UN Expert consultation on human rights consideration relating to the administration of justice through military tribunals and role of the integral judicial system in combating human rights violations SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COURTS IN THE AMERICAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF MILITARY COURTS IN THE AMERICAS Christina M. Cerna GENEVA, November 24, 2014

THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

35 Member States of the OAS Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba(*), Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela Antigua and BarbudaArgentinaThe Bahamas BarbadosBelizeBoliviaBrazilCanada ChileColombiaCosta Rica DominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEl SalvadorGrenadaGuatemalaGuyanaHaiti HondurasJamaicaMexicoNicaragua PanamaParaguayPeruSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSurinameTrinidad and Tobago United States of AmericaUruguay Venezuela

Map of the Americas

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2014

Inter-American Court of Human Rights 2014

The evolution of the inter-American human rights system DECLARATION MEMBER STATESCONVENTION MEMBER STATESCOURT MEMBER STATES Antigua and Barbuda Argentina BahamasBarbados BelizeBolivia CanadaBrazil CubaChile GuyanaColombia St. LuciaCosta Rica St. Vincent and the GrenadinesDominicaDominican Republic St. Kitts and NevisDominican RepublicEcuador Trinidad and TobagoEcuadorEl Salvador United StatesEl SalvadorGuatemala VenezuelaGrenadaHaiti GuatemalaHonduras HaitiMexico HondurasNicaragua JamaicaPanama MexicoParaguay NicaraguaPeru PanamaSuriname ParaguayUruguay Peru Suriname Uruguay

Hearings (

On-Site Visits

The Commission prepares country reports on the situation of human rights in member states

COUNTRYREPORTS Colombia 2014 Colombia 2014 Jamaica 2012 Jamaica 2012 Honduras 2010 Honduras 2010 Venezuela 2009 Venezuela 2009 Honduras 2009 Honduras 2009 Haiti 2008 Haiti 2008 Colombia 2004 Colombia 2004 Guatemala 2003 Guatemala 2003 Venezuela 2003 Venezuela 2003 Guatemala 2001 Guatemala 2001 Paraguay 2001 Paraguay 2001 Peru 2000 Peru 2000 Canada 2000 Canada 2000 Dominican Republic 1999 Dominican Republic 1999 Colombia 1999 Colombia 1999 Mexico 1998 Mexico 1998 Brazil 1997 Brazil 1997 Bolivia 1996 Bolivia 1996 Ecuador 1997 Ecuador 1997 Haiti 1995 Haiti 1995 El Salvador 1994 El Salvador 1994 Haiti 1994 Haiti 1994 Communities of Peoples in Resistance in Guatemala 1994 Communities of Peoples in Resistance in Guatemala 1994 Colombia 1993 Colombia 1993 Guatemala 1993 Haiti 1993 Peru 1993 CAYARA Haiti 1990 Panama 1989 Haiti 1988 Paraguay 1987 Chile 1985 Guatemala 1985 Suriname 1985 Guatemala 1983 Cuba 1983 (Seventh) Nicaraguan population of Miskito origin 1983 Suriname 1983 Colombia 1981 Guatemala 1981 Bolivia 1981 Nicaragua 1981 Argentina 1980

INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS INSTRUMENTS CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES AMERICAN DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE AREA OF ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS "PROTOCOL OF SAN SALVADOR" PROTOCOL TO THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TORTURE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION, PUNISHMENT AND ERADICATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN "CONVENTION OF BEL É M DO PAR Á " INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS MANDATE THE IACHR: Processes cases from individuals alleging violations of their human rights (as defined by the American Declaration or the American Convention) against Member States of the OAS; Holds public or closed hearings (on cases, precautionary measures or thematic issues); prepares and publishes country, thematic and follow-up reports as well as individual case reports; Issues precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm; conducts in-loco visits to Member States and prepares reports; issues press communiqu é s on matters of concern; organizes country and thematic Rapporteurships; organizes and participates in conferences and seminars; Litigates contentious cases before the Inter-American Court; requests advisory opinions from the Inter-American Court.

Comparison between petitions accepted for processing and those not accepted for processing

Requirements for the admissibility of a petition Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Exhaustion of domestic remedies; Six-months rule (that the petition be lodged 6 months from the date of notification of the final judgment; Six-months rule (that the petition be lodged 6 months from the date of notification of the final judgment; Duplication (that the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement); Duplication (that the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement); Characterization (that the facts characterize a violation of the American Declaration or the American Convention). Characterization (that the facts characterize a violation of the American Declaration or the American Convention).

The concept of “natural judge” in the American Convention Article 8. Right to a Fair Trial 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 2. Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven according to law. During the proceedings, every person is entitled, with full equality, to the following minimum guarantees: a. the right of the accused to be assisted without charge by a translator or interpreter, if he does not understand or does not speak the language of the tribunal or court; b. prior notification in detail to the accused of the charges against him; c. adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense; d. the right of the accused to defend himself personally or to be assisted by legal counsel of his own choosing, and to communicate freely and privately with his counsel; e. the inalienable right to be assisted by counsel provided by the state, paid or not as the domestic law provides, if the accused does not defend himself personally or engage his own counsel within the time period established by law; f. the right of the defense to examine witnesses present in the court and to obtain the appearance, as witnesses, of experts or other persons who may throw light on the facts; g. the right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself or to plead guilty; and h. the right to appeal the judgment to a higher court. 3. A confession of guilt by the accused shall be valid only if it is made without coercion of any kind. 4. An accused person acquitted by a non-appealable judgment shall not be subjected to a new trial for the same cause. 5. Criminal proceedings shall be public, except insofar as may be necessary to protect the interests of justice.

Issues of military jurisdiction generally involved two situations 1)Questions relating to the treatment of civilians by military courts; 2)Military court proceedings, or the lack thereof, against military officials charged with violations of human rights.

The Peruvian “terrorism” and “treason against the fatherland” cases The case of Lori Berenson v. Peru, Nov. 25, 2004 Prohibition on military courts trying civilians labeled as “terrorists”

Scope of military jurisdiction “Under the democratic rule of law, the military criminal jurisdiction should have a very restricted and exceptional scope and be designed to protect special juridical interests associated with the functions assigned by law to the military forces. Hence, it should only try military personnel for committing crimes or misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system.” “Under the democratic rule of law, the military criminal jurisdiction should have a very restricted and exceptional scope and be designed to protect special juridical interests associated with the functions assigned by law to the military forces. Hence, it should only try military personnel for committing crimes or misdemeanors that, due to their nature, harm the juridical interests of the military system.”

Estado peruano no indemnizará a terrorista Chileno Castillo Petruzzi (‘The Peruvian State will not indemnify the Chilean terrorist Castillo Petruzzi’)

Guantanamo Detainees Precautionary measures- March 12, 2002

Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, (September 29, 1999) Retired military officials are civilians and cannot be tried in a military court.

Palamara Iribarne v. Chile, (November 22, 2005) Ética y Servicios de Inteligencia' ('Ethics and Intelligence Services'), Reforma a la Justicia Militar

2) Military court proceedings, or the lack thereof, against military officials charged with violations of human rights. The problem of Impunity “The total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.”

“Amnesty Law” cases Barrios Altos v. Peru Case, Judgment of March 14, 2001 Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, Judgment of September 26, 2006 Case of Gomez-Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, Judgment of November 24, 2010 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Judgment of February 24, 2011

The Simon Case (2005 Argentina) Fallo de la Corte Suprema de la Nación declarando inconstitucionales las leyes de Obediencia Debida y el Punto Final 14 de Junio de 2005

The Mexican forced disappearance and rape cases Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico (November 23, 2009 )

Rape is to be investigated by civilian not military courts Ines Fernandez Ortega et al. v. Mexico, (August 30, 2010) Valentina Rosendo Cantu et al. v. Mexico (August 31, 2010)

The case of Rodolfo Correa Belisle v Argentina Friendly Settlement Report Nº 15/10 The case of Rodolfo Correa Belisle v Argentina Friendly Settlement Report Nº 15/10 The abolition of military jurisdiction (2007) The abolition of military jurisdiction (2007)

Exposición de motivos [Reasons for the change in the law] Exposición Código de Justicia Militar BUENOS AIRES,AL HONORABLE CONGRESO DE LA NACIÓN: Tengo el agrado de dirigirme a Vuestra Honorabilidad a fin de someter a su consideración el proyecto de ley tendiente a la reforma integral del sistema de justicia militar vigente (Ley N° y modificatorias), que hace necesaria su derogación a la luz de las exigencias propias del proceso de transformación institucional democrática que se encuentran atravesando las FUERZAS ARMADAS, del que no pueden mantenerse excluidas las reglas mediante las que se juzgan y definen las conductas disciplinarias y delictivas de quienes las integran. Si bien la transformación que aquí se propone es una asignatura pendiente hacia el sector militar desde el momento mismo de la recuperación de la vida democrática, fueron antecedentes inmediatos de este Proyecto que hoy proponemos, los compromisos asumidos por el Estado Argentino en los casos Nº — caratulado “Rodolfo Correa Belisle v. Argentina”— y Nº — caratulado “Argüelles y otros vs. Argentina”— del registro de la COMISIÓN INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS. En ambos casos, el ESTADO NACIONAL se comprometió, como parte del proceso de solución amistosa, a impulsar la reforma integral del sistema de administración de justicia penal en el ámbito castrense, a fin de adecuarlo a los estándares internacionales de derechos humanos aplicables a la materia.

Repeal of the Argentine Code of Military Justice (2007) The new system of military justice in Argentina– Law (2008) The new system of military justice in Argentina– Law (2008) -modernization of the Armed Forces; -modernization of the Armed Forces; -a new system of military justice which recognizes fundamental rights of military personnel; -a new system of military justice which recognizes fundamental rights of military personnel; -agile mechanisms for dealing with disciplinary cases. -agile mechanisms for dealing with disciplinary cases.

Emerging trend towards abolition or restriction of military jurisdiction to a very narrow scope Counter indications – Peru and Colombia

Colombian Senate approves draft law in the second of eight debates on military jurisdiction

By way of conclusion The civilianization of the Armed Forces