By: Sarah Peck

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer

 

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago – In a landmark move to bolster press freedom and human rights across the Caribbean, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) have formalized a partnership aimed at enhancing freedom of expression, access to information, and the safety of journalists. The agreement, signed in October 2024, underscores a commitment to upholding Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees the right to seek, receive, and impart information.

The Caribbean region has faced persistent challenges regarding press freedom, including threats against journalists, restrictive defamation laws, and government-imposed censorship. In recent years, journalists in countries such as Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Jamaica have faced harassment and intimidation for covering sensitive topics such as corruption and organized crime. For example, in 2022, Guyanese journalist Glenn Lall, the publisher of Kaieteur News, faced legal threats and alleged government pressure for his investigative reporting on oil contracts. Similarly, in 2014, Trinidadian investigative journalist Mark Bassant had to go into hiding due to death threats linked to his reporting on drug trafficking networks. Additionally, restrictive defamation laws in the region, such as the controversial criminal libel laws in Grenada and Antigua and Barbuda, have historically been used to silence critical voices in the media. In some cases, governments have imposed censorship measures, such as suspending broadcast licenses or restricting access to certain publications, further limiting press freedom.

While the CCJ has long been regarded as a guardian of constitutional rights, this new collaboration signals an increased judicial commitment to protecting journalists and fostering transparency. UNESCO’s involvement brings a wealth of resources and expertise in media development, training programs, and policy advocacy. By working together, the CCJ and UNESCO seek to create an environment where journalists can operate freely without fear of persecution. This initiative aligns with global efforts to combat disinformation, promote access to justice, and safeguard democratic institutions.

As the final appellate court for several Caribbean nations, the CCJ plays a crucial role in interpreting constitutional provisions related to freedom of speech and the press. The court has historically ruled on defamation cases and media restrictions, balancing national security concerns with fundamental human rights. This partnership is expected to enhance judicial training and legal frameworks that support media independence.

One of the key components of this initiative is capacity-building among legal professionals. Judges, lawyers, and policymakers will receive training on international standards related to freedom of expression, ensuring that future rulings reflect best practices in human rights law. Additionally, efforts will be made to revise outdated laws that stifle press freedom, such as criminal defamation statutes, which have been used to silence dissent.

For journalists operating in the Caribbean, this partnership represents a potential turning point. Investigative reporters and independent media organizations have often faced legal intimidation, harassment, and physical threats for exposing corruption and human rights abuses. The collaboration between UNESCO and the CCJ is expected to provide journalists with stronger legal protections and recourse when their rights are violated.

Moreover, the initiative aims to improve access to public information by advocating for stronger transparency laws. This is particularly significant in a region where government secrecy and limited access to official records can hinder investigative journalism. By promoting open governance and legal safeguards for journalists, the CCJ and UNESCO are taking a proactive stance in ensuring that democracy and accountability are upheld.

The partnership between the CCJ and UNESCO marks a significant step forward in the fight for press freedom in the Caribbean. By reinforcing legal protections, educating judicial actors, and advocating for policy reforms, this collaboration has the potential to reshape the media landscape in the region. Moving forward, its success will depend on the commitment of Caribbean governments, media professionals, and civil society to uphold the fundamental right to free expression.

 

For further information, please see: 

CCJ – UNESCO and the Caribbean Court of Justice Forge Partnership to Strengthen Freedom of Expression and Journalist Safety – 10 Oct. 2024

Freedom House – Freedom in the World 2023 – Antigua and Barbuda – Mar. 2023 

Ifex – Electronic Crimes Act in Grenada Appears to Recriminalise Defamation – 12 Sep. 2013

International Press Institute – Journalist flees Trinidad and Tobago after threats – 26 May 2014

Reporters Without Borders – OECS – General Manager of Grenada Broadcasting Network censors coverage of staff protest – 27 Sep. 2018

Stabroek News – Glenn Lall goes to court over oil deal with Exxon subsidiary – 14 Jan. 2022

WACC – Tensions between media censorship and regulation in Jamaica – 12 Aug. 2020

By: Jocelyn Anctil 

Impunity Watch News Staff Writer 

SAN JOSÉ, Peru – After Peru commenced the privatization of state-owned companies in 1991, the government liquidated the Empresa Comercializadora de Alimentos S.A. (ECASA), along with the jobs of approximately three thousand employees. Although a salary increase was established through bargaining agreements, the government suspended them. In response, the dismissed workers of the ECASA filed an action of protection. The Supreme Court of Justice ruled in favor of the workers and ordered execution of its decision in February of 1993. The process for execution of this decision has remained open for twenty-six years. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights referred the case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) after finding that Peruvian judicial authorities failed to definitively resolve the issues.

Finally, the case was heard by the IACHR which reached a decision on June 6, 2024. The American Commission on Human Rights asked the IACHR to declare the State of Peru responsible for multiple violations of the American Convention on Human Rights, including the right to a fair trial. The IACHR agreed and ruled in favor of the workers. Article 25 of the Convention gives the right to judicial protection. The court found that in order for judicial protection to be effective, states must have the ability and mechanisms to execute final judgements. Peru is to pay $5,000 to each victim identified in the case. In case there are more victims unaccounted for, the court also stated Peru is to create a trade union register.

This decision relates to a bigger issue: The Peruvian State has failed to enforce judgements against state entities since the 1990s. At a domestic level, courts often delay execution or do not execute the judgement at all. This creates complications as victims die while waiting for enforcement. Peru has not adopted or created the measures necessary to remedy this pattern and avoid future violations. As a result, the IACHR also urges Peru to hold a forum for debate and reflection to analyze the structural issues and allow the workers of ECASA and their family members involved in this case to participate. In an effort to decrease unreasonable delays and increase efficiency, the IACHR also ordered the Peruvian State to implement a mandatory training to inform judges who are unaware of how to handle and execute actions of protection.

 

For further information please see,

IACHR – Judgments – 24 Feb. 2025

OAS – IACHR refers case on Peru to the Inter-American Court – 11 Jan. 2021

Agencia EFE – CorteIDH condena a Perú por violar los derechos de trabajadores – 16 Nov. 2024

NY Law Globalex – The Amparo Context in Latin American Jurisdiction: An Approach to an Empowering Action – Mar. 2023 

By: Megan Mary Qualters

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands – The International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) ordered provisional measures to protect Guyana’s rights in highly contentious territory dispute with Venezuela.

Procedural History

In March 2018, the Co-operative Republic of Guyana’s government (hereinafter “Guyana”) filed proceedings against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “Venezuela”). The legal issue is whether the Arbitral Agreement of 1899, which establishes the border line between Guyana and Venezuela, in a region called the “Guayana Esequiba,” is legally valid. Guyana claims it is valid and thus grants the Esequiba to Guyana, but Venezuela claims it is void and argues that the Esequiba is Venezuelan territory.

On October 23, 2023, Venezuela published a list of five questions it planned to use in a “Consultative Referendum,” to be held on December 3, 2023. The questions asked for support in rejecting the validity of the 1899 Award, the ICJ’s jurisdiction, and advocated for an accelerated plan to incorporate the Esequiba into Venezuela.

On October 30, 2023, in response to Venezuela’s questions and referendum plans, Guyana requested the ICJ issue provisional measures to prevent Venezuela from publishing its questions, ultimately asking the ICJ to protect its rights to the Esequiba region while the validity of the 1899 Award is pending.

On November 14 and 15, 2023, the ICJ heard oral arguments from both parties regarding the issue of provisional measures. Guyana asked the Court to order the following provisional measures, while Venezuela asked the court to reject the request.

1. “Venezuela shall not proceed with the Consultative Referendum planned for 3 December 2023 in its present form;
2. In particular, Venezuela shall not include the First, Third or Fifth questions in the Consultative Referendum;
3. Nor shall Venezuela include within the ‘Consultative Referendum’ planned, or any other public referendum, any question encroaching upon the legal issues to be determined by the Court in its Judgment on the Merits . . .
4. Venezuela shall not take any actions that are intended to prepare or allow the exercise of sovereignty or de facto control over any territory that was awarded to British Guiana in the 1899 Arbitral Award.
5. Venezuela shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.”

Required Elements of an ICJ Provisional Measure

The ICJ, after affirming its 2020 Judgement that it has the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims of Guyana, turned to Article 41 of the ICJ Statute, which focuses on the preservation of rights claimed by parties in a case. To issue provisional measures the Court must find (1) the rights claimed by a party is plausible, (2) there is a link between the right claimed and the provisional measure requested, and (3) without the provisional measure “there is a real and imminent risk that” (4) “irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the Court gives its final decision.”

Here, the Court found that Guyana’s right to “preservation and protection of its right to the territory” is plausible. The Court notes that a right’s existence need not be proven, it only need be asserted plausible. Therefore, the Court need not determine which country has a right to the territory, but only that Guyana could have a plausible right to the Esequiba. The Court held that the existence of the 1899 Award and the dispute itself are sufficient to give Guyana a plausible right to the Esequiba.

Moreover, the Court found there is a link between the plausible right and the provisional measure sought. Guyana “seeks to ensure” that Venezuela does not prepare to, or exercise control of, the territory awarded to Guyana in the 1899 Award, which the ICJ considers a measure “aimed at protecting Guyana’s right which the Court has found plausible.”

Lastly, the Court turned to “Venezuela’s expressed readiness to take action with regard to the territory in dispute in these proceedings at any moment following the referendum scheduled for 3 December 2023” as sufficient evidence to find that Guyana is at serious risk of irreparable prejudice, and that the risk of this is urgent in a real and imminent sense.

ICJ’s December 1 Order

Due to the reasons above, the Court found it necessary to issue a provisional measure to protect Guyana’s right to the Esequiba.  However, the Court found the measures provided need not match exactly what Guyana requested. Its resulting provisional measure consisted simply of ordering Venezuela to refrain from taking any action “which would modify the situation that currently prevails in the territory in dispute” and that both Parties “shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.” The ICJ has yet to determine the validity of the 1899 Award.

For further information, please see:

ICJ – Order of 1 December 2023 – 1 Dec. 2023

ICJ – Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) Latest Developments

New York Times – Venezuela Renews Claims to Part of Guyana, the Oil-Rich ‘Second Qatar’ – 21 Dec. 2023

By: Rafael Sbeghen Freitas

Impunity Watch Staff Writer

BELÉM, Brazil – On June 16th, 2023, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted to the IDH Court the 12,398 case of Brazil, regarding the extrajudicial execution of teenagers Max Cley Mendes, Marciley Roseval Melo Mendes, and Luís Fábio Coutinho da Silva, during a slaughter that took place on December 13th, 1994 and became to be known as “The Massacre of Tapanã.”

The accusation reports that the Military Police officers received orders from higher authorities to locate and apprehend the murderers of Military Police Corporal Waldemar Paes Nunes, who had been a victim of robbery-murder moments earlier in an area nearby the “Tapanã Highway” in Belém, Pará. The information indicated that the perpetrators of the corporal’s murder had also stolen his firearm. The officers took police vehicles to carry out the order and brought with them the victim’s property caretaker as a witness, who had allegedly seen the corporal being murdered after his weapon was stolen.

According to court records, the police officers reportedly spotted Max Cley Mendes, Marciley Rosenaldo Melo Mendes, and Luiz Fabio Coutinho da Silva, who were recognized by the witness as the perpetrators of the robbery-murder that claimed the corporal’s life. After being approached, the suspects were handcuffed and executed. Eyewitnesses reported that four young individuals were apprehended: two of them were handcuffed and executed even before they entered the police vehicle and the other two had apparently tried to escape into the nearby wooded area, but were also executed after a pursuit.

The trial of the seventeen accused policemen happened only twenty four hours after, and resulted in the acquittal of all of them based on lack of evidence. The prosecutor did not appeal the decision.

Historically, in Brazil, the violent use of police force evolved from being a means of political control during the military dictatorship into a tool for social control, particularly in the context of managing criminality in the current days. The country still struggles to maintain civilian control of the military police and the military itself, notoriously being unable to properly investigate, prosecute and discipline the majority of crimes committed by those forces.

In that context, the Commission determined that the State violated the victims’ right to life and personal integrity and concluded that the operation did not adhere to the appropriate regulations for the use of force, and the agents failed to apply the criteria of necessity and proportionality. It was also stated that these events occurred within a context of state permissiveness towards police abuses and that the victims had endured torture prior to their execution.

The Brazilian state was notified of the filing on September 25th, and now has the opportunity to present a countercharge.

For further information, please see:

Brasil de Fato – What is Behind Police Brutality? – 06 Oct. 2023

Humans Rights Watch – Prosecutors Should Lead Police Killings Inquiries – 12 Sep. 2023

IACHR – Caso Cley Mendes y Otros vs. Brasil – 16 Jun. 2023

IACHR – IACHR Files Case with IA Court on Lack of Investigation Into Extrajudicial Executions of Adolescents in Brazil – 28 Aug. 2023