El Derecho de Defensa en la Jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (The Right of Defence under the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spanish Abstract: El derecho de defensa se encuentra reconocido en el articulo 8.2 de la Convencion Americana de Derechos Humanos. A diferencia de los otros derechos consagrados en el articulo 8, sobre garantias judiciales,y el articulo 25, referido a la proteccion judicial, la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana no ha dado un amplio desarrollo dogmatico a las garantias de la defensa. En la mayor parte de la jurisprudencia examinada, la Corte, mas que analizar el contenido y los limites de cada uno de estos derechos, ha descrito como cada uno de los hechos constituye una violacion a la Convencion Americana. Ha sido en los casos seguidos contra el Peru y contra Ecuador donde se ha dado un mayor desarrollo de los articulos 8.2 a 8.5. La mayor parte de la jurisprudencia analizada tiene que ver con la practica de tribunales militares o con casos de personas procesadas por cargos de terrorismo, traicion a la patria o narcotrafico. Es decir, aquellos delitos respecto a los cuales los paises latinoamericanos tienden a adoptar legislaciones especiales que limitan las garantias procesales, especialmente el derecho de defensa.English Abstract: Article 8.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights recognises the right of defence. Unlike its treatment of the other rights enshrined in article 8, concerning judicial guarantees, and article 25, regarding judicial protection, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has not made a doctrinal development of the rights of the defence. In most of the cases under study, rather than providing an analysis of the content and limits of each of these rights, the Court has described how each of the events is a violation of the ACHR. The most significant development of Article 8.2 to 8.5 was attained in the cases brought against Peru and Ecuador. Most of the jurisprudence analysed concerns the use of military courts or situations in which persons are accused of terrorism, treason or drug trafficking; that is, the type of crimes for which Latin American countries tend to enact special legislation which limits the right to due process, especially the right of defence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".