The Right of Access to
Information at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
by Lucia
BELLOCHIO, Lawyer focusing on Public Administrative Law by the
University of Buenos Aires (UBA), Judicial Secretary of the Attorney General
Office of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Currently, doing a Professional
Visiting at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Coordinator
of “Law to Innovate Journal ”.
The Inter-American System for the protection of human
rights is one of the world’s three regional human rights systems[1] and it
is responsible for monitoring and ensuring the implementation of human rights
guarantees in the 35 independent countries of the Americas that are members of
the Organization
of American States[2] (henceforth,
OAS).
In
particular, the Inter-American System is composed of two bodies: a) the
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, and b) the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights. The Commission is responsible for the promotion and protection of
human rights, while the Court produces advisory opinions on issues pertaining
to the interpretation of the Inter-American instruments at the request of an
OAS Member State.
The
Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction is twofold: a) a contentious jurisdiction,
within which these types of cases are resolved with, providing the necessary
provisions as well as the mechanism to monitor their own judgments; and b) an
advisory opinion.
In the Inter-American system, the interconnection between
access to public information and democracy has been highlighted in several ways in recent years. There have been many
resolutions of the General Assemblies of the Organization of American States
(OAS) on the importance of access to public information and the need for its
protection[3].
The Inter-American Democratic Charter established
that one of the fundamental components of democracy
is “the transparency of government activities, probity, the responsibility of
governments in public administration, respect for social rights and freedom of expression
and press’’[4]. The same Charter describes that the participation of
citizens in decisions on public affairs is a necessary condition for the full
and effective exercise of democracy[5].
Throughout
history, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court has been adapted, going
from circumstances in which the claims were directly related to events that
happened during internal armed conflicts or authoritarian governments to
scenarios where it was required to condemn states within democratic
governments. In consequence, the cases in which the Court had to intervene
throughout these years were diverse, going through cases of forced
displacement, freedom of expression as well as cases
in which it was necessary to defend the rights of especially vulnerable groups
such as children, people with different sexual orientation or native
people.
In this article, I will focus, in particular, on the
landmark decision of the Inter-American Court where the right of access to
information was recognized for the first time: Claude Reyes v. Chile[6]
(2006) and the standards which were established by the Court in this matter.
Progressively,
the Inter-American Court has built an extensive jurisprudence[7]
on the right of freedom of thought and expression protected by Article 13
of the American Convention, where it describes its individual and social
dimensions.
Previously, the Court had already made
reference to the right of access to information, both in Advisory Opinion No. 5[8] (1985) on “Compulsory
Membership of Journalists’’[9] as well as in the cases Palamara Iribarne v. Chile[10]
(2005) in which the Court emphasized the importance of democratic control by
the population to promote transparency of state activities and accountability
of officials and, also in Myrna Mack
Chang v. Guatemala[11]
(2003), in which it highlighted that government authorities could not rely on “State secrecy” policies for not providing
the information required by the judicial authority.
This case constitutes a leading case in the right of
access to information and it refers to the refusal of the Chilean State to
provide three citizens with certain information required by the Foreign
Investment Committee, related to a forestry company about a deforestation
project to be carried out in Chile. Through this judgment, the Inter-American
Court recognized that the right of access to information is a human right
protected by Article 13 of the American Convention[12]. The
Inter-American Court determined that the information, which had not been
delivered, was of public interest and that,
consequently, Chile had to comply with its international obligations.
Here, there are five (5) concepts of this leading case
that should be highlighted because they are considered to be the Inter-American
standards in this matter. They are as follows:
(i) Access to information is a right;
(ii) The State has to comply with some positive obligations to guarantee the exercise of this
right;
(iii) The actions of the State should be governed by the
principles of publicity and transparency;
(iv) The restrictions regarding to the right
of access to information shall be established by law, while using the minimum
standards.
(v) The State must guarantee the right of the person to be
heard with due guarantees and a simple and prompt legal resource to realize
this right.
Before analyzing each of them, it is appropriate to point
out some particularities of the case:
-
it was proved that the information had been requested under
the control of the Committee on Foreign Investments, and that said Committee
was a legal person under public law;
-
such information was related to a foreign investment contract
originally signed between the State and two foreign companies and a Chilean
receiving company, in order to develop a forestry industrialization project,
which generated a great public discussion on the environmental impact;
-
the State refused to provide the requested information,
without a valid justification;
The Chilean state refusal to release
information was only partial because the State eventually complied with its
obligation to provide some information. After the facts of the case, Chile has
made important progress in normative terms of the right of access to
information, which included, among others, a constitutional reform, and at the
time the Court decided, a bill was in the process of becoming a law.
The Court has considered that, by expressly stipulating
the right to seek and receive
information, Article 13 of the Convention protects the right of all
individuals to request access to State-held information, with the exceptions
pondered by the restrictions established in the Convention. Consequently, this
article protects the right of the individual to receive such information and
the positive obligation of the State to provide it, so that the individual may
have access to such information or receive an answer that includes a
justification when, for any reason established by the Convention, the State is
allowed to restrict access to the information in a specific case.
Being considered a right — protected in the Article 13
of the American Convention on Human Rights[13] — this entitles its owners to appeal before national
or international judicial instances when violated. This means that the
information could be requested without necessarily proving a direct interest to
obtain it.
In addition, the delivery of information to an individual
can be known by the society, so that the latter can become acquainted with it,
have access to it, and assess it. In this way, the right of freedom of thought
and expression includes the protection of the right of access to State-held
information, which also clearly includes two dimensions, individual and social,
which should simultaneously be guaranteed by the State[14].
In this regard, the Court added that in a
democratic society, it is essential that the State authorities be governed by
the principle of maximum disclosure, which establishes the presumption that all
information is accessible, and only subjected to a limited system of exceptions[15] – which will be described in detail in point c)-.
Since
it is a right, the State has to
comply with some positive obligations to guarantee the exercise of such right.
The Court has highlighted in its jurisprudence two
essential rules of the Convention that guide states action in this field. On
the one hand, the general obligation to guarantee human rights contained in
Article 1.1 of the Convention. On the other hand, the commitment—appearing
in article 2—to adapt the domestic law and the functioning of the State to
the Convention.
This
implies the obligation to organize the whole structure of the state in a way
that guarantees the full exercise of human rights. The Court has established
that this duty entails the elimination of norms and practices that violate the
guarantees provided for in the Convention, as well as the parallel obligation
to issue rules and promote practices to ensure that the established rights are
respected. These reflections mean that the Chilean State must enforce the
necessary norms and put into practice the required policies to guarantee full
access to public information.
In relation to
this point, the State actions should be
governed by the principles of maximum disclosure and transparency in public
administration that enable all persons subject to its jurisdiction to exercise
the democratic control of those actions, so that they can question, investigate
and consider whether public functions are being performed adequately. Access to
State-held information of public interest allows citizens´ participation in
public administration through the social control that can be exercised through
such access.
Democratic
control by society fosters transparency in State actions and promotes the
accountability of State officials in relation to their public activities. Hence,
for the individual to be able to exercise democratic control, the State must
guarantee access to the information of public interest that it holds. By
permitting the exercise of this democratic control, the State encourages
greater participation by the individual in the interests of society[16].
In
relation to the above, the state authorities should
be governed by the principle of maximum disclosure. The rule should be
advertising and the secrecy, the exception.
The discretionary and arbitrary labeling of public
officials in the classification of information as “secret”, ”reserved” or ”confidential”, generates legal uncertainty regarding
the exercise of this right and the State power to restrict it.
In
this regard, the Inter-American Court has established four (4) requirements
that must be met in order for a restriction to be legal.
The first one is that the restriction should be previously
enforced by law as a means to ensure that it is not left to the discretion of
the public power. Such laws should be enacted for reasons of general interest
and in accordance with the purpose for which such restrictions have been
established. Related to this point, and by means of Advisory Opinion No. 6,
the Court established that laws do not mean any legal regulation, but
general legislative acts adopted by the legislative body laid down in the
Constitution and democratically elected for that purpose, according to the
procedures established in the Constitution of each country[17].
The second one is that the restriction thus established
must respond to an objective permitted by the American Convention, that is,
exclusively to ensure “respect for the rights or reputation of others”
or ”protection of national security, public order or public health or morals’’[18].
The third one is that the restrictions imposed must be
necessary in a democratic society. They should satisfy an imperative public
interest, interfering to a minimum extent in the effective exercise of such
right.
The fourth one is that it corresponds to the State to show
that it has complied with the above requirements when establishing restrictions
to the access to the information it holds[19].
In this case, it has been proved that the restriction
applied to the access to information was not based on a law. At the time, there
was no legislation in Chile that regulated the issue of restrictions to access
to State-held information. Furthermore, the State did not prove that the
restriction responded to a purpose stipulated by the American Convention or
that it was necessary in a democratic society, because the authority
responsible for responding to the request for information did not adopt a
justified decision in writing to communicate the reasons for restricting access
to this information in the specific case.
In addition, the State administrative authority
responsible for taking a decision on the request for information did not adopt
a duly justified written decision, which would have provided information
regarding the reasons and norms on which he based his decision not to disclose
part of the information in this specific case. It was not established whether,
if this restriction was compatible with the parameters embodied in the
Convention. Hence, this decision was arbitrary and did not comply with the
guarantee that it should be duly justified protected by Article 8 (1) of
the Convention. In consequence, the Court concluded that the decision of the
administrative authority violated the right to judicial guarantees embodied in
Article 8 (1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1)[20].
When analyzing a limitation to the right
of access to information, we must consider the balance between the different
interests involved and the need of preserving the object and end of the
American Convention, for the exceptions only apply when the existence of an
essential damage to protected interests should be proved and when said damage
is greater than the public interest to have access to such information.
Likewise, it should be demonstrated that the protection of the legal
objective by means of the limitation, cannot be reasonably achieved by a less restrictive means of
access to the information.
It is important to emphasize that the State must guarantee the right of
people to be heard with due guarantees and a simple and
prompt legal resource to make
this right effective.
The Inter-American Court has determined that decisions taken by internal
institutions restricting access to public information must be duly
substantiated; otherwise they would be arbitrary decisions. The Court points
out that in this case the administrative denial decision was not communicated
in writing or was duly justified.
On the other hand, the Court considered that in the processing and
resolution of the legal resource of protection requested, the standards of due
process established in Section 8 (1) of the Convention had not been met.
It also emphasized the essential principle that, in the face of denial of
information under state control, there is a simple, rapid and effective
judicial resource that determines if an infringement of the right of the
information occurred.
In this particular part, it is important to mention that
there are other cases where these rights were enforced by the
Inter-American Court: Gomes Lund et al. v. Brasil[21]
(2010) and I.V. v. Bolivia[22]
(2016).
The case Gomes Lund refers to the arbitrary
detention, torture and enforced disappearance of 70 people as a result of
operations of the Brazilian Army between 1972 and 1975 in the context of the
military dictatorship of Brazil.
Here, the right of access to information occurred with the
next of kin of the victims. In this regard, the Inter-American Court replicated
its jurisprudence on the right of freedom of thought and expression, in which
it has maintained that Section 13 of the American Convention protects the
right of every person to request information that is under the control of the
State, with the exceptions permitted under the exceptions regime of the
Convention.
The Inter-American Court has established that in cases of
human rights violations, state authorities cannot rely on mechanisms such as
state secrecy, confidentiality of information or reasons of public interest or
national security, to stop providing the information required by the judicial
or administrative authorities responsible for the investigation. The Court also
held that when it comes to investigating a punishable offense, the decision to
classify the information as secret and deny its delivery or to determine if the
documentation exists can never depend exclusively on a
state body whose members have been attributed to the commission of the wrongful
act.
Finally, the Court concluded that the State cannot rely on
the lack of proof of the existence of documents requested by the victims or
their relatives, but, on the contrary, it must substantiate the refusal to
provide them, proving that it has taken all measures to pick one that the
information requested did not exist. In this sense, the Court pointed out that,
in order to guarantee the right of access to information, public authorities
must act in good faith and diligently carry out the necessary actions to ensure
the right of freedom of thought and expression, especially when it is a
question of knowing the truth of what happened in cases of serious violations
of human rights such as forced disappearances and extrajudicial execution that
occurred in this case.
On the other hand, recently, in the Case I.V. v.
Bolivia (2016), the Court issued a judgment whereby it declared the State
of Bolivia to be international responsible for the violation, among other
rights[23], of
access to the information recognized in Article 13.1 of the American
Convention of Human Rights.
The principal controversy in this case was to determine whether
the fallopian tube ligation performed on Ms. I.V. on 1 July 2000 in Bolivia by
a public official in a state hospital was contrary to the international
obligations of the State, i.e. if such procedure was carried out by obtaining
the informed consent of the patient, under the parameters established in the law for this type of medical act at
the time of the events.
In
its sentence, the Court considered that the obligation to obtain informed
consent meant establishing limits to medical action and ensuring that these
limits were adequate and effective in practice, so that neither the State nor
third parties, especially the community medical, interfered in the personal or
private integrity of individuals, especially in relation to access to health
services, and in the case of women, family planning or other services related to sexual health and reproductive health.
Similarly, the informed consent rule relates to the right of access to health information,
because the patient can only consent in an informed manner if they have
received and understood the information needed to make a full decision.
Therefore,
in the area of health, the Court replicated the instrumental nature of the
right of access to information, since it is an essential means for obtaining
informed consent and, therefore, for the effective realization of the right to
autonomy and freedom in reproductive health.
The Court emphasized that in the area of sexual and reproductive health, the obligation of
active transparency on part of the State implies the duty of health personnel
to provide information that helps people to make free and responsible decisions
regarding their own body and sexual and reproductive health, which are related
to intimate aspects of their personality and private and family life[24].
Safeguarding the individuals from the arbitrary exercise of public
authority is the main purpose of the international protection of human rights.
Certainly, access to public information is an essential requisite for
the exercise of democracy, greater transparency and responsible public
administration and, in a representative and participative democratic system, the citizenry exercises its constitutional rights
through a broad freedom of expression and free access to information.
As it is at the same level of other Human Rights, it has to be
interpreted as such and said interpretation shall be made in accordance with
the republican principle of government and with current democratic principles.
Thus, it must be considered in the broadest possible sense — as a rule — and
every restriction shall then pass the reasonability and proportionality tests
established by the enforcement body of the American Convention.
Therefore, the basis of access to information held by the Government
consists in the right every individual has to know the way in which their
authorities and public officials carry out their duties.
To
conclude, it is important to highlight that in the Inter-American system, as it
has been mentioned before, the Claude Reyes sentence constitutes a very
important step for the ratification of the status of the right of
access to information. Given the weight of the judgment of an international
court, the principles contained therein are mandatory references in the
internal organization of States and in the design and implementation of their
legal norms.
All
this transcends this specific case, not only because the interpretation of the
Court goes in the direction of establishing guidelines that go beyond the case
described, but because the courts of the region are starting to use this
conceptual approach in processing and solving cases that share similar
characteristics.
That is, cases before the Court has an agenda
that transcends the parts of the case, while the decisions it issues may have
an impact, on at least two (2) main levels:
i) in individual cases, since the countries apply the
jurisprudence of the Court, and,
ii) in a structural
manner in the country involved. In this way, the Court positions itself as an
inducer of structuring public policies[25].
Finally,
it should be noted that the 21st century faces a broad range of new and
permanent challenges to freedom of expression in relation to the use of new
technologies, artificial intelligence, protection of privacy and personal data
on the Internet, among others.
The
guarantee of human rights in this digital environment; free software for the
exercise and defense of rights on the Internet; the use of new technologies to
disseminate non-discrimination and inclusion policies; the guarantee of social
coverage and the right of access to ICTs are needs which will also have to be
met. So, the Inter-American Court has to be ready to protect these human rights
the digital world presents nowadays. Maybe it is just a matter of time...
[1] They
are the African Human Right System, the European System of Human Rights and the
Inter-American Human Rights Systems.
[2] All 35 independent states of the Americas have ratified the OAS
Charter and are members of the
Organization. On June 3, 2009, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Americas
adopted resolution
AG/RES. 2438 (XXXIX-O/09), that resolves that the 1962 resolution, which excluded the Government
of Cuba from its participation in the inter-American system, ceases to have
effect in the Organization of American States (OAS). The 2009 resolution states
that the participation of the Republic of Cuba in the OAS will be the result of
a process of dialogue initiated at the request of the Government of Cuba, and
in accordance with the practices, purposes, and principles of the OAS. This
information is available in:
[3] Cf. Resolution
AG/RES. 1932 (XXXIII-O/03) of June 10, 2003, on «Access to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy»; Resolution AG/RES. (XXXIV-O/04) of
June 8, 2004, on «Access to
Public Information: Strengthening Democracy»; Resolution AG/RES. 2121 (XXXV-O/05) of June 7, 2005, on «Access to Public Information:
Strengthening Democracy»;
and AG/RES. 2252 (XXXVI-O/06) of June 6, 2006, on « Access
to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy» ; Resolution
AG/RES. 2288 (XXXVII-O/07)of June 5, 2007, on «Access to
Public Information: Strengthening Democracy»; Resolution AG/RES.
2418 (XXXVIII-O/08) of June 3, 2008, on «Access to Public Information:
Strengthening Democracy».; Resolution AG/RES. 2514
(XXXIX-O/09) of June 4, 2009, on «Access
to Public Information: Strengthening Democracy»; Resolution AG/RES. 2607 (XL-O/10) of June 8, 2010, on «Model
Inter-American Law on Access to Public Information»; Resolution AG/RES.
2661 (XLI-O/11) of June 7, 2011, on «Access
to Public Information and Protection of Personal Data».; Resolution AG/RES. 2727 (XLII-O/12) of June 4, 2012, on «Access to
Public Information and Protection of personal data»; Resolution
AG/RES. 2811 (XLIII-O/13) of June 6, 2013, on «Access to Public Information and
Protection of personal data»; Resolution AG/RES. 2885
(XLVI-O/16) of June 16, 2016, on «Inter-American
program on Access to public information».
[4] Inter-American
Democratic Charter, Article 4.
[5] Ibidem,
Article 6.
[6] I/A
Court H.R., Case of Claude-Reyes et al.
v. Chile. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Merits, Reparations and Cost. Series C No
151.
[7] I/A
Court H.R., Case of «The Last Temptation of Christ» (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v.
Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of
February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein
v. Perú. Preliminary
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Serie C No. 74
I/A Court H.R., Case of
Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay.
Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31,
2004. Series C No. 111; I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne
v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs.
Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135; I/A Court H,R, Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits,
Reparations and Costs. Judgment of Febuary
1, 2006. Serie C No. 141; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kimel v.
Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment
of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Tristán Donoso
v. Panama. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment
of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela.
Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28,
2009. Series C No. 194; I/A Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela.
Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 28,
2009. Series C No. 195; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina.
Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November
29, 2011. Series C No. 238; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Restrepo and family v. Colombia. Preliminary
Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248; I/A Court H.R., Case of Uzcátegui et al. v. Venezuela.
Merits and reparations. Judgment of September 3, 2012.
Series C No. 249; I/A Court H.R., Case of
Norín Catrimán et al.
(Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche
Indigenous People) v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and
Costs. Judgment of May 29, 2014. Series C No. 279; I/A
Court H.R., Case of Granier
et al. (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela. Preliminary
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2015. Series C No. 293.
[8] I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the
Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5.
[9] «The Court, however, considers that the same concept of
public order requires that, in a democratic society, the greatest possibilities
of circulation of news, ideas and opinions be guaranteed, as well as the widest
access to information by of society as a whole. Freedom of expression is
inserted in the primary and radical public order of democracy, which is not
conceivable without free debate and without dissent having full right to
manifest itself. In this regard, the Court adheres to the ideas expressed by
the European Commission on Human Rights when, based on the Preamble to the
European Convention, it was pointed out that the purpose of the High
Contracting Parties in adopting the Convention was not to grant reciprocal
rights and obligations in order to satisfy their national interests, but to
establish a common public order for the free democracies of Europe with the aim
of safeguarding their common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom
and the rule of law. («Austria vs. Italy,» Application No. 788/60, European Yearbook of Human Rights,
vol.4, (1961), p.138). It is also in the interest of democratic public
order, as conceived by the American Convention, that the right of each human
being to freely express himself and the right of society as a whole to receive
information be respected scrupulousl» y. I/A Court H.R., Compulsory Membership in an Association
Prescribed by Law for the Practice of Journalism (Arts. 13 and 29 American
Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-5/85 of
November 13, 1985. Series A No. 5, par. 69.
[10] I/A Court H.R., Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135.
[11] I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101.
[12] Article 13. Freedom of Thought and Expression: 1.Everyone
has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom
to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of
frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through
any other medium of one's choice. 2.The exercise of the right provided for in
the foregoing paragraph shall not be subject to prior censorship but shall be
subject to subsequent imposition of liability, which shall be expressly
established by law to the extent necessary to ensure:
1. Respect for the rights or
reputations of others; or
2. The protection of national
security, public order, or public health or morals.
3. The right of expression
may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of
government or private controls over newsprint, radio broadcasting frequencies,
or equipment used in the dissemination of information, or by any other means
tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.
4. Notwithstanding the
provisions of paragraph 2 above, public entertainments may be subject by law to
prior censorship for the sole purpose of regulating access to them for the
moral protection of childhood and adolescence.
5.Any propaganda for war and
any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitute
incitements to lawless violence or to any other similar action against any person
or group of persons on any grounds including those of race, color, religion,
language, or national origin shall be considered as offenses punishable by law.
[13] In the same way as the American
Convention, other international human rights instruments, such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights in its article 19 and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights in its article 19 too,
establish a positive right to seek and receive information.
[14] Cf. Case
of Claude-Reyes, supra note 12, para. 77.
[15] Ibidem, para. 92.
[16] Op.Cit, para. 86-87.
[17] I/A Court H.R., The word «Laws» in Article 30 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-6/86 of May 9, 1986. Series A No.6.
[18] Cf. Case of Claude-Reyes,
supra
note 12, para. 90.
[19] Ibidem, para. 93.
[20] Cf. Case of Claude-Reyes, supra note 12, para. 122-123.
[21] I/A Court H.R., Case
of Gomes Lund et al. («Guerrilha do
Araguaia») v. Brazil. Preliminary
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219.
[22] I/A Court H.R., Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329.
[23] It was also declared the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights to personal integrity, personal liberty, and dignity, private and family life and to founding a family, recognized in articles 5.1, 7.1, 11.1, 11.2 and 17.2 of the American Convention of Human Rights.
[24] I/A Court H.R., Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminaries Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para.156/157.
[25] H. Leal, C. Mônica, – F. D. Alves, A corte interamericana de direitos humanos como indutora de políticas
públicas estruturantes: o exemplo da educação em direitos humanos- Uma análise
dos casos Ximenes Lopes e Gomes Lund versus Brasil -
Perspectivas e desafios ao cumprimento das decisões, Revista do Instituto
Brasileiro de Direitos Humanos No15, 2015.