Colombia y la responsabilidad internacional por desapariciones forzadas

El largo conflicto colombiano ha dado lugar a terribles formas de violación de derechos humanos, entre las cuales ha destacado la práctica de la desaparición forzada de personas. Dada la variedad de actores implicados, el presente artículo tiene por objeto analizar bajo qué circunstancias es el Estado responsable de conformidad con el Derecho Internacional, así cómo qué medidas de reparación está desarrollando y si éstas son adecuadas

España ante la debida diligencia en violencia de género

One of the most serious human rights problems in Spain is gender violence, especially that carried out by non-state actors and takes place in the private or family sphere. The States have the duty to comply with the due diligence standard. This paper has the aim of determining the elements of this standard and examining if Spain complies with it, according to UN developments.Uno de los problemas más graves de derechos humanos en España es la violencia de género, especialmente la ejercida por actores no estatales y que tiene lugar en el ámbito privado o familiar. Los Estados tienen el deber de cumplir con el estándar de debida diligencia, por lo que este trabajo tiene como finalidad determinar en qué consiste este estándar y examinar si España lo cumple teniendo en cuenta las obligaciones establecidas en el marco universal de protección de los derechos humanos

Colombia y la responsabilidad internacional por desapariciones forzadas

El largo conflicto colombiano ha dado lugar a terribles formas de violación de derechos humanos, entre las cuales ha destacado la práctica de la desaparición forzada de personas. Dada la variedad de actores implicados, el presente artículo tiene por objeto analizar bajo qué circunstancias es el Estado responsable de conformidad con el Derecho Internacional, así cómo qué medidas de reparación está desarrollando y si éstas son adecuadas

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field