University of Minnesota Human Rights Library

I. ORIGIN, STRUCTURE AND JURISDICTION 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 Jose, Costa Rica" (hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention") on July 18, 1978, when the eleventh instrument of ratification by a Member State of the Organization of American States (hereinafter "the OAS" or "the Organization") was deposited. The Convention was adopted at the Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights, which took place on November 7 to 22, 1969, in San Jose, Costa Rica.

The two organs for the protection of human rights provided for under Article 33 of the Pact of San Jose, 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.

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 Jose, 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. Judges are elected by an absolute majority vote in the OAS General Assembly shortly before 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 maintain 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 convened 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).

The President and the 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 whom 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).

Until September 12, 1997, the composition of the Court was as follows in order of precedence (Article 13 of the Statute):

After September 12, 1997, and until the end of 1997, the composition of the Court was as follows in order of precedence:

The Secretary of the Court is Manuel E. Ventura-Robles and the Interim Deputy Secretary is Víctor M. Rodríguez-Rescia.

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.

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 members 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:

[i]f 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."

[i]n 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 it 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(1) 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).

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 because it enables the organs of the OAS to consult the Court within their spheres of competence.

Seventeen States Parties have 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 ratification and accessions to the Convention can be found at the end of this report (Appendix XLVIII).

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.

The Court has close institutional ties with the Commission. These ties have been strengthened through 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 by 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.

On January 22 to 25, and 29, 1997, the Court held its XXI Special Session at its seat in San Jose, Costa Rica. The composition of the Court was as follows: Héctor Fix-Zamudio (Mexico), President; Hernán Salgado-Pesantes (Ecuador), Vice President; Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia); Alejandro Montiel-Argüello (Nicaragua) and Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile). Also present were Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Víctor M. Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary.

On January 29, 1997, the Court passed Judgment on the merits in the Genie Lacayo Case, in which it rejected the preliminary objection of failure to exhaust all domestic remedies, which was related to the merits of the case. In that Judgment the Court decided that the State of Nicaragua violated article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation with article 1(1) of the same, to the detriment of Mr. Raymond Genie Peñalba but did not violate articles 2, 24, 25 and 51(2) of the Convention. It also decided that the State of Nicaragua must compensate Mr. Raymond Genie Peñalba with US$ 20,000 (twenty thousand dollars of the United States of America) or its equivalent in the Nicaraguan currency on the date of payment, to be paid by the State of Nicaragua within six months of the date of the Judgment and without tax deductions. This payment should be made in accordance with the conditions and in the manner mentioned in paragraph 95 of the Judgment (Appendix I). Judge Pacheco-Gómez informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion.

The Court held its XXXV Regular Session from January 27 to February 7, 1997, at its seat in San Jose, 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). The ad hoc Judges Rafael Nieto-Navia, designated by Colombia for the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case; and Julio Barberis, designated by Argentina for the Garrido and Baigorria Case, participated in the Session. Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Víctor M. Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary, were also present.

On January 29, 1997, the Court rendered Judgment on reparations and legal costs in the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case (Appendix II), in which it decided that the State of Colombia must pay US$ 89,500 (eighty-nine thousand and five-hundred dollars of the United States of America), or its equivalent in the Colombian currency, before July 31, 1997, as reparations for the next-of-kin of Isidro Caballero-Delgado and María del Carmen Santana. The State of Colombia must pay US$ 2,000 (two-thousand dollars of the United States of America) directly to Ms. María Nodelia Parra-Rodríguez as compensation for costs incurred before the Colombian authorities in this Case. In addition, the Court decided that it would not grant some measures of non-pecuniary compensation and that the State of Colombia is obligated to continue to attempt to localize the remains of the victims and to hand them over to their families. The Court will supervise the compliance with this decision and will only decide later whether the Case should be closed. Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion in what refers to the non-consideration by the Court of the projected modifications in the Habeas Corpus Law and Judge Montiel-Argüello of his Concurring Opinion.

By Order of January 31, 1997 (Appendix IV), the Court closed the provisional measures adopted in the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case because the State of Colombia had taken measures which had fulfilled the purpose of the Order of the Court of December 7, 1994, and had met its objective. Furthermore, the Case was closed by Judgment of January 29, 1996.

The Court examined a proposal for a friendly settlement concerning reparations in this Case. However, on January 31, 1997, it rendered an Order (Appendix V) in which it decided that the proposal did not meet the necessary requirements pursuant to points 3 and 4 of the February 2, 1996 Judgment to result in a fair and just settlement. Consequently, the Court opened the reparation proceedings. Judge Montiel-Argüello informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion.

In its Order of February 5, 1997, (Appendix VII) the Court decided that the State of Suriname complied satisfactorily with the Judgment of September 10, 1993, in the Aloeboetoe et al. Case; as a result, the Case was closed. As the decision established some obligations of a permanent character, the Court reserved the faculty to reopen the Case, if circumstances so warrant.

The Court took into consideration the answer to the application presented by the State of Guatemala in the Bámaca Velásquez Case and the explanation to said answer, which was presented later. On February 5, 1997, the Court decided by Order (Appendix VIII) that, taking into account all the evidence presented before it, it could not accept the facts presented in the brief as conclusive; therefore, it decided to continue with the proceedings.

On February 5, 1997, the Court held a public hearing at its seat to hear the testimonies of the witnesses Iván Bazán and Víctor Alvarez and the expert witnesses Julio Maier, Carlos Arslanian and Héctor Faúndez, presented by the Inter-American Commission in the Loayza Tamayo Case. The Court also listened to the oral arguments presented by both the Inter-American Commission and the State of Peru.

On February 6, 1997, the Court adopted an Order (Appendix IX) in which it decided that the provisional measures in the Alemán Lacayo Case should be closed. In taking this decision, the Court took into account that Mr. Arnoldo Alemán-Lacayo was elected and took power as President of Nicaragua. These happenings ceased the former situation of extreme gravity and urgency, which had been the reason for adopting the provisional measures in the first place.

On February 6 and 7, 1997, at its seat, the Court held a public hearing to hear the testimonies of the witnesses María Elena Castro-Osorio, Joe Roberto Ruiz-Huapaya, Cronwell Pierre Castillo-Castillo, Elba Minaya-Calle, Augusto Zúñiga-Paz and the expert witness Enrique Bernales-Ballesteros, presented by the Inter-American Commission in the Castillo Páez Case. The Court also listened to the pleadings presented by both the Inter-American Commission and the State of Peru.

The Court studied the various reports concerning provisional measures taken by the States, and the observations presented to these by the Inter-American Commission.

During this Regular Session, the Court signed in solemn act an agreement of cooperation with the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica in the areas of information technology and documentation. The entire Inter-American Court and the following Judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica were present: Edgar Cervantes-Villalta, President; Rodrigo Montenegro-Trejos, Vice President; Orlando Aguirre-Gómez, President of the Second Chamber; Luis Paulino Mora-Mora, President of the Constitutional Chamber and Carlos Arguedas-Ramírez, Member of the Constitutional Chamber. Also present were the Secretaries, Directors of projects and staff of both Courts.

The cooperation agreement stipulates a technical collaboration in the areas of information technology and institutional development. Both institutions agreed to provide each other with reciprocal access to each others data bases and jurisprudential information, to produce joint publications and to cooperate in academic activities. The duration of the agreement's will be of four years, starting with the date of signature, and can be prolonged for two years at a time up to a maximum of ten years, after which it must be renegotiated and accepted by both parties.

In addition to considering administrative and budgetary matters, the Court revised and approved the Project of its 1996 Annual Report which would be presented to the General Assembly of the OAS at its XXVII Regular Session, held in Lima, Peru, on May 30 until June 4, 1997.

C. Presentation of the Annual Report of the Court 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 31 to April 9, 1997, Judges Héctor Fix-Zamudio, President, and Hernán Salgado-Pesantes, Vice President, accompanied by the Secretary of the Court, Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, visited the seat of the OAS in Washington, D.C., in order to present the Court's 1996 Annual Report to the Committee on Juridical and Political Matters of the Permanent Council of the OAS and the Court's 1998 draft budget to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters.

The Committee on Juridical and Political Matters presented its recommendations to 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 which will be indicated below (infra E.1).

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 1998. He also answered a number of questions about the proposed budget, which were raised by 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.

On April 12 to 19, 1997, the Court held its XXXVI Regular Session at its seat in San Jose, 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). Alfonso Novales-Aguirre, Judge ad hoc, designated by Guatemala for the Blake Case, participated in the Session. Manuel E. Ventura-Robles, Secretary, and Víctor M. Rodríguez-Rescia, Interim Deputy Secretary, were also present.

The Court considered Chile's petition for the withdrawal of the request of advisory opinion OC-15, which dealt with the reports of the Inter-American Commission under articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention. By Order of April 14, 1997 (Appendix XII), the Court decided to reject this petition and to continue with the proceedings. Judge Pacheco-Gómez informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion.

The Court considered Guatemala's brief for the Bámaca Velásquez Case on April 16, 1997, in which it withdrew the preliminary objection presented in this Case. On that same day, the Court issued an Order in which it accepted the withdrawal of said preliminary objection (Appendix XIV).

The Court considered the petition presented by the relatives of the victims in the El Amparo Case, which was presented on their behalf by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The petition was presented in order to obtain an "interpretation" of the Judgment on reparations of September 14, 1996. With respect to this Case, the Court ruled by Order of April 16, 1997 (Appendix XV), that said Judgment was strictly based on the facts presented in this Case. Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade informed the Court of his Dissenting Opinion and Judge Montiel-Argüello informed it of his Concurring Opinion.

The President of the Court considered Peru's note of February 18, 1997, and presented on March 4, 1997 (Appendix X) which requested the reconsideration of the Order of February 11, 1997, in which the President of the Court rejected an extemporaneous petition to interpret the Judgment on reparations in the Neira Alegría et al. Case of September 19, 1996. The President, by Order of April 16, 1997 (Appendix XVI), dismissed the request, as it was inadmissible.

The Court took into account the brief on preliminary objections presented by Guatemala on April 2, 1997, in the Villagrán Morales et al. Case. Guatemala, inter alia, requested the Court to postpone the deadline for the submission of the answer to the application until after the preliminary objection had been resolved. On April 16, 1997 (Appendix XVII), the Court declared the petition inadmissible and that the proceedings should continue.

However, on April 18, 1997, the State of Guatemala petitioned the Court not to accept the presentation of its brief on preliminary objections, which had been presented as a result of an error of fact. That same day, by Order (Appendix XXIII), the President admitted that petition.

On April 16, 1997, (Appendix XVIII) the Court decided to adopt provisional measures in the Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, which was in the phase of execution of the Judgment on reparations. The provisional measures were adopted because both Colombia and the Commission requested a reconsideration of the Order of the Court of January 31, 1997, which had lifted the provisional measures. The new provisional measures benefit Gonzalo Arias-Alturo, Javier Páez, Guillermo Guerrero-Zambrano, Elida González-Vergel and María Nodelia Parra, all of whom testified before the Court on the merits of the Case.

On April 16, 1997, (Appendix XIX) the Court decided to maintain the provisional measures adopted in the Colotenango Case, a proceeding before the Inter-American Commission, due to the reports presented by the State of Guatemala and the observations of the Inter-American Commission, which show that the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency continue.

On April 12, 1997, the Court held a public hearing at its seat on the provisional measures adopted in the Giraldo Cardona Case, a proceeding before the Inter-American Commission. During the public hearing, the State of Colombia informed the Court about the measures it has adopted to comply with the Order of the President of October 28, 1996, ratified by the Court on February 5, 1997. Later, the Court adopted an Order on April 16, 1997 (Appendix XX), in which it took into account the declarations of the Inter-American Commission and the State of Colombia and confirmed the Order of February 5, 1997.

On April 16, 1997, the State of Guatemala accepted the international responsibility for the delay in the application of justice in this Case. Nevertheless, by Order of April 17, 1997 (Appendix XXI), the Court considered that this acknowledgment did not address all of the facts that motivated the Case and therefore decided to continue with the oral proceeding. Consequently, on April 17, 1997, the Court listened to the testimonies of Richard R. Blake Jr., Samuel Blake, Justo Victoriano Martínez and Ricardo Roberto, presented by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Court also listened to the closing oral arguments, which were presented by the Inter-American Commission and by the State of Guatemala.

On April 18, 1997, the Court issued an Order (Appendix XXII) on the provisional measures adopted in the Blake Case, a proceeding before the Court. It was decided that the State had taken effective measures to assure the protection of Mr. Justo Victoriano Martínez-Morales and his family in their home; however, the Court required the State of Guatemala to extend those measures of protection beyond their home area.

On April 19, 1997, the Court held a public hearing at its seat to listen to the testimonies of Carlos Ramadán, Margarita Ramadán de Suárez, Carmen Aguirre and Rafael Iván Suárez-Rosero and the opinion of the expert witness Ernesto Albán-Gómez, all presented by the Inter-American Commission in relation to the Suárez Rosero Case, pending before the Court. In addition, the Court listened to the closing oral arguments, presented both by the Inter-American Commission and the State of Ecuador.

The Court studied various procedural proceedings in the contentious Cases which were pending before it, as well as the various reports concerning provisional measures taken by the States, and the observations presented with respect to these by the Inter-American Commission.

At the XXVII Regular Session of the General Assembly of the OAS, which took place in Lima, Peru, from May 30 to June 4, 1997, 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.

The General Assembly approved the 1996 Annual Report of the activities of the Court, and the General Assembly adopted through a resolution the following:

1. To note with satisfaction the work being carried out by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

2. To support an appropriate level of financing for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, within the resources available in the Organization, so that it may continue fulfilling the important functions entrusted to it by the American Convention on Human Rights.

3. To again thank the European Union for its contribution, which has enabled the Court to execute the third stage of the project titled "Support for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights."

4. To urge those member states of the OAS that have not yet done so to consider ratifying or acceding to the American Convention on Human Rights, "Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica", and to consider accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

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

6. To express its appreciation to, and congratulate, Dr. Héctor Fix-Zamudio, President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, on his upcoming retirement after 12 years of uninterrupted service during which he did brilliant and extraordinary work in aid of the cause of human rights in the Hemisphere.

The General Assembly approved a ten percent increase in the budget of the Court for the year 1998.

During this session of the General Assembly, elections were held for the four posts of judges that would be vacant at the end of the year. Two Judges were reelected: Hernán Salgado-Pesantes, Vice President (Ecuador) and Máximo Pacheco-Gómez (Chile). The newly elected Judges are Sergio García-Ramírez (Mexico) and Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo (Colombia). All elected judges will serve a term starting January 1, 1998, until December 31, 2004.

F. Project "Assistance to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" with the European Union

On June 13, 1997, the President of the Court, Judge Héctor Fix-Zamudio, and the Head of the European Delegation, Ambassador Dieter König, signed the contract for the third phase of the project "Assistance to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights" in San Jose, Costa Rica, for an amount of ECU300.000 (US$ 336.000). The general objective of the project is to develop the necessary activities to strengthen and modernize the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights through the work plans of the Inter-American Court. The project, which started in 1994, has successfully completed two phases, which consisted mainly of publishing the jurisprudence and relevant documents of the Court by automating the publishing system and by improving the library.

Through the assistance of the European Union, it has been possible to solve the problem of the delay in the publication of ten Advisory Opinions (Series A), twelve Judgments (Series C) and Pleadings, Oral Arguments and Documents in ten contentious proceedings (Series D) and two Advisory Opinions (Series B), and a compendium of Provisional Measures (Series E - No. 1). The continuity in this field is a permanent task and a regulatory obligation. On the other hand, the systematic dissemination of the jurisprudence - to which the European Union's assistance contributed - should be kept up and complemented with publications of a "promotional" nature (brochures, manuals, catalogues, compendia, etc.). The latter will help in an important way to disseminate knowledge over the Inter-American system, international legal instruments, the functioning of the Court, the available publications and other material of interest to universities, centers of study and research, libraries, lawyers, students and the public in general.

Thanks to the first and second phases of the project, the Library of the Court has the capacity to establish an electronic information center for Human Rights, under the auspices of the European Union, which would allow the Court to offer the most ample coverage of information on Human Rights and related topics of obligatory nature to the user. All the judgments of the Court, advisory opinions and the other series of publications will constitute part of the common information of that Center of Information. The Court will use an electronic publication format of universal language (HTML) accessible to any type of computer and through the INTERNET.

The third phase was divided into the two components: Publications and Library. The Publications component was proposed to consolidate the system of dissemination of information with an editorial focus, including promotion, production, distribution, and administration of publications of the Court, and thereby complying with the Court's Rules of Procedure, by developing the area of promotion and complementing the hardware of graphic production and other office equipment.

It is projected in this third phase to edit and print 27 publications of contentious Cases and advisory opinions of great interest, not only for the States of the Inter-American system, but also for university professors, students, researchers and the general public. The Court also plans to reprint the following: its first commemorative book which has been out of print for the last five years due to its excellent reception; its Memory of Installation; a reprint of the compendium of provisional measures which includes updates; and a book on Systematization of the Contentious Jurisprudence of the Court. This includes four additional publications, a total of 31 for the third phase of the project. The details of the corresponding publications to the series is as follows:

1. With respect to Series A (Advisory Opinions) the following will be reprinted:

2. With respect to Series B (Pleadings, Oral Arguments and Documents), it is planned to make electronic publications of the following:

3. With respect to Series C (Contentious Cases, Orders and Judgments), the following documents are projected:

4. For the Series D (Pleadings, Oral Arguments and Documents of Contentious Cases), the following Cases will be published electronically:

The following table is a summary to illustrate the number of publications by category, expected to be published by the completion of the third phase of the project of assistance to the Court:

The primary objective of the assistance to the Library is to continue with the tasks already initiated in previous phases of the project. In effect, it seeks to strengthen the planning and design of information services through the following:

• to alleviate the inconsistencies in the technical processes of the bibliography;

• to have access to national and international networks of information via telecommunications or electronic media;

• to carry out a general inventory of the bibliography against the data bases; and to establish a Center of Electronic Information on Human Rights.

G. Publication of the Compilation "Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System"

In June 1997, the Secretariat of the Court presented the Spanish version of the compilation "Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System" which was published with financial resources provided by the second phase of the project "Assistance to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights," which is carried out under the auspices of the European Union.

The compilation includes an introduction on the Organization of American States and the Inter-American system for protection of human rights, as well as the text of its main and official instruments: the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San Jose, Costa Rica); Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador); Additional Protocol 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. The compilation also includes the Statute and Rules of Procedure for the two organs of the Inter-American system, namely the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as well as a complaint form to be utilized before the Inter-American Commission.

On July 8, 1997, Judge Antônio A. Cançado Trindade signed on behalf of the Court a cooperation agreement in the academic area with the International Institute of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

The purpose of the cooperation agreement is to collaborate in the academic and research areas. Both institutions agreed to exchange their publications and to collaborate in the research in which they are engaged. In addition, the International Institute of Human Rights agreed to sponsor an annual scholarship so that one staff member of the Secretariat of the Court can participate and work in the annual study sessions of the Institute. The agreement came into force on the day of its signature and has an indefinite duration.