Advertisement

Friendly Settlements in the Inter-American Human Rights System: Efficiency, Effectiveness and Scope

  • Natalia Saltalamacchia ZiccardiEmail author
  • Jimena Álvarez Martínez
  • Brianda Romero Castelán
  • María José Urzúa Valverde
Chapter
Part of the Studies of the Americas book series (STAM)

Abstract

The use of friendly settlements, as an alternative mechanism to contentious litigation, is on the rise in the Inter-American Human Rights System. This chapter discusses their impact from both the victims’ perspective and that of the general protection of human rights in the region. It draws on an original database of the friendly settlements published during the period 2001–2011, in order to assess their ‘efficiency’ (i.e. timely resolution of cases), ‘effectiveness’ (i.e. compliance rates), and ‘scope’ (i.e. types of violations addressed and types of reparations advanced). It concludes that, while friendly settlements have not provided more expedient procedures, they have high levels of compliance and the potential to advance guarantees of non-repetition. Overall, the chapter identifies two basic conditions under which friendly settlements can have a positive impact.

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to Paulina Barrera for her assistance during the codification stage and to Carlos María Pelayo Möller for his comments on an earlier version of the text.

References

  1. Basch, Fernando, Leonardo Filippini, Ana Laya, Mariano Nino, Felicitas Rossi, and Bárbara Schreiber. 2004. La efectividad del Sistema Interamericano de Protección de Derechos Humanos: un enfoque cuantitativo sobre su funcionamiento y sobre el cumplimento de sus decisiones. Sur. Revista Internacional de Derechos Humanos 7 (12): 9–36.Google Scholar
  2. Beristain, Carlos Martín. 2009. Diálogos sobre la reparación. Quito: Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos.Google Scholar
  3. Burke, Sean Brian, and Matthew Webster. 2010. Facilitating Friendly Settlements in the Inter-American Human Rights System: A Comparative Analysis with Recommendations. SSRN Working Paper. Available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1676603
  4. Caflisch, Lucius. 2006. The Reform of the European Court of Human Rights: Protocol No 14 and Beyond 2006. Human Rights Law Review 6 (2): 403–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carmona Tinoco, Jorge Ulises. 2005. La solución amistosa de peticiones de derechos humanos en el ámbito universal y regional, con especial referencia al Sistema Interamericano. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional 5: 83–122.Google Scholar
  6. GIRE. 2005. Paulina Five Years Later. Mexico City: GIRE.Google Scholar
  7. Human Rights Clinic. 2011. Maximizando la justicia, minimizando la demora: acelerando los procedimientos de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. University of Texas School of Law, December.Google Scholar
  8. IACHR. Informe anual 2013. http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/docs/anual/2013/indice.asp. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.
  9. ———. Informes de solución amistosa. http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/amistosas.asp. Accessed 1 Aug 2014.
  10. ———. Reglamento de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, August 2013. http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/mandato/Basicos/reglamentoCIDH.asp. Accessed 17 Aug 2014.
  11. ———. Informe No. 84/11 (solución amistosa), Caso 12. 532, Penitenciarias de Mendoza, Argentina, July 21, 2011.Google Scholar
  12. ———. Informe No. 22/11 (solución amistosa), Petición 71-06 y otras, Gloria José Yaquetto Paredes y Otros, Perú, March 23, 2011.Google Scholar
  13. ———. Informe No. 164/10 (solución amistosa), Petición 12.623, Luis Rey García Villagrán, México, November 1, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. ———. Informe No. 163/10 (solución amistosa), Caso 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate y Otros, Chile, November 1, 2010.Google Scholar
  15. ———. Informe No. 110/06 (solución amistosa), Caso 12.555, Sebastián Echaniz Alcorta y Juan Víctor Galarza Mendiola, Venezuela, October 21, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. ———. Informe No. 30/04 (solución amistosa), Petición 4617-02, Mercedes Julia Huentao Beroiza y otras, Chile, March 11, 2004.Google Scholar
  17. ———. Informe No. 95/03 (solución amistosa), Caso 11. 289, José Pereira, Brasil, October 24, 2003.Google Scholar
  18. IACHR Executive Secretariat. 2011. Presentation on “Friendly Settlement” (Working Group Meeting of September 27, 2011). Special Working Group to Reflect on the Workings of the IACHR with a View to Strengthening the IAHRS, OEA/Ser.G, GT/SIDH/INF. 41/11, December 2.Google Scholar
  19. Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL). 1999. Entrevistas con Claudio Grossman y Carlos Ayala. Revista IDEELE, 121, August.Google Scholar
  20. Keller, Helen, Magdalena Forowicz, and Lorenz Engi. 2010. Friendly Settlements Before the European Court of Human Rights. Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Merrills, John. 2010. The Means of Dispute Settlement. In International Law, ed. Michael Evans, 533–559. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. OAS. 2011. Informe del Grupo de Trabajo especial de reflexión sobre el funcionamiento de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos para el fortalecimiento del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos para la consideración del Consejo Permanente. OEA/Ser.G, GT/SIDH-13/11 rev.2, December 13.Google Scholar
  23. Serna de la Garza, José María. 2014. El concepto del ius commune latinoamericano en derechos humanos: elementos para una agenda de investigación. In Ius Constitutionale Commune en América Latina: rasgos, potencialidades y desafíos, ed. Armin Von Bogdandy, Héctor Fix-Fierro, and Mariela Morales Antoniazzi, 199–217. Mexico City: UNAM/Max Planck Institut/Instituto Iberoamericano de Derecho Constitucional.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalia Saltalamacchia Ziccardi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jimena Álvarez Martínez
    • 2
  • Brianda Romero Castelán
    • 2
  • María José Urzúa Valverde
    • 3
  1. 1.Academic Department of International Studies, Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM)Mexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Mexican Ministry of Foreign AffairsMexico CityMexico
  3. 3.Department of PoliticsPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations