JUSTICE AND REPARATION : THE ROLE OF THE IACTHR IN ADRESSING VICTIMS OF AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES IN THE AMERICAS

“Justice delayed is justice denied.” This timeless maxim rings especially true for the victims of authoritarian regimes in the Americas, who often endured years, if not decades, of human rights violations without recourse to justice. Justice, as defined by international human rights law, is not merely the recognition of wrongdoing but the prevision of meaningful remedies that adress the harm caused. In the context of Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), reparation refers to measures ordered by the Court to redress the wrongs inflicted on victims of State abuses, typically including compensation, restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition.

The IACtHR, a key organ of the Organization of American States (OAS), was created to uphold the human rights standards enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Its jurisdiction spans across Latin America, a region historically plagued by authoritarian regimes—governments that centralized power, suppressed dissent, and routinely engaged in gross human rights violations such as enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and torture. These regimes persisted from the 1960s to the 1990s, notably in countries such as Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, and Peru, leaving a profound legacy of trauma and injustice.

Despite the fall of these regimes, transitional justice—the process of addressing the legacies of past abuses— remains important today. The IACtHR, through its legal mandate, provides a unique forum for victims to seek redress, contributing to the broader goals of truth, justice, and reconciliation. However, the reparation process is fraught with challenges. Legal questions abound: What role does the IACtHR play in addressing the victims of authoritarian regimes in the Americas? Has the IACtHR been effective in holding States accountable despite hindrance? How does the Court’s work compare to other regional mechanisms?

This article will explore these questions by examining the legal framework surrounding reparations in the Inter- American system (1). It will discuss the Court’s jurisprudence (2), and analyze the limitations of its reparative system (3).

I/ COMPREHENSIVE REPARATION : THE INTER-AMERICAN FRAMEWORK

The definition of reparation for victims of human rights violation is one of the most creative and dynamic aspects of the IACtHR jurisprudence in regard to the American convention. Article 63(1) states that if a violation of the rights protected by the Convention is found, the Court shall rule “that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied, and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party”.

“Reparation” is understood in a comprehensive way that encompasses not only pecuniary remedies but also a wide range of compensations. The Court recognizes the general obligation to remedies by a State internationally responsible as an automatic international law customary principle. As the Court clarified in its 1989 decision Velásquez v. Honduras, this international standard means that a State can not avail of its domestic law to define an aspect of the scope, the nature, the modality or the identification of the beneficiary of the compensation.

“Reparations consist of measures that aim to eliminate, moderate or compensate for the effects of the violations committed. Their nature and amount depend on the characteristics of the violation and the damage caused both at the material and immaterial level”. In the 2006 Vargas Areco v. Paraguay decision, the Court early on affirmed the integral aspect of this right. Remedy means justice towards society in general, authors and victims. To the victims, restitutio in integrum is the inter- American standard. According to judges Trindade and Ramirez who greatly contributed to the evolution of the notion, this restitutio should be determined according to the integral personality of the victim and the impact of the violation.

Judge Trindade highlights the fact that if reparations cannot erase the irreversible harm, they can lighten the consequences and give hope to the victims through rehabilitation. To help the victims, individual and collective reparation can be granted by the Court. As part of the individual reparation, the Court has granted a right to restitution to bring the victim the closest to the situation she was in before the violation (Trujillo Oroza case). Compensation can also be ordered by the Court who evaluates a material prejudice (Velásquez case) and a moral prejudice suffered by direct and indirect victims (Mapiripán case). This form of restitution was broadened by the Court thanks to the addition of a third prejudice: the “breakup of life project” (Loayza Tamayo case). Compensation may also cover the various expenses done by non-governmental organizations representing the victims (Vargas Areco case). Another individualistic form of reparation is the right to rehabilitation that may be medical, psychological, or social to overcome trauma (Barrios Altos case).

The collective reparation encompassed measures of satisfaction (Plan Sánchez case), a notion that evolves to the point a State is forbidden to avail impunity but has to sanction the perpetrators (Trujillo Oroza case), look for the disappeared ones (Palomino case), publicly recognize the violations and its international responsibility (La Cantuta case), publish the Court’s decision and provide a moral and symbolic rehabilitation (Villágran Morales case). The State should also provide security guarantees to enable the voluntary return of displaced people, provide goods and basic services to the community far from their lands and establish collective titles on ancestral lands (Moiwana case). The second form of collective reparation is the guarantees of non-repetition. These guarantees can include strengthening human rights protection (Suárez Rosero case), the limitation of the military tribunal’s jurisdiction (Durand y Ugarte case), the adoption of legislative, political, administrative and economic measures (Bulacio case).

II/ HOW DOES THE IACTHR PROVIDE REPARATION ?

To illustrate how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) provides reparations, two landmark cases, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras and Barrios Altos v. Peru, offer clear examples of the Court’s approach to addressing gross human rights violations through both material and symbolic reparations.

Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988)

The Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras case was the first landmark decision by the IACtHR and played an important role in addressing the issue of forced disappearances during the 1980s in Honduras. This case established critical principles for State accountability in cases of forced disappearances and set a precedent for reparative justice in human rights violations across Latin America. It contributed to transitional justice efforts, aimed at addressing the legacy of State terror during its authoritarian regime.

On September 12, 1981, Mr. Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez, a student at the National Autonomous University of Honduras, was forcibly disappeared by State agents. He was abducted by armed men in civilian clothes, detained at a military facility, and subjected to torture. His fate remained unknown. This event occurred during a period in Honduras when around 150 people disappeared between 1981 and 1984, as part of a State- led policy.

In its July 29, 1988 ruling, the IACtHR found Honduras responsible for violating several key provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights: the right to life (article 4), the right to humane treatment (article 5) and the right to personal liberty (article 7). The reparations ordered by the Court included both moral and material compensation. The judgment itself was considered a form of reparation, providing significant moral satisfaction to the victim’s family by officially recognizing the State’s responsibility. The Court awarded a total of $375,000 to Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez’s family for the psychological harm and loss of income caused by his disappearance. The Court also mandated that Honduras continue investigating the fate of Mr. Velásquez Rodríguez and other disappeared persons.

Barrios Altos v. Peru (2001)

The Barrios Altos v. Peru case, decided by the IACtHR in 2001 set a significant precedent in Latin America by emphasizing that amnesty laws cannot be used to prevent accountability for crimes against humanity. The case addressed the extrajudicial killing of 15 civilians by a death squad known as the Colina Group, affiliated with the Peruvian military. On November 3, 1991, during a party in Lima’s Barrios Altos neighborhood, the victims were indiscriminately shot and killed by masked, heavily armed individuals. These killings occurred during Peru's internal conflict against an insurgent group, and were part of the State's brutal counterinsurgency tactics under President Alberto Fujimori's regime.

In its ruling, the IACtHR found Peru in violation of multiple articles of the American Convention on Human Rights, including the right to life, the right to humane treatment and the right to a hearing within reasonable time (article 8). Notably, the Court declared Peru’s amnesty laws, which had been passed to shield the perpetrators from prosecution, null and void as they were incompatible with the Convention.

The reparations ordered by the Court included measures of satisfaction and non-repetition guarantees that notably include the obligation for the State to locate heirs that could benefit from the reparation. Peru had to reform its legislation and particularly the amnesty laws and ratify conventions protecting extrajudicial execution victims. The State was also asked to implement symbolic measures such as the construction of a memorial monument, publication of a public apology, and the provision of free medical and educational support to the victims’ beneficiaries. Finally, the Court ordered monetary compensation for the victims' families.

III/ LIMITATIONS OF THE IACTHR REPARATION SYSTEM ?

While the IACtHR confirmed Rombouts’ observation that “the quantitative and the qualitative specificity of gross and systematic violations indicate that the nature and the scope of reparation needs are very likely to differ” by widening the forms of reparation, the Court is confronted with structural limitations and difficulties in regard to the implementation of the reparations.

The structural limitation for the victims to obtain reparation stems from the structure of the regional human rights system composed of the Commission and the Court. Victims are able to use the regional mechanism only if their State is party to the American convention but also if it has recognized the jurisdiction of the Court. Victims cannot directly bring their petitions to the Court; they must first submit them to the Commission, which evaluates the merits of the case and may refer it to the Court. Judge Trindade considers individuals should have a jus standi before the IACtHR as a logical evolution of the mechanism. A suggested reform is the obligatory referral to the Court by the Commission if the plaintiffs want it.

The second type of limitation is related to the effective implementation of the reparation ordered by the Court. The American convention is indeed limited on this matter as it only provides (in Article 68) for the implementation of monetary compensation. This form of reparation is, as we have seen, only one of the many forms developed by the Court. Even if the rulings are binding, it seems only the known principle of the pacta sunt servanda from the Vienna convention is motivating the States to implement reparation such as the legislative reforms. However, both the Court and the victims often face poor compliance by certain States. To address this issue, the Court has published reports on non-compliance in its annual reviews, these reports often remain ineffective. They do not engage victims in the process and fail to prompt consequences for non-execution, as seen in cases like Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras.

CONCLUSION

The IACtHR has proven its ability to adapt to the regional particularities of Latin American dealing with the legacies of authoritarian regimes and gross human rights violations. Ever since its first ruling and throughout the decades, the Court has developed a comprehensive body of jurisprudence providing victims and communities with innovative reparations. The American human rights system remains rather recent in comparison with the European one and faces challenges on structural hindrances for the access of victims and on the full implementation of the reparations. The coming years may bring in-depth reforms restructuring the system. Will the States Parties surrender more of their sovereignty, or rather affirm it through this justice ?