Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:29:31.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advisory Opinion OC-22/16

Review products

Advisory Opinion OC-22/16. Series A, No. 22. Athttp://www.corteidh.or.cr. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, February 26, 2016.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2018

Diego Mejía-Lemos
Diego Mejía-Lemos*
Affiliation:
National University of Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On February 26, 2016, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) issued an advisory opinion requested by the Republic of Panama (Advisory Opinion). The request stemmed from “doubts among States” as to whether “legal persons, being legal fictions, are not as such entitled to rights” (Request) (para. 2). The Court unanimously held that legal persons are not entitled to rights under the American Convention on Human Rights (Convention) because Article 1.2 of the Convention establishes rights only in favor of natural persons. The Court, also unanimously, reiterated that indigenous and tribal communities are entitled to rights under the Convention. By majority vote, the Court held that labor union organizations are entitled to rights under the Protocol of San Salvador (Protocol). The Advisory Opinion is most significant for its finding regarding labor union organizations and for its analysis of how general international law relates to various aspects of the Inter-American system.

Keywords

Inter-American Court of Human Rightsentitlement to rights of legal persons, indigenous and tribal communities, and labor union organizationsentitlement to rightsrights of natural persons, exercise and exhaustion of remedies through legal personstreaty interpretation by regional human rights courts
Type
International Decisions: Edited by Ingrid Wuerth
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 111 , Issue 4 , October 2017 , pp. 1000 - 1006
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The American Society of International Law 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Advisory Opinion OC-22/16, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) No. 22 (Feb. 26, 2016), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_22_esp.pdf (in Spanish). Translations are by the author. The Request listed Articles 1.1, 8, 11.2, 13, 16, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30, 44, 46, and 62.3 of the American Convention on Human Rights and Article 8.1.a and b of the Protocol of San Salvador.

2 American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, 1144 UNTS 123, at http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm.

3 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), Nov. 17, 1988, 28 ILM 1641, at http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/a-52.html.

4 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, May 2, 1948, at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/mandate/Basics/declaration.asp.

5 Baena Ricardo y Otros v. Panama, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 72, para. 158 (Feb. 2, 2001), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_72_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

6 Huilca Tecse v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 121, para. 74 (Mar. 3, 2005), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_121_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

7 Granier y Otros v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 293, para. 19 (Jun. 22, 2015), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_293_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

8 Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 207, para. 45 (Nov. 20, 2009), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_207_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

9 Perozo y Otros v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 195, para. 399 (Jan. 28, 2009), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_195_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

10 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Merits and Reparations, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 245, para. 341 (2, 4) (Jun. 27, 2012), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_245_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

11 Int'l Law Comm'n Study Group on Treaties over Time, Report on the Work of the Sixty-Third Session, para. 344(3), UN Doc. A/66/10 (2011), at http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2011; but see, Klabbers, Jan, Virtuous Interpretation , in Treaty Interpretation and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: 30 Years on, at 34 (Fitzmaurice, Malgosia, Elias, Olufemi & Merkouris, Panos eds., 2010)Google Scholar (questioning the usefulness of the rules in VCLT Articles 31 and 32 to justify a choice among competing interpretations of the same text).

12 Int'l Law Comm'n, Second Report by Georg Nolte, Special Rapporteur, Sixty-Sixth Session, para. 136, UN Doc. A/CN.4/671 (2014), at http://legal.un.org/docs/?symbol=A/CN.4/671.

13 Artavia Murillo y Otros (“Fecundación In Vitro”) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 257, para. 245 (Nov. 28, 2012), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_257_esp.pdf (in Spanish).

14 Second Report by Georg Nolte, supra note 12, para. 166; but see para. 122 (discussing the claim that customary law of treaties not codified in the VCLT allows for modification by agreed subsequent practice) and para. 142 (concluding that certain international courts and tribunals have accepted that “absent indications in the treaty to the contrary, the agreed subsequent practice of the parties may lead to certain limited modifications of a treaty …”).

15 United Nations Human Rights Council, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, at 3, UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/17/4 (June 16, 2011), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf. The Court first noted the Guiding Principles in Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 309, para. 224 (Nov. 25, 2015), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_309_ing.pdf.

16 Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 4, paras. 170, 172 (Jul. 29, 1988), available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_ing.pdf (affirming respectively, that a state is responsible “for the acts of its agents … and for their omissions,” and “not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation”).

17 Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26, para. 1210 (Dec. 8, 2016), available at http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C255/DC9852_En.pdf.