J Taiana & V Gomez ‘Selected developments in human rights and democratisation during 2015: The
Americas’ (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal 207-225
Selected developments in human rights and 
democratisation during 2015: The Americas
Jorge Taiana*
Veronica Gomez**
Abstract: This contribution traces some salient developments related to human
rights and democratisation in the Americas during 2015. As to national
developments, the Colombian peace process, the political crisis in Guatemala
and the elections in Haiti are discussed. As to regional arrangements, the focus
falls on the participation of Cuba in the Seventh Summit of the Americas, and on
elections and standard-setting within the Organization of American States. A
few highlights in respect of the promotion and protection of human rights in the
Americas by the Inter-American Commission and Court of Human Rights are
also reviewed.
Key words: Colombian peace process; political crisis Guatemala; elections
Haiti; Seventh Summit of the Americas; OAS General Assembly; Inter-American
Commission; Inter-American Court
1 Introduction
Peace negotiations to bring to a close the longest internal armed conflict in
the recent history of the continent, the long overdue re-establishment of
diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States of America, and
the challenges faced by fragile democracies were among the topics on the
agenda of the states and the various regional and sub-regional
arrangements of the Americas during 2015. Also during this period, the
Inter-American Court and Commission on Human Rights took a number
of significant decisions and issued reports on gender, health and human
mobility, among other issues. The review that follows includes a selection
of highlights of these developments from national and multilateral
perspectives as well as some comments on the setting and enforcement of
standards by the regional mechanisms for the protection of human rights
during 2015.
* Sociology Degree (UBA); General Director, Centro Internacional de Estudios Políticos
(UNSAM); President of MERCOSUR’s Parliament; JTaiana@ciep.unsam.edu.ar
** Law Degree (UBA), LLM (Nottingham); Co-Director, Centro Internacional de Estudios
Políticos (UNSAM) and the Master’s in Human Rights and Democratisation in Latin
America and the Caribbean (LatMa) of the Global Campus of Human Rights;
VGomez@ciep.unsam.edu.ar
208                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
2 Highlights on human rights and democracy issues at the 
national level
2.1 Colombian peace process
During 2015, significant progress was made in the peace talks between the
government of Juan Manual Santos and the guerrilla leaders of the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP), to
put an end to more than five decades of internal armed conflict in
Colombia. It is estimated that this armed conflict has been responsible for
hundreds of thousands of deaths and the internal displacement of more
than six million people. It has also had repercussions beyond the national
borders with thousands of refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries.
After a preliminary confidential dialogue between the Colombian
government and the FARC-EP, on 26 August 2012 the parties signed the
General Agreement to End the Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting
Peace. This document set a six-point agenda for dialogue at the Table for
Conversations to End the Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting Peace in
Colombia.1 Since then, the parties have undertaken a step-by-step
approach to negotiations in Havana – with the support of the governments
of Cuba and Norway – in order to reach a final peace agreement. Once
reached, the final agreement will require approval via plebiscite, with the
participation of at least 13 per cent of the electorate, in order to enter into
force. 
As part of the step-by-step approach in the peace talks, on 15 December
2015 the parties released a Draft Agreement on point 5 of the agenda on
victims of the armed conflict, establishing a comprehensive system for
truth, justice, reparations and non-repetition of human rights violations.2
Regarding the right to truth, the Draft Agreement3 establishes a Truth,
Coexistence and Non-Repetition Commission as a temporary body
charged with explaining to society at large the complexity of the conflict,
and the roles and responsibilities of those directly and indirectly involved.
The Draft Agreement also establishes a Special Unit for the Search for
Disappeared Persons in the Armed Conflict as a high-level special unit
charged with coordinating a search and identification operation, without
substituting or interfering with any parallel judicial investigations.
The Draft Agreement indicates that once the cessation of hostilities
pursuant to international humanitarian law enters into force, the
Colombian government may grant the guerrilla members entering into the
peace agreement and persons accused or convicted of political crimes the
1 See http://www.altocomisionadoparalapaz.gov.co/procesos-y-conversaciones/Paginas/
mesa-de-conversaciones-con-las-farc-ep.aspx (last visited 30 July 2016).
2 Joint Communiqué 64 ‘Agreement on the Victims of the Conflict, Comprehensive
System for Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-Repetition, including the Special
Jurisdiction for Peace; and Commitment on Human Rights’, Havana, 15 December
2015, available at https://www.mesadeconversaciones.com.co/sites/default/files/joint-
communique-64-december-15-2015-1450285397.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
3 Borrador conjunto del Acuerdo sobre las Víctimas del Conflicto: ‘Sistema Integral de Verdad,
Justicia, Reparación y No Repetición’, available at (Spanish only) http://
wp.presidencia.gov.co/sitios/especiales/Documents/20150921-declaracion-proceso-paz/
docs/Punto5-Victimas.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      209
‘widest possible’ amnesty (paragraphs 10, 23, 37 and 38 of the section on
Special Jurisdiction for Peace in the Draft Agreement). The granting of
amnesty or pardon does not relieve the beneficiary from contributing to
ascertaining the truth about the consequences of the armed conflict on the
civilian population, nor – allegedly – does it extinguish the right of the
victims to reparations (paragraphs 27 and 43 of the Special Jurisdiction
section). Crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide, listed in the
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as other serious
human rights violations, such as torture, extra-judicial execution, or
forced disappearance are not subject to amnesty or pardon (paragraphs 22,
25 and 40 of the Special Jurisdiction section). 
Regarding the right to justice of victims of human rights violations, the
Draft Agreement establishes a Special Jurisdiction for Peace with a legal
framework ‘principally based on the international law of human rights and
international humanitarian law’ (paragraph 19 of the Special Jurisdiction
section), applicable to all those directly or indirectly participating in the
armed conflict, and ‘taking precedence over other criminal, disciplinary or
administrative jurisdictions acting in connection with conduct directly or
indirectly linked to the armed conflict’ (paragraphs 32 and 33 of the
Special Jurisdiction section).
The Draft Agreement establishes a complex organic framework for the
functioning of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, including an Investigation
and Indictment Unit and a number of justice chambers: the Chamber for
the Acknowledgment of Truth and Responsibility; the Chamber for
Amnesty and Pardon; the Chamber for the Determination of Legal Status;
and the Tribunal for Peace, with a First Instance and a Review Instance.
These bodies are entrusted with the administration of two types of
proceedings, namely, (a) the proceeding for cases involving the
acknowledgment of truth and responsibility; and (b) the proceeding for
cases involving the lack of acknowledgment of truth and responsibility
(paragraphs 45 and 46 of the Special Jurisdiction section).
The Draft Agreement provides that in cases involving a lack of
acknowledgment of truth and responsibility, the Tribunal for Peace shall
prosecute the individuals in question pursuant to the principles of due
process of law and, if convicted, they will receive ordinary sentences for
the crimes committed, of up to 20 years’ imprisonment. In cases involving
the acknowledgment of truth and responsibility, the individuals tried will
receive non-custodial sentences of between five and eight years
(paragraphs 54 and 60 of the Special Jurisdiction section).
Regarding the victims’ rights to reparations, the Draft Agreement
provides for individual and collective restitution, compensation,
rehabilitation, satisfaction and non-repetition, as well as measures for
peace building. The language used covers vulnerable populations and
groups particularly affected by the conflict with a differentiated gender
approach.
At the time of its adoption, some local human rights organisations
hailed point 5 of the Draft Agreement as an historic landmark in conflict
resolution because of the comprehensive system of truth, justice,
reparation and non-repetition for accountability in cases involving human
210                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
rights violations and breaches of humanitarian law, and the participation
of victims’ representatives during the negotiation process.4
Other organisations have been less optimistic when predicting the
effectiveness of the institutions proposed. For instance, it has been argued
that, when establishing individual responsibility for serious crimes, the
courts will not be at liberty to consider the information received or
uncovered by the new Truth Commission. It has also been argued that
sanctions provided for in the so-called Special Jurisdiction for Peace are
hardly proportionate to the severity of the crimes perpetrated during the
conflict (Amnesty International 2016). Others have challenged the
language defining the responsibility attributable to commanding officers in
the commission of human rights violations; and the lack of criteria to
secure effective, independent and impartial compositions for the Peace
Tribunal and the chambers of the Special Jurisdiction (Human Rights
Watch 2015).
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) has indicated that, although the integrated system offers a
unique opportunity to address victims’ rights, considerable planning is still
required in order to overcome the foreseeable challenges faced at the
budgetary, financial and operational levels to ensure the implementation of
the agreement. Ensuring the system’s legitimacy and credibility will
require transparent selection processes for its administrators; co-operation
with institutions dealing with victims and the judiciary; and incentives and
guarantees for the participation of state actors, the FARC-EP and other
parties. In its view, the successful implementation of the agreement and
the sustainability of peace will ultimately depend on whether Colombian
society can finally overcome conflict-related violence and structural
human rights violations.5
In principle, point 5 of the Draft Agreement is to be commended for its
rights-based approach in the pursuit of truth, justice and reparations for
individual and collective victims of serious human rights violations,
grounded on the Rome Statute and other human rights and humanitarian
law treaties. In practice, Colombia is no stranger to the challenges derived
from the establishment of a special jurisdiction to review the situation and
potential criminal liability of the participants in this protracted armed
conflict. In fact, the imposition of reduced sentences in exchange for the
acknowledgment of individual responsibility echoes the still on-going
experience under the Law of Justice and Peace adopted in 2005 to enable
the demobilisation of paramilitary groups, with mixed results.6
Aside from the challenges derived from the administration of justice
through a special jurisdiction, the success of the system envisaged by point
4 See, for instance, Comisión Colombiana de Juristas, Press Release of 21 December
2015, available at (Spanish only) http://www.coljuristas.org/documentos/comunicados
_de_prensa/acuerdo_sobre_victimas_necesario_y_oportuno.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016).
5 UN Human Rights Council, Thirty-first Session, Report of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Addendum: Situation of human rights in Colombia,
A/HRC/31/3/Add.2 15 March 2016, paras 4 and 8.
6 See, for instance, IACHR Truth, Justice and Reparation: Fourth Report on Human
Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 49/13, 2013, ch 3, available at http://
www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Colombia-Truth-Justice-Reparation.pdf (last visited
30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      211
5 of the Draft Agreement will depend on the safeguards ensuring that
vulnerable groups – in particular peasant communities, afro-descendants,
indigenous peoples, displaced persons and human rights defenders – are
not again victimised by the parties in the conflict; and that Colombian
society at large show its rejection of war and violence and its commitment
towards non-repetition. 
The chance to deactivate, by peaceful means, one of the factors
contributing to the persistence of an armed conflict that for many decades
has been the backdrop of extreme violence against the civilian population
is vital for the future of Colombia. It is equally vital for its neighbours and
the region as a whole, who have a stake in the process in terms of their
collective aspiration of becoming a continent freed from armed conflict.
2.2 Political crisis in Guatemala
During 2015, Guatemala underwent what the UN Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights7 and the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights8 chose to define as one of its most serious political crises in
decades. 
Reports issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the International
Commission against Impunity9 in April and May 2015 uncovered a
customs fraud implicating high-level officials in the executive branch. As a
result, a protest movement involving diverse sectors of society gathered
momentum and demonstrated for weeks in front of the presidential palace
in Guatemala City and across the country to show their discontent.
Protesters called for an end to corruption and demanded the resignation of
government officials. Vice-President Roxana Baldetti was forced to resign
because of her alleged involvement in the corruption case.
By 21 August 2015, pressure from influential sectors of society and
media coverage of corruption cases prompted impeachment proceedings
against President Otto Pérez Molina. A few days later his immunity from
prosecution was lifted by Congress, and he resigned on 3 September 2015,
whereafter he was detained and tried for his alleged participation in the
customs fraud network.
Alejandro Maldonado Aguirre, a former Constitutional Court judge, was
sworn in as President, days before the general election that had been
scheduled for September 2015. Comedian James Ernesto Morales Cabrera
was elected President in the second round held in October 201510 and was
due to take office in January 2016.
7 OHCHR Guatemala ‘A Guatemalan awakening: The revolt for justice and change,
available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/AGuatemalanawakening.aspx
(last visited 30 July 2016).
8 IACHR Situation of Human Rights in Guatemala: Diversity, Inequality and Exclusion
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc. 43/15, 31 December 2015, paras. 54-63, available at http://www.
oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Guatemala2016-en.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
9 CICIG Financiamiento de la Política en Guatemala, 2015, available at http://www.
cicig.org/uploads/documents/2015/informe_financiamiento_politicagt.pdf (last visited
30 July 2016). See also CICIG Informe de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad
con Ocasión de su Octavo Año de Labores, available at http://www.cicig.org/uploads/
documents/2015/COM_085_20151113_VIII.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
10 Tribunal Supremo Electoral de Guatemala, Memoria de las Elecciones Generales y de
Diputados al Parlamento Centroamericano 2015, available at http://www.tse.org.gt/
MEMORIA-ELECTORAL-2015.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
212                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
2.3 Electoral calendar in Haiti
During 2015, Haiti failed to fulfil the objectives set out in its parliamentary
and presidential electoral calendar. Low voter participation, irregularities
denounced by candidates and violence interfered with the elections
scheduled for August, October and December 2015.
In March 2015, following consultations with the Provisional Electoral
Council and political parties, President Martelly issued an electoral decree
and published the electoral calendar, calling for three rounds of polls for
2015. On 11 May, the Provisional Electoral Council launched the
candidate registration period for the presidential race scheduled for
October. By 20 May, a record number of 70 candidates had applied for
registration and a final list of over 50 candidates – excluding some high-
profile names of people who had allegedly failed to submit financial
probity certifications – was drawn up.11
On 9 August 2015, the first round of parliamentary elections was held
amidst disruption and violent incidents. On 25 October 2015, the first
round of presidential elections and the second round of legislative and
municipal elections were held. There were a few violent incidents, and
opposition candidates and national election observers denounced fraud. As
no candidate received a majority vote in the first round, a run-off was
scheduled for 27 December 2015; but opposition candidate Jude Celestin
refused to participate. Amid growing tension and violent incidents
between protestors and the police, the Provisional Electoral Council
postponed and finally cancelled the elections.
Despite the mandates of the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti
(MINUSTAH) and the Organization of American States (OAS) to
contribute to the upholding of democracy in Haiti, there is growing
consensus among analysts that pressure exerted by the international
community on the government to ensure a degree of institutional stability
has led most Haitians to believe that the elections reflect the will of
international donors rather than their own.12 This belief has translated
into a steady decrease in electoral participation – which has fallen to well
below 25 per cent – with further political instability.
3 Highlights on regional arrangements
3.1 Seventh Summit of the Americas and the participation of Cuba
On 10 and 11 April 2015, the states of the region gathered for the Seventh
Summit of the Americas, Prosperity with Equity, held in Panama City.
This forum, first established in 1994, congregates heads of state and
government from the member states of the OAS.13
11 UN Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations
Stabilisation Mission in Haiti, S/2015/667, 31 August 2015, paras. 3, 4 and 7, available
at https://minustah.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/n1525971.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016).
12 See, for instance, Inter-American Dialogue ‘Beyond MINUSTAH: What can Latin
America do for Haiti?’ available at http://www.thedialogue.org/blogs/2016/02/beyond-
minustah-what-can-latin-america-do-for-haiti/ (last visited 30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      213
Through a number of official preparatory meetings and side forums and
events involving the participation of civil society and other actors, the
states of the region agreed on a number of mandates for action14
addressing issues of health, education, energy, the environment,
migration, security, citizen participation, and democratic governance. The
implementation of the mandates for action is to be overseen by the OAS,
the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC),
the Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO), the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), the World Bank, the Development Bank of Latin
America (CAF), and other multilateral financial and technical assistance
institutions. 
Cuba joined the meeting for the first time in the Summit’s history.
Following on the announcements made in December 2014,15 Cuba and
the United States held several rounds of negotiations during the first half
of 2015 as part of the process of normalisation of their diplomatic relations
that had been suspended since 1961. The steps taken included, amongst
others, the removal of Cuba from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism
drawn up by the US Department of State;16 the reopening of their
respective embassies in Havana and Washington DC on 20 July 2015; and
the establishment of a bilateral commission with an agenda for establishing
relations in areas such as environmental protection, health, science and
law enforcement.17 However, concern remains regarding the continuation
of the US economic embargo on Cuba and the impact on the enjoyment of
human rights on the island, as consistently indicated by the Inter-
American Commission on Human Rights (Inter-American Commission) in
its reports.18
13 The 2015 Summit of the Americas was attended by the Presidents of Panama, Juan
Carlos Varela; Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos; Ecuador, Rafael Correa; Brazil, Dilma
Rousseff; Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto; the United States, Barack Obama; Argentina,
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner; Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina; Venezuela, Nicolas
Maduro; Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández; Peru, Ollanta Humala; Bolivia, Evo
Morales; Uruguay, Tabaré Vázquez; El Salvador, Salvador Sánchez Cerén; Nicaragua,
Daniel Ortega; Haiti, Michel Martelly; Dominican Republic, Danilo Medina; Cuba, Raul
Castro; and the Prime Ministers of Canada, Stephen Harper; Trinidad and Tobago,
Kalma Persad-Bissessar; The Bahamas, Perry Christie; Jamaica, Portia Simpson-Miller;
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Ralph Gonsalves; Barbados, Freundel Stuart; Antigua
and Barbuda, Gaston Browne; Grenada, Keith Mitchell; and Saint Lucia, Kenny
Anthony.
14 Seventh Summit of the Americas ‘Prosperity with equity: the Challenge of co-operation
in the Americas’ Mandates for Action OEA/Ser.E, Panama, 2015, available at http://
www.summit-americas.org/vii/docs/mandates_en.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
15 See The White House, Press Release, Fact Sheet: Charting a new course on Cuba,
17 December 2014, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/12/
17/fact-sheet-charting-new-course-cuba (last visited 30 July 2016).
16 US Department of State, Press Statement, Rescission of Cuba as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism, 29 May 2015, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/05/
242986.htm (last visited 30 July 2016).
17 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, Special Section Cuba-United States, Cuban
Chancellor receives US Secretary of State, Havana, 14 August 2015, available at http://
cubaeeuu.cubaminrex.cu/article/recibe-canciller-cubano-al-secretario-de-estado-de-los-
estados-unidos (last visited 30 July 2016).
18 See IACHR Annual Report 2015 ch IV, Countries, Cuba, paras 18-20, available at http://
www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/annual/2015/TOC.asp (last visited 30 July 2016).
214                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
3.2 Organization of American States 
On 18 March 2015, during the XLIX Special General Assembly, the
member states of the OAS elected Luis Almagro to succeed José Miguel
Insulza as Secretary-General of the organisation for a five-year term
commencing on 26 May 2015. In his acceptance speech, Secretary-
General-elect Almagro - a former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay -
identified democracy, human rights, security and integral development as
the key priorities in the Americas. Referring to the budgetary difficulties
and the criticism faced by the organisation, Almagro stated that he did not
intend ‘to be the administrator of the crisis of the OAS, but the facilitator
of its renewal’ and called for hemispheric unity under the objectives
established in the Strategic Vision of the OAS adopted in 2014.19 
On 16 June 2015, at the 45th Regular General Assembly, the member
states of the OAS elected Enrique Gil Botero (Colombia), Esmeralda
Arosemena de Troitiño (Panama), Margarette May Macaulay (Jamaica) and
Francisco José Eguiguren Praeli (Peru) to serve in their personal capacity
as members of the Inter-American Commission. Their four-year term will
start on 1 January 2016 and end on 31 December 2019. In the same
session, the OAS General Assembly elected four new judges to the Inter-
American Court: Elizabeth Odio Benito (Costa Rica); Patricio Pazmiño
Freire (Ecuador); Eduardo Vio Grossi (Chile); and Eugenio Zaffaroni
(Argentina). Their six-year term will start on 1 January 2016 and end on
31 December 2021. 
The election of four new commissioners and judges for the Inter-
American Commission and Court, respectively, will significantly modify
the current makeup of the seven-member composition of each human
rights supervisory organ. Prior to the election, an independent panel of
experts, convened and endorsed by civil society organisations, publicly
advised the OAS to establish an ad hoc advisory committee to review the
suitability of candidates and to provide guidance to states during the
election process, in light of the experience gathered by the European
Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Court.20 The
human rights community of the Americas has long called for safeguards to
ensure the transparent selection of suitable and competent candidates with
a balanced approach in terms of gender and ethnicity.
Also during the 45th General Assembly, the OAS member states
adopted the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights
of Older Persons.21 The purpose of this instrument is to promote, protect
and ensure the recognition and full enjoyment and exercise, on an equal
19 OAS AG/RES 1 (XLVII-E/14) Guidelines and Objectives of the Strategic Vision of the
Organization of American States, adopted at the plenary session of the OAS General
Assembly, 47th Special Session, held on 12 September 2014, Washington DC OEA/Ser.P
AG/RES.1, available at http://www.oas.org/consejo/GENERAL%20ASSEMBLY/
47SGA.asp (last visited 30 July 2016).
20 Final Report of the Independent Panel for the Election of Inter-American
Commissioners and Judges, June 2015, available at https://
www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/iachr-panel-report-eng-
20150603.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
21 Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, adopted
at the 45th Regular Session of the OAS General Assembly in Washington DC on
15 June 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/inter_american_treaties_A-
70_human_rights_older_persons.asp (last visited 30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      215
basis, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms of older persons, in
order to contribute to their full inclusion, integration and participation in
society, with a differentiated treatment. The Convention was signed by
Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay and requires the
ratification by two signatory countries in order to enter into force.
4 Highlights on regional human rights protection and promotion
4.1 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 
During 2015, as part of its mandate to promote human rights, the Inter-
American Commission issued an important number of thematic reports
with standards relating to children, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, indigenous peoples, migrants,
and persons deprived of their liberty. Some of these reports had a special
focus on these cross-cutting issues in specific states, as was the case with
the situation of indigenous women and girls in Canada and migrant
children in the United States.
In its report on Canada,22 the Inter-American Commission highlights
the situation of indigenous women and girls as one of the most
disadvantaged groups in society, with poverty and racial discrimination
aggravating their vulnerability. The findings in the report reveal that
indigenous women are disproportionately affected as victims of homicide
and violence, and that there is a lack of due diligence by local authorities
in the investigation and prosecution of these types of cases. 
It is worth noting that in June 2015, after the release of the report, the
government of Canada launched an independent national inquiry23 with a
mandate to examine the greater vulnerability of indigenous women and
girls, the systemic causes of violence, and the impact of policies and
practices by state institutions charged with policing, child welfare, and the
administration of justice.
In its report on the situation of refugee and migrant families and
unaccompanied children in the United States,24 the Inter-American
Commission addresses immigration detention, immigration proceedings,
deportation, and the removal of migrants in light of the apprehension of a
record number of unaccompanied children between October 2013 and
September 2014, on the US-Mexico border. The recommendations in the
report call for an end to the practice of automatic and arbitrary
immigration detention of families. The Commission also recommends the
treatment of unaccompanied Mexican children with the same safeguards
and procedures applicable to unaccompanied children from non-
contiguous countries; the investigation of claims of abuses and
22 IACHR Missing and murdered indigenous women in British Columbia, Canada OEA/Ser.L/
V/II. Doc. 30/14, 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/
Indigenous-Women-BC-Canada-en.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
23 Government of Canada, Independent National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Girls, available at https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/
1448633299414/1448633350146 (last visited 30 July 2016).
24 IACHR Human Rights Situation of Refugee and Migrant Families and Unaccompanied
Children in the United States of Americas OAS/Ser.L/V/II 155, July 2015, available at
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Refugees-Migrants-US.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016).
216                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
mistreatment committed by US border agents; and the safeguarding of due
process guarantees and the best interests of the child in immigration
proceedings. 
The current context in the so-called northern triangle of Central
America - El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras – has forced many to flee
their communities in search of international protection because of
transnational organised crime and local gangs (maras). Many of these
migrants are women and children and unaccompanied children. These
patterns of displacement flow towards Mexico and ultimately the United
States, where migrants remain deprived of their liberty while a decision on
their status is made. As the Inter-American Commission warns, the
situation requires addressing poverty, economic and gender inequality,
discrimination and violence in the migrants' countries of origin. 
Within the framework of the Commission’s mandate to monitor the
human rights situation in OAS member states and the follow-up on
compliance with Precautionary Measure 409/14, a report on the
disappearance of 43 students of the rural school Raúl Isidro Burgos in
Ayotzinapa, Mexico, was issued. According to the available information,
during the night of 26 September 2014 municipal police officers, allegedly
in collusion with members of organised crime, attacked a group of
approximately 80 students travelling by bus from Iguala to Chilpancingo
in the state of Guerrero. As a result, six students died, 14 were injured,
and 43 students were missing, with no further clarification of the reasons
for the attack. In early October 2014, the Inter-American Commission
issued a precautionary measure requesting Mexico to establish the
whereabouts of the missing students, to protect the lives and physical
integrity of the surviving students and to report on the judicial
investigation into the events.25 A few days later, the Commission signed
an agreement with the state and the representatives of the missing
students, to appoint the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts
(GIEI, its acronym in Spanish) in order to provide technical assistance to
Mexico in the search for the missing students and the judicial
investigation.26 On the basis of a number of on-site observations in
Mexico, the GIEI issued a preliminary report27 examining the
contradictory accounts in the judicial files of the events that took place on
the day of the attack; and the deficiencies in the search for the students
during the crucial 72 hours after the disappearances. The GIEI made a
number of recommendations on the unification of the multiple parallel
investigations; the plausible lines of investigation that had not been
pursued; the need for accountability for the acts and omissions of local
25 IACHR Resolución 28/2014 Medida Cautelar No.409/14 Estudiantes de la Escuela
Rural ‘Raul Isidro Burgos’ respecto del Estado de México, 3 de octubre de 2014,
available at (Spanish only) http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/pdf/2014/MC409-14-
ES.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
26 IACHR, Press Release 117/14, ‘IACHR makes an urgent call on the Mexican state
regarding the murder and disappearance of students’ 10 October 2014, available at
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/117.asp (last visited 30 July
2016); Press Release 136/14 ‘IACHR makes official technical co-operation agreement
about Ayotzinapa students in Mexico’ 18 November 2014, available at http://
www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/136.asp (last visited 30 July 2016).
27 GIEI Ayotzinapa Report. Research and Initial Conclusions of the Disappearance and
Homicide of the Normalistas from Ayotzinapa, available at http://media.wix.com/ugd/
3a9f6f_e1df5a84680a4a8a969bd45453da1e31.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      217
authorities; and the importance of continuing with the search for the
disappeared students according to new hypotheses on their whereabouts.
Since the presentation of the report in October 2015, the mandate of the
GIEI, initially fixed for six months, has been extended.
The disappearance of the Ayotzinapa students gained global notoriety as
an example of the extreme violence by organised crime in collusion with
local state officials in Mexico. Based on official figures, the Inter-American
Commission has stated that in certain areas of the country, disappearances
have reached critical levels, with more than 20 000 cases recorded, and
consistent information on the direct participation, acquiescence or
tolerance of state agents.28
As part of its mandate to process individual petitions on the violation of
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man against states
that have not yet ratified the American Convention on Human Rights, the
Inter-American Commission during 2015 issued and published three
reports on the merits relating to the United States. These three reports
refer to the application of the death penalty in violation of the right to due
process and a fair trial. In two of the cases, the Commission found that
non-nationals charged with the commission of crimes punishable by death
in the United States had not been afforded access to effective court-
appointed counsel and to consular notification and assistance.29 In the
third case, the Commission found that a national had not been afforded
access to effective court-appointed counsel and that the United States had
failed to respond to allegations and evidence ‘concerning possible racial
discrimination’ (paragraph 146) during the judicial proceedings.30 As in
previous cases concerning due process violations in death penalty cases
under the American Declaration, the Commission concluded in the three
reports that the imposition of capital punishment in these circumstances
constituted a violation of the right to life. 
Regarding its mandate to examine claims on the violation of the
American Convention and other Inter-American human rights treaties, the
Inter-American Commission decided to make public two reports on the
merits during 2015. One of the cases involved the violation of the rights to
privacy and equality before the law of two members of the Mexican armed
forces who had been discharged on account of their testing HIV positive.31
The Commission decided to publish the report on the grounds that the
Mexican state had fully complied with the recommendations first issued in
this case in 2011 regarding the provision of comprehensive medical
28 IACHR Press Release ‘IACHR publishes report on the situation of Human Rights in
Mexico’ 2 March 2016, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/
PReleases/2016/023.asp (last visited 30 July 2016).
29 IACHR Report 11/15 Case 12.833 Merits (Publication), Felix Rocha Diaz, OEA/Ser.L/V/
II.154 Doc 5, 23 March 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2015/
USPU12833EN.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016); Report 79/15 Case 12.994, Merits
(Publication), Bernardo Aban Tercero, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156 Doc 32 28 October 2015,
available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2015/USPU12994EN.pdf (last visited
30 July 2016).
30 IACHR Report 78/15 Case 12.831, Merits (Publication), Kevin Cooper, United States
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156 Doc 31, 28 October 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/
decisions/2015/USPU12831EN.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
31 IACHR Report 80/15 Case 12.689 Report on Merits (Publication), JSCH and MGS,
Mexico, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156 Doc. 33, 28 October 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/
en/iachr/decisions/2015/mxPU12689EN.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
218                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
services for the victims; their being reinstated into the armed forces; the
compensation of material and non-material damages caused by their
discharge; and the adoption of domestic legislation providing that testing
positive for HIV may only serve as a ground for discharge if it results in the
loss of functionality to perform actions in the line of duty.
In 12 cases on the merits concerning Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela, the Inter-American
Commission decided not to publish its reports and instead to refer these
matters to the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights (Inter-American Court). The cases involve issues relating to
extrajudicial executions, forced disappearance, slave labour, freedom of
expression, physical integrity in connection with reproductive rights and
non-discrimination, due process of law, and access to justice.
4.2 Inter-American Court of Human Rights 
During 2015, the Inter-American Court delivered 16 judgments on
preliminary objections, merits and reparations, and two judgments on the
interpretation of previous decisions. The judgments on the merits involved
the application of the American Convention on Human Rights and other
Inter-American human rights treaties to issues relating to non-
discrimination, gender, indigenous rights, forced disappearances,
extrajudicial execution, freedom of the press, political participation and
due process of law. Some of the more significant decisions in terms of
development of Inter-American standards are summarised below.
In its judgment in the case of Cruz Sanchez & Others v Peru,32 the Inter-
American Court examined the death of three Tupac Amaru Revolutionary
Movement (MRTA) members in the context of a hostage rescue operation
known as Chavin de Huantar, and considered whether the acts and
omissions of the state agents involved were compatible with the American
Convention and the applicable rules of international humanitarian law.
The operation was carried out by Peruvian special forces on 22 April 1997
in order to rescue 72 hostages held by 14 MRTA members at the Japanese
embassy in Lima. The judgment acknowledged that at the time of the
events there was an internal armed conflict in Peru,33 and that the state
was entitled to use force with the specific objective of ensuring the release
of the hostages who had been held at the embassy for almost four months,
always within the framework of international humanitarian and
international human rights law.
According to the initial reports issued by the security forces, all 14
MRTA members involved in the hostage taking had been killed in the
confrontation during the rescue operation. However, it was later
established that at least one of the three MRTA members whose case was
brought before the Inter-American Court had been killed while in the
custody of the state and not in combat, as previously reported. Therefore,
32 Inter-American Court Case of Cruz Sánchez & Others v Peru. Judgment of 17 April 2015
(Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) Series C No 292, available at
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_292_esp.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016).
33 Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación del Peru, Informe Final, 2003, volume I,
chapter 1.1 ‘Los períodos de la violencia’ 54 and 55, available at (Spanish only) http://
cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/ (last visited 30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      219
the Inter-American Court found that the state was responsible for the
violation of the right to life protected in article 4 of the American
Convention. Regarding the other two alleged victims in the case, the Court
considered that the evidence available was not sufficient to ascertain the
circumstances of the deaths and, therefore, no violation of the right to life
under the American Convention could be found. Instead, the Court
established that the state had failed to conduct a proper investigation and
to ensure due process and judicial protection for the victims’ family
members.
This judgment follows previous decisions by both the Inter-American
Court and Commission when interpreting the obligation to respect and
ensure the right to life under the American Convention in a manner
complementary to the rules of international humanitarian law in cases
involving combat situations between state security forces or their proxies
and armed groups in Argentina, Guatemala and Colombia. In this case,
however, the Court chose not to follow its - until now - constant practice
of granting monetary compensation for material and moral damages as
part of the reparations in cases involving the commission of extrajudicial
executions. In their respective separate dissenting opinions, Judges Vio
Grossi and Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot expressed the view that the
publication of the judgment in itself was insufficient as a reparation and
that monetary compensation for the moral damage caused to the victims’
family members should have been awarded, in line with the historical
approach of the Inter-American Court vis-à-vis the reparation of the
violation to the right to life and judicial protection.
In its decision in the case of López Lone & Others v Honduras,34 the
Inter-American Court examined the arbitrary removal from office of four
judges who – as members of a pro-democracy association – had publicly
contradicted the official position of the Supreme Court justifying the
ousting of President Zelaya in 2009,35 and instead identified it as a coup
d’état. In retaliation, the four judges were subjected to disciplinary
proceedings and removed from office by the Supreme Court. 
Based on the wide condemnation by the international community of
President Zelaya’s ousting - including strong pronouncements by the OAS
General Assembly and Permanent Council and by the UN General
Assembly - the Inter-American Court considered that the events of June
2009 indeed constituted a coup d’état and that the victims had been
removed from office as a consequence of expressing their views on the
impact the coup d’état would have on the rule of law in Honduras. 
The Inter-American Court found that the removal from office of the
victims violated the principles of legality and due process of law, and the
rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, and participation
in government provided for in articles 8, 13, 16 and 23 of the American
34 Inter-American Court, case of López Lone & Others v Honduras, Preliminary Objection,
Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 5 October 2015, Series C No 302, available
at (Spanish only) http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_302_esp.pdf
(last visited 30 July 2016).
35 For an account of the events of June 2009 in Honduras and the reaction of the Inter-
American system, see IACHR ‘Honduras: Human rights and the coup d’état OEA/Ser.L/
V/II. Doc. 55, 2009, available at http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Honduras09eng/
Toc.htm (last visited 30 July 2016).
220                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
Convention. The Court explained that these rights could be subjected to
restrictions compatible with the treaty, among them those limiting their
exercise by officials from the judicial branch, particularly judges. In fact, in
the case of members of the judiciary, restrictions on freedom of
expression, association and participation in political parties may be
pertinent and necessary to ensure the integrity of the administration of
justice within the rule of law. However, the Inter-American Court
considered that in times of serious democratic crises, any restriction on
individual rights that may interfere with the judges’ actions to uphold
democracy should be lifted. In its view, in this case any impediment to
expressing views on the illegality of the 2009 coup d’état would contradict
the independence that the members of the judiciary, as one of the
branches of government, must enjoy. Thus, the Inter-American Court
concluded that the conduct of the victims in this case could not be
construed as contrary to their roles as judges nor be subject to restrictions
and disciplinary proceedings. As part of the reparations, the Court ordered
Honduras to reinstate the four judges and to provide them with
compensation for material and moral damages.
As acknowledged in the judgment itself, this is the first opportunity
where the Inter-American Court has addressed the right of officials from
the judicial branch to gather, express their views and exercise their
political rights in terms of participation in and access to public service and
the so-called ‘right to defend democracy’. The case is significant in view of
the mutually-reinforcing nature of democracy, the rule of law and the
independence of the judicial branch. 
In the case of Gonzales Lluy & Others v Ecuador,36 the Inter-American
Court examined the rights to life, physical integrity, and education vis-à-
vis non-discrimination in a case involving the infection of a child with HIV
and the exclusion she suffered on account of her health, in particular
regarding her schooling. As a three year-old, the victim was diagnosed
with thrombocytopenic purpura and received an urgent blood transfusion
at a Red Cross blood bank, without prior basic safety HIV testing. The
Inter-American Court found that inadequate state supervision had resulted
in the administration of a contaminated transfusion, with permanent
consequences for the victim’s physical integrity and a severe risk to her
life. Thus, the state was found to have failed to fulfil its obligation to
monitor and supervise the provision of health care services, within the
framework of the right to personal integrity and the obligation not to
endanger life, in violation of articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention.
This finding is in line with previous decisions of the Inter-American Court
relating to the lack of due diligence in the control of third party providers
of health services, always within the obligation to ensure the rights to life
and physical integrity under the American Convention.37 As in previous
cases where the Inter-American Court has established state responsibility
36 Inter-American Court Gonzales Lluy & Others v Ecuador Judgment of 1 September 2015
(Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) Series C No 298, available at
http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_298_ing.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016).
37 See, for instance, Inter-American Court case of Suarez Peralta v Ecuador, Judgment of
21 May 2013 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations And Costs) Series C No 261,
available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_261_ing.pdf (last
visited 30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      221
and addressed issues relating to access to health by invoking the right to
physical integrity under article 5 of the American Convention, the separate
opinions in this judgment revisit the ornamental debate on direct
justiciability of socio-economic rights under article 26 of the American
Convention. In this composition, Judge Porto, on the one hand, does not
support the direct justiciability of socio-economic rights under article 26,
and favours the pragmatic connectivity with the right to life or the right to
personal integrity (paragraph 30 of the separate opinion), while Judge
Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot (Judges Robles and Caldas concurring), on the
other hand, contends that by not basing its finding on an expansive
interpretation of article 26 of the American Convention, the Court fails to
deliver in full an analysis of the duty to ensure the right to health
(paragraph 13 of the Lluy case, citing paragraph 57 of his concurring
opinion in the case of Suárez Peralta).
The judgment also examined the decision of the school authorities to
exclude the victim from attending classes on account of a potential risk to
the health of other students and their best interests. The Inter-American
Court found that school authorities had failed to show that the
differentiated treatment of the victim was justified and that the purpose
and the effect of the exclusion were not discriminatory. The Court stated
that stereotypical presumptions concerning the possible risks related to
HIV were not appropriate to ensure the legitimate objective of protecting
the best interests of the child, and that precisely this principle could not be
invoked to justify discrimination against another child owing to her health
status. Thus, in this case, far from adopting measures to combat the
prejudice surrounding HIV, the school had actually reinforced the stigma
associated with such illnesses. The Inter-American Court found that the
state had failed to ensure article 13 of the Protocol of San Salvador, in
relation to articles 19 and 1(1) of the American Convention in terms of the
right not to be discriminated against on the basis of health in the context
of the education system. The Court stated that various vulnerability factors
and the risk of discrimination intersected in this case: the victim’s
condition as a child, a female, a person living in poverty, and a person
living with HIV. Apart from the payment of compensation, the reparations
ordered by the Court included the provision of medical and psychological
treatment, a scholarship, and decent housing for the victim. The Court
also ordered the state to train health officials on best practices and on the
rights of patients with HIV.
During 2015 the Inter-American Court once more addressed the issue
of the lack of due diligence by the state in the prevention and investigation
of femicides in the context of violence against women, the growing
number of vicious killings, and structural gender discrimination and
stereotyping. In line with its 2014 decision in the case of Maria Isabel Veliz
Franco v Guatemala,38 and based on the grounds originally established in
the Campo Algodonero case in 2009,39 the Inter-American Court examined
the conduct of state agents in the prevention and investigation of a young
woman’s initial disappearance and violent homicide in the case of Claudina
Velásquez Paiz & Others v Guatemala,40 and found serious violations of the
38 Inter-American Court case of Veliz Franco & Others v Guatemala. Preliminary
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 19 May 2014, Series C No. 277,
available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_277_ing.pdf (last
visited 30 July 2016).
222                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
Convention of Belem do Para and the American Convention. The
reparations granted on behalf of the victims, including the family members
of Claudina Velásquez Pais, are also in line with previous decisions in
terms of compensation for material and moral damages, symbolic
measures, education to eradicate gender discrimination, specialised
training of state officials involved in the prevention and investigation of
these types of cases, and the adoption of legislative and policy measures to
establish a search mechanism for victims. 
4.3 Working Group of the Protocol of San Salvador
The Working Group to Examine the Periodic Reports of the States Parties
to the Protocol of San Salvador (WGPSS), a specialised monitoring
mechanism composed of independent experts, government experts and
representatives from the Inter-American Commission created by AG/RES
2262 (XXXVII-O/07), published a report compiling all progress indicators
to measure compliance with social, economic and cultural rights protected
under the Protocol of San Salvador.41 The WGPSS initially drafted
progress indicators to measure compliance with the rights to education,
social security and health that were formally adopted in 2011 by the OAS
General Assembly (AG/RES 2713 XLII-O/12). Progress indicators to
measure compliance with a second group of rights in the Protocol,
including the right to work, trade union rights, the right to a healthy
environment, the right to food, and the right to the benefits of culture,
were also drafted by the WGPSS and adopted by the General Assembly two
years later, in 2014 (AG/RES. 2823 XLIV-O/14). The WGPSS designed an
important number of structural, process and outcome indicators, arranged
into three conceptual categories, including the incorporation of rights,
financial context and budgetary commitment, and state capabilities. These
conceptual categories are to be considered in light of the principles of
equality and non-discrimination, access to justice, and access to
information and participation. The information submitted by state parties
must also take into consideration gender equity, special needs groups
(children, the elderly, persons with disabilities), and ethnic diversity
(indigenous peoples and Afro-descendants, in particular) as cross-cutting
issues.
The WGPSS met for its first two monitoring sessions in February and
October 2015 at OAS headquarters in Washington DC and received official
delegations from Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay and
Uruguay to discuss the very first national reports on compliance with the
rights to social security, health and education on the basis of the progress
indicators compiled in the report. The submission of national reports and
the monitoring of progress on the basis of the indicators accepted by
39 Inter-American Court case of González & Others (‘Cotton Field’) v Mexico. Preliminary
Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 16 November 2009. Series C No.
205, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_205_ing.pdf (last
visited 30 July 2016).
40 Inter-American Court case of Velásquez Paiz & Others v Guatemala. Preliminary
Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 19 November 2015. Series C
No 307, available at (Spanish only): http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/
seriec_307_esp.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
41 WGPSS, Progress Indicators for Measuring Rights under the Protocol of San Salvador,
OEA/Ser.D/XXVI.11, 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/sedi/pub/
progress_indicators.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      223
consensus at the OAS General Assembly at the proposal of the WGPSS
constitute a significant landmark in the protection of economic, social and
cultural rights in the Americas.
References 
Amnesty International Report 2015-2016. The State of the World’s Human Rights,
available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2016/02/annual-report-
201516/ (last visited 30 July 2016)
Borrador conjunto del Acuerdo sobre las Víctimas del Conflicto ‘Sistema Integral
de Verdad, Justicia, Reparación y No Repetición’, available at http://wp.
presidencia.gov.co/sitios/especiales/Documents/20150921-declaracion-proceso-
paz/docs/Punto5-Victimas.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
CICIG Financiamiento de la Política en Guatemala, 2015, available at http://www.
cicig.org/uploads/documents/2015/informe_financiamiento_politicagt.pdf (last
visited 30 July 2016) 
CICIG Informe de la Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad con Ocasión de su
Octavo Año de Labores, available at http://www.cicig.org/uploads/documents/
2015/COM_085_20151113_VIII.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
Comisión Colombiana de Juristas Press Release of 21 December 2015, available at
http://www.coljuristas.org/documentos/comunicados_de_prensa/acuerdo_sobre
_victimas_necesario_y_oportuno.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016) 
GIEI Ayotzinapa Report. Research and Initial Conclusions of the Disappearance
and Homicide of the Normalistas from Ayotzinapa, available at http://media.
wix.com/ugd/3a9f6f_e1df5a84680a4a8a969bd45453da1e31.pdf (last visited
30 July 2016).
Human Rights Watch, Analysis of Colombia-FARC Agreement, 12 December 2015.
Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/12/21/human-rights-watch-
analysis-colombia-farc-agreement (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Truth, Justice and Reparation:
Fourth Report on Human Rights Situation in Colombia, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc.
49/13 31 December 2013, Chapter 3, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/
reports/pdfs/Colombia-Truth-Justice-Reparation.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Situation of Human Rights in
Guatemala: Diversity, Inequality and Exclusion OEA/Ser.L/V/II.Doc 43/15,
31 December 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/
Guatemala2016-en.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016) 
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Annual Report 2015 Chapter IV,
Countries, Cuba, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/annual/2015/
TOC.asp (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Human Rights Situation of Refugee
and Migrant Families and Unaccompanied Children in the United States of
Americas OAS/Ser.L/V/II. 155, July 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/
iachr/reports/pdfs/Refugees-Migrants-US.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016) 
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women in British Columbia, Canada OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 30/14, 2015,
available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/Indigenous-Women-BC-
Canada-en.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
224                                                                                               (2017) 1 Global Campus Human Rights Journal
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Honduras: Human Rights and the
Coup d’État OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 55, 2009, available at http://www.cidh.org/
countryrep/Honduras09eng/Toc.htm (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Report 11/15 Case 12.833 Merits
(Publication) Felix Rocha Dia OEA/Ser.L/V/II.154 Doc 5, 23 March 2015,
available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2015/USPU12833EN.pdf (last
visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Report 79/15 Case 12.994, Merits
(Publication) Bernardo Aban Tercero OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156 Doc 32, 28 October
2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2015/USPU12994
EN.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Report 78/15 Case 12.831, Merits
(Publication), Kevin Cooper United States OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156 Doc 31,
28 October 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2015/
USPU12831EN.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Report 80/15 Case 12.689 Report on
Merits (Publication) JSCH and MGS, Mexico, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.156 Doc. 33,
28 October 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/decisions/2015/
mxPU12689EN.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016).
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Resolución 28/2014 Medida
Cautelar No 409/14 Estudiantes de la Escuela Rural ‘Raul Isidro Burgos’
respecto del Estado de México 3 de octubre de 2014, available at (Spanish only)
http://www.oas.org/es/cidh/decisiones/pdf/2014/MC409-14-ES.pdf (last visited
30 July 2016)
Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons,
adopted at the 45th regular session of the OAS General Assembly in
Washington DC on 15 June 2015, available at http://www.oas.org/en/sla/dil/
inter_american_treaties_A-70_human_rights_older_persons.asp (last visited
30 July 2016)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Cruz Sánchez & Others v Peru
Judgment of 17 April 2015 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and
Costs) Series C No 292, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/
articulos/seriec_292_esp.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of López Lone & Others v Honduras,
Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 5 October
2015, Series C No. 302, available at (Spanish only) http://www.corteidh.or.cr/
docs/casos/articulos/seriec_302_esp.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Velásquez Paiz & Others v
Guatemala Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of
19 November 2015. Series C No 307, available at (Spanish only) http://
www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_307_esp.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016)
Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Gonzales Lluy & Others v Ecuador
Judgment of 1 September 2015 (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations
and Costs) Series C No 298, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/
articulos/seriec_298_ing.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
Inter-American Dialogue ‘Beyond MINUSTAH: What can Latin America do for
Haiti?’ available at http://www.thedialogue.org/blogs/2016/02/beyond-minustah-
what-can-latin-america-do-for-haiti/ (last visited 30 July 2016)
Mesa de conversaciones para la terminación del conflicto y la construcción de una
paz duradera en Colombia, Joint Communiqué 64 ‘Agreement on the Victims of
the Conflict. Comprehensive System for Truth, Justice, Reparation and Non-
Repetition’ Havana, 15 December 2015, available at https://www.mesade
SELECTED DEVELOPMENTS DURING 2015: THE AMERICAS                                                                      225
conversaciones.com.co/sites/default/files/joint-communique-64-december-15-
2015-1450285397.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016) 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba, Special Section Cuba-United States, Cuban
Chancellor receives US Secretary of State, Havana, 14 August 2015, available at
http://cubaeeuu.cubaminrex.cu/article/recibe-canciller-cubano-al-secretario-de-
estado-de-los-estados-unidos (last visited 30 July 2016)
OAS AG/RES 1 (XLVII-E/14) Guidelines and Objectives of the Strategic Vision of
the Organization of American States, adopted at the plenary session of the OAS
General Assembly, 47th Special Session, held on 12 September 2014,
Washington DC OEA/Ser.P AG/RES.1, available at http://www.oas.org/consejo/
GENERAL%20ASSEMBLY/47SGA.asp (last visited 30 July 2016) 
OHCHR Guatemala ‘A Guatemalan awakening: The revolt for justice and change’,
available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/AGuatemalana
wakening.aspx (last visited 30 July 2016)
Seventh Summit of the Americas ‘Prosperity with Equity: The Challenge of Co-
operation in the Americas’ Mandates for Action OEA/Ser.E, Panama (2015),
available at http://www.summit-americas.org/vii/docs/mandates_en.pdf (last
visited 30 July 2016) 
The White House, Press Release, Fact Sheet: Charting a new course on Cuba,
17 December 2014, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/
2014/12/17/fact-sheet-charting-new-course-cuba (last visited 30 July 2016)
Tribunal Supremo Electoral de Guatemala, Memoria de las Elecciones Generales y
de Diputados al Parlamento Centroamericano 2015, available at http://
www.tse.org.gt/MEMORIA-ELECTORAL-2015.pdf (last visited 30 July 2016)
UN Human Rights Council, 31st Session, Report of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Addendum: Situation of Human Rights in
Colombia, A/HRC/31/3/Add.2 15 March 2016
UN Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations
Stabilisation Mission in Haiti, 31 August 2015 S/2015/667, available at https://
minustah.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/n1525971.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016) 
US Department of State, Press Statement, Rescission of Cuba as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism, 29 May 2015, available at http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/05/
242986.htm (last visited 30 July 2016)
Working Group of the Protocol of San Salvador, Progress Indicators for Measuring
Rights under the Protocol of San Salvador, OEA/Ser.D/XXVI.11, 2015, available
at http://www.oas.org/en/sedi/pub/progress_indicators.pdf (last visited 30 July
2016)