Inter-American Court of Human Rights



Download 3.09 Mb.
Page68/96
Date07.08.2021
Size3.09 Mb.
#90382
1   ...   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   ...   96
a) The effectiveness of the remedy of generic habeas corpus
245. In its Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, the Court held that for a remedy to exist, “it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.”137 Clearly, a remedy will not be “truly effective” if it is not decided within a time frame that enables the violation being claimed to be corrected in time.
246. On the subject of habeas corpus, Article 133 of Paraguay’s 1992 Constitution provides that habeas corpus “proceedings shall be swift, summary and gratis.” In this regard, Paraguay’s own Supreme Court ruled that “inasmuch as this is a constitutional guarantee invoked precisely in order to defend an individual’s human rights, it is immediately exigible.”
247. It has been established (supra para. 134.27) that on November 12, 1993, a petition of generic habeas corpus was filed to seek judicial relief against the detention conditions under which the inmates at the Center at that time were living and to petition the court to order them relocated to proper facilities. It has also been established (supra para. 134.28) that the Civil and Commercial Law Judge of First Instance, Ninth Rotation, granted the petition of habeas corpus on July 31, 1998; in other words, almost five years after it had been filed. By whatever standard is used to determine whether a remedy was swift, the Court can only conclude that the processing of the petition of habeas corpus exceeded any permissible limit. Moreover, given the delay in deciding the petition and inasmuch as some of those on whose behalf it was filed were still being held at the Center when the writ was granted, the petition was ineffective for the very persons it was intended to protect, which constitutes a violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention.
b) The failure to comply with the ruling on the petition of generic habeas corpus

248. Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention establishes the State’s obligation “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”


249. In the instant case, it has been shown (supra para. 134.28) that in Final Ruling No. 652, delivered on July 31, 1998, the Civil and Commercial Law Judge of First Instance, Ninth Rotation, granted the petition of generic habeas corpus filed on behalf of the inmates at the Center. It read, in part, as follows:
[…] GRANT the petition of GENERIC HABEAS CORPUS filed […] on behalf of the juveniles identified at […[ this decision, and confined in the ‘Col. Panchito López’ Juvenile Reeducation Institute.
[…] the Director of that correctional facility, the ‘Col. Panchito López’ Juvenile Reeducation Institute, the Director of Penal Institutions, and the Ministry of Justice and Labor shall, in accordance with proper procedure, adopt forthwith effective and suitable administrative and budgetary measures to correct the unlawful conditions described [...] which adversely affect the juveniles also named in the preamble, who shall continue their confinement in proper facilities, in accordance with Article 21 of the National Constitution, under penalty of responsibility.
[…] that the authorities and institutions mentioned in the preceding paragraph shall inform this court of the measures taken to comply with the court ruling [...] within no more than thirty days and then periodically every three months, until the ruling has been fully executed, under penalty of law.138
250. Those operative paragraphs clearly provided that the pertinent authorities were to adopt “forthwith” all measures necessary to “correct the unlawful conditions” at the Center, on behalf of the inmates interned there at that time. In all likelihood by the time the writ was granted, the inmates at the Center were not the inmates there on the date the petition had been filed. However, subsequent to the ruling, the inmates protected by the writ continued to endure the same unsanitary and overcrowded conditions, without proper health care, ill-fed, under the constant threat of being punished, in an atmosphere of tension, violence, abuse, and unable to effectively enjoy a number of their human rights. So much so that subsequent to issuance of the writ of generic habeas corpus the three fires previously described broke out (supra paragraphs 134.29, 134.33 and 134.34). In other words, the writ of generic habeas corpus was so belated as to be in violation of the law. But that situation was compounded by the failure to comply with the writ, as a result of which the degrading and subhuman conditions under which the inmates at the detention facility lived did not change. The State itself acknowledged as much and stated that the inmates at the Center were not relocated because the State “did not have an adequate place.”
251. For all the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the State did not provide the inmates at the Center with a “simple and prompt recourse” when the petition of generic habeas corpus was granted, nor did it provide an effective remedy to the 239 inmates interned in the Center when the court delivered the ruling that granted the petition of habeas corpus. It thus violated Article 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. That violation was compounded by the State’s failure to provide the special measures of protection to which the inmates were entitled as children. The list of those inmates is attached to the present Judgment and is part thereof.

Directory: docs -> casos -> articulos
docs -> #17622 Relational Leadership: New Developments in Theory and Practice
docs -> Leadership Development Programs and ecq-based Readings
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru Judgment of November 27, 1998
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados Judgment of September 24, 2009
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Albán-Cornejo et al v. Ecuador Judgment of August 5, 2008
articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Baldeón-García v. Perú Judgment of April 6, 2006
casos -> Operation Condor
casos -> Humberto antonio sierra porto and eduardo ferrer mac-gregor poisot case of the kali
articulos -> Official summary issued by the inter-american court

Download 3.09 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   ...   96




The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message

    Main page