Newsletter

1. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)

The IACHR is the autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS) responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights in the Americas. One of its duties is to receive and review individual complaints for human rights violations and to monitor human rights situations.

– On May 23, 2024, the IACHR adopted Resolution No. 01/24, in which it recognized national and international election observers as human rights defenders.

Election observer in Mexico. Source:  El Economista.

The resolution reinforces the notion that the democratic state and the rule of law are essential for the effective protection of human rights. In this sense, it pointed out that the full guarantee of human rights is not possible without the due recognition of political rights. The IACHR reaffirmed that human rights defenders are a fundamental pillar in the construction and consolidation of democracy and the rule of law and that, through their multiple activities, they contribute significantly to the observance of human rights because they act as guardians against impunity and corruption. In this regard, the IACHR recalled the very concept of a human rights defender, which is any person who in any way promotes or seeks the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized at national and international levels. Thus, the identifying criterion is the work carried out by the individual.

Regarding election observers, the IACHR noted that they are responsible for defending the integrity of the electoral process and for guaranteeing the rule of law and the sovereign will of the citizenry. For these reasons, the IACHR decided that both national and international election observers should be recognized as human rights defenders, highlighting their importance for the role they play in defending democratic systems. Likewise, the IACHR urged States to refrain from taking actions that arbitrarily interfere with the work carried out by observers and to guarantee the necessary conditions for the independent and impartial observation of elections by election observers. Under these conditions, States must guarantee the safety, free transit, and freedom of expression of the observers and also ensure that there are no reprisals for their statements. The resolution (in Spanish) can be found here and the press release here.

2. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)

The IACtHR is a regional human rights court responsible for applying and interpreting the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and other human rights instruments in the region. Its main function is to decide cases on human rights violations committed by States that have accepted its jurisdiction.

– On April 1, 2024, the IACtHR found Honduras internationally responsible for the arbitrary dismissal of four judges from the Constitutional Chamber of the Honduran Supreme Court of Justice.

Victims of the case Gutiérrez Navas and others vs. Honduras. Source: El Heraldo.

The victims of the case are José Antonio Gutiérrez Navas, José Francisco Ruiz Gaekel, Gustavo Enrique Bustillo Palma, and Rosalinda Cruz Sequeira who, at the time of the events, were judges of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Honduras designated for the period between January 26, 2009 and January 25, 2016. However, in 2012, three decisions of unconstitutionality handed down by the Chamber were harshly criticized by the country’s president at the time, Porfirio Lobo. The unconstitutionality decisions were in relation to the norms known as the “1% Law”, the “Framework Law of the Evangelical Church of Honduras”, and the “Model Cities Law”.

After public reprisals from the country’s president, in December, 2012, the National Congress appointed a Special Commission to investigate the administrative conduct of the victims and issued a report in which it recommended that Congress should examine the facts and consider dismissing the judges. The dismissal was then approved because the victims were acting “against the public interest and citizen security” and they were dismissed without any of them having even been informed of the procedure underway or its outcome. That same year, the victims filed an amparo action alleging the arbitrariness and illegality of the decision adopted by the Congress, which, when it was finally judged, was rejected on the grounds that the acts of the Congress were not susceptible to amparo, a decision confirmed by the Supreme Court of Justice. In April 2014, the then-president of the National Congress admitted that the dismissal of the magistrates was done by mutual agreement between him and the president of the Republic because they considered it to be for the benefit of the country. The victims of the case, on the other hand, suffered persecution, threats, and harassment and in 2015 requested precautionary measures from the IACHR.

The State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8.1 (right to a fair trial), 8.2(b), (c), (d) and (h), 9 (freedom from ex post facto laws), 23.1 (c) (right to participate in government), 25.1 (right to judicial protection) and 26 (job security) of the ACHR. Although the controversy over these rights ceased, the IACtHR decided to comment on them. Initially, the IACtHR recalled that judicial independence is a cornerstone of the guarantees of due process in the rule of law, which is directly affected when the tenure of judges is arbitrarily interrupted. In this sense, the dismissal of those who exercise the judiciary cannot be based on the content of the decisions that they have handed down, since the protection of judicial independence prevents the deduction of responsibility for the votes and opinions that are made in the exercise of the judicial function. Additionally, the IACtHR pointed out that the right to work, protected by Article 26, includes the guarantee of job stability, which presupposes that the dismissal of a worker is carried out with justified reasons, which did not occur in this case. In addition to the violations recognized by the State, the IACtHR also found that Article 5.1 (right to personal integrity) had been violated due to the significant fear that the victims felt as a result of the threats, without protective measures being adopted. The decision (in Spanish) can be found here and the press release here.