Precedent of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: State Compliance and Judicial Performance in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia

Abstract

Abstract Considering the external effects of adjudicative activity of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, structural questions emerge regarding the influence of IACtHR precedent in judicial branches of the Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights. In this sense, this paper seeks to apply the theoretical typologies developed by Ryan Goodman and Derek Jinks to the analysis of operative mechanisms of influence of international law inside the States’ jurisdictions. In this regard, it was necessary to create new specific categories (eg, acculturative persuasive precedent, selective persuasive precedent), to test whether they suitably describe the application of Inter-American precedents, in an attempt to categorize the recent performance of the highest courts in Brazil, Colombia, Argentina, Chile, and Bolivia. Additionally, the concept of double control of conventionality has presented essential perspectives for the compliance with IACtHR judgments by demanding States, as well as the interpretation and application of national laws deemed compatible, or not, with the Pact of San José. In the end, quantitative analysis played an important role in measuring each national court’s assimilation of international precedents as it outlined scenarios of explicit adoption of Inter-American Court precedent by national judicial branches. Sampled States were classified as follows: a) Brazil: selective persuasive IACtHR precedent with low performance; b) Colombia: acculturative persuasive IACtHR precedent with high performance; c) Argentina: selective persuasive IACtHR precedent with moderate performance; d) Chile: selective persuasive IACtHR precedent with high performance; and e) Bolivia: acculturative persuasive IACtHR precedent with moderate performance.