due process of law, the right to a fair trial, reparations (as long as they are due), and
the faithful and full execution of judgments.
140. According to the jurisprudence constante of the Court up to this date, the
American Convention not only requires a formal right to a fair trial within domestic law
(the right to an effective recourse under Article 25), but also in the realization itself of
material justice. With this purpose in mind, the Convention determines the faithful
observance of the right to a fair trial (Article 8), the latter taken lato sensu, covering
the totality of the procedural requirements that must be observed so that all
individuals can defend themselves adequately from any act arising from the State’s
power that may affect their rights.
141. As I recalled in my extensive Concurring Opinion (paras. 35-43) in the case of
the Pueblo Bello Massacre, regarding Colombia (Judgment of 01.31.2006), the Court
has, up to this date, consistently related judicial protection (Article 25) with the right
to a fair trial (Article 8).105 This continues to be its position up to this date, August 02,
2008, of adoption of the present Judgment of Interpretation in the case of the Castro
Castro Prison. This is an area that does not allow backward steps; in the event that
these occur in the future, those responsible for possible backward steps will have to
respond for their unfounded alterations to the history of the Inter-American human
rights protection system.
142. Moved by this concern – maybe a little ambitious – to avoid backward steps, I
allow myself to once more warn here that the current Rules of Procedure of the Court,
by granting direct access of the individual petitioners to the Inter-American Court – in
the form of locus standi, to be followed by the jus standi106 - is part of an
improvement and strengthening process of the protection mechanism under the
American Convention. The next step in this line of evolution must consist, as I have
been stating for many years, in a Protocol of Reforms to the American Convention on
.
Cf., in this sense, its Judgments in the cases of Barrios Altos versus Peru (of
03.14.2001, paras. 47-49), Las Palmeras versus Colombia (0f 12.06.2001, paras. 4866), Baena Ricardo et al. versus Panama (of 02.02.2001, paras. 119-143), Myrna
Mack Chang versus Guatemala (of 11.25.2003, paras. 162-218), Maritza Urrutia
versus Guatemala (of 11.27.2003, paras. 107-130), 19 Tradesmen versus Colombia
(of 07.05.2004, paras. 159-206), Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers versus Peru (of
07.08.2004, paras. 137-156), Serrano Cruz Sisters versus El Salvador (of
03.01.2005, paras. 52-107), Caesar versus Trinidad and Tobago (of 03.11.2005,
paras. 103-117), Moiwana Community versus Suriname (of 06.15.2005, paras. 139167), Yakye Axa Indigenous Community versus Paraguay (of 06.17.2005, paras. 55119), Fermín Ramírez versus Guatemala (of 06.20.2005, paras. 58-83), Yatama
versus Paraguay (of 06.23.2005, paras. 145-177), The Girls Yean and Bosico versus
Dominican Republic (of 09.08.2005, para. 201), the Mapiripán Massacre versus
Colombia (of 09.15.2005, para. 193-241), Gómez Palomino versus Peru (of
11.22.2005, paras. 72-86), Palamara Iribarne versus Chile (of 11.22.2005, paras.
120-189). The same position has been assumed by the Court in its Judgments in the
case itself of the Pueblo Bello Massacre versus Colombia (of 01.31.2006), as well as in
the cases of López Álvarez versus Honduras (of 02.01.2006), of the Ituango
Massacres versus Colombia (of 07.01.2006), and of Ximenes Lopes versus Brazil (of
07.04.2006).
105
.
Cf., in this regard, A.A. Cançado Trindade, El Acceso Directo del Individuo a los
Tribunales Internacionales de Derechos Humanos, Bilbao, Universidad de Deusto,
2001, pp. 9-104.
106