“Para los pobres, no hay justicia”

By Sara Gold

“There is no justice for the poor”.[1]

All throughout my legal education, I have encountered this statement. In my Law & Poverty class, we examined the many ways laws have contributed to poverty. We discussed how often those in the most precarious of situations find themselves without legal representation due to the expensive fees of lawyers and the various limitations on legal aid in Quebec. When volunteering at McGill’s Legal Information Clinic, I spoke to clients facing hardship who were limited by a confusing and inaccessible justice system. And – at a public hearing during my internship this summer at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights [2], I encountered this statement again – this time directly expressed by a grieving mother who had lost her son.[3]

The Court in session on May 25, 2018.

On March 20, 1999, Walter Munárriz Escobar disappeared after being supposedly detained by police in Lircay, Peru. Although Peru posited that he was released, the Inter-American Commission argued that there was no documentary evidence of that release, that the testimonies brought forward by the State alleging to the release of Munárriz Escobar did not meet the Court’s minimum standards of credibility, and that there was evidence that Munárriz Escobar was subject to physical and verbal abuse while in the custody of the State.[4] Almost twenty years had passed since he disappeared, with the inadequate investigations of the State yielding few results.

During the hearing, I observed the many ways justice is limited for the poor.

First, I watched Munárriz Escobar´s mother, Gladys Justina Escobar Candiotti, testify to how the disappearance of her son changed her and her family´s lives. She declared the above statement in response to an interrogation by one of the judges – this was her first time speaking in a Court – she was never given the opportunity to testify to her son´s disappearance in Peru. She claimed that her family was economically worse-off since he had helped provide for them since her husband had passed. She described her limited access to justice given the many institutional, procedural and legal barriers she encountered throughout the entire process.

Second, as the hearing progressed, I watched the representatives of Peru question Escobar Candiotti. They spoke quickly, in legalese, and showed little empathy. They formulated their questions using complicated words and by making reference to procedural irregularities she knew nothing about. It was clear that Escobar Candiotti did not understand all of their questions.[5] Their inaccessible use of language is another way justice limits the poor – this mirrored the incomprehension I often witnessed parties experience during court visits in Montreal. I thought about whether any guidance was provided to the State representatives on the manner of questioning victims in the courtroom. I wondered if the Court could intervene.  Article 52(4) of The Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights indicates than they can.[6]  However, it still remains unclear as to whether this can apply to the victim´s comprehension of a question and to what extent the Court can intervene. Witnessing this part of the hearing reaffirmed my belief that justice is limited for the poor if legal proceedings are tainted with jargon and if legal actors fail to ensure that non-legal actors are fully aware of the nature of proceedings directly affecting them.

Third, I listened to Escobar Candiotti make her closing statements, and emotionally appeal for her son´s remains, declaring that all she wanted was “justice”, “justice to feel closure, justice so that her other children could also feel closure”.[7] The President of the Court directly responded to her plea in pronouncing that “this court administers justice, Inter-American justice”.[8] Witnessing this made me think about how the Court has successfully helped provide a space for so many to achieve justice. The point of public hearings is to allow victims to speak out publicly and to allow for the acts of States and their agents to no longer be shrouded in secrecy. Yet, so many individuals remain left behind. This is exemplified in the statistical data on the activities of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).[9] In 2017, the IACHR received 2494 petitions. 473 were opened for processing and out of those, 17 were submitted to the Court for adjudication.[10] While cases must first be processed by the Commission, and while they may be resolved before making it to the Court, and while the Court definitely does not have enough resources to hear every case, these circumstances do not preclude the reality that many victims of human rights violations in the Americas are left without the opportunity to even make it to the preliminary stages of the Inter-American system. Only State parties and the Commission can refer contentious cases to the Court. Many are left without the opportunity to seek justice.

My experience so far in Costa Rica has been wonderful. I have been privileged to meet extremely kind, intelligent and inspiring individuals. I feel extremely lucky to be here. However, I won´t forget that day. I keep thinking back to Gladys Justina Escobar Candiotti, and to the Court´s role, and my role within and beyond this internship, in working towards a world where justice is an opportunity for all.

My colleagues and I during the session on May 25, 2018.

[1]See 49:48 of Caso Munárriz Escobar y otros Vs. Perú (Audiencia Pública 25-05-2018). Found here: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/galeria-multimedia-en.html

[2] The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is the judicial organ of the Inter-American human rights system. With the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and under the umbrella of the Organization of American States (OAS), it contributes to the protection of human rights in the Americas.  It is located in San José, Costa Rica. It holds hearings on a part-time basis. For a quick explanation of the Court, please see: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/abccorte/abc/6/index.html

[3] Public hearing of Caso Munárriz Escobar y otros Vs. Perú (Audiencia Pública 25-05-2018), held at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on May 25, 2018.

[4] Please see: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/tramite/munarriz_escobar_y_otros.pdf

[5] See 36:50 and 38:14 of Caso Munárriz Escobar y otros Vs. Perú (Audiencia Pública 25-05-2018). Found here: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/galeria-multimedia-en.html

[6] Article 52(4): “The Presidency shall have the faculty of deciding the pertinence of questions posed and of excusing the party being questioned from answering, unless the Court deems otherwise. Leading questions shall not be admitted”. Please see:http://www.corteidh.or.cr/sitios/reglamento/nov_2009_ing.pdf

[7] See 57:46 of Caso Munárriz Escobar y otros Vs. Perú (Audiencia Pública 25-05-2018). Found here: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/galeria-multimedia-en.html

[8] See 58:20 of Caso Munárriz Escobar y otros Vs. Perú (Audiencia Pública 25-05-2018). Found here: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/galeria-multimedia-en.html

[9] Under the American Convention on Human Rights, cases can be referred to the Court by the IACHR or a Member State. The Court is a measure of last resort; cases can only referred to the Court by the Commission once the State has failed to comply with the recommendations made by the Commission in their process.

[10] For 2017 statistics, see:  http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/multimedia/statistics/statistics.html

The Best Journeys Are Not Planned, But Discovered

By Elias D León

It has been several weeks since I returned from Costa Rica where I interned at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Shortly after returning to Montreal, I encountered way too many memories floating around my brain, which developed one by one thanks to my 12 weeks once in a lifetime experience at what, I call, one of the most exotic and colourful places on Earth. In this first blog post, I will offer some of my reflections and impressions about my time in Costa Rica representing McGill Law at the OAS’ principal judiciary organ that promotes and protects human rights across the Americas.

Andrea Buitrago & Elias León, McGill Law Representatives at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Latin America’s Flavours: Returning to my Roots

On May 3, 2017 at 6:58 am I woke up in my flat in Montreal thrilled to embark on a journey that I thought would bring me back to the continent of my origin: Latin America. I wasn’t entirely sure if I was nervous, scared, anxious, or just happy. Perhaps a combination of all. Since the political turmoil in Venezuela got out of control, I have not been back to Latin America. I knew Costa Rica would be very different from Venezuela, in terms of political stability, proper access to food, health-care, water (from what my folks would call ‘luxurious goods’ currently non-existent in my homeland, regrettably). However, I was very curious to land in the International Airport of San Jose to discover how similar this small country in Central America would remind me of Venezuela in a particular way. I don’t mean returning to my “real” roots, rather I mean returning to the continent that brings together rich cultures, tasteful gastronomy, vibrant social life, and a devotion for hard work in trying to become a better person every day – that’s what made me think this opportunity was all about: returning to a country that would make me feel, more less, back in Venezuela since, as of today, I cannot seem to be able to do this.

As soon as I arrived in Costa Rica’s capital, my good friend Natalia and her friends picked me at the airport and drove to her house to meet with her family. Immediately, I felt just as if a friend from childhood picked me up in Caracas to then have a home-cooked meal. As the days progressed, I was lucky enough to meet several locals who welcomed me with wide-open arms and invited me to countless journeys with the objective to discover Costa Rica’s diverse biodiversity, the “pura vida” style, appreciation for environmental stewardship, and most importantly, the beginning of new friendships, which is how they take pride in being good Costa Ricans hosts. Interestingly, I also met several Venezuelans. In fact, there were so many Venezuelans who have recently arrived in Costa Rica as political refugees that, overtime, it really felt like returning to my roots (and this time I mean it literally). However, I have to admit, I was sad (and possibly upset) to learn from each Venezuelan’s story about how they had to leave everything behind overnight – including their families, loved ones, professional careers such as practices in medicine, the law, business, and engineering. They all seemed to have to start from zero and worked as Uber drivers or blue collar positions in order to make just enough Colones (Costa Rican currency) to eat, pay a shared room in a flat, and save enough so they could send money for their families who could not escape the current dictatorship Venezuela is facing.

My 89 days in Latin America were extraordinary. These twelve weeks allowed me to reflect upon and cherish all opportunities Canada had given me until now, but this visit also made me feel proud to belong to a continent with such a unique culture. People there are hard-workers, warm, loud, funny, great sense of humour, love to go dancing or to share “arepas” or “gallo pinto” during a lunch break, devoted to faithful groups, constantly staying active through physical activities, and so much more. I am lucky to know we, as Canadians, can do all of these things in Canada as well, but there was something unique about being able to do all of these things over again in Latin America, just like I used to during the first fifteen years of my life in Venezuela. 

Oath of Confidentiality Official Ceremony with 2017 Interns & Visiting Professionals

The Inter-American Court: From exchanges of Conversations with Human Rights Violation Victims to the President of the Court

One of the biggest assets of working at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is definitely the people you meet. As for all of us in the legal profession is social, the nature of the work is grounded on a wide range of different personalities whom you work with and interact at many different levels. Yes, you certainly get to work with some of the brightest and most respected human rights jurists across the Americas. But you also get meet, talk, interview, and listen to the very people who travel hundreds of miles to a architecturally colonial style white house in the historical neighbourhood of Los Yoses, which serves as the premises of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. For confidentiality constraints, I cannot disclose details, but what I can share is my reflection on how powerful the words I exchanged with some of the victims of human rights (who were going to testify during court hearings in the cases I was assigned to) were and how much they motivated me to do my work better in my office at the Court. Most of the time I would be speechless to learn from what they had to say. Other times, I felt powerless by not being able to ‘do more’ or ‘try to assure them that everything was going to be okay’ – when in fact I knew that some of these victims had to return to their home countries, the next day of the court hearing date, where they would sometimes be prosecuted either by volatile governments or organized-crime groups.

Most of the time however, I learned a great deal from the lawyers in my team, fellow law clerks, and most certainly, the lawyers whom I shared my office with. The great advantage about working in such an active and collegial working environment is that each lawyer was from a different country, whose parcour was significantly unique from one another. I remember nourishing excellent friendships with lawyers from Argentina, Venezuela, Colombia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Cuba, Uruguay, and even Germany. Some of them have done human rights law for 20+ years while others were corporate lawyers who decided to make the transition from business law to human rights law in their mid-level careers. I learned something valuable and unique from each person. At work, we would engage in very transsystemic dialogues doing comparative legal analysis on contemporary issues as climate change, refugees asylum, international security, and same-sex marriage. On a more inter-personal level, we would discover each other’s national gastronomy, customs, traditions, and culture. This special aspect of the Inter-American Court constantly made me think of the fond memories I have working in diplomacy being posted in few different cities. I just think it’s the perfect work environment for any McGill Law student seeking to discover new cultures and ontologies.

 

Advisory Opinion on Gender Identity and Patrimonial rights derived from relationships between persons of the same sex. For more information, please consult: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/solicitudoc/solicitud_17_05_16_eng.pdf

Meeting the Honourable Roberto Caldas, President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Pura Vida: Beyond a Destination to Gain a Superb Summer Legal Experience

So you may be wondering what Pura Vida is. Well, it’s a phrase that essentially encompasses how “ticos” look at the world. It’s how they look at life-work balance, social relationships, family, communication, and frankly anything. Instead of saying buenos días Costa Ricans enthusiastically say “Hey, PURA VIDA!” Instead of apologizing for not submitting a work deadline on time, they say “pura vida.” Instead of responding “I’m good, how are you?” they say “Pura Vida!” This was certainly a highlight in my journey in Costa Rica – and was consistently a joke we had between everyone who wasn’t a Tico in the Court. The point is that Costa Rica is probably one of the countries with the happiest people and as a McGill Law student who had just finished 1L, I certainly took the opportunity to learn from this ‘pura vida’ way of life to think more about work-life balance. I learned that it is important to really make the effort in being patient when something does not happen as quickly – or as efficient in North American parlance. It’s important to take this type of 12-week culturally enriching experience to step outside of our comfort zone or incredibly busy lifestyles to meditate, do yoga, breathe fresh air, take different types of risks – less so professionally inclined and more so learning a different sport like surfing. All to say that the “pura vida” outlook on life, which every Costa Rican seem to experience on a daily basis – and indeed, every staff attorney or law clerk at the Inter-American Court – taught me that you experience the fabric of a place by immersing yourself in the flavours, sites, and sounds of a destination. In my opinion, this is when you have fully experienced Costa Rica and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the way it’s meant to be. Different for everyone, but yet extraordinary for all.

Exploring the Arenal Volcano

A touch of sun with my café con leche: A glimpse into the day-to-day life of an Inter-American Court of Human Rights intern.

2015-lachapelle-kaleyBy Kaley Lachapelle

As I sit sipping on my coffee at a local coffee shop in Calgary, I reflect on my summer spent in Costa Rica.  What an enriching summer it was.

I was selected by the McGill Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism to participate in a Human Rights Internship for the summer, 2015 at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  The Court is located in San José, Costa Rica.

The internship at the Court provides a very comprehensive experience, professionally, culturally and socially.  In order to fully benefit from the experience, fluency in Spanish is a requirement for the position, as it is the working language of the Court.  During the course of my twelve-week internship, I was part of a group of approximately twenty visiting professionals and interns from across the Americas and Europe.

Interns and visiting professionals at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, summer 2015

Interns and visiting professionals at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, summer 2015

The Court is the judicial institution of the Organization of American States responsible for applying and interpreting the American Convention on Human Rights (Art. 1, Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights).  While neither Canada nor the United States of America are state parties to the Convention, twenty-five American states have ratified or acceded to the treaty, thus providing the Court with jurisdiction over Convention related disputes.

During the course of the internship, my day-to-day generally consisted of providing legal research in a number of areas to support a team of lawyers and legal assistants.  The Court’s lawyers largely represent jurisdictions across the Americas.  The diversity of legal knowledge and experience in the area of human rights at Court is arguably unparalleled in the region.

For two and half weeks during my internship, the Court was in session and public hearings were held. I, along with the other interns and visiting professionals, was invited to attend the public hearings of the 109th session.  The hearings are recorded and can be viewed online.  It was a very unique opportunity to work at the Court during the public hearings, as I was able to meet and interact with the Court’s seven judges.

The Court is located in the city of San José at 1200 m (3700 ft) above sea level in the central valley of the small, Central American country.   Surrounded by mountains and volcanoes, San José is the country’s largest city and its political and economic capital.  I travelled to Costa Rica during the rainy season; from May through November, the mornings in the Central Valley are hot and humid (between 25 – 30 degrees celsius), with the temperature often dropping in the afternoon with the tropical, torrential downpours.

The beauty of Costa Rica is that one can travel from a lush, green mountainous landscape (or, more accurately in my case, the bustling city of San José) to the sunny, sandy beaches along the coast in a short drive of a couple of hours.  There is so much to see and enjoy outside of San José, that small getaways form an integral part of the intern’s experience. From pineapples, to bananas, to sugarcane and coffee, Costa Rica has a diverse, breathtaking landscape.  Weekends are spent sightseeing, hiking, swimming and relaxing with colleagues, as there is always someone keen to escape the capital for a few days.

Undoubtedly, the greatest part of my experience in Costa Rica was establishing very positive professional relationships, that evolved into friendships, with lawyers, law students and Court staff from across the Americas as well as from Europe.  Today I feel very connected to the legal and human rights community globally; bonds that will endure well past law school and will undoubtedly shape my legal career.  My experience in Costa Rica this summer taught me that my legal education is not only about the destination; rather I have come to value this unique, unforgettable journey as a McGill law student.

Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica. July, 2015

Manuel Antonio, Costa Rica. July, 2015

Schrödinger’s child? The status of children as juridical subject and object

2013 Claire Gunner 100x150

Claire Gunner

For the project I’m currently working on I’ve been relying pretty heavily on the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

My first impression of this instrument was positive. Here is a Convention that recognizes children as subjects of rights, rather than as mere objects of protection. Over and over I have seen the same line of reasoning behind the Convention that children are uniquely vulnerable and so require additional protections.

But these two stated aims of the CRC – to recognize children as subjects, and to extend to them additional protection because of their status as children – actually coexist in significant tension. This might be obvious to most people. But I didn’t realize it until I started reading Mary Beloff’s book, Los derechos del niño en el sistema interamericano.beloff

I could talk about how the idea of the child and childhood is a strange social invention, although one that I don’t think is totally unnecessary. But that’s an issue for a different blog post.

Article 3.1 of the CRC contains the first mention of the “best interests of the child”:

In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

As Beloff points out, the concept of “best interests” is nowhere really defined, either in the CRC or elsewhere. The concept is the modern-day culmination of the traditional legal paradigm that sees children as objects of protection, which makes sense. But what is it doing in a breakaway new international instrument that was supposed to change the conversation and honor children – that is, persons who have not yet reached the age of majority – as juridical subjects in their own right? At the same time the CRC upholds the right of a child to, e.g., participate and be heard in any legal or administrative decision that affects her, it seems to be conspiratorially winking at the (adult) authorities involved in those processes, as if to say, don’t worry, we know that you really know best.

Beloff also highlights the fact that pretty much every State has signed the CRC. (Somalia and the United States have not.) She suggests that this is because the stakes just aren’t that high, and because it makes a State look good – “We signed this Convention because we care about our children.” The Convention doesn’t, for example, create an independent body that would be responsible for monitoring States’ implementation of their treaty obligations.

“So what?” one might ask. Children don’t have the same juridical capacity as adults because they don’t have the same level of maturity. The fact is that they don’t generally make decisions that reflect their best interests. They need those additional protections.

That is all basically true. But, setting aside the (low) frequency with which adults make decisions that reflect their best interests, let alone those of other people, this tension built into the CRC takes on a more sinister aspect when it comes to, for example, guardianship. My understanding of guardianship is not very profound, but what I do know is that unaccompanied children, children removed from the care of their parents, and others in comparable situations must be, absent emancipation, automatically assigned a legal caregiver responsible for making decisions in those children’s best interests. The guardianship framework also persists in the contexts of the elderly and of persons with disabilities. I don’t necessarily want to suggest that we do away with guardianship altogether, but it seems to be a one-size-fits-all solution for a variety of circumstances whose parties might benefit much more from a more nuanced approach. Guardianship is a monolith in the field of psychosocial and intellectual disability and human rights, as people who don’t want to live in group homes have to fight to be able to lead their own lives. Guardianship is the assignment of a person’s rights to someone else. The implications of something like the CRC for other human rights focus areas are significant.

platt

The dark side of “best interests” also emerges upon examination of the origin of the idea of juvenile delinquency. Beloff cites Anthony Platt’s well-known book, The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency, to draw attention to the fact that the original “delinquent children” in the West at the turn of the 20th century were seen as society’s youngest undesirables. The first “children’s rights activists” used the “best interests” justification to jail children and dissolve families who were seen as incorrigible, a social problem whose apparent failure to thrive was in no way connected to a systemic conflation of poverty with moral failing. Perhaps “best interests” needs to be included in an instrument like the CRC. But after reading Beloff I wonder if it doesn’t require some serious reworking before it should be given that honor.

 

Respect for sexual diversity in Central/Latin America

2013 Claire Gunner 100x150 Claire Gunner

Last Tuesday, I went to a panel sponsored by the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights and the Institut français. Sexual Diversity in Central America: Political, Social, and Juridical Integration was hosted by the University of Costa Rica, just around the corner from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

One of the speakers is a lawyer for the Court, and he presented on the impact of one of the Court’s recent, well-known, and hotly debated decisions, Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile (Judgment of February 24, 2012).

affiche séminaire

Karen Atala Riffo, the petitioner (and herself a Chilean judge), brought a complaint to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights after the Supreme Court of Chile awarded her ex-husband sole custody of their children on the basis that Ms. Atala Riffo was in a relationship with a woman. The Supreme Court of Chile reasoned that Ms. Atala Riffo’s relationship would risk damaging her children’s development.The Inter-American Court ruled in favor of Ms. Atala Riffo, finding that she had been discriminated against in the custody decision on the basis of her sexual orientation, which is incompatible with the American Convention on Human Rights (article 1(1), regarding “the obligation of the States Parties to respect and guarantee the full and free exercise of the rights and freedoms acknowledged therein ‘without any discrimination'”, at para 78 of the Court’s decision).

Although Chile has complied with the Court’s ruling, its implications for Central American states are unclear. The Court’s decision is a positive development in international human rights jurisprudence, especially given that international human rights organisms are frequently much more conservative than one might anticipate (see, for example, almost any application of the “margin of appreciation” by the European Court of Human Rights). Atala Riffo doesn’t readily serve arguments in favor of obliging members states to, for example, legalize same-sex marriage.

The first person to speak at the event, Magistrada Eva Camacho Arias, is a member of Colegio de abogados y abogadas de Costa Rica’s Comisión de diversidad sexual. The Comisión was established following the approval of a national policy of respect for sexual diversity in 2011. At one point there were only two constituents because public speculation as to other members’ sexual orientation led to the withdrawal of their participation – a disappointing (to put it mildly) sign for a working group focused on inclusiveness. Now, the Comisión has five members. Despite the slow progress, Magistrada Camacho Arias wants Costa Rica to be the first Latin American country to implement a policy of respect for sexual diversity so that Atala Riffo‘s message of non-discrimination can be felt throughout the Organization of American States.

The Various Natures of Costa Rica

By Anne-Claire Gayet

5 juin 2012, me voici à un mois et cinq jours après mon arrivée au Costa Rica, et deux semaines après le début de mon stage à la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’homme.

Before starting my internship at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, I had the chance to travel a little bit in Costa Rica. This trip has allowed me to familiarize myself with Central America, being my first time in the region. It has also given me the chance to know more about Costa Rica of which I knew few things before my stay here, except that it hosts the Court and that it was the first country to have abolished its army, in 1949.

I was amazed by Costa Rica´s luxuriant nature, its generally warm climate – so enjoyable after a winter in Quebec – and the tropical rains in the afternoons. I fell in love with the local fruits: it is wonderful to pick coconuts directly from the trees, find mangos on the ground, buy excellent pineapples for a very good price (2 or 3 for 1000 colones or approximately 2 dollars, etc.), discover new fruits like guavas. I met nice Ticos (the people from Costa Rica), often through the accommodations where we stayed. On a more personal note, travelling outside San José has allowed me to feel more comfortable and less insecure in Costa Rica: numerous warnings received prior to my stay here had made me somewhat uneasy and caused me to be cautious both regarding my belongings and the people I would meet.

Travelling and meeting with Ticos also gave me a sense of some issues in Costa Rica. I observed, for example, marked demographic, social and cultural differences between the Pacific coast and the Caribbean one. I first observed a difference through the denigrating reactions of Ticos from the Pacific coast when I told them I was planning to travel to the Caribbean coast. When I arrived in Cahuita, I noticed the large presence of Black people, contrary to elsewhere in Costa Rica. Mainly of Jamaican origin, many of them spoke Pidgin English. The music in the bars – so loud that everyone in the streets could hear it – had a clear reggae influence. The food offered was also of Caribbean inspiration (with the traditional sauce with coco milk). The Caribbean coast offers clearly another aspect of Costa Rica.

The current demographic and cultural differences between the Caribbean coast and the rest of Costa Rica today reflect the history of exclusion of the Black people in Costa Rica. Until 1949, Black people were prohibited from going to the West of Costa Rica.   Trains from the Caribbean coast to San José had to stop at Siquirres in order that the Black technicians and drivers would get off the train, to be replaced by “White” workers.  Although abolished a few decades ago, this segregation seems to have left scars as far as I can observe after a few weeks in Costa Rica.

I was glad to start the internship after knowing a little bit more about Costa Rica. Since I arrived at the Court, I have started to work on a team composed of two lawyers, and another legal intern from Seattle. As we mentioned in our training session before departure, as interns we arrive in an environment where there is already work in progress, with specific deadlines and challenges. Actually, the lawyers informed us that it was a particularly tense moment for them, as the next session of the Court would take place from June 18th to June 29th and as they had to transmit to the Judges the projects of decisions before the session. They also informed us that our team would mainly focus on three cases until the end of August, either building on the work of previous interns or investigating new areas of the cases.

So far, I have read in depth the different writings of the cases, from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the victims and the State, and done specific research on two of them. One investigation was related to the duty to consult Aboriginal people in case of exploitation on their lands, in the jurisprudence of other Latin American countries and the Commonwealth. My small exposure to Aboriginal cases in Canada while at McGill has been helpful!  I had to summarize the different criteria developed by the SCC related to the duty to consult, in order to support a possible decision of the IACHR.

My second main task was related to the issue of forced displacement in another case. I had to write a memo on whether or not there has been a violation of article 22 of the American Convention on Human Rights (on the freedom of movement and residence) for a group of people who left their village after a bombing, and who returned there only a few weeks or months after.

Our job will likely be different in the coming weeks, as the atmosphere and the work in the Court seem to very much influenced by the sessions of the Court. I look forward to it!

Working at the Court is also the chance to meet persons from different countries of Latin America, the US and even France. Lunch breaks and post-work events are an excellent opportunity to learn about others’ lives, personal and professional aspirations, and to reflect on my own choices and plans. À suivre!

Some thoughts from the IACHR

perri By Perri Ravon

Close to 30 interns are working at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights this summer, assisting the Court’s legal secretariat. Most come from Latin America, where the Inter American system has gained unquestionable political and cultural resonance in the last decades. Others, like myself and a few fellow Americans, are truly discovering a new legal world within the human rights field: case law, judges, advocacy, diplomacy, media…

While working on urgent provisional measures, drafting memos for judgments and monitoring states’ compliance, I have also given thought to the “bigger picture”: the success and the limits of international human rights law, the meaning it has for individuals throughout the Americas… And beyond such theoretical questionings, I am also very interested in the impact such a system can have, today, in a country such as Canada which has not recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, yet which cannot ignore its legal developments. How much can we learn from the Court’s interpretation of the American Convention, from its unique approach to reparations, from its analysis of such issues as gender and economic migrants? How much can be quickly discarded given the immense differences between a regional human rights court and the Canadian legal system? And how much cannot?

Of course, I am fully aware of Canada’s “dualist” nature in terms of its reception of international law, and indeed I am not even alluding to the effects the actual American Convention could have in Canada. Yet, with respect to fruitful influences for future developments in Charter interpretation, the Inter-American Court’s case law may have a greater role to play than would at first appear.

Blog authors are solely responsible for the content of the blogs listed in the directory. Neither the content of these blogs, nor the links to other web sites, are screened, approved, reviewed or endorsed by McGill University. The text and other material on these blogs are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or information of McGill.