¿Manos limpias y corazón puro?: La aplicación de la doctrina de manos limpias por parte de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos

Renato Antonio  Constantino Caycho

doi:10.17533/udea.esde.v79n173a01

Autores/as

Renato Antonio Constantino Caycho Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.esde.v79n173a01

Palabras clave:

doctrina de manos limpias, justiciar transicional, reparaciones, Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, violaciones de derechos humanos, daños morales

Resumen

Este artículo realiza un análisis de la práctica de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CorteIDH) respecto de la doctrina de “manos limpias” y su legitimidad. El texto argumenta que un enfoque de “manos limpias” para la compensación de daños morales en casos de derechos humanos es inadmisible. Su uso es aún más cuestionable, toda vez que la CorteIDH no ha brindado una explicación respecto de sus decisiones de negar reparaciones por daños morales solo para algunos infractores. El texto revisará casos en los que la CorteIDH ha otorgado y no ha otorgado una compensación monetaria por daños morales con el fin de resaltar su inconsistente jurisprudencia, así como la falta de criterios claros y decisivos. Se concluirá que la CorteIDH ha aplicado la doctrina de “manos limpias” sin manifestarlo explícitamente, y que esto no es compatible con el derecho internacional de los derechos humanos.

|Resumen

= 1108 veces | VISOR (ENGLISH)

= 194 veces| | HTML

= 230 veces| | PDF

= 413 veces|

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

Anenson, T. L. (2018). Announcing the “Clean Hands” Doctrine. UC Davis Law Review 51(5), 1827-1890. https://bit.ly/32HAtFZ

Antkowiak, T. M. & Gonza, A. (2017). The American Convention on Human Rights: essential rights. UK: Oxford University Press.

Bregaglio Lazarte, R. (2016). Cuando la Corte no nos mira: las reparaciones como factor diferenciador en una sociedad posconflicto en el caso peruano. En La desigualdad: Seminario en Latinoamérica de Teoría Constitucional y Política: SELA 2015. Buenos Aires: Libraria Ediciones.

Contreras-Garduño, D. (2012). Are All Victims Entitles to Reparations? The Case of the Inter-American System of Human Rights. In A. Mihr (ed.), Transitional Justice: between criminal justice, atonement and democracy. SIM Special No. 37. (pp. 120-141). Utrecht: SIM. https://bit.ly/32GiHTv

Correa, C. (2015). Inter-American Court’s Dangerous Precedent in Limiting Insurgents’ Right to Reparations. Justice Info. https://bit.ly/3FUlnLr

Crawford, J. (2002). The International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility: introduction, text, and commentaries. Cambridge, U.K. New York: Cambridge University Press.

De Greiff, P. (2012). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion of Truth, Justice, Reparation and Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, Pablo de Greiff. A/HRC/21/46. https://bit.ly/3lgFvPU. UN.

De Greiff, P. (2014). Report of the Special Rapporteur on promotion truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence. A/69/518. UN.

Dumberry, P. & Dumas-Aubin, G. (2013). The Doctrine of ‘Clean Hands’ and the Inadmissibility of Claims by Investors Breaching International Human Rights Law. Transnational Dispute Management, 10(1).

European Court of Human Rights. (1995). Case of McCann and others vs. The United Kingdom. (Application no. 18984/91).

European Court of Human Rights. (2001). Case of Chapman vs. The United Kingdom. (Application no. 27238/95).

European Court of Human Rights. (2003). Case of Finucane vs. the United Kingdom. (Application no. 29178/95).

García-Godos, J. (2008). Victim Reparations in Transitional Justice - What Is at Stake and Why. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Menneskerettigheter, 26(2), 111-202.

Gavilán Sánchez, L. (2012). Memorias de un soldado desconocido: autobiografía y antropología de la violencia. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos (IEP).

González Napolitano, S. S.; Mendicoa, J. E.; Gómez Fernández, L. I.; Aisenstein, M.; Rohr, A.; Lavin, R.; Vogelfanger, A.; Roldán, S.; Heffes, E.; Garin, A. S.; Gracia, M. B.; Colmegna, P.; Losada Revol, I.; Salerno, L. & Robles, L. M. (2013). La responsabilidad internacional del estado por violación de los derechos humanos: sus particularidades frente al derecho internacional general. Avellaneda: SGN Editora.

Gray, D. (2010). A No-Excuse Approach to Transitional Justice: Reparations As Tools of Extraordinary Justice. Washington University Law Review, 87(2), 1043-1103. https://bit.ly/32Ah89v

Hillebrecht, C. (2012). The Domestic Mechanisms of Compliance with International Human Rights Law: Case Studies from the Inter- American Human Rights System. Human Rights Quarterly, 34, 959-986. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2012.0069

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (1989). Case of Velasquez Rodriguez vs. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 21 July 1989. Series C No. 7.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (1996). Case of El Amparo vs. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgement of 14 September 1996. Series C No. 28.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (1999). Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 30 May 1999. Series C No. 52.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2004). Case of Lori Berenson Mejía vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 November 2004. Series C No. 119.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2005a). Case of Fermín Ramírez vs. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 20 June 2005. Series C No. 126.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2005b). Case of Raxcacó Reyes vs. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 15 September 2005. Series C No. 133.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2006). Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2010). Case of Gomes Lund et al. (‘Guerrilha do Araguaia’) vs. Brasil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 24 November 2010. Series C No. 219.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2014a). Case of Espinoza Gonzáles vs. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014 Series C No. 289.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2014b). Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) vs. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 14 November 2014 Series C No. 287.

Inter-American Court of Human Rights. (2015). Case of Cruz Sanchez et al. vs. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 17 April 2015 Series C No. 292.

International Court of Justice. (2019). Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran vs. United States of America). Preliminary Objections. Judgment of 13 February 2019.

LaPlante, L. J. (2004). Bringing Effective Remedies Home: The Inter-American Human Rights System, Reparations, and the Duty of Prevention. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 22(3), 347-88. https://bit.ly/3pqmNXJ

LaPlante, L. J. (2007). The Law of Remedies and the Clean Hands Doctrine: Exclusionary Reparation Policies in Peru’s Political Transition. American University International Law Review, 23(1), 51-90. https://bit.ly/3E134Ur

LaPlante, L. J. (2015). Just Repair. Cornell International Law Journal, 48(3), 513-578. https://bit.ly/3p6r0iU

Méndez, J. E. (2016). Victims as Protagonists in Transitional Justice. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 10(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijv037

Moffett, L. (2016). Reparations for ‘Guilty Victims’: Navigating Complex Identities of Victim–Perpetrators in Reparation Mechanisms. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 10(1), 146-167. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijv030

Nash Rojas, C. (2009). Las Reparaciones ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (1988-2007). Santiago de Chile: Andros.

Olivera Astete, J. (2015). Estándares De La Corte Interamericana De Derechos Humanos Para La Reparación Del Derecho A La Verdad En El Perú Del Posconflicto. American University International Law Review, 32(2), 435-468. https://bit.ly/3paXg4m

Permanent Court of Arbitration. (2007). Guyana vs. Suriname.

Pomson, O & Horowitz, Y. (2015). Humanitarian Intervention and the Clean Hands Doctrine in International Law. Israel Law Review, 48(219), 35. https://bit.ly/3xvgAgH

Redacción Radio Programas del Perú (RPP). (2015). Humala sobre Chavín de Huántar: No voy a dar ni un sol a los terroristas. RPP Noticias. https://bit.ly/3nZQlvs

Sandoval, C. (2018). Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Reflections on the Jurisprudential Turn of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Domestic Reparation Programmes. The International Journal of Human Rights, 22(9), 1192-1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2016.1268439

Shelton, D. (2002). Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articles on State Responsibility. The American Journal of International Law, 96(4), 833-856. https://doi.org/10.2307/3070681

Shelton, D. (2006). Remedies in International Human Rights Law. 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru. (2006). Final Report. Lima. https://www.cverdad.org.pe/ingles/ifinal/index.php

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru. (2014). Hatun Willakuy. Abbreviated Version of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Lima. https://cdn01.pucp.education/idehpucp/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/16225831/hatun_willakuy_ingles.pdf

United Nations General Assembly. (2005). Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. A/RES/60/147.

Van Boven, T. (1993). Study concerning the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8. UN.