Top

Published in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

10. The Innovative Potential of Provisional Measures Resolutions for Detainee Rights in Latin America Through Dialogue Between the Inter-American Court and Other Courts

Authors : Clara Burbano Herrera, Yves Haeck

Published in: Urgency and Human Rights

Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The dire situation in prisons in which detainees who are protected by provisional measures find themselves in Latin America is a practice incompatible with international human rights treaties, such as the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and human rights standards developed by the Inter-American Court, which establish that detainees must be held in dignified detention conditions. The Inter-American Court uses the legal instrument of provisional measures adopted in the context of the case of the Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil (2018) to start a dialogue with the case law of certain national courts of the Organization of American States (OAS States) and another international court, with the objective of analysing the structural problems in detention centres all over Latin America and providing some answers. While the Inter-American Court is aware of the limits of its jurisdiction, it apparently wishes its provisional measures to have an effective or material impact on the improvement of detention conditions. For the first time the Court adjudicates that for a state with grave problems in its detention centres, there is no need to build new detention facilities or to transfer detainees to other existing centres, because these measures do not solve the problem at hand. The time during which detainees are being held in undignified conditions must be taken into account and lead to a reduction of their time spent in prison.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Urgency at the European Court of Human Rights: New Directions and Future Prospects for the Interim Measures Mechanism?

next chapter Conclusion: The Protective Potential and Legitimate Use of Interim Measures in Human Rights Cases

The term “deprivation of liberty” will be used in cases related to arrest, detention or imprisonment. According to the 1998 UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention of Imprisonment (GA Res 43/173, 9 December 1998), “arrest” is defined as “the act of apprehending a person for alleged commission of an offence or by the action of an authority”, whereas “detention” and imprisonment” relate to the “condition” of a person deprived of personal liberty, depending whether or not the deprivation of liberty follows a conviction for an offence.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Resolution of Provisional Measures, 22 November 2018, para 45; IACtHR Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Judgment 25 November 2004, para 102; IACtHR De la Cruz Flores v. Peru, Judgment 18 November 2004, para 124; Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment 18 September 2003, para 126; IACtHR Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, Judgment 16 August 2000, para 78; IACtHR Institute of Reeducation of the Minor “Panchito Lopez” v. Paraguay, Judgment 2 September 2004, para 151; IACtHR Neira Alegría and others v. Peru, Judgment 19 January 1995, para 60.

The right to personal integrity is included in the list of non-derogable rights under Article 27(2) ACHR.

IACtHR Montero Aranguren and others v. Venezuela, Judgment 5 July 2006, para 85; IACtHR Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru, Judgment 25 November 2006, para 274; IACtHR Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment 4 July 2006, para 126; IACtHR Institute of Reeducation of the Minor “Panchito Lopez” v. Paraguay, Judgment 2 September 2004, para 157.

IACtHR Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment 8 July 2004, para 108; IACtHR Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Judgment 27 November 2003, para 87.

IACtHR Montero Aranguren and others v. Venezuela, Judgment 5 July 2006, para 86.

American Convention, Article 4.

American Convention, Article 5.

American Convention, Article 12.

American Convention, Article 8.

IACtHR Institute of Reeducation of the Minor “Panchito Lopez” v. Paraguay, Judgment 2 September 2004, para 155.

IACtHR Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru, Judgment 25 November 2006, para 314; IACtHR García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, Judgment 25 November 2005, para 223; IACtHR Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Judgment 23 June 2005, para 101.

IACtHR, Montero Aranguren and others v. Venezuela, Judgment 5 July 2006, para 87; IACtHR Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, Judgment 16 August 2000, para 78; IACtHR Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment 3 December 2001, para 87; IACtHR Neira Alegría and others v. Peru, Judgment 19 September 1996, para 60.

Article 19 provides special protection to children, specifying that every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the State. This obligation is therefore particularly strict as regards the conditions of juvenile detention. See, for example IACtHR Servellón-García v. Honduras, Judgment 21 September 2006, para 112; IACtHR Juvenile Reeducation Institute “Panchito Lopez” v. Paraguay, Judgment 2 September 2004, para 16; IACtHR Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment 8 July 2004, paras 124, 163, 164, 171; IACtHR Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment 18 September 2003, paras 126, 134; IACtHR Villagrán Morales and others v. Guatemala, 19 November 1999, paras 146, 191.

IACtHR Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment 18 September 2003, para 126.

IACtHR Institute of Reeducation of the Minor “Panchito Lopez” v. Paraguay, Judgment 2 September 2004, para 160.

IACtHR Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment 8 July 2004, paras 124, 163–164, and 171.

IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-17/2002, “Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child”, 28 August 2002, paras 80–81, 84, and 86–88. The IACtHR refers to Rule 13(5) of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules), adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 40/33, 28 November 1985. See also: the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, adopted by the General Assembly in Resolution 45/113, 14 December 1990.

IACtHR Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, Judgment 24 June 2005, para 75; IACtHR Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment 7 September 2004, para 106.

IACtHR García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru, Judgment 25 November 2005, para 106.

IACtHR Women victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. México, Judgment 28 November 2018, para 251; IACtHR Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, Judgment 3 August 2004, para 129.

IACtHR Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Judgment 12 November 1997, para 77; IACtHR Women victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, Judgment 28 November 2018, para 251.

IACtHR Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru, Judgment 25 November 2006, para 315.

CPT/Inf (92) 3 [EN], 2nd General Report, 13 April 1992, para 43.

IACtHR Montero Aranguren and others v. Venezuela, Judgment 5 July 2006, para 97. See also, the Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which prescribe that every person deprived of liberty shall have the right to health (Principle X). Similarly, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules), adopted by the United Nations, General Assembly in Resolution A/RES/70/175.

IACtHR Lori Berenson Mejia v. Peru, Judgment 23 June 2005, para 104; IACtHR Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Judgment 27 November 2003, para 87; IACtHR Bamaca Velasquez v. Guatemala, Judgment 25 November 2000, para 150; IACtHR Cantoral Benavides v. Peru, Judgment 3 December 2001, para 84.

IACtHR Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment 7 September 2004, para 150; IACtHR Juvenile Reeducation Institute “Panchito Lopez” v. Paraguay, Judgment 2 September 2004, para 151; IACtHR Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment 18 September 2003, para 126; IACtHR Lori Berenson Mejia v. Peru, Judgment 23 June 2005, para 101.

IACtHR Montero Aranguren and others v. Venezuela, Judgment 5 July 2006, para 85.

IACtHR Neira Alegría and others v. Perú, Judgment 19 September 1996, para 86; IACtHR Durand and Ugarte v. Peru, Judgment 16 August 2000, para 78.

IACtHR Tibi v. Ecuador, Judgment 7 September 2004; IACtHR Institute of Reeducation of the Minor “Panchito Lopez” v. Paraguay, Judgment 2 September 2004.

The provisional measures have been further developed in the Rules of Procedure and the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and those of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

When the case is under consideration before the Commission, the Court may adopt provisional measures at the request of the Commission. At this stage of the procedure, the Court cannot adopt measures ex officio. See Article 63(2) American Convention.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, paras 45 and 78.

IACtHR Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, Judgment 22 June 2006 and IACtHR Boyce and Joseph v. Barbados, Judgment 20 November 2007.

It is important to mention the Boyce and Joseph v. Barbados case in which provisional measures were adopted to protect four persons sentenced to death. In this case, the orders had already been read out and the executions were scheduled four days after the request. In view of the urgency of the matter, provisional measures were adopted the same day that they were requested. See, IACtHR Boyce and Joseph v. Barbados, Provisional Measures 17 September 2004, Having Seen para 4, Decides para 1. The Court’s timeframe depends on the circumstances of the case. See Burbano Herrera 2011, p. 96.

The IACtHR may request provisional measures only to States that have ratified the American Convention and accepted its jurisdictional competence. As of 2019, only 23 of the 35 Member States of the Organization of American States (OAS) have ratified the American Convention, and of them, only 20 have accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, para 3.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, para 37; IACtHR Detainees at Toussaint Louverture Police Station in Gonaïves v. Haiti, Precautionary Measures, 144/07, Order 16 June 2008, and IACHR Penitentiary Services Buenos Aires Province v. Argentina, Precautionary Measures, 104/12, Order 13 April 2012.

IACHR Men deprived of freedom in the cells located in the basement of Polinter Police District in Rio de Janeiro v. Brazil, Precautionary Measures, Order 11 November 2005, 172/05.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, para 17.

The 47 survivors were at risk of being killed. See IACHR Inmates in the Urso Branco prison v. Brazil, Precautionary Measures, Order 14 March 2002, 394/02.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 40.

IACHR Convicted and tried inmates committed to the Penitentiary of Mendoza and its offices v. Argentina, Precautionary Measures, Order 3 August 2004.

IACHR 108 inmates in the Maximum Security Prison at Kilometer 14 v. Colombia, Precautionary Measures, Order 18 March 2004, 792/04.

In a matter regarding Colombia it was mentioned that ‘[…] [o]n 27 April 2000, prisoners belonging to paramilitary groups detained in cellblock 5 launched a violent attack on prisoners in cellblock 4, killing 47 inmates and injuring 17 others’. IACHR Political prisoners in buildings 1 and 2 of the National Model Prison in Bogotá v. Colombia, Precautionary Measures, Order 11 May 2000, 129/00.

IACHR Minors in the San Pedro de Sula Prison v. Honduras, Precautionary Measures, Order 22 October 1996, 11/491.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 48.

Ibid., Considering para 48.

IACtHR Curado Complex (in Recife) v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 23 November 2016, Considering para 4.

The American Declaration and Convention provide protection for children but do not define the term ‘child’. The Inter-American Court and Commission have indicated that the definition of a child is based on the provisions of Article 1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In that regard ‘child’ refers to any person who has not yet turned 18 years of age. See IAtCHR, Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, 28 August 2002, para 42; IACtHR Villagran Morales (Street Children) v. Guatemala, Judgment 19 November 1999, para 188; IACtHR Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment 18 September 2003, para 133.

See the provisional measures adopted by the IACtHR on 25 February 2011, 1 September 2011, 26 April 2012, 20 November 2012, 21 August 2013 and 29 January 2014. See also the Resolutions adopted by the President of the IACtHR on 26 September 2014, 23 June 2015 and 15 November 2017.

IACtHR Matter of Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 4 July 2006.

See the chapters by Shelton (Chap. 2) and Harrington (Chap. 6).

IACtHR Matter of Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 4 July 2006, Having seen para 7.

IACtHR Matter of Children and Adolescents Deprived of Liberty in the “Complexo do Tatuapé” of FEBEM v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 4 July 2006, Considering para 6; IACHR, 2005 Annual Report, paras 41–42.

On 6 September 2012, the Court decided to join the processing of some matters and to establish that, thereafter, the joint provisional measures would be known as the “Matters of Certain Venezuelan Prisons”. The Orders of the IACtHR of 24 November 2009 in the Monagas Judicial Detention Center (“La Pica”) v. Venezuela, the Penitentiary Center of the Capital Region Yare I and II (Yare Prison) v. Venezuela; the Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) v. Venezuela; the Capital Detention Center El Rodeo I and II v. Venezuela of 15 May 2011, in the matters of the Penitentiary Center of Aragua “Tocorón Prison” and of the Ciudad Bolívar Judicial Detention Center “Vista Hermosa Prison,” as well as of 6 September 2012, the Penitentiary Center of the Andean Region. See IACtHR Certain Penitentiary Centers of Venezuela, Penitenciaria Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) v. Venezuela, Provisional Measures 13 February 2013 and Order 13 November 2015.

Venezuela denounced the American Convention on 10 September 2012.

Burbano Herrera 2011, p. 170.

IACtHR the Socio-Educational Internment Facility of the Penitentiary Complex of Curado, of the Penitentiary Complex of Pedrinhas and the Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 1, and 13 February 2017.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 13 February 2017, Considering para 3.

The Brazilian State, responding to provisional measures, affirmed to the Inter-American Court that the prison problem was not something exclusive to the Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho referred to by the Court, but was a problem that encompassed the entire penitentiary system of the State of Rio de Janeiro. Resolution Court, Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, 22 November 2018, Consideration para 3.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 40; and Provisional Measures 13 February 2017, Considering para 5.

IACtHR the Socio-Educational Internment Facility, of the Penitentiary Complex of Curado, of the Penitentiary Complex of Pedrinhas and the Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering par. 3 and Provisional Measures 31 August 2017, Considering para 28.

President of the IACtHR Seventeen Persons Deprived of Liberty v. Nicaragua, Urgent Measures 21 May 2019, Considering paras 18 and 19.

IACtHR the Socio-Educational Internment Facility, of the Penitentiary Complex of Curado, of the Penitentiary Complex of Pedrinhas and the Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 13 February 2017, Decides para 4; President of the IACtHR Seventeen Persons Deprived of Liberty v. Nicaragua, Urgent Measures, 21 May 2019, Considering paras 18 and 19.

Table created by the authors.

Ibid., Considering para 84.

Ibid., Considering para 63; IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 13 February 2017, Considering para 67.

Resolutions N14/1994, and 09/2011 of the CNPCP.

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Mandela Rules), adopted by the United Nations, General Assembly in Resolution A/RES/70/175, 18–22 May 2015, Rules 19–21.

IACHR, Principles and Good Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.131 Doc. 38, 13 March 2000, Principle XII.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 96.

Ibid., Considering para 99.

Ibid., Considering para 98.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 96.

Ibid., Considering para 96.

Ibid., Considering para 98.

US Supreme Court, No. 09–1233, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor of California, et al.; Appellants v Marciano Plata et al. On Appeal from the United States District Courts for the Eastern District and the Northern District of California, Judgment, 23 May 2011, No. 09–1233, 563 U. S. 493 (2011).

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 104.

Ibid.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 104.

ECtHR Torregiani and others v. Italy, 1 March 2013, para 88. The European Court stated: “In general, these data reveal that the violation of the right of applicants to benefit from adequate detention conditions is not a consequence of isolated incidents, but is due to a systemic problem resulting from chronic malfunction of the Italian prison system, which affected and may still interest many people in the future (…). According to the European Court, the situation established in this case is therefore constitutive of a practice incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], n° 34884/97, § 22, ECHR 1999-V…). See Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 106.

Sumula Vinculate No. 56, from 2016.

This decision is binding and mandatory for all judges, tribunals and organs of the government administration, and can only be modified by the Supreme Tribunal itself. IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 110.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, para 116.

Sumula 56 of the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, paras 110–114.

Ibid., paras 115–116.

Ibid., Considering para 97.

Ibid., Enacting paras 2, 4. See also the case of Milagro Sala v. Argentina, where the Court requested the State to replace Mrs. Sala’s preventive detention with the alternative measure of house arrest to be carried out in her residence or place where she usually lives, or by any other alternative measure to pre-trial detention that is less restrictive of one’s rights than house arrest. IACtHR Milagro Sala v. Argentina, Provisional Measures 23 November 2017, Considering para 33.

IACtHR Instituto Penal Plácido de Sá Carvalho v. Brazil, Provisional Measures 22 November 2018, Considering para 87.

Ibid., Considering paras 87–88.

Ibid., Considering para 87.

Ibid., Considering para 92.

Ibid., Considering paras 129–130.

Ibid., Considering para 118.

36.3 average in the region, IACHR Report 2017 ‘Measures to Reduce Pretrial Detention’, p. 22.

IACHR Report 2017 ‘Measures to Reduce Pretrial Detention’, p. 22.

100

DeJusticia, Sistemas Sobrecargados, Leyes de drogas y cárceles en América Latina, 2010, p. 6, https://www.dejusticia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fi_name_recurso_192.pdf. Accessed 15 March 2020.

101

DeJusticia, Sistemas Sobrecargados, Leyes de drogas y cárceles en América Latina, 2010.

Burbano Herrera C (2011) Provisional Measures in the Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Intersentia, Antwerp, p. 96, 170

Title: The Innovative Potential of Provisional Measures Resolutions for Detainee Rights in Latin America Through Dialogue Between the Inter-American Court and Other Courts
Authors: Clara Burbano Herrera
Yves Haeck
Publisher: T.M.C. Asser Press
Book: Urgency and Human Rights
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-414-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-415-0

Copyright Year: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-415-0_10