ARGENTINA IS INTERNATIONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATING THE RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LEGAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION OF A PERSON SUBJECTED TO A CRIMINAL PROCESS

2023-11-08 05:50:04

San José, Costa Rica, November 7, 2023.-

In the Judgment of Case of Álvarez v. Argentinanotified today, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declared the Argentine Republic internationally responsible for the violation of various human rights, to the detriment of Mr. Guillermo Antonio Álvarez, within the framework of the criminal proceedings (case No. 1048) pursued against him before the Oral Juvenile Court No. 1 of the Federal Capital.

Argentina partially recognized its responsibility regarding the violation of the right to the presumption of innocence, for the imposition of handcuffs on Mr. Álvarez during the oral trial, the violation of the right to appeal the ruling before a judge or higher court, and the failure of action of the courts to correct the deficiencies of the defense. The Court valued this position as constituting a positive contribution to the development of the process, to the validity of the principles that inspire the American Convention and to the satisfaction of the victim’s needs for reparation.

The official summary of the Judgment can be consulted here and the full text of the Judgment can be consulted here.

In its ruling, the Inter-American Court concluded that the Oral Juvenile Court (TOM) did not grant Mr. Álvarez a period of time to appoint a defense attorney of his confidence, given the revocation of the power granted to the person who had been sponsoring him in the trial process. the case, and, instead, ordered that his representation be exercised by the official public defender who assisted the other co-defendant in the same process. Furthermore, said official public defender only had one hour to talk with Mr. Álvarez prior to the start of the debate hearing, which was insufficient time to prepare an adequate defense strategy. Likewise, during several hearings held on different days, the witnesses called gave their statements in the absence of the accused, without the TOM giving reasons for a decision in that regard and without analyzing the possible damage that this would cause for the exercise of the defense, which that violated the right of the accused to question the witnesses who appeared to give their statements during the oral trial.

Likewise, the Court noted that, during the processing of the challenges filed against the TOM ruling, the official public defender who was granted intervention due to the resignation of the private defenders appointed by Mr. Álvarez was deficient. Such deficiencies in the technical defense, attributable to the designated official public defender, were made known to the judicial authorities without the necessary measures having been adopted to correct the situation and, thus, make effective the right to judicial protection of the accused. From this account, the Court noted evident negligence in the exercise of the defense that, having been known by the judicial authorities, violated Mr. Álvarez’s rights.

Consequently, the Court declared that Argentina is responsible for the violation of articles 8.1 (judicial guarantees), 8.2 (presumption of innocence), 8.2.c (right of the accused to adequate time and means for preparing his defense), 8.2.d (right of the accused to appoint a defense lawyer of his confidence), 8.2.e (right to effective technical defense), 8.df (right of the defense to question witnesses present in court) and 25.1 (protection judicial) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to article 1.1 (obligations to respect and guarantee rights) of the same international instrument. Likewise, the responsibility of the State was declared for the violation of article 8.2.h (right to appeal the ruling before a judge or higher court) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1.1 and 2 (obligation to adopt legal provisions internal) of the same instrument.

Due to these violations, the Court ordered various reparation measures to the Argentine State.

Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot and Judge Nancy Hernández López informed the Court of their joint concurring opinion.

This statement was drafted by the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which is why it is the exclusive responsibility of the same.