{"id":20834,"date":"2014-06-19T15:31:35","date_gmt":"2014-06-19T19:31:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/?p=20834"},"modified":"2024-09-09T15:33:25","modified_gmt":"2024-09-09T19:33:25","slug":"dplf-presents-amicus-curiae-on-amnesty-law-before-the-salvadoran-supreme-court-of-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/2014\/06\/19\/dplf-presents-amicus-curiae-on-amnesty-law-before-the-salvadoran-supreme-court-of-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"DPLF presents amicus curiae on amnesty law before the Salvadoran Supreme Court of Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"rtejustify\">On June 18, 2014, the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)\u00a0<strong>filed an\u00a0<em>amicus curiae<\/em>\u00a0in a currently pending case on the constitutionality of the country\u2019s amnesty law, before\u00a0the Constitutional Chamber of El Salvador\u2019s Supreme Court of Justice<\/strong>. In the\u00a0<em>amicus<\/em>, DPLF elaborated upon applicable international legal standards about the prohibition on amnesty laws that impede the investigation, prosecution or punishment of grave violations of human rights and international \u00a0crimes \u2013 which is the effect of the Salvadoran amnesty law \u2013 because such laws contradict a State\u2019s duty to provide access to justice. DPLF also included references to jurisprudence of Latin American national courts rejecting amnesties, thus signaling a regional trend.<\/p>\n<p class=\"rtejustify\">Since the adoption of the amnesty law in 1993, various UN human rights bodies urged the Salvadoran government to amend or repeal this law, given that it constituted an obstacle for victims of gross violations of human rights to have access to truth, justice and reparations. Likewise, the\u00a0<strong>Inter-American Commission on Human Rights<\/strong>\u00a0(IACHR) stated that the Salvadoran amnesty law was incompatible with the\u00a0<strong>American Convention on Human Rights<\/strong>; in particular, with the Salvadoran State\u2019s duty to bring its domestic laws in compliance with the Convention and to comply with its obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish human rights violations, and to guarantee the right to truth. More recently, the\u00a0<strong>Inter-American Court of Human Rights<\/strong>, in the judgment on the\u00a0<strong>El Mozote<\/strong>\u00a0massacre, invalidated\u00a0the legal effects of the amnesty law and ordered the Salvadoran State to adopt the necessary measures so that the amnesty law will not be an impediment to criminal prosecution.<\/p>\n<p class=\"rtejustify\">Meanwhile, in 2000, the\u00a0<strong>Constitutional Chamber of El Salvador\u2019s \u00a0Supreme Court of Justice<\/strong>\u00a0ruled that the amnesty law was not applicable in cases of grave violations of fundamental rights, and reminded that lower judges can decide \u2013 on a case to case basis \u2013 to not apply the amnesty law in such instances. However, this decision has not led to significant advances in the investigation and punishment of these crimes. Thus,<strong>\u00a0in March 2013, a group of human rights organizations filed another petition before\u00a0the Constitutional Chamber to review the conformity of the amnesty law with the Constitution and with international law, requesting that a new decision extend\u00a0the scope of the 2000 ruling.<\/strong>\u00a0It is in the framework of this petition, that DPLF presented its\u00a0<em>amicus<\/em>\u00a0brief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"rtejustify\">DPLF trusts that the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court takes into account its\u00a0<em>amicus<\/em>\u00a0brief and the arguments contained in it, and that\u00a0<strong>the decision it adopts will\u00a0make clear that the amnesty law has to be interpreted in accordance with El Salvador\u2019s international obligations under international human rights law and the applicable international jurisprudence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On June 18, 2014, the Due Process of Law Foundation (DPLF)\u00a0filed an\u00a0amicus curiae\u00a0in a currently pending case on the constitutionality of the country\u2019s amnesty law, before\u00a0the Constitutional Chamber of El Salvador\u2019s Supreme Court of Justice. In the\u00a0amicus, DPLF elaborated upon applicable international legal standards about the prohibition on amnesty laws that impede the investigation, prosecution [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[681],"tags":[],"country":[879,876],"issue":[854,859],"program":[873],"resource":[896],"class_list":["post-20834","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","country-el-salvador","country-america-central","issue-international-crimes","issue-transitional-justice","program-transitional-justice-and-fight-against-impunity","resource-press-releases"],"acf":{"boton_1":"Read the amicus\u00a0here (in Spanish only)","url_boton_1\u00ba":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/c1b0bb04-6b05-46fd-ba01-f1ad8bf89586.pdf","boton_2":"","url_boton_2":"","boton_3":"","url_boton_3":"","boton_4":"","url_boton_4":"","boton_5":"","url_boton_5":"","boton_6":"","url_boton_6":"","boton_7":"","url_boton_7":"","boton_8":"","url_boton_8":"","boton_9":"","url_boton_9":"","boton_10":"","url_boton_10":""},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20834"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20834"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20834\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20837,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20834\/revisions\/20837"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20834"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20834"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20834"},{"taxonomy":"country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/country?post=20834"},{"taxonomy":"issue","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/issue?post=20834"},{"taxonomy":"program","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/program?post=20834"},{"taxonomy":"resource","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dplf.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/resource?post=20834"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}