In order to prove that the disappearance had actually occurred as a result of state action, the c... more In order to prove that the disappearance had actually occurred as a result of state action, the commission pointed toward the systematic practice of enforced disappearance by the Honduran government. It was their assertion that this practice sufficiently proved that the disappearance of Mr Velasquez could be linked to the state. The commission called upon a variety of evidence to demonstrate such a practice existed including witness testimony and media extracts, which indicated as many as 160 people were victims of state colluded disappearance between the years 1980-1983. The evidence pointed towards a distinct modus operandi: they used automobiles with tinted glass… without license plates and sometimes used special disguises, such as wigs, false mustaches, masks…The kidnappings were selective, the victims were placed under surveillance, then… kidnap[ed]... Some were taken from their homes; others were picked up in public streets The Court held that the evidence presented sufficiently proved that: “That there existed in Honduras from 1981 to 1984 a systematic and selective [practice] of disappearances carried out with the assistance or tolerance of the government; That Manfredo Velásquez was a victim of that practice and was kidnapped and presumably tortured, executed and clandestinely buried by agents of the Armed Forces of Honduras …” This aspect of the decision is crucial for two reasons. Firstly, the Court decided that the pattern of behaviour by the Honduran government was relevant to the case at hand and secondly, that the enforced disappearance of Mr Velasquez could be ‘presumed’ as being attributable to that state practice. Referring to existing international law that indicates that courts have the power to weigh evidence freely, the court concluded that the disappearance could be linked to the Honduran government through ‘circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference’ As a result, the burden of proof required to show that a disappearance had occurred, was lowered to less than a reasonable doubt. In explaining the rationale for this change, the court stressed the need to avoid “confusing the protection of human rights, with criminal justice” (an area which is accustomed to fulfilling the higher evidentiary requirement). The judgement went on to state that: “the objective of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of violations, but rather to protect the victims” . This approach would go on to exemplify the victim-centric jurisprudence of the IACHR that makes every effort to ease the facilitation of justice. The benefit to the claimant stemming from this aspect of the decision cannot be overstated as it assists the process of linking the disappeared to the actions of the state.
In order to prove that the disappearance had actually occurred as a result of state action, the c... more In order to prove that the disappearance had actually occurred as a result of state action, the commission pointed toward the systematic practice of enforced disappearance by the Honduran government. It was their assertion that this practice sufficiently proved that the disappearance of Mr Velasquez could be linked to the state. The commission called upon a variety of evidence to demonstrate such a practice existed including witness testimony and media extracts, which indicated as many as 160 people were victims of state colluded disappearance between the years 1980-1983. The evidence pointed towards a distinct modus operandi: they used automobiles with tinted glass… without license plates and sometimes used special disguises, such as wigs, false mustaches, masks…The kidnappings were selective, the victims were placed under surveillance, then… kidnap[ed]... Some were taken from their homes; others were picked up in public streets The Court held that the evidence presented sufficiently proved that: “That there existed in Honduras from 1981 to 1984 a systematic and selective [practice] of disappearances carried out with the assistance or tolerance of the government; That Manfredo Velásquez was a victim of that practice and was kidnapped and presumably tortured, executed and clandestinely buried by agents of the Armed Forces of Honduras …” This aspect of the decision is crucial for two reasons. Firstly, the Court decided that the pattern of behaviour by the Honduran government was relevant to the case at hand and secondly, that the enforced disappearance of Mr Velasquez could be ‘presumed’ as being attributable to that state practice. Referring to existing international law that indicates that courts have the power to weigh evidence freely, the court concluded that the disappearance could be linked to the Honduran government through ‘circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference’ As a result, the burden of proof required to show that a disappearance had occurred, was lowered to less than a reasonable doubt. In explaining the rationale for this change, the court stressed the need to avoid “confusing the protection of human rights, with criminal justice” (an area which is accustomed to fulfilling the higher evidentiary requirement). The judgement went on to state that: “the objective of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of violations, but rather to protect the victims” . This approach would go on to exemplify the victim-centric jurisprudence of the IACHR that makes every effort to ease the facilitation of justice. The benefit to the claimant stemming from this aspect of the decision cannot be overstated as it assists the process of linking the disappeared to the actions of the state.
Uploads
Papers by Lewis Gittens
they used automobiles with tinted glass… without license plates and sometimes used special disguises, such as wigs, false mustaches, masks…The kidnappings were selective, the victims were placed under surveillance, then… kidnap[ed]... Some were taken from their homes; others were picked up in public streets
The Court held that the evidence presented sufficiently proved that:
“That there existed in Honduras from 1981 to 1984 a systematic and selective [practice] of disappearances carried out with the assistance or tolerance of the government; That Manfredo Velásquez was a victim of that practice and was kidnapped and presumably tortured, executed and clandestinely buried by agents of the Armed Forces of Honduras …”
This aspect of the decision is crucial for two reasons. Firstly, the Court decided that the pattern of behaviour by the Honduran government was relevant to the case at hand and secondly, that the enforced disappearance of Mr Velasquez could be ‘presumed’ as being attributable to that state practice. Referring to existing international law that indicates that courts have the power to weigh evidence freely, the court concluded that the disappearance could be linked to the Honduran government through ‘circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference’
As a result, the burden of proof required to show that a disappearance had occurred, was lowered to less than a reasonable doubt. In explaining the rationale for this change, the court stressed the need to avoid “confusing the protection of human rights, with criminal justice” (an area which is accustomed to fulfilling the higher evidentiary requirement). The judgement went on to state that:
“the objective of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of violations, but rather to protect the victims” .
This approach would go on to exemplify the victim-centric jurisprudence of the IACHR that makes every effort to ease the facilitation of justice. The benefit to the claimant stemming from this aspect of the decision cannot be overstated as it assists the process of linking the disappeared to the actions of the state.
they used automobiles with tinted glass… without license plates and sometimes used special disguises, such as wigs, false mustaches, masks…The kidnappings were selective, the victims were placed under surveillance, then… kidnap[ed]... Some were taken from their homes; others were picked up in public streets
The Court held that the evidence presented sufficiently proved that:
“That there existed in Honduras from 1981 to 1984 a systematic and selective [practice] of disappearances carried out with the assistance or tolerance of the government; That Manfredo Velásquez was a victim of that practice and was kidnapped and presumably tortured, executed and clandestinely buried by agents of the Armed Forces of Honduras …”
This aspect of the decision is crucial for two reasons. Firstly, the Court decided that the pattern of behaviour by the Honduran government was relevant to the case at hand and secondly, that the enforced disappearance of Mr Velasquez could be ‘presumed’ as being attributable to that state practice. Referring to existing international law that indicates that courts have the power to weigh evidence freely, the court concluded that the disappearance could be linked to the Honduran government through ‘circumstantial or indirect evidence or by logical inference’
As a result, the burden of proof required to show that a disappearance had occurred, was lowered to less than a reasonable doubt. In explaining the rationale for this change, the court stressed the need to avoid “confusing the protection of human rights, with criminal justice” (an area which is accustomed to fulfilling the higher evidentiary requirement). The judgement went on to state that:
“the objective of international human rights law is not to punish those individuals who are guilty of violations, but rather to protect the victims” .
This approach would go on to exemplify the victim-centric jurisprudence of the IACHR that makes every effort to ease the facilitation of justice. The benefit to the claimant stemming from this aspect of the decision cannot be overstated as it assists the process of linking the disappeared to the actions of the state.