Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Limit: XX delegates
Welcome to IACHR! Any future lawyers and judges will get a glimpse of their future and will receive the necessary practice for a successful career. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is composed of Judges, State, and Plaintiffs. Judges will have the role of questioning, debating, and formulating a resolution to the case. As a judge, you must bring insight to the debate as your questions will sway the verdict of the case. You must use the U.S. Constitution to back up some of your arguments as well as questions. In the end, all judges must vote on their verdict and will then present it to court. For the Plaintiffs and State, their role as these people will be to make a case and defend your side with the Constitution backing you up. You must also remember to use other tactics to persuade the judges to vote in your favor. Use emotion, evidence, and facts to build your case. As lawyers, you will have a 30 minute period of preparation time at the beginning of the debate for your opening statements and will have the same time at the end of the debate for the closing statements. Come prepare and use your evidence wisely. Answer the judge’s questions to the best of your abilities and have fun. Your positions won’t be handed out until the start of the debate so come prepared to be either of the three positions. We hope you understand better the procedures of the IACHR and that you join us this DALE!
CASE A: Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador
In the 1990s, the State of Ecuador granted a permit to a private oil company to carry out oil exploration and exploitation activities in the territory of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku. The oil company began the exploration phase and even introduced high-powered explosives in several places on indigenous territory. As a result, the community paralyzed its economic, administrative, and school activities. The company opened seismic trails, enabled seven heliports, destroyed caves, water sources, and underground rivers, necessary for the community's water consumption; felled trees and plants of great environmental, cultural, and food subsistence value to Sarayaku. All of this was done without consulting the Sarayaku people or obtaining their consent.
CASE B: Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico Cofi v. Dominican Republic
Two girls born in the Dominican Republic to Dominican mothers applied for copies of their birth certificates. Local officials refused their request, as part of a deliberate policy to deny documents such as birth certificates to Dominicans of Haitian descent, refusing them recognition of their nationality. As a result of the denial, the girls could not go to school and faced other serious problems.