Mãos limpas e coração puro?: A aplicação da doutrina das mãos limpas pela Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.esde.v79n173a01Palavras-chave:
doutrina das mãos limpas, justiça transicional, reparações, Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, violações dos direitos humanos, danos moraisResumo
Este artigo fornece uma análise da prática do Tribunal Interamericano de Direitos Humanos (“IACrtHR”) no que diz respeito à doutrina das “mãos limpas” e sua legitimidade. O documento argumenta que uma abordagem de “mãos limpas” para a compensação por danos morais em casos de direitos humanos é inadmissível. Seu uso é ainda mais questionável, uma vez que o IACrtHR não deu uma explicação para suas decisões de reter indenizações por danos morais apenas de alguns infratores. O artigo analisará casos em que o IACrtHR concedeu e não concedeu indenização monetária por danos morais para evidenciar sua inconsistência na jurisprudência e a falta de critérios decisivos claros. Concluirei que o IACrtHR aplicou a doutrina das "mãos limpas" sem declarar explicitamente e que isso não é compatível com o direito internacional dos direitos humanos.
Downloads
Referências
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.
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2022 Renato Antonio Constantino Caycho
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
A revista Estudios de Derecho é regulamentada pela Constitución Política de Colombia, artigo 61; Lei 23 de 1982, artigos 1 e 2; Lei 44 de 1993, capítulo II, artigo 6 e capítulo IV, artigo 51; Lei 599 de 2000 pela qual o Código Penal é emitido, artigos 270, 271 e 272. Além disso, a revista é regulamentada pelas normas estabelecidas pela Dirección Nacional de Derechos de Autor e da Organización Mundial de la Propiedad Intelectual (OMPI) para Colômbia. Finalmente, está apegada à Resolução da Reitoria 21231 de 5 de agosto de 2005, pela qual se emite o Estatuto sobre a Propriedade Intelectual.
Os autores que publicam em Law Studies continuam mantendo seus direitos, no entanto, eles devem ter em mente que o conteúdos da revista estão sob a Licença Creative Commons “Atribuição-NãoComercial-CompartilhaIgual”. O material disponível pode ser distribuído, copiado e exibido por terceiros sempre e quando sejam dados os créditos apropriados. Sem fins comerciais.
