(Washington, D. C., April 3, 2008)

SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FOR THE 2007 FISCAL YEAR, PRESENTED TO THE OAS COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS (Washington, D. C., April 3, 2008) President of the Inter-American Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States, Ambassador Roberto Álvarez; Honorable Ambassadors and Representatives of the Member States and Permanent Observers of the Organization of American States; Ladies and Gentlemen: The Judges of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights extend to you their cordial greetings. Today, the Tribunal is composed of, apart from Judge García-Sayán (Peru), elected Vice-President this past November, Judges Sergio García Ramírez (Mexico), Manuel E. Ventura Robles (Costa Rica), Leonardo A. Franco (Argentina), Margaret Macaulay (Jamaica) and Rhadys Abreu Blondet (Dominican Republic). Last year, the former President Judge Sergio García Ramírez presented the Report on the activities for the 2006 fiscal year to the OAS General Assembly, which met in the City of Panama. Such report was adopted on June 5, 2007 by Resolution AG/Res. 2292. It is a privilege to present before the OAS Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, which has once again welcomed the Inter-American Court with its hospitality, the summary of the Report on its work during 2007. ON this occasion, I am accompanied by the Vice-President, Diego García-Sayán; the Secretary of the Tribunal, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri and the Deputy Secretary, Emilia Segares Rodríguez. In the document that I am now present briefly summarizes our work in 2007, and provides statistical information on various issues. Furthermore, it contains our thoughts which we have shared with you on previous occasions, by the former President of the Court- regarding the problems facing Inter-American jurisdiction and the efforts being made to solve them. The friendly understanding of the distinguished members of this Committee is of great importance, as we have always affirmed, to solve these problems and to make further progress on the road we are traveling together. Obviously, the General Secretariat of the Organizations also contributes to this endeavor with solidarity. The complete and detailed version of the report was sent to the Organization of American States on the February 27 and today, we are distributing to you a printed copy of such report. As in last year s report, it contains, on a compact disk, both the usual information as well as the Court s increasingly abundant jurisprudence. In this way, we are able to present, in a concise way and while realizing savings, useful date for others to become familiar with and evaluate the judicial endeavors. We appreciate the positive comments we have received regarding the new format of the Report. 1. Sessions of the Court

2 The members of the Tribunal are meeting more often and for longer periods of time. Through the Secretariat we receive and address, systematically, the matters subjected to our jurisdiction. Out work is uninterrupted and the judicial function is carried out on an ongoing basis. Those are the characteristics of the Court, in regards to its performance and continuity. In other words, there is no backlog and this situation will most likely continue if the Court continues to receive, consider and rule on cases at its present pace. In the year 2007, the Court held the following sessions: four ordinary sessions 1 and three extraordinary sessions, to which I will refer in detail later on. During these seven reported periods, the Court was able to hold more hearings and hand down more orders than last year. The Judges and the Secretariat provided their full collaboration to make this possible. In this effort, the work of the Court s competent team of lawyers has been outstanding. This was made possible, according to the Rules of Procedure in force, thanks to the adoption of practices and schedules that enabled the Court to complete its work with greater efficiency, to the benefit of the people demanding justice. In the sessions of 2007, twelve public hearings were held on contentious cases 2, three private hearings on monitoring compliance with judgment 3 and one on provisional measures 4. In brief, between 2004 and 2007, that is, during a four-year period, the Court held 38 percent of the total number of hearings it has conducted since 1979, when it was established. 5. In 2007, the Court delivered twelve judgments 6, in 5 of them, the Court ruled on preliminary objections, merits, reparations and legal costs, combined; in 5 cases, on 1 The Court held its first Period of Ordinary Sessions from January 22 to February 3, 2006; the second, from May 7 to 12; the third, from July 2 to 14; and the fourth, from November 19 to 30. 2 In the year 2007, public hearings were held on the following contentious cases: Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz V. Perú, García Prieto et al. V. El Salvador, Escué Zapata V. Colombia, The Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, Bueno Alves V. Argentina, Saramaka People V. Surinam, Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, Cornejo et al. V. Ecuador, Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez V. Ecuador, Boyce et al. V. Barbados, Kimel V. Argentina and Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador. 3 In the year 2007, private hearings were held on monitoring compliance with judgments in regards to the following cases: Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina, Blake V. Guatemala and White Van (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. 4 In 2007, a public hearing was held on provisional measures in the matter of the Indigenous People of Kankuamo regarding Colombia. 5 Between the year it was established (1979) and 2007, the Court held 158 public hearings on contentious cases and provisional measures. Of these, 60 were handled within the last four years. 6 In 2007, the Court delivered judgments in the following contentious cases: The Rochela Massacre V. Colombia (merits, reparations and costs), Bueno Alves V. Argentina (merits, reparations and costs), Escué Zapata V. Colombia (merits, reparations and costs), Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador (merits, reparations and costs), Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz V. Perú (preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs), García Prieto et al. V. El Salvador (preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs), Boyce et al. V. Barbados (preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs), Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez V Ecuador (preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs), Albán Cornejo et al. V. Ecuador (merits, reparations and costs), Saramaka People V. Surinam (preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs), La Cantuta v. Perú (interpretation of Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs) and Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) V. Perú (request for interpretation of judgment on the preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs).

3 the merits and the corresponding reparations; and in 2 cases, on the interpretation of judgments. Thus, it completely resolved 10 contentious cases. By adding the 10 cases completely resolved in 2007 to the 17 cases resolved in 2006, 16 resolved in 2005 and 12 resolved in 2004, it can be seen that in those four years, the Court resolved 57 percent of the totality of the contentious cases before it during its 30 years of existence 7. In the same fiscal year, the Court issued two new resolutions on provisional measures 8, dismissed three requests for provisional measures 9, four requests were pending resolution 10, ordered the full lifting of four provisional measures 11 and also the partial lifting of another five 12. The latter applies to only some of the beneficiaries; the measures remain in effect for the rest of them. By the end of 2007, the Court was considering 43 requests for provisional measures. Since by the end of 2003, there were 23 requests for provisional measures before the Court, this means that there was a 100 percent increase during the 2004-2007 periods. 2. Sessions held away from the Court s seat It is important to mention before this Committee the relevance of holding sessions away from the Court in order to disseminate the general knowledge of Inter-American jurisdiction and increase awareness regarding the matters submitted to the Tribunal. In 2007 the Court held two periods of extraordinary sessions away from its seat 13 : In the City of Guatemala, Guatemala 14 and Bogotá, Colombia 15. 7 By December 2007, the Court had fully solved 95 contentious cases. 8 In 2007, the Court ordered the following provisional measures: Adrián Meléndez Quijano regarding El Salvador and Penitentiary Center of the Central Occidental Region (Uribana Prison) regarding Venezuela. 9 The Court dismissed the following requests for provisional measures: Bueno Alves regarding Argentina, Miguel Castro Castro Prison regarding Perú and Globovisión Television Station regarding Venezuela. 10 The following requests for provisional measures were pending: Humberto Prado et al. V. Venezuela, Capital El Rodeo I & El Rodeo II Judicial Confinement Center regarding Venezuela and Miguel Castro Castro Prison regarding Perú (two requests). 11 The Court ordered the full lifting of the following provisional measures: Gallardo Rodríguez regarding México, Colotenango regarding Guatemala, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community regarding Nicaragua and Boyce et al. regarding Barbados. 12 The Court ordered the partial lifting of the following provisional measures: Carlos Nieto Palma et al. regarding Venezuela, Raxcacó Reyes et al. regarding Guatemala, Forensic Anthropology Foundation regarding Guatemala, Members of the Community Studies and Psychosocial Action (ECAP) Team regarding Guatemala and Guerrero Gallucci and Martínez Barrios regarding Venezuela. 13 The first period of extraordinary sessions was conducted from May 14 th to 17 th ; the second period, from November 17 th to 20 th and the third, on November 30 th. 14 The XXX Period of Extraordinary Sessions was carried out thanks to the financing of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway 15 The XXXI Period of Extraordinary Sessions was fully carried out thanks to the financing of the Fondo Español para la Organización de los Estados Americanos (Spanish Fund for the OEA), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation- Spanish Agency of International Cooperation (AECI).

4 We emphasized the fact that the main purpose of extraordinary sessions is to fulfill the judicial function that corresponds to the Court. Any other activities- including, academic and dissemination activities- supplement the judicial activity. Furthermore, we have frequently sustained that holding sessions away from the seat of the Court in no way constitutes as in loco visits, investigations into the facts or a general evaluation of human rights. We strictly limit ourselves to the Court s jurisdiction, on which it should focus its attention and its resources. I would like to add that no hearings or cases relating to the host country are examined during the extraordinary sessions. On every occasion, we received the hospitality and collaboration of the authorities of the countries visited: The Office of the President of the Republic, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Congress, the Supreme Court and other organs. On behalf of my colleagues, I would like to once again express our warm appreciation for their full and decided support. I would also like to offer our thanks to the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Spanish Fund for OEA (Fondo Español para la Organización de los Estados Americanos), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation- Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AEC), for their generous collaboration that made these extraordinary sessions possible. The session held in Guatemala involved three public hearings on contentious cases and also, the Court adopted a new provisional measure. In addition, the members of the Court met with the high-ranking authorities of the different powers of Guatemala, including the President of the Republic. Furthermore, the Court met with the full Supreme Court of Justice at its seat and the Constitutional Court of said country and on the same day, a seminar was hold on the Present and future challenges to the Inter-American Human Rights System". During the session held in Colombia, two public hearings were held on contentious cases. Two orders were also handed down on contentious cases and another for monitoring compliance with judgment. We met with the President of the Republic, the Constitutional Court, the State Council and the Judiciary Council and also, the First Inter-American Congress on Human Rights" was held. We consider that the experiences in the City of Guatemala and Bogota have been very positive from an institutional point of view. Those extraordinary sessions, as well as the precedents of previous years held in Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina and El Salvador, have created a new and promising opportunity for the Inter-American Court. We plan to meet in extraordinary session in Honduras, in April; in Uruguay, in August; in Ecuador, in October and in Mexico, this coming December. I would like to express the Court s gratitude to the peoples and authorities of the States that will be offering us their hospitality and that have already begun to make arrangements in this regard. Furthermore, I also express our acknowledgment to the Spanish International Cooperation Agency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, since this activity would be impracticable if it had to be covered by the regular resources of the Court. 3. New cases and matters under consideration

5 In 2007, the Inter-American Commission submitted 14 petitions 16, which is the same number it submitted to the Court last year and is more than in two preceding years. It this tend continues, it is likely that we will receive between 15 and 20 petitions in 2008. Since the Court was established, in 1979, 112 contentious cases have been submitted to it 17. Between 2004 and 2007, the Court received 43 percent of that total. As we have mentioned on previous occassions, it is important that those involved in the Inter-American system for the Protection of Human Rights reexamine this in light of the facts before us and anticipate the immediate future. In the previous report, it was mentioned that the increase in the number of cases being submitted to the Court reflects, in my judgment, an expansion in expectations regarding the Inter-American jurisdiction, greater familiarity with and confidence in the Inter-American human rights system and the modifications to the Rules of Procedure of the Court and the Commission. Currently, the Inter-American Court has 101 contentious cases before it, in different procedural stages, including monitoring compliance with judgment, which occurs after a judgment- of judgments- is made on the merits and reparations. This is 15% more than in 2006 18. Of that number, 17 are pending judgment and 84 are being 19. In the last four years, the number of cases being monitored for compliance with judgment increased by 162.5 percent. 20 4. Application of the reforms to the Rules of Procedure and procedural practices I think it is convenient to mention again certain issues relating to the current Rules of Procedure, which were established in 2000 and amended in 2003 and which we examined in this forum in response to the encouraging interest of the members of the Committee on Political and Juridical Affairs. The recent developments incorporated by the Tribunal, in the exercise of its power - for the purpose of strengthening the protection of human rights from the judicial perspective- refer to the broadest legal standing in the proceedings of the alleged victims, their next-of-kin and representatives and streamline procedural acts so that cases can be processed more expeditiously, without detriment to legal certainty. In our view, the reform of the regulations and their use in the daily work of the Court has had 16 During 2007, complaints were submitted to the Court for the following cases: Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, Castañeda Gutman V. México, Kimel V. Argentina, Gabriela Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, Luisiana Ríos et al. V. Venezuela, Juan Carlos Bayarri V. Argentina, María and Josefa Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala, Renato Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, Tristán Donoso V. Panamá, Campo Algodonero (Ramos Monárrez et al.) V. México, Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela, Arley José Escher et al. V. Brasil and Sétimo Garibaldi V. Brasil. 17 Between 1986 and 2003, 64 contentious cases were brought before the Court; between 2004 and 2007, the number was 48. 18 19 In 2006, 88 contentious cases were pending or compliance with judgment was being monitored. The figures indicated in the last part of this paragraph refer to December 31 st, 2007. 20 In 2003, 32 proceedings were being monitored for compliance with judgment; in 2007, 84 were being monitored.

6 positive effects on both counts. Greater celerity, obtained through reasonable practice, does not injure legal certainty and justice; rather, it strengthens them. Although we have not fully attained any of these objectives, we have made great progress. The new legal standing granted to alleged victims in proceedings represents a step forward in human rights protection. A victim could not be a "third party" in his or her own case. This new development, which has already taken hold, encourages a more detailed consideration of the implications of the intervention of three parties to a proceeding. I refer not only to the cost this represents- a 33 percent increase in certain expenses- but specially to the impact it has on the conduct of the proceedings themselves. The Presidents of the Commission and of the Court have discussed and thought on the issue and we believe that, during this year, we will agree on a way to monitor the role of the Commission before the Court, as an organ of the system. We also believe that this is possible to achieve by changing the rules of procedure, since we are convinced that, pursuant to the Convention, the Commission does not need to appear before the Court in the capacity of counterpart of the State. I will refer to this issue later on, in my final reflections and recommendations. Under the Rules of Procedure of 1980, the average duration of contentious cases as 39 months. This was reduced to 38 months with the 1991 Rules of Procedure and increased again to 40.5 months with the 1996 version. The reforms of 2000 and 2003, strengthened with the amendment of procedural practices, brought the average duration down to 19.9 months, which is almost half what it used to be. Within the framework of the procedural equity, as we noted earlier, at this time the Court is not behind with any of the matters that are being processed. If we are able to process the litigations that are currently before us and to issue the orders it would be feasible to adopt this year- at our current pace of work- we hope that all cases submitted after November 2007 will have been resolved by the end of the present year. This is the result of the Rules of Procedure in force and the practices adopted by the Tribunal. 5. Jurisprudence The Court seeks to disseminate its jurisprudence, which it does through its web page, pamphlets, compact disks and various publications edited by the Court itself, on its own or in association with other legal research institutes and agencies. Now I will refer only to some topics addressed in the judgments on contentious cases during 2007. There were orders regarding the international responsibility of the State for infringements by third parties, that is, by persons who are not, formally speaking, State officials, employees, servants or agents. In this regard, the following topics were addressed: the failure to comply with the duty to monitor the rendering of service to protect the corresponding right; rendering of health services; and collaboration and participation of individuals in the performance of roles that, in general, exclusively corresponds to the State. In examining rights that were proven to have been infringed, the Court again dealt with issues relating to State responsibility for acts by third parties. In regards to the right to life, the Court examined several points: positive and negative obligations of the State; special duties of prevention and protection of the right to life and humane treatment and the duty to investigate infringements of this right;

7 admissible use of force and right to life; violation of the right to life regarding the survivors of a massacre; and compulsory imposition of death penalty. The Court examined, in depth, the admissible use of force, namely: the exceptional character, necessity, proportion and humanity of such; the existence of a regulatory framework that regulates the use of force; the planning of the use of force, teaching and training of the members of armed forces and state security agencies; the adequate control and verification of the legitimate use of force; the legitimate defense and the lack of domestic judicial decision. The issues analyzed pertaining to the right to humane treatment were: torture and the obligation to investigate it in such sense and prison conditions, namely: serious detention conditions and punishments that infringe on prisoner s right to humane treatment and the lack of resources to adapt the detention conditions. As to the right to personal liberty, the Tribunal examined: right to liberty and personal security; illegal detention; right to be informed of reasons of the arrest; duration of the detention; arbitrary detention; pre-trial detention and habeas corpus. There were decisions regarding the right to be recognized as a person before the law of indigenous and tribal peoples. With regard to the right to property, important issues were examined in relation to the use and enjoyment of property; precautionary measures on property; ancestral lands of members of indigenous and tribal communities and the restriction on the right to use and enjoyment of lands. With regard to due process, the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection, there were numerous orders referring to: military criminal jurisdiction; reasonable time limit to institute legal criminal action; the accused in a criminal proceeding; presumption of innocence; right to consular assistance and the right to petition before the Inter-American system before carrying out an execution. In relation to the duty to investigate human rights violations, the Court has considered and decided regarding: the statute of limitations; obligation to investigate derived from domestic legislation; due diligence in the practice of investigations; use of technical means to investigate threats and acts of harassment and obligation to investigate vis-à-vis the truth commissions. In relation to the judicial protection, the Tribunal examined the exclusion clauses; and in regards to the control over lawfulness and conventionality, the Court analyzed the duty of domestic judges to exercise a "conventional control". Furthermore, the Court ruled on equal protection before the law and non-discrimination; threats towards judges and witnesses and rendering of health services, namely: healthcare professionals, the doctor s duty in the professional practice and the medical file. The Court also decided issues related to the suspension of guarantees states of emergency, namely: limits to the discretionary powers of the State, use of force; exceptional measures; material scope of the suspension of guarantees and collective guarantee related to the duty to inform; private life; family life and residence; protection of the honor and dignity in judicial proceedings; principles, guarantees and duties that need to be observed when applying a judicial framework for demobilization, namely: the duty to guarantee rights; the obligation to investigate; the principle of proportionality of the sentence; the principle of res judicata and the duty to repair; as well as preliminary objections related to the lack of exhaustion of domestic resources and duplication of international proceedings.

8 6. Acceptance of responsibility In the previous reports submitted to the Committee, I underscored the acceptance of international responsibility by several States. The same occured in 2007: in three cases regarding Colombia 21, in one case regarding Perú 22, in one case regarding El Salvador 23, in one regarding Argentina 24, and in two regarding Ecuador 25. This is highly significant considering that a total of 10 cases were heard that year. It is worth mentioning that there was partial and full acceptance of international in 40 percent of the contentious cases brought before the Court. We have underscored the importante of these facts, because they merit our consideration and appreciation. We are also aware that senior authorities of several States have participated in the public acceptance of international responsibility, and that steps were taken to provide moral satisfaction to victims and their family members. Acceptance of responsibility does not mean keeping the facts from public knowledge, which would be contrary to the goals of human rights proceedings. The risk of hiding the facts from the public is lessened if we take into account the fact that, given the special characteristics of human rights proceedings, an acceptance of responsibility does not preclude in and of itself carrying out a public hearing, expressing grievances and mentioning them in the body of the judgment. 7. Compliance with Judgments The Court plays an important role in monitoring compliance with judgments. To this end, it engages in different monitoring actions in exercise of the authority vested in it, in accordance with its duty to report pursuant to article 65 of the American Convention, and as reaffirmed in resolution AG/RES. 2292 (XXXVII-0/07) of the OAS General Assembly, adopted on June 5, 2007. In 2007, the Court handed down 23 orders for monitoring compliance with the judgment 26. The Court s monitoring of these judgments, as similar orders handed down in the past, shows to what degree the Court s judgment are complied with. This can include amending laws including laws of the highest level-, issuing norms, new 21 22 23 24 25 Cases of the Rochela Massacre, Zambrano Vélez et al. and Escué Zapata. Case of Cantoral Huamani and García Santa Cruz. Case of García Prieto et al.. Case of Bueno Alves. Cases of Alban Cornejo et al. and Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez. 26 In 2007, the Court handed down orders that showed the progress made in complying with several judgments, namely: Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community (Paraguay), Serrano Cruz Sisters (El Salvador), Cantos (Argentina), 19 Tradesmen (Colombia), Suárez Rosero (Ecuador), Carpio Nicolle et al. (Guatemala), Bámaca Velásquez (Guatemala), Molina Theissen (Guatemala), García Asto and Ramírez Rojas (Perú), Gómez Palomino (Perú), Palamara Iribarne (Chile), Girls Yean and Bosico (Dominican Republic), Plan de Sánchez Massacre (Guatemala), Blake (Guatemala), Myrna Mack Chang (Guatemala), De la Cruz Flores (Perú), Caesar (Trinidad and Tobago), Moiwana Community (Surinam), Maritza Urrutia (Guatemala), Juan Humberto Sánchez (Honduras), Trujillo Oroza (Bolivia), White Van (Paniagua Morales et al.) (Guatemala) and Garrido and Baigorria (Argentina).

9 direction for jurisprudence, regulatory changes and changes in practice. I mention this again because it demonstrates the legal and political determination to improve human rights protection and to strengthen the Inter-American jurisdiction, formed by the States themselves. Furthermore, during 2007, the Court initiated a new practice by holding private hearings on monitoring compliance with the judgments issued by the Tribunal and to that end, it held three of such hearings 27, to which I will refer more in detail later on. In line with the Court s duty to inform and addressing the collective concern for the smooth operation of this sector of our shared concerns, I mention that compliance with judicial orders is still pending on various points, especially those having to do with the investigation of facts and responsibilities. The Court may not declare a case closed in such a situation. For this reason, we have only ordered 11.57 percent of the total number of contentious matters to be closed. In previous years, we mentioned alternative options for monitoring, but it is up to the governing bodies of the Organization to determine what is pertinent for moving forward to comply with judicial orders, as provided for under international law. The Court also supervises compliance with provisional measures that have been adopted. In 2007, it handed down 5 orders on this matter 28 and issued as mentioned supra-- 5 resolutions ordering partial lifting 29 and 4 ordering full lifting of the measures 30. The annual report contains a table indicating information on the status of each contentious case before the Court. 9. Relations with other agencies The Court should perform its judicial assignment with care. This includes collaborating with different agencies in tasks of common interest that benefit the judicial function, especially regarding informing the public and duly preparing those who will or may intervene in international proceedings. 27 The Court held private hearings on monitoring compliance with judgments in the cases of: Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina, Blake V. Guatemala and White Van (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. 28 The Court issued orders that provide information on the progress made to comply with and implement the provisional measures corresponding to the compliance and implementation Kankuamo Indigenous People regarding Colombia, Monagas Judicial Confinement Center ( La Pica ) regarding Venezuela, Case of Children and Adolescent Deprived of Liberty in Complexo do Tatuapé of Fundação CASA regarding Brasil, Yare I y Yare II Capital Region Penitentiary Center (Yare Prison) regarding Venezuela and Gutiérrez Soler regarding Colombia. 29 The Court ordered the partial lifting of the following provisional measures: Matter of Carlos Nieto Palma et al. regarding Venezuela, Case of Raxcacó Reyes et al. regarding Guatemala, matter of the Forensic Anthropology Foundation regarding Guatemala, Members of the Community Studies and Psychosocial Action (ECAP) Team regarding Guatemala and matter of Guerrero Gallucci and Martínez Barrios regarding Venezuela. 30 The Court ordered the full lifting of the following provisional measures: Matter of Gallardo Rodríguez regarding México, case of Colotenango regarding Guatemala, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community regarding Nicaragua and Boyce et al. regarding Barbados.

10 Of special importante is the relationship with the high courts of the States Parties to the American Convention, especially their Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts. Acceptance of Inter-American case-law by domestic courts is an indispensable step toward bringing into full force the rights envisioned in international instruments. Hence, we have sought- and received excellent response from domestic judicial agencies- to further and strengthen relations with those bodies. Since 2004, the Court has attended conferences or seminars of the constitucional judiciaries, at times with support from external agencies, such as the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. During those events we participated in a frank exchange of viewpoints with our colleagues in domestic courts. In this sense, last year we presented the first two issues of the publication entitled Diálogo Jurisprudencial. Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, Tribunales Nacionales y Corte Inter-Americana de Derechos Humanos (Dialogue on Case-law. Human Rights International Law, Domestic Courts and Inter-American Court of Human Rights), which reports on the acceptance of the Inter-American case-law at the domestic level, to which I will refer infra. We have maintained and deepened our relations with the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. During this reported period, we also renewed and signed institutional cooperation agreements with courts, universities and research institutes 31., in order to enable students, graduates and university professors to participate in internships at the Court. Internships benefit the work of the Court and have a positive impact on disseminating Inter-American jurisdiction at the domestic level. In 2007, 44 people from various countries of the world served as interns to the Court. 32 10. Budget We have mentioned in this document and in other forums of our Organization, the economic problems of the Court. Our growing workload requires a natural, systematic increase in regular resources to finance the extension of sessions, the hiring of legal supporting staff, and the maintenance, over the medium and long term, of the institution's normal programs. As you know, the regulatory reforms approved by the Court were part of a group of measures to be accompanied by a corresponding strengthening of the budget. We believe we have met, in the terms we have reported, our commitment. The results of the effort to increase productivity are there for all to see. I am pleased to acknowledge that in 2007, the regular budget of the Court corresponding to the year 2008, was increased by US$ 100.000 (one hundred thousand United State dollars), after having stood still for three years. We view this increase as an important gesture, one that we highly value, that reflects the renewed commitment of the OAS Member States and the General Secretariat of the Court, since 31 Universidad San Francisco de Quito of Ecuador, Universidad de Alcalá of Spain, Universidad de Maryland of the United States of America, Office of the Attorney s General of Colombia, Central American Court of Justice, Universidad de Talca of Chile, Internacional Human Rights Law Institute de Depaul University of United States of America, Universidad Iberoamericana Puebla of México, United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders (ILANUD). 32 Interns were accepted from the following countries: Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, United States of American, France, Haiti, Israel, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal and Venezuela.

11 that it allows, for the first time in the history of the Court, the judges of the Court to have a monthly salary of US$ 1000 (one thousand United States dollars). It began the implementation of the project Strengthening of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights", financed by the Norwegian Government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, together with the diplomatic representation of such country in Guatemala. On December 7, 2006 the agreement was signed for the amount of NOK12.000.000 which equals US$1.970.799.32 (according to the current exchange of 6.0889 NOK for United States dollars, published by the Central Bank of Costa Rica as of the day the agreement was signed). During 2007, we started negotiations in order to extend this agreement. Such extension was approved by means of Amendment Nº 1 for the amount of US$120.000.00 (a hundred and twenty thousand United States dollars). Furthermore, on November 12, 2007, an agreement was signed with the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for a project called Inter-American Public Defense, in the amount of NOK1.600.00 for the period of 2007-2008, which equals US$320.000.00 (three hundred and twenty thousand United States dollars). The Spanish Internacional Cooperation Agency (SICA), through the Spanish Fund administered by the OAS General Secretary, approved several projects for the Inter- American Court. The first one, for the amount of US$300.000.00, over a 12- month period, in order to support the Strengthening of the Inter-American Court. This project was initiated in April 2007 and its activities are performed according to the commitment undertaken in the document of the project. The second one, for the amount of US$190.000.00 (a hundred and ninety thousand dollars of the United States) in order to contribute to a best comprehension of the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, by holding sessions away from the Court's seat in a two-year period. Finally, as a result of the performance of the Inter-American Court in the implementation of the projects, the XXX Meeting of OAS Project Evaluation Committee (CEP), held on October 4, 2007 at the seat of the OAS, approved the project called Project AECI- Strengthening, Stage II, called "Strengthening of the Judicial Function of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Second Stage CDH0701 for an estimate period of 24 months and with a budget of US$1.188.055, 68. Moreover, we received independent contributions from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the amount of US$ 6.794,80. The Permanent Mission of Mexico to OAS made a donation to the Tribunal in the amount of US$ 125.000.00. Besides, at the beginning of 2007, the Colombian Government contributed with US$ 300.000. The Government of Costa Rica maintains its contribution in the amount of US$ 100.000 per year, as in previous years, since the establishment of the seat of the Court in that country. The OAS maintains the disbursements for the budget of the year 2007 in the amount of US$1.656.300, coming from the regular fund approved in the General Assembly held in Panama. Of course, all of the contributions I have mention above are special and contingent in nature, therefore, cannot be considered part of the Court's regular budget for its normal operations over the medium and long terms. I would like to remind that the vast majority of lawyers working with the Secretariat of the Court do not hold OAS positions, which discourages them for pursuing a legal career with the Court, and is not desirable in an agency such as ours where the stability of its lawyers is essential. As has been mentioned, the Court has appreciated that the OAS decided to grant the judges a monthly salary of US$1000; this contributes to appreciating the fact that their work is being remunerated, at least

12 partially, that is, the days of work they devote to the Court when they are in their country. The members of the Court do not have a permanent position in Costa Rica, but they permanently work to maintain the standard of efficiency and promptness the Court so requires. 11. Audit of financial statements and various reports The financial statements of the Court for the fiscal year 2007 were audited pursuant to the Organization s requirements as set out in the 1998 agreement on the administrative independence of the Secretariat of the Court. The audit was performed by the firm of independent external auditors Venegas, Pizarro, Ugarte y CO., Authorized Certified Public Accountants, which represent HLB International in Costa Rica. The audit also covered both the OAS funds and the funds provided by Costa Rica during that period. Copies of the audit reports were submitted to the Department of Financial Services, the Inspector General, and the Board of External Auditors of the OAS, as is our practice. According to the auditors report, the financial statements of the Court fairly represent the financial and assets situation of the institution, as well as its income, disbursements and cash flows for the year 2007; and are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting standards for non-for-profit agencies (which is the case of the Court) and have been consistently applied. Furthermore, the report indicates that the internal controls adopted for the Court s accounting system is effective for recording and controlling transactions, and that reasonable business practices are used to ensure the effective use of funds. Likewise, we have reported and will continue to report to the governments and institutions that have provided or will provide us with support, in the terms I reported on above, regarding the use of those funds. The Court s Web page continues to provide information, as has been our practice in the last fiscal years, on the Court s income and expenditures. 12. Information and publications With the donation from the Government of Norway, which I mentioned earlier, we are updating the publication of the Court s judgments, both in Spanish and in English, in printed format. We have also continued to publish and disseminate on compact disks all the jurisprudence of the Court. This material is updated, in new editions, after each session. We will soon be able to update other printed materials of series begun some years ago: provisional measures and procedural orders. Based on the foregoing, the Court published 18 books of case-law 33. 33 Books of the Series C published during 2007: Case of Caracazo V. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C Nº 95; Case of Las Palmeras V. Colombia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C Nº 96; Case of Cantos V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C Nº 97; Case of the Five Pensioners V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C Nº 98; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C Nº 99; Case of Bulacio V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C Nº 100; Case of Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C Nº 101; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Interpretation of Judgment on

13 We have recently completed the Court s Web page (http://www.corteidh.or.cr), with the data base that contains the digitalized case files of the cases which have received judgments and that are closed or being monitored, including brief of pleadings, motions and evidence submitted by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next-of-kin; briefs containing response to the petition and observation to the brief of pleadings and motions forwarded by the States; briefs on preliminary objections; resolutions to call upon public hearings; expert reports and written statements; final briefs of the parties and document regarding the processing of the case, among others. This pioneering initiative fosters the investigation and knowledge of the contentious procedures before the Tribunal and enables scholars and users of the Inter-American human rights system to study the essential parts of the files without having to travel to Costa Rica. At this time we submit to you the second issue of the semiannual journal entitled Diálogo Jurisprudencial. Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, Tribunales Nacionales, Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. The third issue is currently at press. It is published through an agreement among the Court, the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, the Legal Research Institute of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. The journal offers a number of judgments handed down by the high courts of the countries of the Hemisphere, which shows the increasingly broad acceptance of international human rights standards in national legislation. 13. Reflections and recommendations In recent years we have been including a section containing some thoughts and recommendations at the end of the Summary of the Annual Report submitted to the Committee on Political and Juridical Affairs. I will cite the considerations I included in previous reports, which are still relevant, and take the liberty of underscoring or pointing out some issues that are, in my judgment, of the greatest importance. The Court has sought to fulfill the recommendations it received from the OAS and to meet the commitments the Court itself undertook vis-à-vis this governing body and the General Assembly. Attention to these matters has impacted on the pace of the Court s work and in the presentation of a report on reparations, about which the States have made previous comments. The figures you have on productivity speak for themselves. In addition, the orders issued during 2007 can be used to analyze the qualitative characteristics of case-law and work of the Court. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.. Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C Nº 102; Case of Maritza Urrutia V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C. Nº 103; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama. Competence, Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C Nº 104; Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre V. Guatemala. Merits, judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C Nº 105; Case of Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C Nº 106; Case of Herrera Ulloa V. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C Nº 107; Case of Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C Nº 108; Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C Nº 109; Case of Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C Nº 110; Case of Ricardo Canese V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C Nº 111: Case of the Juvenile Reeducation Institute V. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112.

14 The first thought refers to an important change for the people under the jurisdiction of the States parties to the Convention. Every judgment resolves a specific case; these are the limits of the disputes submitted to our jurisdiction. But we should not lose sight of the fact that all orders of the Inter-American Court also represent an act of interpretation of the precepts of the American Convention, which form part of the countries legal systems, and they therefore transcend the specific cases and establish broader criteria for orienting decisions and practices. The Court needs to appreciate what it means for the improvement of the system, the fact that it is a clear trend among Member States to the Convention to incorporate the international rules and our case-law as legal source and to include the legal opinions in governmental polices and the judicial work. These are concrete steps towards the ultimate objective of the system, which is to exercise and enjoy human rights within the State and also, receive protection. The Court, besides, is looking forward to seize this development and use the progress within its own case-law. The interaction between national and regional allows an improvement of all the organs of protection. It is for this reason that the Tribunal has made efforts to promote the Internacional human rights law, rules and case-law of the tribunal before justice administrators and other State officials. In this way, by late February, it commenced the two-year program to train the lawyers of the high domestic courts of Central America. This pilot program started in San Salvador. Furthermore, in February this year, we conducted in San José de Costa Rica the third seminar on the Human Rights Inter-American system for officials of the State and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Likewise, we soon commence a training program regarding this system for the Public Defenders of America. We believe that the Court's initiative to train State's officials must continue in the future since they are the best way to promote the incorporation of the international human rights law and case-law of the system in the national level. We would like to emphasize that, within this same spirit, we maintain an open flow of communication with the Supreme Courts and the Constitutional Courts of the Hemisphere. As has been done in the summary of the Annual Report of 2006, we respectfully invite the States to continue this active process of acceptance by conferring ever greater importance on the orders of the Inter-American jurisdiction. To that end, we would like to propose to the OAS and the Member States to take part in a seminar, during 2009, in order to share the important progress made in this field and discuss, with the participation of the civil and academic society, the problems that come before us and that prevent this tendency from regularly progressing in all Member States. We believe that the region can show to the world the important progress made, useful for other systems and the collaboration between all Member States and the Court may increase and strengthen the objectives achieved. In this sense, the Court has continued issuing the publication of its Diálogo Jurisprudencial, in order to demonstrate the good practices of some State Parties in the implementation of the Court's decisions. Diálogo Jurisprudencial contains judgments rendered by domestic courts of those countries that have applied the Court's criteria to solve problems similar to those decided over by the tribunal. The system has advanced and the times of the 1969 Convention have changed. The new circumstances reveal States that respect the rule of law and individuals that are more and more conscious of their human rights. There are different conflicts; the people who turn to the system are usually individuals with legal counsel. This requires, then, a tuning of the system in order to adjust to new realities. The Court has thought about this and has tried to gather the opinions of the system's users to orient its

15 objective. The Court and the Commission have been in constant communication regarding the changes that may be necessary in contentious cases. These conclusions shall be informed to the States and the civil society, once they are ready, following the same spirit of joint reflection and cooperation. I may say that one of the issues of the conversation has been the necessity to relieve the Commission of its role of organ to the system and allow the victim to be the counterpart of the State. A series of changes are required to that end and many of them are difficult to solve with a practical modification. Following the same line of thought, another idea is for the Commission to no longer prepare the "petition but to bring the case before the Court by means of the forwarding of the report of Article 50 of the Convention. We cannot forget, however, that sometimes the victims have no representation or the representation is insufficient and that, in that case, in order for the Commission to maintain its role of organ to the system, it would be necessary to provide it with free legal counsel and means to tender evidence. The access of the individuals to the system constitutes a first-rank right and an essential means for the effective enforcement of all the rights; it is the cornerstone of the system of protection. The Court has fostered this access through the introduction of changes in its Rules of Procedure. Nevertheless, the efforts made to relieve the figure of the victim of its role cannot be implemented if the problem of legal counsel is not solved. The Court, concern about this issue, has thought in the possibility of arranging, within the framework of the OAS, the work of pro bono lawyers, who may come from important law firms and who must be willing to do this kind of work on a daily basis. It is worth mentioning that in some countries, where there are independent public defenders, they are able to bring the cases to the Inter-American system. There is also the possibility of creating a fund for the assistance of victims. This is an issue that needs to be carefully but promptly analyzed if we really wish to improve the system and adjust it to the new times. Following its desire to promote the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the Court has made an important effort to inform its users on the work done in the tribunal. The web page of the Court contains now all the cases that have been closed, its main briefs and other documents. It is a very valuable instruments for lawyers and scholars of the system. International human rights law in the Americas that is, the regional corpus juris of this subject area has been enriched considerably. To the Charter of the Organization and the American Declaration, the Pact of San José was added in 1969 and after that, special protocols and conventions were also added. All these treaties, plus the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court in the exercise of its contentious competence and the decisions rendered according to its advisory jurisdiction, contribute to make up the body of law that protects the human dignity. Among all its components, the American Convention is the central core since it is the only general treaty that confers upon the Court the power to exercise its contentious jurisdiction regarding any controversy of interpretation over its rules that, in general, include all the human rights developed by special treaties. In this way, the special treaties shall always be under the protection of the Convention. I hereby repeat what my predecessor has said regarding the need to include all OAS Member States in the regional system for the protection of human rights. The States who are not member to the system may enrich it significantly. In this way, it is important that all Member States to the Convention accepts the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. The full incorporation of all the States into the System, with