THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE … STASI_def_0.pdf · 2019. 5. 13. · distintos de promocin y proteccin de los derechos humanos, totalmente divorciados o separados, - [PDF Document] (2024)

97

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

97

ANGELA DI STASI∗

THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE EUROPEAN COURTOF HUMAN RIGHTS: TOWARDS A “CROSS

FERTILIZATION”?

SUMMARY: 1. Introduction. - 2. Analogies and differences betweenthe American Convention and the European Convention Human Rights.Their influences on the case-law of the Interamerican Court and ofthe European Court of human rights. - 3. Examples of the “judicialdialogue”. - 4. Concluding Remarks.

1. Introduction

In the more general phenomenon of the multiplication ofjurisdictional remedies, many international courts tend to give upthe classical judicial borrowing, based on the mere “importation”of foreign judicial systems, in search of more complex forms ofjudicial interaction of a “dialogic” kind, which can lead, in somecases, to a real “cross fertilization”1.

∗ Full Professor onEuropean Union Law and International Law – Department of LegalScience (School of Law), University of Salerno. 1 See, amongothers, also. SCHEECK, Solving Europe’s binary human rights puzzle.The interaction between supranational Courts as a parameter ofEuropean governance, in . In the specialized literature thephenomenon of “cross fertilization” between Courts (in the Spanishversion “cruzamiento de jurisprudencia”) is being increasinglydebated. See, among others, TREVES, Cross-fertilization betweendifferent international courts and tribunals: the Mangouras case,in Coexistence, cooperation and solidarity, 2012, n. 2, pp.1787-1796; BROWN, The cross-fertilization of principles relating toprocedure and remedies in the jurisprudence of international courtsand tribunals, in Loyola L.A. Int. Comp. Law Rev., 2008, n. 3, pp.219-245; JACOBS, Judicial Dialogue and the Cross-Fertilization ofthe Legal Systems of the European Court of Justice, in Texas Int.Law Jour., 2003, n. 38, pp. 547 ss.; ZICCARDI-CAPALDO,Jurisprudential Cross-Fertilization Forum: A Pilot Experiment inLegal Harmonization on the Tenth Anniversary of the GlobalCommunity, in Glob. Comm. YB. Int. Law Jur., 2010, n. 1, pp.207-211. See also in the doctrine in French language, TURGIS, Lesinteractions entre les normes internationales

98

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

98

Within an “integrated”2 – or basically integrated system ofhuman rights – like the European one, the “circulation” amonginternational judicial systems, both for interpretation orinspiration needs, for parametrical and/or application ends, is bynow frequent.3 An evidence of this is the mutual relationship ofsemantic relationship and “selective” reception of (normative andjurisprudence) values existing between the judgements of the Courtof Justice of the European Union, and those of the European Courtof Human Rights and, at last, of the Constitutional Courts of thedifferent European States: all that always preserving thefunctional and organic autonomy of such judicial systems4.

Such process of mutual interaction is a “necessary” consequenceof the variety of international and internal sources concerning theprotection of fundamental rights5, since relatives aux droits de lapersonne, in Collection des “Publications de l’Institutinternational des droits de l’homme”, Paris, 2012, n. 17. 2 I wantto refer to a kind of “integrated” system of protection of thefundamental rights that in Europe involves the international level,represented by European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); the“supranational” level, represented by the Charter of FundamentalRights of the European Union and by the jurisprudence on humanrights of the ECJ and the national level, with special reference tothe constitutional provisions of each country. STROZZI, Il sistemaintegrato di tutela dei diritti fondamentali dopo Lisbona:attualità e prospettive, in, Dir. Un. Eur., 2011, n. 4, p. 837 ff.uses such expression. Also in the Spanish doctrine we can find thereference, in different forms, to the idea of “sistema integrado”.GARCÍA ROCA, FERNÁNDEZ, Integración europea a través de derechosfundamentales: de un sistema binario a otro integrado, Madrid,Centro de Estudios Politicos y Constitucionales, 2009 and HENRÍQUEZVIÑAS, Sistema Integrado de protección de los derechos humanos, inEstudios Constitucionales, 2007, n. 2, pp. 121-135. See thedefinition given in the latter work (p. 134 ff.) where thefollowing is emphasized: «[…] no deben considerarse el ámbitointerno y el ámbito internacional como dos �rdenes distintos depromoci�n y protecci�n de los derechos humanos, totalmentedivorciados o separados, sino, por el contrario, aquéllosinteract�an y forman un sistema integrado de protecci�n de losderechos humanos» (the underlining is mine). For a reconstructionof human rights “as a system” see GUARINO, I diritti dell’uomo comesistema: un’ipotesi di lavoro, in Riv. coop. giur., 2008, n. 28,pp. 7-45. For the particular interpretation of multilevel European“system”, see DI STASI, Diritti umani e sicurezza regionale. Il“sistema” europeo, Napoli, 2011, part II, where it is possible tofind relevant bibliographic references. 3 In this sense, TIZZANO,Le Cours européennes et l’adhésion de l’Union à la CEDH, in Dir.un. eur., 2011, n. 1, p. 47: «[…] les rapports entre les ordresjuridiques sont tellement imbriqués sur le plan structurel qu’on nepeut plus penser les appréhender de manière verticale. Sur plusiersaspects il convient plutôt de les concevoir comme des relations àcaractere, pour ainsi dire, circulaire». See also ALTER, The GlobalSpread of European Style International Courts, in NorthwesternPublic Law Research Paper, 2011, june, in , n. 11-55, in particularp. 2, where it is referred to «three adaptations of the ECtHR». 4For an accurate synthesis of the debate on the subject ofcooperation and mutual influence between Courts in Europe, seeFRAGOLA, La cooperazione tra Corti in Europa nella tutela deidiritti dell’uomo. Convegno interinale SIDI-Università dellaCalabria - Arcavacata di Rende (Cosenza), 12 Aprile 2010, Napoli,2012. 5 The formula of multilevel constitutionalism has been drawnup after the signing of Treaty of Amsterdam see PERNICE, MultilevelConstitutionalism in the European Union, in Eur. Law Rev., 2002, n.5, p. 511 ff.. It preserves its unchanged validity also after thecoming into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, where the same Authoridentifies its attitude to become a case of «multilevelconstitutionalism in action». See PERNICE, The Treaty of Lisbon:multilevel constitutionalism in action, in Col. Jour. Eur. Law,2009, n. 3, p. 349 ff.; PERNICE, The Treaty of Lisbon: MultilevelConstitutionalism in Action, in WHI-Paper, 2009, n. 2, p. 351 ff.On the “multilevel” protection of fundamental rights, on thevariety of guarantee devices and on the judicial “activism” of thenational and international Courts in Europe, see among others,D’IGNAZIO, Multilevel constitutionalism tra integrazione europea eriforme degli ordinamenti decentrati, Milano, 2011; CARTABIA Idiritti in azione. Universalità e pluralismo dei dirittifondamentali delle Corti europee, Bologna, 2007; PANUNZIO, Idiritti fondamentali e le Corti in

99

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

99

such coexistence and sometimes interference between sourcescould find some elements “simplifying” the still in courseaccession process of the European Union to the European Conventionfor the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR), according to Article 218of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)6.

In Latin America we cannot find a similar phenomenon of judicial“dialogue” existing between the Inter-American Court of HumanRights and the courts ensuring the jurisdictional function withinthe supranational integration processes7 or of political-economiccultural8 and economic-commercial cooperation9.

That being stated, the above mentioned process of “circulation”of jurisprudence values that has emerged within the Europeanobservation field, can, at the same time influence the practice oftwo “thematic” Courts (the European Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Court of Human Rights)10, working in fields being sodistant from each other and marked with different expressionsreferring to “juridical particularism”?11

Europa,Napoli, 2005; BILANCIA, DE MARCO La tutela multilivello deidiritti. Punti di crisi, problemi aperti, momenti distabilizzazione, Milano, 2004. See also the heading by. CARDONE,Diritti fondamentali (tutela multilivello), Enc. Giu., Annali IV,Milano, 2011, p. 335 ff. 6 The completion of this process, which,as it is well known, is juridically based both on Article 6(2) EUTreaty, and on Article 59 ECHR, in particular para. 2 introducedafter the coming into force of Protocol XIV – will cause thetransition of a jurisdictional system, built on the merecoexistence between two autonomous and independent Courts (ECJ andECHR) and two catalogues of rights that cannot be fully assimilatedto each other, towards more advanced forms of integration betweenthe two sub-systems. For a synthesis of the recurring joiningquestion I take the liberty of referring to DI STASI, Lavetero-nova quaestio dell’adesione dell’Unione europea alla CEDUnella prassi delle istituzioni europee”, in Grotius, 2012, specialnumber, pp. 7-18. 7 As for example the MERCOSUR (Mercado Común delSur) or the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). 8 Let us refer, forexample, to the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). 9 Inparticular the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). For anoutline of the development of a whole of jurisdictional systemshaving a regional character, see P. PENNETTA L’evoluzione deisistemi giurisdizionali regionali ed influenze comunitarie. Attidel Convegno di Salerno 1/2 Ottobre 2009, Bari, 2010. 10 On thesimilarities and differences between the jurisprudences of the twoCourts, see SALVIOLI, ZANGHI, Jurisprudencia regional comparada deDerechos Humanos. El Tribunal Europeo y la Corte Interamericana,Valencia, 2013; AMBOS BOHM, Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos yCorte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos: ¿Tribunal timido vs.Tribunal audaz?, in FERRER MAC-GREGOR, HERRERA GARCÍA, Diálogojurisprudencial en derechos humanos entre TribunalesConstitucionales y Cortes Internacionales. In Memoriam JorgeCarpiso,generador incansable de diálogos, México, 2013, p. 1057 ff;BURGORGUE-LARSEN, Les Cours européenne et interaméricaine desdroits de l’homme et le “système onusien”, in DUBOUT, TOUZE, Lesdroits fondamentaux, charnières entre ordres et systèmesjuridiques, Paris, 2010, pp. 91-115; HAECK, ZWAAK,. VERVAELE,OLASOLO, When Two Regional Human Rights Systems Meet: TheInter-American and European Human Rights System in a ComparativePerspective/The Role of Latin America in International CriminalJustice, Oxford, 2010; CITRONI, Corte europea e Corteinteramericana: due corti regionali dei diritti umani a confronto,in SCOVAZZI, PAPANICOLOPULU, URBINATI, I diritti umani di fronte algiudice internazionale, Milano, 2010, pp. 49-61; HAWKINS,. JACOBY,A comparison of the European and Inter-American Courts of HumanRights, in Jour. Int. Law Int. Rel., 2010, n. 6, pp. 35-83;TANZARELLA, Gli effetti delle decisioni delle Corti dei diritti:Europa e America a confronto, in Quad. cost. 2009, n. 2, pp.323-350; REVENGA SANCHEZ, VIVIANA GARCÉS Tendenciasjurisprudenciales de la Corte interamericana y el Tribunal europeode Derechos Humanos. Derecho a la vida, Libertad personal, Libertadde expresión, Participatión politica, Valencia, 2007; CANÇADOTRINDADE, Approximations and Convergences in the Case-law of theEuropean and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, inCOHEN-JONATHAN, FLAUSS Le rayonnement international de lajurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme,Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2005, p. 101-138, in particular pp. 101-102;LONDOÑO LÁZARO, Las Cortes interamericana y europea de derechoshumanos en perspectiva comparada, in Rev. col. der. int., 2005, n.5, pp. 89-115; CANÇADO TRINDADE, Le développement du Droit

100

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

100

Does the “circulation” process of judgments and of jurisprudencevalues between the European Court of Human Rights and theInter-American Court of Human Rights causes phenomena oftrans-regional judicial dialogue12, of judicial re-use, in thesense of an expression of jurisprudential law in another context13,up to the formulation of a hypothesis of “cross-fertilization”?

2. Analogies and differences between the American Convention andthe European Convention Human Rights. Their influences on thecase-law of the Interamerican Court and of the European Court ofhuman rights

The aim of this work is that of overcoming the rigid applicationof juridical

categories and patterns of reconstruction investigation basedboth on Euro-centred and American-centred approaches. It is meantfor checking the influence of the jurisprudential practice of theEuropean Court of Human Rights on the jurisprudence of theInter-American Court of Human Rights (and, possibly, the contrary)with reference to the regional protection of human rightsguaranteed by the European Court of Human Rights and the AmericanConvention on Human Rights (ACHR)14. All this is also guaranteedby

international des droits de l’homme à travers l’activité etla jurisprudence des Cours européenne et interaméricaine des droitsde l’homme, in Rev. univ. dr. Homme, 2004, n. 5, pp. 177-180;BUERGENTHAL, The European and Inter-American Human Rights Courts:Beneficial Interaction, in MAHONEY, MATSCHER, PETZOLD, WILDHABERProtecting Human Rights: The European Perspective - Studies inmemory of Rolv Ryssdal, Köln-Berlin-Bonn-München, Carl HeymannsVerlag KG, 2000, pp. 123-133; FIX-ZAMUDIO, The European and theInter-American Courts of Human Rights: a brief comparison, inMAHONEY et Ibidem, pp. 507-533. 11 For a critical analysis of thepractice adopted by the Inter American Commission of Human Rightsand by the IATCHR in the perspective of a “particularismeinteraméricain”, see HENNEBEL, TIGROUDJA Le particularismeinteraméricain des droits de l’homme, Paris, 2009. For a rathersceptical interpretation of the attitude to “exportation” (outsideits own sphere) of the Inter-American Human Rights Law, see NEUMAN,The External Reception of Inter-american Human Rights Law, inQuebec Jour. Int. Law 2011, pp. 99-125. 12 The phenomenon ofjudicial cross-fertilization and of the trans-regional judicialdialogue, which is by now rather consolidated, can be widely foundalso in the so called “system of conferences”, which makes iteasier for judges to have personal contacts with each other andfosters structural connections between jurisdictions. See, withspecial reference to Constitutional Courts ORRÙ, La crossfertilization a carattere informale e il ‘sistema delle conferenze’tra Corti costituzionali e organi equivalenti, in Dir. pub. comp.eur., 2011, n. 1, p. 189-208. Among the first affirmations of a“transjudicial communication” see SLAUGHTER, Typology ofTransjudicial Communication, in Univ. Rich. Law Rev., 1994-1995, n.29, p. 99 ff. 13 See CARDUCCI, Judicial Re-Use: “Codification” orReturn of Hegelism? The Comparative Arguments in the ‘South’ of theWorld, Second Thematic Congress of the International Academy ofComparative Law, 2012, pp. 1-14, . 14 In the specialized literatureinvestigations devoted to the comparison between the twoConventions do not lack. Besides the quotations included in theforegoing reference, see the big work by ROCA, SÁNCHEZ, SANTOLAYAMACHETTI, CANOSA USERA El Diálogo entre los Sistemas Europeo yAmericano de Derechos Humanos, Cizur Menor-Navarra, 2012 and ÚBEDADE TORRES, Estudio comparado de los sistemas europeo einteramericano de protección de los derechos humanos, Madrid, 2007.See also, CLAPHAM, Regional Human Rights Bodies, Ibidem, HumanRights Obligations of Non State Actors, Oxford, 2006, pp. 347-431;BENVINDO, Sistema europeo y sistema interamericano para laprotecci�n de los derechos humanos: un breve estudio comparado,2005; CAFLISCH, CANÇADO

101

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

101

them within their task of providing a correct interpretation andapplication of the rights referred to by the two conventions, andalso of helping the development of jurisprudential approachesderiving from the comparison of procedures which, even if they aredifferent from each other, are characterized by important elementsof similarity15.

It is not the case to monitor a mere emulation phenomenon, whichis also not the only one, compared with so many adjustment versionsof a European jurisdictional model existing in different regions inthe world. As regards that so widely explored field of thedoctrine, which is so called “proliferation”, in differentcontinents and sub-continents, of courts and tribunals also in thefield of the protection of human rights16, the reasons for ajustification of the reasons for a justification of such acomparative approach are the wide (and well known) similarity ofsubstantial contents between the two conventions17 and the partialanalogies, mutatis mutandis, between the revision proceduresintervened within them18.

The two conventions concern juridical and meta-juridicalcontexts that are also very different from each other. This canaccount for the marked differences in the way the Courts arecomposed and the jurisprudence “product” size (a “flood”characteristic of the case law of the European Court of HumanRights, compared with the small amount of judgments of theInter-American Court of Human Rights); can also justify thedifferent trust the signing countries have on the conventionmethod.

Between the two conventions a time interval of decennia elapses.This circ*mstance could lead to assume that some “revisionist”trends of a procedural kind, and some jurisprudence approaches of a“creative” kind, already experimented in the interpretation TRINDADE, LesConventions américaine et européenne des droits de l’homme et ledroit international général, in Rev. gén dr. int. pub., 2004, n. 1,p. 5-61; GROS ESPIELL, La Convention américaine et la Conventioneuropéenne des droits de l’homme. Analyse comparative, in Recueildes Cours, 1989, n. 30, pp. 167-412; ROBERTSON, The AmericanConvention on Human Rights and the European Convention: AComparative Study, in Eur. YB, 1981, n. 29, pp. 50-76; BUERGENTHAL,The American and European Convention on Human Rights: similaritiesand differences, in Am. Un. Law Rev., 1980-1981, n. 30, pp. 155-66;FROWEIN, The European and the American Convention on Human Rights.A comparison, in Hum. Rights Law Jour. 1980, n. 1, pp. 44 ff.;MENGOZZI, Le contrôle du respect des droits de l’homme de laConvention européenne par rapport au système de mise en oeuvreInter-américain, in Riv. dir. eur. 1979, n. 1, p. 3-39. 15 On thechange of the jurisprudential approaches, see, among others, on thesubject of the adoption of provisional measures, the judgment ofthe ECHR, G.C., Mamatkoulov and Askarov v. Turkey, 4 February 2005,Cases Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, where the evolution of theforegoing case law also takes advantage of a comparative analysisof different procedures carried out by different Committees (UnitedNation Committee on human rights, United Nation Committee againsttorture) as well as by different Courts (ICJ, IACtHR). 16 For aglobal picture of the phenomenon see. PENNETTA (ed.), supra n. 9and DEL VECCHIO, I Tribunali internazionali tra globalizzazione elocalismi, Bari, 2009. 17 Let us think of the ways for selectingthe “catalogue” of recognized rights that starts from the onlycivil and political rights and later includes other categories ofrights. The similarity of the normative contents of the twoconventions represents in itself an element of “fertilization” ofthe ECHR compared with the later Convention of San José. On thispoint let me refer to. DI STASI, Il diritto all’equo processo nellaCEDU e nella Convenzione americana sui diritti umani. Analogie,dissonanze e profili di convergenza giurisprudenziale, Torino,2012, in particular part I. Here you can find more bibliographicalreferences about the analogies and differences between the twoconventions. 18 Let us refer to the evolution of the status of theindividual plaintiff by the consolidation of his prerogativescaused by Protocol XI in the ECHR (see. DI STASI, supra n. 17, Ch.II), and, at a more limited extent, by regulation changes in theConvention of San José (see A. DI STASI, supra n. 17, Ch. III).

102

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

102

and application of the ECHR, can be reproduced within theinterpretation and application of the ACHR19.

They are, then, two conventions that, apart from state optionsof a monistic or dualistic kind20, are frequently referred to inthe case law of national tribunals (European and American)specially in Latin America over the last years.

3. Examples of the “judicial dialogue”

As above said, the marked elements of assimilability both of thefundamental

“catalogue” of the protected rights and of the proceduralguarantee instruments provided by the ACHR and by the ECHRrepresent a fertile field for the growth of a trans-regionaljudicial dialogue - if not of a real “cross-fertilization” -between the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights.

Without claiming to be exhaustive, a short overview follows,which illustrates some elements of such a “judicial dialogue”.

Taking into account the time when it was born and thecharacteristics of the ACHR, it was quite easy to foresee that theEuropean Court of Human Rights was to represent a point ofreference for the judges in San José. About a half of the wholeamount of case law of the Court of San José, includes references tothe norms of the ECHR and of its Protocols and to (the moreconsolidated) jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.They are used within the body of judgements in different ways:among them there is that emphasizing the “internal” importance ofthe “fuentes constitucionales americanas” and (in some cases) alsofunctioning as “nourishing source” of judicial domesticinterpretations.

The reference to the judgements of the European Court of HumanRights is carried out by using a wide formula such as «segundojurisprudencia internacional»21.

Sometimes the jurisprudence of the European is mentionedtogether with its own one (in a generic way within the body of thejudgement and with specification in the references)22; in othercases, instead, the reference is only made to the «jurisprudence ofthe

19 On the “wideextent” of some jurisprudential lines adopted by the IACTHR,considered by the Author to be useful to support the unity of theInternational Law, see. LIXINSKI, Treaty Interpretation by theInter-American Court of Human Rights: Expansionism at the Serviceof the Unity of International Law, in Eur. Jour. Int. Law, 2010, n.21, pp. 585-604. 20 This work does not deal with these aspects andthat is with the choice for a model of inclusion of conventions ininternal law systems of a dualistic kind (by a national law thattransforms conventional obligations into an applicable law) or of amonistic kind that (according to the obligatory character ofcontents of the international treaties) ensures their execution anda direct application by internal tribunals. 21 This is showed,among others, by IACTHR (Judgment) 26 November 2008, Tiu Tojín v.Guatemala, para. 85; IACTHR (Judgment) 18 September 2003, Bulaciov. Argentina, para. 96. 22 IACTHR (Judgment ) Luna López v.Honduras, para. 123. In particular, in note n. 218, the Courtunderlines that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights hasrecognized in the same terms the relationship between environmentalprotection and the realization of human rights. See, ECtHR G.C.(Judgment) 19 February 1998, Guerra et alia v. Italy, Case No.14967/89, para. 60; ECtHR (Judgment) 9 December 1994, López Ostrav. Spain, Cases No. 16798/90, para. 51; ECtHR (Judgment) 9 June2005, Fadeyeva v. Russia, Cases No. 55723/00,

103

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

103

European Human Rights System»23. Above all over the last yearssome interpretations made by theEuropean Court of Human Rights havebeen referred to by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights tosupport their arguments24, to define delicate bioethical issues25,even by a direct reference to single points in judgments26.

paras.68-79. IACtHR (Judgment) 30 July 2009, Reverón Trujillo v.Venezuela, para. 70: «According to the jurisprudence of this Courtand the European Court, […] the following guarantees are derivedfrom the judicial independence: an adequate appointment process,the tenure in the position, and the guarantee against externalpressures» (the underlining is mine). 23 IACtHR (Judgment) 1September 2010, Ibsen Cárdenas y Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, para. 60:«The characterization of forced disappearance as multiply offensiveand continuing or permanent is reflected in the jurisprudence ofthis Tribunal and can be inferred not only from the definition ofArticle 2 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance,[…]but also from other definitions included in differentinternational instruments that similarly mention the following asconcurring and constitutive elements of forced disappearance: a)the deprivation of liberty; b) the direct intervention of stateagents or their acquiescence; and c) the refusal to acknowledge thedetention and reveal the fate or whereabouts of the affectedperson. On previous occasions, this Tribunal has mentioned that,additionally, the jurisprudence of the European Human RightsSystem, the decisions of different bodies of the United Nations andseveral Constitutional Courts and high national courts of theAmerican States agree with the indicated characterization» (theunderlining is mine). See, also, IACtHR (Judgment) 19.8.2013,Gaudiel Alvarez et al. (“diario militar”) v. Guatemala, para. 64 eIACtHR (Judgment) 29 November 2012, Garcia and family v. Guatemala,para. 97 which refers to jurisprudence of the European Human RightsSystem on enforced disappearance. 24 IACtHR (Judgment) 24 October2012, Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, paras. 85,125-126: «In order to respect the appropriate measures to take ifthe use of force becomes essential, this must be used in keepingwith the principles of legality, absolute necessity, andproportionality […]. The ECtHR has indicated that it cannot beconcluded that the requirement of “absolute necessity” for the useof force against people who do not pose a direct threat is proved,even when the lack of the use of force would result in the loss ofthe opportunity to capture them (the underlining is mine).Although, in theory, the events of this case could constitute thepresumption of opposing resistance to authority and prevention offlight, the Court considers that, even when abstaining from the useof force would have allowed the individuals that were the subjectof the State’s action to escape, the agents should not have usedlethal force against people who did not represent a threat or areal or imminent danger to the agents or third parties.Consequently, in short, this event did not constitute a situationof absolute necessity» (the underlining is mine); IACtHR (Judgment)26 June 2012, Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, para. 114: «First, the Courtnotes that the State, in its arguments, seeks to require the Courtto modify its consistent case law which affirms that if theobjection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies is not filed atthe appropriate moment, the possibility of filing this objection isrelinquished. In this regard, the Court reiterates, as it has inthe cases of Reverón Trujillo, Usón Ramírez and Chocrón Chocrón,that although the supervision of the IACtHR is of a subsidiary,supplementary and complementary nature, Article 46(1)(a) of theConvention stipulates that the rule of the exhaustion of domesticremedies must be interpreted in accordance with generallyrecognized principles of international law, which include theprinciple establishing that the use of this rule is a defenseavailable to the State and, therefore, must be verified at theprocedural moment in which the objection has been filed. If it isnot filed while the admissibility is being processed before theCommission, the State has relinquished the possibility of usingthis measure of defense before the Court. This has been recognizednot only by this Court, but also by the ECtHR (the underlining ismine). Consequently, the Court reiterates that the interpretationthat it has given to Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for morethan 20 years is in conformity with international law»; IACtHR 24February 2012, Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile, para. 258 aboutimpartiality of a judge. 25 An interesting examination of the ECtHRcase law on the protection of prenatal life is in IACtHR (Judgment)28 November 2012, Artavia Murillo et al. (“in vitro fertilization”)v. Costa Rica, paras. 234-242. 26 E.g.: IACtHR (Judgment) 24November 2009, La Masacre de Las Dos Erres v. Guatemala, para. 189that refers to ECtHR (Judgment) 20 December 2001, Buchberger v.Austria, para. 35, EctHR (Judgment) 12 July 2001, T

104

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

104

In some cases the Inter-American Court of Human Rightsunderlines, by using expressions such us «likewise»27 or «similarto» 28 – that its directions are identical with those issued by theEuropean Court of Human Rights; in some others, on the contrary, ithighlights the analogies between the articles of the ECHR and thoseof the ACHR29; sometimes, instead, it shows the different shades ofmeaning existing between the two systems30.

As regards the specific judgements of the European Court ofHuman Rights that are referred to, the frequent reference to someof them, thus representing a kind of leading cases undoubtedlyexists. They are, of course, apart from some exceptions, ratherfamous cases31.

and K v.Finland, Judgment, para. 151, EctHR (Judgment) 13 July 2000,Elsholz v. Germany, para. 43, EctHR (Judgment) 9 June 1998, Brondav. Italy, para. 51, EctHR (Judgment) 7 August 1996, Johansen v.Norway, para. 52, and Juridical Condition and Human Rights of theChild, OC-17/02, para. 72, on the mutual enjoyment of thecoexistence between parents and their children which constitutes afundamental element of family life); IACtHR (Judgment) 20 November2009, Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, para. 19; IACtHR (Judgment) 16November 2009, González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. México,para. 292; IACtHR (Judgment) 24 September 2009, Dacosta Cadogan v.Barbados, para. 18; IACtHR (Judgment) 1 July 2009, Acevedo Buendíaet al. (“Cesantes y Yubilados de la Contraloría”) v. Perú, paras.70-101. 27 IACtHR (Judgment) 24 November 2009, “Las Dos Erres”Massacre v. Guatemela, para 189: «Likewise, the jurisprudence ofthe ECtHR has indicated that the mutual enjoyment of thecoexistence between parents and their children constitutes afundamental element of family life, and that Article 8 ECHR notonly has the goal of protecting the individual against arbitraryinterference by public authorities, but also presupposes positiveobligations by the State to honor effective respect for familylife» (the underlining is mine). 28 IACtHR (Judgment) 20 November2009, Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, para. 19: «This Tribunal, similarto the ECtHR has affirmed consistently that an objection to theexercise of the Court’s jurisdiction based on the alleged lack ofexhaustion of domestic remedies must be submitted in a timelymanner from the procedural standpoint» (the underlining is mine).29 IACtHR (Judgment) 14 May 2013, Mendoza et al. v. Argentina,para. 174. In this case the Court notes that, in the judgmentHarkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, the ECtHR establishedthat the imposition of a severely disproportional sentence can be acruel treatment and, therefore, may violate Article 3 ECHR, whichcorresponds to Article 5 ACHR. 30 IACtHR (Judgment) 20 November2012, Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“diario militar”) v. Guatemala, paras.319, 391: «Lastly, regarding the alleged violation of freedom ofexpression to the detriment of the next of kin, the Court notesthat the two freedoms (of association and of expression) areintrinsically related rights. Indeed, the European Court hasrecognized that the protection of freedom of thought and expressionis one of the purposes of freedom of association (the underliningis mine). […] Nevertheless, the Court considers that each of therights contained in the Convention has its own sphere, meaning andscope». 31 Among them we can remember: ECtHR (Judgment) 21 June2007, Cases Nos. 57953/00 and 37392/03, Bitiyeva and X v. Russia,paras. 90-91; ECtHR (Judgment) 28 January 2003, Case No. 44647/98,Peck v. The United Kingdom, paras. 57-59; ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 10May 2001, Case No. 25781/94, Cyprus v. Turkey, paras. 136, 150 and158; ECtHR (Judgment) 14 November 2000, Case No. 24396/94, Tas v.Turkey, paras. 132-134 and 147-148; ECtHR (Judgment) 13 June 2000,Case No. 23531/94, Timurtas v. Turkey, para. 63; ECtHR G.C.(Judgment) 8 July 1999, Case No. 23657/94, Çakici v. Turkey, paras.104-106; ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 2 September 1998, Case No. 22277/93,Yasa v. Turkey, paras. 94-96; ECtHR (Judgment) 25 May 1998, CaseNo. 24276/94, Kurt v. Turkey, paras. 124-128; ECtHR G.C. (Judgment)18 December 1996, Case No. 15318/89, Loizidou v. Turkey, para. 39;ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 16 September 1996, Case No. 21893/93, Akdivaret al. v. Turkey, paras. 66-69; ECtHR (Judgment) 16 December 1992,Case No. 13071/87, Edwards v. The United Kingdom, para. 34; ECtHR(Judgment) 22 April 1992, Case No. 12351/86, Vidal v. Belgium,para. 33; ECtHR (Judgment) 26 April 1979, Case No. 6538/74, TheSunday Times v. The United Kingdom, para. 65.

105

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

105

Particularly frequent is the reference to the jurisprudence ofthe European Court of Human Rights on the subject of «moraldamage»32, of right to trial within a reasonable time33 and of the«interpretation of a judgment»34.

The opposite phenomenon shows to be completely different in sizethat is the reference, by the European Court of Human Rights, tothe jurisprudence developed by the Court of San Josè and, more ingeneral, to the normative sources of the Inter-American system ofhuman rights.

Starting from a generic reference to the ACHR and its articles,which can be found in the case law being most linked to theEuropean Court35 we can observe the tendency for a

32 The mostfrequently referred to cases in this regard are: ECtHR (Judgment) 2November 1993, Cases Nos. 12325/86 and 14992/89, Kemmache v. France(nos. 1 and 2), para. 11; ECtHR (Judgment) 19 February 1991, CaseNo. 13440/87, Ferraro v. Italy, para. 21; ECtHR (Judgment) 28 June1990, Case No. 11309/84, Mats Jacobsson v. Sweden, para. 44. 33IACtHR (Judgment) 28 August 2013, García Lucero et alia v. Chile,para. 246: «In this regard, the Court has taken into considerationthe case law of the European Court of Human Rights, whichconsidered that the advanced age of individuals involved injudicial proceedings required the authorities to exercise specialdiligence in deciding the respective proceeding»; IACtHR (Judgment)22 August 2013, Mémoli v. Argentine, para. 30: «[…]Similarly, theEuropean Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ‘European Court’) hasestablished that the purpose of a similar rule in the Europeansystem is to ensure legal certainty, to guarantee that casessubmitting matters relating to the European Convention on HumanRights are examined within a reasonable time, and to protect theauthorities and other persons involved from finding themselves in asituation of lack of certainty for an extended period of time».Among others see IACtHR (Judgment) 31 August 2012, Furlan andfamily v. Argentina, para. 150: «In fact, the ECtHR has repeatedlyindicated that “enforcement proceedings must be regarded as thesecond stage of the proceedings. Similarly, in the case of Silvaand Pontes v. Portugal, the Court established that the guaranteesestablished in Article 6 ECHR apply both to the first stage of theproceedings as well as to the second. In addition, in the case ofRobins v. United Kingdom the Court concluded that all stages of theproceedings for the determination of civil rights and obligations,“not excluding stages subsequent to judgment on the merits” shallbe resolved within a reasonable time (…)» and paras. 194-195: «TheCourt reiterates that, in the analysis of the reasonableness of thetime, the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on thejudicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken intoaccount, bearing in mind, among other elements, the matter indispute […]. For its part, the ECtHR has, on several occasions,used this criterion in the analysis of a reasonable time (…)»;IACtHR (Judgment) 27 April 2012, Fornerón and daughter v.Argentina, para. 74: «In this regard, this Court has establishedthat it is not possible to argue domestic obstacles, such as thelack of infrastructure or personnel to conduct judicialproceedings, in order to be relieved of an internationalobligation. Similarly, the ECtHR has determined that a chronicbacklog of cases is not a valid explanation for excessive delay».About the obligation to investigate within a reasonable time, seeIACtHR (Judgment) 21 May 2013, Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 102that refers to the case law of the ECtHR. 34 Among others seeIACtHR (Judgment) 24 September 1999, Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru,para. 45: «[…] In the Soering v. United Kingdom case (1989), theECtHR declared that in interpreting the ECHR “regard must be had toits special character as a treaty for the collective enforcement ofhuman rights and fundamental freedoms[…] Thus, the object andpurpose of the Convention as an instrument for the protection ofindividual human beings require that its provisions be interpretedand applied so as to make its safeguards practical and effective»;IACtHR (Judgment) 29 May 1999, Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, para. 20:«[…] The case law of this Court is consistent with that of theEuropean Court of Human Rights, which held that interpretation of ajudgment shall not alter it in respect of any issue that the Courtdecided “with binding force» (ECtHR (Judgment) 7 August 1996, CaseNo. 15175/89, Allenet de Ribemont v. France and ECtHR (Judgment) 3July 1997, Case No. 13616/88, Hentrich v. France).

106

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

106

more and more detailed illustration of the case law of theInter-American Court of Human Rights and with the decisions of theInter-American Commission of Human Rights.

Some “privileged” field subjects can be found in which thereferences to the Inter-American system are specially frequent andin which «the IACHR is held to be the greater expert»36. I refer,for example, to the decisions on violations of Articles 2 and 3 ofthe ECHR in cases where torture and the right to life have beenunder discussion or in cases concerning forced disappearances37. Wecannot but underline the potential influence which the case law ofthe European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights jurisprudence could have on the administrativedetention of irregular migrants and, generally, on the fundamentalrights of irregular migrants, above all in the light of landmarkcases (as the case Vélez Loor v. Panama)38.

As regards the context in which the reference is made, it isconveyed by the formulas «other relevant sources», «relevantdomestic law and practice, international and comparativeinstruments», «relevant international materials» or similia39.

35 ECtHR(Judgment) 16 October 2001, Case No. 39846/98, Brennan v. theUnited Kingdom, para. 38, which refers to Article 8 (2) AmericanConvention on Human Rights (ACHR); ECtHR (Judgment) 22 February1994, Case No. 16213/90, Burghartz v. Switzerland, para. 24, whichrefers to Article 8 and Article 18 ACHR; ECtHR (Judgment) 7 July1989, Case No. 14038/88, Soering v. the United Kingdom, para. 108,which refers to Article 4 ACHR. 36 R. BLOME, Wallflower orEssential Constituent? The Inter American Court of HumanRights’Role in an Emerging International Judicial Human RightsSystem, in . 37 I.e. ECtHR (Judgment) 13 November 2012, Case No.4455/10, Marguš v. Croatia, para. 37, in which IACtHR (Judgment) 14March 2001 is referred to Barrios Altos v. Peru involving thequestion of the legality of Peruvian amnesty laws. In ECtHR(Judgment) 18 December 2012, Cases Nos. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07,332/08 and 42509/10, Aslakhanova et al. v. Russia, we find areference to the IACommHR (together with that to the UN HumanRights Committee), aiming at defining the “enforced disappearances”as «a combination of several violations of protected rights». InECtHR, G.C. (Judgment) 18 September 2009, Cases Nos. 16064/90,16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90,16072/90 and 16073/90, Varnava et al. v. Turkey, which are “casesconcerning ratione temporis jurisdiction in disappearance casesbefore other international bodies” the IACtHR (Judgment) 2 July1996, Blake v. Guatemala-Preliminary Objections, para. 39; IACtHR(Judgment) 23 November 2004, Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. ElSalvador-Preliminary Objections; IACtHR (Judgment) 12 August 2008,Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama). In ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 9 April2009, Case No. 71463/01, Šilih v. Slovenia, which refers to IACtHR(Judgment) 29 July 1988, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, IACtHR(Judgment) 20 January 1989, Godínez Cruz Case v. Honduras, IACtHR(Judgment) 15 June 2005, Moiwana Village v. Suriname and to IACtHR(Judgment) 23 November 2004, Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. ElSalvador-Preliminary Objections, para. 115. 38 IACtHR (Judgment) 10December 2010, Vélez Loor v. Panama. See about some criticalaspects, IPPOLITO, Detention of Irregular Migrants: Dialogue anddivergence between the Inter-American and European Human RightsCourts, in Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law,2012, n. 65, p. 583-596. 39 See also the concurring or dissentingopinions of some European judges that mention the jurisprudence ofthe Inter-American Court or the American Convention on HumanRights. For example, on ECtHR G.C. (Judgment), 7 November 2013,Vallianatos et alia v. Greece, Cases Nos. 29381/09, 32684/09, seenote n. 17 in “partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion ofjudge Pinto de Albuquerque”: «The International Court of Justiceexplicitly excluded the notion of reciprocal obligations withregard to human rights treaties (Reservations to the Convention onGenocide, Advisory Opinion: ICJ Reports 1951, p. 23, followed byBarcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Judgment, ICJReports 1964, p. 32, and Application of the Convention on thePrevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, PreliminaryObjections, Judgment, 1CJ Reports 1996, p. 20), after the PermanentCourt of International Justice had conceded that “the

107

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

107

In this regard, among the references made by the European Courtof Human Rights it is worth while mentioning: the case Scoppola v.Italy40 which, in order to affirm the principle of the morefavourable criminal law, also refers to Article 9 ACHR41; the caseErgin v. Turkey42 that, in order to exclude civilians from thejurisdiction of military courts refers to the case Durand andUgarte v. Peru43, but also the line of case-law based on Article 8ACHR that was followed in other cases decided by the Court, and theInter-American Commission of Human Rights; the casesSabanchiyeva44, Maskhadove45 and Babar Ahmad et al. v. Russia 46 onthe subject of inhuman treatment, contrary to Article 5 of theACHR47; the

very objectof an international agreement, according to the intention of thecontracting Parties, may be the adoption by the Parties of somedefinite rules creating individual rights and obligations andenforceable by the national courts” (Jurisdiction of the Courts ofDanzig, Advisory Opinion, 1928, PCIJ, Series B, No. 15 (3 March1928), p. 17). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (AdvisoryOpinion No. OC-2/82, 24 September 1982, on the effect ofreservations to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights,paragraph 29) and the Human Rights Committee (General Comment no.24, 2 November 1994, on reservations to the ICCPR, paragraph 17)have expressed the same opinion». See ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 18 July2013, Maktouf e Damjanovi� v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cases Nos.2312/08 and 34179/08, note n. 31 in concurring opinion of judgePinto de Albuquerque, joined by judge Vu�ini�, about principle ofnon-retroactivity of criminal law: «The ACHR was adopted on 22November 1969 and has 23 States Parties. See, with regard to thisprinciple, Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Inter-American Courton Human Rights judgment of 30 May 1999, § 121». 40 ECtHR G.C.(Judgment) 17 September 2009, Scoppola v. Italy (n. 2), Case No.10249/03, para. 105. 41 See para. 105 which refers to the EuropeanUnion’s Charter of Fundamental Rights; instead the applicant«submitted that the Article 7 of the Convention guaranteed not onlythe non-retrospectiveness of the criminal law but also theprinciple – set forth explicitly in Article 15 of the UnitedNations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, by Article 49 ofthe EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and by Article 9 ACHR (seeparagraphs 35-37 above) – that, in the event of a differencebetween the law in force at the time of the commission of anoffence and later laws, the law to be applied was the law morefavourable to the accused (para. 86)». 42 ECtHR (Judgment) 4 May2006, Case No. 47533/99, Ergin v. Turkey (n. 6), para. 25: «Thesettled case-law of the IACtHR excludes civilians from thejurisdiction of military courts in the following terms: ‘In ademocratic Government of Laws the penal military jurisdiction shallhave a restrictive and exceptional scope and shall lead to theprotection of special juridical interests, related to the functionsassigned by law to the military forces. Consequently, civiliansmust be excluded from the military jurisdiction scope and only themilitary shall be judged by commission of crime or offenses that byits own nature attempt against legally protected interests ofmilitary order’ (IACtHR (Judgment) 16 August 2000, Durand andUgarte v. Peru, para. 117)». 43 IACtHR (Judgment) 16 August 2000,Durand y Ugarte v. Peru, para. 117. 44 ECtHR (Judgment) 6 June2013, Case No. 38450/05, Sabanchiyeva et al. v. Russia, paras.94-95. 45 ECtHR (Judgment) 6 June 2013, Case No. 18071/05,Maskhadove et al. v. Russia, paras. 148-149. 46 ECtHR (Judgment) 10April 2012, Cases Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and67354/09, Barbar Ahmad et al. v. The United Kindgom, para. 117:«The IACmmHR has found that isolation could in itself constituteinhuman treatment, and a more serious violation could result forsomeone with a mental disability» (Victor Rosario Congo v. Ecuador,case 11.427, 13 April 1999). In Montero Aranguren et al. (DetentionCenter of Catia) v. Venezuela, judgment of 5 July 2006, theIACommHR stated: «[…] solitary confinement cells must be used asdisciplinary measures or for the protection of persons only duringthe time necessary and in strict compliance with the criteria ofreasonability, necessity and legality. Such places must fulfil theminimum standards for proper accommodation, sufficient space andadequate ventilation, and they can only be used if a physiciancertifies that the prisoner is fit to sustain it (footnotesomitted)».

108

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

108

case Öcalan v. Turkey48, which, as regards death penalty,mentions both the Advisory Opinion OC-3/8349 and the judgmentsHilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago ondeath penalty50.

Another important case is the case of Mamatkulov andAbdurasulovic v. Turkey51, in which, «between relevant lawinstrument and case-law on interim measures», a large place istaken by a whole of normative inter-American sources of differentlevels and normative authority: Article 63 para. 2 of theConvention, Rule 25 of Procedure of the Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights, Rule 25 of Procedure of the Inter-American Commissionof Human Rights. In this judgment the reference to the case-law ofthe Inter-American Court of Human Rights is really wide and issupported by a variety of quoted cases (among other authorities) inwhich it has stated on several occasions that compliance withprovisional measures is necessary to ensure the effectiveness ofits decisions on the merits52.

Sometimes, instead, the normative sources of the Inter-Americansystem are referred to not only to emphasize analogies but also toshow “structural” differences between the two Conventions. Ithappens in the case Assanidze v. Georgia53, to underline how,unlike the ACHR (Article 28), the ECHR doesn’t contain a “federalclause” limiting the obligations of the federal States for eventsoccurring on the territory forming part of the federation; or onthe subject of ne bis in idem54 to show that, unlike the formulaused by other international human rights protection instruments(for example, the United Nations International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, Article 14, which refers to the same“crime”), the ACHR (Article 8) uses the expression «the samecause», which is a much broader term in the victim’s favor55; oralso to show how, unlike some national laws and Article 8 para. 2of

47 In thisregard see also ECtHR (Judgment) 9 June 2009, Case No. 33401/02,Opuz v. Turkey, paras. 83-86; ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 1 June 2010,Case no. 22978/05, Gäfgen v. Germany, paras. 65-66; ECtHR G.C.(Judgment), 7 July 2011, Case No. 55721/07, Al-skeini et al. v. theUnited Kingdom, para. 94. 48 ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 12 May 2005,Case No. 46221/99, Ocalan v. Turkey. 49 IACtHR (Advisory Opinion) 8September 1983, OC-3/83, The right to information on consularassistance in the framework of the guarantees of due process oflaw, para. 134. 50 IACtHR (Judgment) 21 June 2002, Hilaire,Constantine, Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. 148:«Taking into account the exceptionally serious and irreparablenature of, the observance of due process, with its bundle of rightsand guarantees, becomes all the more important when human life isat stake». 51 ECtHR (Judgment) 6 February 2003, Cases Nos. 46827/99and 46951/99, Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v. Turkey, paras. 42-49.See, also, ECtHR (Judgment) 20 March 1991, Case No. 15576/89, Cruzvaras et al. v. Sweden, para. 94. 52 IACtHR (Judgment) 1 August1991, Chumin� v. Peru; 2 July 1996, 13 September 1996, 11 November1997, 3 February 2001, Loayza Tamayo v. Peru; 25 May and 25September 1999, 16 August and 24 November 2000, 3 September 2002,James et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago; 7 and 18 August 2000, 26 May2001, Haitians and Dominican nationals of Haitian Origin in theDominican Republic v. Dominican Republic; 10 August 2000, 12November 2000, 30 May 2001, Alvarez et al v. Colombia; 21 June2002, Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago.53 IACtHR (Judgment) 8 April 2004, Case No. 71503/01, Assanidze v.Georgia, para. 141. 54 ECtHR (Judgment) 18 October 2011, Case No.53785/09, Tomasovic v. Croatia, para. 79; ECtHR (Judgment) 25 June2009, Case No. 55759/07, Maresti v. Croatia, para. 79 and ECtHRG.C. (Judgment) 10 February 2009, Case No. 14939/03, SergeyZolotukhin v. Russia, paras. 39-40, 79. 55 IACtHR (Judgment) 17September 1997, Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, para. 66.

109

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

109

the ACHR, the ECHR does not expressly guarantee the right of aperson charged with a criminal offence to communicate with defencecounsel without hindrance56.

Finally, above all in the less recent case law of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, wide references to the approach followed bythe Inter-American Commission of Human Rights57, as well as to theAdvisory Opinions issued by the Court58, and to the Protocols addedto the ACHR59 can be found.

4. Concluding Remarks

This work had already been started from some definite points.From one side there

was the certainty of a datum: the increasing “circulation”between jurisprudences as a product of an already consolidated“dialogue” of the European Court of Human Rights with other courts- international and national courts - within an “integrated” orbasically integrated European space of human rights. On the otherhand there was the conviction, perhaps less explored, that theabove mentioned “dialogue“ was based on the power of projection ofthe European Court of Human Rights outside Europe and on itsattitude to interact with tribunals and, in a wider sense, withjuridical systems inspired by a different “regional legaltradition” as well as by different “national legal traditions”.

The aim of this research was that of examine the extent andcharacteristics of phenomena of mutual interaction or influence -if not of embryonic “cross-fertilization” - between the case-law ofthe European Court of Human Rights, and that of the Inter-AmericanCourt of Human Rights, also in order to evaluate the possibility ofsuch jurisdictional needs having a regional character, to become“universal” within the context of the protection of humanrights.

The investigation has showed how the Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights, notwithstanding its functional and organic autonomy,is in a more or less continuous relationship with the Court ofStrasbourg. The importance of “fertilization” phenomena, even ifthey are increasing, appears to be less relevant, that is in thesense of the European Court of Human Rights, towards the Court ofSan José.

56 ECtHR (Judgment)28 November 1991, Case No. 12629/87, S. v. Switzerland, para. 48.57 See the already quoted case ECtHR, Ergin v. Turkey, para. 25,ECtHR (Judgment) 11 March 2004, Case No. 42346/98, G.B. v.Bulgaria, para. 53; ECtHR (Judgment) 11 March 2004, Case No.40653/98, Iorgov v. Bulgaria, para. 53. ECtHR G.C. (Judgment) 10December 2007, Case No. 69698/01, Stoll v. Switzerland, paras. 43,111: «Similarly, the IACmmHR has taken the view that the disclosureof State-held information should play a very important role in ademocratic society because it enables civil society to control theactions of the government to which it has entrusted the protectionof its interests […]». 58 ECtHR (Judgment) 12 March 2003, Case No.45221/99, Öcalan v. Turkey, para. 134: «It might be useful torecall that in a previous examination of Article 4 ACHR(Restrictions to the Death Penalty, Advisory Opinion OC-3/83 of 8September, 1983, Series A No. 3) the Court observed that theapplication and imposition of capital punishment are governed bythe principle that [n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of hislife». 59 ECtHR G.C. (Judgment), 12 September 2011, Cases Nos.28955/06, 28957/06, 28959/06 and 28964/06, Palomo Sánchez et al. v.Spain, para. 25: «The American Convention has a special additionalprotocol concerning economic, social and cultural rights, the‘Protocol of San Salvador’. Adopted and opened for signature on 17November 1988, it entered into force on 16 November 1999. Article 8of that Protocol, entitled ‘Trade Union Rights’[…]».

110

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

110

The jurisprudence case law reviewed for this work has showed -apart from the different size of the two jurisprudences - theextent of such interactions. They appear to be, then, still mainlymono-directional, showing elements of analogy, in the “direct orindirect” reference, within the Inter-American system, to thepositions assumed by the European Court of Human Rights. Thelatter, instead, when it refers to the jurisprudence of theInter-American Court of Human Rights or to the Inter-American as awhole, uses such references in a wider context of comparison ratherthan as a starting point for its ratio decidendi.

The research has also helped to foresee elements ofdifferentiation, mainly as a consequence of the differentpolitical-social-cultural context charactering the States signingthe two conventions. The still fragmentary Latin-American characterof the protection of human rights is then to be considered aproduct of the adaptation, in a specific international region, ofan “international legal tradition”.

Jurisprudential similarities - that are frequent because of thebig normative similarities existing between the articles of the twoConventions - can be found, then, together with significantdifferences also as regards the drawing up technique of judgements.The latter absolutely reflects the different character of the twoCourts: the Court of Strasbourg being a permanent tribunal havingan enlarged number of components, within a system characterized byan institutional monism, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,being a non permanent court having a limited number of components,within an institutional system of a dualistic kind. But thedifferent style of judgements cannot but be influenced, as well, bythe needs of trial economy influencing the works of the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights; they are represented, for example, by thedifferent recourse to public hearing, when the latter, which ismuch used in the works of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights,even if recently inclining to a reduction of its components,performs the function of representing a first kind of reparation ofa wrong suffered.

In conclusion, jurisprudential interaction is going to becomeone of the leading elements of a wider circulation of“international legal traditions” of a regional kind, such as theEuropean and the American ones (or, rectius, the Latin-Americanone)60. The whole is about the identity of the protected good,apart from the regional reference systems, but also within thelimits deriving from the power of adaptation of a conventionalmodel”- like that of the ECHR - within a continental space like theAmerican one which is also characterized by an outstandingreceptive attitude of the ius naturae gentium of the Europeantradition61

60 See thereference contained in the already quoted IACtHR (Judgment) 28November 2012, Artavia Murillo et al. (“in vitro fertilization”) v.Costa Rica al Case of Oliver Brüstle v. Greenpeace of the ECJ. See,in the doctrine, PANEBIANCO, La recezione del ‘ius gentium’ inEuropa e America Latina, in Riv. dir. int. priv. proc., 1981, n.17, p. 434 ff., as well as, from a different disciplinary point ofview,. SCHIPANI, Il diritto romano nel ‘nuovo mondo’, in Il dirittodei Nuovi Mondi, Atti Genova 1992, Padova, 1994, pp. 55-112. I alsotake the liberty of referring to my Codice dell’integrazionelatino-americana. Il SELA-Sistema Economico Latino-americano.C�digo de la integraci�n Latino-americana. EL SELA. SistemaEcon�mico Latino americano, Consiglio Nazionale delleRicerche-Progetto Europa-America Latina, Salerno, 1992, pp.647-674. 61 With reference to the American system of human rights,in its widest meaning, let us refer to DI STASI, Il Sistemaamericano dei diritti umani. Circolazione e mutamento di unainternational legal tradition, Torino, 2004, in

111

Ordine internazionale e dir i t t i umani , (2014), 97, pp.97-111.

111

particularp. 13 ff. For a comparison between systems and “models” of Europeanand Latin-American organizations, see. PENNETTA, Integración eintegraciones, Bogotà, 2011 and. PANEBIANCO, GUIDA, DI STASI,Introduzione al diritto comunitario comparato, Salerno, 1993.