The Amicus Curiae in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1982-2013)

Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi*

ABSTRACT
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR or Court) received approximately 500
amicus curiae briefs in its first 35 years. This number is particularly striking, taking into account
that the IACtHR issued only about 275 judgments and decisions in that same time period, as well
as twenty advisory opinions. This means that, in its contentious jurisdiction, the Court has
received more briefs from non-parties than from parties actually litigating a case.
Despite these numbers, statistical and analytical research on the participation of such friends of
the court in written and oral proceedings before the IACtHR is relatively scarce in academic
literature. This article aims to address this gap in the literature. Drawing upon all of the Courts
contentious jurisprudence - from 1988 up to the end of 2013 - this article provides a
comprehensive analysis of more than 400 amici curiae briefs submitted in almost 100
contentious cases. It also relies on more than 100 amici briefs submitted in the Courts advisory
jurisdiction from 1982 through 2013.
The purpose of this article is to contribute to the institutional historical memory of the IACtHR;
highlight and provide a critique of the development of procedural norms and practices that
regulate amici curiae submissions before the Court; provide suggestions and recommendations
for greater clarity, consistency, and transparency concerning the participation of amicus curiae in
the Courts proceedings, and encourage a broader debate and discussion about the proper role of
amicus curiae participation before the IACtHR.
1. INTRODUCTION
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) received approximately 500 amicus
curiae briefs in its first 35 years. This number is particularly striking, taking into account that the
IACtHR issued only about 275 judgments and decisions in that same time period, as well as
twenty advisory opinions. This means that, in its contentious jurisdiction, the Court has received
more briefs from non-parties than from parties actually litigating a case.
Despite these numbers, statistical and analytical research on the participation of amicus curiae in
written and oral proceedings before the IACtHR is relatively scarce in academic literature.
Certainly, the works of Charles Moyer1, Carolina Loayza Tamayo2, Thomas Buergenthal3, and
*

Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi, Director and Assistant Clinical Professor of Law, International Human Rights
Clinic, Santa Clara University School of Law, California, United States. Former senior staff attorney and
coordinator of the internship program at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. EMAIL: fjrivera@scu.edu.
The author would like to thank Claudia Josi for her unconditional support and insightful comments, and Oswaldo
Ruiz-Chiriboga for his valuable suggestions in earlier drafts.
1
C. Moyer, The Role of Amicus Curiae in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in Inter-American
Human Rights Institute, La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, Estudios y Documentos, (1985),
<www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/a11770.pdf>.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2488073

Dinah Shelton4, among others, particularly in the 1980s and 90s, contributed much to our
understanding of this topic. And, in more recent times, other authors have analysed the broader
role of non-governmental organizations in international legal proceedings,5 including before the
IACtHR and other international human rights courts and commissions.6 But there seems to be no
comprehensive study about the participation of amicus curiae before the IACtHR. This article
aims to address this gap in the literature, and contribute to the institutional historical memory of
the IACtHR. Drawing upon all of the Courts contentious jurisprudence - from 1988 up to the
end of 2013 - this article provides a comprehensive analysis of more than 400 amici curiae briefs
submitted in almost 100 contentious cases. It also relies on more than 100 amici briefs submitted
in the Courts advisory jurisdiction.
The article is divided into three parts. Part I seeks to define the term amicus curiae and provide
some historical context about the development and acceptance of amici briefs in common law,
civil law, and international law jurisdictions, with special emphasis on how the IACtHR has
defined the role of amici curiae, and on how amici curiae have contributed to the IACtHRs
jurisprudence. Part I also aims to identify the types of non-parties that have submitted amicus
briefs before the IACtHR. Although non-governmental organizations certainly submit a large
portion of these briefs, other types of organizations, private and public institutions, and
individuals do so frequently. Having set the stage, Part II then describes the normative
framework that allows for and regulates the participation of amicus curiae before the IACtHR,
and includes an analysis and critique of the criteria the Court has used to reject amicus briefs and
to allow or deny the participation of amicus curiae in its oral proceedings. Part II also provides
an analysis and critique of the Courts practice (or lack thereof) of identifying the authorship and
content of amicus briefs in its judgments. It also discusses whether information contained in an
amicus curiae brief may be incorporated into the body of evidence in a case before the IACtHR
to support findings of fact. Finally, Part III provides a summary of suggestions and
recommendations for greater clarity, consistency, and transparency concerning the participation
of amicus curiae in the Courts proceedings, and encourages a broader debate and discussion
about the proper role of amicus curiae participation before the IACtHR.
2. AMICI CURIAE

N. de Pierola y Bata and C. Loayza Tamayo, Los Informes de Amici Curiae ante la Corte Interamericana
de Derechos Humanos (1996), <dspace.unav.es/dspace/bitstream/10171/22207/1/ADI_XII_1996_10.pdf>.
3
T. Buergenthal, The Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court, 79 American Journal
of International Law (1985), pp. 15-17.
4
D. Shelton, The participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings,
88 American Journal of International Law (1994), pp. 611-642.
5
See, inter alia, A. Dolidze, The Arctic Sunrise and NGOs in International Judicial Proceedings, ASIL
Insights Vol. 18, Issue 1, 3 January 2014, <www.asil.org/insights/volume/18/issue/1/arctic-sunrise-and-ngosinternational-judicial-proceedings>; L. Bartholomeusz, The Amicus Curiae Before International Courts and
Tribunals, 5 Non-State Actors & International Law (2005), p. 209; S. Williams and H. Woolaver, The Role of the
Amicus Curiae before International Criminal Tribunals, 6 International Criminal Law Review (2006), pp. 151-189;
6
See, inter alia, L. Hitoshi Mayer, NGO Standing and Influence in Regional Human Rights Courts and
Commissions, 36 Brooklyn Journal of International Law (2011), p. 911, <ssrn.com/absract=2038379>, and L. Van
den Eynde, NGOs Contribution to the European Court of Human Rights through Amicus Curiae Briefs, Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the The Law and Society Association, Westin St. Francis Hotel, San Francisco,
California, 30 May 2011, <citation.allacademic.com/meta/p495879_index.html>.

2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2488073

An amicus curiae is, literally, a friend of the court. More broadly, amici (the plural form of
amicus) are non-parties who provide a court with useful information about a particular case and
give advise on how to resolve the legal issues presented. According to Dinah Shelton, amici
suggest to a court matters of fact and law within their knowledge.7 Similarly, according to
Michael Reisman, [i]n common law countries, the amicus curiae brief has been an institution
which has provided useful information to courts, [and] permitted private parties who were not
litigating to inform the court of their views and the probable effects the outcome might have on
them [].8 Amici also often provide information about the broader context in which a particular
contentious case takes place. This is important, as parties in a specific case may not adequately
represent the interests or views of the community or of specific groups within the broader society
as a whole.9
2.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMICI CURIAE
Although amici briefs first became popular in common law countries,10 they are now fairly
common in civil law jurisdictions as well.11 International courts are also joining this trend. The
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), for example, accepts amici briefs if doing so is in
the interest of the proper administration of justice.12
The IACtHR also accepts amici briefs routinely. The first amici briefs were filed in 1982 in the
context of the Courts 13 first advisory opinion. 14 Since then, the Court has received
approximately15 113 amici briefs in its advisory jurisdiction.16

D. Shelton, supra n. 4, pp. 611, 615.

ICJ (Pleadings) 1970, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia
(South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, pp. 36-37.
9
J. M. Pasqualucci, The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Cambridge
University Press 2013) p. 158.
10
S. Krislov, The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy, 72 Yale Law Journal (1963), p. 694;
M. K. Lowman, The Litigating Amicus Curiae: When Does the Party Begin After the Friends Leave?, 41
American University Law Review (1992), pp. 1248-1250.
11
See, inter alia, D. Shelton, supra n. 4, p. 616 ([T]he position in France and other civil law countries is to
grant broad rights of intervention. Associations and organizations concerned with the environment or human rights
participate in cases as intervenors, serving the same purpose as amici in common law countries.); L. Johnson & N.
Amerasinghe, Protecting the Public Interest in International Dispute Settlement: the Amicus Curiae Phenomenon,
Center
for
International
Environmental
Law,
December
2009,
pp.
12-20
(2009),
<www.ciel.org/Publications/Protecting_ACP_Dec09.pdf>; S. Kochevar, Amici Curiae in Civil Law Jurisdictions,
122 Yale Law Journal (2013), pp. 1659-63, <www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/1158_hvj33ruz.pdf>.
12
Article 36.2 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by
Protocol 11 and Protocol No. 14, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221. See also L. Hitoshi Mayer, supra n. 6, p. 911, and
L. Van den Eynde, supra n. 6.
13
The judgments and advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are available on
<corteidh.or.cr>.
14
IACtHR (Advisory Opinion) 24 September 1982, OC-1/82, "Other Treaties" Subject To The Consultative
Jurisdiction Of The Court (Art. 64 American Convention On Human Rights), para. 5: the following organizations
offered their points of view on the [advisory opinion] request as amici curiae: the Inter-American Institute of Human
Rights, the International Human Rights Law Group, the International League for Human Rights and the Lawyers
Committee for International Human Rights, and the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights of the University of
Cincinnati College of Law. See also N. de Pierola y Bata and C. Loayza Tamayo, supra n. 2, p. 467.
8

In 1988, the Court received its first amici briefs in the context of a contentious case; they were
submitted during the merits stage of the Courts first judgment on the merits in the Velasquez
Rodriguez case.17 The Court has continued to receive amici briefs in its contentious jurisdiction
with increasing frequency, notwithstanding a significant decrease in participation throughout the
1990s. The Court received approximately18 40 amici briefs in the 1980s, 23 in the 1990s, 172 in
the 2000s, and 177 from 2010 to 2013, for a total of approximately 412 amici briefs filed in
connection to at least 98 judgments in the Courts contentious jurisdiction in the 26 years from
1987 to 2013.19 That is, amici have submitted briefs in roughly 35% of all IACtHR judgments
issued from 1987 through 2013, including those on preliminary objections, merits, reparations,
and interpretation.
Most of these amici briefs were submitted in the last decade. Just in the four years from 20102013, the Court received approximately 42% of all amici submissions since 1987. This is
roughly the same number of total briefs the Court received in the 21 years from 1987 through
2008. Nineteen per cent of all amici briefs submitted in the Courts contentious jurisdiction (or
78 out of 412) were filed in just two cases, both of them from 2012 - 1) Artavia Murillo et al.
(2012), on in vitro fertilization, and 2) Atala Riffo and Daughters (2012), on same-sex
adoptions.20 This means that the year in which the Court received the most amici briefs was
2012, with approximately 107 briefs. These numbers highlight the growing trend of amici
submissions before the Inter-American Court.
Many different types of organizations and persons have submitted amici briefs before the
IACtHR since 1982. The following list provides the approximate percentage of the total of amici
briefs submitted in the Courts contentious jurisdiction from 1988 through 2013, divided in broad
categories of persons (legal and natural):

58%
24.5%
14%
3%

Human rights NGOs

Academic institutions
Private individuals
Domestic governments (e.g. legislators, local government institutions or officials,
human rights institutes, or ombudsman, all of the respondent State)
0.5% Corporations (e.g. media and newspapers)

15

Exact numbers are difficult to ascertain from the text of the Courts judgments and advisory opinions
because the Court often lists the names of all persons and institutions that appear on amici briefs, whether these were
submitted individually or jointly with other persons or institutions.
16
See Table 1 below containing information on the number of amici submissions the Court has received in its
advisory jurisdiction, as well as the identity of amici, as described in the Courts jurisprudence.
17
Interestingly, Diego Garca Sayn, who would eventually become President of the Court, signed one of the
amici briefs at the reparations stage of the Velasquez Rodriguez case in 1989.
18
See supra n. 15.
19
See Table 2 below containing information on the number of amici submissions the Court has received in its
contentious jurisdiction, as well as the identity of amici, as described in the Courts jurisprudence.
20
The respondent State that has attracted the most amici briefs is Mexico (followed by Costa Rica, Chile,
Peru, and Venezuela). For example, 77% of amici briefs submitted in 2010 concerned Mexico. The respondent State
with the most judgments in which amici briefs have been submitted is Peru, with roughly 16% of all such
judgments.

Another way of viewing amici participation in the Courts contentious jurisdiction is by further
subdividing those general categories into regions or other subcategories, as follows:

29%
15%
14%
8%
8%
8%
5%
4%
3%

International or regional human rights NGOs

Domestic human rights NGOs (of the respondent State)
Private individuals
Domestic universities or law schools (of the respondent State)
U.S. universities or law schools (including legal clinics, centers or programs)
Foreign human rights NGOs from the Americas (non U.S./European/domestic)
Foreign universities or law schools from the Americas (non U.S./European/domestic)
U.S. human rights NGOs
Domestic governments (e.g. legislators, local government institutions or officials,
human rights institutes, or ombudsman, all of the respondent State)
3%
European universities or law schools
2%
European human rights NGOs
0.5% Corporations (e.g. media and newspapers)
0.5% United Nations (University for Peace)

Amici before the IACtHR come from all over the world and represent broad sectors of society.
Interestingly, although most amici are human rights NGOs (around 58%), most amici
submissions come from international, regional or foreign organizations not based in the
respondent State. Another noteworthy fact is that almost 40% of amici are not human rights
NGOs. Instead, they are academic institutions, private individuals, government officials or
agencies, and corporations. These numbers highlight the diversity in amici submissions and
views presented before the IACtHR.
2.2 ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF AMICI CURIAE BEFORE THE IACtHR
This diverse group of amici often provide the IACtHR with a fresh perspective on human rights
issues and may contribute to the progressive development of international human rights law.
Amici curiae also help create awareness of the Courts jurisprudence. They are distributed
through local, national, regional, and international networks, and are often read by targeted
audiences interested in the amicis work. 21 In this sense, amici often complement the
promotional and awareness-raising work of the Court through press releases, social media,
blogs,22 and other non-traditional media. This is important because not everybody interested in
the Courts jurisprudence is subscribed to receive the Courts press releases about recent
judgments (which sometimes contain short summaries of the judgments, and is a positive, but
very recent innovation).
Although it is difficult to gauge whether or to what extent amici are effectively influencing
the decision-making process of the Inter-American Court, the recent surge in amici submissions
suggests if nothing else that the Court has become an increasingly popular forum where
21
22

J. M. Pasqualucci, supra n. 9, p. 158.

See e.g. Corte IDH Blog <corteidhblog.blogspot.com>.

interested non-parties are attempting to influence the development of international human rights
law in general, or at least the outcome in a particular case. In turn, perhaps unwittingly, the Court
has gained an important ally in its public awareness efforts. Amici, through their numerous
contacts across the world, are promoting greater knowledge and understanding of the Courts
jurisprudence.
3. NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR PARTICIPATION OF AMICI CURIAE BEFORE
THE IACtHR
Despite having received more than two hundred amici briefs in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s, it was
not until 2008 and 2009 that the IACtHR provided a normative and jurisprudential definition,
respectively, of the term amicus curiae, as well as more explicit guidelines concerning amici
participation in its proceedings. The following sections describe first the development of the
applicable normative framework, and then the development of jurisprudence and the Courts
practice regarding amici participation before the IACtHR.
3.1 THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE COURTS
STATUTE
The American Convention on Human Rights23 (ACHR) created the IACtHR and determines the
scope of its jurisdiction. Similarly, the Courts Statute24 provides further detail about the nature,
structure and general workings of the IACtHR. Neither document specifically addresses amici
submissions.
The omission of norms that regulate amici submissions from these two main sources of law for
the IACtHR is understandable when analysed within the context of the legal traditions of some
OAS member states.25 In this context, the adoption of procedural norms is better left to the
discretion of courts under their implicit power to regulate their proceedings. So it is in the InterAmerican System.
Article 60 of the ACHR and Article 25 of the Courts Statute allow the IACtHR the ability to
develop its own rules of procedure aimed at regulating practical matters in the course of its
proceedings. That is, the American Convention and the Courts Statute provide the IACtHR with
broad discretionary powers in procedural matters. Since amici submissions are considered
procedural matters, then the Court is legitimately understood to have implicit powers to regulate
such submissions through its own Rules of Procedure. The next section addresses the
development of these Rules as they relate to the participation of amici before the IACtHR.
3.2 THE COURTS RULES OF PROCEDURE

23

American Convention on Human Rights, OAS Treaty Series No. 36; 1144 UNTS 123; 9 ILM 99 (1969).
Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, OAS Res. 448 (IX-0/79), OAS Off. Rec.
OEA/Ser.P/IX.0.2/80, Vol. 1 at 98.
25
N. de Pierola y Bata and C. Loayza Tamayo, supra n. 2, pp. 463-464.
24

In its first 35 years, the Court has issued seven versions of its Rules of Procedure - in 1980, 1991,
1996, 2000, 2003, January of 2009, and November of 2009. 26 The Courts first Rules of
Procedure in 1980 made no explicit mention of amici briefs. However, Article 34(1) of the 1980
Rules stated that the Court may [] decide to hear [] in any [] capacity, any person whose
[] statements seem likely to assist it in carrying out its functions. Presumably, this included
amici briefs, since the IACtHR received and accepted submissions from dozens of amici in cases
controlled by the 1980 Rules.
Additionally, Article 34(2) of the 1980 Rules also stated that the Court may [] entrust any
body, office, commission or authority of its choice with the task of obtaining information,
expressing an opinion, or making a report upon any specific point, which further points to the
participation of non-parties in the Courts proceedings. Furthermore, Article 38 allowed judges
and the parties in a case to ask questions to other persons referred to in Article 34 during
public hearings. Thus, the 1980 Rules recognized that the IACtHR could hear in its contentious
jurisdiction - both in writing and in person - from persons who were not parties in a given case,
so long as these assisted the Court in carrying out its functions.
Article 53 of the 1980 Rules also suggested that amici could participate in written and oral
proceedings in the Courts advisory jurisdiction as well. Said Article stated, the Court may
apply any of the rules governing contentious proceedings to its advisory proceedings.
Subsequent versions of the Courts Rules of Procedure have had similar wording.
In effect, although the 1980 Rules did not explicitly authorize amici submissions, the Court
routinely and liberally accepted such briefs in both its advisory and contentious jurisdictions.27
During the 1980s, amici submitted at least 40 briefs in relation to 5 judgments in the Courts
contentious jurisdiction28 and at least 31 briefs in relation to 10 advisory opinions.29 It is worth
noting that exact numbers are difficult to ascertain from the text of the judgments and advisory
opinions because the Court often lists the names of all persons and institutions that appear on
amici briefs, whether these were submitted individually or jointly with other persons or
institutions.
Having received approximately 70 amici briefs from dozens of individuals and organizations in
the 1980s, the Court modified its Rules of Procedure in 1991. Article 34(1) was slightly modified
from its 1980 version. Instead of allowing the IACtHR to hear in any capacity any person whose
statements seem likely to assist it in carrying out its functions, the 1991 version of Article
34(1) allow the Court to hear such statements or opinions it deems useful.
The Court also modified the text of Article 34(2) of the 1980 Rules of Procedure, which became
Article 34(3) in the 1991 Rules. While the 1980 Rules allowed the Court to entrust any body,
26

The IACtHRs Rules of Procedure are available at <corteidh.or.cr/index.php/en/aboutus/reglamento/reglamento-vigente>

and
at
<corteidh.or.cr/index.php/en/about-us/reglamento/reglamentosanteriores>.
27
Moyer, supra n. 1.; see also N. de Pierola y Bata and C. Loayza Tamayo, supra n. 2, p. 454.
28
See Table 2 below containing information on the number of amici submissions the Court has received in its
contentious jurisdiction, as well as the identity of amici, as described in the Courts jurisprudence.
29
See Table 1 below containing information on the number of amici submissions the Court has received in its
advisory jurisdiction, as well as the identity of amici, as described in the Courts jurisprudence.

office, commission or authority with the task of obtaining information, expressing an opinion,
or making a report on given issue in a case, the 1991 Rules expressly recognized that the Court
may designate any person to do so, which is a broader criterion.
The 1991 Rules are also more specific than the 1980 Rules in regulating advisory opinion
proceedings. Article 54(3) of the 1991 Rules specifically authorized the President to invite or
authorize any interested party to submit a written opinion on the issues covered by the request.
Subsequent Rules of Procedure have kept this language.
In 1996, the Court modified its Rules again and added a new chapter (Chapter IV) on procedures
relating to evidence. Within this new chapter, a new Article 44 substituted the text of former
Article 34 found in the 1980 and 1991 Rules. Specifically, Article 44(1) of the 1996 Rules
allowed the Court at any stage of the proceedings to obtain [] any evidence it consider[ed]
helpful and to hear any person whose evidence, statement or opinion it deem[ed] to be
relevant (not just useful).30 In total, the Court received at least 23 amici curiae briefs in its
contentious jurisdiction31 and 29 in its advisory jurisdiction in proceedings governed by the 1991
and 1996 Rules of Procedure.32
The IACtHR modified its Rules of Procedure four more times in the 2000s. The 2000 and 2003
Rules did not include any significant modification with regards to submissions by non-parties.
Nevertheless, in the 2000s, the Court received amici briefs for the first time not only in the
merits phase of contentious cases, but also in the reparations33 and compliance34 phases, as well
as in requests for interpretation of a judgment.35
The big change in the Rules came in January of 2009, when the Court finally decided to include
the term amicus curiae under the definitions listed in Article 2. For the first time, in Article
2(3) of the January 2009 Rules the Court defined the term amicus curiae as
the person who is unrelated to the case and to the proceeding and who submits to the
Court a reasoning [sic] about the facts contained in the application or the legal
considerations over the subject-matter of the proceeding, by means of a document or an
argument presented in the hearing.
30

Notwithstanding this distinction, in later jurisprudence, the Court has stated it will admit documents
submitted by amicus curiae when they contain information [that] is useful and relevant to the Court. IACtHR
(Judgment) 26 September 2006, Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para. 80.
31
See Table 2 below containing information on the number of amici submissions the Court has received in its
contentious jurisdiction, as well as the identity of amici, as described in the Courts jurisprudence.
32
See Table 1 below containing information on the number of amici submissions the Court has received in its
advisory jurisdiction, as well as the identity of amici, as described in the Courts jurisprudence..
33
IACtHR (Judgment) 31 May 2001, Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, para. 24.
34
IACtHR (Judgment) 28 November 2003 Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, paras. 20, 28, 31, and 46.
35
IACtHR (Interpretation) 2 August 2008 Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru (2008), para. 4. These amici
briefs did not address the merits of the case, but rather challenged the States request for an interpretation of the
merits judgment. See also IACtHR (Interpretation) 29 January 2000, Cesti Hurtado v. Peru, paras. 31-33. In this
interpretation judgment, the State questioned the legitimacy of the actions of a person who acted in the
proceedings before the Court as both amici and as a witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission. (para.
31). After attempting to give a vague response to the State (para. 32), the Court decided that it would not address the
matter any further because such a request was outside the scope of [an] interpretation of [the] judgment as
contemplated in Article 67 of the American Convention and Article 58 of the (1996) Rules of Procedure. (para. 33)

The January 2009 Rules also include a new Article 41 under Chapter II Written Proceedings
- titled Arguments of Amicus Curiae, which states as follows:
The brief of one who wishes to act as amicus curiae may be submitted to the Tribunal,
together with its annexes, at any point during the contentious proceedings, but within the
term of 15 days following the public hearing. If the Court does not hold a public hearing,
amicus briefs must be submitted within the term of 15 days following the Resolution
setting deadlines for the submission of final arguments and documentary evidence.
Following consultation with the President, the amicus curiae brief and its annexes shall
be immediately transmitted to the parties for their information.

The IACtHR again modified its Rules of Procedure on November of 2009, which are still in
effect at the time of this writing in 2014. In this current version of its Rules, the IACtHR
modified the definition of the term amicus curiae under Article 2(3) to include institutions.
More significantly, the Court modified what is now Article 44 (Arguments of Amicus Curiae)
to explicitly allow amici briefs during proceedings for monitoring compliance of judgments and
those regarding provisional measures, as well as to clarify some procedural aspects of amici
submissions. According to the exposition of motives for the November 2009 Rules, the Court
made these changes because [s]everal of the observations submitted to the Tribunal indicated
the need to regulate the submission of the amici curiae.36
Specifically, the current text of Article 44 states the following:
1.
Any person or institution seeking to act as amicus curiae may submit a brief to
the Tribunal, together with its annexes, by any of the means established in Article 28(1)
of these Rules of Procedure, in the working language of the case and bearing the names
and signatures of its authors.
2.
If the amicus curiae brief is submitted by electronic means and is not signed, or if
the brief is submitted without its annexes, the original and supporting documentation
must be received by the Tribunal within 7 days of its transmission. If the brief is
submitted out of time or is submitted without the required documentation, it shall be
archived without further processing.
3.
Amicus curiae briefs may be submitted at any time during contentious
proceedings for up to 15 days following the public hearing. If the Court does not hold a
public hearing, amicus briefs must be submitted within 15 days following the Order
setting deadlines for the submission of final arguments. Following consultation with the
President, the amicus curiae brief and its annexes shall be immediately transmitted to the
parties, for their information.
4.
Amicus curiae briefs may be submitted during proceedings for monitoring
compliance of judgments and those regarding provisional measures.

36

IACtHR, Statement of Motives for the Reform of the [November 2009] Rules of Procedure, p. 3,
<www.corteidh.or.cr/sitios/reglamento/ene_2009_motivos_ing.pdf>.

In sum, after several modifications of its Rules of Procedure, the IACtHRs current Rules now
explicitly regulate numerous aspects of amici submissions, including who may submit an amicus
brief (anyone), the form of submission (fax, email, regular mail, etc.), when amici briefs must be
submitted (15 days from the hearing or from the order requesting final arguments, and original
briefs and/or annexes sent through electronic means must be received within 7 days), whether
amici briefs may also be submitted during proceedings for monitoring compliance of judgments
and those regarding provisional measures (yes), formal requirements (brief must bear the name
and signature of amici and must be submitted in the working language of the case), and clarify
that amici briefs will be forwarded to the parties.
But the Rules do not answer all procedural questions concerning amici submissions before the
Court. Some omissions in the Rules may seem inconsequential, such as a requirement to put a
date on a brief37 (which even if not required is always a good practice), but the experience of
some amici before the Court suggests that certain modifications to the Rules may still be
required to provide further clarity and precision. The following sections address the development
of the Courts jurisprudence with regards to amici submissions and highlight some areas where
modifications to the Rules may be needed.
3.3 JURISPRUDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
The IACtHRs jurisprudence did not provide greater insight about the role of amici briefs in the
protection and promotion of human rights in the Inter-American System until the year 2008
(prior to the current version of the Courts Rules). First in Kimel and then in Castaeda
Gutman,38 the Court stated
amici curiae briefs are filed by third parties which are not involved in the controversy but
provide the Court with arguments or views which may serve as evidence regarding the
matters of law under the consideration of the Court. Hence, they may be submitted at any
stage before the deliberation of the pertinent judgment. Furthermore, in accordance with
the usual practice of the Court, amici curiae briefs may even address matters related to
the compliance with judgment. On the other hand, the Court emphasizes that the issues
submitted to its consideration are in the public interest or have such relevance that they
require careful deliberation regarding the arguments publicly considered. Hence, amici
curiae briefs are an important element for the strengthening of the Inter-American
System of Human Rights, as they reflect the views of members of society who contribute
to the debate and enlarge the evidence available to the Court.39

Hence, in 2008 the Court recognized the following: (1) that amici may not be involved in the
case or controversy before the Court; (2) that they may address matters of law;40 (3) that amici
37

See, e.g., IACtHR (Judgment) 25 October 2012, Massacres of El Mozote and Neighboring Locations v.
Colombia, fn. 10.
38
The Court addressed objections concerning the alleged late submission of amici briefs in these cases, and
eventually rejected those objections.
39
IACtHR (Judgment) 2 May 2008, Kimel v. Argentina, para. 16, and IACtHR (Judgment) 6 August 2008,
Castaeda Gutman v. Mexico, para. 14. [internal citations omitted]
40
With regards to the question of whether amici may also address matters of fact, Article 2.3 of the 2009
Rules recognizes that amicus curiae may do so. Certainly, most amici briefs before the Court focus on the legal
arguments in a given case. Some exceptions include an amici brief submitted in Benito Tide et al. v. Dominican

10

may be submitted at any time prior to the Courts deliberation of the judgment; (4) that amici
may be also submitted during the compliance stage of a judgment, and (5) that amici serve an
important function insofar as they reflect the views of members of society upon matters of public
interest and provide evidence on such matters.
Despite these seemingly straightforward assertions in Kimel and in Castaeda Gutman, the
Courts jurisprudence on the scope, timing, and purpose of amici curiae briefs has not been
linear and constant. The next sections highlight ostensible contradictions in the Courts
jurisprudence on amici submissions, with the aim of suggesting recommendations for greater
clarity and consistency.
3.4 CRITERIA TO REJECT AMICI CURIAE PARTICIPATION BEFORE THE
IACtHRs WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS
An issue that has come up in the Courts jurisprudence is the criteria the IACtHR applies to
admit or reject amici submissions. Whereas in the past the IACtHR admitted amici briefs as a
matter of routine, the Court has shown signs that it may begin to reject amici briefs or at least
those documents submitted as evidence or annexes to these briefs. A closer look at the Courts
jurisprudence illustrates that, since at least 2009, the IACtHR has either rejected or at least
discussed the admissibility of amici based on the following criteria: 1) impartiality; 2) timeliness
and language; 3) identification of amici; 4) usefulness, and 5) unknown reasons. The following
analysis of the Courts jurisprudence suggests that the IACtHR has often resolved similar
questions regarding amici submissions in an inconsistent fashion, and that modifications to the
Rules may be necessary for clarification purposes.
3.4.1

Impartiality

In Pacheco Tineo (2013) - the last judgment available at the time of this writing the Court
rejected an amicus brief from a person who was not unrelated to the case and to the
proceedings, as required by the applicable Rules of Procedure. In that case, the Court received
an amicus brief from a person who was linked to an organization that participated in the facts of
the case.41 This case was litigated pursuant to the November 2009 Rules of Procedure, which
defined an amicus curiae in Article 2(3) as a person [] unrelated to the case and the
proceedings []. The State of Bolivia asked the Court to reject this amicus brief for lack of
objectivity and impartiality,42 and the Court decided not to consider the amicus submission.43

Republic (judgment pending), where amici from Santa Clara University presented arguments on the admissibility of
a supervening fact involving a 2013 decision by the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic that
retroactively and arbitrarily denied Dominican nationality to Dominicans of Haitian descent. See also discussion of
the extent to which the Court recognizes evidentiary weight to amici submissions, infra 3.4
41
IACtHR (Judgment) 25 November 2013, IACtHR (Judgment) 25 November 2013, Pacheco Tineo Family
v. Bolivia, para. 10. Note: English translation is the authors.
42
IACtHR (Judgment) 25 November 2013, IACtHR (Judgment) 25 November 2013, Pacheco Tineo Family
v. Bolivia, fn. 9.
43
IACtHR (Judgment) 25 November 2013, Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, para. 10. Note: English
translation is the authors.

11

In contrast, when the same issue of alleged impartiality came up in two previous cases [YATAMA
(2005) and Acevedo Jaramillo (2006)], the Court admitted other amici briefs from people or
entities related to the case or to the proceedings. In YATAMA v. Nicaragua (2005), the State
denied any legal value to four amici briefs submitted during the proceedings or subsequent to
the oral hearing. 44 The judgment does not specify the basis for the States objections.
Interestingly, the Office of the Ombudsman of Nicaragua submitted one of the briefs.45 Despite
the States objections, the Court decided to admit the briefs, considering that amici had an
interest in the subject matter [] and provide[d] useful information.46 The fact that the Court
accepted amici briefs from a governmental entity raises the question of how the Court defines the
term unrelated to a proceeding, considering that the State is a single legal entity in
international law.47
Another case in which the Court accepted amici briefs from (quasi) state actors is Five
Pensioners (2003). In this case, the Court actually requested the representatives to submit a
copy of the amicus curiae brief that the Office of the Ombudsman of Peru had presented before
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.48 For some unexplained reason, the State
not the representatives or the Commission submitted the requested amicus,49 which was
presumably admitted by the Court.
Similarly, in Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru (2006), the Court noted the Commissions
objections to an amicus submitted by the Public Attorney of the Municipalidad Metropolitana de
Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) on the grounds that the Municipality was the entity
charged with complying with the domestic judgments in the case and that the Public Attorney
had been accredited by the State to participate in the public hearing before the Court.50 Despite
the fact that the Municipality of Lima was technically not unrelated to the case, the Court
determined that the brief and the attachments thereto were admissible because they contain[ed]
useful and relevant information about the factual substance of the [] case.51
The different results in these cases might be explained by the fact that the Pacheco Tineo case
was decided pursuant to the November 2009 Rules, which define amicus curiae as a person
unrelated to the case and to the proceedings, and the other cases were decided pursuant to the
2003 Rules, which do not define amicus curiae at all. Nevertheless, further clarification of what
the Court understands by unrelated to a case may be helpful. In particular, the Court may want
44

IACtHR (Judgment) 23 June 2005, YATAMA v. Nicaragua, para. 120.

IACtHR (Judgment) 23 June 2005, YATAMA v. Nicaragua, para. 42. One of the other amicus briefs was
submitted by the United Nations University for Peace. See para. 38.
46
IACtHR (Judgment) 23 June 2005, YATAMA v. Nicaragua, para. 120.
47
See e.g., the International Law Commissions commentary to Article 2 of its Articles on Responsibility of
States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Under many legal systems, the State organs consist of different legal
persons (ministries or other legal entities), which are regarded as having distinct rights and obligations for which
they alone can be sued and are responsible. For the purposes of the international law of State responsibility the
position is different. The State is treated as a unity, consistent with its recognition as a single legal person in
international law. International Law Commission, Report on the work of its fifty-third session (23 April 1 June
and 2 July 10 August 2001), UN Doc A/56/10, 71, para. 6.
48
IACtHR (Judgment) 28 February 2003,Five Pensioners v. Peru, para. 39.
49
IACtHR (Judgment) 28 February 2003,Five Pensioners v. Peru, para. 49.
50
IACtHR (Judgment) 7 February 2006, Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, paras. 62, 66, and 196.
51
IACtHR (Judgment) 7 February 2006, Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, para. 196.
45

12

to create an exception to the rule that all amici must be unrelated to a case or to the proceedings,
especially where the amicus in question is a government entity that has useful information for the
Court. The IACtHR would then have to weigh any concerns of impartiality raised by the parties
or by the Court itself, but only as a matter of credibility and not as a matter of admissibility per
se. After all, at least in some situations, amici briefs explicitly support one side over the other in
a particular case. In this scenario, the issue of alleged impartiality should be weighed by the
Court, but the amici submission should not be declared inadmissible.
3.4.2

Timeliness and language

The IACtHR has also addressed in its jurisprudence the issue of the timeliness of amici
submissions. In Kimel (2008) and Castaeda (2008), in response to objections concerning the
alleged late submission of amici briefs in these cases, the Court clarified that, pursuant to the
2003 Rules, amici briefs may be submitted at any stage before the deliberation of the pertinent
judgment.52 The Court then rejected the objections over the timeliness of these amici. It is worth
noting that this is a judge-made rule and that the applicable Rules of Procedure did not indicate
such deadlines. The Court later modified its Rules in 2009 to reflect this practice.
A similar issue over the timeliness of amici submissions came up in Tristan Donoso (2009). In
that case, an individual submitted an amicus brief, presumably by electronic means.53 The
then-applicable 2003 Rules did not specifically regulate the submission of amici briefs (see
supra 3.1), but they did state in Article 26(1) that the original of any other written material
addressed to the Court had to be submitted within 7 days of its electronic filing. The individual
in question either did not submit the original amicus brief at all, or did so after the 7-day deadline
had elapsed (the judgment is silent on this issue), and the Court rejected his brief.54 For reasons
that are not altogether clear, even though the Court received the originals of two other amici
briefs (from Pedro Nikken and Carlos Ayala Corao, and CELS, respectively) after the 7-day
deadline had elapsed, the Court nonetheless accepted these.55
Finally, in Nadege Dorzema (2012) the Court rejected another amicus curiae brief submitted late
by CELS. The November 2009 Rules that governed this case allowed amici submissions up to 15
days after the public hearing. Since CELS submitted its amicus after this deadline, the Court
rejected the brief.56 As will be discussed below, the Court may want to extend its 15-day
deadline to ensure that amici have adequate time to prepare useful and relevant submissions that
incorporate the wealth of information usually presented in public hearings and that respond to the
Judges questions and concerns raised in those hearings.
The Court has also addressed timing issues in the context of amici submissions in a language
other than the official language in a given case. None of the previous Rules specifically
addressed this issue, until Articles 44(1) and 44(3) of the November 2009 Rules explicitly
52

IACtHR (Judgment) 2 May 2008, Kimel v. Argentina, para. 16, and IACtHR (Judgment) 6 August 2008,
Castaeda Gutman v. Mexico, para. 14.
53
IACtHR (Judgment) 27 January 2009, Tristan Donoso v. Panama, para. 10.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
56
IACtHR (Judgment) 24 October 2012, Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, fn. 9.

13

required that amici briefs be submitted in the working language of the case and within 15
days following the public hearing.
It is unclear how the Court addressed this language issue before the November 2009 Rules came
into effect, as the jurisprudence and practice was either silent or seemingly contradictory. For
example, in Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community (2001), a Canadian organization
submitted an amicus brief in English and then submitted the required Spanish translation nine
months later!57 In that same case, three U.S. organizations submitted separate briefs in English,
and there is no indication in the judgment as to whether they ever submitted the required Spanish
versions.58 The 2000 Rules that governed this case were silent on the issue of the language in
which amici had to be submitted. The judgment does not indicate whether the Court rejected
these briefs.
In turn, in Reveron Trujillo (2009) one amicus brief was submitted in the wrong language
(English) more than two months following the public hearing, and in the right language
(Spanish) a week later.59 The Court did not reject the brief, as the applicable 2003 Rules did not
specify a deadline for filing amici briefs.
As mentioned above (see supra 3.1), the January 2009 Rules required amici briefs to be
submitted within 15 days following the public hearing, and the November 2009 Rules added a
requirement that amici be submitted in the working language of a case. Nevertheless, these Rules
are silent on the issue of amici briefs submitted in the wrong language within the established
deadline, and then in the right language once the deadline had elapsed. This has created some
inconsistency in the Courts jurisprudence.
In Rosendo Cantu (2010), for example, the Court accepted two amici briefs that had been
submitted on time but in the wrong language (English), even though the Spanish translations
were received after the 15-day deadline had elapsed (pursuant to Article 41 of the January 2009
Rules). In admitting one of the briefs, the Court simply stated that the language requirement had
been satisfied with the sending of the brief in Spanish, even though the Court received the
Spanish version more than a month following the public hearing.60 The other brief was submitted
in Spanish a day after the deadline had elapsed, but since an English version had been submitted
on time, the Court admitted the Spanish version without addressing the fact that the brief may
have been time-barred.61
A year later, the Court seems to have changed its criteria on this issue. Despite the Courts
precedents in Reveron Trujillo (2009) and in Rosendo Cantu (2010), the Court in Fontevecchia
and DAmico (2011) rejected an amicus brief from the NGO Article 19 that had been submitted
on time but in the wrong language (English), because the Court did not receive the translation
into the working language (Spanish) within the 15-day deadline.62
57

IACtHR (Judgment) 31 August 2001, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, para. 41.
IACtHR (Judgment) 31 August 2001, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, paras. 42,
52, and 61.
59
IACtHR (Judgment) 30 June 2009, Reveron Trujillo v. Venezuela, para. 10.
60
IACtHR (Judgment) 31 August 2010, Rosendo Cantu el al. v. Mexico, fn. 14.
61
IACtHR (Judgment) 31 August 2010, Rosendo Cantu el al. v. Mexico, fn. 19.
62
IACtHR (Judgment) 29 November 2011, Fontevecchia and DAmico v. Argentina, fn. 7.
58

14

The Court reiterated the Fontevecchia and DAmico (2011) criteria and clarified its reasoning on
this matter in Velez Restrepo and Family (2012). In that case, the State asked the Court not to
accept an amicus brief because it had been submitted outside of the time frame established in
the Courts Rules of Procedure.63 It is unclear whether the brief had been first submitted in
English, but the judgment states that the Court received the brief in the Spanish language after
the 15-day deadline had elapsed.64 The Court applied Article 44 of the November 2009 Rules
and decided as follows:
[the] brief should have been presented in the language of the case, which is Spanish, at
any time during contentious proceedings for up to 15 days following the public hearing.
The Court considers that, since the organization Article 19 submitted the brief, in
Spanish, four days after this time frame had expired, the brief is not admissible because it
is time-barred.65

In the latest judgment where this issue has come up, the Court reiterated its recent tendency to
reject amici briefs not submitted in the correct language within the specified deadline, but it
offered a different rationale for such rejection. In Artavia Murillo et al. (2012), the Court rejected
two amici briefs because they were submitted after the deadline had elapsed.66 This is not
controversial. But in this case the Court also rejected a third brief because its translation into the
official language of the case was submitted outside of the 21-day deadline provided for in Article
28(1) of the Courts November 2009 Rules that regulates the submission of original documents
or annexes.67 The Court did not explain why Article 28(1), rather than Article 44, would apply
to a translation of a document submitted within the appropriate timeframe. Presumably, the
Court interpreted the word original in Article 28(1) to encompass translations, even though
that rule does not address this specific procedural question.
Although the Court arrived at the same result in Velez Restrepo and Family (2012) and in
Artavia Murillo et al. (2012), the former decision which is anchored in Rule 44, seems to be
better reasoned than the later which is anchored in Rule 28(1). The different reasoning in these
similar cases strongly suggests that the Court should modify its Rules of Procedure to
specifically regulate the time frame in which amici should submit translations of briefs submitted
in a language other than the official one for a given case. Such modification would provide
clarity to persons and institutions that spend much time, money, and effort preparing and
translating amicus curiae submissions for the Courts consideration.
3.4.3

Uselessness

Since its first Rules of Procedure, the Court has always required that submissions in a case be
useful or relevant. Although the Court has not defined what makes an amici useful or relevant, it
63
64
65
66

IACtHR (Judgment) 3 September 2012, Velez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia, para. 67.
IACtHR (Judgment) 3 September 2012, Velez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia, paras. 10 and 67.
IACtHR (Judgment) 3 September 2012, Velez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia, para. 68.
IACtHR (Judgment) 28 November 2012, Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para.

14.
67

IACtHR (Judgment) 28 November 2012, Artavia Murillo et al. (in vitro fertilization) v. Costa Rica, para.

15.

15

has rejected several amici because of their failure to meet this criteria. For example, in Gomes
Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) (2010), the Court mentioned that it received other briefs
that were time-barred or were not useful or related to the objective of the present case, and as
such, they [were] not admitted nor mentioned in the [] judgment.68 Similarly, in Lopez
Mendoza (2011) the Court noted in a footnote that it received other briefs that are not of any use
in the [] case, and as such, [were not] admitted nor mentioned in [the] judgment.69 The Court
did not specify who submitted such briefs or why the issues they addressed were useless or
irrelevant. To avoid such vagueness and to clarify its criteria, the Court may want to describe in
its judgments the reasons why it rejects amici submissions.
3.4.4

Identity

In Tristan Donoso (2009), by order of the President of the Court, the Secretariat requested that an
individual who submitted an amicus brief also submit a copy of his identity document, which
is not something that the Rules of Procedure have ever required.70 It is not clear from the
judgment whether the individual complied with this request, or whether the Court rejected the
brief because the individual either failed to submit an original version of the electronic
submission, or did so after the 7-day deadline had elapsed.
The issue of the identity of amici came up again in Radilla Pacheco (2009). In this case, the
Court stated the following in a footnote:
some graduate students of the Law School of the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de
Mxico presented to the Tribunal a document [...] in the quality of AMICI CURIAE.
However, the mentioned document does not state the names and identification data of
the students that present the brief, reason for which, following the instructions of the
President of the Tribunal, the sender was requested, pursuant [to] Article 27(1) of the
[January 2009] Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal, to indicate the name, signature and
identification information of the people who signed the mentioned document. Said
information was not received.71

It is unclear from the judgment whether the Court rejected this amici brief. In any case, the
applicable January 2009 Rules did not specifically require amici to provide their names and
identification data. In fact, Article 27(1) of those Rules regulated party submission, not amici or
non-party submissions. Rather, it was the President of the Court who required this information.
Subsequently, the Court modified its Rules to require amici briefs to identify the names and
signatures of its authors.72 Although current practice suggests that amici are not required to
submit a copy of their identification documents, the Court may want to clarify how amici should
identify themselves before the Court and who has the obligation to do so, whether only those
who actually wrote it, or also of those who sign-on to it to express their support of the brief.
68

IACtHR (Judgment) 24 November 2010, Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, fn. 9. It
is unclear whether these useless briefs were intended to be from amici.
69
IACtHR (Judgment) 1 September 2011, Lopez Mendoza v. Venezuela, fn. 6.
70
IACtHR (Judgment) 27 January 2009, Tristan Donoso v. Panama, para. 10.
71
IACtHR (Judgment) 23 November 2009, Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, fn. 6.
72
IACtHR
November
2009
Rules
of
Procedure,
Article
44.1
<www.corteidh.or.cr/sitios/reglamento/nov_2009_ing.pdf>

16

3.4.5

Unknown criteria

Finally, the Court seems to have rejected other amici briefs based on unknown criteria. In La
Cantuta (2006), for example, the Court noted that the State filed its objections to an amicus
submission, but the Court never explained the reasons for the objections or whether the Court
accepted or rejected the amicus. Similarly, in Claude Reyes et al. (2006), the Court also noted
that the State submitted comments and observations on one of the amicus briefs (from CEJIL),
but there is no other mention in the judgment about the nature of these observations or whether
the Court took them into consideration.73 The Court may want to incorporate in its judgments
more information that would allow amici and the general public to understand the nature of
objections to amici briefs and the Courts decision on each matter.
In conclusion, in the last 30 years, the Court has responded to evolving scenarios of amici
submissions in its contentious jurisdiction by modifying its Rules of Procedure accordingly.
Additional modifications to the Courts rules and practices seem necessary or at least useful to
further clarify procedural questions, particularly involving timing and language issues of amici
submissions.
3.5 CRITERIA TO REJECT AMICI CURIAE PARTICIPATION BEFORE THE
IACtHRs ORAL PROCEEDINGS
Another issue of controversy in the IACtHRs contentious jurisdiction is whether amici may
participate orally in public hearings. As stated above, the Courts Rules of Procedure have
always allowed other persons (meaning non-parties in a case) to participate in the Courts
written and oral proceedings. A reasonable interpretation of other persons would seem to
include amici curiae briefs submitted by persons unrelated to the case or to the proceedings
(which is the definition of an amicus curiae under the 2009 Rules). In fact, amici curiae have
regularly participated in public hearings in the Courts advisory jurisdiction at least since 1984.74
Nevertheless, their participation in hearings in contentious cases has been very limited.
In The Last Temptation of Christ (Olmedo Bustos et al.) (2001), for example, several
individuals requested to be heard as amici curiae in all the oral and written instances that the
rules of procedures allow.75 It is unclear whether these individuals were related to the case or to
the proceedings. On instructions from the President, the Secretariat informed the alleged amici
that until the reparations stage, the possibility of participating in the proceedings before [the]
Court was restricted to the parties to the respective case [] and, consequently, it was not
possible to accede to their request to be heard as collaborating third parties.76 The fact that the
President characterized these alleged amici as collaborating third parties suggests that they
73

IACtHR (Judgment) 19 September 2006, Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, para. 42.
For some early examples, see IACtHR (Advisory Opinion), OC-4/84, 19 January 1984, Proposed
Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, and IACtHR (Advisory Opinion),
OC-13/1993, 16 July 1993, Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Arts. 41, 42, 44,
46, 47, 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights).
75
IACtHR (Judgment) 5 February 2001,The Last Temptation of Christ (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile,
para. 21.
76
Ibid.
74

17

were not unrelated to the case. Back in 2001, the Court only allowed the parties to a case
(meaning the Inter-American Commission and the respondent State) to participate in hearings
before the Court.
In Claude Reyes et al. (2006), the Court again rejected the request of amici to participate in a
public hearing. The Court described the controversy in the following terms:
[T]he Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles (ADC) submitted a brief in which, in its
capacity as one of the original petitioners before the Commission, it requested
authorization to intervene in the public hearing on April 3, 2006. On the instructions of
the President, the Secretariat admitted the brief submitted by ADC as an amicus curiae.
Regarding the request to take part in the public hearing, it did not allow the Association
to participate directly, informing it that only those persons accredited by the parties to the
case could present their arguments.77

Neither of these cases was litigated under the 2009 Rules, which allow amici to present oral
arguments during hearings. Nevertheless, under the 2009 Rules the Court would presumably not
have accepted these briefs either, as the alleged amici seemed to be related to the case or the
proceedings something that Article 2.3 of the 2009 Rules prohibit.
In sum, it seems that prior to the November 2009 Rules of Procedure, the Court interpreted its
previous Rules liberally when it came to participation of amici in public hearings on advisory
opinion requests, and conservatively when it came to hearings in its contentious jurisdiction.
Since the current Rules allow for amici participation in oral hearings, this apparent
jurisprudential inconsistency seems to have been resolved. Nevertheless, no amici has actually
requested to participate in oral hearings of contentious proceedings pursuant to the current Rules,
so this issue is yet to be addressed by the Court in more modern jurisprudence.
3.6 IDENTIFICATION OF AUTHORSHIP AND DESCRIPTION OF CONTENT
Other related issues that have come up in the Courts jurisprudence include the questions of
identifying the authors of amici briefs and of describing the contents thereof. Knowing who
submits an amicus curiae brief is important. The Court, for example, needs to know the identity
of the authors to determine, pursuant to the current Rules (see supra 3.4.1), whether a person not
unrelated to the case submitted a brief. But the identity of amici authors is also important and
useful information for the public. This information may reflect the prestige of a person or group
whose opinion is highly regarded, and it may reflect the support of a wide sector of society or of
a sector that may be particularly affected by the outcome in a case. For example, corporations,
particularly those involved in providing news and media services, have often filed amici briefs in
cases involving the right to freedom of expression and information, as the outcome of such cases
could have an impact on their ability to freely disseminate information to the public.78
77

IACtHR (Judgment) 19 September 2006, Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile, para. 25.
See, e.g., IACtHR (Advisory Opinion), OC-7/86, 29 August 1986, Enforceability of the Right to Reply or
Correction (Arts. 14(1), 1(1) and 2 American Convention on Human Rights), para. 5, in which the following
corporations submitted amici briefs: Inter-American Press Association, World Press Freedom Committee, American
Newspaper Publishers Association, Federation International des Editeurs de Journaux, The Copley Press, Inc., The
Miami Herald, Newsweek, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The International Herald Tribune. In the
78

18

Researchers or journalists may also be interested in knowing the identity of amici authors to
ascertain whom to contact to obtain more information about the content and purpose of an amici
submission. Additionally, knowing the identities and types of amici authors is important to
assess the level of interest and attention that may exist over a particular case or legal issue.
Despite the importance of identifying amici authors, the Court often omits this information from
its judgments, making it impossible to know which persons, organizations, or institutions
submitted briefs in a particular case. For example, in Quintana Coello et al. (2013), the Court
simply mentioned that a group of 68 people also filed an amicus curiae brief.79 The reader
cannot tell who these people are or what issues they address in their amicus brief.
Furthermore, the current description of the content of amici curiae briefs in the Courts
judgments is also insufficient. The Courts latest practice is to include a paragraph that mentions
the date when the Court received amici briefs and (at least most of the times) the names of the
people who signed them. Sometimes the Court also includes in a footnote the names of other
people or organizations that are on the brief or that have signed-on to it. But the Court often does
not give any indication of the content of each brief or whether the brief supports a particular
position or party. Only rarely does the Court provide more details about the content of such
amici briefs. In fact, the Court has only done so in 17 judgments, 3 of them between 1997-2000
and the other 14 between 2009-2011.80 This amounts to roughly 17% of the approximately 98
judgments in which the Court has received amici briefs through 2013.
For example, the latest case in which the Court provided at least some insight into the issues
addressed in amici briefs was in 2011 in Lopez Mendoza. In this case, the Court described the
content of an amici brief by stating that it develop[ed] diverse ideas regarding judicial
guarantees and political rights.81 Granted, this is certainly not optimal information that would
allow the reader to ascertain any nuances in the legal arguments submitted by amici, but such
brief descriptions of content at least allow the reader or researcher to understand the general
scope and purpose of the amici. Similarly, in Chocron Chocron (2011) the Court again gave a
Courts contentious jurisdiction, for example, the following media corporations filed amici briefs in Herrera Ulloa
(2004): Commitee to Protect Journalists, The Hearst Corporation, The Miami Herald Publishing Company, El Nuevo
Da, La Prensa, The Reforma Group, Reuters Ltd., El Tiempo, and The Tribune Company. IACtHR (Judgment) 2
July 2004), Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica, paras. 38-49. See Table 2, below, for more cases.
79
IACtHR (Judgment) 23 August 2013, Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para.
8.
80
IACtHR (Judgment) 13 September 1997, Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua; IACtHR (Judgment) 17 September
1997, Loayza Tamayo v. Peru; IACtHR (Judgment) 25 November 2000, Bamaca Velasquez v. Guatemala; IACtHR
(Judgment) 20 November 2009, Uson Ramirez v. Venezuela; IACtHR (Judgment) 17 November 2009, Barreto
Leiva v. Venezuela; IACtHR (Judgment) 6 July 2009, Escher et al. v. Brazil; IACtHR (Judgment) 23 November
2009, Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico; IACtHR (Judgment) 23 September 2009, Garibaldi v. Brazil; IACtHR
(Judgment) 30 June 2009, Reveron Trujillo v. Venezuela; IACtHR (Judgment) 24 November 2009,Las Dos Erres
Massacre v. Guatemala; IACtHR (Judgment) 31 August 2010, Rosendo Cantu el al. v. Mexico; IACtHR (Judgment)
30 August 2010, Fernandez Ortega et al. v. Mexico; IACtHR (Judgment) 23 November 2010, Velez Loor v.
Panama; IACtHR (Judgment) 24 November 2010, Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil; IACtHR
(Judgment) 26 November 2010, Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico; IACtHR (Judgment) 1 July 2011,
Chocron Chocron v. Venezuela, and IACtHR (Judgment) 1 September 2011, Lopez Mendoza v. Venezuela.
81
IACtHR (Judgment) 1 September 2011, Lopez Mendoza v. Venezuela, para. 10.

19

brief description of the content of an amicus brief, stating that it addressed the scope of judicial
and effective judicial protection in the case.82
The most complete information about the identity of amici and the content of their briefs is
probably found in the following cases decided between 2009 and early 2011: Cabrera Garcia
and Montiel Flores (2010); Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) (2010); Velez Loor
(2010), Rosendo Cantu (2010); Fernandez Ortega (2011), and Las Dos Erres Massacre
(2009). For example, this is how the Court described amici submissions in Cabrera Garcia and
Montiel Flores (2010):
The Court also received twelve amicus curiae briefs from the following individuals,
institutions and organizations: The Human Rights Clinic of the Human Rights Program at
Harvard Law School, concerning the admissibility of the alleged victims arguments
regarding the duration of the unlawful detention and abuse suffered during their
detention; the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas, concerning the
vulnerability of persons detained without an arrest warrant and the need to be brought
before a court, without delay; Gustavo Fondevila, a professor at the Centro de
Investigacin y Docencia Econmica (Economic Research and Teaching Centre) (CIDE),
concerning unlawful detentions carried out by the Mexican Army and the legalization of
torture under the concept of coerced confession; [etc.].83

In that case, the Court also identified in footnotes the date in which the briefs were submitted and
the names of those who signed the briefs. Similarly, in Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do
Araguaia) (2010) the Court identified amici as follows:
the Court received eight amicus curiae briefs from the following persons and institutions:
a) Open Society Justice Initiative, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Open
Democracy Advice Centre and South African History Initiative, in relation with the right
to truth and access to information; b) Grupo de Investigacin de Derechos Humanos en
la Amazona [Human Rights Investigation Group in the Amazon], in regard to the
Amnesty Law; [] f) Global Justice, regarding the incompatibility of the Brazilian
Amnesty Law in relation with the American Convention; [etc.].84

In Velez Loor (2010) the Court did not provide such detailed descriptions of the identity and
content of amici submissions, but it did specify that the amicus submitted in that case addressed
issues of discrimination, torture, liberty, and prison conditions.85 In Rosendo Cantu (2010),86
Fernandez Ortega (2011),87 Las Dos Erres Massacre (2009),88 and several others, the Court
also provided a brief description of the content of each amicus brief. In light of the importance of
properly identifying both the authorship and the content of amici submissions, the Court should
consider taking up again the practice of including this minimum information in its judgments.
82

IACtHR (Judgment) 1 July 2011, Chocron Chocron v. Venezuela, para. 12.

IACtHR (Judgment) 26 November 2010, Cabrera Garcia and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 9 and fns. 9
through 20. [internal citations omitted]
84
IACtHR (Judgment) 24 November 2010, Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 8
and fns. 9 through 17.
85
IACtHR (Judgment) 23 November 2010, Velez Loor v. Panama, para. 12.
86
IACtHR (Judgment) 31 August 2010, Rosendo Cantu el al. v. Mexico, para. 9.
87
IACtHR (Interpretation) 15 May 2011, Fernandez Ortega et al. v. Mexico, para. 9.
88
IACtHR (Judgment) 24 November 2009,Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para 11.
83

20

3.7

INCORPORATION INTO BODY OF EVIDENCE

Another issue that has come up in the Courts jurisprudence is whether the Court may cite amici
briefs in its judgments to support factual assertions and legal arguments. The Rules allow amici
to address factual matters in a case, not just legal issues.89 Does that mean that the Court can
consider as evidence the information contained in amici briefs? In Pacheco Tineo (2013) the
Court clarified that in no case could an amicus curiae brief be considered as evidence per se.90
Nevertheless, the Courts jurisprudence seems to suggest otherwise.
In several judgments, the Court has cited and incorporated as evidence either the content of the
amici briefs or their supporting documentation. For example, in the Proven Facts section of
one of its latest judgments Mendoza et al. (2013), the Court cited an amicus brief to show the
factual limitations or constraints of a specific domestic law.91 In that same case, the Court cited
another amicus in a rather poetic way to describe as fact the effect of life imprisonment on a
detained person, particularly when the person is a child.92 In Mohamed (2012), the Court also
cited an amicus several times to describe as fact the applicable domestic law and legal remedies
available to the petitioner.93 Similarly, in Massacres of El Mozote and Nearby Places (2012) the
Court cited an amicus submitted by the Salvadoran Ombudsman as evidence of the fact that the
Ombudsman believed that the Salvadoran Amnesty Law violated that States international
human rights law obligations.94 In Cotton Field (2009), the Court also cited three amici briefs for
the proposition that the murder of the three women in that case could be characterized as
femicide.95
In Almonacid Arellano (2006), the Court admitted into evidence documents submitted along with
an amicus brief, as the Court considered that these documents were useful and relevant to the
case.96 Finally, in Acevedo Jaramillo et al. (2006), the Court admitted into the body of evidence
an amicus brief submitted by the Peruvian Ombudsmans Office and the attachments thereto,
pursuant to Rule 45(1) of the 2003 Rules.97 The Ombudsmans amicus and the attachments
thereto were not only admitted into evidence, they were cited by the Court as evidence to prove

89

See, inter alia, supra n. 26, Article 34.2 of the 1980 IACtHR Rules of Procedure and Article 2.3 of the
January and November 2009 Rules of Procedure.
90
IACtHR (Judgment) 25 November 2013, Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia, para. 10. Note: An English
language version of this judgment was not available at the time of this writing, so the translation is the authors.
91
IACtHR (Judgment) 14 May 2013, Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, fn. 48, citing an amicus brief submitted by
a local NGO.
92
IACtHR (Judgment) 14 May 2013, Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, fns. 390 and 391, stating life
imprisonment means the end of the road of life when it has barely begun, and Unlike an adult, a minor has not had
the complete opportunity to plan his work or studies in order to address the challenges posed by today's societies,
respectively.
93
IACtHR (Judgment) 23 November 2012, Mohamed v. Argentina, fns. 27, 45, and 46.
94
IACtHR (Judgment) 25 October 2012, Massacres of El Mozote and Neighboring Locations v. Colombia,
fn. 475.
95
IACtHR (Judgment) 16 November 2009, Gonzalez et al. (Cotton Field) v. Mexico, fn. 134.
96
IACtHR (Judgment) 26 September 2006, Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para. 80.
97
IACtHR (Judgment) 7 February 2006, Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, para. 197.

21

that there were over 500 judgments pending compliance by the Executive Branch, which was a
key factual issue in the case.98
Interestingly, the Court has also treated as evidence amici briefs submitted in domestic
proceedings. For example, in Operation Genesis (2013), the Court supported many of its
findings by citing an amicus curiae brief submitted before the Colombian Constitutional Court
by the Colombian Ombudsmans Office. Although the amicus lacked a date, the Inter-American
Court cited it as evidence at least six times to support several of the Courts factual findings.99
Also, in Atala Riffo and Daughters (2012), the Court again cited an amicus brief submitted in
domestic courts by several psychological associations to support the factual assertion that
children of same sex parents do not suffer developmentally.100
Amici briefs provide factual support not only for the Courts judgment, but also for the Judges
separate opinions in a case. For example, in his Concurring Opinion in Fermin Ramirez (2005)
Judge Sergio Garca Ramrez cited amici briefs to support his analysis of the issue of
dangerousness as a factor for the determination of criminal punishments.101 Similarly, Judge
Antnio Augusto Canado Trindade cited amici briefs to support his Concurring Opinions in at
least two cases. In La Cantuta (2006), even though the judgment never mentioned whether the
Court accepted or rejected an amicus brief submitted by the prestigious Peruvian NGO Instituto
de Defensa Legal (Legal Defense Institute), in his Separate Opinion Judge Canado Trindade
quoted at length the factual claims and legal arguments made in this amicus concerning Perus
amnesty laws.102 Judge Canado Trindade referenced amici submissions again in Miguel Castro
Castro Prison (2008), quoting them at length in his Concurring Opinion.103
In contrast, the Courts practice at least up to 1999 was to exclude amici briefs from the record,
and judges did not cite them either in the judgment or in their separate opinions. For example, in
Loayza Tamayo (Merits) (1997), in response to an objection by the State on the admissibility of
certain amici briefs, the President of the Court informed the State that documents of this type
are added to the file without being formally incorporated into the record of the proceedings, but
he also stated that the Court would evaluate those documents in due course.104 Similarly, in
Paniagua Morales et al. (Merits) (1998),105 in Benavides Cevallos (1998),106 in Constitutional

98

IACtHR (Judgment) 7 February 2006, Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, fn. 151.
IACtHR (Judgment) 20 November 2013, Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River
Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, fns. 279, 283, 284, and 606-608.
100
IACtHR (Judgment) 24 February 2012, Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, fn. 150.
101
IACtHR (Concurring Opinion of Judge Sergio Garca Ramrez) 20 June 2005, Fermin Ramirez v.
Guatemala, para. 34.
102
IACtHR (Separate Opinion of Judge Antnio Canado Trindade) 29 November 2006, La Cantuta v. Peru,
paras. 34-35.
103
IACtHR (Separate Opinion of Judge Antnio Canado Trindade) 25 November 2006, Miguel Castro
Castro Prison v. Peru, paras. 6-7.
104
IACtHR (Judgment) 17 September 1997, Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, para. 22.
105
IACtHR (Judgment) 8 March 1998,White Van (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, fn. 3.
106
IACtHR (Judgment) 19 June 1998, Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador, fns. 2 and 3, stating As is the practice
of the Court with documents of this nature, [amici briefs are] not formally introduced into the case file.
99

22

Court (1999),107 and in Ivcher Bronstein (1999),108 the Court stated that amici briefs were not
formally added to the case file.
These cases highlight an apparent conflict of criteria on the issue of whether and to what extent
amici briefs may be considered evidence in a case before the Court. While the Court in Pacheco
Tineo (2013) declared that amicus briefs may not be considered evidence, that seems to have
been true only up to 1999, when the Court did not incorporate them into the body of evidence.
But the cases cited here suggest that, at least from 2005 through 2013, the Court did incorporate
as evidence the content of amicus briefs and their supporting documentation, and the Court also
frequently cited amici briefs in its judgments to support factual assertions in a case. This recent
practice also seems to be consistent with Article 2(3) of the current Rules, which allow amici to
address factual matters. It may be necessary for the Court to either revisit its blanket declaration
in Pacheco Tineo (2013) or modify its Rules to clarify and reflect the better and more recent
practice of incorporating amicis useful and well-supported factual assertions into the body of
evidence.
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has received more than 500 amici curiae briefs in its
combined contentious and advisory jurisdictions between 1982 and 2013. In those 32 years, the
Court has issued seven versions of its Rules of Procedure and has modified its practice several
times. This article highlighted the development of those changes in the Courts procedure and
practice as they relate to amici curiae submissions. The analysis of such norms and jurisprudence
presents an image of a Court that is willing to adapt to new challenges and provide non-parties
the opportunity to express their opinions on the applicable facts and law in a given case. In light
of this history, this article recommends the following modifications of the Courts Rules of
Procedure or of the Courts practice to allow more meaningful participation of amici curiae in
the development of the Courts jurisprudence.
One of the most pressing issues that may require a modification of the Courts Rules of
Procedure involves the uncertainty with regards to the time frame in which amici should submit
translations of briefs originally presented in a language other than the official one for a given
case. As highlighted above, the Court sometimes resolves such questions by looking at either
Article 44 or Article 28(1) of its Rules, even though neither of those Rules specifically addresses
this issue.
A related matter involves the deadline for submitting amici briefs. Article 44(3) of the November
2009 Rules require amici to submit briefs within 15 days from the date of the public hearing or
from the date of the order requesting the submission of final written arguments. For many amici,
this hard deadline is very difficult to meet. Usually, the best briefs are those that are informed by
what transpires in the public hearing in a given case. Such hearings allow parties and non-parties
alike to hear witness and expert witness testimony, as well as the Judges questions, all of which
107

IACtHR (Judgment) 24 September 1999, Constitutional Court v. Peru, fn. **. (Note: The judgment
identifies this footnote with two asterisks.)
108
IACtHR (Judgment) 24 September 1999, Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, fn. **. (Note: The judgment identifies
this footnote with two asterisks.)

23

provides amici with a better understanding of the key legal issues before the Court. Hearings are
of such importance that the Court has modified its Rules to regulate its practice of requesting
final written submissions after the conclusion of a hearing. Even though Article 56 of the
November 2009 Rules give the President much flexibility to determine the applicable deadline
for final written submissions, the Courts practice has been to give parties 30 days from the end
of the public hearing to do so. Therefore, the parties have 30 days to process all the information
obtained in the hearing and to target their briefs to respond to the Judges questions and
concerns, while amici only have 15 days to do the same.
If amici are to be useful friends of the court, it seems reasonable to extend the deadline and
allow amici the same time as the parties in a case enjoy to prepare their submissions. Of course,
the parties in a case may not be able to respond to amici submissions if all briefs have to be
submitted by the same deadline, but amici would still always have the option of presenting their
briefs earlier if they want the parties to take their arguments into consideration. What seems most
important is to provide a more reasonable time frame that facilitates the best possible friend of
the court briefs that provide useful information and legal advise to the Court.
The IACtHR should also consider publishing amici curiae briefs on its website (unless amici
specifically request that confidential or sensitive information not be published). Before the Court
modified its website in 2013, web users could access parts of the case file of cases that already
had a final judgment, and the Court sometimes (not always) included amici briefs in these
publications. This information is much more difficult to access through the Courts new website,
and is often missing from the published case file. The Court should reconsider its practice of
publishing this information, not only for research purposes, but also to promote greater
transparency and awareness of the issues before the Court.
With regards to the issue of transparency, the Court should also make publicly available the
parties pleadings in each case before the public hearing takes place (unless the parties so object
or unless the pleadings contain sensitive or confidential information). Although the Commission
makes its Article 50 Report available on its website, the public has no access to the States
response or to the victims briefs, at least not until the case is already adjudicated, pursuant to
Article 32(3) of the November 2009 Rules. Amici who wish to provide the Court with useful and
relevant information often find themselves unable to do so meaningfully without access to the
parties briefs. Pursuant to the Courts Rules and practice, amici must wait until the public
hearing takes place to fully understand the legal controversies and nuances in a case. And once
amici finally are able to have a good grasp of the case during the public hearing, the current
Rules give them only 15 days to digest all that information, prepare, often translate, and submit a
useful and relevant brief to the Court. Providing amici and the general public with the parties
briefs (or at least a detailed summary of them) before a public hearing takes place would thus
facilitate better, more relevant, more useful, and more timely amici submissions.
Additionally, the Court should consider providing in its judgments a short description of the
identity and content of amici submissions like the one found in Cabrera Garcia and Montiel
Flores (2010) and in Gomes Lund (2010). Such descriptions should contain, at a minimum, the
date of submission, the name and type of person(s) submitting the brief, and a brief indication
about the issue(s) the brief addresses. The Court could require amici to include such a brief

24

description in the brief itself, so that the Courts staff need only copy and paste this text into the
judgment. The Court could also impose a word limit on this description to prevent taking up too
much space in its already lengthy judgments. For example, this description could merely state the
following: amici are (law professors, a law school clinic, a national/regional/international NGO,
a private individual, a group of organizations, etc.) who submit to the Court considerations about
(the factual and legal issue(s) involved in the case).
It is true that a possible unintended negative consequence of the rise in amici submissions could
be that the small staff of attorneys that work at the Court are becoming inundated with long legal
briefs. The parties submissions are already often quite lengthy. Because the Courts Rules do
not place page limits on submissions from either the parties or from amici, the result is often a
very lengthy case file. In response to this situation, the Court may find it necessary to modify its
Rules of Procedure to place page limits on all written submissions, including those of amici.
These suggestions are aimed at ensuring that the Court makes the necessary changes to continue
to adapt to an ever-increasing participation of amici curiae before the Court. The data and the
ideas generated in this article are merely a starting point for this much-needed conversation to
ensure a robust, useful, and meaningful participation of parties and non-parties alike in the
development of international human rights law before the Inter-American Court.
TABLE 1
APPROXIMATE109 NUMBER OF AMICI CURIAE BRIEFS IN THE COURTS
ADVISORY OPINIONS (1982-2013)
Advisory
No.
Names of amici
Opinion No.
of
(Year)
amici
(Para. No.)
No. 1
5
1. Inter-American Institute of Human Rights;
(1982)
2. International Human Rights Law Group;
(para. 5)
3. International League for Human Rights;
4. Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights, and
5. Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights of the University of Cincinnati College of
Law.
No. 2
2
1. International Human Rights Law Group, and
(1982)
2. Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights of the University of Cincinnati College of
(para. 5)
Law
No. 3
3
1. International Human Rights Law Group & the Washington Office on Latin America;
(1983)
2. Lawyers Committee for International Human Rights & the Americas Watch
(para. 5)
Committee, and
3. Institute for Human Rights of the International Legal Studies Program at the University
of Denver College of Law & the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights of the
University of Cincinnati College of Law
No. 4110
5
1. Costa Ricas Minister of Justice;

109

Exact numbers are difficult to ascertain from the text of the Courts judgments and advisory opinions
because the Court often lists the names of all persons and institutions that appear on amici briefs, whether these were
submitted individually or jointly with other persons or institutions.
110
For the Courts 4th advisory opinion, the Court invited certain Costa Rican juridical institutions to present
their views on the [advisory opinion] request and any other information or relevant documents, without specifying

25

(1984)
(paras. 4-6)

No. 5
(1985)
(para. 5)

2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

the President of the Costa Rican Supreme Electoral Tribunal;

a Member of the Costa Rican Legislative Assembly;
the Director of the Costa Rican Civil Registry, and
a Professor of the Faculty of Law of the University of Costa Rica.
Inter-American Press Association;
Colegio de Periodistas of Costa Rica;
World Press Freedom Committee, International Press Institute, Newspaper Guild, and
International Association of Broadcasting;
American Newspaper Publishers Association, American Society of Newspaper Editors,
and Associated Press;
Federacin Latinoamericana de Periodistas;
International League for Human Rights; and
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Americas Watch Committee, and Committee
to Protect Journalists
Ral Emilio Vinuesa, an Argentinian Professor of Law

No. 6
(1986)
(para. 5)
No. 7
(1986)
(para. 5)

1.

1.

No. 8
(1987)
(para. 5)
No. 9
(1987)
(para. 8)

1.
2.

Inter-American Press Association, World Press Freedom Committee, American

Newspaper Publishers Association, Federation International des Editeurs de Journaux,
The Copley Press, Inc., The Miami Herald, Newsweek, USA Today, The Wall Street
Journal, and The International Herald Tribune
Americas Watch Committee and
International Human Rights Law Group

No. 10
(1989)
(para. 7)
No. 11
(1990)
(para. 8)
No. 12
(1991)
(--)
No. 13
(1993)
(para. 9)

1.
2.
3.
4.
1.

International Human Rights Law Group;

International Commission of Jurists;
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and
Amnesty International
International Human Rights Law Group

1.

International Human Rights Law Group

--

11

1.

No. 14
(1994)
(para. 8)

Federacin Latinoamericana de Asociaciones de Familiares de Detenidos

Desaparecidos (FEDEFAM);
2. Familiares, madres y abuelas de detenidos desaparecidos de Mar del Plata;
3. Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL);
4. Americas Watch;
5. International Human Rights Law Group;
6. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS);
7. Centro por los Derechos Humanos y el Derecho Humanitario de American University;
8. Programa Venezolano de Educacin y Accin en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA);
9. Centro por la Accin Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH);
10. Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), and
11. Mara Elba Martnez and Fundacin Paz y JusticiaArgentina.
1. Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL) jointly with Americas Watch and the
Comisin Andina de Juristas;
2. Professors Antnio Augusto Canado Trindade, of the University of Brasilia and the

which or how many institutions actually submitted such views, and without specifying whether the Court
considered such views to be amici curiae submissions.

26

No. 15
(1997)
(para. 18)
No. 16
(1999)
(paras. 14,
22, 46, and
62, and fn.
88)

No. 17
(2002)
(paras. 9
and 11)

No. 18
(2003)
(paras. 11,
13, 14, 18,
24, 25, 2731, and 3647)

1
13111

3.
1.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1.
2.
3.
4.

13112

5.
6.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Rio-Branco Institute, Brazil, and

Beatriz M. Ramacciotti, of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru.
Human Rights Watch/Americas and the Center for Justice and International Law
(CEJIL)
Amnesty International;
Comisin Mexicana para la Defensa y Promocin de Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH),
Human Rights Watch/Americas, and the Center for Justice and International Law
(CEJIL);
Death Penalty Focus of California
Delgado Law Firm and Jimmy V. Delgado;
International Human Rights Law Institute of DePaul University College of Law and
MacArthur Justice Center of the University of Chicago Law School;
Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights and Sandra L. Babcock;
Bonnie Lee Goldstein and William H. Wright, Jr.;
Mark Kadish;
Jos Trinidad Loza;
John Quigley and S. Adele Shank;
Robert L. Steele;
Jean Terranova, and
Hctor Gros Espiell.
Coordinadora Nicaragense de ONGs que trabajan con la Niez y la Adolescencia (
CODENI);
Instituto Universitario de Derechos Humanos, A.C., of Mexico;
Fundacin Rafael Preciado Hernndez, A.C., of Mexico;
United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment
of Offenders ( ILANUD);
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL); and
Comisin Colombiana de Juristas.
Legal Aid Clinic of the College of Jurisprudence of the Universidad San Francisco de
Quito;
Delgado Law Firm;
Liliana Ivonne Gonzlez Morales, Gail Aguilar Castan, Karla Micheel Salas
Ramrez and Itzel Magali Prez Zagal, students of the Faculty of Law of the
Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mexico (UNAM);
Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic of the Greater Boston Legal Services and the
Harvard Law School, the Working Group on Human Rights in the Americas of the
Harvard and Boston College Law Schools, and the Global Justice Center;
Thomas A. Brill of the Law Office of Sayre & Chavez;
Javier Jurez of the Law Office of Sayre & Chavez;
Beth Lyon, Rebecca Smith, and Civil Rights and Immigrants Rights Organizations in
the United States;
the Academy of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the American
University, Washington College of Law, and the Human Rights Program of the
Universidad Iberoamericana of Mexico;
the Center for International Human Rights of the School of Law of Northwestern
University;
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
the Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), the Ecumenical Service for the
Support and Orientation of Refugees and Immigrants (CAREF) and the Legal Clinic
for the Rights of Immigrants and Refugees of the School of Law of the Universidad de

111

Paragraph 62 of Advisory Opinion No. 16 states that 22 individuals and institutions submitted amici curiae
briefs. Nonetheless, para. 14 identifies 13 briefs submitted by 20 individuals and organizations.
112
In paragraph 47 of Advisory Opinion No. 18, the Court summarized the content of each amici brief.

27

No. 19
(2005)
(paras. 11
and 14)

11113

No. 20
(2009)
(paras. 7
and 11)

23114

Buenos Aires;
12. the Central American Council of Ombudsmen, and
13. Jorge A. Bustamante and the Juridical Research Institute of the Universidad Nacional
Autnoma de Mxico (UNAM)
1. Directors and students of the Law Clinics of the Jurisprudence College, of the
Universidad San Francisco, Quito;
2. Professor Luis Peraza Parga of the Universidad Panamericana, Mexico, the
Universidad de La Sabana, Bogot, and the Universidad de San Pedro de Sula;
3. Professors Bernard Duhaime and Alejandro Lorite Escorihuela of the School of
Political Science and Law of the Universit de Qubec;
4. the Law Clinic of the Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas, Mexico City;
5. the Human Right Clinic of the Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City;
6. the Network of Human Rights Law Professors and the Human Rights Program of the
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City;
7. Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL);
8. Alfonso Jimenz Reyes, Mexico;
9. Patricio Kingston, Argentina;
10. Carlos Roberto Loria Quirs, Costa Rica, and
11. Modesto Emilio Guerrero, Argentina.
1. Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Centro de Asesora Legal del Peru,
and Instituto de Defensa Legal;
2. Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles;
3. Comisin Colombiana de Juristas;
4. Justicia Global (Justia Global);
5. Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL);
6. Asociacin de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos (ASFADESS);
7. International Human Rights Clinic, Seattle University School of Law;
8. Members of the Seminario sobre el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos y
Derecho Internacional Humanitario de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad
Veracruzana de Mxico;
9. Students and academics affiliated with Notre Dame University;
10. Facultad de Derecho de la Pontificia Universidad Catlica Argentina;
11. Members of the Ctedra de Derechos Humanos de la Facultad de Derecho de la
Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina;
12. Legal Clinic of the University of San Francisco de Quito, Ecuador;
13. The Bernard and Audre Rapoport Center for Human Rights and Justice of the
University of Texas at Austin, School of Law, USA;
14. Director and members of the Global Justice Group and Human Rights at the
Universidad de los Andes in Colombia;
15. Human Rights and International Disputes Studies Group, affiliated with the Caldas
University of Colombia Legal and Social Sciences School;
16. Alberto Bovino and Juan Pablo Chirinos;
17. Carlos Rafael Urquilla;
18. Elisa de Anda Madrazo and Mr. Guillermo Jos Garca Snchez;
19. Luis Peraza Parga;
20. Carlos Eduardo Garca Granados;
21. Ligia Galvis Ortiz and Mr. Ricardo Abello Galvis;
22. Augusto M. Guevara Palacios; and
23. Marcos David Kotlik.

Total number of amici briefs submitted in the Courts advisory jurisdiction between 1982-2009:
approximately 113
113
114

In paragraph 14 of Advisory Opinion No. 19, the Court summarized the content of amici briefs.
In paragraph 11 of Advisory Opinion No. 20, the Court summarized the content of amici briefs.

28

TABLE 2

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

APPROXIMATE115 NUMBER OF AMICI CURIAE BRIEFS IN THE COURTS

CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION (1988-2013)
Case Name
No.
Names of amici
(Year)
of
(Para. No.)
amici
Velasquez
4
1. Amnesty International;
Rodrguez v.
2. Association of the Bar of the City of New York;
Honduras
3. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and
(Merits)
4. Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee.
(1988)
(para. 38)
Godinez Cruz 5
1. Amnesty International;
v. Honduras
2. Asociacin Centroamericana de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos;
(Merits)
3. Association of the Bar of the City of New York;
(1989)
4. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and
(para. 19)
5. Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee
Fairen Garbi
5
1. Amnesty International;
and Solis
2. Asociacin Centroamericana de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos;
Corrales v.
3. Association of the Bar of the City of New York;
Honduras
4. Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, and
(Merits)
5. Minnesota Lawyers International Human Rights Committee
(1989)
(para. 47)
Velsquez
13
1. Asociacin Centroamericana de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos;
Rodrguez v.
2. Jean-Denis Archambault;
Honduras
3. Alejandro Artucio;
(Reparations)
4. Alfredo Etcheberry;
(1989)
5. Gustavo Galln Giraldo;
(para. 19)
6. Diego Garca Sayn;
7. Alejandro M. Garro;
8. Robert K. Goldman;
9. Jorge Mera;
10. Denis Racicot;
11. Joaqun Ruiz Gimnez;
12. Arturo Valencia Zea, and
13. Eugenio Ral Zaffaroni
Godinez Cruz 13
1. Asociacin Centroamericana de Familiares de Detenidos-Desaparecidos;
v. Honduras
2. Jean-Denis Archambault;
(Reparations)
3. Alejandro Artucio;
(1989)
4. Alfredo Etcheberry;
(para. 47)
5. Gustavo Galln Giraldo;
6. Diego Garca Sayn;
7. Alejandro M. Garro;
8. Robert K. Goldman;
9. Jorge Mera;

115

Exact numbers are difficult to ascertain from the text of the Courts judgments and advisory opinions
because the Court often lists the names of all persons and institutions that appear on amici briefs, whether these were
submitted individually or jointly with other persons or institutions.

29

10.
11.
12.
13.

Denis Racicot;
Joaqun Ruiz Gimnez;
Arturo Valencia Zea, and
Eugenio Ral Zaffaroni

Total number of amici briefs in the Courts contentious jurisdiction submitted between 1988-1989:
approximately 40
6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Aloeboetoe v.
Suriname
(Reparations)
(1993)
(para. 38)
Gangaram
Panday v.
Suriname
(1994)
(para. 37)
Genie Lacayo
v. Nicaragua
(1997)
(para. 41)
Loayza
Tamayo v.
Peru (Merits)
(1997)
(paras. 21 and
22)
Suarez
Rosero v.
Ecuador
(1997)
(Fn. 2)
White Van
(Paniagua
Morales et
al.) v.
Guatemala
(Merits)
(1998)
(Fn. *)
Benavides
Cevallos v.
Ecuador
(1998)
(paras. 24 and
31)
Suarez
Rosero v.
Ecuador
(1999)
(Reparations)
(para. 5)
Ivcher
Bronstein v.

1.

International Commission of Jurists

1. International Human Rights Law Institute of DePaul University College of Law;

2. Netherlands Institute of Human Rigths (SIM), and
3. International Human Rights Law Group.

1. The International Legal Advisors Esq. and the Foundation for the Development
of International Law

1. Fundacin Ecumnica para el Desarrollo y la Paz (FEDEPAZ), and

2. Nicols de Pirola Balta

1.
2.

Rights International - the Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc.
Ral Moscoso lvarez

1.

Oscar Augusto Daz Urquiz (one of the acused in the domestic proceedings)

1.
2.

Amnesty International, and

Rights International.

1.

Rights International - The Center for International Human Rights Law, Inc.

1.
2.

International Human Rights Law Group;

Curtis Frances Doebbler, and

30

15.

16.

17.

Peru
(Competence)
(1999)
(Fn. **)
Constitution
al Court v.
Peru
(Competence)
(1999)
(Fn. **)
Cesti Hurtado
v. Peru
(1999)
(Merits)
(Fn. 2)
Street
Children
(Villagrn
Morales et
al.) v.
Guatemala
(1999)
(Fn. 1)

3.

Alberto Borea Odra.

1.
2.
3.

International Human Rights Law Group;

Curtis Francis Doebbler, and
Alberto Borrea Odra.

1.
2.
3.

Heriberto Manuel Bentez Rivas;

Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), and
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)

1.

Childrights International Research Institute

Total number of amici briefs submitted in the Courts contentious jurisdiction between 1990-1999:
approximately 23
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Bamaca
Velasquez v.
Guatemala
(2000)
(para. 64)
Constitutional
Court v. Peru
(2001)
(para. 19)
Baena
Ricardo et al.
v. Panama
(2001)
(paras. 37,
46, and 48)
The Last
Temptation
of Christ
(Olmedo
Bustos et al.)
v. Chile
(2001)
(para. 21, 31,
and 34)
Ivcher
Bronstein v.
Peru
(2001)

1. International Commission of Jurists

1.
2.
3.

International Human Rights Law Group;

Curtis Francis Doebbler, and
Alberto Borea Odra.

1.
2.
3.

Panamanian Ombudsman, Italo Isaac Antinori Bolaos;

Centro de Asesora Laboral del Per, Centro de Derechos Econmicos y
Sociales, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), and Comisin
Colombiana de Juristas, and
Jacinto Gonzlez Rodrguez

1.
2.

Hermes Navarro del Valle, and

Sergio Garca Valds

1.
2.
3.
4.

International Human Rights Law Group;

Curtis Francis Doebbler;
Alberto A. Borea Odra, and
Interamerican Press Society.

31

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

(para. 27, 28,

30, and 43)
Barrios Altos
et al. v. Peru
(2001)
(para. 7)
White Van
(Paniagua
Morales et
al.)
(Reparacione
s) v.
Guatemala
(2001)
(para. 31)
Cesti Hurtado
v. Peru
(Reparations)
(2001)
(para. 24)
Mayagna
(Sumo) Awas
Tingni
Community
v. Nicaragua
(2001)
(paras. 38,
41, 42, 52,
and 61)
Hilaire v.
Trinidad and
Tobago (Prel.
Obj.)
(2001)
(para. 26)
Hilaire,
Benjamin and
Constantine
et al. v.
Trinidad and
Tobago
(2002)
(para. 51)
Five
Pensioners
v. Peru
(2003)
(paras. 39,
47, 49, 61)
Baena

1.

Walter Alban Peralta, Perus Ombudsman

1.

Rights International

4116

1.
2.
3.
4.

1.

Executive Human Rights Committee of the Lima Bar Association;

Peruvian Ombudsman;
Hctor Fandez Ledesma, and
Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS) and the Center for Justice and
International Law (CEJIL).
Organization of Indigenous Syndics of the Nicaraguan Caribbean (OSICAN)
and Eduardo Conrado Poveda;
Assembly of First Nations (AFN);
International Human Rights Law Group;
Hutchins, Soroka & Dionne law firm, on behalf of the Mohawks Indigenous
Community of Akwesasne, and
Robert A. Williams Jr., on behalf of the organization National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI)

2.
3.
4.
5.
2

1.
2.

Vaughan Lowe, and

Carlos Vargas Pizarro.

1.

Vaughan Lowe and Guy Goodwin-Gill

1.
2.
3.

Carlos Rafael Urquilla Bonilla, on behalf of Human Rights in the Americas;

Peruvian Ombudsman;117
Vctor Abramovich, Julieta Rossi, Andrea Pochak and Jimena Garrote, from the
Center for Legal and Social Studies (CELS), and
Christian Courtis, professor of the Law Faculty of the Universidad de Buenos
Aires

4.

1.

Miguel Gonzlez (he submitted three separate amicus), and

116

These amici briefs were submitted as annexes to the victims brief on reparations.
The Court requested a copy of an amicus curiae brief submitted by the Peruvian Ombudsman in the
domestic proceedings.
117

32

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

Ricardo v.
Panama
(Competence)
(2003)
(paras. 20,
28, 31, and
46)
Plan de
Sanchez
Massacre v.
Guatemala
(Merits)
(2004)
(para. 28)
Herrera Ulloa
v. Costa Rica
(2004)
(paras. 38-41,
45, 47, 49,
52)

Gomez
Paquiyauri
Brothers v.
Peru
(2004)
(para. 23)
Ricardo
Canese v.
Paraguay
(2004)
(paras. 27,
28, and 30)
De La Cruz
Flores v. Peru
(2004)
(paras. 26 and
39)
Plan de
Snchez
Massacre v.
Guatemala
(Reparations)
(2004)
(para. 13)
Carpio
Nicolle et al.
v. Guatemala
(2004)
(para. 48)
The Serrano
Cruz Sisters

2.

Panamanian Ombudsman.

1. Instituto Comparado de Ciencias Penales en Guatemala (ICCPG), Centro de

Estudios sobre Justicia y Participacin (CEJIP), and Instituto de Estudios
comparados en Ciencias Penales y Sociales (INECIP)

1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.

Commitee to Protect Journalists, The Hearst Corporation, The Miami Herald

Publishing Company, El Nuevo Da, La Prensa, The Reforma Group, Reuters
Ltd., El Tiempo, and Tribune Company;
Asociacin para la Defensa del Periodismo Independiente (PERIODISTAS);
Interamerican Press Society;
Colegio de Periodistas de Costa Rica;
Article 19, Global Compaign For Free Expression;
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL);
World Press Freedom Committee, and
Open Society Justice Initiative.
James Crawford and Simon Olleson

1.
2.
3.

Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles (ADC);

Interamerican Press Society, and
Asociacin para la Defensa del Periodismo Independiente (PERIODISTAS)

1.
2.
3.

Hctor Fandez Ledesma;

Michelangela Scalabrino, and
Centro de Investigacin y Asistencia Legal en Derecho Internacional (IALDI).

1.

Instituto Comparado de Ciencias Penales en Guatemala (ICCPG), Centro de

Estudios sobre Justicia y Participacin (CEJIP), and Instituto de Estudios
Comparados en Ciencias Penales y Sociales (INECIP)

1.

Fernando Linares Beltranena

1.
2.

International Commission of Jurists;

Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF) and Naomi Roht-Arriaza presentaron

33

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

v. El
Salvador
(2004)
(para. 32, 33,
34, 35, 41)
Caesar v.
Trinidad and
Tobago
(2005)
(paras. 25 and
26)
Moiwana
Community
v. Suriname
(2005)
(para. 16)
Yakye Axa
Indigenous
Community
v. Paraguay
(2005)
(para. 19)
Fermn
Ramrez v.
Guatemala
(2005)
(paras. 21,
22, and 26)
YATAMA v.
Nicaragua
(2005)
(paras. 17,
34, 38, 42,
and 120)
Lori
Berenson
Mejia v. Peru
(2005)
(paras. 31, 37
and 60)
Yean and
Bosico Girls
v. Dominican
Republic
(2005)
(para. 53)

2.

un escrito en calidad de amici curiae;

Fundacin Sur-Argentina;
Asociacin Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, and
Jos Benjamn Cullar Martnez, Pedro Jos Cruz Rodrguez, and Roberto
Burgos Viale
Harvard Law Student Advocates for Human Rights and Global Justice Centre,
and
Interights.

1.

Harvard Law Student Advocates for Human Rights, and Global Justice Center

1.

Organizacin Nacional Indgena de Colombia (ONIC)

1.
2.
3.

Instituto de Estudios Comparados en Ciencias Penales y Sociales de Argentina

(INECIP), represented by David Baigun and Silvina Ramrez;
Eugenio Ral Zaffaroni, and
Irish Centre for Human Rights de la National University of Ireland (Galway).

1.
2.
3.
4.

Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua;

United Nations Peace University;
University of Arizona Program on Indigenous Rights and Policies, and
Procuradura para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos de Nicaragua.

1.
2.
3.

Archbishop of El Salvador;
Gil Barragn Romero, representing 41 organizations, and
Salomn Lerner Febres.

10

1.
2.
3.

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE);

Asociacin Civil de Centros Comunitarios de Aprendizaje (CECODAP);
Comit de Amrica Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa de los Derechos de la
Mujer (CLADEM);
Minority Rights Group International (MRG);
Katarina Tomasevski;
Secretara Ampliada de la Red de Encuentro Domnico Haitiano Jacques Viau
(RED), representing Centro Cultural Domnico Haitiano (CCDH), Movimiento
Sociocultural de los Trabajadores Haitianos (MOSCTHA), Servicio Jesuita a
Refugiados y Migrantes (SRJM-RD), Centro Dominicano de Investigacines
Legales (CEDAIL), and Asociacin Pro-Desarrollo de la Mujer y el Medio
Ambiente, Inc. (APRODEMA);
Comparative International Education Society (CIES);
Themis Foundation and the University of Ottawa School of Law;
Open Society Justice Initiative, and

3.
4.
5.
2

1.

4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

34

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

Raxcaco
Reyes v.
Guatemala
(2005)
(para. 26)
The
Mapiripn
Massacre v.
Colombia
(2005)
(paras. 41,
42, and 46)
La Cantuta v.
Peru
(2006)
(para. 34)
Nogueira de
Carvalho et
al. v. Brazil
(2006)
(para. 35)

Almonacid
Arellano et
al. v. Chile

10. Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Servicio de Apoyo y Orientacin

a Inmigrantes y Refugiados (CAREF), Clnica Jurdica para los Derechos de
Inmigrantes y Refugiados (Buenos Aires University School of Law), and
Christian Courtis.
1. Amnesty International

1.
2.
3.

Manuel Cepeda Vargas Foundation;

International Center for Transitional Justice, Paul van Zyl, Lisa Magarrel, and
Leonardo Filippini, and
Fdration Internationale des Ligues des Droits de lHomme (FIDH).

1.

Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL)

1.

1.

Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL), Front line - The Internacional
Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, World Organization
Against Torture (OMCT), Corporacin Colectivo de Abogados Jos Alvear
Restrepo, Movimiento Nacional de Derechos Humanos, Asociacin Fomento,
Centro de Derechos Humanos Miguel Agustn Pro Jurez, Una Ventana a la
Libertad, Comit de Familiares de Detenidos - Desaparecidos, Robert F.
Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Centro de Derechos Econmicos
y Sociales (CDES), Centro de Documentacin en Derechos Humanos Segundo
Montes Mozo S.J. (CSMM), Casa Alianza Honduras, Centro para la Accin
Legal en Derechos Humanos (CALDH), Programa Venezolano de AccinEducacin en Derechos Humanos (PROVEA), Comit Permanente de Defensa
de los Derechos Humanos de Orellana, Grupo Interdisciplinario de Derechos
Humanos de Medelln, Comisin Mexicana de Defensa y Promocin de los
Derechos Humanos (CMDPDH), Centro de Iniciativas
Democrticas
(CIDEM), Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL), Asociacin Pro Derechos
Humanos (APRODEH), Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos de Per,
Movimento Nacional de Direitos Humanos (MNDH), Fundao Interamericana
de Defesa de Direitos Humanos (FIDDH), Terra de Direitos, Comisin
Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ), Coordinadora de Derechos Humanos del
Paraguay (CODEHUPY), Centro de Derechos Humanos y Ambiente, Abogados
y Abogadas del Noroeste Argentino en Derechos Humanos y Estudios Sociales
(ANDHES), Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Movimiento de
Mujeres Dominico-Haitianas (MUDHA), Human Rights Without Frontiers
International (HRWF), University of Virginia School of Law International
Human Rights Law Clinic, Human Rights Network International, Rights
International - The Center for International Human Rights Law, International
League for Human Rights, University of Minnesota Human Rights Center,
International Human Rights Clinic of George Washington University, European
Roma Rights Centre, Washington College of Laws Center for Human Rights
and Humanitarian Law, University of Essex Human Rights Centre, Union
Internationale des Avocats, Benjamn Cullar Martnez and Matilde Guadalupe
Hernndez Espinoza, and Alejandro Ponce, Carlos Ayala and Pedro Nikken.
Asociacin Americana de Juristas de Valparaso/Aconcagua

35

51.

(2006)
(paras. 30 and
80)
Claude Reyes
et al. v. Chile
(2006)
(paras. 25,
27, 30, 31,
38, and 42)

1.
2.

6.
1.
2.

Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles;

Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Damin M. Loreti, and Anala
Elades;
Gastn Gmez Bernales;
Open Society Justice Initiative, ARTICLE 19, Instituto Prensa y Sociedad,
Access Info Europe, and Libertad de Informacin Mxico;
Impact Litigation Project at American University Washington College of Law,
and
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL).
Peruvian Ombudsman, and
Attorney General of Lima.

1.

Sonia Rubio Padilla, Astrid Mara Valencia, and Francisco Antonio Chicas.

1.
2.

Jo-Marie Burt, and

Centro de la Mujer Peruana Flora Tristn, Asociacin Aurora Vivar, and
Instituto de Investigacin y Capacitacin de la Familia y la Mujer (INCAFAM)

1.
2.
3.

Jorge Santistevan de Noriega;

Colegio de Abogados de Mxico;
Students, alumni and academics of the Human Rights Masters Degree of the
Universidad Iberoamericana de Mxico;
Grupo Parlamentario del Partido Convergencia;
Graduate students of the Law School at the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de
Mxico (UNAM);
Socorro Apreza Salgado, Ricardo Alberto Ortega Soriano and Jorge Humberto
Meza Flores, from the Law School at the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de
Mxico (UNAM), and
Imer Flores, from the Instituto de Investigaciones Jurdicas de la Universidad
Nacional Autnoma de Mxico (UNAM).
International Commission of Jurists, and the Due Process of Law Foundation.

3.
4.
5.

52.

53.

54.

55.

Acevedo
Jaramillo et
al. v. Peru
(2006)
(paras. 42,
44, 52, 62,
66, and 196)
Garca Prieto
et al. v. El
Salvador
(2007)
(para. 12)
Cantoral
Huamani and
Garca Santa
Cruz v. Peru
(2007)
(para. 8)
Castaeda
Gutman v.
Mexico
(2008)
(paras. 12-14)

4.
5.
6.
7.

56.

57.

Apitz Barbera
et al. (First
Court of
Administrativ
e Disputes)
v. Venezuela
(2008)
(para. 8)
Miguel
Castro Castro
Prison v. Peru
(Interpretatio
n)

1.

1.

Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL) and the Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos

Humanos del Per

36

58.

59.

60.

(2008)
(para. 4)
Kimel v.
Argentina
(2008)
(paras. 13-16)
Las Dos
Erres
Massacre v.
Guatemala
(2009)
(para. 11)
Radilla
Pacheco v.
Mexico
(2009)
(para. 13)

1.
2.
3.

1.

13

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.

11.
12.

13.
61.

62.

Uson
Ramirez v.
Venezuela
(2009)
(para. 10)
Barreto Leiva
v. Venezuela

1.

1.

Clnica de Derechos Humanos del Mster de Derechos Fundamentales de la

Universidad Carlos III de Madrid;
World Committee on Freedom of Press, and
Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles (ADC).
Daniel Rothenberg and Daniel Thoman, on behalf of the International Human
Rights Law Institute of the University of DePaul, College of Law

Amnesty International;
Mara Valds Leal;
Erik Nelson Ramrez, on behalf of the Panamerican University, Mexico City
Campus;
Mexican Human Rights and Democracy Institute;
Victoria Livia Unzueta Reyes;
Stephanie Erin Brewer; World Association of Community Radios (AMARCMexico); Catholics for the Right to Decide (CDD); National Center of Social
Communication (CENCOS); Human Rights Center Brother Francisco de
Vitoria, O.P.; Miguel Agustn Pro Jurez Human Rights Center (Prodh Center);
Human Rights Center of the Tlachinollan Mountain (Tlachinollan); Center for
Social and Cultural Studies Antonio de Montesinos (CAM); Fundar, Analysis
and Research Center; Mexican Institute of Human Rights and Democracy
(IMDHD); National Network of Civilian Human Rights Organizations Todos
los derechos para todas y todos (RedTDT), and Supportive Network Decade
Against Impunity;
Carmelo Faleh Prez and Carlos Villn Duran, on behalf of the Spanish
Association for International Human Rights Law;
Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL);
Maureen C. Meyer, on behalf of the Washington Office on Latin America
(WOLA);
Javier Cruz Angulo Nobara, professor, and Benjamn Uriel Salinas Morales,
Vctor Daniel Gutirrez Morales, Anel Alejandra Valadez Murillo, and Marcos
Zavala Cruz, students of the Clinic of Public Interest of the Division of Legal
Studies of the Center for Economic Investigation and Teaching;
Gabriela Rodrguez Huerta and Karen Hudlet Vzquez, from the Law School of
the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mxico (ITAM);
Sara Luz Enriquez Uscanga, Manuel Amador Velsquez, Mariana Castilla
Calderas, Anglica Saucedo Quiones, Claudia Liza Corona de la Pea, Yedana
Renee Garca Flores, Silvana Cant Martnez, Roberto Josu Bermdez Olivos,
Laura Rebeca Martnez Moya, Paulina Gutirrez Jimnez, Ana Paula Hernndez
Pontn, Mario Patrn Snchez, and Catherine Mendoza, all of them students of
the Masters Program in Human Rights and Democracy of the Latin American
Faculty of Social Sciences, Mexico campus, and
Luis Arriaga Valenzuela, Jorge Santiago Aguirre Espinosa, and Stephanie Erin
Brewer, on behalf of the Miguel Agustin Human Rights Center.
Alejandro Carrio, on behalf of the Asociacin de Derechos Civiles (ADC),
Hernn Gullco, and Alejandro E. Segarra.

Mara del Milagro Sols Aguilar, Oscar Barrantes Rodrguez, Hans Barboza
Rojas, Edgar Rodrguez Sancho, Rodrigo Quirs Castro, and Lisandro Cordn

37

63.

(2009)
(para. 8)
Gonzlez et
al.
(Cottonfield
Case) v.
Mexico
(2009)
(para. 14)

Vega, on behalf of the Crculo Bolivariano Yamileth Lpez.

12

1.

Simona Cusack and Rebecca J. Cook, on behalf of the International

Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Program (IRSHL Program) of the Law
School of the University of Toronto, and Viviana Krsticevic and Vanessa Coria,
on behalf of the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL);
2. Eric Sottas and Philip Grant, on behalf of TRIAL-Track Impunity Always, the
World Organization Against Torture, the Consejo General de la Abogaca
Espaola;
3. Miguel ngel Antemate Mendoza, Selene Cruz Alcal, Rafael Caballero
Hernndez, Carlos Alejandro Martiarena Leonar, and Alma Elena Rueda
Rodrguez, of the Legal Research Institute of the Universidad Nacional
Autnoma de Mexico (UNAM);
4. Viviana Waisman and Paloma Soria Montaez, on behalf of Womens Link
Worldwide;
5. Imelda Marrufo Nava, Clara Eugenia Rojas Blanco, Elizabeth Loera, Diana Itzel
Gonzles, Womens Network of Ciudad Jurez A.C., Critas Diocesana of
Ciudad Jurez, Pastoral Obrera, Programa Compaeros, Ciudadanos por una
mejor Administracin Pblica, and Casa Amiga Centro de Crisis;
6. Csar A. Rodrguez Garavito, on behalf of the Global Justice and Human Rights
Program of the Universidad de los Andes;
7. Jos Antonio Ibez Aguirre, of the Human Rights Program and the Masters
Program in Human Rights of the Universidad Iberoamericana de Mexico;
8. Clive Baldwin, on behalf of Human Rights Watch;
9. David S. Ettinger and Mary-Christine Sungaila, of Horvitz & Levy LLP, on
behalf of Amnesty International; Thomas Antkowiak; Tamar Birckhead; Mary
Boyce; Break the Circle; Arturo Carrillo; Center for Constitutional Rights;
Center for Gender and Refugee Studies; Center for Justice and Accountability;
the Human Rights Center of the Universidad Diego Portales; Columbia Law
School Human Rights Clinic; Cornell Law School International Human Rights
Clinic; Bridget J. Crawford; the Domestic Violence and Civil Protection Order
Clinic of the University of Cincinnati; Margaret Drew; Martin Geer; the Human
Rights and Genocide Clinic, Benjamn N. Cardozo School of Law; Human
Rights Advocates; Deena Hurwitz; the Immigration Clinic at the University of
Maryland School of Law; the Immigration Justice Clinic; IMPACT Personal
Safety; the International Human Rights Clinic at Willamette University College
of Law; the International Mental Disability Law Reform Project of New York
Law School; the International Womens Human Rights Clinic at Georgetown
Law School; Latinojustice PRLDEF; the Legal Services Clinic at Western New
England College School of Law; the Leitner Center for International Law and
Justice at Fordham Law School; Bert B. Lockwood; the Allard K. Lowenstein
International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School; Beth Lyon; Thomas M.
McDonnell; the National Association of Women Lawyers; the Los Angeles
Chapter of the National Lawyers Guild; the National Organization for Women;
Noah Novogrodsky; Jamie OConnell; Sarah Paoletti; Jo M. Pasqualucci;
Naomi Roht-Arriaza; Darren Rosenblum; Susan Deller Ross; Seton Hall
University School of Law Center for Social Justice; Gwynne Skinner; Kathleen
Staudt; Jeffrey Stempel; Maureen A. Sweeney; Jonathan Todres; the Urban
Morgan Institute for Human Rights; the U.S. Human Rights Network; Penny M.
Venetis; Deborah Weissman; Richard J. Wilson; the Womens Law Project; the
Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, and the World Organization for
Human Rights USA;
10. Leah Hoctor, on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists;
11. Widney Brown, on behalf of Amnesty International, and
12. Clara Sandoval and students of the Human Rights Center and School of Law of
Essex University; Carla Ferstman and Marta Valias of Redress; Javier

38

64.

Garibaldi v.
Brazil
(2009)
(para. 10)

1.

2.
3.
65.

Escher et al.
v. Brazil
(2009)
(para. 10)

1.

66.

Revern
Trujillo v.
Venezuela
(2009)
(para. 9)

1.

Kawas
Fernandez v.
Honduras
(2009)
(para. 13)
Perozo et al.
v. Venezuela
(2009)
(para. 19)

1.

14

1.
2.

Rios et al. v.
Venezuela
(2009)
(para. 19)

11

67.

68.

69.

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Ciurlizza and Catalina Daz of the International Center for Transitional Justice
(ICTJ); Ruth Rubio Marn of the European University Institute, and Mariclaire
Acosta, Ximena Andin Ibaez, and Gail Aguilar Castan.
Bernardo Vasconcellos, Bruna Vilar, Carla Tulli, Daniel Arruda, Igor Mosso,
Isabella Gama, Isabela Bueno, Luisa Di Prieto Gonalves, Pablo S Domingues
and Rinuccia Ruina, on behalf of the Human Rights Clinic of the Legal Practice
Unit of the Law School of the Getulio Vargas Foundation of Ro de Janeiro;
Silvana Prestes de Araujo, on behalf of the Coordinator of Social Movements of
Paran, and
Mrcia Nina Bernardes, law professor and coordinator of the Human Rights
Unit, Department of Law, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Ro de Janeiro.
Adriana Lacombe Coiro, Cesar Augusto Moacyr R. Beck, Gabriela Reis Paiva
Monteiro, Isabela de Arajo Redisch, Maria Luiza Brando Mortiz Atem,
Marlia Aguiar Monteiro, Nathalia Andrada de Sarvat, Roberta Santos Lixa, and
Thiago Silva de Castro Tostes, on behalf of the Human Rights Clinic of the Law
School of the Getulio Vargas Foundation of Rio de Janeiro.
Hernn Gulico and Melisa Romero, on behalf of the Legal Clinic of the Law
School of the Torcuato Di Tella University in Argentina, and
Fernanda Acauan Santana, Gail Aguilar Castanon, Gabriel Alegrett, Brett
Dodge, Jess Duggan-Larkin, Evie Franco, Tessa H.W. Hausner, Maria Isabel
Henao Trip, Chiara Lyons, Tatiana Olarte Fernandez, Tara Van Ho, all students
of the Masters Program in International Human Rights Law at the Law School
of the University of Essex, and Clara Sandoval, co-Director of the program and
member of the Human Rights Center.
Environmental Defense Law Center.

Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (SIM);

Institute for Democracy and Human Rights of the Pontifical University of Peru IDEHPUC;
Legal Office of the Torcuato Di Tella University;
Association for Civil Rights (ADC);
International Radio Broadcasting Association (AIR);
Inter-American Media Society;
Association Mondiale des Journaux;
Venezuelan Chamber of the Broadcasting Industry;
National Syndication of Media Employees (STNP);
Bar Association of the City of New York;
World Press Freedom Committee;
Broadcasting Association of Chile (ARCHI);
National Union of Employees of the Radio-Television Industry CoravenRCTV
(SINATRAINCORACTEL), and
Center of Studies on Law, Justice, and Society (DeJuSticia).
Asociacin Internacional de Radiodifusin-AIR;
Observatorio Iberoamericano de la Democracia;
Colegio Nacional de Periodistas de Venezuela;
National Union of Journalists of Venezuela (SNTP);
Interamerican Press Society (SIP);
Universidad Catlica Andrs Bello;
Instituto de Defensa Legal (IDL);
Asociacin de Radiodifusores de Chile- ARCHI
Association of the Bar of the City of New York;
Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (SIM), and

39

70.

Tristan
Donoso v.
Panama
(2009)
(para. 10)

11. Cmara Venezolana de la Industria de la Radiodifusin.

1. Pedro Nikken, Carlos Ayala Corao, and Mariella Villegas Zalazar, and
2. Damin Loreti, Paola Garca Rey, and Andrea Pochak, on behalf of the Centro
de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS).

Total number of amici briefs submitted in the Courts contentious jurisdiction between 2000-2009 =
approximately 172
71. Manuel
Cepeda Vargas
v. Colombia
(2010)
(para. 10)
72. Fernandez
Ortega et al. v.
Mexico
(2010)
(para. 9)

1.

Unin de Organizaciones Democrticas de Amrica (UnoAmrica)

1.

Miguel ngel Antemate Mendoza, Julio Csar Hernndez Salmorn and Carlos
Alejandro Martiarena Leonar, students of the Universidad Autnoma de Mxico
(UNAM);
Gail Aguilar Castan, Javier Cruz Angulo Nobara, Alejandro Madrazo Lajous,
Anel Alejandra Valadez Murillo and Vctor Daniel Gutirrez Muoz, of the
Public Interest Clinic of the Centro de Investigacin y Docencia Econmicas de
la Ciudad de Mxico, as well as Katherine Romero and Andrea Parra, of
Womens Link Worldwide;
Ana Lorena Delgadillo Prez, Mercedes Doretti, and Sofa Egaa, of the
Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (EEAF);
Miguel ngel Soria Fuerte, of the Universidad de San Martn de Porres;
Miguel A. Pulido Jimnez, of Fundar, Centro de Anlisis e Investigacin, A.C.
(submitted two separate briefs)
Miguel A. Pulido Jimnez, of Fundar, Centro de Anlisis e Investigacin, A.C.
(submitted two separate briefs)
Luis Arriaga Valenzuela and Stephanie Erin Brewer, of the Miguel Agustn Pro
Jurez Human Rights Center, and
Fabin Snchez Matus, Rodrigo Casas Faras, Miguel ngel Navarrete Barba,
Tania Gabriela Casso Lpez Lavalle, Fernando Ojeda Maldonado, Mariana
Castaeda Graham, Leopoldo Ortega Ortuo, Priscila Cruces Aguilar, Jonathan
Ortiz Campos, Ximena De Iturbide Rangel, Mnica Patricia Prez Ankarvall,
Erika Marcela Estrever Avia, Hctor Ivn Resendiz Herrera, Elas Gallardo
Palma, Fabiola Rojo Durand, Edna Teresa Guzmn Garca, Hugo Toms Ruelas
Gutirrez, Daniela Hernndez Chong Cuy, Paola Mara Sistach Daz Chvez,
Karla Jordana Hernndez Ruiz, Mariana Taladrid Hernndez, Alberto LimnLason Gonzlez, Mara Jos Villalvazo Gonzlez and Walter Westphal
Oberschmidt, professor and students, respectively of the Strategic Litigation and
Human Rights course of the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mexico
(ITAM).
Miguel ngel Antemate Mendoza, Julio Csar Hernndez Salmorn and Carlos
Alejandro Martiarena Leonar, students of the Universidad Autnoma de Mxico
(UNAM);
Carlos Carnicer Dez and Jos Mara Prat Sabat, of the Foundation of the
General Council of Spanish Lawyers;
Cesar Rodriguez Garavito, Yukyan Lam, and Sebastian Boada, of the Global
Justice and Human Rights Program of the University of the Andes;
Philip Haywood, Brony Poynor, and Ajanta Kaza, of Bar Human Rights
Committee, and David Palmer and Ana Paula de Souza, of the Solicitors
International Human Rights Group;
Maureen C. Meyer, of the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA);

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

73. Rosendo
Cantu et al. v.
Mexico
(2010)
(para. 9)

11

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

40

6.
7.
8.

74. Velez Loor v.

Panama
(2010)
(para. 12)
75. Gomes Lund
et al.
(Guerrilha do
Araguaia) v.
Brazil
(2010)
(para. 8)

Cara E.I. Gibons, of Lawyers Rights Watch Canada;

Andrea Parra and Keina Yoshida, of Womens Link Worldwide;
Norma Enrquez Riascos, Valeria Pandjiarjian, ngela Garca Reyes, and Mara
Celina Berterame, of Programa de Litigio Internacional del Comit de Amrica
Latina y el Caribe para la Defensa de los Derechos de la Mujer (CLADEM);
9. James C. Hopkins, Rogers College of Law of the University of Arizona;
10. Miguel A. Pulido Jimnez, of Fundar, Centro de Anlisis e Investigacin, A.C.
(submitted two separate briefs), and
11. Miguel A. Pulido Jimnez, of Fundar, Centro de Anlisis e Investigacin, A.C.
(submitted two separate briefs).
1. Public Interest Clinic of the Sergio Arboleda University (Colombia).

1.

2.
3.
4.

5.

6.
7.
8.

James A. Goldston and Darian K. Pavli, of the Open Society Justice Initiative;
Maja Daruwala, of Common Wealth Human Rights Initiative; Alison Tilley, of
the Open Democracy Advice Centre, and Catherine Kennedy, of the South
African History Archive;
Slvia Maria da Silveira Loureiro and Jamilly Izabela de Brito Silva, of the
Grupo de Investigacin de Derechos Humanos en la Amazona
Guilherme Peres de Oliveira, Ronaldo Cramer, and Wadih Damous, of the
Order of Attorneys of Brazil, section of Rio de Janeiro;
Adriano Soares Loes, Ailime Silva Ferreira, Alexandre Garrido da Silva, Anna
Paula Santos de Souza, Bruna Arantes Vieira, Brbara de Almeida Andrade
Braga, Caroline Milagre Pereira, Carolina Nogueira Teixeira de Menezes, Ana
Clara Neves da Silveira, rika Cristina Camilo Camin, Felipe Martins Vitorino,
Flvia Ferreira Jac de Menezes, Gssika Sampaio da Fonseca, Jssica da Silva
Rehder, Jos Carlos Cunha Muniz Filho, Jlia Palmeira Macedo, Lara Caroline
Miranda, Marcela Marques Maciel, Marco Tlio de Castro Caliman, Marcos
Augusto Freitas Ribeiro, Mariana Rezende Guimares, Maristela Medina Faria,
Marlia Freitas Lima, Mayara Bastos Mundin, Michelle Gonalves, Monique
Saito, Pablo Cardoso de Andrade, Paula Almeida Faria, Pblio Dezopa Parreira,
Pedro do Prado Mller, Rafael Moment Castro, Raphael Siqueira Neves, Rgis
Cardoso Andrade, Renata Cardoso Fernandes, Roberta Camineiro Baggio,
Samara Mariana de Castro, Sara Mirando Magno Freixo, Tlio Csar Rossetti,
and Vagner Bruno Caparelli Carqui, of the Universidade Federal de
Uberlndia;
Jos Carlos Moreira da Silva Filho, Rodrigo Lentz, Gabriela Mezzanotti,
Fernanda Frizzo Bragato, Jnia Maria Lopes Saldanha, Luciana Arajo de
Paula, Gustavo Oliveira Vieira, Ana Carolina Seffrin, Leonardo Subtil, Castor
Bartolome Ruiz, Andr Luiz Olivier da Silva, Sheila Stolz da Silveira, Ceclia
Pires, Slon Eduardo Annes Viola, Investigation Group Right to Memory and
the Truth and Transitional Justice (Pontifcia Universidade Catlica do Rio
Grande do Sul), the Investigation and Extension Nucleus of the Federal
University of Rio Grande, the National Movement of Education in Human
Rights and Access, Citizenship and Human Rights, and the Grupo de Pesquisa
Delmas-Marty: Internacionalizao do Direito e Emergncia de um Direito
Mundial, the Grupo de Pesquisa Fundamentao tica dos Direitos
Humanos, and the Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos;
Andressa Caldas, Sandra Carvalho, Luciana Garcia, Renata Lira, Tamara Melo,
and Fernando Delgado, on behalf of Global Justice;
Marcia Nina Bernardes, Natlia Frickmann, Teresa Labrunie, Paula DAngelo,
Natlia Damazio, and Maria Fernanda Marques, of the Pontifcia Universidade
Catlica do Rio de Janeiro, and
Lus Fernando Camargo de Barros Vidal and Kenarik Boujikian Felippe, on
behalf of the Association of Judges for Democracy.

41

76. Cabrera Garca

and Montiel
Flores v.
Mexico
(2010)
(para. 9)

12

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.

James L. Cavallaro, Virginia Corrigan, Alexia De Vincentis, Kathleen Gibbons,

Cecilia Cristina Naddeo and Charline Yim of the Human Rights Clinic of the
Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School;
Emily Johnson, on behalf of the Human Rights Clinic at the University of
Texas;
Gustavo Fondevila, on behalf of the Centro de Investigacin y Docencia
Econmica (CIDE);
Mark Thomson, of the Association for the Prevention of Torture;
Miguel Sarre Iguniz, of the Instituto Tecnolgico Autnomo de Mexico
(ITAM);
Luis Miguel Cano Lpez, on behalf of the Clnica de Derechos Humanos de la
Escuela Libre de Derecho;
Humberto F. Guerrero Rosales, Juan Carlos Gutierrez, Nancy J. Lopez Prez,
Lucia Chavez Vargas, and Ulises Quero Garca, on behalf of the Comisin
Mexicana de Defensa y Promocin de los Derechos Humanos A.C.;
Samantha Namnum Garca and Juan Carlos Arjona Estvez, of the Centro
Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (CEMDA), and Astrid Puentes Riao and
Jacob Kopas, of the Asociacin Interamericana para la Defensa del Medio
Ambiente (AIDA);
Vanessa Coria Castilla, Sandra Salcedo Gonzlez, and Jos Antonio Ibaez, on
behalf of the Human Rights Program of the Ibero-American University;
Ronald L. Singer and Stefan Schmitt, on behalf of Physicians for Human
Rights;
Jonathan Kaufman and Marco Simons, on behalf of EarthRights International,
and
Nicholas Hesterberg, on behalf of the Environmental Defender Law Center.
Jorge Errandonea, Carlos Mara Pelayo, and Carolina Villadiego Burbano, in
collaboration with the International Clinic for the Defense of Human Rights of
the University of Quebec in Montreal, and the Latin American and Caribbean
Committee for the Defense of Womens Rights (CLADEM).
Stephen L. Kass, of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York.

77. Gelman v.
Uruguay
(2011)
(para. 15)
78. Chocrn
Chocrn v.
Venezuela
(2011)
(para. 12)
79. Lpez
Mendoza v.
Venezuela
(2011)
(para. 10)

12.
1.

1.

1.

80. Lysias Fleury

et al. v. Haiti
(2011)
(para. 9)
81. Fontevecchia
and DAmico
v. Argentina
(2011)
(para. 8)
82. Atala Riffo
and Daughters
v. Chile
(2012)

2.
3.
4.
5.
1.

1.

Jeremy Feigelson, on behalf of the Committee to Protect Journalists, and of

Debevoise and Plimpton LLP.

32

1.

Leopoldo Llanos Sagrist, on behalf of the National Association of Judges of

Chile;
Geraldina Gonzlez de la Vega and Alejandro Juarez Zepeda, on behalf of
Ombudsgay organization;

2.

Jess Mara Casal, Lolymar Hernndez, and Jos Vicente Haro, President and
member of the Board of Directors of the Venezuelan Association of
Constitutional Law;
Javier El-Hage, of The Human Rights Foundation;
Jorge Castaeda Gutman;
Hugo Mario Wortman Jofre, and
John B. Hardman, on behalf of The Carter Center.
Ariel Dulitzky, on behalf of the Human Rights Clinic of the School of Law
School of the University of Texas.

42

(para. 10)

3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.

20.
21.
22.

23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

Jos Pedro Silva Prado, of the Chilean Institute of Procedural Law;

Jos Ignacio Martnez Estay, of the University of Los Andes, Chile;
Marcia Nina Bernardes, Andrea Schettini, Luiza Athayde, Maria Fernanda
Marques, Isabella Benevides, Isabella Maioli, Julia Rosa, Juliana Streva, Karen
Oliveira, Maria Eduarda Vianna, and Felipe Saldanha, of the Law Department
of the Pontificia Universidad Catlica of Ro de Janeiro;
Diego Freedman, of the School of Law of the University of Buenos Aires;
Mara Ins Franck, of Asociacin Civil Nueva Poltica, and Jorge Nicols
Lafferriere, of Centro de Biotica, Persona and Familia;
Jorge Nicols Laferriere and rsula C. Basset, of the Law School of the
Pontificia Universidad Catlica of Argentina;
Luis A. Gonzlez Placencia, of the Human Rights Commission of the Federal
District, and Jos Luis Caballero Ochoa, of the Ibero-American University;
rsula C. Basset, of the University of Buenos Aires, International Academy for
the Study of Jurisprudence on Family, and the International Society of Family
Law;
Judith Butler, of the University of California, at Berkeley;
Alejandro Romero Seguel and Maite Aguirrezabal Grnstein, of Navarra
University;
Carlos lvarez Cozzi, Professor of the University of the Republic of Uruguay;
James J. Silk, of the Allard K. Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic of Yale
University Law School;
Mara Sara Rodrguez Pinto, of the Universidad Autnoma de Madrid;
Natalia Gherardi and Josefina Durn, of the Equipo Latinoamericano de Justicia
y Gnero;
Laura Clrico, Liliana Ronconi, Gustavo Beade, and Martn Aldao, of the
University of Buenos Aires Law School;
Carlo Casini, member of the European Parliament, President of the
Constitutional Affairs Commission of the European Parliament and President of
the Italian Pro-Life Movement; Antonio Gioacchino Spagnolo, of the Catholic
University of the Sacred Heart in Rome, and Joseph Meaney, of Human Life
International;
Hugo Calienes Bedoya, Carlos Tejeda Lombardi, Rafael Santa Maria DAngelo,
Javier Colina Seminario, Rosa Snchez Barragn, Erika Valdivieso Lpez,
Angelica Burga Coronel, Ana Mara Olgun Britto, and Tania Daz Delgado, all
of the Catholic University of Santo Toribio of Mongrovejo;
Mara del Pilar Vsquez Calva, of Enlace Gubernamental de Vida and Familia
A.C.;
Suzanne B. Goldberg and Michael Kavey, of the Sexuality & Gender Law
Clinic of Columbia University, and Adriana T. Luciano, of Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrisson LLP;
Elba Nuez Ibaez, Gabriela Filoni, and Jeannette Llaja, on behalf of the Latin
American and Caribbean Committee for the Defense of Womens Rights
(CLADEM), and Gaston Chillier, on behalf of the Center of Legal and Social
Studies (CELS);
Brent McBurney and Bruce Abramson, on behalf of Advocates International;
Gail English, on behalf of Lawyers Christian Fellowship, and Shirley Richards;
Marcela Snchez Buitrago, Mauricio Noguera Rojas, and Santiago Medina
Villareal, on behalf of Colombia Diversa, and Viviana Bohrquez Monsalve, on
behalf of Human Rights and International Litigation Center;
Piero A. Tozzi and Brian W. Raum, on behalf of Alliance Defense Fund;
Jorge Rafael Scala, of the Universidad Libre Internacional de las Amricas and
the Universidad Ricardo Palma;
Lynne Marie Kohm, on behalf of the Center for Global Justice, Human Rights
and the Rule of Law of the Law School at Regent University;
lvaro Francisco Amaya Villareal, Brbara Mora Martnez and Carolina

43

83. The Kichwa

Indigenous
People of
Sarayaku v.
Ecuador
(2012)
(para. 13)

84. Furln and

Family v.
Argentina
(2012)
(para. 12)
85. Vlez
Restrepo and
Family v.
Colombia
(2012)
(para. 10)

Restrepo Herrera;
30. Lisa Davis, of the International Womens Human Rights Clinic at the City
University of New York Law School; Jessica Stern, of the International Gay and
Lesbian Human Rights Commission, and Dorothy L. Fernndez, Justin D.
Hoogs, Megan C. Kieffer, Rachel M. Wertheimer, and Erin I. Herlihy, of
Morrison & Foerster LLP, as well as Amnesty International; ARC International;
Center for Constitutional Rights; the Council for Global Equality; Human
Rights Watch; Lawyers for Children Inc; Legal Aid Society of New York; Legal
Momentum; MADRE; Centro Nacional de Derechos Lsbicos; Iniciativa
Nacional de Derechos Econmicos y Sociales; the New York City Bar
Association; Womens Link Worldwide, and the Consultora para los Derechos
Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES);
31. Andrea Minichiello Williams and Ruth Ross, of the Christian Legal
Center/Christian Legal Fellowship, and Mark Mudri, of Advocates Oceania, and
32. Estefania Vela Barba and Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, of the Center for
Economic Research and Teaching.
1. Thomas Antkowiak and Alejandra Gonza, on behalf of the International Human
Rights Clinic of Seattle University Law School;
2. Marcel Jaramillo and Elizabeth Rodrguez, on behalf of the Legal Clinic at the
Universidad de San Francisco, Quito;
3. David Cordero Heredia, Harold Burbano, and Mnica Vera, of the Human
Rights Center at the Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Ecuador;
4. Susan Lee, on behalf of Amnesty International;
5. Karina Banfi (Regional Alliance for Freedom of Expression and Information)
and Manfredo Marroqun (Accin Ciudadana of Guatemala; Nery Mabel Reyes
(Journalists Association of El Salvador); Juan Javier Zeballos Gutirrez
(National Press Association of Bolivia); lvaro Herrero, (Civil Rights
Association of Argentina); Edison Lanza Robatto (Centro de Archivo y Acceso a
la Informacin Pblica of Uruguay); Elizabeth Ungar Bleier (Transparency
Colombia); Katya Salazar (Due Process of Law Foundation); Andrs Morales
(Freedom of the Press Foundation of Colombia); Moises Snchez Riquelme
(Pro Acceso Foundation of Chile); Csar Ricaurte (Fundamedios of Ecuador);
Miguel Angel Pulido Jimnez (Fundar, Centro de Anlisis e Investigacin of
Mexico); Ezequiel Francisco Santagada (Instituto de Derecho y Economa
Ambiental of Paraguay); Alejandro Delgado Faith (Instituto de Prensa y
Libertad de Expresin of Costa Rica); Ricardo Uceda (Instituto de Prensa y
Sociedad of Peru), and Mercedes of Freitas (Transparency, Venezuela);
6. Luz ngela Patio Palacios, Gloria Amparo Rodrguez and Julio Cesar Estrada
Cordero;
7. Santiago Medina Villareal and Sophie Simon;
8. James J. Silk and Allyson A. McKinney, on behalf of the Allard K. Lowestein
International Human Rights Clinic of Yale University, and
9. Fergus MacKay, on behalf of the Forest Peoples Programme.
1. Andrea Parra (Director) and Diego Felipe Caballero Naranjo, Mara Jos
Montoya Lara, and Sebastin Rodrguez Alarcn, on behalf of the Programa de
Accin por la Igualdad y la Inclusin Social (PAIIS) of the Faculty of Law of
the Universidad de los Andes, Colombia, and
2. Ezekiel Heffes.
1. Juan Felipe Lozano Reyes, Juliana Castro Londoo, Beatriz Londoo Toro,
Mara Teresa Palacios, and Nayid Ab Fager of the Universidad de Rosario;
2. Gabriel Choi Choi, Mar Cosn Muoz, Jos Garca An, Sandra Gmez Lpez,
Lorena Menes Corrales, Ruth Mestre Mestre, Diana Nez Prez, Ausias Ort
Moreno, Anastasia Tsyhanok and Sara Verd Vila of the Legal Clinic for Social
Justice of the Universitat de Valencia and the Masters Program in Human
Rights, Democracy and International Justice of the universitys Human Rights

44

86. Uzctegui et
al. v.
Venezuela
(2012)
(para. 8)

3.
1.
2.

87. The Rio Negro

Massacres v.
Guatemala
(2012)
(para. 11)
88. Nadege
Dorzema v.
Dominican
Republic
(2012)
(para. 9)

1.
2.

1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

89. Massacres of
El Mozote and
Nearby Places

1.
2.

Institute, and
David Banisar, on behalf of Article 19.
Sejal Parmar, on behalf of Article 19, and
Karina Banfi (Regional Alliance for Freedom of Expression and Information)
and Accin Ciudadana of Guatemala; National Press Association of Bolivia
(ANP); Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles de Argentina; Centro de Archivo y
Acceso a la Informacin Pblica de Uruguay; Comit por la Libre Expresin
(C-Libre) Honduras; Corporacin Transparency of Colombia; Fundacin
Democracia sin Fronteras (FDsF) Honduras; Due Process of Law Foundation
of the United States; Fundacin para the Libertad of Prensa of Colombia;
Fundacin Pro Acceso of Chile; Department of Legal Studies of the Fundacin
Salvadorea para el Desarrollo Econmico y Social (FUSADES) - El Salvador;
Programa de Acceso a la Informacin Pblica of the Fundacin Violeta Barrios
de Chamorro, Nicaragua; Fundamedios of Ecuador; Fundar, Centro de Anlisis
e Investigacin, Mexico; Instituto de Derecho y Economa Ambiental (IDEA)
Paraguay; Instituto de Prensa y Libertad de Expresin (IPLEX), Costa Rica;
Transparency of Venezuela, Forum de Periodistas por las libertades de
Expresin e Informacin Panam; Espacio pblico Venezuela, and Article
19 - Brazil.
Strategic and Structural Litigation Unit of the Human Rights Clinic of the
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Cali, and
Human Rights Program of the Universidad Veracruzana.

Angel Ramiro Avils, on behalf of the Bartolom de las Casas Human Rights
Institute of the Universidad Carlos III of Madrid;
Cesare Romano (Human Rights Clinic of the Loyola Law School of Los
Angeles) and Juan Pablo Albn, Juan M. Amaya Castro, Donald K. Anton,
Freya Baetens, Caroline Bettinger-Lpez, Nerina Boschiero, Matthew E. B.
Brotmann, Bartram S. Brown, David James Cantor, Gabriella Citroni, Niccol
A. Fig-Talamanca, Stefan Kirchner, Konstantinos D. Magliveras, Nathan
Miller, Jacqueline M. Nolan-Haley, Manfred Nowak, Beln Olmos Giupponi,
Jordan J. Paust, Cristina Ponce, Miguel ngel Ramiro Avils, Margherita
Salvadori, Jaume Saura, Tullio Scovazzi, Anna Spain and Matthew Zagor;
Dimitrina Petrova, Catherine Casserley, Schona Jolly, Christopher Milsom and
Catriona Stirling, on behalf of Equal Rights Trust;
Guy S. Goodwin-Gill (Asylum and Human Rights Clinic of the Boston
University School of Law) and Caroline Bettinger-Lpez, David Abraham,
Perveeen Ali, David C. Baluarte, Jon Bauer, Faisal Bhabha, Lauren Carasik,
Jessica Chicco, George E. Edwards, Martin S. Flaherty, Mary M. Gundrum,
Anjum Gupta, Barbara E. Harrell-Bond, Chester D. Hooper, Cornelius Hurley,
Deena R. Hurwitz, Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi, Daniel Kanstroom, Harvey
Kaplan, Gil Loescher, Karen Pita Loor, Miram H. Martom, Michelle McKinley,
Fabiano L. de Menezes, Jennifer Moore, Karen Musalo, Salima Namusobya,
Obiora Chinedu Okafor, Aaron Marr Page, Marselha Gonalves Margerin,
Robert D. Sloane, Tom Syring and Deborah M. Weissman, and
Boris de Len Reyes, Paola C. Pelletier Quiones, Ansel Patricia Sierra
Ferreira, Emmanuel Adolfo Moreta Fermn, Fernando Roedn Hernndez,
Francisco Jos Battle Prez, Joey Nuez, Mariel Ortega de los Santos, and
Raimy Ivonne Reyes Reyes, on behalf of Consejo Latinoamericano de
Estudiosos de Derecho Internacional y Comparado, Dominican Republic
chapter (COLADIC-RD).
Oscar Humberto Luna, Ombudsman of El Salvador, and
Ezequiel Heffes.

45

v. El Salvador
(2012)
(para. 16)
90. Gudiel
lvarez et al.
(Diario
Militar) v.
Guatemala
(2012)
(para. 14)
91. Mohamed v.
Argentina
(2012)
(para. 17)
92. Artavia
Murillo et al.
(in vitro
fertilization)
v. Costa Rica
(2012)
(paras. 13-15)

1.
2.

Pedro E. Daz Romero, and

Rupert Skilbeck, on behalf of the Open Society Justice Initiative.

1.

Diego Jorge Lavado, Daniel E. Rodrguez Infante, Andrs Rousset Siri, Ignacio
G. Perotti Pinciroli and Mara Milagros Noli, of the Law School of the National
University of Cuyo

46

1.

Mnica Arango Olaya, Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean
of the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Mara Alejandra Crdenas Cern, the
Centers Legal Adviser;
Marcela Leandro Ulloa of the Group in Favor of IVF;
Filomena Gallo, Nicol Paoletti and Claudia Sartori, representatives of the
Association Luca Coscioni per la libert di ricerca scientifica y del Partito
Radicale Nonviolento Transnazionale e Transpartito;
Natalia Lopez Moratalla, President of the Spanish Association of Bioethics and
Medical Ethics;
Lilian Seplveda and Mnica Arango Olaya, on behalf of the Center for
Reproductive Rights), and Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens, of the
International Reproductive and Sexual Health Law Programme of the Faculty of
Law of the University of Toronto;
Ariel Dulitzky, on behalf of the Human Rights Clinic of the University of Texas
Law School, and Equal Rights Trust;
Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi (Director), Britton Schwartz (Supervising Attorney),
Amanda Snyder, Bernadette Valdellon and Sophia Areias, on behalf of the
International Human Rights Clinic of Santa Clara University Law School;
Viviana Bohrquez Monsalve (Mesa por la Vida and la Salud de las Mujeres),
Beatriz Galli (IPAS), Alma Beltrn y Puga (Grupo de Informacin de
Reproduccin Elegida (GIRA)), lvaro Herrero (Asociacin por los Derechos
Civiles), Gastn Chillier (Center for Legal and Social Studies - CELS), Lourdes
Bascary (Center for Legal and Social Studies), and Agustina Ramn Michel
(CEDES);
Ricardo Tapia, Rodolfo Vsquez and Pedro Morales, on behalf of the Colegio
de Biotica A.C. (Mexico);
Alejandro Leal Esquivel, Coordinator of the Department of Genetics and
Biotechnology of the School of Biology of the Universidad de Costa Rica;
Rita Gabriela Chves Casanova, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Costa
Rica;
Alexandra Lora Beeche;
Claudio Grossman, Dean of the American University Washington College of
Law, and Macarena Sez Torres, Director of the Impact Litigation Project of the
American University Washington College of Law;
John OBrien and Sara Morello, on behalf of Catholics for Choice;
Carlos Polo Samaniego, Director of the Latin American Office of the Population
Research Institute;
Reynaldo Bustamante Alarcn, on behalf of the Instituto Solidaridad y
Derechos Humanos;
Hernn Collado Martnez;

2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

46

18. Carmen Muoz Quesada (Deputy of the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica),
Rita Maxera Herrera, Cristian Gmez (member of the Costa Rican Demographic
Association), Seidy Salas (Colectiva por el Derecho a Decidir) and Ivania
Solano;
19. Enrique Pedro Haba, Professor at the Universidad de Costa Rica;
20. Graciela Rodrguez Manzo, Geraldina Gnzalez de la Vega, Adriana Muro
Polo, and Marisol Aguilar Contreras, on behalf of Organizacin de Litigio
Estratgico de Derechos Humanos (Litiga OLE);
21. Susie Talbot and Helen Duffy, on behalf of INTERIGHTS;
22. Andrea Acosta Gamboa;
23. Andrea Parra (Director), Natalia Acevedo Guerrero, Matas Gonzlez Gil and
Sebastin Rodrguez Alarcn (students), on behalf of the Action Program for
Equality and Social Inclusion (PAIIS) of the Law Faculty of the Universidad de
los Andes, Colombia;
24. Leah Hoctor, on behalf of the International Commission of Jurists;
25. Margarita Salas Guzmn and Larissa Arroyo Navarrete, on behalf of the
Colectiva por el Derecho a Decidir;
26. Fabio Varela, Marcelo Ernesto Ferreyra (Heartland Alliance, the Coalizao de
Lsbicas, Gays, Bissexuais, Transgneros, Transexuais, Travesti e Intersexuais
(LGBTTTI) na Amrica Latina e no Caribe and of the Campanha por uma
Convencao Interamericana of Direitos Sexuais e Direitos Reprodutivos), Rosa
Posa (AKAHATA), Bruna Andrade Irineu and Mario Pecheny;
27. Mara del Pilar Vsquez Calva, on behalf of Enlace Gubernamental Vida y
Familia A.C., Mexico;
28. Latin American Network for Assisted Reproduction and Ian Cooke, Emeritus
Professor of the University of Sheffield;
29. Priscilla Smith and Genevieve E. Scott, on behalf of the Program for the Study
of Reproductive Justice of the Information Society Project (ISP) of the
University of Yale;
30. Latin American Network for Assisted Reproduction and Santiago Munn,
President of Reprogenetics;
31. Rodrigo Uprimny Yepes, Diana Esther Guzmn, Paola Molano, Annika Daln
and Paula Rangel Garzn, on behalf of the Centro de Estudios de Derecho,
Justicia and Sociedad (DEJUSTICIA);
32. Jos Toms Guevara Caldern;
33. Carlos Santamara Quesada, Head of the Molecular Diagnosis Division of the
Clinical Laboratory of the Hospital Nacional de Nios;
34. Cesare P.R. Romano (Loyola Law School); Roger S. Clark (Rutgers School of
Law); Lindsey Raub Kantawee (Clifford Chance, Law firm); Yvonne Donders
(Faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam); Ellen Hey (Faculty of Law of
the Erasmus University Rotterdam); Jessica M. Almqvist (Universidad
Autnoma de Madrid, Faculty of Law); Freya Baetens (Faculty of Law of
Leiden University); Konstantinos D. Magliveras (University of the Aegean, Unit
of Rhodes); Beln Olmos Giupponi (Universidad Rey Juan Carlos of Madrid);
Miguel ngel Ramiro Avils (Universidad Carlos III of Madrid and
Universidad Externado of Colombia); Margherita Salvadori (Faculty of Law of
the University of Turn), and Jaume Saura (Universidad de Barcelona and
President of the Human Rights Institute of Catalonia);
35. Ofelia Taitelbaum Yoselewich, Ombudsman of Costa Rica;
36. Hernn Gullco and Martn Hevia (Law School of the Universidad Torcuatto Di
Tella);
37. Alejandra Huerta Zepeda, professor of the Biomedical Research Institute (IIB)
of the Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico, and Jos Mara Soberanes
Diez, professor of the Universidad Panamericana, Mexico;
38. Carlos Mara Parellada Cuadrado and Juan Pablo Zaldaa Figueroa, on behalf of
the Asociacin de Mdicos por los Derechos Humanos (AMEDEH);

47

93. Santo
Domingo
Massacre v
Colombia
(2012)
(para. 14)
94. Mendoza et al.
v Argentina
(2013)
(para. 13)

39. Ivonne Daz Yamal, Luis Tvara Orozco, and Pio Ivn Gmez Snchez, on
behalf of the Latin American Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology;
40. Carlo Casini, Magistrate, Member of the European Parliament for the Italian
Pro-Life Movement and President of the Constitutional Affairs Committee of
the European Parliament; Antonio G. Spagnolo, Director of the Bioethics
Institute of the Sacred Heart Catholic University of Rome; Marina Casini,
adjunct professor of Bioethics at the Bioethics Institute of the Sacred Heart
Catholic University of Rome; Joseph Meaney, Director of the International
Coordination at Human Life International; Nikolas T. Nikas, President and
General Counsel of the Bioethics Defense Fund (BD), and Rafael Santa Mara
DAngelo, of Crece Familia (CRECEFAM);
41. Rafael Nieto Navia (Universidad Javeriana in Bogot), Jane Adolphe (Ave
Maria School of Law), Richard Stitch (Valparaiso School of Law), and Ligia M.
de Jesus (Ave Maria School of Law);
42. Hugo Martin Calienes Bedoya, Patricia Campos Olzabal, Rosa de Jess
Snchez Barragn, Sergio Castro Guerrero and Antero Enrique Yacarini
Martnez, of the Universidad Catlica Santo Toribio de Mogravejo (USAT),
Peru;
43. Julian Domingo Zarzosa;
44. Kharla Ziga Vallejos of the Berit Family Institute of Lima;
45. Guadalupe Valdez Santos, on behalf of the Asociacin Civil Promujer y
Derechos Humanos, and
46. Piero A. Tozzi (Alliance Defense Fund); Stefano Gennarini (Center for Legal
Studies at C-Fam); William L. Saunders (Americans United for Life), and
lvaro Pal.
1. Coalicin contra la vinculacin de nios, nias y jvenes al conflicto armado en
Colombia (COALICO).

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

95. Garca Lucero

et al. v Chile
(2013)
(para. 11)

96. The Supreme

Court of
Justice
(Quintana
Coello et al.) v
Ecuador
(2013)

1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.

Silvana Di Vincenzo, Ariel Sebastian Garin, Nvard Nazaryan and Adalberto

Polti, on behalf of the Center for the Study of Sentence Execution;
Marta Cristina Cury Gimenes, on behalf of the Brazilian Institute of Criminal
Science;
Jos Miguel Onaidia, on behalf of Asociacin por los Derechos Civiles;
Michel Bochenek, Paola Garca and Marianne Mollmann, on behalf of Amnesty
International;
Nora Pulido, on behalf of the Colectivo de Derechos de Infancia y Adolescencia
de Argentina, and
JoAnn Kamuf, on behalf of the Human Rights Institute of the University of
Columbia Law School, Lawyers for Human Rights, and the Center for Law and
Global Justice of the University of San Francisco.
David James Cantor, Director of the Refugee Law Initiative (RLI) of the School
of Advanced Study, University of London;
Nimisha Patel, of the School of Psychology, University of East London, and
Vctor Rosas Vergara, on behalf of Unin de Ex Prisioneros Polticos de Chile
(UNExPP).
Ibeth Liliana Suasnavas, on behalf of Fundacin Vida Solidaria and others;
a group of 68 people; (the Court did not provide more details)
Mara Nazareth Ramos and Emilia Carrasco, students of the Legal Clinic of the
University of San Francisco of Quito.

48

(para. 8)
97. The AfroDescendant
Communities
displaced from
the Cacarica
River Basin
(Operation
Genesis) v
Colombia
(2013)
(para. 10)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

6.
98. Pacheco Tineo
Family v.
Bolivia
(2013)
(para. 10)

1.
2.

Members of the Black Ethnic Group victims of the forced displacement from
Bajo Atrato, Choc, Colombia;
Thomas Mortensen of Christian Aid (UK and Ireland);
International Center for Transitional Justice;
Jaime Arturo Fonseca Trivio of the Confesion Voluntariado Misionero
Cristiano MANOS UNIDAS;
Comision Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ), the Consultora para los Derechos
Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES), Carlos Rodrguez Meja, and the
Coordinacin Colombia Europa Estados Unidos, composed of the Corporacin
Colectivo de Abogados Jos Alvear Restrepo (CCAJAR), the Grupo
Interdisciplinario para los Derechos Humanos (GIDH), the Corporacin
Jurdica Libertad (CJL), the Corporacin Jurdica Yira Castro (CJYC), the
Corporacin Reiniciar, the Asociacin para la Promocin Social Alternativa
MINGA, and the Humanidad Vigente Corporacin Jurdica (HVCJ), and
Macarena Sez of the American University Washington College of Law Impact
Litigation Project.
Ezequiel Heffes and Fernando Alberto Goldar, and
Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi (Director), Britton Schwartz (Supervising Attorney),
and Clayton Cheney, Amanda Snyder, Gloria Lee, Jessica Chan, Amy Askin,
Scott Idiart, Jayna Sutherland, and Elizabeth Maushart (students), on behalf of
the International Human Rights Clinic at Santa Clara University School of Law.

Total number of amici briefs submitted in the Courts contentious jurisdiction between 2010-2013 =
approximately 177
Total number of amici briefs submitted in the Courts contentious jurisdiction between 1988-2013:
approximately 412

49