Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Maria Amanda Irias
Case A: Dilma Rousseff vs. Brazil
Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff was accused of corruption, money laundering and the seeking of impunity
for her political mentor, Lula Da Silva. Judge Moro, the judge in charge of her case, illegally acquired a recording of one of Rousseff’s phone calls with Lula. The recording could be used against Dilma and her political mentor, but its
illegal collection proves Judge Moro was acting more like a politician than part of the judicial branch of the government. Lula has had inconveniences with the police before, but this does not affect Rousseff in any way, shape or form. Under Law 9,296/1996 of Brazil’s Federal Constitution, “Interception of telephone communications, information technology, or telematics without a court order or with objectives not provided for in the law is a crime. Interception is not permitted if: there are no reasonable indications of perpetration or participation in a criminal offense; proof can be obtained by other available means, or an investigation constitutes a criminal offense
punishable by imprisonment.”(Brazil Law).This law was infringed by Moro when he obtained the telephone recording without a court order. In addition, other evidence could have been acquired - this was not the only choice. The Brazilian Telecommunications Law 9,472 1997, grants the rights of their privacy to the consumers (Brazil Law). Judge Moro did not only violate this clause but also overstepped Rousseff’s privacy. By article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks,” Moro committed the violation of this article and any other that grants privacy rights to Rouseff. In this clause, he did not only violate the segment that
states “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,” but also “nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” Moro destroyed Rousseff’s reputation as president, and more importantly, as a sincere human being when he released mentioned tapes which he obtained illegally.
Case B: Honduras vs. Velazquez Rodriguez
Honduras has been known to be one of the most dangerous countries in Central America, furthermore
disappearing cases have constantly been an issue. These cases however are usually concluded unresolved, and leave a feeling of uncertainty for the family members of the disappearing subject. On September 12, 1981, a man called Ángel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez disappeared from Tegucigalpa, Honduras. As reported, he was abrupted by 7 armed men in civilian clothing, and never seen again. This case became suspicious when courts refused to hear the family case, as well as the Honduras government, who was a military dictatorship at the time, refused to cooperate with the Commission when the family filed a petition. Police and security forces denied any involvement with the disappearance, which, they believed, left them with no obligation or tie to the case. However, can the disappearance be the responsibility of the state even if committed by private persons, or could the state be more involved than what they claim to be in this case? It is up to the court to decide whether the State of Honduras has violated the rights of the Velazquez Rodriguez family or to say whether the state has succeeded in complying with their state obligations.