Barrios Altos Case, Judgment of September 3, 2001, Inter-Am Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 83 (2001).
In the Barrios Altos Case,
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Court” or “the Inter-American Court”), composed of the following judges*:
Antônio A. Cançado Trindade,
President;
Hernán
Salgado Pesantes, Judge;
Alirio Abreu Burelli, Judge;
Sergio García Ramírez, Judge,
and
Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo,
Judge;
Also present:
Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Secretary, and
Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Deputy Secretary,
pursuant to Article 67 of the American Convention
on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”)
and Article 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure (hereinafter “the Rules of
Procedure”)** decides the following
request filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter
“the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) on June 20, 2001, seeking
an interpretation of the judgment that the Court delivered on March 14, 2001,
on the merits of the Barrios Altos Case (hereinafter “the judgment on the
merits”).
I
Competence
and Composition
of the court
1. Article 67 of the Convention provides
that:
The judgment of the Court shall
be final and not subject to appeal. In
case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court
shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request
is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.
Under that article, the Court is competent to interpret
its own judgments. When considering
a request for interpretation, the Court shall be composed, whenever possible,
of the same judges who delivered the judgment of which interpretation is being
sought (Article 58(3) of the Rules of Procedure). In this instance, the Court is composed of
the same judges who delivered the judgment on the merits, whose interpretation
the Commission has requested.
II
Introduction
of the request for
interpretation
2. On June 20, 2001, the Commission presented
a request for interpretation of the judgment on the merits, pursuant to Article
67 of the American Convention and Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure.
III
Procedure
with the Court
3.
By note of June 21, 2001, the Secretariat of the Court forwarded a
copy of the request for interpretation to the State of Peru (hereinafter “the
State” or “Peru”) and, pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, invited
it to present any written comments it deemed pertinent by July 23, 2001, at
the latest.
4. On
July 16, 2001, the State requested an extension for presenting its observations
on the request for an interpretation of judgment. On instructions from the President of the Court (hereinafter “the
President”), the extension was granted via a note from the Secretariat, dated
August 13, 2001.
5. On
August 17, 2001, Peru requested “a special extension, until Friday, [August]
24 of this [year] to present [its] comments […] on the request for an interpretation
of the judgment on the merits in the Barrios Altos Case,” based on “the recent
cabinet changes ushered in with the new Administration.” On the President’s instructions, the Secretariat
informed the State that in view of the exceptional circumstance cited by Peru,
its deadline for submitting its comments on the request for an interpretation
of the judgment was extended until August 22, 2001.
6. Although it had requested and received
two extensions, Peru finally presented its written comments on the request
for an interpretation of the judgment on August 29, 2001, which was after
the extended deadline. The Court considers
that the time elapsed cannot be regarded as reasonable according to the criterion
it uses in its case-law[1];
and in the interests of the necessity of juridical security and equality of
arms, the Court decides not to add that brief to the case file.
7. On August 29, 2001, Walter Alban Peralta,
Peru’s Ombudsman, presented a brief of amicus curiae, which was
added to the case file.
IV
Purpose of
the request for interpretation
8. In its request for an interpretation,
the Commission is petitioning the Court for clarification of certain questions
as to the meaning and scope of the judgment on the merits.
Specifically, the Commission is asking the Court whether the effects
of operative paragraph 4 of the judgment delivered on March 14, 2001 in this
case apply only to this case or to all those cases of human rights violations
wherein the amnesty laws (No. 26479 and No. 26492) were applied.
9. The Commission bases this request for
interpretation on the fact that:
[i]n the negotiations
between the petitioners’ representatives and the Government of Peru on the
matter of reparations, the petitioners’ representatives, with the Commission’s
support, argued that the State is undertaking to nullify the effects of the
amnesty laws (Nº 26479 and Nº 26492) in all cases of human rights violations
where these laws were applied. However, the petitioners’ representatives have informed the Commission
[…] that the government delegation has insisted that in its opinion, the Judgment
of the Inter-American Court would apply only to the Barrios Altos Case.
V
Admissibility
10. Under Article 67 of the Convention, the
request for interpretation must be filed “within ninety days from the date
of notification of the judgment.” The
Court has established that the Inter-American Commission was given notice
of the judgment on the merits on March 20, 2001.
The request for interpretation was, therefore, presented by the required
time limit (supra para. 2).
11. The Court must now turn its attention to the question
of whether the issues that the request for interpretation raises meet the
standards that the applicable rules set.
Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure provides that
[t]he request for interpretation,
referred to in Article 67 of the Convention, may be made in connection with
judgments on the merits or on reparations and shall be filed with the Secretariat. It shall state with precision the issues relating
to the meaning or scope of the judgment of which the interpretation is requested.
12.
The Commission’s request for interpretation is based on the fact that
Peru “has insisted that in its opinion, the Judgment of the Inter-American
Court would apply only to the Barrios Altos Case” (supra para. 9). Therefore,
there is disagreement as to the judgment’s meaning
or scope.
13. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds
that the request conforms to Article 67 of the Convention and Article 58 of
the Court’s Rules of Procedure and therefore declares it admissible. Accordingly, the Court will now proceed to
interpret those aspects of the judgment whose meaning or scope is at issue.
VI
The Amnesty Laws’ Incompatibility with
the Convention
The Commission’s
arguments
14. In
its request for interpretation, the Commission asked the Court to determine
the following:
Is the Judgment
in the Barrios Altos Case, concerning the incompatibility of laws Nos. 26479
and 26492 with the American Convention, general in scope or confined to that
specific case only?
The Commission’s contention is that “the effects
of the Court’s judgment are not confined exclusively to the Barrios Altos
Case, but rather to all those in which those amnesty laws were applied.” It points out that paragraph 44 of the Court’s
judgment of March 14, 2001 “can hardly be interpreted any other way.”
It further notes that in Ombudsman Report No. 57, titled “Amnesty vs.
Human Rights: in search of justice,” approved in Ombudsman
Resolution No. 019-2001/DP, the Office of the Ombudsman noted that:
The Judgment of the Inter-American
Court in the Barrios Altos Case is general in scope, because the laws themselves
-Nº 26479 and Nº 26492- were violations. The laws are incompatible with the Convention
not just in the Barrios Altos Case but in all cases involving human rights
violations wherein the Convention applies.
The Court’s observations
15. When
addressing the amnesty laws’ incompatibility with the American Convention,
the Court wrote the following in the judgment on the merits in the present
case:
[…] The Court considers that all amnesty provisions,
provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate
responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the
investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights
violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions
and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable
rights recognized by international human rights law [;]
[…] The Court, in accordance with the arguments put
forward by the Commission and not contested by the State, considers that the
amnesty laws adopted by Peru prevented the victims’ next of kin and the surviving
victims in this case from being heard by a judge, as established in Article
8(1) of the Convention; they violated the right to judicial protection embodied
in Article 25 of the Convention; they prevented the investigation, capture,
prosecution and conviction of those responsible for the events that occurred
in Barrios Altos, thus mailing to comply with Article 1(1) of the Convention,
and they obstructed clarification of the facts of this case. Finally, the adoption of self-amnesty laws
that are incompatible with the Convention meant that Peru failed to comply
with the obligation to adapt internal legislation that is embodied in Article
2 of the Convention [;]
[…] The Court considers that it should be emphasized
that, in the light of the general obligations established in articles 1(1)
and 2 of the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to take all
measures to ensure that no one is deprived of judicial protection and the
exercise of the right to a simple and effective recourse, in the terms of
Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Consequently,
States Parties to the Convention which adopt laws that have the opposite effect,
such as self-amnesty laws, violate articles 8 and 25, in relation to articles
1(1) and 2 of the Convention. Self-amnesty laws lead to the defenselessness of victims and perpetuate
impunity; therefore, they are manifestly incompatible with the aims and spirit
of the Convention. This type of law
precludes the identification of the individuals who are responsible for human
rights violations, because it obstructs the investigation and access to justice
and prevents the victims and their next of kin from knowing the truth and
receiving the corresponding reparation[; and]
[…] 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 continue to obstruct the investigation of the grounds on which this case
is based or the identification and punishment of those responsible, nor can
they have the same or a similar impact with regard to other cases that have
occurred in Peru where the rights established in the American Convention have
been violated.[2]
16. In
operative paragraph 4, the Court resolved the following in this regard:
[…] Amnesty
Laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 are incompatible with the American Convention
on Human Rights and, consequently, lack legal effect.
In operative paragraph 5, it resolved that:
[...] the
State of Peru must investigate the facts to determine the identity of those
responsible for the human rights violations referred to in this judgment,
and also publish the results of this investigation and punish those responsible.
17. In its case-law the Court has held the
following with regard to the State’s obligation to suppress laws that imply
a violation of the Convention:
[…] the general obligation of the
State, established in Article 2 of the Convention, includes the adoption of measures to suppress laws
and practices of any kind that imply a violation of the guarantees established
in the Convention, and also the adoption of laws and the implementation of
practices leading to the effective
observance of the said guarantees.
[…]
[…] In international law, customary law establishes that a State
which has ratified a human rights treaty must introduce the necessary modifications
to its domestic law to ensure the proper compliance with the obligations it
has assumed. This law is universally
accepted and is supported by jurisprudence. The American Convention establishes the general
obligation of each State Party to adapt its domestic law to the provisions
of this Convention, in order to guarantee the rights that it embodies.
This general obligation of the State Party implies that the measures
of domestic law must be effective (the principle of
effet utile). This means that the State must adopt all measures
so that the provisions of the Convention are effectively fulfilled in its
domestic legal system, as Article 2 of the Convention requires. Such measures are only effective when the State
adjusts its actions to the Convention’s rules on protection.[3]
18. Enactment of a law that is manifestly incompatible
with the obligations undertaken by a State Party to the Convention is per
se a violation of the Convention for which the State incurs international
responsibility. The Court therefore considers that given the
nature of the violation that amnesty laws No. 26479 and No. 26492 constitute,
the effects of the decision in the judgment on the merits of the Barrios Altos
Cases are general in nature, and the question put to the Court in the Commission’s
request for interpretation must be so answered.
VII
Now,
therefore,
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights,
pursuant
to Article 67 of the Convention and Article 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure,
decides
unanimously:
1.
That the request filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
seeking an interpretation of the March 14, 2001 judgment in the Barrios Altos
Case is admissible.
2. That
given the nature of the violation that amnesty laws No. 26479 and No. 26492
constitute, the decision in the judgment on the merits in the Barrios Altos
Case has generic effects.
Done
in Spanish and English, the Spanish text being authentic, in San José, Costa
Rica, September 3, 2001.
Antônio A.
Cançado Trindade
President
Hernán Salgado-Pesantes Alirio
Abreu-Burelli
Sergio García-Ramírez Carlos Vicente
de Roux-Rengifo
Manuel E. Ventura-Robles
Secretary
So ordered,
Antônio A.
Cançado Trindade
President
Manuel E.
Ventura-Robles
Secretary