Em meio ao contexto da Guerra Fria, a segunda metade do século XX trouxe para a América Latina, em oposição às lutas por emancipação popular, ditaduras civis-militares que perpetraram gravíssimas violações de Direitos Humanos contra a população que deveria estar sob a guarida dos Estados. Em resposta a isso, movimentos de resistência tanto pacíficos quanto armados eclodiram pelo continente. Um dos episódios de resistência mais emblemáticos deste período no Brasil foi a chamada Guerrilha do Araguaia, da qual chegaram a participar 86 indivíduos – quase todos estudantes universitários que viram nas armas o único meio de derrubar a ditadura. A reação do Exército não tardou e, destes 86, 70 foram vítimas de desaparecimento forçado. Em 2010, o Estado brasileiro foi condenado pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos a localizar os desparecidos e a punir os responsáveis por essas violações, entre outras medidas. Transcorrido um ano da sentença, o Brasil entregou à Corte seu Relatório de Cumprimento, o qual é objeto de análise deste trabalho a partir do marco teórico da Justiça de Transição. / As a consequence of the Cold War, the second half of the twentieth century brought to Latin America, in opposition to the popular struggles for emancipation, civil-military dictatorships which perpetrated serious Human Rights violations against the population who should be under the protection of the States. In response to this, both peaceful resistance movements as well as armed ones erupted across the continent. One of the most iconic episodes of resistance in Brazil was the Guerrilha do Araguaia, which involved 86 individuals at its best moment – almost all of them college students who saw armed resistance as the only way to overthrow the dictatorship. The Army’s reaction came soon after and, of the 86 who joined the guerrilla, 70 were victims of enforced disappearance. In 2010, the Brazilian State was held responsible for these disappearances before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which demanded the State to locate those who were still missing and to punish those responsible for the violations, among other measures to be taken. One year after the sentence was issued, Brazil handed in its Compliance Report, which is the object of study of the present work under the theoretical framework of Transitional Justice.

Analisa a figura jurídica da Responsabilidade Internacional Estatal por violações aos direitos humanos, na teoria e na prática, com ênfase no Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. Para tanto, relata a evolução histórica do conceito de responsabilidade internacional e sua interação atual com os direitos humanos, assim como os elementos característicos, natureza jurídica e exceções destas possíveis violações por parte dos órgãos ou funcionários do Estado ao qual pertence à suposta vítima, seja nacional ou estrangeiro. Alega que no sistema Interamericano, existe uma desigualdade de legislações e falta de conscientização por parte dos Estados da importância que tem o respeito ao sistema regional de proteção dos direitos humanos ao qual voluntariamente se têm submetido. / It analyses the legal figure of the State International Responsibility for violations to the human rights, in the theory and in practice, with emphasis in the Inter-American System of Human Rights. In such a way, it tells the historical evolution of the concept of international responsibility and its current interaction with the human rights. Also, the characteristic elements, legal nature and exceptions for possible violations of the institutions or employees of the State witch belongs the supposed victim, either national or foreign. It claims that in Inter-American system an inequality of legislations exist, also, and awareness of the States about the importance that must be the respect to the regional system of protection of the human rights, witch voluntarily has been submitted.

Em meio ao contexto da Guerra Fria, a segunda metade do século XX trouxe para a América Latina, em oposição às lutas por emancipação popular, ditaduras civis-militares que perpetraram gravíssimas violações de Direitos Humanos contra a população que deveria estar sob a guarida dos Estados. Em resposta a isso, movimentos de resistência tanto pacíficos quanto armados eclodiram pelo continente. Um dos episódios de resistência mais emblemáticos deste período no Brasil foi a chamada Guerrilha do Araguaia, da qual chegaram a participar 86 indivíduos – quase todos estudantes universitários que viram nas armas o único meio de derrubar a ditadura. A reação do Exército não tardou e, destes 86, 70 foram vítimas de desaparecimento forçado. Em 2010, o Estado brasileiro foi condenado pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos a localizar os desparecidos e a punir os responsáveis por essas violações, entre outras medidas. Transcorrido um ano da sentença, o Brasil entregou à Corte seu Relatório de Cumprimento, o qual é objeto de análise deste trabalho a partir do marco teórico da Justiça de Transição. / As a consequence of the Cold War, the second half of the twentieth century brought to Latin America, in opposition to the popular struggles for emancipation, civil-military dictatorships which perpetrated serious Human Rights violations against the population who should be under the protection of the States. In response to this, both peaceful resistance movements as well as armed ones erupted across the continent. One of the most iconic episodes of resistance in Brazil was the Guerrilha do Araguaia, which involved 86 individuals at its best moment – almost all of them college students who saw armed resistance as the only way to overthrow the dictatorship. The Army’s reaction came soon after and, of the 86 who joined the guerrilla, 70 were victims of enforced disappearance. In 2010, the Brazilian State was held responsible for these disappearances before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which demanded the State to locate those who were still missing and to punish those responsible for the violations, among other measures to be taken. One year after the sentence was issued, Brazil handed in its Compliance Report, which is the object of study of the present work under the theoretical framework of Transitional Justice.

Analisa a figura jurídica da Responsabilidade Internacional Estatal por violações aos direitos humanos, na teoria e na prática, com ênfase no Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. Para tanto, relata a evolução histórica do conceito de responsabilidade internacional e sua interação atual com os direitos humanos, assim como os elementos característicos, natureza jurídica e exceções destas possíveis violações por parte dos órgãos ou funcionários do Estado ao qual pertence à suposta vítima, seja nacional ou estrangeiro. Alega que no sistema Interamericano, existe uma desigualdade de legislações e falta de conscientização por parte dos Estados da importância que tem o respeito ao sistema regional de proteção dos direitos humanos ao qual voluntariamente se têm submetido. / It analyses the legal figure of the State International Responsibility for violations to the human rights, in the theory and in practice, with emphasis in the Inter-American System of Human Rights. In such a way, it tells the historical evolution of the concept of international responsibility and its current interaction with the human rights. Also, the characteristic elements, legal nature and exceptions for possible violations of the institutions or employees of the State witch belongs the supposed victim, either national or foreign. It claims that in Inter-American system an inequality of legislations exist, also, and awareness of the States about the importance that must be the respect to the regional system of protection of the human rights, witch voluntarily has been submitted.

Em meio ao contexto da Guerra Fria, a segunda metade do século XX trouxe para a América Latina, em oposição às lutas por emancipação popular, ditaduras civis-militares que perpetraram gravíssimas violações de Direitos Humanos contra a população que deveria estar sob a guarida dos Estados. Em resposta a isso, movimentos de resistência tanto pacíficos quanto armados eclodiram pelo continente. Um dos episódios de resistência mais emblemáticos deste período no Brasil foi a chamada Guerrilha do Araguaia, da qual chegaram a participar 86 indivíduos – quase todos estudantes universitários que viram nas armas o único meio de derrubar a ditadura. A reação do Exército não tardou e, destes 86, 70 foram vítimas de desaparecimento forçado. Em 2010, o Estado brasileiro foi condenado pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos a localizar os desparecidos e a punir os responsáveis por essas violações, entre outras medidas. Transcorrido um ano da sentença, o Brasil entregou à Corte seu Relatório de Cumprimento, o qual é objeto de análise deste trabalho a partir do marco teórico da Justiça de Transição. / As a consequence of the Cold War, the second half of the twentieth century brought to Latin America, in opposition to the popular struggles for emancipation, civil-military dictatorships which perpetrated serious Human Rights violations against the population who should be under the protection of the States. In response to this, both peaceful resistance movements as well as armed ones erupted across the continent. One of the most iconic episodes of resistance in Brazil was the Guerrilha do Araguaia, which involved 86 individuals at its best moment – almost all of them college students who saw armed resistance as the only way to overthrow the dictatorship. The Army’s reaction came soon after and, of the 86 who joined the guerrilla, 70 were victims of enforced disappearance. In 2010, the Brazilian State was held responsible for these disappearances before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which demanded the State to locate those who were still missing and to punish those responsible for the violations, among other measures to be taken. One year after the sentence was issued, Brazil handed in its Compliance Report, which is the object of study of the present work under the theoretical framework of Transitional Justice.

In this article I develop a normative theory of the subsidiarity principle in international adjudication, which seeks to offer a balanced answer to the question of to what extent is it legitimate for a body such as the European Court of Human Rights to interfere with the national criteria in the face of a complaint on conventional rights violation. In contrast with demands for greater deference to states in both Europe and Latin America, based on a statist idea of subsidiarity, I articulate a «cooperative» understanding of the ideas of human rights and the principle of subsidiarity, linking them to Buchanan’s notion of ecological legitimacy. The proposal I defend leads to a division of institutional labor within regional human rights systems that increases the legitimacy of all the institutions involved. At the same time, I devote the last part of the paper to implement such cooperative view, on the one hand, showing the importance of an incremental logic in the effective protection of human rights and, on the other hand, offering a rationalized version of the national margin of appreciation doctrine. / En este trabajo desarrollo una teoría normativa del principio de subsidiariedad en la adjudicación internacional que pretende ofrecer una respuesta equilibrada a la pregunta de hasta qué punto es legítimo para un órgano como el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos interferir en el criterio estatal cuando valora una denuncia por violación de derechos convencionales. Frente a las demandas de una mayor deferencia hacia los Estados que encontramos tanto en Europa como en Latinoamérica, basadas en una idea estatista de la subsidiariedad, articulo una concepción «cooperativa» de los derechos humanos y del principio de subsidiariedad, uniéndolas a la idea de legitimidad ecológica sugerida por Buchanan. La propuesta que defiendo conduce a una división del trabajo institucional dentro de los sistemas regionales de derechos humanos que aumenta la legitimidad de todas las instituciones involucradas. Al mismo tiempo, desarrollo una forma de implementar esta concepción cooperativa, por una parte, mostrando la importancia de una lógica incremental en la protección efectiva de derechos humanos y, por otra parte, ofreciendo una versión racionalizada de la doctrina del margen de apreciación estatal.

In den letzten Jahrzehnten hat sich in Lateinamerika ein neuer Kontext für die Durchsetzung von Menschenrechten herausgebildet. Die organisatorische Entwicklung des Interamerikanischen Menschenrechtsschutzsystems (IAS), die Verabschiedung neuer Verfassungen durch die nationalen Gesetzgeber und die Anwendung innovativer Verfassungsauslegungen durch die maßgeblichen Gerichte in der Region haben zur Entstehung eines kosmopolitischen lateinamerikanischen Konstitutionalismus geführt. In diesem neuen Kontext hat der Interamerikanische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (IACtHR) damit begonnen, die gerichtliche Überprüfung innerstaatlicher Gesetze zu praktizieren, d.h. er hat bei mehreren Gelegenheiten nationale Behörden angewiesen, innerstaatliche Gesetze wegen ihrer Unvereinbarkeit mit der Amerikanischen Menschenrechtskonvention (ACHR) für ungültig zu erklären. Angesichts der zunehmenden Konflikte zwischen nationalen und internationalen Menschenrechtsautoritäten zielt diese Studie darauf ab, den legitimsten und effektivsten Ansatz für die Praxis der interamerikanischen Konventionskontrolle zu finden. Ausgehend von der Debatte über die innerstaatliche richterliche Normenkontrolle werden zunächst die Gründe für die Praxis einer starken internationalen Normenkontrolle untersucht. Anschließend adressiert diese Studie Theorien, die versucht haben, die interamerikanische Konventionskontrolle zu schwächen. Diese Theorien haben sich häufig für die Übernahme des nationalen Ermessensspielraums auf der Grundlage der Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte ausgesprochen. Schließlich plädiert die vorliegende Studie für eine kontextbasierte Theorie der interamerikanischen gerichtlichen Überprüfung und versucht, den nationalen Ermessensspielraum mit dem kosmopolitischen Konstitutionalismus Lateinamerikas in Einklang zu bringen. / In recent decades, a new human rights enforcement context has emerged in Latin America. The organizational evolution of the Inter-American System for Human Rights Protection (IAS), the adoption of new constitutions by national legislatures, and the adoption of innovative constitutional interpretations by the most authoritative courts in the region have led to the emergence of Latin American cosmopolitan constitutionalism. Within this new context, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) has started practicing the judicial review of domestic laws, i.e., on several occasions, it has ordered national authorities to invalidate domestic laws due to their incompatibility with the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). By reviewing domestic laws, the IACtHR has placed itself in the middle of a dialogue between legislatures and courts that was long seen as an exclusively domestic conversation within Latin American constitutionalism. This strong form of international jurisprudence has made the normative questions relating to judicial review much more complex to address. Given the increasing conflicts between domestic and inter-American human rights authorities, this study aims to find the most legitimate and effective approach to the practice of inter-American judicial review. In line with this, and drawing on the debate about domestic judicial review, it first assesses the reasons behind the practice of strong international judicial review. In order to offer a better form of inter-institutional interaction within the IAS, this study later addresses theories that have sought to weaken the practice of inter-American judicial review based on the principle of subsidiarity. These theories have often advocated for the adoption of the national margin of appreciation based on the European experience with this concept of deference to national authorities. Finally, this study advocates for a context-based theory of inter-American judicial review and tries to reconcile the national margin of appreciation with Latin American cosmopolitan constitutionalism.

Cette étude a pour but de présenter le dialogue entre les juges de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) et de la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’homme (CIADH), deux Cours régionales supranationales, visant toutes deux à garantir le respect des droits fondamentaux. Le dialogue est étudié à travers l’analyse du contentieux portant sur l’intégrité de la personne humaine et sur la protection des droits économiques et sociaux. Ce sujet se rattache au contexte de mondialisation qui vient transformer les relations de pouvoir et révèle l’émancipation des juges dans la régulation transgouvernementale. Le présent mémoire conclut que le dialogue vise à établir une cohérence entre les systèmes afin de faire prévaloir une vision commune des droits de l’homme à travers la constitution d’un espace euro-américain, tel un réseau d’échange informel. Néanmoins, le dialogue est limité par certains facteurs contextuels liés aux réalités contrastées des deux systèmes régionaux ainsi que par la volonté des acteurs étatiques. / This research aims to present the dialogue between judges of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human rights (IAHR). These two supranational regional courts both aim at ensuring respect for fundamental rights within their jurisdiction. The dialogue between them is analysed through the study of disputes regarding the integrity of human being and the protection of economic and social rights. This subject is greatly linked to the context of power shifts induced by globalization and reveals how judges are emancipating themselves through transgovernemental regulatory networks. In conclusion, this thesis demonstrates the dialogue’s objective to establish a certain coherence between the systems and to allow a common vision of human rights to be brought forward through the constitution of an informal exchange network now known as the Euro-American interspace. However, the dialogue is restricted by many contextual factors and the contrasted realities of the two regional systems, as well as the will of state actors.

La sentence internationale est communément réputée obligatoire et non exécutoire et l’exécution est conçue comme une phase « post-adjudicative » relevant de l’imperium de l’Etat. L’étude des mécanismes de surveillance de l’exécution des arrêts et décisions des Cours européenne et interaméricaine des droits de l’homme permet un renversement de ces postulats. Alors que les articles 46§2 de la CEDH et 65 de la CADH prévoient des surveillances de nature politique de l’exécution desdits arrêts et décisions, la pratique a été toute autre. Il s’avère que les procédures de surveillance en question sont respectivement quasi juridictionnelle et juridictionnelle et continuent autrement le procès. Elles sont aussi contentieuses, car les organes de surveillance tranchent des différends relatifs à l’exécution des arrêts et décisions, selon les principes directeurs du procès. Les contentieux de l’exécution européen et interaméricain permettent alors une redéfinition du procès en droit international et attestent que la notion de phase « post-adjudicative » n’existe pas. Ces procédures de surveillance ont en outre une double finalité. La première s’attache au contrôle de deux types de comportements étatiques, des comportements imposés et escomptés. Ces contrôles révélant que l’Etat n’est pas libre de ses moyens d’exécution, visent à aboutir au résultat de l’exécution effective de l’arrêt ou de la décision juridictionnelle telle que cette exécution est conçue par les organes de surveillance. La seconde finalité consiste en des suivis d’actes rendus au cours des surveillances et desquels résulte une chose à exécuter. D’un point de vue procédural, les suivis de cette chose qui émerge des précisions apportées à la chose jugée et aux comportements étatiques, révèlent l’existence de nouveaux types de recours dans le contentieux international. D’un point de vue substantiel, les suivis de la chose sont une contrainte formelle pour l’Etat qui n’est libéré des procédures de surveillance que s’il exécute l’arrêt ou la décision conformément à la chose à exécuter. Ces suivis sont donc des voies d’exécution et attestent alors de la force exécutoire interne des arrêts et décisions des Cours européenne et interaméricaine des droits de l’homme, que les organes de surveillance garantissent. / In the absence of enforcement mechanisms, an international decision is deemed binding and non-enforceable, and execution is generally perceived as a “post-adjudicative” phase, belonging to the State’s imperium. Study of the supervision of execution of the judgments and decisions of the European and Inter-american Courts of Human Rights reveals that these basic assumptions can be challenged. Whereas articles 46§2 of the ECHR and 65 of the ACHR provide for political modes of supervision of execution of the judgments and decisions of the European and Inter-american Courts of Human Rights, the practice has been completely different. It appears that the said supervision procedures are respectively quasi judicial and judicial and arise in the continuation of the trial. They are also contentious, given that the supervision authorities resolve disputes relating to the execution of judgments and decisions in accordance with due process principles. These procedures contribute to redefining the concept of trial in international law and illustrate that the notion of “post-adjudicative” phase does not exist. They also serve a double purpose. First, they allow control of two types of the State conduct, imposed and expected conduct. Illustrating that the State is not free in choosing its means of execution, such control aspires to achieve the effective execution of the judgment or judicial decision. The second purpose consists in following up on the resolutions and/or orders made in the course of supervision and which result in a res executiva. This res executiva, which would have emerged on the basis of clarifications made to res judicata and State conduct, in turn becomes the subject of the follow-up procedures. The consequences of such follow-up are twofold : from the procedural point of view, it creates new forms of appeals; from the substantive point of view, it formally constraints the State and achieves enforceability of judgments and decisions, guaranteed by the supervision authorities.

No description available.