Notes From the Field: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Elizabeth Wheeler*

Part 4: The Sessions

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is not a permanent tribunal and the Court holds its Sessions only four times per year. The Sessions last approximately three weeks and are the busiest and most frantic times of the year. During those three weeks, the Judges are in deliberation or in hearings an average of six days per week, sometimes until late at night. During the Session, the Judges will not only hear oral arguments and the testimony from witnesses during the Public Session, but also in "exceptional circumstances"[1] may participate in a number of closed sessions to hear urgent requests for provisional measures.

A typical session may have three or four public hearings, with presentations of witnesses and arguments for pending cases or cases in the reparations phase, and several requests for provisional measures. Because one of the most important aspects of a human rights tribunal is providing the opportunity for the victims and their families to testify publicly, a large portion of the public sessions is also dedicated to witness testimony. In between the public and private hearings, the Judges meet to deliberate about the pending cases. Five Judges constitute a quorum in deliberations.[2]

Following the adoption of the 2002 Rules of Procedure, the representatives of the victims have been given equal time to present arguments and witnesses, and to conduct cross and direct examination.[3] Prior to the Session, the Court receives briefs and is presented evidence from three parties for each case: the State, the Inter-American Commission, and the Representatives of the victims. During the Session, the Court will hear the arguments and witnesses from all three as well.

The inclusion of the victim in proceedings is an important innovation for the Court, because it gives the victims direct access to justice rather than having to use the Commission as an intermediary.[4] However, given the Court's increasing caseload, and the short time it has to consider cases pending, the addition of the representatives of the victims has resulted in longer hearings. In addition, the victims' representatives' arguments will often duplicate those made by the Commission. In the years to come, I believe it will be important for the Court to consider a change in the current procedure to avoid this duplication and to streamline the process.

Prior to the arrival of the Judges, the Secretariat's permanent staff is responsible for all of the preparation in advance of the hearing. Thus, before the start of the Session, the Court's legal staff works diligently to prepare so that when the Judges arrive, they can focus on deliberation. During my time at the Court, it was common for the Judges to call the lawyers throughout the day to ask for information about unresolved issues.

For example, the Court's legal staff will prepare bench briefs of the evidence and petitions for the Judges as needed, and will remain available to answer questions during the course of their deliberations. The legal teams will also conduct research on the legal theories presented by the parties. Ideally, if during the deliberations the Judges have a legal point that needs to be resolved quickly, the research on all sides of the issue will have already been completed in advance by the legal team assigned to the case and can be presented immediately. Finally, under the supervision of the lead Judge assigned to the particular case, the lawyers will also prepare several sample drafts of the sentences. In this way, once the Judges have reached a verdict, the advanced preparation by the legal staff makes it possible for the sentences to be published shortly after the submissions of the parties' final arguments. This immense advanced preparation by the Secretariat and the legal staff is a major reason the Court has been able to continue to function despite its ever increasing caseload.

Part 5: The Impact of the Court

------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Elizabeth Wheeler, J.D. expected 2005, is a student at Santa Clara University School of Law. This series of essays is based on her experience as an intern at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights during the summer of 2004.

[1] Id. at Title I, Chapter III, Art 14, para 1 and 2, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/general_ing/rules.html.

[2] Id. at Title I, Ch. III, Art.13.

[3] Id. at Title I, Ch. III, Art. 23.

[4] Sergio García Ramírez, address (April 14, 2004).