A. Creation of the Court

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Court” or “the Inter-American Court” or “the Tribunal”) was brought into being by the entry into force of the American Convention on Human Rights or the “Pact of San José, Costa Rica” (hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), which occurred on July 18, 1978, upon the deposit of the eleventh instrument of ratification by a Member State of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “the OAS” or “the Organization”). The Convention was adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, which took place November 7-22, 1969, in San José, Costa Rica.

The two organs for the protection of human rights provided for under Article 33 of the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, are the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Commission” or “the Inter-American Commission”) and the Court.  The function of these organs is to ensure the fulfillment of the commitments made by the States Parties to the Convention.

B. Organization of the Court

In accordance with the terms of the Statute of the Court (hereinafter “the Statute”), the Court is an autonomous judicial institution which has its seat in San José, Costa Rica, and has as its purpose the application and interpretation of the Convention.

The Court consists of seven judges, nationals of the Member States of the OAS, who act in an individual capacity and are elected “from among jurists of the highest moral authority and of recognized competence in the field of human rights, who possess the qualifications required for the exercise of the highest judicial functions in conformity with the law of the state of which they are nationals or of the state that proposes them as candidates” (Article 52 of the Convention). Article 8 of the Statute provides that the Secretary General of the OAS shall request the States Parties to the Convention to submit a list of their candidates for the position of judge of the Court. In accordance with Article 53(2) of the Convention, each State Party may propose up to three candidates.

The judges are elected by the States Parties to the Convention for a term of six years.  The election is by secret ballot and by and absolute majority vote in the OAS General Assembly immediately prior to the expiration of the terms of the outgoing judges. Vacancies on the Court caused by death, permanent disability, resignation or dismissal, shall be filled, if possible, at the next session of the OAS General Assembly (Article 6(1) and 6(2) of the Statute).

Judges whose terms have expired shall continue to serve with regard to cases that they have begun to hear and that are still pending (Article 54(3) of the Convention).

If necessary in order to preserve a quorum of the Court, one or more interim judges may be appointed by the States Parties to the Convention (Article 6(3) of the Statute).  “If a judge is a national of any of the States Parties to a case submitted to the Court, [that judge] shall retain [the] right to hear that case. If one of the judges called upon to hear a case is a national of one of the States Parties to the case, any other State Party to the case may appoint a person to serve on the Court as an ad hoc judge. If among the judges called upon to hear a case, none is a national of the States Parties to the case, each of the latter may appoint an ad hoc judge” (Article 10(1), 10(2) and 10(3) of the Statute).

States parties to a case are represented in the proceedings before the Court by the Agents they designate (Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure).

The judges are at the disposal of the Court and hold as many regular sessions a year as may be necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. They may also meet in special sessions when convoked by the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) or at the request of a majority of the judges.  Although the judges are not required to reside at the seat of the Court, the President shall render his services on a permanent basis (Article 16 of the Statute and Articles 11 and 12 of the Rules of Procedure).

The President and Vice President are elected by the judges for a period of two years and may be reelected (Article 12 of the Statute).

There is a Permanent Commission of the Court (hereinafter “the Permanent Commission”) composed of the President, the Vice President and any other judge that the President considers convenient, according to the needs of the Court. The Court may also create other commissions for specific matters (Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure).

The Secretariat functions under the direction of a Secretary, who is elected by the Court (Article 14 of the Statute).

C. Composition of the Court

The composition of the Court is as follows, in order of precedence (Article 13 of the Statute):

Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President

Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President

Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua)

Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile)

Oliver Jackman (Barbados)

Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela)

Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil)

The Secretary of the Court is Manuel E. Ventura-Robles (Costa Rica) and the Interim Deputy Secretary is Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia (Costa Rica), who on August 28, 1996, replaced the incumbent, Ana María Reina (Argentina), after she was granted leave by the Court.

D. Jurisdictions of the Court

The Convention confers contentious and advisory functions on the Court. The first function involves the power to adjudicate disputes relating to charges that a State Party has violated the Convention.  The second function involves the power of the Member States to request that the Court interpret the Convention or “other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states.” Within their spheres of competence, the organs listed in the Charter of the OAS may in like manner consult the Court.

1. The Contentious Jurisdiction of the Court

The contentious jurisdiction of the Court is spelled out in Article 62 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

 1. A State Party may, upon depositing its instrument of ratification or adherence to this Convention, or at any subsequent time, declare that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention.

 2. Such declaration may be made unconditionally, on the condition of reciprocity, for a specified period, or for specific cases.  It shall be presented to the Secretary General of the Organization, who shall transmit copies thereof to the other member states of the Organization and to the Secretary of the Court.

 3. The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.

Since States Parties are free to accept the Court's jurisdiction at any time, a State may be invited to do so for a specific case.

Pursuant to Article 61(1) of the Convention, “[o]nly the States Parties and the Commission shall have the right to submit a case to the Court.”

Article 63(1) of the Convention contains the following provision relating to the judgments that the Court may render:

If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.

Paragraph 2 of Article 68 of the Convention provides “[t]hat part of a judgment that stipulates compensatory damages may be executed in the country concerned in accordance with domestic procedure governing the execution of judgments against the state.”

Article 63(2) of the Convention provides that:

In cases of extreme gravity and urgency, and when necessary to avoid irreparable damage to persons, the Court shall adopt such provisional measures as it deems pertinent in matters its has under consideration. With respect to a case not yet submitted to the Court, it may act at the request of the Commission.

The judgment rendered by the Court in any dispute is “final and not subject to appeal.” Nevertheless, “[i]n case of disagreement as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall interpret it at the request of any of the parties, provided the request is made within ninety days from the date of notification of the judgment.” (Article 67 of the Convention.) The States Parties “undertake to comply with the judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.” (Article 68 of the Convention.)

The Court submits a report on its work to the General Assembly at each regular session, and it “[s]hall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments.” (Article 65 of the Convention.)

2. The Advisory Jurisdiction of the Court

Article 64 of the Convention reads as follows:

 1. The member states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states. Within their spheres of competence, the organs listed in Chapter X of the Charter of the Organization of American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, may in like manner consult the Court.

 2. The Court, at the request of a member state of the Organization, may provide that state with opinions regarding the compatibility of any of its domestic laws with the aforesaid international instruments.

The standing to request an advisory opinion from the Court is not limited to the States Parties to the Convention, any OAS Member State may request such an opinion.

Likewise, the advisory jurisdiction of the Court enhances the Organization's capacity to deal with questions arising from the application of the Convention, for it enables the organs of the OAS to consult the Court within their spheres of competence.

3. Recognition of the Contentious Jurisdiction of the  Court

Seventeen States Parties have now recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court.  They are Costa Rica, Peru, Venezuela, Honduras, Ecuador, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala, Suriname, Panama, Chile, Nicaragua, Trinidad and Tobago, Paraguay, Bolivia and El Salvador.

The status of ratifications and accessions to the Convention may be found at the end of this report (Appendix XLIII).

E. Budget

Article 72 of the Convention provides that “the Court shall draw up its own budget and submit it for approval to the General Assembly through the General Secretariat.  The latter may not introduce any changes in it.”  Pursuant to Article 26 of its Statute, the Court administers its own budget.

F. Relations with Other Similar Regional Organizations

The Court has close institutional ties with the Commission. These ties have been strengthened by meetings between the members of the two bodies, held at the recommendation of the General Assembly. The Court also maintains cooperative relations with the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, established under an agreement between the Government of Costa Rica and the Court which entered into force on November 17, 1980.  The Institute is an autonomous international academic institution with a global, multidisciplinary approach to the teaching, research and promotion of human rights. The Court also maintains institutional ties with the European Court of Human Rights, which was established by the Council of Europe and has functions similar to those of the Inter-American Court.

II. ACTIVITIES OF THE COURT

A. XXXIII Regular Session of the Court

The Court held its XXXIII Regular Session from January 22 to February 3, 1997, at its seat in San José, Costa Rica. The composition of the Court was as follows: Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela) and Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil). Also sitting were Edgar Enrique Larraondo-Salguero, Judge ad hoc for the Paniagua Morales et al. Case against Guatemala; Julio A. Barberis, Judge ad hoc for the Garrido and Baigorria case against Argentina; Alfonso Novales-Aguirre, Judge ad hoc for the Blake Case against Guatemala, and Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico, Judge ad hoc for the Neira Alegría et al. Case against Peru. Also present were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Ana María Reina, Deputy Secretary.

The following matters were considered during this session:

1. Paniagua Morales et al. Case

On January 25, 1996 the Tribunal rendered a judgment on preliminary objections in the Paniagua Morales et al. Case. The objections raised by the Republic of Guatemala and contested by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights were: prescription of the right of the Commission to submit this case for a decision of the Court, and absolute legal invalidity of the application in the case.

On January 26, 1996 the Court read at a public session this judgment, in which it decided by six votes to one to reject the preliminary objections presented by Guatemala and to proceed with consideration of the case. Judge ad hoc Larraondo Salguero issued a dissenting opinion (Appendix I).

2. Castillo Páez Case

On January 30, 1996 the Court rendered a judgment on the following preliminary objections: failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and inadmissibility of the petition. On February 2, 1996 the Tribunal read at a public session the judgment on preliminary objections, in which it unanimously decided to dismiss the preliminary objections raised by Guatemala, and to proceed with the consideration of the merits of the case (Appendix II). Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade presented a Separate Opinion.

3. Loayza Tamayo Case

On January 31, 1996 the Court delivered a judgment on the preliminary objections in this case. The preliminary objection raised by the Peru was failure to exhaust all domestic remedies. In that judgment the Court unanimously decided to dismiss the preliminary objection filed by the Government of Peru and proceed with consideration of the case (Appendix III). Judge Antônio Cançado Trindade issued a Separate Opinion.

The judgment was read at a public session held on February 2, 1996.

4. Garrido and Baigorria Case

On February 1, 1996 the Court held a public hearing to consider the merits of the case, and on Friday, February 2 it read the judgment at a public session in which it unanimously decided to take note of Argentina's recognition of the acts set forth in the application and its international responsibility for those acts. The Court granted the Parties a period of six months from the date of the Judgment to reach an agreement on reparations and compensation, and reserved the right to review and approve that agreement and, should no agreement be reached, to continue the proceedings on reparations and compensation (Appendix IV).

5. Colotenango and Carpio Nicolle Cases. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

The Court reviewed the reports submitted by the Republic of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission on the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal in the Colotenango and Carpio Nicolle Cases, before the Commission.  Through Orders of February 1, 1996, the Court decided to extend the provisional measures for a period of six months in both cases (Appendixes V and VI respectively).

6. Alemán Lacayo Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Nicaragua

On February 2, 1996 the Commission submitted to the Court a request for provisional measures in the Alemán Lacayo Case (No.11.281) before the Commission, to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Arnoldo Alemán-Lacayo, a then candidate for the Presidency of the Republic of Nicaragua.  The Court unanimously called upon the Government of Nicaragua to adopt, forthwith, such measures as were necessary to protect the life and personal integrity of Mr. Alemán-Lacayo and to avoid irreparable damage to him; to investigate the events and punish those responsible for them, and to submit a monthly report concerning the provisional measures which it had taken. It called up the Inter-American Commission to forward to the Court its observations on such report within fifteen days of its receipt, and to include that matter on the agenda of the next regular session of the Court in order to analyze the results of the measures adopted by the Government of Nicaragua (Appendix VII).

7. Public Hearings on Reparations

Pursuant to its Judgment of January 19, 1995, the Court held a public hearing on January 26, 1996 to allow the Republic of Peru and the Inter-American Commission to voice their opinions on the reparations and costs in the Neira Alegría et al. Case.

On January 27, the Court heard the views of the Republic of Venezuela and of the Inter-American Commission on the reparations in the El Amparo Case, as a result of the Tribunal's Judgment of January 18, 1995, in which it had unanimously decided to take note of the recognition of responsibility expressed by the Republic of Venezuela.

8. Other Matters

On February 2, 1996 the Court issued an Order for the purpose of regulating the proceedings in regard to the admission of evidence during the processing of cases submitted to it, in which it decided that “evidence shall be admissible only if it is indicated in the application and the reply thereto, and in the communication setting out the preliminary objections.” That Order also stated that in cases of force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence “the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the other party is guaranteed the right of defense” (Appendix VIII).

The Tribunal reviewed and approved the Annual Report of the activities of the Court for 1995 which was due to be presented to the General Assembly of the OAS in Panama City, Panama, at its XXVI Regular Session. It also reviewed and approved the external audit of the Court ordered by its President, Judge Héctor Fix-Zamudio, for the period from January 1 to December 31, 1995, which was later delivered to the OAS General Secretariat. The Court also considered administrative and budgetary matters.

B. Presentation of the Court's Annual Report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters of the Permanent Council of the OAS and Presentation of the Draft Budget of the Court to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters

From March 18 to 26, 1996 Judges Héctor Fix-Zamudio, President, and Hernán Salgado‑Pesantes, Vice President, accompanied by the Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, visited the headquarters of the OAS in Washington, D.C. in order to present the Court's 1995 Annual Report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters of the Permanent Council of the OAS, and the Court's 1997 draft budget to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters.

The Committee on Juridical and Political Matters presented its recommendations on the Annual Report of the Court; those recommendations were endorsed by the Permanent Council of the OAS and approved by the General Assembly in the terms indicated below.

During this visit to Washington, D.C. the Judges of the Inter-American Court were received by the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters, to which the President of the Court explained the projected budget for the year 1997.  He also answered a number of questions about the proposed budget from the representatives of the Member States, who considered that the visit had been very important for their full understanding of the functioning and needs of the Tribunal.

C. XXVI Regular Session of the General Assembly of the OAS

At the XXVI Regular Session of the General Assembly of the OAS, which took place in Panama City, Panama, from June 3 to 6, 1996, the Court was represented by its President, Judge Héctor Fix‑Zamudio, and its Vice President, Judge Hernán Salgado-Pesantes. The Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, also attended.

1. Annual Report of the Court for the year 1995

Through Resolution AG/RES.1394 (XXVI-O/96) adopted at the eighth plenary meeting on June 7, 1996, the Assembly approved the Annual Report of the activities of the Court for the year 1995:

1. To note with satisfaction the work of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights the period covered by this report and to urge it to continue fulfilling its important function.

2. To thank the European Union for its contribution to enable the Court to execute the project entitled “Support for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Second Stage.”

3. To thank the Government of the Netherlands for its donation to the Documentation Center and Joint Library of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights of 246 volumes of the “Recueil des Cours - Collected Courses” published by the Hague Academy of International Law, as well as of volumes of the discussions of workshops held by the same institution.

4. To support the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its requests for funds to continue fulfilling the important functions entrusted to it by the American Convention on Human Rights and to formulate the corresponding recommendations.

5. To appeal to the member states of the OAS that have not yet done so to ratify or accede to the American Convention on Human Rights, “Pact of San José,” and to consider accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

6. To receive and transmit to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights the observations and recommendations of the Permanent Council of the Organization of the annual report.

7. To recommend to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that, in its annual report, in addition to the purpose of its periodic meetings with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it include a detailed account of the results of those meetings.

2. Approval of the Budget of the Court for 1997

The Assembly approved the budget of the Court for 1997 in the amount of US$1,035,700 (one million thirty-five thousand and seven hundred United States dollars.)

D. XIX Special Session of the Court

The XIX Regular Session of the Court was held from June 26 to July 3, 1996 at the seat of the Court in San José, Costa Rica. The composition of the Court was as follows: Héctor Fix‑Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado‑Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil), and Alfonso Novales-Aguirre, Judge ad hoc in the Blake case. For reasons beyond his control, Judge Máximo Pacheco‑Gómez (Chile) was unable to attend. Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.

The following matters were considered during that session of the Court:

1. Blake Case

On July 2, 1996 the Court rendered a judgment rejecting the following preliminary objections raised by the Government of Guatemala and refuted by the Inter-American Commission: incompetence of the Court to try the case; incompetence of the Court to deal with the application by reason of its subject, and violation by the Commission of Article 29(d) of the American Convention.  Judge Cançado Trindade and Judge Novales-Aguirre presented separate concurring opinions (Appendix IX).

2. Loayza Tamayo Case

On June 27, 1996 the Court decided to reject as unlawful the appeal for “nullification” lodged by the Government of Peru against the Judgment on Preliminary Objections rendered in this case on January 31, 1996, in which the Court unanimously decided to reject the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, raised by the Government of the Republic of Peru, and to continue to hear the case (Appendix X).

On July 2, 1996, the Court decided to reject the motion for disqualification of witnesses raised by the Government of Peru in this case.

On the same date, the Court adopted provisional measures on behalf of María Elena Loayza-Tamayo. In endorsing the Order of the President of June 12, 1996 (Appendix XI), the Court ordered that the Government adopt forthwith such measures as were necessary to effectively ensure the physical, psychological and moral integrity of Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo (Appendix XII).

3. Vogt Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

On June 26, 1996 the Court held a public hearing at its seat, at which it heard the pleadings of the Government of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission in regard to the provisional measures in the Vogt Case before the Commission. The Commission itself requested the public hearing on March 28, 1996 in order to protect the life and physical integrity of Father Daniel Joseph Vogt, a Catholic priest carrying out his evangelical work in Guatemala.  On April 12, 1996 the President of the Court decided to request that the Government of the Republic of Guatemala adopt forthwith such measures as were needed to protect the life and physical integrity of Father Vogt to avoid him suffering any irreparable damage, and that it investigate the events and punish those responsible (Appendix XIII).  On June 27, 1996 the Court decided to ratify all the terms of the Order delivered by the President on April 12, 1996 (Appendix XIV).

4. Serech and Saquic Case.  Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

On June 27, 1996 a public hearing was held so the Government of Guatemala and the Inter-American Commission could state their pleadings with regard to the provisional measures in the Serech and Saquic Case, requested by the Commission on April 12, 1996 to protect the lives and physical integrity of Blanca Margarita Valiente de Similox, Vitalino and Sotero Similox, María Francisca Ventura-Sicán, Lucio Martínez, Maximiliano Solís, Bartolo Solís, Julio Solís-Hernández, María Magdalena Sunún-González, Héctor Solís, José Solís, Gregoria Gómez, Juan García, Eliseo Calel and Víctor Tuctuc; all in connection with the investigation of the events relating to the murders of Reverends Pascual Serech and Manuel Saquic.

On June 28, 1996 the Court decided to ratify all the terms (Appendix XVI) of the Order delivered by the President on April 24, 1996, in which he called upon the Government of Guatemala to adopt forthwith such measures as might be necessary to protect the lives and physical integrity of the above-named persons and to avoid irreparable damage to them, to investigate the acts perpetrated against them, and to punish those responsible (Appendix XV).

5. Suárez Rosero Case.  Provisional Measures in the Matter of Ecuador

Through Order of June 28, 1996 (Appendix XIX), the Court decided to revoke the urgent measures issued by the President of the Court on April 12, 1996 in this case (Appendix XVII) and expanded by Order of the President of April 24 (Appendix XVIII), inasmuch as the Government of Ecuador had on March 26, 1996 submitted documentation regarding the release of Mr. Suárez-Rosero, and the Commission had on June 10, 1996 presented a communication declaring that it was desisting from its request for provisional measures.

6. Consideration of a New Case

The Court began hearing the Benavides Cevallos Case against Ecuador, submitted by the Commission on March 21, 1996.

7. Other Matters

In order to resolve problems relating to quorum, the Tribunal decided by Order of June 26, 1996 “[t]hat the receipt of testimonial and expert evidence in the proceedings before it may be verified by the presence of one or more of its members at a public hearing at the seat of the Court or in situ” (Appendix XX).

In view of the leave of absence granted to Ana María Reina, Deputy Secretary of the Court, Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia was appointed Interim Deputy Secretary for the period from August 28, 1996 to August 27, 1997. Some administrative matters and proposed revisions of the Rules of Procedure of the Court were also discussed.

E. XX Special Session of the Court

From September 5 to 7, 1996 the XX Special Session of the Court was held at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, to hear the testimonial evidence in the Genie Lacayo Case. Since a quorum had not been attained, the Order of the Court of July 8, 1996 was invoked and the judges present at this Special Session were authorized to take the evidence on the merits of the case (Appendix XXI). The public hearing was held at the seat of the Court on September 5 and 6, 1996 and the testimony of a number of witnesses produced by the Commission were heard on the merits of the case.  On September 6, the Court also heard the oral pleadings made by the Government of Nicaragua and the Commission with regard to the testimonies on merits thus far received.

The Judges present to hear the evidence in this case were as follows:  Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia), and Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua.) Judge Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile) was unable to attend for reasons beyond his control.  Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura‑Robles, Secretary, and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.

F. XXXIV Regular Session of the Court

The XXXIV Regular Session of the Tribunal was held at its seat in San José, Costa Rica, from September 7 to 20, 1996. The composition of the Court was as follows: Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua); Oliver Jackman (Barbados); Alirio Abreu-Burelli (Venezuela), and Antônio A. Cançado Trindade (Brazil). Judge Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile) was unable to attend for reasons beyond his control. Also present were Rafael Nieto‑Navia, Judge ad hoc designated by the Government of the Republic of Colombia for the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, and Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico, Judge ad hoc designated by the Government of Peru for the Neira Alegría et al. Case. Also in attendance were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Víctor Manuel Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.

At this regular session the Court considered the following matters:

1. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case

The Court held a public hearing at its seat on September 7, 1996 to hear the pleas brought by the Inter-American Commission and the Government of Colombia on the reparations in the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. The above hinged on the fact that on December 8, 1995 the Court had rendered a Judgment on the Merits and decided, by four votes to one, that the Government of Colombia was obligated to pay fair compensation to the relatives of the victims and that the manner and amount of the compensation would be fixed by the Court.

2. El Amparo Case

On September 20, 1996 the Court read at a public session the Judgment on Reparations of September 14, 1996 in the El Amparo Case against Venezuela (Appendix XXII).  In that judgment the Court set the total reparations at US$722,332.20 to be paid to the next of kin and the surviving victims by the State of Venezuela within six months from the date of notification of that judgment.

Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade issued a dissenting opinion on the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment.

3. Neira Alegría et al. Case

On September 20, 1996 the Court read at a public session the Judgment of September 19, 1996 on Reparations in the Neira Alegría et al. Case against Peru (Appendix XXIII).   In that judgment the Court set the total reparations at US$154,040.74 to be paid to the next of kin of the victims by the State of Peru within six months from the date of notification of the that judgment.

Judge ad hoc Jorge E. Orihuela-Iberico issued a dissenting opinion on the first operative paragraph of the judgment, which determined the amount of the compensation and the manner in which it was to be paid.

4. Colotenango Case.  Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

On September 10, 1996 the Court decided to maintain for six months as of that date the provisional measures granted in this case (Appendix XXIV).

5. Carpio Nicolle Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Guatemala

On September 10, 1996 the Court decided to maintain the provisional measures set forth in the Order of September 19, 1995 and extended by the Order of February 1, 1996.  The Court also decided to call upon the Government of Guatemala to report to the Court every two months from the date of notification of this Order, on the measures it had taken in the case and upon the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to dispatch its comments on that information to the Court no later than one month from the date of its receipt (Appendix XXV).

6. Loayza Tamayo Case. Provisional Measures in the Matter of Peru

On September 13, 1996 the Court decided to call upon the Government of Peru to alter the situation in which Ms. María Elena Loayza-Tamayo was imprisoned, particularly as regards to the conditions of solitary confinement to which she was subjected, in order to comply with Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Order of the Court of July 2, 1996.  The Court also called upon the Government of Peru to provide appropriate medical treatment to Ms. Loayza Tamayo (Appendix XXVI).

7. Closure of the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz Cases

On September 10, 1996 the Court decided to close the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz Cases and to communicate that decision to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States inasmuch as both the Government of the Republic of Honduras and the Inter-American Commission had deemed the Judgments on the Compensatory Damages and on the Interpretations rendered by the Inter-American Court on July 12, 1989 and August 17, 1990 respectively to have been fulfilled (Appendixes XXVII and XXVIII respectively).

8. Castillo Páez Case

On September 10, 1996 the Court decided to dismiss as unlawful an appeal for “nullification” of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections rendered in this case on January 30, 1996, in which the Tribunal unanimously decided to dismiss the objections of the Government of Peru and to proceed with the consideration of the merits of the case (Appendix XXIX).

On that same day the Court decided to dismiss the motion brought by the Government of Peru for the disqualification of witnesses in this case.

9. Amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Court

During this Regular Session the Court approved a sweeping reform of its Rules of Procedure, to take effect on January 1, 1997. The amendments contained in these new Rules included authorizing the victims or their representatives to act independently only during the reparations phase of a case, and improved the order in which the various topics are set out in the Rules of Procedure (Appendix XXX).

10. Draft Cooperation Agreement between the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

On July 10, 1996, by authorization of the President, the Secretary of the Court met with the Commission for Modernization of Costa Rica's Judiciary to seek its cooperation in computerization and systematizing case files. The purpose was to computerize the processing of cases before the Court -currently numbering 26- so that the Judges, Secretaries and Attorneys of the Secretariat could enjoy immediate access to the up-to-date information they may need on each specific case. The Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica has accumulated valuable experience in this field.

The Secretariat of the Court prepared a draft cooperation agreement which was approved by this Tribunal and dispatched to the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica for its approval and, if possible, it would be signed by both parties during the first session of the Court in January 1997.

G. Visit by the Court to Washington, D.C. from December 2 to 6, 1996- Fulfillment of the Mandates of the OAS General Assembly

The seven Judges who sit on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and its two Secretaries visited Washington, D.C. from December 2 to 6, 1996 at the invitation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in order to:

a. Take part in the Seminar on the Inter-American System of Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, organized by the Inter-American Commission, which took place at OAS Headquarters from December 2 to 4, 1996.  The Judges participated in the seminar in compliance with the mandate of the General Assembly referred to below (see point 4 of this paragraph.)

b. Meet with the OAS Secretary General, Dr. César Gaviria Trujillo, on December 4 (see point 5 of this paragraph.)

c. To meet with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on December 5, pursuant to a number of resolutions of the OAS General Assembly, as explained below (see points 1, 3 and 4 of this paragraph.)

d. To attend a meeting of the OAS Permanent Council's Committee on Juridical and Political Matters, likewise pursuant to a mandate from the General Assembly (see point 2 of this paragraph.)

e. To hold a private meeting of the Court on December 6 to approve the Tribunal's work program for 1997.

Meeting with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1996 in compliance with a number of mandates from the General Assembly

1. Fulfillment of the Mandates of the General Assembly

AG/RES.1330 (XXXV-O/95) and AG/RES.1041 (XX-O/90)

In the above resolution the General Assembly decided:

 7. To recommend to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that, in its annual report, in addition to the purpose of its periodic meetings with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it include a detailed account of the results of those meetings.

In compliance of operative paragraph 7 of the Resolution, the following is the report of that meeting:

Meeting with the Inter-American Commission in 1996

On Thursday, December 5 the Court and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights met for the purpose, inter alia, of establishing a mechanism whereby both organs could cooperate with each other, within their spheres of competence, to better protect human rights. This meeting fulfilled, for 1996, the General Assembly's mandate contained in AG/RES. 1041 (XX-O/90.)

The agenda of that meeting was as follows:

A) Topics proposed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

a. Fulfillment of the Mandate of the General Assembly contained in AG/RES. 1041 (XX-O/90) in which it was decided:

 To request that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights establish coordinating mechanisms conducive to mutual cooperation within their areas of competence for the further protection of human rights.

b. Fulfillment of the General Assembly mandate contained in AG/RES. 1333 (XXV‑O/95) entitled “Draft Regulations on Incompatibilities of the Members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, External Advisers to the Commission, and Students Rendering Services Free of Charge as Part of their Training at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” reiterated in AG/RES. 1417 (XXVI-O/96.)

c. Fulfillment of the Mandates of the General Assembly contained in AG/RES. 1330 (XXXV-O/95) and AG/RES. 1394 (XXVI-O/96).

To recommend to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that, in its annual report, in addition to the purpose of its periodic meetings with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it include a detailed account of the results of those meetings.

d. Fulfillment of the Mandate of the General Assembly AG/RES. 1404 (XXVI‑O/96).

 13.  To instruct the Permanent Council to evaluate the workings of the inter-American system for the protection and promotion of human rights so as to initiate a process leading to its improvement, possibly by modifying the respective legal instruments as well as the methods and working procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, for which it shall request the cooperation of the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and to instruct it to report to the General Assembly at its next regular session.

....

 15.  To promote dialogue between member states, between those states and the Inter-American Commission on and Court of Human Rights, and with experts in the field, so as to contribute to a process of reflection leading to improvement of the inter-American human rights system.

e. Information on the new Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court to take effect from January 1, 1997. Main changes. Individual participation at the reparations phase, extension of time periods for presentation of briefs, etc.

f. Date of the next meeting of the Court and the Commission in San José, Costa Rica.

B. Topics proposed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

a. Cases in general, especially the following aspects:

- Ex-parte communications.

- Presentation of the Commission's evidence.

- Duration of the Proceeding.

- Representation of the Victims.

- Content of the Reparation.

- Compliance of the Judgments of the Court.

b. Presence of the Commission and the Court regarding follow-up of the themes of the Summit of the Americas.

C. Agreements reached at the meeting

At the meeting with the Inter-American Commission on December 5, 1996 the following agreements were reached:

- To hold an annual meeting for the purpose of taking joint administrative initiatives on budgetary measures to enhance their individual and shared functions.

- Pursuant to the decisions taken at the annual meetings, to bring together the governing bodies of both organs when they both present their annual reports to the OAS Permanent Council.

- To establish a mechanism for exchanging information to coordinate partial or total reforms of the regulations of both organs or amendments to the system's human rights instruments.

- To entrust the Secretaries of the Court and the Commission with the task of providing offices at their headquarters to provide the parties to a cases with a place they can use for their own business during working session and public hearings.

- That the Secretaries of both organs maintain on-going dialogue and be invited to plenary sessions.

- To exchange non-confidential agreements, decisions and resolutions the content of which can improve coordination.

- The Commission will contemplate the possibility of reforming its Regulations so that it may gather testimonial and expert evidence from both Parties in order to avoid that the Court be obliged to do so at public hearings, thus expediting a final ruling.

2. Mandate of the Permanent Council of the OAS to reform the Juridical Instruments for the Protection of Human Rights- Meeting with the Commission on Juridical and Political Matters

Through resolution AG/RES.1404 (XXVI‑O/96), the General Assembly of the OAS decided:

 13.  To instruct the Permanent Council to evaluate the workings of the inter-American system for the protection and promotion of human rights so as to initiate a process leading to its improvement, possibly by modifying the respective legal instruments as well as the methods and working procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, for which it shall request the cooperation of the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights; and to instruct it to report to the General Assembly at its next regular session.

The Commission on Juridical and Political Matters, in compliance with the mandate of the General Assembly, requested the Secretary General of the OAS, the Court, and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit papers including the practices and procedures of the organs of the system so that they could be evaluated and reforms suggested.  The President of the Court instructed the Secretariat to prepare the paper insofar as it refered to the Court.  Once concluded, it was presented to the Commission on Juridical and Political Matters with the title: “The Court and the Inter-American System of Human Rights, Projections and Goals,” and was received with satisfaction by the Commission.

On December 5, 1996 the Commission on Juridical and Political Matters of the Organization received the full Court and its Secretaries. The purpose of the meeting was the hear the Commission members' observations on the document. Several members of the Commission took the floor and praised the Tribunal's document for its high professional and technical quality, but they expressed concern that some Member States of the Organization had not ratified the American Convention or accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. The President of the Commission on Juridical and Political Matters, Ambassador Beatriz Ramacciotti, suggested that the Court should address some concerns expressed during the working meeting and that they would be put into writing in due course.

Lastly, the Court presented the Commission with the book “Systematization of the Contentious Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 1981-1991”, prepared by the Secretariat of the Court, which constitutes a practical instrument for studying and analyzing the contentious judgments delivered by the Tribunal.

The President of the Commission further informed the President and Secretary of the Court that a meeting of governmental experts would be held next March, 1997, to provide her Commission with more information for complying with the mandate handed down by the General Assembly.

On December 12, 1996 Ambassador Ramacciotti sent a note to the President of the Court stating, in regards to the Court's visit to the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters, that:

 As agreed at the meeting, it would be of great interest for the Commission to receive individual comments from the illustrious Judges of the Court on the various aspects raised by the delegations, in particular on the subject of promotion of human rights in the new hemispheric context.

This matter will be discussed by the Court at its XXXV Regular Session.

3. Fulfillment of Resolutions

AG/RES. 1333 (XXV‑O/95) and AG/RES. 1417 (XXVI‑O/96)

The General Assembly, through resolution AG.RES. 1333 (XXV‑O/95), reiterated in resolution AG/RES. 1417 (XXVI‑O/96). entitled “Draft Regulation on Incompatibilities of the Members of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, External Advisers of the Commission and Students rendering Free Services as Part of their Training at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” requested the Inter-American Commission to propose amendments to its Statute with regard to its members' incompatibilities with the persons indicated above, and asked the Court and the Commission to meet in order to harmonize the appropriate statutory texts.

This matter was discussed at the meeting between the Court and the Commission on December 5, 1996. The Commission's view was that since it had no external advisers among its staff there was no need to amend its Stature and Regulations. Inasmuch as the Commission had chose not to amend them, the Court decided not to amend its Regulations either.

4. Meeting of Experts to Discuss Improvement of the Inter-American System on Human Rights

Through resolution AG/RES. 1404 (XXVI‑O/96) the General Assembly decided:

 15. To promote dialogue between member states, between those states and the Inter-American Commission on and Court of Human Rights, and with experts in the field, so as to contribute to a process of reflection leading to improvement of the inter-American human rights system.

In fulfillment of this mandate, the Court attended the Seminar on the Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, held in Washington, D.C. from December 2 to 4, 1996.

5. Visit to the Secretary General of the OAS

On December 4, 1996 the full Court met the Secretary General of the OAS, Dr. César Gaviria Trujillo. At the meeting they discussed the difficulties encountered by the Court in complying with the mandates of the Convention, owing to its volume of work and the large number of witnesses and experts it was obliged to hear at its public hearings.  The Secretary General felt that most of the testimonies could be heard by the Inter-American Commission with the parties present. With regard to the Court's lack of funds to pay its staff adequately, the Secretary General, who had to be away from headquarters, arranged a meeting with the Chief of Cabinet, the OAS Subsecretary for Administration, and the President and Secretary of the Court. At this meeting it was decided that, before the Court signed an agreement according it administrative autonomy, it would propose in its 1998 budget that it be allocated the funds needed for such autonomy.

Also discussed with the Secretary General was the future of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, as proposed by him in the document “Towards a New Vision of the Inter-American System of Human Rights.”

H. Submission of New Contentious Cases to the Court

During 1996 four new contentious cases were submitted to the Court. They are:

1. Benavides Cevallos Case Against Ecuador

On March 21, 1996 the Commission submitted an application concerning events that occurred as of December 4, 1985, when agents of the Ecuadorian State are alleged to have arbitrarily and unlawfully detained Professor Consuelo Benavides-Cevallos and kept her incommunicado for several days before torturing and finally murdering her. The application also alleges that the State of Ecuador did not provide effective judicial remedies, that it denied Professor Benavides access to judicial protection and that investigation of the case continued to be hindered by the actions of the State. The Commission further requested the Court to order the State of Ecuador to take such measures as may be necessary to investigate the crimes denounced and punish those responsible; that the State publicly accept responsibility in the case and compensate the victims of the violations committed, including payment of due compensation to any persons who suffered as a result of the events. The Inter-American Commission asked the Court to declare that Ecuador had violated Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights), 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Ms. Consuelo Benavides-Cevallos (Appendix XXXI).

Once the President had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government be notified and the processing of the case began.

2. Cantoral Benavides Case Against Peru

This case was submitted to the Court on August 8, 1996. According to the Commission, Mr. Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The application also claimed that Mr. Cantoral-Benavides was tried twice for the same acts and his right to a fair trial violated.  The petition claims that the Government of Peru is responsible for violating Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of Mr. Cantoral-Benavides, all of them in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, which establishes the obligation to respect those rights. The Commission likewise considers that the Government of Peru is also responsible for violating Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention (Appendix XXXII).

Once the President had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government be notified and the processing of the case began.

3. Durand and Ugarte Case Against Peru

This case, submitted for the consideration of the Court on August 8, 1996, was brought by the Commission in connection with events that occurred as of February 14 and 15, 1986 when, according to the application, Norberto Durand-Ugarte and Gabriel Ugarte-Rivera were detained on suspicion of taking part in terrorist activities and imprisoned in the San Juan (El Frontón) Penitentiary. A riot at the penitentiary was crushed in June, 1986. Since that date, Mr. Durand-Ugarte and Mr. Ugarte-Rivera have been disappeared. However, the application adds that on July 17, 1987, the Sixth Correctional Tribunal of Lima declared the two men innocent and ordered their immediate release.  According to the application, the Government of Peru is responsible for violating Articles 4 (Right to Life), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and 27 (Suspension of Guarantees) of the American Convention on Human Rights, to the detriment of those two citizens, all of them in connection with Article 1(1) of the Convention, which establishes the obligation to respect those rights. The Commission also deems the Government to responsible for violating Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the American Convention (Appendix XXXIII).

Once the President had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government be notified and the processing of the case began.

4. Bámaca Velásquez Case Against Guatemala

This case was submitted to the Court through an application from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on August 30, 1996 against the State of Guatemala for the alleged disappearance, torture and summary execution of Efraín Bámaca-Velásquez in violation of the American Convention on Human Rights. The petition refers to events alleged to have occurred as of March 12, 1992, when members of Guatemala's Armed Forces captured Mr. Efraín Bámaca-Velázquez following an armed confrontation, kept him alive at various military facilities where Mr. Bámaca was tortured, then murdered, by members of the Guatemalan Armed Forces. The Commission further asks the Court to declare that Guatemala violated the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, that it must investigate the events and punish those responsible; inform the relatives of Mr. Bámaca's whereabouts and return his remains to them; reform the training given to the Guatemalan Armed Forces, and pay fair compensation to the victims' relatives, as well as paying the costs. The Commission asks the Court to declare that the State of Guatemala has violated the following rights: Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), all in connection with Article 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights) (Appendix XXXIV).

Once the President had made a preliminary study of the application, he ordered that the Government be notified, and the processing of the case began.

I. Cases Before the Court

To date the Court has before it sixteen contentious cases, at varying procedural stages. They are:

1. Aloeboetoe et al. Case against Suriname - phase of execution of judgment

2. Gangaram Panday Case against Suriname - phase of execution of judgment

3. Neira Alegría et al. Case against Peru - phase of execution of judgment

4. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case against Colombia - Reparations

5. Genie Lacayo Case against Nicaragua - Merits

6. El Amparo Case against Venezuela - phase of execution of judgment

7. Loayza Tamayo Case against Peru - Merits

8. Castillo Páez Case against Peru - Merits

9. Paniagua Morales et al. Case against Guatemala - Merits

10. Garrido and Baigorria Case against Argentina -Reparations

11. Blake Case against Guatemala - Merits

12. Suárez Rosero Case against Ecuador - Merits

13. Benavides Cevallos Case against Ecuador - Merits

14. Cantoral Benavides Case against Peru - Preliminary Objections

15. Durand and Ugarte Case against Peru - Preliminary Objections

16. Bámaca Velásquez Case against Guatemala - Merits

J. Submission of New Provisional Measures to the Court

During the period covered by this report, six new requests for provisional measures were made to the Court:

1. Alemán Lacayo Case in the Matter of Nicaragua (Appendix XXXV)

2. Suárez Rosero Case in the Matter of Ecuador (Appendix XXXVI)

3. Vogt Case in the Matter of Guatemala (Appendix XXXVII)

4. Serech and Saquic Case in the Matter of Guatemala (Appendix XXXVIII)

5. Loayza Tamayo Case in the Matter of Peru (Appendix XXXIX)

6. Giraldo Cardona Case in the Matter of Colombia (Appendix XL)

K. Provisional Measures Before the Court

Nine requests for provisional measures are currently before the Court.  They are:

1. Colotenango Case in the Matter of Guatemala

2. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case in the Matter of Colombia (case before the Court)

3. Carpio Nicolle Case in the Matter of Guatemala

4. Blake Case in the Matter of Guatemala (case before the Court)

5. Vogt Case in the Matter of Guatemala

6. Serech and Saquic Case in the Matter of Guatemala

7. Alemán Lacayo Case in the Matter of Nicaragua

8. Loayza Tamayo Case in the Matter of Peru (Case before the Court)

9. Giraldo Cardona Case in the Matter of Colombia

L. Submission of the Request from the Government of Chile for Advisory Opinion OC‑15

On November 13, 1996 the Government of Chile submitted, in accordance with Article 64(1) of the American Convention, a request for an advisory opinion to the Court. In that request the Government of Chile asked the Court to render its opinion as to whether the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is empowered by Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention to alter its report which had previously been unanimously approved, and publication of which had been ordered and the parties notified (Appendix XLI).

M. Transmittal by the Commission of a Brief from the Relatives of the Victims in the El Amparo Case

On December 12, 1996 the Inter-American Commission transmitted a brief, indicated as coming from the relatives of the victims, on the interpretation of the Judgment on Reparations delivered by the Court in this case on September 20, 1996. The document would be considered by the Court at its Regular Session to be held from January 27 to February 7, 1997 (Appendix XLII).

N. Compliance with the Judgments of the Court

The Court ordered the closing of the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz Cases against Honduras at the request of the Parties, who considered that the Judgments on Compensatory Damages and their Interpretations had been complied with (Appendixes XXVII and XVIII respectively).

To date the Court has not received any official communication from the Government of Suriname on the current status of compliance with the judgments on reparations in the Aloeboetoe et al. and Gangaram Panday Cases, which the Tribunal must receive in order to decide whether to close those cases.

O. Academic Activities of the Judges

1. Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade carried out the following activities:

a) He delivered the inaugural lecture at the Faculty of Law of the La Salle University in San José, Costa Rica, on January 26, on the topic “Evolution of International Environmental Law.” He represented the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at the Ceremony for Presentation of the National Plan of Human Rights of Brazil, in Brasilia on May 13, 1996. From July 8 to 12, he taught a course on the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights at the XXVII Course of the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

b) Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade delivered three lectures on the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights from August 28 to 30 at the XXIII Course on International Law of the OAS Inter-American Juridical Committee, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He was also General Rapporteur on “Universalism and Regionalism in the International Protection of Human Rights” at the XIX Congress of the Hispano-Luso-American Institute of International Law (IHLADI), held in Lisbon, Portugal, on September 25

c) As a guest of the International Committee of the Red Cross (Geneva), Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade delivered four lectures, from November 7 to 14, in Hong Kong and Macau, South of China, on “The Current Status and Prospects of International Humanitarian Law”, and “The Right to Due Legal Process in International Human Rights Law.”

2. Judge Alirio Abreu-Burelli represented the Inter-American Court of Human Rights at the Specialized Conference on the Draft American Convention against Corruption, held in Caracas, Venezuela, from March 27 to 29, 1996, organized by the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States.

3. Judge Alejandro Montiel-Argüello attended the XIX Congress of the Hispano-Luso-American Institute of International Law, held in Lisbon, Portugal, in September 1996.

4. The Judges of the Court attended the Seminar on “The Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights” held in Washington, D.C. from December 2 to 4, 1996. Judges Fix-Zamudio, Salgado-Pesantes and Montiel-Argüello sat on Panel VI on the Inter-American Court ‑ Contentious and Advisory Jurisdiction, while Judge Cançado Trindade chaired Panel II on “Individual Cases-Admissibility.”

P. Academic Activities of the Secretary, Interim Deputy Secretary, and the Attorneys of the Court

The Secretary was invited by the Catholic Pontifical University of Chile, Program of Postgraduate Studies in Constitutional Law, to deliver two lectures on May 7 and 14, 1996. The topic of the first was “The Contentious Function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights” and the second on “The Advisory Function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” On May 10, 1996, at the invitation of the Faculty of Law of the University of Chile, he also delivered a lecture on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. He was also received in special audience by the Full Illustrious Supreme Court of Chile.

Ms. Tathiana Flores-Acuña, an attorney of the Court, attended the Central American Human Rights Forum organized by the Central American Commission on Human Rights (CODEHUCA) in May 1996; the Workshop on the United Nations Human Rights Committee organized by the Central American Commission on Human Rights (CODEHUCA) in June 1996, and the Conference on Civilian-Military Relations organized by the Arias Foundation from August 1 to 3 in San José, Costa Rica.

At the XIV Interdisciplinary Course on Human Rights, organized by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights in June 1996, the officials of the Court, at the Institute's request, led a workshop on the Inter-American Court, which included an analysis of its contentious and advisory functions and its provisional measures in the light of the Court's jurisprudence.

In July 1996, Mr. Víctor Rodríguez-Rescia was awarded a fellowship by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights to attend the XXVII session of the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

On July 23, 1996 Mr. William Cartwright, an attorney of the Court, led a seminar at its seat on the jurisprudence of the Court and the inter-American system for the protection of human rights for 30 students from Loyola University, California, United States and various representatives of the American Bar Association.

Mr. Víctor Hugo Madrigal-Borloz, an attorney of the Court, was awarded a fellowship by the Danish Center for Human Rights to attend the “Human Rights Course” organized by the Center from August 4 to 22 in Denmark, at which he delivered a lecture on the Court's activities and the inter-American system of human rights.

In October of 1996 Secretariat attorneys William Cartwright and Derek Strain gave a course at the seat of the Court to nine North American students from Friends University on the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights.

From October 7 to 11, 1996, at the invitation of the academic authorities of the University of San José, the Secretary and attorneys of the Court led a seminar on the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights at the University in San José, Costa Rica.

The Secretary, Mr. Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, was invited by the Central American Commission on Human Rights (CODEHUCA) to deliver a lecture in Guatemala on the inter-American human rights system and the proceedings of the Inter-American Court from September 30 to October 2, 1996

From December 2 to 4, 1996 the Secretary of the Court, Mr. Manuel E. Ventura-Robles presented the topic “The Experience of the Court in regard to the Protection of Human Rights. Challenges for the Future” at the seminar on “The Inter-American System for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights” held in Washington, D.C. and organized by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.