2
de abril de 2014
Comunicado de Prensa 32/14
Washington, D.C. – La Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH) presentó ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CorteIDH) el Caso No. 12.816 Adán Guillermo López Lone y otros vs. Honduras.
Este caso está relacionado con los procesos disciplinarios a los cuales fueron sometidos los jueces Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha y Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, así como la magistrada Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, en el contexto del golpe de Estado ocurrido en Honduras en junio de 2009. Las víctimas eran parte de la “Asociación Jueces por la Democracia”, la cual emitió comunicados públicos calificando los hechos relacionados con la destitución del ex-Presidente Manuel Zelaya como un golpe de Estado. Esta visión entraba en directa contradicción con la versión sostenida por la Corte Suprema de Justicia, la cual sustentaba que se trató de una sucesión constitucional.
Adicionalmente, la
CIDH encontró que el procedimiento estuvo plagado de múltiples irregularidades
que afectaron el debido proceso de las víctimas. Así por ejemplo, teniendo en
cuenta la posición públicamente promovida por la Corte Suprema de Justicia de
validar el golpe de Estado, dicha autoridad no actuó de manera imparcial al
decidir las destituciones de las víctimas. Tampoco se les dio oportunidad de
recusar a los integrantes del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial, quienes fueron
llamados a integrarlo directamente por su presidenta sin un proceso de
nombramiento que garantizara su independencia.
Asimismo, la Comisión concluyó que las causales disciplinarias aplicadas en contra de las víctimas no observaron el principio de legalidad y las decisiones que fueron adoptadas no fueron debidamente motivadas, afectando su derecho a la libertad de expresión. Tal intervención del aparato disciplinario del Estado estuvo dirigida también a obstaculizar su participación en la “Asociación Jueces por la Democracia” como consecuencia de sus actos en contra del golpe de Estado, por lo que además se configuraron violaciones a los derechos políticos y libertad de asociación. Finalmente, como resultado de las decisiones del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial, las víctimas no recibieron protección judicial efectiva y no obtuvieron una reparación en sus derechos.
La Comisión Interamericana sometió el caso a la jurisdicción de la Corte el 17 de marzo de 2014 ante la falta de cumplimiento de las recomendaciones por parte del Estado de Honduras. La Comisión había recomendado al Estado: reincorporar a las víctimas al Poder Judicial, en un cargo similar al que desempeñaban, con la misma remuneración, beneficios sociales y rango equiparables a los que les correspondería el día de hoy si no hubieran sido destituidos, por el plazo de tiempo que quedaba pendiente de su mandato, o si por razones fundadas no era posible la reincorporación, el Estado debía pagar una indemnización alternativa. Asimismo, la CIDH recomendó reparar las consecuencias de las violaciones a los derechos humanos establecidas en el caso, incluyendo tanto el daño material como el daño inmaterial. Adicionalmente, se recomendó al Estado de Honduras disponer las modificaciones normativas necesarias para asegurar que los procesos disciplinarios contra jueces y juezas sean realizados por autoridades competentes y con garantías suficientes de independencia e imparcialidad; y disponer las modificaciones normativas necesarias para asegurar que las causales disciplinarias de jueces y juezas y las sanciones aplicables, sean compatibles con el principio de legalidad.
Este caso permitirá a la Corte profundizar su jurisprudencia sobre el principio de independencia judicial y sus implicaciones en las garantías reforzadas de legalidad y debido proceso en el marco de un proceso sancionatorio en perjuicio de un juez o jueza. Particularmente, el presente caso ofrece a la Corte Interamericana la posibilidad de analizar la importancia que tiene el respeto de tales garantías a la luz del principio de independencia judicial en un contexto de una crisis democrática resultante de un golpe de Estado. Por otra parte, la Corte podrá profundizar su jurisprudencia en materia de responsabilidades ulteriores al ejercicio de la libertad de expresión, específicamente en cuanto al requisito de estricta legalidad cuando se trata de causales disciplinarias, así como a la manera en que deben aplicarse los requisitos de idoneidad, necesidad y proporcionalidad.
La CIDH es un órgano principal y autónomo de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), cuyo mandato surge de la Carta de la OEA y de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. La Comisión Interamericana tiene el mandato de promover la observancia de los derechos humanos en la región y actúa como órgano consultivo de la OEA en la materia. La CIDH está integrada por siete miembros independientes que son elegidos por la Asamblea General de la OEA a título personal, y no representan sus países de origen o residencia.
Asimismo, la Comisión concluyó que las causales disciplinarias aplicadas en contra de las víctimas no observaron el principio de legalidad y las decisiones que fueron adoptadas no fueron debidamente motivadas, afectando su derecho a la libertad de expresión. Tal intervención del aparato disciplinario del Estado estuvo dirigida también a obstaculizar su participación en la “Asociación Jueces por la Democracia” como consecuencia de sus actos en contra del golpe de Estado, por lo que además se configuraron violaciones a los derechos políticos y libertad de asociación. Finalmente, como resultado de las decisiones del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial, las víctimas no recibieron protección judicial efectiva y no obtuvieron una reparación en sus derechos.
La Comisión Interamericana sometió el caso a la jurisdicción de la Corte el 17 de marzo de 2014 ante la falta de cumplimiento de las recomendaciones por parte del Estado de Honduras. La Comisión había recomendado al Estado: reincorporar a las víctimas al Poder Judicial, en un cargo similar al que desempeñaban, con la misma remuneración, beneficios sociales y rango equiparables a los que les correspondería el día de hoy si no hubieran sido destituidos, por el plazo de tiempo que quedaba pendiente de su mandato, o si por razones fundadas no era posible la reincorporación, el Estado debía pagar una indemnización alternativa. Asimismo, la CIDH recomendó reparar las consecuencias de las violaciones a los derechos humanos establecidas en el caso, incluyendo tanto el daño material como el daño inmaterial. Adicionalmente, se recomendó al Estado de Honduras disponer las modificaciones normativas necesarias para asegurar que los procesos disciplinarios contra jueces y juezas sean realizados por autoridades competentes y con garantías suficientes de independencia e imparcialidad; y disponer las modificaciones normativas necesarias para asegurar que las causales disciplinarias de jueces y juezas y las sanciones aplicables, sean compatibles con el principio de legalidad.
Este caso permitirá a la Corte profundizar su jurisprudencia sobre el principio de independencia judicial y sus implicaciones en las garantías reforzadas de legalidad y debido proceso en el marco de un proceso sancionatorio en perjuicio de un juez o jueza. Particularmente, el presente caso ofrece a la Corte Interamericana la posibilidad de analizar la importancia que tiene el respeto de tales garantías a la luz del principio de independencia judicial en un contexto de una crisis democrática resultante de un golpe de Estado. Por otra parte, la Corte podrá profundizar su jurisprudencia en materia de responsabilidades ulteriores al ejercicio de la libertad de expresión, específicamente en cuanto al requisito de estricta legalidad cuando se trata de causales disciplinarias, así como a la manera en que deben aplicarse los requisitos de idoneidad, necesidad y proporcionalidad.
La CIDH es un órgano principal y autónomo de la Organización de los Estados Americanos (OEA), cuyo mandato surge de la Carta de la OEA y de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. La Comisión Interamericana tiene el mandato de promover la observancia de los derechos humanos en la región y actúa como órgano consultivo de la OEA en la materia. La CIDH está integrada por siete miembros independientes que son elegidos por la Asamblea General de la OEA a título personal, y no representan sus países de origen o residencia.
Enlaces Relacionados
·
Audiencia sobre la Admisibilidad de la Petición, 141 Periodo de
Sesiones, 25 de marzo de 2011:
o
Video
o
Audio
·
Audiencia sobre el Fondo del Caso, 144 Periodo de Sesiones, 26 de
marzo de 2012:
o
Video
o
Fotos
o
Audio
Press Release 32/14
April
2, 2014
Washington,
D.C.—The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) filed an application
with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in Case No. 12.816, Adán Guillermo
López Lone et al. v. Honduras.
This case has to do with the disciplinary proceedings instituted against Judges Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, as well as Magistrate Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, in the context of the June 2009 coup d’état in Honduras. The victims belonged to the “Asociación Jueces por la Democracia” (Association of Judges for Democracy), which issued public communiques describing the events surrounding the destitution of former President Manuel Zelaya as a coup d’état. This view directly contradicted the stance of the Supreme Court of Justice, which held that the events involved a constitutional succession. The IACHR concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted for the purpose of punishing actions or statements by the victims against the coup d’état, and that the grounds for doing so ignored the procedure contemplated in the Constitution, which established that the Supreme Court was the competent authority to decide on the judges’ dismissal “following a proposal from the Judicial Career Council.” Contrary to that, the dismissals were carried out by means of Supreme Court agreements so that the Career Council acted after the fact, as an appeal body, despite being a dependent arm of the Court.
Moreover, the IACHR found that the proceedings were plagued by numerous irregularities that affected the victims’ due process. For example, considering the position publicly espoused by the Supreme Court, validating the coup d’état, that authority did not act impartially in ruling on the victims’ dismissals. Nor did it give them the opportunity to recuse the members of the Judicial Career Council, who had been directly asked to serve on the council by its president, with no nomination process that would ensure its independence.
In addition, the Commission concluded that the grounds for disciplining the victims did not adhere to the principle of non-retroactivity and that the decisions taken were not well-founded, which affected the victims’ right to freedom of expression. The intervention of the State’s disciplinary apparatus also aimed to hamper the victims’ participation in the Association of Judges for Democracy, as a consequence of its actions against the coup d’état, so that violations to political rights and freedom of association were also involved. Finally, as a result of the decisions by the Judicial Career Council, the victims did not receive effective judicial protection and did not obtain redress of their rights.
The Inter-American Commission submitted the case to the Court’s jurisdiction on March 17, 2014, due to the failure by the State of Honduras to comply with its recommendations. The Commission had recommended that the State reinstate the victims into the judiciary, in positions similar to what they had held before, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and rank comparable to what they would hold today if they had not been dismissed, for the period of time that was left in their terms. Alternatively, if it was not possible, for well-founded reasons, to reinstate them, the State should pay compensation. The IACHR also recommended redressing the consequences of the human rights violations established in the case, including both material and nonmaterial damages. Moreover, it recommended that the State of Honduras order the necessary regulatory changes to ensure that disciplinary proceedings against judges are carried out by competent authorities and with sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality, and order the necessary regulatory changes to ensure that the grounds for disciplining judges and the applicable sanctions are compatible with the principle of non-retroactivity.
This case will enable the Court to expand its case law on the principle of judicial independence and its implications in terms of stronger guarantees for non-retroactivity and due process in the context of a proceeding to punish a judge. Specifically, this case offers the Inter-American Court the chance to examine the importance of respecting such guarantees in light of the principle of judicial independence, in a context of a democratic crisis resulting from a coup d’état. Moreover, the Court will be able to expand its case law on subsequent liability for the exercise of freedom of expression, specifically in terms of the requirement of strict legality when it comes to disciplinary grounds, as well as the way in which the requirements of appropriateness, necessity, and proportionality should be applied.
A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission has a mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this area. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who are elected in an individual capacity by the OAS General Assembly and who do not represent their countries of origin or residence.
This case has to do with the disciplinary proceedings instituted against Judges Adán Guillermo López Lone, Luis Alonso Chévez de la Rocha, and Ramón Enrique Barrios Maldonado, as well as Magistrate Tirza del Carmen Flores Lanza, in the context of the June 2009 coup d’état in Honduras. The victims belonged to the “Asociación Jueces por la Democracia” (Association of Judges for Democracy), which issued public communiques describing the events surrounding the destitution of former President Manuel Zelaya as a coup d’état. This view directly contradicted the stance of the Supreme Court of Justice, which held that the events involved a constitutional succession. The IACHR concluded that the disciplinary proceedings were instituted for the purpose of punishing actions or statements by the victims against the coup d’état, and that the grounds for doing so ignored the procedure contemplated in the Constitution, which established that the Supreme Court was the competent authority to decide on the judges’ dismissal “following a proposal from the Judicial Career Council.” Contrary to that, the dismissals were carried out by means of Supreme Court agreements so that the Career Council acted after the fact, as an appeal body, despite being a dependent arm of the Court.
Moreover, the IACHR found that the proceedings were plagued by numerous irregularities that affected the victims’ due process. For example, considering the position publicly espoused by the Supreme Court, validating the coup d’état, that authority did not act impartially in ruling on the victims’ dismissals. Nor did it give them the opportunity to recuse the members of the Judicial Career Council, who had been directly asked to serve on the council by its president, with no nomination process that would ensure its independence.
In addition, the Commission concluded that the grounds for disciplining the victims did not adhere to the principle of non-retroactivity and that the decisions taken were not well-founded, which affected the victims’ right to freedom of expression. The intervention of the State’s disciplinary apparatus also aimed to hamper the victims’ participation in the Association of Judges for Democracy, as a consequence of its actions against the coup d’état, so that violations to political rights and freedom of association were also involved. Finally, as a result of the decisions by the Judicial Career Council, the victims did not receive effective judicial protection and did not obtain redress of their rights.
The Inter-American Commission submitted the case to the Court’s jurisdiction on March 17, 2014, due to the failure by the State of Honduras to comply with its recommendations. The Commission had recommended that the State reinstate the victims into the judiciary, in positions similar to what they had held before, with the same remuneration, social benefits, and rank comparable to what they would hold today if they had not been dismissed, for the period of time that was left in their terms. Alternatively, if it was not possible, for well-founded reasons, to reinstate them, the State should pay compensation. The IACHR also recommended redressing the consequences of the human rights violations established in the case, including both material and nonmaterial damages. Moreover, it recommended that the State of Honduras order the necessary regulatory changes to ensure that disciplinary proceedings against judges are carried out by competent authorities and with sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality, and order the necessary regulatory changes to ensure that the grounds for disciplining judges and the applicable sanctions are compatible with the principle of non-retroactivity.
This case will enable the Court to expand its case law on the principle of judicial independence and its implications in terms of stronger guarantees for non-retroactivity and due process in the context of a proceeding to punish a judge. Specifically, this case offers the Inter-American Court the chance to examine the importance of respecting such guarantees in light of the principle of judicial independence, in a context of a democratic crisis resulting from a coup d’état. Moreover, the Court will be able to expand its case law on subsequent liability for the exercise of freedom of expression, specifically in terms of the requirement of strict legality when it comes to disciplinary grounds, as well as the way in which the requirements of appropriateness, necessity, and proportionality should be applied.
A principal, autonomous body of the Organization of American States (OAS), the IACHR derives its mandate from the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission has a mandate to promote respect for human rights in the region and acts as a consultative body to the OAS in this area. The Commission is composed of seven independent members who are elected in an individual capacity by the OAS General Assembly and who do not represent their countries of origin or residence.
Related Links
·
Public Hearing held March 25,
2011:
o
Video
·
Public Hearing held March 26,
2012:
o
Video
o
Photos
Contact Info / Información de
Contacto
María Isabel
Rivero
IACHR Press Director / Directora de Prensa de la CIDH
1889 F Street NW, Washington, DC, 20009, United States of America / Estados Unidos de América
Tel. (1) 202 370 9001mrivero@oas.org
IACHR Press Director / Directora de Prensa de la CIDH
1889 F Street NW, Washington, DC, 20009, United States of America / Estados Unidos de América
Tel. (1) 202 370 9001mrivero@oas.org
No hay comentarios :
Publicar un comentario