies
• Six-months rule (that the petition be lodged 6
  months from the date of notification of the final
  judgment
• Duplication (that the petition is not pending in
  another international proceeding for settlement)
• Characterization (that the facts characterize a
  violation of the American Declaration or the
  American Convention).

16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
The concept of natural judge in the American
Convention

• Article 8. Right to a Fair Trial
• 1.    Every person has the right to a hearing,
  with due guarantees and within a reasonable time,
  by a competent, independent, and impartial
  tribunal, previously established by law, in the
  substantiation of any accusation of a criminal
  nature made against him or for the determination
  of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor,
  fiscal, or any other nature.
• 2.    Every person accused of a criminal offense
  has the right to be presumed innocent so long as
  his guilt has not been proven according to law.
  During the proceedings, every person is entitled,
  with full equality, to the following minimum
  guarantees
• a.    the right of the accused to be assisted
  without charge by a translator or interpreter, if
  he does not understand or does not speak the
  language of the tribunal or court
• b.    prior notification in detail to the accused
  of the charges against him
• c.    adequate time and means for the preparation
  of his defense
• d.    the right of the accused to defend himself
  personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of
  his own choosing, and to communicate freely and
  privately with his counsel
• e.    the inalienable right to be assisted by
  counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the
  domestic law provides, if the accused does not
  defend himself personally or engage his own
  counsel within the time period established by
  law
• f.    the right of the defense to examine
  witnesses present in the court and to obtain the
  appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other
  persons who may throw light on the facts
• g.    the right not to be compelled to be a
  witness against himself or to plead guilty and
• h.    the right to appeal the judgment to a
  higher court.
• 3.    A confession of guilt by the accused shall
  be valid only if it is made without coercion of
  any kind.
• 4.    An accused person acquitted by a
  non-appealable judgment shall not be subjected to
  a new trial for the same cause.
• 5.    Criminal proceedings shall be public,
  except insofar as may be necessary to protect the
  interests of justice.

19
Issues of military jurisdiction generally
involved two situations

• 1) Questions relating to the treatment of
  civilians by military courts
• 2) Military court proceedings, or the lack
  thereof, against military officials charged with
  violations of human rights.

20
The Peruvian terrorism and treason against the
fatherland casesThe case of Lori Berenson v.
Peru, Nov. 25, 2004

• Prohibition on military courts trying civilians
  labeled as terrorists

21
Scope of military jurisdiction

• Under the democratic rule of law, the military
  criminal jurisdiction should have a very
  restricted and exceptional scope and be designed
  to protect special juridical interests associated
  with the functions assigned by law to the
  military forces. Hence, it should only try
  military personnel for committing crimes or
  misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the
  juridical interests of the military system.

22
Estado peruano no indemnizará a terrorista
Chileno Castillo Petruzzi (The Peruvian State
will not indemnify the Chilean terrorist Castillo
Petruzzi)
23
Guantanamo Detainees

• Precautionary measures- March 12, 2002

24
Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, (September 29, 1999)

• Retired military officials are civilians and
  cannot be tried in a military court.

25
Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, (November 22, 2005)

• Ética y Servicios de Inteligencia' ('Ethics and
  Intelligence Services'),

Reforma a la Justicia Militar
                                                
     

26
2) Military court proceedings, or the lack
thereof, against military officials charged with
violations of human rights.

• The problem of Impunity
• The total lack of investigation, prosecution,
  capture, trial and conviction of those
  responsible for violations of the rights
  protected by the American Convention.

27
Amnesty Law cases

• Barrios Altos v. Peru Case, Judgment of March 14,
  2001
• Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, Judgment of
  September 26, 2006
• Case of Gomez-Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia)
  v. Brazil, Judgment of November 24, 2010
• Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Judgment of February
  24, 2011

28
The Simon Case (2005 Argentina)

• Fallo de la Corte Suprema de la Nación
  declarando inconstitucionales las leyes
  deObediencia Debida y el Punto Final 14 de
  Junio de 2005
•  

29
The Mexican forced disappearance and rape cases

• Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico (November 23, 2009)

30
Rape is to be investigated by civilian not
military courts

• Ines Fernandez Ortega et al. v. Mexico, (August
  30, 2010)
• Valentina Rosendo Cantu et al. v. Mexico (August
  31, 2010)

31
The abolition of military jurisdiction (2007)

• The case of Rodolfo Correa Belisle v
  ArgentinaFriendly Settlement Report Nº 15/10

32
Exposición de motivos Reasons for the change in
the law

• Exposición Código de Justicia Militar BUENOS
  AIRES,AL HONORABLE CONGRESO DE LA NACIÓN Tengo
  el agrado de dirigirme a Vuestra Honorabilidad a
  fin de someter a su consideración el proyecto de
  ley tendiente a la reforma integral del sistema
  de justicia militar vigente (Ley N 14.029 y
  modificatorias), que hace necesaria su derogación
  a la luz de las exigencias propias del proceso de
  transformación institucional democrática que se
  encuentran atravesando las FUERZAS ARMADAS, del
  que no pueden mantenerse excluidas las reglas
  mediante las que se juzgan y definen las
  conductas disciplinarias y delictivas de quienes
  las integran.Si bien la transformación que aquí
  se propone es una asignatura pendiente hacia el
  sector militar desde el momento mismo de la
  recuperación de la vida democrática, fueron
  antecedentes inmediatos de este Proyecto que hoy
  proponemos, los compromisos asumidos por el
  Estado Argentino en los casos Nº 11.758
  caratulado Rodolfo Correa Belisle v. Argentina
  y Nº 12.167 caratulado Argüelles y otros vs.
  Argentina del registro de la COMISIÓN
  INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS.En ambos
  casos, el ESTADO NACIONAL se comprometió, como
  parte del proceso de solución amistosa, a
  impulsar la reforma integral del sistema de
  administración de justicia penal en el ámbito
  castrense, a fin de adecuarlo a los estándares
  internacionales de derechos humanos aplicables a
  la materia.

33
Repeal of the Argentine Code of Military Justice
(2007)

• The new system of military justice in Argentina
  Law 26.394 (2008)
• -modernization of the Armed Forces
• -a new system of military justice which
  recognizes fundamental rights of military
  personnel
• -agile mechanisms for dealing with disciplinary
  cases.

34
Emerging trend towards abolition or restriction
of military jurisdiction to a very narrow scope

• Counter indications Peru and Colombia

35
Colombian Senate approves draft law in the second
of eight debates on military jurisdiction
36
By way of conclusion

• The civilianization of the Armed Forces