Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE (QUINTANA COELLO ET AL.) v. ECUADOR JUDGMENT OF AUGUST 23, 2013 (Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs) In the case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court” or “the Court”), composed of the following judges: Diego García-Sayán, President; Manuel E. Ventura Robles, Vice-President; Alberto Pérez, Judge; Eduardo Vio Grossi, Judge; Roberto F. Caldas, Judge; Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto, Judge, and Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot, Judge; also present, Pablo Saavedra Alessandri, Secretary, and Emilia Segares Rodríguez, Deputy Secretary, pursuant to Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”) and Articles 31, 32, 42, 65 and 67 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter “the Rules of Procedure”), renders the following Judgment which is structured as follows: Table of Contents I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE .................... 4 II PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT ............................................................... 5 III JURISDICTION ........................................................................................... 6 IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ....... 7 A. Partial acknowledgment of responsibility by the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives ...................................................... 7 B. Considerations of the Court .................................................................. 8 V PRELIMINARY OBJECTION ........................................................................... 9 VI EVIDENCE ................................................................................................. 11 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence ................................. 11 B. Admission of the evidence ................................................................. 13 VII PROVEN FACTS ........................................................................................ 14 A. Background ........................................................................................ 14 1. The Referendum of April 7, 1997 and the constitutional amendments of July 23, 1997 15 2. Appointment of members of the Supreme Court of Justice ..................... 18 3. The Constitution adopted by the National Constituent Assembly in 1998 . 19 4. Operation of the Supreme Court ......................................................... 20 B. Context .............................................................................................. 22 1. Dismissal of members of the Constitutional Tribunal and of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal ......................................................................................... 22 2. The Constitutional Tribunal’s decision on the inadmissibility of amparo actions against decisions of Congress ........................................................................ 24 3. Denial of amparo remedies lodged by several dismissed members of the Constitutional Tribunal ................................................................................. 25 C. Dismissal of the Supreme Court Justices ............................................ 26 1. The call for a special session by the President of the Republic and the National Congress’s termination resolution .................................................................. 26 2. Events following the dismissals at Ecuador’s High Courts ....................... 32 VIII JUDICIAL GUARANTEES, PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY, POLITICAL RIGHTS, DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW, EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION ................................................................................. 35 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties ............................... 35 1. Arguments on judicial independence, jurisdiction and political rights ....... 35 2. Arguments regarding the nature of the decision to dismiss the judges ..... 37 3. Arguments regarding the right to be heard and right of defense ............. 37 4. Arguments regarding the obligation to state reasons ............................. 38 5. Arguments regarding the alleged lack of impartiality of the National Congress 38 2 6. Arguments regarding the right to appeal the decision ............................ 39 7. Arguments regarding the principle of legality (freedom from ex post facto laws) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39 8. Arguments regarding Article 2 of the Convention .................................. 40 9. Arguments regarding judicial protection .............................................. 41 10. Arguments regarding equality ............................................................ 42 B. Considerations of the Court ................................................................ 43 1. Judicial independence, right to be heard, jurisdiction and political rights .. 43 2. Judicial protection ............................................................................. 54 3. Equal protection ............................................................................... 57 IX REPARATIONS ......................................................................................... 58 A. Injured party ..................................................................................... 59 B. Measures of satisfaction, restitution and guarantees of non-repetition60 1. Measures of satisfaction: publication of the Judgment ........................... 60 2. Measures of compensation ................................................................. 60 3. Guarantees of non-repetition: amendment of domestic legislation.................. 62 C. Compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages ................. 64 1. Pecuniary damage ............................................................................ 64 2. Non-pecuniary damage ..................................................................... 72 D. Other measures of reparation ............................................................ 75 E. Costs and expenses ............................................................................ 76 F. Method of compliance with the payments ordered ............................ 79 X OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS .......................................................................... 80 3 I INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case before the Court. – On August 2, 2011, in accordance with Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Commission on Human rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court the case of “Quintana Coello et al.” (hereinafter “brief submitting the case”) against the Republic of Ecuador (hereinafter “the State ” or “Ecuador”), concerning “the [alleged] arbitrary removal of 27 judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador through a parliamentary resolution on December 8, 2004, in the [alleged] absence of a clear legal framework regulating the grounds and proceedings for their removal from office, and [allegedly] disregarding the constitutional norms under which they were appointed with respect to the indefinite nature of their appointment and the cooptation system as a means of filling possible vacancies.” According to the Commission, “[t]he victims were denied even minimal guarantees of due process, were not granted a hearing, and had no opportunity to defend themselves” and “[n]or was there any effective judicial remedy available to them to oppose the arbitrary action of the National Congress.” 2. Proceeding before the Commission – The proceeding before the Commission was as follows: a) Petition. – On December 30, 2004 Mr. Hugo Quintana Coello and 26 other former judges of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ecuador filed an initial complaint before the Commission; b) Admissibility Report. – On February 27, 2007 the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 8/071; c) Report on Merits. – On March 31, 2011 the Commission approved the Report on Merits No. 65/112, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention (hereinafter also “the Report on Merits” or “Report No. 65/11”), in which it reached a number of conclusions and made several recommendations to the State, namely: a. Conclusions. – The Commission concluded that the State of Ecuador [was] responsible for the violation of […] Articles 8, 9 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set out in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, with respect to Hugo Quintana Coello, Alfredo Contreras Villavicencio, Teodoro Coello Vásquez, Santiago Andrade Ubidia, José Julio Benítez Astudillo, Armando Bermeo Castillo, Eduardo Brito Mieles, Nicolás Castro Patiño, Galo Galarza Paz, Luis Heredia Moreno, Estuardo Hurtado Larrea, Ángel Lescano Fiallo, Galo Pico Mantilla, Jorge Ramírez Álvarez, Carlos Riofrío Corral, José Vicente Troya Jaramillo, Rodrigo Varea Áviles, Jaime Velasco Dávila, Miguel Villacís Gómez, Gonzalo Zambrano Palacios, Milton Moreno Aguirre, Arturo Donoso Castellón, Ernesto Albán Gómez, Hernán Quevedo Terán, Jorge Andrade Lara, Clotary Salinas Montaño and Armando Serrano Puig.” b. Recommendations. – Consequently, the Commission issued the following recommendations to the State: i. “Reinstate the victims in the judiciary, if they so wish, in a position similar to those that they