CEJIL Participated in Eight Issues Deliberated by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

In the last period of ordinary sessions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which was extended until October 3rd, 2009, CEJIL took part in eight of the thirteen issues deliberated by the judges.

Themes and cases addressed by CEJIL were present in four monitoring compliance with judgment, in a follow-up on Venezuela provisional measures, in a study of a case merits, in the analysis of reforms to the Rules of the Court and in a consideration of an advisory opinion.

The sessions on the monitoring compliance with judgment referred to the cases of the Juvenile Reeducation Institute (Panchito López) vs Paraguay, Montero Aranguren and others (Reten de Catia) vs Venezuela, Molina Theissen vs Guatemala and Trujillo Oroza vs Bolivia. CEJIL has represented or co-represented the victims in all of these cases.

In these cases, the Court heard in a private hearing the arguments from the State, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission and the representatives of the victims.

Also in a closed session, the Court deliberated the preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs in the case of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro vs Peru.

The Court had a public hearing to receive information and observations from the parties on the compliance of the provisional measures ordered to Venezuela’s government in the case of the prisons of La Pica, Uribana and Yare I and II.

In the second stage of the reflection process on the reforms to the rules of the Inter-American Court, the Court began its consideration of the comments sent by CEJIL and other actors of the inter-American system.

Finally, the judges also analyzed the observations and amicus curiae sent by several actors of the inter-American system, among them CEJIL,on an advisory opinion submitted by the State of Argentina in connection with the role of the ad hoc judge and the equality of parts in the proceedings before the Court, as well as in regards to the nationality of the judges of the Court and the right to an independent and impartial judge.