THE RIGHT TO JURIDICAL PERSONALITY OFARBITRARILY DETAINED AND UNIDENTIFIED MIGRANTSAFTER THE CASE OF THE GUAYUBÍN MASSACRE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Case of Nadege Dorzema et al v Dominican Republic, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights declined to make a finding of violation of Article 3 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the right to juridical personality. The author provides an analysis of this aspect of the judgment and argues that future cases of arbitrary detention of migrants, when these are not duly identified, provide strong bases for concluding in a violation of this right. The author shows that such circumstances correspond to the cases previously decided under article 3 of the American Convention, namely where the State puts individuals in a position where they are prevented from enjoying their civil rights, and were the State refuses to emit formal recognition of individuals or peoples. The author further shows how this conclusion is supported by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding collective expulsions of migrants, because of this court’s special emphasis on their right to be duly identified and to an individualised evaluation of their case. The author concludes that finding a violation of Article 3 of the American Convention in future similar cases is necessary to give full meaning to this treaty and full effect to its regional specificity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".