end, the Court clarifies that, in fact, the State must annul the convictions handed down against
members of indigenous communities, and all effects deriving therefrom, related to the use of
the radio spectrum, in the context of operation of indigenous community radios, that is, the
convictions handed down against the Maya Kaqchikel indigenous peoples of Sumpango and
the Maya Achí of San Miguel Chicaj, and any consequences thereof.
46.
Hence, as to the argument related to the violation of judicial independence and
impartiality due to the annulment of the convictions and the consequences thereof, this Court
recalls that a measure of reparations ordered in similar cases has been to “set aside” all
judgments issued by domestic courts whenever the Court has found a violation of the
American Convention based on judicial findings of civil or criminal liability contrary to the right
to freedom of thought and expression.12 The Court has also held that compliance with orders
given in the judgment is not subject to conditions and that the Convention-based obligations
assumed by the States Parties, as well as the Court’s interpretation of them, are binding upon
all public institutions and branches of government.13 Thus, all the powers and organs of the
State (Executive, Legislative, Judicial branches and any other government bodies) and other
public or state authorities, at any level, including the highest courts of justice, have a duty to
comply with international law in good faith.14 Finally, the Court notes that, with this request
for interpretation, the State is asking the Court to reconsider its analysis regarding the
operative paragraph in question, which is inadmissible under Article 67 of the American
Convention. Therefore, the request for interpretation concerning this aspect is partially
dismissed.
live in a
community
freedom of
changes in
stations.
situation of poverty, social exclusion and discrimination; and that their
radio stations are essential – and often the only – tools for the enjoyment of their
expression and the survival of their culture, this Court considers that any regulatory
this area must, necessarily and specifically, include indigenous community radio
Cf. Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of
July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, operative paragraph four; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and
costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, operative paragraph twelve; Case of Kimel v. Argentina.
Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, operative paragraph seven; Case of
Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C
No. 238, operative paragraph two and Case of Álvarez Ramos v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits,
reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2019. Series C No. 380, operative paragraph seven.
12
Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Perú. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights of September 1, 2016, Considering clause four; and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and
surrounding areas v. El Salvador. Request for Provisional Measures and Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order
of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 19, 2020, Considering clause 44.
13
Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights of March 20, 2013, Considering clause 59; and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina.
Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of October 18, 2017,
Considering clause 13.
14
12