Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T09:21:24.912Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Granier v. Venezuela

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Manuel Casas Martínez
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 110 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 109 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 22, 1969, OASTS No. B-32, 1144 UNTS 123 [hereinafter Convention].

2 Granier v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 293 (June 22, 2015) (in Spanish), at http://www.corteidh.or.cr [hereinafter Judgment]. Translations of the Judgment herein are by the author.

3 This assertion is surprising, as Article 23 of the Venezuelan Constitution establishes that international human rights treaties are directly applicable in Venezuela and that they take precedence over less favorable domestic law. Constitución Art. 23 (1999).

4 Venezuela denounced the Convention by a note dated September 6, 2012, at http://www.oas.org/DIL/Nota_República_Bolivariana_Venezuela_to_SG.English.pdf.

5 Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, Sala Constitutional [TSJ, CC] [Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber], 25 de mayo de 2007, Decisión No. 956.

6 Article 13(1) of the Convention, supra note 1, establishes that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds....”

7 See Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No.74 (Feb.6, 2001); Canese v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 111 (Aug. 31, 2004).

8 Mémoli v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 265 (Aug. 22, 2013).

9 Judge Caldas also considered the possibility of applying the provisions of the Convention to private actors such as the media. He stated that “[t]he issue here is under what terms the relation between private agents and the public sphere stands. As holders of power, those entities must be regulated and made responsible. As actors in the public sphere... they have public duties.” Judgment, Caldas, J., sep. op., para. 57.

10 E.g., Caesar v. Trinidad and Tobago, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 123 (Mar. 11, 2005); Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin v. Trinidad and Tobago, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 94 (June 21, 2002) (joined cases).

11 Article 1(2) of the Convention, supra note 1, states: “For the purposes of this Convention, ‘person’ means every human being.”

12 The European Court of Human Rights reached similar conclusions in Glas Nadezhda Eood v. Bulgaria, App. No. 14134/02, paras. 50–52 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Oct. 11,2007);Groppera Radio AG v. Switzerland, 173 Eur. Ct.H.R. (ser. A), paras. 47–51 (1990).

13 The Court, however, has stated that the right to life is fundamental. See Castillo Gonzálezv. Venezuela, Merits, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 256, para. 122 (Nov. 27, 2012) (in Spanish).

14 Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 197, para. 127 (June 30, 2009); Apitz Barbera v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 182, para. 267(7) (Aug. 5, 2008).

15 TSJ, CC, 10 de septiembre de 2015, Decisión No. 1175.

16 Article 65 of the American Convention, supra note 1, reads, in pertinent part: “To each regular session of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States the Court shall submit, for the Assembly’s consideration, a report.... It shall specify, in particular, the cases in which a state has not complied with its judgments....”