INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF PDF

Trafficking Unit with the key papers researched and drafted by Michèle Clark

Principles of Copyright Law – Cases and Materials

When Norowzian sued the second film-makers and the Guinness Brewery for A treatise on the composition and use of medicines be they old or new; on the.

Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission

13-Apr-2006 Self-contained regimes and the work of the International Law ... law in old colonial territories and the emergence of types of private law.

Robespierre Old Regime Feminist? Gender

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/650505

Competition Issues in Television and Broadcasting 2013

28-Oct-2013 Competition and Regulation in Broadcasting in the Light of Convergence ... As the history of the soap opera illustrates private TV networks ...

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF

24-Oct-2012 November 16 to 28 2009. Page 2. 2. CASE OF NADEGE DORZEMA ET AL. v. THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC.

The Problem of Refugees in The Light of Contemporary International

The second part of the book is placed in an international law perspective. scope and limits of the respective legal regimes and international ...

Structural Reform in the Rail Industry 2005

21-Dec-2005 au niveau de l'utilisateur final au profit d'un régime de prix et de services ... suivantes : 1) Quel sera l'effet sur la concurrence ?

Competition Issues in Joint Ventures 2000

02-Mar-1998 approfondie des effets négatifs et positifs qu'elles peuvent avoir sur la ... by adopting what amount to special joint venture regimes.

Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns

02-Mar-2014 Lack of resources for opposition parties and female candidates . ... of political finance.6 The overall regime type can also be of ...

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

CASE OF NADEGE DORZEMA ET AL. v. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 24, 2012

(Merits, reparations and costs)

In the case of Nadege Dorzema et al.,

the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ³the Inter-American Court´ or ³the

Court,´), composed of the following judges:1

Diego García-Sayán, President

Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice-President

Leonardo A. Franco, Judge

Margarette May Macaulay, Judge

Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge

Eduardo Vío Grossi, Judge, and

also present,

Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and

Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary;

in accordance with Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights

(hereinafter ³the Convention´ or ³the American Convention´) and to Articles 31, 32, 65 and

67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court2 (hereinafter ³the Rules of Procedure´), delivers

this Judgment structured as follows:

1 In accordance with Article 19(1) of the Rules of the Inter-American Court applicable to this case (infra note

2), which established that ³LL@n the cases referred to in Article 44 of the Convention, a Judge who is a national of

the respondent State shall not be able to participate in the hearing MQG GHOLNHUMPLRQ RI POH ŃMVH´ -XGJH Rhadys

Abreu Blondet, a Dominican national, did not take part in the processing of this case or in the deliberation and signature of this Judgment.

November 16 to 28, 2009.

2 CASE OF NADEGE DORZEMA ET AL. v. THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT """"""""""""""""""

III. JURISDICTION """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

IV. EVIDENCE """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

A. Documentary, testimonial, expert evidence """"""""""""" B. Admission of the evidence """""""""""""""""""""""

1. AdmissLRQ RI POH GRŃXPHQPMU\ HYLGHQŃH """""""""""""

2. Admission of the statements of the presumed victims of the

testimonial evidHQŃH """"""""""""""""""""""""" V. PRIOR CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE PRESUMED VICTIMS "

A. Arguments """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

B. Considerations of the Court """""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Request to increase the number of presumed surviving victims "

2. Request to increase of the number of next of kin of the deceased

SUHVXPHG YLŃPLPV """"""""""""""""""""""""""""

3. Request to include the next of kin of the surviving victims as

presumed victims """""""""""""""""""""""""""

VI. PROVEN FACTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""

A. Contextual background """"""""""""""""""""""""" B. Facts of POH ŃMVH """""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Pursuit and incident """""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Reaction of the authorities to tOH LQŃLGHQP """""""""""

3. GHPHQPLRQ MQG H[SXOVLRQ """"""""""""""""""""""

4. Regarding the proceeding before the military jurisdiction ""

5. Regarding the proceeding in the ordinary jurisdictioQ """"

VII. 5H*+76 $))(F7(G """"""""""""""""""""""""BB

VII-1. RIGHTS TO LIFE AND TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY """""""

A. Arguments """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

B. Considerations of the Court """"""""""""""""""""""""

1. Preventive actions: legality and exceptionality of the use of force in

reOMPLRQ PR POH RNOLJMPLRQ RI JXMUMQPHH """""""""""""""""

2. Actions accompanying the events: legality, necessity and

proportionality in relation to the obligation of respect """""""" a. The use of force in the case """""""""""""""""""" b. Arbitrary deprivation of life """"""""""""""""""""" c. Extrajudicial executions """""""""""""""""""""""" d. Harm to the personal integrity of tOH VXUYLYRUV """"""""""

3. Actions subsequent to the events: due diligence and humane

treatment in relation to the obligation to guarantee the right to life and to personal integrity """"""""""""""""""""""""" a. Due diligence """""""""""""""""""""""""""""" b. 7UHMPPHQP RI POH VXUYLYRUV """""""""""""""""""""" c. Treatment of the deceased and their ŃRUSVHV """"""""""" VII-2. RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES,

AND TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMEN7""""""""""""""""

A. Right to personal liberty """"""""""""""""""""""""

1. Arguments """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Considerations of the Court """"""""""""

B. Freedom of movement, collective expulsion and right to judicial

JXMUMQPHHV """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Arguments """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Considerations of the Court """"""""""""""""""""

a. Protection of migrants """"""""""""""""""""

Paragraphs

1 - 3

4 - 11

13 - 25

15 - 25

15 - 24

26 - 37

27 - 28

29 - 37

29 - 35

36
37

38 - 65

38 - 40

41 - 65

41 - 49

50 - 53

54 - 55

56 - 62

63 - 65

67 - 117

68 - 76

77 - 117

79 - 82

83 - 98

85 - 91

93 - 97

99 - 117

101 - 105

106 - 110

111 - 117

118 - 177

119 - 144

119 - 123

124 - 144

145 - 177

146 - 148

149 - 177

151 - 154

Page 4 5 7 7 7 8 8 10 10 10 12 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 19 20 20 23
23
24
24
26
26
27
28
29
30
30
31
31
33
34
35
36
37
37
43
43
44
44
3 b. Due process in cases of deportation or expulsion """" c. Minimum guarantees for the migrant subject to

H[SXOVLRQ RU GHSRUPMPLRQ """""""""""""""""""

d. CoOOHŃPLYH H[SXOVLRQ """""""""""""""""""""" e. FRQŃOXVLRQV """""""""""""""""""""""""""

VII-3. RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL

PROTECTION """"""""""""""""""""""""""

A. $UJXPHQPV """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

B. FRQVLGHUMPLRQV RI POH FRXUP """"""""""""""""""""""

1. The military justice system cannot be the competent

jurisdiction for human rights matters """"""""""""""

2. Impunity of the offenders and access PR ÓXVPLŃH """""""

VII-4. OBLIGATION TO ADOPT G20(67HF I(*$I ())(F76 """""BB

A. $UJXPHQPV """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

B. Considerations of the Court """"""""""""""""""""""

1. Legislative reforms """""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Conclusions """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

VII-5. OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS WITHOUT

DISCRIMINATION AND (48$I 3527(F7H21 """""""""B

A. $UJXPHQPV """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

B. ConsideratioQV RI POH FRXUP """"""""""""""""""""""

1. Discrimination LQ POLV ŃMVH """""""""""""""""""""

2. Conclusions """"""""""""""""""""""""""""

VIII. REPARATIONS """""""""""""""""""""""""".

A. HQÓXUHG SMUP\ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" B. Obligation to investigate the facts and identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible """"""""""""""""""

1. Re-opening of the investigation and determination of individual

responsibilities """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Identification and repatriation of the mortal remains of the

deceased victims """"""""""""""""""""""""""""" C. Measures of integral reparation: rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition """"""""""""""""""""""""

1. Rehabilitation """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Satisfaction """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

3. Guarantees of non-UHSHPLPLRQ """""""""""""""""""""

D. FRPSHQVMPLRQ """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Pecuniary and non-SHŃXQLMU\ GMPMJH """"""""""""""""

E. Costs and expenses """"""""""""""""""""""""""""" )XQG """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" G. Method of compliance with the payments ordered """"""""""

IX. 23(5$7H9( 3$5$*5$3+6 """""""""""""""""""BBBBB

155 - 158

159 - 166

167 - 174

175 - 177

178 - 200

179 -181

182 - 200

186 - 197

198 - 200

201 - 216

202 - 205

206 - 216

211 - 214

215 - 216

217- 237

219 - 223

224 - 238

228 - 236

237 - 238

238 - 306

244

245 - 253

245 - 249

250 - 253

254 - 279

255 ± 261

262 - 265

266 ± 279

280 - 289

280 - 389

290 - 297

298 - 301

302 - 306

307
45
46
48
50
50
50
51
52
54
55
55
56
57
58
58
59
60
62
65
64
64
65
65
67
67
68
69
69
72
72
75
76
76
77
4 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE

1. Submission and synopsis of the case: On February 11, 2011, the Inter-American

Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter ³the Commission´ or ³the Inter-American Commission´) submitted to the Court, under Articles 51 and 61 of the Convention, case No.

12,688 against the State of the Dominican Republic (hereinafter ³the State´ or ³the

Dominican Republic´), based on what it described as ³the excessive use of force by soldiers against a group of Haitians, in which seven persons lost their life and several more were injured.´ The Commission stated the following: a) ³7OH IMŃPV RHUH VXNPLPPHG GLUHŃPO\ PR POH PLOLPMU\ justice system which, after proceedings lasting several years and despite the request of the next of kin of those executed to have the case submitted to the ordinary jurisdiction, acquitted the

VROGLHUV ROR RHUH LQYROYHGB´

b) ³6RPH RI POH VXUYLYLQJ YLŃPLPV suffered violations of their personal liberty and violations of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, because they were expelled from Dominican Republic, without receiving the guarantees due to their condition as

PLJUMQPVB´

c) At the domestic level, POHUH OMV NHHQ ³M GHQLMO RI ÓXVPLŃH VLQŃH POH MŃPV RHUH committed to the detriment of the victims who were executed and the survivors, and due to POH ŃRQVHTXHQP LPSXQLP\B´ d) ³7OH IMŃPV RI POLV ŃMVH RŃŃXUUHG RLPOLQ M ŃRQPH[P RI PRUH JHQHUMO discrimination against Haitians or persons of Haitians origin in the Dominican

5HSXNOLŃ MV RHOO MV GHSRUPMPLRQV RI +MLPLMQV IURP POH GRPLQLŃMQ 5HSXNOLŃB´

2. The Commission asked the Court to declare the violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life),

5 (Right to Humane Treatment) 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Judicial Guarantees), 25

(Right to Judicial Protection) and 24 (Equality before the Law) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. In addition, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to adopt certain measures of reparation.

3. Proceedings before the Commission. The proceedings before the Inter-American

Commission were as follows:

a) The initial petition was presented on November 28, 2005, by the Grupo dequotesdbs_dbs48.pdfusesText_48

[PDF] INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF

INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

JUDGMENT OF OCTOBER 24, 2012

In the case of Nadege Dorzema et al.,

Court,´), composed of the following judges:1

Diego García-Sayán, President

Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice-President

Leonardo A. Franco, Judge

Margarette May Macaulay, Judge

Alberto Pérez Pérez, Judge

Eduardo Vío Grossi, Judge, and

Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and

Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary;

67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court2 (hereinafter ³the Rules of Procedure´), delivers

1 In accordance with Article 19(1) of the Rules of the Inter-American Court applicable to this case (infra note

2), which established that ³LL@n the cases referred to in Article 44 of the Convention, a Judge who is a national of

November 16 to 28, 2009.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

III. JURISDICTION """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

IV. EVIDENCE """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. AdmissLRQ RI POH GRŃXPHQPMU\ HYLGHQŃH """""""""""""

2. Admission of the statements of the presumed victims of the

A. Arguments """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Request to increase the number of presumed surviving victims "

2. Request to increase of the number of next of kin of the deceased

SUHVXPHG YLŃPLPV """"""""""""""""""""""""""""

3. Request to include the next of kin of the surviving victims as

VI. PROVEN FACTS """"""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Pursuit and incident """""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Reaction of the authorities to tOH LQŃLGHQP """""""""""

3. GHPHQPLRQ MQG H[SXOVLRQ """"""""""""""""""""""

4. Regarding the proceeding before the military jurisdiction ""

5. Regarding the proceeding in the ordinary jurisdictioQ """"

VII. 5H*+76 $))(F7(G """"""""""""""""""""""""BB

A. Arguments """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Preventive actions: legality and exceptionality of the use of force in

2. Actions accompanying the events: legality, necessity and

3. Actions subsequent to the events: due diligence and humane

AND TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMEN7""""""""""""""""

1. Arguments """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Considerations of the Court """"""""""""

JXMUMQPHHV """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

1. Arguments """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""

2. Considerations of the Court """"""""""""""""""""

Paragraphs

4 - 11

13 - 25

15 - 25

15 - 24

26 - 37

27 - 28

29 - 37

29 - 35

38 - 65

38 - 40

41 - 65

41 - 49

50 - 53

54 - 55

56 - 62

63 - 65

67 - 117

68 - 76

77 - 117

79 - 82

83 - 98

85 - 91

93 - 97

99 - 117

101 - 105

106 - 110

111 - 117

118 - 177

119 - 144

119 - 123

124 - 144

145 - 177

146 - 148

149 - 177

151 - 154