Inter-American Court of Human Rights


in relation to Article 1(1) thereof



Download 3.09 Mb.
Page69/96
Date07.08.2021
Size3.09 Mb.
#90382
1   ...   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   ...   96
XII
Article 26 of the American Convention
in relation to Article 1(1) thereof

(Progressive Development of Economic, Social,

and Cultural Rights)
Pleadings of the Commission
252. The Commission did not allege violation of Article 26 of the American Convention. The Commission was of the view that:
a) as the State contends, the representatives did not allege that the State violated Article 26 of the Convention or Articles XI, XII, XIII and XV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man either in its original petition or throughout the approximately five years that the case was before the Commission. The Commission, therefore, never forwarded any such arguments of law to the State, nor were they debated in the Commission’s proceedings on the case;
b) if the representatives’ pleading is a motion for the Court asserting a separate State violation of Article 26 of the American Convention, then it would not come under the present case, as the procedural opportunity to have filed that motion has already passed; and
c) should the Court deem that the purpose of the invocation of Article 26 of the Convention and the other Articles cited from the American Declaration and from the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to guide the interpretation of Article 19 of the Convention, the Commission would have no objection.
Pleadings of the representatives
253. Concerning Article 26 of the American Convention, the representatives asserted that:
a) Article 26 of the Convention must be studied in relation to Article 19 thereof, Articles XI, XII, XIII and XV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and Articles 24, 28, 29 and 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
b) the State failed to comply with its obligation to ensure even the minimum enjoyment of these rights in the case of the juveniles interned in the Center, who were in a highly vulnerable situation;
c) the violation of the right to health is at three levels: first, because the State failed to follow even the minimum standards for hygiene, diet and primary health care that would have helped prevent sickness and disease and keep all the alleged victims in the instant case in a minimum state of health, in keeping with their dignity as human beings; second, because once the inmates became sick, they were not given adequate medical and dental treatment; finally, no special treatment was given to adolescents suffering from mental disorders or addictions;
d) as for the right to education, the State did not provide formal, continuous education programs. There were no trained professionals and budgetary appropriations for the vocational training and literacy classes. What classes were offered were not part of a comprehensive educational program geared to re-educating and rehabilitating the juveniles, since the Center was not properly equipped for a re-education policy to succeed. Juveniles deprived of their liberty are not to be deprived of their right to education and dignity; and
e) concerning the right to rest, to leisure time, to recreation and to a cultural and artistic life, the State failed to offer any program of that kind on a continuing basis and did not foster contacts with family and community. The State did not ensure the inmates’ right to rest and recreation and the right to engage in games and recreational activities suited to their age bracket. Instead, the juveniles remained locked in small cells for the bulk of the day, and were allowed out for only two hours a day.
Pleadings of the State
254. The State argued as follows with regard to Article 26 of the Convention:
a) economic, social and cultural rights are not germane to this case, as the Commission pointed out; and
b) when this case was heard in the Commission, the representatives never asserted any Article 26 claims, so that the State must reject them as irrelevant and immaterial, and would respectfully remind the Court of the arguments set forth in its brief of preliminary objections.
Considerations of the Court
255. Within the present judgment, the Court analyzed the issues pertaining to a life with dignity, health, education and recreation in its considerations with regard to Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 19 and 1(1) thereof and Article 13 of the Protocol of San Salvador. This Court therefore deems that to address the matter of Article 26 of the Convention would be redundant.

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   ...   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   ...   96




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

    Main page