Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Members and Militants of Unión Patriótica v. Colombia
Decision Date: July 27, 2022
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that Colombia was internationally responsible for serious human rights violations, including the Convention’s right to freedom of expression and political rights, committed over two decades ago against more than 6,000 members and militants of the Unión Patriótica (U.P.) political party. Unión Patriótica was a Colombian political party created in 1985 that suffered systematic violence and political persecution for over twenty years. The case was brought before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by both Colombia and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, with the support of a group of Colombian NGOs. Colombia partially admitted its international responsibility for the facts but limited its scope only to the violation of the Convention’s duty to “prevent”. The IACtHR held that these acts were a form of systematic extermination against the Unión Patriótica political party, and its members and militants, with the participation of state agents, and with the tolerance and acquiescence of the authorities. The IACtHR found that the patterns of violence and systematic stigmatization against the victims were aimed at excluding the members of Unión Patriótica from the democratic field in Colombia, violating their political rights, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. In light of this, the IACtHR also held that Colombia violated its duties to respect, and to prevent, under the American Convention concerning the rights to recognition as a person before the law, to life, to due process, to personal integrity, to personal liberty, to freedom of movement and residence, and to the rights of the child.

Indigenous People Maya Kaqchikel from Sumpango v. Guatemala
Decision Date: October 6, 2021
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that the State of Guatemala breached articles 13 and 26 of the American Convention of Human Rights, on the ground that its regulation regarding the allocation of radio frequencies was discriminatory against indigenous peoples. According to the “Ley General de Telecomunicaciones” (General Telecommunications Bill) radio frequencies will always be allocated to the highest bidder in a public auction. This made it impossible for structurally impoverished indigenous communities to operate their own media outlets, which in turns harms diversity and pluralism in media. Similarly, the Court considered that the criminal prosecution undertaken by the State of Guatemala against members of two indigenous communities operating radio stations without licenses, along with other criminal proceedings used to undermine the operation of the radio stations, were disproportionate measures that breached article 13.2 of the American Convention.

Uruguay
Nicolás Souto Gancio v. Ministry of Public Health
Decision Date: May 24, 2022
The Supreme Court of Justice from Uruguay granted access to information regarding the number of people who died in the country that previously had received a vaccine against COVID-19. The applicant filed an access to public information petition against the Ministry of Public Health asking for the number of people who died in Uruguay for any reason, from March 1 to April 26 of 2021, specifying how many of these people had received, at the time of their death, COVID-19 vaccines, with the indication of date, quantity of doses and type of vaccines administered. The Ministry of Public Health denied access to the information arguing that they were not obligated to “create new information” as the data was scattered among various databases. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeals of 7th Turn noting that the fact that the Ministry had to collect the data from various sources under their control does not entail the creation of new information. The Court ruled that limitations to access to public information must be interpreted narrowly and therefore the collection of data available from different sources cannot exempt public institutions from their transparency obligations.