“YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOUR PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE MISLED THE FBI...?” WHEN INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE ARE CONFUSED: COMMENTS ON THE CASE OF MASSACRE OF SANTO DOMINGO V. COLOMBIA
The Inter-American Human Rights system continues to be one full of surprises. On the one hand, there are State official agencies that see no distinction between the system itself and any defense in a typical criminal case, and on the other hand, there is an Inter-American Court that only exceptional...
| Autor Principal: | Prieto Sanjuán, Rafael A.; Doctor en Derecho (Universidad París 2 Panthéon-Assas), Especialista y Magíster en Derecho Internacional por la misma Universidad, Magíster en Ciencias Políticas (Sorbonne-Nouvelle) y en Estudios Estratégicos (Paris-Nord). Profesor Titular Pontifica Universidad Javeriana. |
|---|---|
| Formato: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Idioma: | spa |
| Publicado: |
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana
2013
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: |
http://revistas.javeriana.edu.co/index.php/vnijuri/article/view/6124 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: |
The Inter-American Human Rights system continues to be one full of surprises. On the one hand, there are State official agencies that see no distinction between the system itself and any defense in a typical criminal case, and on the other hand, there is an Inter-American Court that only exceptionally rescues the judicial internal system of the States. That was exactly what occurred in the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia case involving a tragic event where 17 civilians were killed and 27 were injured while a violent fight took place between the Colombian military and the FARC. The first part of this manuscript will feature the inconsistencies of the State –the only entity with standing before the Court– which resorted to a defense that assailed its own Judicial Branch by both denouncing an alleged fraud on the part of the Prosecutor’s Office and by dismissing the decisions made by the criminal and administrative judicial instances. Ironically enough, this strategy could well be the total opposite of what an appropriate defense of the troops involved in this tragic event should look like. The second part of this manuscript will feature the form in which the Inter-American Court ended up saving the judicial branch when it labeled the grounds of the State agent (as to the defense presented before the IAHR Commission) as estoppel and when it described such behavior, without hesitation, as contrary to the principles of good faith, equity and legal stability. |
|---|