Quito, 15 Feb. Argentine jurist Fabián Salvioli, UN special rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence, on Wednesday criticized states that do not respect the sentences and decisions of international bodies of the human rights.
During a presentation at the seminar on the international protection of human rights, organized by the UTE University of Quito, Salvioli wondered if states could not comply with sentences and ignore the mandates of international bodies without no consequences for them.
“How can they say that human rights are universal when each state has the last word?” wondered Salvioli.
“What system is supported when one is both judge and party? Can you imagine that the accused by the criminal law is the one who determines how long he serves his sentence? There is only in law international that it seems that this stupidity arises”, he added.
The Argentine jurist gave the example of Mexico, which since 2010 has received several international recommendations and advice to modify arraigo and informal preventive detention, to be considered a violation of its international human rights obligations.
“The case reaches the Court IADH (Inter-American Court of Human Rights), which issued a judgment very recently in which it says that the international obligations of the State are violated, and now Mexico says that it is This is an attack on state sovereignty, which is another sovereign stupidity,” Salvioli said.
“The problem is that even if Mexico were to comply with this sentence today, which it should do, because the Pact of San José says so, my question is how many victims of arbitrary arrests, arrests and informal pre-trial detentions have there been during these twelve years? we asked.
MANDATORY ADVISORY OPINIONS
Salvioli argued that even advisory opinions from international bodies are binding, despite the fact that many states do not take them that way.
“Of course they are binding. If (a body) says this practice is in violation and the state continues with this practice, what do you think the Inter-American Court will say when it becomes a contentious matter? It will condemn the state for carrying out this practice,” Salvioli warned.
“They are not binding for a legal reason, but for common sense,” he continued.
For Salvioli, the legal value of the decisions of international bodies will be recognized sooner or later, “because it feeds the content to the letter of binding international treaties and mandatory application”.
“What needs to be done is that it is not done too late,” added Salvioli.
“LACK OF POLITICAL WILL”
The lawyer pointed out that “the only guarantee we have against possible abuses are substantial democracies, that is, those that are based on the obligation to guarantee and respect the rights of the man without discrimination for all”.
“It’s the way to put a limit to possible barbarism, before it’s too late. There are plenty of legal arguments. What is missing, as always, is political will and honesty “, he concluded.
Víctor Rodríguez Rescia, president of the Geneva-based Center for Civil and Political Rights and former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee; and Silvia Serrano, co-director of the Health and Human Rights Initiative at Georgetown University (USA) and former coordinator of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).
Rodríguez Rescia addressed the “connection” of the decisions of human rights protection organizations, especially within the framework of the universal human rights system, while Serrano did the same in the American space.
There was also a debate between Ramiro Ávila Santamaría, former judge of the Constitutional Court of Ecuador; María de Lourdes Miranda, coordinator of the Master in Human Rights, Interculturality and Gender at UTE University; Adriana Orocú Chavarría, President of the Latin American Federation of Judges; and Danilo Caicedo, director of the School of the Judiciary. ECE
fgg/fa/cpy