Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Principle of Legality in Criminal Law in the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law

  • 462 Accesses

Abstract

No one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed. A heavier penalty shall not be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed. If subsequent to the commission of the offense the law provides for the imposition of a lighter punishment, the guilty person shall benefit therefrom.—Article 9, American Convention on Human Rights.

PhD Candidate at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    IACtHR Judgement of 20 June 2005, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, par. 90; IACtHR Judgement of 6 May 2008, Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, par. 125; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2012, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, par. 130; IACtHR Judgement of 22 August 2013, Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, par. 154; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2013, Case of J. v. Peru, par. 278; IACtHR Judgement of 29 May 2014, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, par. 161.

  2. 2.

    IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2010, Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, par. 184.

  3. 3.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 February 2001, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, par. 106. In the same vein, IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, par. 104; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru, par. 206.

  4. 4.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 February 2001, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, par. 106; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru, par. 206; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2010, Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, par. 183; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2012, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, par. 132; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2013, Case of J. v. Peru, par. 279; IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 60; IACtHR Judgement of 29 May 2014, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, par. 161.

  5. 5.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 February 2001, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, par. 107; IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 177; IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, par. 80; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2004, Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru, par. 126; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru, par. 187; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2010, Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, par. 183; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2012, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, par. 131; IACtHR Judgement of 22 August 2013, Case of Mémoli v. Argentina, par. 154; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2013, Case of J. v. Peru, par. 278.

  6. 6.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 February 2001, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, par. 107.

  7. 7.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 February 2001, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, par. 106.

  8. 8.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 February 2001, Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. v. Panama, par. 106. In the same vein, IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 176; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2010, Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, par. 183.

  9. 9.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 175; IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, par. 105; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru, par. 191; IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 60.

  10. 10.

    Art. 9 CADH. In the same vein, IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 175; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2012, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, par. 131.

  11. 11.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 176.

  12. 12.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 175; IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, par. 105; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru, par. 191; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2013, Case of J. v. Peru, par. 279.

  13. 13.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 July 1996, Case of Blake v. Guatemala (Preliminary Objections) (1996), par. 40; IACtHR Judgement of 3 September 2004, Case of Alfonso Martín del Campo-Dodd v. United Mexican States (Preliminary Objections), par. §79; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2004, Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (Preliminary Objections), par. 65, 67; IACtHR Judgement of 15 June 2005, Case of The Moiwana Community v. Suriname, par. 39; IACtHR Judgement of 8 September 2005, Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic, par. 106; IACtHR Judgement of 26 September 2006, Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, par. 63; IACtHR Judgement of 28 November 2006, Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, par. 45; IACtHR Judgement of 12 August 2008, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, par. 25; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2008, Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, par. 29; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2009, Case of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico, par. 24.

  14. 14.

    IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2009, Case of Radilla-Pacheco v. Mexico, par. 24.

  15. 15.

    IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2008, Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, par. 30. In a concurring opinion, Judges García-Sayán and García Ramírez criticize “the hearing of facts committed beyond the temporal scope comprised by the recognition of competence on the part of the State” (par. 13), and point out that “obviously, the Court may not take on, on its own initiative, jurisdiction that has not been conferred upon it” (par. 10), and that “the Court may not assume the existence of such recognition, deducing it from isolated, ambiguous or equivocal expressions, to which the State does not clearly ascribe the nature and efficacy of recognition” (par. 12).

  16. 16.

    IACtHR Judgement of 26 November 2008, Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, par. 87. Just a few years earlier, [Case of Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia (Merits; Reparations and costs—2000; 2002)], the IACtHR considered as violations of the right to freedom crimes that might well be included under the offense of enforced disappearance, since in Bolivia, at the time they were committed (1972) there was not any definition for that crime, nor had that country ratified the ACHR or any other international instrument related to the matter. Anyway, since Bolivia acknowledged the facts as well as its responsibility, the case proceeded directly to the reparations stage.

  17. 17.

    The published English text states: “This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined”. E.g. IACtHR Judgement of 24 January 1998, Case of Blake v. Guatemala, par. 55 (“continuing or permanent crime”); IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2004, Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (Preliminary Objections), par. 105 (“continuing crime”). The domestic law of several signatory states does establish this differentiation. The Penal Code of Peru sets forth what is to be understood by delito continuado (Art. 49) and, despite not defining the term delito permanente, in Art. 82, regarding limitation periods, it distinguishes expressly between the two categories. The same is true for the case of Guatemala (Arts. 71, 108), while the Penal Code of El Salvador uses delito continuado as defined here (and not as used by the Court). On the other hand, Mexico’s Federal Penal Code establishes two categories: permanente or continuo (used as synonyms in Art. 7.I) and continuado (art. 7.II). The Bolivian Penal Code makes no distinction at all, although its Constitutional Court has pointed out that enforced disappearance is a permanent crime (Sentencia Constitucional No. 1190/01-R).

  18. 18.

    Berdugo Gómez de la Torre (2010), p. 212; Jescheck (1993), p. 237; López Barja de Quiroga (2010), p. 367, 1155; Mir Puig (2011), p. 234; Roxin (1997), p. 329.

  19. 19.

    Borja Jiménez (1995), pp. 159–160.

  20. 20.

    Mir Puig (2011), p. 652; Welzel (1956), p. 218.

  21. 21.

    In the same vein, Guzmán Dalbora, who considers this interpretation to be “bordering on absolute illegality”, except in those systems whose legislations contemplate it, although regarding it as an exception to their own principles, such as the German Penal Code (§2.2) [(2010), p. 188].

  22. 22.

    Berdugo Gómez de la Torre (2010), p. 212; Bustos Ramírez (1994), p. 284; Gómez Benítez (1984), p. 168; Gómez Rivero (2010), p. 139; López Barja de Quiroga (2010), p. 367, 1155–1156; Mir Puig (2011), p. 234; Muñoz Conde, García Arán (2010), p. 413; Polaino Navarrete (2000), p. 450; Quintero Olivares (2007), p. 605; Rodríguez Mourullo (1978), p. 128.

  23. 23.

    Calderón Cerezo, Choclán Montalvo (2005), p. 352; Molina Fernández (2009), p. 100. The latter points out that, although with the first act we are already facing a formally consummated crime, as regards legal interests such as freedom of movement the harm is gradual or progressive (“material consummation unlimited in time”). This should not be confused with the use which other authors have made of the term “material consummation”, some of them referring to “termination” [Jescheck (1993), p. 468; Roxin (1997), p. 621; Stratenwerth (2005), p. 350] and others to the “attainment of the criminal purpose” [Welzel (1956), p. 191].

  24. 24.

    Antón Oneca (1986), p. 504, Antón Oneca (1954), p. 2; Bacigalupo Zapater (1999), p. 187; Borja Jiménez (1995), p. 121; Carbonell Mateu and González Cussac (2004), p. 186; Díaz Maroto y Villarejo (1998), p. 44; Jakobs (1997), p. 855; Jescheck (1993), p. 468; Landrove Díaz (1999), p. 67; Mañalich Raffo (2004), p. 12; Lloria García (2006), pp. 105ff.; Luzón Peña (1996), p. 315; Muñoz Conde (2010), p. 170; Roxin (1997), p. 329; Welzel (1956), p. 118.

  25. 25.

    Jakobs (2002), p. 2; Mir Puig (2011), p. 361; Stratenwerth (2005), p. 350.

  26. 26.

    Borja Jiménez (1995), p. 123; Lloria García (2006), pp. 105–106, 110.

  27. 27.

    Borja Jiménez (1995), pp. 99–197; Jescheck (1993), p. 468; Lloria García (2006), p. 100; Mañalich Raffo (2004), p. 14; Roxin (1997), p. 321; Serrano González de Murillo (2008), p. 130.

  28. 28.

    Lloria García (2006), p. 100; Roxin (1997), p. 321; Serrano González de Murillo (2008), p. 130; Stratenwerth (2005), pp. 350–351.

  29. 29.

    Borja Jiménez (1995), pp. 121, 149; Serrano González de Murillo (2008), p. 130.

  30. 30.

    In the same vein, Lloria García (2006), p. 104; Mañalich Raffo (2004), pp. 12–13.

  31. 31.

    Citing Ragno, Lloria García (2006), p. 104.

  32. 32.

    Mañalich Raffo (2004), p. 13.

  33. 33.

    Jakobs (2002), p. 13.

  34. 34.

    Kindhäuser (2003), pp. 138–139.

  35. 35.

    Welzel (1956), p. 118.

  36. 36.

    Borja Jiménez (1995), p. 176; Roxin (1997), p. 621; Stratenwerth (2005), p. 197 (“[…] what is decisive is the harm to the protected legal interest and not the formal consummation of the crime […]”).

  37. 37.

    Molina Fernández (2009), p. 100. This apparent impossibility leads to [an attempt] to solve the problem by establishing the dichotomy of formal consummation-material consummation. Gómez Benítez also states that it is only during that “period of time in which consummation takes place” that one can be author or accomplice to a crime [(1984), p. 168].

  38. 38.

    Borja Jiménez (1995), p. 169 (“the possibility of appearance of co-authorship or participation at a later time than consummation of the crime can be postulated, as long as this continues in performance of the wrongful act until the moment of termination”), p. 123 (“there’s a phase following the consummation of the offense that also enters into the sphere of punishability to the extent that the dangerous or harmful progression of the protected legal interest continues, and this phase is covered by the legal crime definition). In the same tenor: Calderón Cerezo, Choclán Montalvo (2005), p. 352 (“It is possible to participate […], until the point of termination, in those crimes in which a material consummation can be distinguished. Hence, in a permanent crime, participation can take place until the anti-juridical state of affairs ceases”); Luzón Peña (1996), p. 315 (“In permanent crimes […] there is room for participation or co-authorship after consummation while the anti-juridical situation persists”); Muñoz Conde (2010), p. 212 (“there is room for participation after a crime has been consummated”); Roxin (1997), p. 330 (“In permanent crimes, even after consummation, co-authorship continues to be a possibility (§25) as, likewise, cooperation and complicity (§27) throughout all its duration, as for instance, if someone participates at a later time in the deprivation of liberty”); Serrano González de Murillo (2008), p. 142; Stratenwerth (2005), p. 351 (“participation is beyond argument when […] the performance of the illegal act in effect extends over more of a prolonged period of time”); Welzel (1956), p. 118 (“the deprivation of liberty is consummated with the act of confinement, but is exhausted only when the imprisoned person is released; until that point complicity is a possibility. This holds for all permanent crimes […] as far as the question of participation is concerned, the formal consummation of the fact is of no interest, only the material consummation; in other words, its material exhaustion”).

  39. 39.

    Borja Jiménez (1995), pp. 121, 183; Jescheck (1993), p. 823; Landrove Díaz (1999), p. 70; López Barja de Quiroga (2010), p. 367, 1440; Mir Puig (2011), p. 234. This is also established in German legislation (§78a, “as soon as the criminal offense has terminated”) and Spanish (Art. 132 CP, “from the moment when the illicit situation has been eliminated”).

  40. 40.

    Thus, the Spanish Supreme Court, which has established that whenever a plurality of acts that might maintain continuity takes place following the normative change (since “a single act does not constitute the application of criminal continuity”, STS 2030/2001 of 31 October 2001, FD 1), the application of a later law shall not violate the legality principle (STS 223/2000, of 21 February 2000, FD 4; STS 1548/2005 of 30 December 2005, FD 5; STS 903/2006 of 19 September 2006, FD 3).

  41. 41.

    Against this position, arguing reasons of criminal policy, Mañalich Raffo (2004), p. 14.

  42. 42.

    Hurtado Pozo (1987), p. 138.

  43. 43.

    IACtHR Judgement of 26 September 2006, Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, par. 151; IACtHR Judgement of 29 November 2006, Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, par. 226. This list of unenforceable arguments (normally excepting non-retroactivity) has been reiterated in several judgements: IACtHR Judgement of 14 March 2001, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, par. 41; IACtHR Judgement of 3 September 2001, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru (Interpretation), par. 15; IACtHR Judgement of 27 February 2002, Case of Trujillo-Oroza v. Bolivia (Reparations and Costs), par. 106; IACtHR Judgement of 29 August 2002, Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela (Reparations and Costs), par. 119; IACtHR Judgement of 18 September 2003, Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, par. 116; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2003, Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, par. 276; IACtHR Judgement of 4 May 2004, Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala, par. 83–84; IACtHR Judgement of 8 July 2004, Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, par. 150; IACtHR Judgement of 11 May 2007, Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, par. 194; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2008, Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, par. 147; IACtHR Judgement of 22 September 2009, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, par. 182; IACtHR Judgement of 24 November 2009, Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, par. 129; IACtHR Judgement of 24 November 2010, Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) v. Brasil, par. 148; IACtHR Judgement of 24 February 2011, Case Gelman v. Uruguay, par. 232; IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2011, Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, par. 185.d; IACtHR Judgement of 27 February 2012, Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, par. 285.e; IACtHR Judgement of 4 September 2012, Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, par. 257; IACtHR Judgement of 24 October 2012, Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, par. 249.b; IACtHR Judgement of 25 October 2012, Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, par. 296; IACtHR Judgement of 20 November 2012, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, par. 327.b; IACtHR Judgement of 21 May 2013, Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, par. 175.

  44. 44.

    Roxin (1997), p. 165; Jescheck (1993), p. 469.

  45. 45.

    Jakobs (1997), pp. 82–83.

  46. 46.

    Lascuraín Sánchez (2011), pp. 59–60; Mir Puig (2011), p. 106; Ramos Tapia (2010a), p. 111.

  47. 47.

    Malarino (2010), pp. 45–46.

  48. 48.

    Malarino (2010), p. 48.

  49. 49.

    Lascuraín Sánchez (2000), pp. 31ff.; Ramos Tapia (2010b), p. 135; Silva Sánchez (1993), pp. 427–428.

  50. 50.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 179.

  51. 51.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 186.

  52. 52.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 179.

  53. 53.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 180; IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-5/85, November 13, 1985, par. 52.

  54. 54.

    Baldó Lavilla (1997), p. 361.

  55. 55.

    Ferreres Comella (2002), p. 199.

  56. 56.

    Against this, see Roxin, who considers that if the court interprets a norm in a more unfavorable way than had been the case previously, the defendant will have to bear it, since what is at stake is not a retroactive aggravation, but the realization of an intention of a law that already existed, but that so far had not been correctly recognized [(1997), pp. 165–166]. In a similar vein, Jakobs, who points out that the prohibition of case-law retroactivity prevents the amendment of errors and blurs the rule of law and the duty to state the grounds of decisions. He also stresses that it has not been demonstrated that the advantages of principle of confidence compensate the inconveniences arising from case-law immobility [(1997), pp. 126–127].

  57. 57.

    Viz. n. 44.

  58. 58.

    Fairén Guillén (1992), p. 66.

  59. 59.

    Lascuraín Sánchez (2011), p. 62.

  60. 60.

    Fairén Guillén (1992), p. 67.

  61. 61.

    Maraver Gómez (2011), p. 183. The Spanish Supreme Court has pronounced along these lines when pointing out that “[…] even though this is a procedural law, it exercises a relevant beneficial effect […] so that constitutionally, retroactivity is mandatory” (STS 296/2015 of 6 May 2015), and that “[…] (when) the norm is not one of substantive criminal law […] (but it causes) the same effect […], the retroactivity of the norm is necessarily imposed for basic constitutional reasons” (STS 297/2015 of 8 May 2015).

  62. 62.

    Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica, Peru, EEUU.

  63. 63.

    Colombia, Argentina, Chile, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Uruguay.

  64. 64.

    IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 67, n. 80–81.

  65. 65.

    That’s not an example of jurisprudential cross-fertilization: the IACtHR replied in those terms to an observation made by the Commission (par. 53) [IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 65].

  66. 66.

    IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 68, citing ECtHR Judgements Scoppola v. Italy (par. 110–113) and Del Río Prada v. Spain (par. 89).

  67. 67.

    IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 69.

  68. 68.

    IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 70.

  69. 69.

    Inter alia, Eser (2009), pp. 172, 176.

  70. 70.

    IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, May 9, 1986, par. 25–27.

  71. 71.

    IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, May 9, 1986, par. 24.

  72. 72.

    IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, May 9, 1986, par. 28.

  73. 73.

    IACtHR Judgement of 22 October 2001, Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, par. 273.

  74. 74.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 May 2008, Case of Kimel v. Argentina, par. 63; IACtHR Judgement of 20 November 2009, Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, par. 55.

  75. 75.

    IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-6/86, May 9, 1986, par. 38; IACtHR Judgement of 21 November 2007, Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, par. 56; IACtHR Judgement of 22 October 2001, Case of Artavia Murillo et al. (“In Vitro Fertilization”) v. Costa Rica, par. 273.

  76. 76.

    Mir Puig (2011), p. 107.

  77. 77.

    The Court said nothing about it in following judgements, whose appellants were convicted by virtue of a Decree-law: IACtHR Judgement of 30 May 1999, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru; IACtHR Judgement of 18 August 2000, Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru; IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2004, Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2013, Case of J. v. Peru. In the IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2010, Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, the Court made reference to the administrative character of the Decree-law, but to the effect of pointing out its impact on Art. 8 (judicial guarantees).

  78. 78.

    Guzmán Dalbora (2010), pp. 178–179.

  79. 79.

    Inter-American Specialized Conference on Human Rights [OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.2], p. 206.

  80. 80.

    Guzmán Dalbora (2010), p. 175; Medina Quiroga (2005), p. 347.

  81. 81.

    Medina Quiroga (2005), p. 347.

  82. 82.

    Guzmán Dalbora (2010), p. 176.

  83. 83.

    IACtHR Judgement of 20 November 2009, Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, par. 55.

  84. 84.

    IACtHR Judgement of 30 May 1999, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, par. 121; IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 174; IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, par. 79; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2004, Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru, par. 125; IACtHR Judgement of 20 November 2009, Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, par. 55; IACtHR Judgement of 27 April 2012, Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, par. 105; IACtHR Judgement of 27 November 2013, Case of J. v. Peru, par. 278; IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 61; IACtHR Judgement of 29 May 2014, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, par. 162.

  85. 85.

    IACtHR Judgement of 20 June 2005, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, par. 90; IACtHR Judgement of 6 May 2008, Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, par. 125; IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 61; IACtHR Judgement of 29 May 2014, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, par. 162.

  86. 86.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 May 2008, Case of Kimel v. Argentina, par. 63; IACtHR Judgement of 20 November 2009, Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, par. 55; IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 61; IACtHR Judgement of 29 May 2014, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, par. 162.

  87. 87.

    IACtHR Judgement of 2 May 2008, Case of Kimel v. Argentina, par. 63; IACtHR Judgement of 20 November 2009, Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, par. 55.

  88. 88.

    IACtHR Judgement of 30 May 1999, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, par. 121; IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 174; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2004, Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru, par. 125; IACtHR Judgement of 27 April 2012, Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, par. 105.

  89. 89.

    IACtHR Judgement of 31 August 2004, Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay, par. 124, citing the UN Human Rights Committee, General Coment No. 27, November 2, 1999, §12–13.

  90. 90.

    IACtHR Judgement of 30 May 1999, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, par. 121 (“Laws of the kind applied […], that fail to narrowly define the criminal behaviors, violate the principle of nullum crimen, nullum poena sine lege praevia recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention”); IACtHR Judgement of 18 August 2000, Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, par. 153 (“Both Decree-Laws refer to actions not precisely defined, meaning that it could be considered under either”). The latter reference had been established by the Court in the IACtHR Judgement of 17 September 1997, Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, par. 68, although in that case its relevance was to the effects of bis in idem (Art. 8.4 ACHR).

  91. 91.

    IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2004, Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru, par. 127; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru, par. 195. For a more exhaustive analysis, cf. Guzmán Dalbora (2010), pp. 180–184.

  92. 92.

    Mir Puig (2011), p. 66.

  93. 93.

    IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2012, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, relating to a case of manslaughter as a result of a traffic accident. The legal definition of this crime, set out in Art. 84 CP, referred to provisions contained in a Decree (which, furthermore, was enacted after the commission of the act). The IACtHR did not go as far as determining whether there had been a violation of Art. 9 ACHR, since it considered that it should be determined by the competent court for appeals (given the fact that a violation of Art. 8.2.h ACHR had been registered [par. 117,140,152]).

  94. 94.

    IACtHR Judgement of 20 June 2005, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, par. 93–95.

  95. 95.

    IACtHR Judgement of 20 June 2005, Case of Fermín Ramírez v. Guatemala, par. 95–96.

  96. 96.

    IACtHR Judgement of 29 May 2014, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, par. 163.

  97. 97.

    IACtHR Judgement of 29 May 2014, Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, par. 165.

  98. 98.

    IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, par. 82; IACtHR Judgement of 25 November 2005, Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas v. Peru, par. 190; IACtHR Judgement of 27 April 2012, Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, par. 105; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2012, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, par. 132; IACtHR Judgement of 30 January 2014, Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, par. 61.

  99. 99.

    IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2010, Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, par. 187. In this case, it was not possible to apply the precept, because it was stipulated that the penalty (2 years of agricultural work) was to be served in the Penal Colony of Coiba, an establishment that had been converted into a center for ecological tourism. The sentence was commuted to a term of 2 years’ imprisonment, and this measure was considered to violate the principle of legality because it was based on an extensive interpretation of criminal law.

  100. 100.

    IACtHR Judgement of 18 November 2004, Case of De la Cruz-Flores v. Peru, par. 81; IACtHR Judgement of 23 November 2012, Case of Mohamed v. Argentina, par. 130.

  101. 101.

    The IACtHR ordered Argentina to proceed with, and conclude, the investigation of acts whose limitation period had past [IACtHR Judgement of 18 September 2003, Case of Bulacio v. Argentina].

  102. 102.

    Carbonell Mateu (2001), p. 130; García Rivas (1996), p. 68 (although he points out that it has more to do with the principle of proportionality); Huerta Tocildo (2000), pp. 52–53; Quintero Olivares (1991), p. 281.

  103. 103.

    Cano Campos (2001), pp. 192, 202; Lascuraín Sánchez (2009), pp. 24–27; Mañalich Raffo (2014), p. 548.

  104. 104.

    Arroyo Zapatero (1983), pp. 19–20; Cano Campos (2001), pp. 192, 202.

  105. 105.

    IACtHR Judgement of 18 August 2000, Case of Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, par. 137.

  106. 106.

    IACtHR Judgement of 17 September 1997, Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, par. 76.

  107. 107.

    Pérez Manzano (2002), p.175.

  108. 108.

    IACtHR Judgement of 17 September 1997, Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru, par. 66.

  109. 109.

    IACtHR Judgement of 22 November 2004, Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala, par. 131.

  110. 110.

    IACtHR Judgement of 22 November 2004, Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala, par. 132; IACtHR Judgement of 12 September 2005, Case of Gutiérrez-Soler v. Colombia, par. 98.

  111. 111.

    IACtHR Judgement of 12 September 2005, Case of Gutiérrez-Soler v. Colombia, par. 98.

  112. 112.

    IACtHR Judgement of 26 September 2006, Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, par. 154. The IACtHR makes here an express reference to Art. 20 RS, as well as the Statutes of the TPIY (Art. 10) and the ICTR (Art. 9).

  113. 113.

    IACtHR Judgement of 26 September 2006, Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile (2006), par. 154.

References

  • Antón Oneca J (1954) Delito continuado. Francisco Seix, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Antón Oneca J (1986) Derecho Penal, 2nd edn. Akal, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Arroyo Zapatero L (1983) Principio de legalidad y reserva de ley en materia penal. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 8:9–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacigalupo Zapater E (1999) Derecho Penal. Parte general. Hammurabi, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldó Lavilla F (1997) Observaciones metodológicas sobre la construcción de la teoría del delito. In: Silva Sánchez JM (ed) Política criminal y nuevo Derecho Penal. Libro homenaje a Claus Roxin. Jose María Bosch Editor, Barcelona, pp 357–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdugo Gómez de la Torre I (2010) Curso de Derecho Penal. Parte general, 2nd edn. Ediciones Experiencia, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Borja Jiménez E (1995) La terminación del delito. Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales 48:89–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Bustos Ramírez J (1994) Manual de Derecho Penal. Parte general, 4th edn. PPU, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Calderón Cerezo Á, Choclán Montalvo JA (2005) Manual de Derecho Penal. Deusto, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Cano Campos T (2001) Non bis in idem, prevalencia de la vía penal y teoría de los concursos en el Derecho Administrativo sancionador. Revista de Administración Pública 156:191–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell Mateu JC (2001) Reflexiones sobre el abuso del Derecho Penal y la banalización de la legalidad. In: Arroyo Zapatero L, Berdugo Gómez de la Torre I (coords.) Homenaje al Dr. Marino Barbero Santos: “in memoriam”. Universidad de Salamanca, Salamanca, pp 129–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Carbonell Mateu JC, González Cussac JL (2004) Delitos contra la libertad (I): detenciones ilegales y secuestros. In: Vives Antón T et al (ed) Derecho Penal. Parte Especial. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 179–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz Maroto y Villarejo J (1998) Delitos contra la libertad. Detenciones ilegales y secuestros. In: Bajo Fernández M (dir) Compendio de Derecho Penal (Parte Especial), Volumen II. Centro de Estudios Ramón Areces, Madrid, pp 37–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Eser A (2009) Human rights guarantees for criminal law and procedure in the EU-charter of fundamental rights. Ritsumeikan Law Rev 26:163–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairén Guillén V (1992) Teoría general del Derecho Procesal. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferreres Comella V (2002) El principio de taxatividad en materia penal y el valor normativo de la jurisprudencia (una perspectiva constitucional). Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • García Rivas N (1996) El poder punitivo en el Estado democrático. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Cuenca

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Benítez JM (1984) Teoría jurídica del delito. Derecho Penal. Parte general. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Rivero MC (2010) Nociones fundamentales de Derecho Penal. Parte general, 2nd edn. Tecnos, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzmán Dalbora JL (2010) El principio de legalidad penal en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. In: Eisner G, Ambos K, Malarino E (coords) Sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos y Derecho Penal Internacional. Konrad-Adenauer, Montevideo, pp 171–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Huerta Tocildo S (2000) Principio de legalidad y normas sancionadoras. In: Aa.Vv., Actas de las V Jornadas de la Asociación de Letrados del Tribunal Constitucional. Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales, pp 11–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurtado Pozo J (1987) Manual de Derecho Penal, 2nd edn. Eddili, Lima

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs G (1997) Derecho Penal. Parte general. Fundamentos y teoría de la imputación, 2nd edn. Marcial Pons, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobs G (2002) Consumación material en los delitos de lesión contra la persona. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Jescheck HH (1993) Tratado de Derecho Penal. Parte general, 4th edn. Comares, Granada

    Google Scholar 

  • Kindhäuser U (2003) Lehrbuch des Strafrechts Besonderer Teil I. Nomos, Baden-Baden

    Google Scholar 

  • Landrove Díaz G (1999) Detenciones ilegales y secuestros. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascuraín Sánchez JA (2000) Sobre la retroactividad penal favorable. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascuraín Sánchez JA (2009) Sólo penas legales, precisas y previas: el derecho a la legalidad penal en la jurisprudencia constitucional. Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Lascuraín Sánchez JA (2011) Principios del Derecho Penal (I). El principio de legalidad y las fuentes del Derecho Penal. In: Lascuraín Sánchez JA (coord) Introducción al Derecho Penal. Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, pp 53–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloria García P (2006) Aproximación al estudio del delito permanente. Granada, Comares

    Google Scholar 

  • López Barja de Quiroga J (2010) Tratado de Derecho Penal. Parte general. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Luzón Peña DM (1996) Curso de Derecho Penal. Parte general I. Universitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Malarino E (2010) Activismo judicial, punitivización y nacionalización. Tendencias antidemocráticas y antiliberales de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. In: Eisner G, Ambos K, Malarino E (coords) Sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos y Derecho Penal Internacional. Konrad-Adenauer, Montevideo, pp 25–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Mañalich Raffo JP (2004) El secuestro como delito permanente frente al DL de amnistía. Revista de Estudios de la Justicia 5:11–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Mañalich Raffo JP (2014) El principio ne bis in idem frente a la superposición del Derecho Penal y el Derecho Administrativo sancionatorio. Política Criminal: Revista Electrónica Semestral de Políticas Públicas en Materias Penales 18:543–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maraver Gómez M (2011) Vigencia temporal de la Ley penal. In: Lascuraín Sánchez JA (coord) Introducción al Derecho Penal. Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, pp 171–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina Quiroga C (2005) La Convención Americana: teoría y jurisprudencia. Vida, integridad personal, libertad personal, debido proceso y recurso judicial. Centro de Derechos Humanos, Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile

    Google Scholar 

  • Mir Puig S (2011) Derecho Penal. Parte general, 9th edn. Reppertor, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina Fernández F (2009) ¿Qué se protege en el delito de blanqueo de capitales? In: Bajo Fernández M, Bacigalupo Saggese S (eds) Política criminal y blanqueo de capitales. Marcial Pons, Madrid, pp 91–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz Conde F (2010) Derecho Penal. Parte especial, 18th edn. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz Conde F, García Arán M (2010) Derecho Penal. Parte general, 8th edn. Tirant lo Blanc, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Manzano M (2002) La prohibición constitucional de incurrir en bis in idem. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia

    Google Scholar 

  • Polaino Navarrete M (2000) Derecho Penal. Parte general. Tomo II: teoría jurídica del delito. Volumen I, Bosch, Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintero Olivares G (1991) La autotutela, los límites al poder sancionador de la Administración Pública y los principios inspiradores del Derecho Penal. Revista de Administración Pública 126:253–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintero Olivares G (2007) Parte general del Derecho Penal, 2nd edn. Aranzadi, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Tapia MI (2010a) Límites al poder punitivo del Estado (II). In: Zugaldía Espinar JM (dir) Fundamentos de Derecho Penal. Parte general, 4th edn. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 111–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos Tapia MI (2010b) Límites al poder punitivo del Estado (III). In: Zugaldía Espinar JM (dir) Fundamentos de Derecho Penal. Parte general, 4th edn. Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, pp 133–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez Mourullo G (1978) Derecho Penal. Parte general. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Roxin C (1997) Derecho Penal. Parte general. Tomo I. Civitas, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrano González de Murillo JL (2008) La participación en el hecho ya consumado por otro, en particular en el delito permanente. Cuadernos de Política Criminal 96:129–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva Sánchez JM (1993) Legislación penal socio-económica y retroactividad de disposiciones favorables: el caso de las “leyes en blanco”. Estudios Penales y Criminológicos 16:426–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Stratenwerth G (2005) Derecho Penal. Parte general I. El hecho punible. Thomson-Civitas, Cizur Menor

    Google Scholar 

  • Welzel H (1956) Derecho Penal. Parte general. Roque de Palma, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, 28049, Madrid, Spain

    Marina Mínguez Rosique

Authors
  1. Marina Mínguez Rosique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Mínguez Rosique .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Mercedes Pérez Manzano

  2. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Juan Antonio Lascuraín Sánchez

  3. Faculty of Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Marina Mínguez Rosique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mínguez Rosique, M. (2018). The Principle of Legality in Criminal Law in the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. In: Pérez Manzano, M., Lascuraín Sánchez, J., Mínguez Rosique, M. (eds) Multilevel Protection of the Principle of Legality in Criminal Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63865-2_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63864-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63865-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation