## Facts

- The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights submitted the *Ivcher Bronstein* case to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on March 31, 1999, based on Petition No. 11,762 (filed March 7, 1997).
- The alleged victim, Baruch Ivcher Bronstein, was an Israeli-born businessman who became a naturalized Peruvian citizen and held a controlling shareholding in Compañía Latinoamericana de Radiodifusión S.A., the company operating Channel 2 (Frecuencia Latina) in Peru.
- The Commission alleged that after Channel 2 broadcast investigative reports concerning torture attributed to members of military intelligence and alleged payments to intelligence adviser Vladimiro Montesinos, state authorities took steps aimed at removing Ivcher from control of the station.
- The Commission alleged that Peru used administrative and legal measures affecting Ivcher’s nationality status, and that the loss of his Peruvian nationality had direct consequences for his ability to own shares in a television concession company and to exercise shareholder and managerial rights.
- While the case was already pending before the Court, Peru notified the Organization of American States on July 9, 1999 that it was “withdrawing” its 1981 declaration recognizing the Court’s contentious jurisdiction under Article 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights.
- Peru argued that the withdrawal took effect immediately and deprived the Court of competence not only in future matters but also in cases then pending (including *Ivcher Bronstein*) and in cases based on events that occurred before the withdrawal.
- The Court separated the jurisdictional objection from the merits and issued this judgment only on competence (jurisdiction), not on the alleged violations.

## Issues

1. Whether Peru could, through a unilateral act during the pendency of the proceedings, withdraw its prior recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction under Article 62 in a manner that removed the Court’s competence in this case.
2. Whether a purported withdrawal could affect cases already submitted to the Court and/or cases concerning facts that occurred while Peru’s Article 62 declaration was in force.
3. Whether the Court had authority to determine the legal effect of Peru’s attempted withdrawal for purposes of the Court’s own competence.

## Decision

- The Court held that Peru’s purported withdrawal of its recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction was inadmissible and without legal effect with respect to the Court’s competence.
- The Court declared it retained jurisdiction to continue hearing the *Ivcher Bronstein* case, despite Peru’s July 1999 notification.
- The Court rejected Peru’s position that it could immediately terminate the Court’s competence in a case already submitted by the Commission.
- The Court also rejected the idea that a withdrawal could remove the Court’s competence for matters based on facts that occurred while the Article 62 declaration was in force.
- The case was ordered to proceed in the ordinary course to later stages (including a merits judgment separate from this competence ruling).

## Legal Principles

- The Court may rule on its own competence when a respondent State contests jurisdiction in a case properly brought under the Convention.
- A State’s recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction under Article 62 operates within a treaty framework; its legal consequences are assessed in light of the American Convention and general rules of treaty law.
- Treaty obligations must be performed in good faith (pacta sunt servanda). A State cannot use internal measures or unilateral acts to negate obligations already assumed under the Convention’s supervisory system.
- A unilateral attempt to restrict the Court’s competence cannot operate to bar proceedings already initiated before the Court or to exclude cases concerning facts that occurred while the State’s recognition of jurisdiction was in effect.
- Interpretations of Article 62 must be consistent with the object and purpose of the American Convention and with legal certainty in the inter-American protection regime.

## Conclusion

In its competence judgment, the Inter-American Court held that Peru’s mid-proceeding attempt to withdraw its Article 62 recognition of contentious jurisdiction had no legal effect on the Court’s ability to hear *Ivcher Bronstein*, and it confirmed that such a withdrawal could not defeat jurisdiction over pending cases or over events that occurred while the recognition remained in force.


Ivcher Bronstein Case (Competence), Judgment of Sept. 24, 1999, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (Ser. C) No. 54