2
Consular Assistance in the Framework of the guarantees of the Due Process of Law (of
October 1st, 1999), in which it stated that:
"In the opinion of this Court, for “the due process of law” a defendant must be
able to exercise his rights and defend his interests effectively and in full procedural
equality with other defendants." (para. 117).
The Court, once again, considered as a whole the right to an effective recourse and the
right to the due process of the law (Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention). I believe
that, to this respect, the Court, in the instant case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al v. Peru,
should have been more consistent with its more enlightened precedents, which also
entail a more supportive position towards the protection of human rights.
6.
In such intelligence, the violation declared by the Court, in the instant case, of
Article 25 of the American Convention, has, from my point of view, a direct impact on
the due process guarantees prescribed in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. This
is a clear case of denial of justice, under Articles 25 and 8(1) of the American
Convention. Denial of justice may appear in many different forms and still retain its
character as such —as I pointed out in studies on the matter published in the late
seventies (cf. A.A. Cançado Trindade, "Denial of Justice and Its Relationship to
Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law, 53 Philippine Law Journal —
University of the Philippines (1978), n. 4, pp. 404-420; A.A. Cançado Trindade, "A
Denegação de Justiça no Direito Internacional: Doutrina, Jurisprudência, Prática dos
Estados”, 62 Revista de Informação Legislativa do Senado Federal - Brasília (1979) pp.
23-40). In my opinion, in all likelihood, any violation of Article 25 of the American
Convention implies that the right to a fair trial embodied in Article 8 of the American
Convention has not been thoroughly observed. This is the construction I think implies a
higher level of protection.
7.
Due process implies that, once the right has been determined by means of a
final decision of the judicial authority or the (domestic) court having jurisdiction, said
decision must become effective through its faithful enforcement. Anything to the
contrary would vacate said right, as it clearly happened in the case of AcevedoJaramillo et al v. Peru, in which, for many years, the respondent State failed to
effectively comply with the orders of amparo obtained by the victims. This violation
should bear on the determination of the reparations from the beginning of the events
that infringed the rights of the victims.
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade
Judge
Pablo Saavedra-Alessandri
Secretary