Domestic, Argentina Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Argentina Gisela Sin Gomiz

Civil Association for Equality and Justice (ACIJ) against Government of the City of Buenos Aires (Ministry of Education) and others, EXP 8849/2019-0 CUIJ - Argentina

Background

The case concerns a collective complaint brought by the civil association Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ) on behalf of children who had been denied enrolment in private schools for presenting some form of disability. The applicants sought a declaration of the illegality and unconstitutionality of the failure of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires to control, evaluate, audit, and sanction this practice for being in violation of the rights to education, equality and non-discrimination. Prior to this decision, the Court had already ordered precautionary measures to be taken by the local government at the request of the applicant.

Reasoning

The Court declared unconstitutional the failure of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires to control, evaluate, control and sanction the discriminatory practice of private schools in denying the enrolment of children with disabilities, taking into consideration the state’s performance. Firstly, the Court ruled that the local government had failed to comply with the constitutional, legal and regulatory obligation to control the activity of private schools, according to domestic law (CCABA, Article 25; National Education Law, Articles 13 and 121; and Law No. 2.681, Article 1 and Decree No. 107/11, Article 2). Secondly, the Court found that the lack of accessible, specific and effective channels to adequately control the activity of private schools was contrary to national law, which sets out the obligation to provide the necessary mechanisms to facilitate and speed up the receipt of claims and complaints (National Education Law, Article 8). Moreover, the Court criticised a number of procedural omissions by the City of Buenos Aires Government (e.g., absence of notifications, lack of resolution of the issues, etc.) that breached the duty to guarantee the right to due process of those affected by the government’s decisions (Decree No. 107/11, Article 9). Thirdly, the Court noted the limited activity of the City Government in terms of sanctions, the excessive delay in the resolution of appeals filed by private schools against sanctions and the lack of publication of sanctions on the website of the Ministry of Education (Law No. 2.681, Article 10). Fourthly, the Court noted a lack of dissemination of information on the right to inclusive education by the City Government – a right that is expressly recognized by national and international law. The Court also criticised the failure by the City Government to create the Observatory of Public Policies for full educational inclusion provided for in the law (No. 3.331, Article 5). Lastly, the Court highlighted the multiple failures of the City Government to comply with the precautionary measures previously imposed.

The court held that the City Government should implement positive action measures to effectively counteract the structural inequality experienced by children with disabilities. The City Government should do so in compliance with the constitutional and international law provisions projected in the body of law, in particular the CRC (Articles 3, 23, 29), the CRPD (Article 24) and the General Comment No. 4 on the right to inclusive education.

Remedy

Due to the structural nature of the problem, the court avoided imposing a concrete and immutable order. Instead, the defendant (Ministry of Education of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires) was ordered to formulate a proposal involving a diversity of social actors to provide a solution to the case and fulfil its obligations. The minimum content of the proposal was delimited by the court so that its compatibility and adequacy could be analysed by the judiciary.  

Role of children

There were no children directly involved in the case. The children's parents submitted their complaints to Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ) and ACIJ filed the collective complaint.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The Government of the City of Buenos Aires was granted a period of 30 days to formulate a proposal to provide a solution to the case and fulfil its obligations. The ruling was appealed by the Government. However, the Ministry of Education has offered to reach an agreement and negotiations with ACIJ are still ongoing.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

In terms of standing, this case is a significant example of an organisation deciding to bring a collective action (acción de amparo colectivo), i.e., a rapid judicial procedure allowing organisations defending collective rights or interests to claim a human rights violation when collective interests or rights are affected (Article 14, Constitution of Buenos Aires), rather than in the name of specific children.

This case is also significant because public schools in Buenos Aires can no longer exclude students with disabilities and the City Government was obliged to make a new inclusive educational public policy. The court’s judgment prompted a change in the current educational system of the city and opened future opportunities for children with disabilities to have the same rights and opportunities as other children without disabilities.

Country

Argentina

Forum and date of decision

First Instance Administrative and Tax Court Nº 6, Judicial Authority of the City of Buenos Aires.

June 26, 2022

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the applicants:

For the Respondent:

Amicus curiae:

Case documents

Secondary documents

Read More
Domestic, Guatemala Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Guatemala Gisela Sin Gomiz

Child and Adolescence Court of Zacapa, No. 19003-2011-0637-Of.3ª (Mayra Amador Raymundo) and four ors. - Guatemala

Background

Following a fall in the price of coffee, which triggered an economic crisis, 88.88% of residents of the Camotan municipality fell below the poverty line with 38.20% of residents living in extreme poverty.

In 2009, a group of 14 CSOs from Guatemala advocated for the creation of an international fact-finding task force (“Mission”) with the objectives of, first, verifying possible cases of violations of the right to food and other related human rights in Guatemala, and second, drawing the attention of the competent authorities, the media, the international community and regional and international human rights bodies and agencies. The Mission, which was composed of a range of international human rights organisations, found evidence of chronic malnutrition of children, lack of food, lack of work, lack of access to land and lack of basic services (water, housing and sanitation).

This situation prompted Asociación Nuevo Día, a CSO under the umbrella of the Campaign Guatemala sin Hambre (a coalition of NGOs), to survey the children living in the municipality. The aim of the survey was to identify possible legal claims to create a national legal precedent for the protection of the human rights of children.

With the support of Guatemala Sin Hambre, the parents of five children, Dina Marilú, Mavèlita Lucila Interiano Amador, René Espino Ramírez, Mayra Amador Raymundo, and Leonel Amador García, filed claims against the State, on behalf of their children. They argued that there were violations of the rights to food, to life, to health, to education, to housing and to work by the state under national and international law.

The legal viability of each of the cases was carefully assessed. The main challenge was to demonstrate that the State was responsible for the deteriorating health of the children, and not the parents. This was necessary so as to avoid the Attorney General's Office (PGN) deciding to remove the children from the care of their parents and placing them in alternative care.

Reasoning

The Court first recalled the constitutional obligation (articles 1, 2, 47 and 51) of the State to protect the individual and the family and to protect the physical, mental and moral health of children, guaranteeing their right to food, health, education, security and social security, among others. It also referred to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration when taking measures in relation to children (CRC, art. 3 and Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, art. 5), to children’s right to express their views (Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, art. 116), the right of the child to an adequate standard of living for the child's physical, mental, spiritual and social development (CRC, art. 9) and the right to special care and assistance for all children (arts. 25(1) and 25(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The Court also noted that the Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents (arts. 5, 18, 19, 53, 54 and 112) obliges the state to "adopt appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children against all forms of neglect or negligent treatment".

The Court stated that the right to food, recognised in a number of international law treaties ratified by Guatemala, should be interpreted broadly, in accordance with the definition provided by the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment No. 12, as the "right to have regular, permanent and free access, either directly or through direct purchase, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the population to which the consumer belongs, and which ensures a physical and mental, individual and collective, free of distress, satisfying and dignified life". Therefore, the Court reasoned that there are three levels of State obligation related to the right to food and nutrition, those being to (i) respect (refrain from adopting measures that will prevent or impede access to food and nutrition); (ii) protect (adopt measures to prevent private companies or individuals from impeding access to food and nutrition); and realise (initiate activities with the aim of strengthening access to food and nutrition, where the State is responsible to guarantee access when the individual is not able to do so themselves and in a way that does not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights contained in domestic and international legal instruments).

As such, and due to the serious effects that the state failings at issue had on the physical and psychological development of the children (see, “Peritajes” in all four cases) as well as the principle of the best interests of the child, the Court found that the State had violated the right to food (Law on the National System of Nutritional Security, arts. 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32; Constitution, arts. 55 and 99; and ICESCR, art. 11), the right to life (Constitution, art. 3), the right to an adequate standard of living (CRC, art. 27 and Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents, art. 4), the right to health (Constitution, arts. 51, 93 and 94) and the right to housing (Housing Law, arts. 6, 30 and 32, and ICESCR, art. 11) by omission, meaning that it had failed in its obligation to realise said rights.

Remedy

The Court made orders directing a range of measures to be implemented by specific state entities (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food, Ministry of Communications and Infrastructure, Ministry of Public Health and Social Assistance and Municipal Mayor, among others), including providing regular access to food, drinking water and medical treatment to the five plaintiff children as well as providing the families with the land and farming equipment for harvesting.

Additionally, the Court ordered the State to implement a protocol (“Protocolo para el ejercicio del derecho humano a la alimentación”) to prevent future violations of this nature, involving multiple ministries, and specified the minimum content that Protocol should contain in terms of coordination, intervention and monitoring mechanisms and administrative timelines.  

Role of children

The case was brought on behalf of five children by their parents with the support  of Guatemala Sin Hambre, a group of 14 NGOs.

Enforcement and other outcomes

In December 2013, FIAN International and the Campaign Guatemala Sin Hambre conducted a monitoring visit on the implementation of the decisions. This revealed that the living conditions of the families had not substantially improved due to severe delays and shortcomings in state compliance with the measures ordered in the judgments.

The decisions issued by the Child and Adolescence Court of the Zacapa Department were upheld by the Guatemalan Constitutional Court on 1 October 2015, after the Ministry of Communications, Infrastructure, and Housing filed an appeal. The Constitutional Court ruled that the State must meet the requirements of the decisions by all means available to it.

According to a 2019 report resulting from the work promoted by the Task Force on Right to Food, the situation of the children had not changed significantly. The situation resulted in the death of one of the girls due to malnutrition in 2017 and the forced emigration of two of the children. In addition, measures were not adopted to address the condition of physical and cognitive disability of two of the children, which worsened as a result of chronic malnutrition. Furthermore, the lack of participation of the children and their families in the design, implementation, adjustment and follow-up of the measures resulted in a lack of adaptation to their needs, perceptions and proposals.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The role of civil society organisations in the CRSL is particularly noteworthy due to their involvement in the investigations prior to the filing of the CRSL claim, in the preparation and presentation of the claim, as well as in the follow-up and monitoring of compliance with the judgments. The group of 14 NGOs that supported and guided the children's parents to bring the cases before the Court deliberately sought to establish jurisprudence and judicial means for addressing children’s economic, social and cultural rights. They also sought to influence existing social policies and ensure that they had a child rights perspective.

These cases created legal precedent that furthers the enjoyment of children’s rights, including potentially in the context of CRSL. In the first instance, the fact that the State’s scope of liability has been widened both incentivises the State to enact policies that prevent further children’s rights violations and opens up the court system for future claims. In the second instance, it explicitly ordered the State to prevent future violations by enacting a plan requiring the collaboration of multiple State entities, which should benefit other children and contribute to advancing children’s rights in Guatemala.

Country

The Republic of Guatemala

Forum and date of decision

Child and Adolescence Court of the Zacapa Department

April 3, 2013 (Dina Marilú and Mavèlita Lucila Interiano Amador)

April 12, 2013 (Brayan René Espino Ramírez),

May 10, 2013 (Mayra Amador Raymundo)

May 31, 2013 (Leonel Amador García)

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

The applicants:

The parents on behalf of the children (5) Dina Marilú, Mavèlita Lucila Interiano Amador, René Espino Ramírez, Mayra Amador Raymundo, and Leonel Amador García.

In support of the applicants:

Campaign Guatemala sin Hambre (coalition of NGOs)

2a calle 4-50, Zona 2 Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala

The respondents:

State of Guatemala

Amicus curiae:

International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)

Rue des Buis 3
P.O. Box 1740
1211 Geneva 1, Switzerland

Case documents

Secondary documents

Agudo A, 'Guatemala: El Hambre Que Cien Años Dura' El País (2019), accessed 19 May 2022

Baires Quezada R, 'Cinco Niños Olvidados Ganan Juicio Al Estado' Plaza Pública (2013), accessed 16 May 2022

Central de Organizaciones Indígenas Campesinas Ch'ortí Nuevo Día, Guatemala Sin Hambre and Procurador de los Derechos Humanos, 'Informe Sobre El Cumplimiento De Las Sentencias De Camotán. "Sin Horizontes De Desarrollo Humano"' (2019), accessed 19 May 2022

Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH), 'Situación De Derechos Humanos En Guatemala' (2017), accessed 16 May 2022

FIAN Internacional et al., 'El Derecho A La Alimentación En Guatemala. Informe Final Misión Internacional De Verificación' (Magna Terra editores 2022), accessed 19 May 2022

FIAN International, 'FIAN International’s Submission On Children’S Right To Food And Nutrition To The Committee On The Rights Of The Child Day Of General Discussion: “Children’S Rights And The Environment”' (2016), accessed 17 May 2022

'Guatemala Condenado Por Violaciones Al Derecho A La Alimentación' (International Commission of Jurists, 2013), accessed 16 May 2022

'Judge Declares State Of Guatemala Responsible For Right To Food Violations' (Fian.org, 2013), accessed 19 May 2022

-       Mogollón V, Cano M, and Wolpold-Bosien M, 'El Derecho a La Alimentación – Acciones Y Omisiones Del Estado. Informe Del Monitoreo De Las Sentencias En El Caso De Desnutrición Infantil En Camotán, Guatemala' (Fian Internacional and Campaña Guatemala sin Hambre 2014), accessed 17 May 2022

Radio Urbana, 'Magali Cano Sobre La Campaña Guatemala Sin Hambre' (2016), accessed 17 May 2022

Read More
Domestic, Colombia Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Colombia Gisela Sin Gomiz

Head of the Llano Grande Educational Institution v Governor’s Office of Boyacá and the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá, Judgement T-279/18 - Colombia

Background

The Head of the Educational Institution Llano Grande of the municipality of Nuevo Colón, Boyacá, Colombia, brought a tutela action against the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá in defence of the children who studied in the institution. He did so on the grounds that the children’s constitutional rights to health, life, personal integrity and to receive quality educational services in conditions of dignity (Arts. 44, 49 and 67 of the Constitution) were seriously threatened, due to the fact that the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá had refused several times to provide the institution with an additional employee to provide cleaning services. The Secretary justified their decision on the basis of article 3 of the Resolution no. 2314 , which provided that only two employees could be appointed in institutions with less than 300 students, which was the case with Llano Grande. The Head of Llano Grande requested that a judicial inspection be ordered, as well as the appointment of an employee to carry out the functions in question, and that the authorities be ordered not to engage in such practices again, nor to ignore petitions aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of children in Boyacá's educational institutions. The injunction was denied by both the Third Labour Court of the Circuit of Tunja (31 October 2017) and the Labour Chamber of the High Court of the Judicial District of Tunja.

Reasoning

The Court found that the head of the educational institution had standing to intervene on behalf of the children studying at the institution because their fundamental rights were seriously threatened by the sanitary conditions caused by the lack of staff to carry out cleaning work (art. 44 of the Constitution, art. 11 of the Code on Children and Adolescents and Ruling T-498 of 1994).

The Constitutional Court found that the absence of administrative personnel would not necessarily constitute a violation of the right to access to education of the underage students. However, where the absence or interruption of a general or administrative service (such as cleaning service) represented a barrier to access, obstructed the stay of students in an educational institution or affected the right of children to receive education in decent conditions, such an interruption constituted a violation of their fundamental right to education (art. 67 of the Constitution). Thus, when the absence of cleaning staff led to a serious deterioration in the health and hygiene conditions of an institution, the right of children to receive an education in decent conditions was violated.

The Court also stated that the right to accessible education carried with it a corresponding obligation on the part of the State to take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps towards the implementation of education. Failure to do so violated the rights to education and to equality of opportunity, which means that the fundamental right to education entails a positive obligation to provide the material conditions (through administrative supervision, cleaning, transport and secretarial services) in educational institutions that will encourage students to learn and guarantee that children can access education in conditions of dignity.

The Court declared that the Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá may waive the limit on the number of employees established by Article 3 of Resolution no. 2314 in order to guarantee the right to education in accordance with article 67 of the Constitution.

Remedy

The Court ordered the Secretary of Education of Boyacá to assign, within a period of one month, a provisional employee for cleaning duties, and the permanent assignment of such personnel within a period of one year. It also ordered the Ombudsman's Office to prepare and submit trimestral reports to the judge for a period of one year. In addition, it warned the Ministry of Education to refrain from engaging again in the conduct that gave rise to the violation of fundamental rights and, in this regard, to take effective measures in a timely manner when children's right to education is threatened or has been violated. The Court ordered the headmaster, in compliance with his legal duty to ensure the quality of the educational service (in line with Article 10.14 of Law 715 of 2001), to instruct students to understand that they must fulfil their duties to care for and preserve communal property and spaces in good condition.

Role of children

Children were not directly involved in the litigation. The Head of the Educational Institution Llano Grande brought the tutela action on behalf of the children in that institution, whose fundamental rights were being violated. Articles 44 of the Constitution and 11 of the Code on Children and Adolescents granted him standing in the tutela action. Furthermore, Ruling T-498 de 1994 (relied on in this case) provided that institutions other than children’s legal representatives may take action “provided that the letter or request states that the violation of [children’s] fundamental rights is imminent, or the absence of a legal representative”, which was the case in this instance.

Enforcement and other outcomes

There is no publicly available information that confirms compliance with the court's orders.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The tutela action led to the recognition that a legal provision may not apply in circumstances where it would result in the fundamental rights of children are violated. The court also ruled that the obligation of public institutions to guarantee education not only consists of the provision of education itself, but also of the material conditions to guarantee that children can access education in conditions of dignity, thus concretising the substance of this obligation. All of the above may be used for argumentation in the future to advance children’s rights in Colombia and benefit other groups of children as well.

Country

Colombia

Forum and date of decision

Constitutional Court of Colombia

July 17, 2018

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

The applicants:

Head of Llano Grande Educational Institution

153627, Nuevo Colón (Boyacá), Colombia

The respondents:

Secretary for Education of the Department of Boyacá

Carrera 10 No 18-68. Tunja (Boyacá) Colombia

List of amicus curiae:

Ministry of Education of Colombia

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Case documents

Secondary documents

“ÍNDICE Sintético De La Calidad Educativa -ISCE” [Quality Index for educational institutions] (Portal Ministerio de Educación Nacional - Presentación), accessed October 11, 2022

Villegas García Mauricio and others, Separados y Desiguales: Educación y Clases Sociales En Colombia (Dejusticia 2013)

Góngora Mera Manuel Eduardo (Defensoría del Pueblo 2003) publication

“Education in Colombia: Highlights 2016” (OECD 2016) publication

Read More
Domestic, India Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, India Gisela Sin Gomiz

Supreme Court of India, Gaurav Jain v. Union of India and others, 9 July 1997, [1997] 8 SCC 114 - India

Background

The case was initiated by Gaurav Jain, an advocate who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) after having read an article on the situation of children of sex-workers and the difficulties and discrimination they faced on their upbringing and education. Mr Jain requested the Indian Supreme Court (the “Court”) to establish separate educational institutions and accommodations for these children in Gaurav Jain vs. Union of India & Ors. [1990 Supp. SCC 709]. The Court observed that "segregating children of prostitutes by locating separate schools and providing separate hostels" would not be in the interest of the children and the society at large and that they "should be segregated from their mothers and be allowed to mingle with others and become a part of the society" (see headnote). However, the Court considered that "accommodation in hostels and other reformatory homes should be adequately available to help segregation of these children from their mothers living in prostitute homes as soon as they are identified" (see headnote).

The Court ordered to set up a committee (the “Committee”), made up of fouradvocates and three social workers, to assess the economic and social circumstances and mental condition of children of sex-workers and to prepare a report giving suggestions for appropriate action to the Court. The judgment at hand was issued based on this report, eight years after the Committee was formed.

Reasoning

The main questions that the Court considered were: (i) what were the rights of the children of female sex workers and the ways to segregate them from their mothers and others so as to give them protection, care and rehabilitation “in the mainstream of the national life”; (ii) what scheme should be put in place to prevent and eradicate prostitution, including child prostitution, for enduring results; and (iii) what aid and what support could be provided to the victims of prostitution.

As to the first question, the Court based its reasoning on a number of international law provisions (Articles 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 37 of the CRC; Principles of the Declaration on the Rights of the Child; Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the UDHR; Article 8 of the Declaration on the Right to Development; Articles 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, 16 of the CEDAW) and Indian legal standards (Part III and IV of the Constitution; Section 2 (a) of the ITP Act; Sections 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act 1986) on human rights and fundamental rights of women and children. The Court found all of these applied directly to this case. In particular, the Court found that the children of the sex-workers have the right to equality of opportunity, dignity, care, protection and rehabilitation and to be part of the “mainstream of social life” without any attached “pre-stigma”.

With regard to the second and third questions, the Court observed that “counselling, cajoling by persuasion and coercion” (the latter as a last resort, according to the Court) were necessary to ensure the successful rescue and rehabilitation of sex-worker’s children. More specifically, based on the Committee’s findings and considering the actions already taken throughout the country to help children of sex-workers, the Court decided that the state was obliged to establish and make available juvenile homes for these children. Noting that the existing state-operated juvenile homes were not yielding the desired results, the Court also ruled that coordination amongst “the officers in charge of the juvenile homes, the welfare officers and the probation officers” should take place in order to guarantee the protection and the rehabilitation of these children. The Court added that NGOs needed to be more involved in the management of the Child Development and Care Centres (CDCC). In this context, the Court cited a detailed catalogue developed by the Committee as how such management should look, repeatedly giving concrete, additional “suggestions” and/or “directions” to the State, including to provide the funding for the institutions. The Court also found that the children of sex-workers should not be separated from their mothers unless this was the best solution in terms of the child’s interests.

Further, the Court ruled that sex-workers should be rehabilitated through self-employment schemes and invited the state to evolve procedures and principles to ensure that sex-workers would also enjoy their fundamental and human rights.

Remedy

The Court went beyond the initial petition and instructed the state of India to take a range of specific measures to, first, eradicate prostitution and, second, better protect the children of sex-workers.

Role of children

There were no children directly involved in the case.

Enforcement and other outcomes

Notably, the decision was later partially overruled by the Supreme Court of India (Gaurav Jain And Another. Vs. Union Of India And Others 1998(3) ALL MR 433 (S.C.)). The decision’s part regarding measures to protect the children of sex-workers was not overturned, however.

As of early 2023, children of women in prostitution still face discrimination and abuse from other children in schools due to stigma and many of them are out of school, especially girls. There is still a need to strengthen existing laws and pass legislation to regulate access to foster homes while guaranteeing that the system ensures that these children receive the same treatment and opportunities as other children and that stigma is overcome.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

This decision is significant because it expressly recognised the rights of children of sex-workers (to equality of opportunity, dignity, care, protection and rehabilitation) and established that the state has a duty to protect those rights. The court directly applied the provisions of international law, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This case is the first of three major cases upholding the rights of children of women in prostitution (see ABC v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2015) 10 SCC 1, on the issue of parentage, guardianship and parental responsibility, and Sakshi v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 3566, on the issue of prevention of sexual abuse of children). It was not, however, cited in these latter decisions.  

Country

India

Forum and date of decision

Supreme Court of India

July 9, 1997

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

The applicants:

Gaurav Jain, Advocate (filing a Public Interest Litigation)

Case documents

Secondary documents

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh, “Educational Status of Children of Traditional Sex Workers in India” (National Commission for Protection for Child Rights December 2018), accessed November 8, 2022

Chawla S, “Raised in Brothels: The Children of Delhi's Red Light District” (FairPlanet July 22, 2022), accessed November 9, 2022

PTI, “Sex Workers's Children Face Discrimination in Schools by Other Kids: Study” (The Indian Express January 24, 2019), accessed November 8, 2022

Rattan K and others, “A Red-Light Trap: Society Gives No Chance to Prostitutes' Offspring” (India Today November 26, 2013), accessed November 7, 2022

Sinha S, “Born in Brothels: Rights of Children of Sex-Workers” (CRC CNLU, PatnaMarch 28, 2021), accessed November 8, 2022

Read More
Domestic, Eswatini Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Eswatini Gisela Sin Gomiz

Swaziland National Ex-Miners Workers Association v The Ministry of Education and Others (2168/09) [2010] SZHC 258 (19 January 2010) - Eswatini

Background

In March 2009, the High Court of Swaziland ruled that every Swazi child attending primary school had a constitutional right to free education (Section 29(6) of the Constitution as read together with section 60 (8)) and that the Government of the Swaziland had the obligation to provide education free of charge to every child so entitled (Swaziland National Ex-Miners Workers Association and Another v The Minister of Education and Others (335 of 2009) [2009] SZHC 104). They did so in the context of a case involving an urgent application to make free education in public schools available, brought by the Swaziland National Ex-Miners Workers Association (SNEMA), an association of former mine workers and parents of school-aged children. However, the Court declined to require the Government to produce its education policy. On the basis that these declaratory orders had no legal consequences, in June 2009, the SNEMA brought a second case seeking mandatory orders to compel the Government to comply with said right straight away given that the three-year period had expired and that failure to do so amounted to a violation of the Constitution.

Reasoning

The applicants’ case was dismissed. While the Court stated that the right to free education is “positive” in nature in that it requires government action to in order to realise the right, it found that, in response to the declaratory orders of the earlier Court judgment, the respondents had already put in place a Free Primary Education Implementation Plan with a detailed Programme of how they intended to comply with their constitutional obligations with an associated budget allocation. Instead of immediate implementation for all primary aged children, that plan foresaw the progressive implementation of free primary education by means of a staggered approach beginning with grades 1 and 2. 

The Court found that there was no evidence that the Government had resources available at that time to fulfil its constitutional obligation and that the steps taken by the Government to comply with its obligation in an incremental manner were reasonable and satisfactory in view of the limited resources at its disposal.

This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Swaziland, which dismissed the appeal in Swaziland National Ex-Miners Workers Association v. The Minister of Education and Others (2 of 2010) [2010] SZSC 35 (28 May 2010), stating that that the decision of the High Court from 19 January 2010 was “pragmatic and appropriate”.

Role of children

There was no direct participation of children in the litigation.

Enforcement and other outcomes

Although the decision was not favourable, by bringing the current case and an earlier case, the applicants put pressure on the Government to make progress on its Constitutional obligation to provide free education to children of primary school age in Eswatini and to provide details on its implementation programme for giving effect to its obligations.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

Although the overall impact of the SNEMA’s cases on children’s access to free primary education in Eswatini is somewhat difficult to gauge, SNEMA’s use of the legal process may prompt others to follow suit.

Country

Eswatini

Forum and date of decision

High Court of Swaziland at Mbabane

January 19, 2010

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

None

Domestic law provisions

Related information

The applicants:

The respondents:

Case documents

Secondary documents

“Ex-Miners Fight for Justice in Swaziland” (Kenworthy News Media February 9, 2011), accessed November 15, 2022

Dlamin M, “Free Education in Doubt as Ex-Miners Run to Court” (Times of Swaziland January 9, 2010), accessed November 15, 2022

Dlamini M, “Ex-Miners Call for Urgent Special Sitting for Appeal” (Times of Swaziland March 9, 2010), accessed November 15, 2022

Kamga SD, “The Legal Battle for the Universal Access to Primary Education in Swaziland” (2019) 52 De Jure Law Journal

van der Berg S and others, “A Report on Out-of-School Children in Eswatini” (UNICEFJuly 2018), accessed November 15, 2022

Read More
Domestic, Peru Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Peru Gisela Sin Gomiz

Hernán César Canales Uzcátegui y otros vs. Ministerio de Educación, No. 23822 – 2017 - Peru

Background

A collective called Padres en Acción brought a class action (acción popular) against the Ministry of Education, seeking to repeal the National Curriculum for 2017 as it included a section on gender identity suggesting that beliefs regarding what is masculine or feminine are products of our lived experiences.  The action was based on the alleged violation of the parents’ right to choose their children’s education and to freedom of thought, resulting from the parents’ lack of participation in the creation of the curriculum. The applicants specifically claimed a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights (article 12(4)), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 26(3)), the Constitution (articles 2(4), 6, 13 and 59), the General Law of Education (Law N° 28044) (articles 7, 22, 24, 68), the Supreme Decree No. 011-2012-ED (article 15), the Civil Code (Legislative Decree N° 295) (article 423(2) and the Code of Children and Adolescents (Law No. 27337) (article 74(c)).  

The Superior Court of Lima granted the applicants’ request for relief only with respect to the section on gender, declaring that section to be null, for going beyond “natural conceptions” of gender and introducing a new view or form of human sexuality without participation of parents. Both parties appealed and the case went to the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court found that the First Instance Court erred in repealing the section regarding gender identity, grounding its decision on the fact that the goal of the section was to promote gender equality and human dignity, which are fundamental and constitutionally protected rights. Since constitutional rights do not need society’s approval,  the Court stated that such a section could not be subject to the consent of society, much less a subsection of society (i.e., parents of school-aged children). Moreover, it established that a parent’s right to choose his/her child’s education does not supersede the need for national curriculum to include constitutional values. Therefore, no one’s rights had been violated by the inclusion of constitutional rights in the national curriculum.

The Court conceptualised the notions of sex, gender and gender identity in order to explain that gender identity of children and adolescents would not be impacted by the curriculum, since it is determined by the inner and individual experience of gender of each and every person, which does not necessarily correspond to the sex assigned at birth.

The Court confirmed that education plays a fundamental role in promoting constitutional values and that acknowledging gender inequality in the national curriculum teaches young citizens the need to value people of all genders equally, as required by the constitution. The Court specifically noted that such inequality affects even children and can eventually lead to violence (p. 28). Additionally, the Court noted that by incorporating lessons of gender equality in the national curriculum, the state was complying with international obligations such as those established by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, both of which have constitutional status and are directly enforceable.

Remedy

The Court revoked the First Instance Court’s ruling and dismissed the case.

Role of children

Children were not directly involved in this case.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The National Education Curriculum for 2017 remained in effect.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The central issue of the case was education and the extent to which parents and society have a right to influence the educational objectives of the state. Although the strategic litigation initiated by the civil society organisation Padres en Acción was unsuccessful, it turned into a case that protected children’s rights by guaranteeing an education that ensures and promotes gender equality and respects and includes all gender identities by including the gender perspective in the school curriculum.

The case is also significant in terms of the Court’s finding that gender equality and the right to gender self-identification are part of the fundamental human right to dignity. The Court found that the national curriculum can, and should, seek to promote and protect constitutional values and internationally recognized human rights- something that will be relevant to future curriculum-oriented CRSL in Peru.

Country

Peru

Forum and date of decision

Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice/ Corte Suprema de Justicia de la República, Sala de Derecho Constitucional y Social Permanente

April 1, 2018

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the petitioner:

  • Padres en Accion Perú (Francisco Javier Pacheco Manga, Hernán Canales Uzátegui, Rodolfo Martín Cotrina Barrantes, José Francisco Estrada Cotrina, Ninoska Violeta Valladares Peña y Giuliana Calambrogio Correa de Balmaceda)

    contacto@padresenaccionperu.org

  • Public Prosecutor of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights

For the Respondent:

Case documents

Secondary documents

Secondary documents:

Read More
Domestic, Colombia Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Colombia Gisela Sin Gomiz

Constitutional Court of Colombia, Second Review Chamber, Auto N° 251 de 2008 - Colombia

Background

In Sentence T-025 of 2004 (T-025-04), the Constitutional Court declared a state of unconstitutionality with respect to the Colombian State’s failure to protect the constitutional rights of victims of forced displacement, and in particular, displaced children and adolescents. This Auto (in Colombia, autos are judicial decisions that “resolve an incident or substantive issue” (art. 161 Law 906 of 2004)) was a review of the State’s response to the T-025-04 Decision and presents information concerning the current situation of displaced children.

Reasoning

The Court affirmed that victims of forced displacement are entitled to special State treatment. More specifically, the Court, relying on the Constitution, stated that, “each individual case of children displaced by armed violence in Colombia, was, in itself, an extreme manifestation of profound, serious, systematic and simultaneous violations of fundamental rights”, given their “state of grave victimisation and defencelessness” (p.2). Displaced children were affected by the following specific cross-cutting problems: lack of protection from several risks and dangers that threaten their rights; hunger and malnutrition; preventable physical and mental health deficiencies; shortcomings in the educational system and lack of opportunities for recreation and participation in society as well as for exercising their rights. The impact of these issues on children was further aggravated by changes to family structures due to displacement, the trauma of displacement itself, childhood, adolescence, gender inequality, ethnic divergence and disability.

The Court noted that violent crimes by armed groups (including “social cleansing”), forced recruitment into armed groups or illicit businesses (e.g., drug trafficking and child trafficking), sexual abuse (in the context of armed groups and at home) and coercive pressure by illegal armed groups were the principal causal factors of the forced displacement of children.

To address the unique vulnerabilities of displaced children and the unique and disproportionate impact displacement has on them, specific measures were required from the State. However, the Court considered that the Colombian State had failed to implement such measures. In the opinion of the Court, the State response to the specific needs of displaced children had been "(i) irregular and fragmented, neither systematic nor comprehensive, (iii) non-specific, (iv) late, (iv) lacking resources, (v) legal and formal, with no practical realisation, and (vi) lacking a preventive approach” (p. 23). The failure to treat these children, in practice, as subjects of international and domestic law with prevailing and directly enforceable rights and as subjects of special protection, attempted against their human dignity.

The Court observed that displaced children were generally “invisible” to the State and society at large. This was due in part to a lack of registration of displaced persons, caused by widespread distrust of authorities and a lack of awareness of constitutional rights amongst displaced persons.

Given the multiplicity of factors affecting displaced children and the absence of measures aimed specifically at them, the State’s efforts to date were inadequate and amounted to a breach of its domestic and international legal obligations.

Remedy

The Court ordered the relevant public authorities to remedy the state of unconstitutionality by adopting concrete measures exclusively aimed at displaced children that are preventative and that address their specific needs. In particular, it ordered the creation and implementation of a programme based on pilot projects, which were also ordered in the decision, for the protection of children, containing prevention and care elements and giving response to the risks, cross-cutting problems and factors that aggravated these children’s situations. The Court also required the State to guarantee the participation of at least those civil society organisations that are listed in the decision in the elaboration of pilot projects.

Role of children

While the case addressed displaced Colombian children in general, 18,000 children were individually identified to the Court. The Court ordered the State to address these children’s specific situations. Displaced children were heard at a public technical information hearing held on 28 June 2007 before the same Chamber and their testimony was cited throughout the judgment.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The Court ordered the relevant State authorities, under the coordination of Acción Social, to:

(i) design and implement a new programme specifically aimed at the protection of displaced children. The programme shall focus on: (1) preventing the disproportionate impact of forced displacement on children; and (2) giving attention to displaced children;

(ii) design and implement fifteen (15) pilot projects across Colombia to address risks related to armed conflict and the most concerning specific problems; and

(iii) give specific attention to the approximately 18,000 displaced children whose individual circumstances were reported to the court.

Progress in this regard was monitored directly by the Constitutional Court through autos (see auto 756 of 2018). Auto 756 of 2018 offered a full review of the extent to which the State implemented the measures ordered by the Court. Existing public policies aimed at forcibly displaced children were deemed inadequate, and the State’s level of compliance to orders issued in Sentence T-025-04 and Auto 251 was deemed low. The Court ordered a series of concrete actions to redress this situation.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

The case highlighted barriers to the enjoyment of displaced children’s rights (including right special protection, right to food, right to physical and mental health, right to education and right to participation). It also resulted in increased legal protection of children’s rights in this and future CRSL cases through its identification of legal provisions obliging the State to provide a differential treatment to displaced children which meets their specific needs.

Through detailed analysis of the causes and features of forced displacement of children, the Court identified the complexity of factors that prevent children from enjoying their constitutional right and which must be addressed in a targeted and appropriate manner in order to ensure the effective enjoyment of rights of forcibly displaced children. These include cultural and social factors on a family, community and national level.

Country

Colombia

Forum and date of decision

Constitutional Court, Second Review Chamber, Republic of Colombia / Corte Constitucional, Sala Segunda de Revisión, República de Colombia

October 6, 2008

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

Colombian State Entities addressed by the Auto:

NGOs to be involved in the design of programmes ordered by the Auto:

Amicus curiae:

Other relevant entities/parts:

Case documents

  • Auto N° 251 de 2008

  • 'Informes De La Comisión' (Consultoría para los Derechos Humanos y el Desplazamiento (CODHES)) <https://codhes.wordpress.com/comision-de-seguimiento/informes-de-la-comision/> accessed 30 March 2022

  • Nal, 'Primera Infancia, Niñez Y Adolescencia En Situación De Desplazamiento Propuesta De Indicadores De Goce Efectivo De Derechos' (National University of Colombia and Plan International 2011) <http://equidadparalainfancia.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Desplazamiento-INDICADORES-DE-GOCE-EFECTIVO-DE-DERECHOS-OBSI.pdf> accessed 30 March 2022

  • 'Lineamientos Jurídicos Y Administrativos Del Estado Colombiano Para La Atención A Los Niños, Niñas Y Adolescentes Desvinculados Del Conflicto Armado' (Procuraduría General de la Nación and UNICEF Bogotá DC, Colombia 2006) <https://www.acnur.org/fileadmin/Documentos/Publicaciones/2007/5523.pdf?view=1> accessed 30 March 2022

  • 'Estado Nutricional, De Alimentación Y Condiciones De Salud De La Población Desplazada Por La Violencia En Seis Subregiones Del País' (World Food Programme 2005) <https://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/liaison_offices/wfp086486.pdf> accessed 30 March 2022

  • Ojeda G, and Murad R, Salud Sexual Y Reproductiva En Zonas Marginadas (Asociación Probienestar de la Familia Colombiana (Profamilia) and Agencia para el Desarrollo Social (USAID) 2005) <https://repositorio.unal.edu.co/handle/unal/53238;jsessionid=DAA04FD22ABB0D8BFB85FE4C61BFE95F>

  • UN Committee on the Rights of the Child: Concluding Observations, Colombia CRC/C/COL/CO/3, 8 June 2006 <https://www.refworld.org/docid/45377ee30.html>

  • UN General Assembly, Children and armed conflict: report of the Secretary-General, 21 December 2007, A/62/609–S/2007/757, 21 December 2007 <https://www.refworld.org/docid/479f54592.html>

  • General Secretariat, Organization of the American States, 'Violence And Discrimination Against Women In The Armed Conflict In Colombia' (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 2022) <https://www.cidh.oas.org/pdf%20files/InformeColombiaMujeres2006eng.pdf> accessed 30 March 2022

Secondary documents

  • 'Volver A Estudiar, La Agonía De Los Niños Desplazados' (Vanguardia, 2013) <https://www.vanguardia.com/colombia/volver-a-estudiar-la-agonia-de-los-ninos-desplazados-DCVL235305> accessed 30 March 2022

  • 'Acción Integral Contra Minas Antipersonal - AICMA' (Government of Colombia) <http://www.accioncontraminas.gov.co/AICMA> accessed 4 April 2022

  • Patiño-Montaña Y, 'Cómo Vive El Desplazamiento La Población Infantil Aquitanense, Víctima Del Conflicto Armado' (2018) 14 Derecho y Realidad <https://doi.org/10.19053/16923936.v14.n28.2016.7816>

  • González Ocampo L, and Bedmar Moreno M, 'Población Infantil En Situación De Desplazamiento Forzado En Colombia Y Sus Manifestaciones De Ciudadanía' (2016) 2 Derecho y Realidad < https://doi.org/10.19053/16923936.v2.n24.2014.4548>

  • Sánchez Cubides P, 'La Política Pública Como Garantía De Derechos De La Primera Infancia En Colombia' (2018) 16 Derecho y Realidad <https://doi.org/10.19053/16923936.v16.n31.2018.9105>

  • UNICEF Colombia, 'Infancia En Tiempos De Guerra: ¿Los Niños De Colombia Conocerán Por Fin La Paz?' (UNICEF 2016) <https://www.unicef.org/sites/default/files/press-releases/glo-media-UNICEF_CHILD_ALERT_COLOMBIA_ESPANOL_19_03_16__FINAL.pdf> accessed 4 April 2022

  • Alianza por la Niñez Colombiana, 'Niñez víctima de un conflicto armado que persiste. Informe de seguimiento a la implementación de recomendaciones del Comité de los Derechos del Niño a los informes periódicos IV y V combinados de Colombia' (2018) <https://www.refworld.org.es/pdfid/5bec60444.pdf>

Read More
Domestic, Colombia Gisela Sin Gomiz Domestic, Colombia Gisela Sin Gomiz

Constitutional Court of Colombia, Sentencia T-025 de 2004 - Colombia

Background

This case involved 108 files that had been joined by the Court. These concerned 108 tutela actions submitted by 1150 family units, all belonging to the displaced population, and composed mainly of women heads of household, elderly persons and children, as well as some indigenous persons. A number of these tutela actions were filed by civil society organisations on behalf of displaced persons. The complainants claimed that authorities were not fulfilling their mandate to protect the displaced population in terms of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and were failing to respond effectively to the complainants’ requests for housing, health care, education, humanitarian aid and access to state aid for their integration into the labour market and the implementation of economically profitable projects. The majority of these tutela actions had been rejected by the judges at the lower courts.

Reasoning

The Court stated that due to the conditions of extreme vulnerability in which the displaced population finds itself, as well as the repeated omission to provide them with timely and effective protection on the part of the various authorities responsible for their care, the rights of both the actors in the case and the displaced population in general were violated. Specifically, it referred to the right to a dignified life and to personal integrity (Arts. 1 and 12 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15), to equality (Art. 13 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 1 to 4, 6, 9 and 22), to petition, to work and to social security (Art. 6 of the Constitution , Law 387 of 1997 and UN Guiding Principles 1, 3, 4, 11 and 18), to health (Arts. 49 and 50 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 1, 2 and 19), to education (Art. 67(3) of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principle 23), to the minimum conditions for life (UN Guiding Principles 18, 24 and 27) and to the due special protection (Arts. 42 and 44 of the Constitution and UN Guiding Principles 2, 4, 9 and 17) for the elderly, women heads of household and children.

The Court defined the minimum levels of protection that must be guaranteed in a timely and effective manner to the displaced population in the face of insufficient resources or deficiencies in institutional capacity. According to the Court, this determination of minimum standards implies that “(i) in no case may the essential core of the fundamental constitutional rights of displaced persons be threatened and (ii) the State has to satisfy the minimum level of the rights to life, to dignity, to physical, psychological and moral integrity, to family unity, to the provision of urgent and basic health services, to protection against discriminatory practices based on the condition of being displaced, and to the right to education up to the age of fifteen in the case of children in a situation of displacement.” (p. 32).

The existence of an unconstitutional state of affairs with regard to the situation of the displaced population was declared by the Court on the basis of the lack of concordance between (a) the seriousness of the impact on constitutionally recognised rights developed by law, and (b) the volume of resources allocated to ensure the effective enjoyment of such rights and the institutional capacity to implement them. The Court also relied on the high number of tutela actions filled by displaced persons, which confirmed the impact these violations had had on a large part of this population group, and the structural nature of the issue, since the violations were attributable to various state bodies.

Remedy

The Court ordered a series of actions related to the unconstitutional state of affairs aimed at guaranteeing the rights of the entire displaced population, regardless of whether they had sought protection of their rights through tutela actions. The aim with the order was to force the government to reassess and restructure the actions or omissions that led to the violation of the Constitution and legislation in the shortest possible time, providing sufficient opportunities for the participation of displaced people’s representatives, to ensure that displaced people, including children, could effectively enjoy their rights. The Court also ordered a series of actions aimed at responding to the specific requests of the complainants in the tutela action in line with the Court’s previous jurisprudence on the rights of displaced population. These actions included: (i) addressing requests to access financial support programmes (including temporary jobs, business projects, training and food security) and housing, (ii) determining whether requests for registration in the Unified Registry of Displaced Populations meet the objective conditions of displacement and, if so, giving them immediate access to the assistance envisaged for their protection, (iii) effectively granting the requested humanitarian aid to those who applied for it, (iv) guaranteeing the complainants’ effective access to the health system, ensuring that they are provided with the required medicines, (v) ensuring effective access to the education system for children until the age of fifteen and (vi) registering information regarding displaced people’s land properties in order to effectively protect them.

Role of children

Children were petitioners in the tutela actions. They were represented by adults, mostly legal representatives of the civil organisations involved.

Enforcement and other outcomes

The decision forced the government to reassess and restructure the actions and omissions that led to the violation of the Constitution and the legislation in the shortest possible time to ensure that displaced people, including children, could effectively enjoy their rights. The court ordered a series of concrete actions to be carried out by the authorities to this end. This decision is followed by two orders (Autos 251-05 and 756-08), which focus specifically on assessing and monitoring the rights of displaced children. In these Autos, the Constitutional Court described progress in this regard as “low”.

Significance of the case from a CRSL perspective

Although the litigation was not brought solely to protect the rights of displaced children, its aim was to stop the massive violation of fundamental rights of displaced people, which affects displaced children as well. The decision forces the government to reassess and restructure the actions or omissions that led to the violation to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights of this vulnerable group. This implies the obligation to adopt clear policies in favour of displaced people, including children. The state of unconstitutional affairs enables the Constitutional Court to make the effects of the decision applicable to all and to directly monitor compliance with the ruling (see Autos 251-08 and 756-18).

Country

Colombia

Forum and date of decision

Constitutional Court, Third Review Chamber, Republic of Colombia/Corte Constitucional, Sala Tercera de Revisión, República de Colombia

22 January 2004

CRC provisions and other international law provisions/sources

Domestic law provisions

Related information

For the applicants:

  • Municipal ombudsman of Neiva - Jorge Osorio Peña

    Personería de Neiva

    Calle 8 no. 12-22 Neiva-Huila

  • Fundación Ayudémonos FUNDAYUDE - Javier Augusto Silva Madero, legal representative

  • Asociación Humanitaria de Colombia (ahudeco@hotmail.com) - Jorge E Peralta de Brigard, legal representative

  • Asociación de Desplazados del Caribe Colombiano - Juvenal Navarro Arroyo, legal representative

  • Asociación por un mejor vivir feliz - Deyanira Herrera, legal representative

  • Asociación Nueva Vida (alonsovifi@hotmail.com) - Eduardo Orozco, legal representative

  • Asociación Nuevo Horizonte - Pedro Pacheco, legal representative

    Calle 1B # 55 – 74 Cali-Colombia

  • Asociación Desplazados Unidos - Ismael Maestre, legal representative

  • Asociación Asodespente - Juan Montes, legal representative

  • Asociación Justicia y Paz (cauca@justiciaypazcolombia.com) - Jony Meriño, legal representative

  • Asociación Renacer (asorenacer@yahoo.es) - Luis Carlos Fernández, legal representative

  • Asociación de Familias Desplazadas (ASOFADECOL) (luzmarinac59@yahoo.es) - Henry Rivera Acosta, legal representative

  • Asociación de Personas Desplazadas de Fonseca, ADESFONGUA - Eustacio Fonseca Barraza, legal representative.

For the Respondent:

Amici curiae:

Case documents

Secondary documents

Read More