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 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.

News from the IACtHR:

– On August 11, 2023, the IACtHR declared Argentina internationally responsible for the delay in the execution of a writ of amparo that dealt with the remuneration of a judge, in the “Boleso v. Argentina” case. The victim in the case, Mr. Héctor Hugo Boleso, was a labor judge in the province of Corrientes. As a result of the hyperinflation, he filed an amparo action on February 21, 1990, against the province of Corrientes for the intangibility of his salary as a judge. The writ of amparo was granted in 1992 and the province of Corrientes filed an extraordinary federal appeal against the decision, which was denied in August 1997. However, when the victim tried to execute the amparo judgment, the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes informed him that the amparo decision was only declaratory and that there would be no payment. The victim therefore filed all the corresponding appeals, through which the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation decided to vacate the judgment affirming the declaratory nature of the amparo and ordered a new judgment to be handed down. It was not until June 2004 that the Superior Court of Justice of Corrientes handed down a new ruling, ordering the payment of what was owed, which happened in March 2011, according to the settlement made by the victim.

The IACtHR decided that Articles 8.1 (right to a fair trial) and 25.1 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention had been violated. Initially, the IACtHR analyzed the total duration of the proceedings, which lasted more than 21 years, considering that the amparo action was filed on February 21, 1990, and the due payment was not made until March 4, 2011. When examining the elements that would allow it to conclude a violation of the reasonable time limit, the IACtHR identified that, given the complexity of the matter, there was no reason to justify the delay that occurred. In this sense, the IACtHR also concluded that the procedural activity of the interested party was always oriented towards the momentum of the process and it was not found that the conduct of the judicial authorities was aimed at delaying the process. For all these reasons, the IACtHR found a violation of the aforementioned articles, due to the delay in processing the case. The decision (in Spanish) can be found here and the press release (in Spanish) here.