American Convention On Human Rights Research Articles

Case of Digna Ochoa & Family Members v. Mex. (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R.)

This case addressed irregularities in the investigation of the death of Digna Ochoa y Plácido on October 19, 2001. The petition alleged that her death occurred in the context of harassment and attacks against human rights defenders in Mexico. The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (the Commission) found that the state was responsible for violations of rights related to judicial protection and judicial guarantees under Articles 8(1) and 25 and personal integrity under Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).

CHALLENGING THE USE OF EXTERNAL SOURCES BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

AbstractThis article challenges the justification usually offered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for its broad use of external sources when engaging in evolutive interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). It analyses the Court's jurisprudence concerning international humanitarian law, the rights of the child, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual and intersex (LGBTI) rights, in addition to drawing on interviews conducted with lawyers of the Court. It argues that the discursive strategy used by the Court to justify its ‘import’ of external sources fails to provide a complete normative justification and remains open to the charge of ‘cherry-picking’. The article recommends that the Court tailors its discursive strategy to the specific type of external sources used and suggests that more attention be paid to searching for internationalized consensus when determining the relevance of non-binding sources to evolutive interpretation of the ACHR.

ESSENTIALISM AS THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION OF AMERICAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (1969)

The article focuses on the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), known as the San José Pact of Costa Rica, because of its political and legal importance for protecting and promoting the Americas' rights. The objective is to analyze the consistency of the theoretical foundation of that human rights document. Therefore, we will first analyze the Convention's text and point out essentialism as the philosophical foundation. Then, we will discuss the essentialist assumption philosophically. Finally, the theoretical problem of essentialism as the foundation of the Convention will be analyzed in light of Sartre's existentialism. From the considerations presented, the philosophical foundation of the rights in the 1969 Convention, essentialism, is not theoretically consistent, despite being an indispensable rhetorical argument.

The Right to Cultural Identity in the Case Law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A New Global Standard for the Protection of Indigenous Rights and Future Generations?

This paper examines the protection of the right to cultural identity in the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), where this question has appeared in connection with the rights of indigenous peoples. Although not expressly guaranteed in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), the right to cultural identity has received protection in the IACtHR9s case law through an evolutionary interpretation of the rights to life and property, and other provisions under the ACHR. A landmark decision in the 2020 case of Lhaka Honhat Association v. Argentina has put into a new perspective the protection of the right to cultural identity. For the first time, it was clearly established that cultural rights are autonomous and judicially enforceable under Article 26 of the ACHR. The ICtHR9s revolutionary approach offers new opportunities for the judicial protection of environmental rights claims, contributing to the debate on sustainable development and the protection of future generations as well. The ICtHR has risen to be a regional standard-setting treaty body in the Inter-American system. Simultaneously, its far-reaching approach to protecting cultural identity and land rights has made the IACtHR9s case law a genuine reference point for other universal and regional international human rights organs.

Indigenous Communities of the Lhaka Honhat (Our Land) Association v. Argentina

On February 6, 2020, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) declared in Lhaka Honhat Association v. Argentina that Argentina violated Indigenous groups’ rights to communal property, a healthy environment, cultural identity, food, and water. For the first time in a contentious case, the Court analyzed these rights autonomously based on Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and ordered specific restitution measures, including actions to provide access to adequate food and water, and the recovery of forest resources and Indigenous culture. The decision marks a significant milestone for protecting Indigenous peoples’ rights and expanding the autonomous rights to a healthy environment, water, and food, which are now directly justiciable under the Inter-American human rights system.

őslakos népek kulturális identitáshoz való joga az Emberi Jogok Amerikaközi Bírósága joggyakorlatában

Jelen tanulmány a kulturális identitás védelmét vizsgálja az Emberi Jogok Amerikaközi Bíróságának (EJAB) gyakorlatában, ahol a kérdéskör elsősorban az őslakos népek kontextusában jelenik meg. Az EJAB a kulturális identitáshoz való jog védelmét – az ezt garantáló, anyagi jogi norma hiányában – jellemzően az élethez és a tulajdonhoz való jogból, valamint egyéb, első generációs emberi jogokból vezeti le evolutív módon, az Emberi Jogok Amerikai Egyezményére (EJAE) támaszkodva. 2020 tavaszán a Lhaka Honhat kontra Argentína ügyben hozott ítéletében az EJAB új perspektívát nyitott a kulturális identitáshoz való jog védelmére, mert megállapította, hogy a kulturális jogok önállóan, autonóm módon is érvényesíthetők az EJAB előtt, az EJAE 26. cikke alapján. Ez, az EJAB eddigi joggyakorlatához képest haladó szemlélet egyúttal új lehetőségeket nyit meg az EJAE 26. cikkéből eredeztethető környezetvédelmi jogok érvényesíthetősége terén is.

O PRINCÍPIO PRO HOMINE COMO INSTRUMENTO DE PROTEÇÃO INTEGRAL DO SER HUMANO NA RELAÇÃO DE TRABALHO

Este artigo visa a apresentar uma resposta às três indagações sobre a tutela do homem nas relações de trabalho: o que é estar protegido? De quem estar protegido? E como estar protegido? Na tentativa de trazer respostas a essas três questões, partindo-se do contexto legislativo brasileiro atual, buscará supedâneo na legislação internacional, nos tratados e convenções que o Brasil ratificou. No caminho dessa reflexão, o princípio pro homine, que se encontra inscrito em diversos diplomas internacionais, notadamente no art. 29b da Convenção Americana de Direitos Humanos (CADH), no art. 4.º do Protocolo de San Salvador, entre outros, será tanto o fio condutor quanto o caminho que se encontrará para dar resposta satisfativa a todas as reformas estruturais trabalhistas que vêm sendo enfrentadas em nossa legislação. O princípio pro homine, bem entendido e aplicado, possibilitará a tutela integral do ser humano, pois orienta os juristas e legisladores na aplicação de normas que têm maior alcance protetivo na relação de trabalho, tomando o homem não como um mero trabalhador, mas como aquele que, na relação de trabalho, se desenvolve como ser humano, pessoa.

Review by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and domestic reparation programmes: towards a more nuanced approach

ABSTRACT This article brings new perspectives and insights to the question of which type of review the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) should adopt for remedies in cases involving a State where a Domestic Reparation Programme (DRP) has been implemented. First, it critically examines the view that posits that when the IACtHR orders remedies in the examined cases it should focus its decision on only the discrete human rights violations found in an individual case before it. To specify, this approach can be called ‘an individual case approach to remedies’. This work demonstrates that the argument that the IACtHR should limit itself to an individual case approach to remedies in the examined cases is unwarranted from a legal, analytical and normative perspective. Second, this article provides a much more nuanced approach to the question of remedies adopted by the IACtHR in the studied cases than an individual case approach and other approaches suggested for these cases. It proposes an approach where the IACtHR reviews the characteristics of the DRPs applicable to individual cases brought before it. Notably, this Court should evaluate whether a given DRP meets State obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR).

“Lhaka Honhat Association v. Argentina”: Landmark decision on direct justiciability of Article 26 ACHR and the autonomous right to a healthy environment

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), after 28 years of conflict with the Argentine state, finally ruled in favor of the rights of the indigenous communities of Salta, Argentina. The Court condemned Argentina for violating the right of these indigenous communities to their cultural identity, a healthy environment, and adequate food and water. The Court ordered specific action in Argentina for the restitution of those rights, including urgently needed access to food and water, reforestation and the recovery of indigenous culture. Lhaka Honhat is a landmark judgment for the IACtHR sets a precedent concerning the direct justiciability of Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). This is the first ruling by this Court to independently analyze the human right to a healthy environment. “Lhaka Honhat” establishes clearer rules for State actions concerning the principle of prevention of environmental damage caused by private individuals and establishes guidelines for restitution and compensation for the violation of indigenous (collective) rights when their natural resources are affected. A more comprehensive reading of the scope of protection under Article 26 in future court cases is likely.

The Emergence of a More Conventional Reading of the Conventionality Control Doctrine

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights developed a doctrine called conventionality control. In general terms, this doctrine is somewhat similar to the idea of judicial review of legislation, but applied in a transnational forum. According to the Court, conventionality control would require domestic judges and other bodies of States parties to the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) to depart from domestic legislation that runs counter to the ACHR or the Inter-American Court’s interpretation of the ACHR. Many scholars contend that the application of this doctrine should be carried out even if the domestic bodies that apply it have no constitutional power to do so. Others have a more restrictive interpretation and consider that domestic bodies would have to apply it to the extent of their power, according to their national constitutions. Apparently, the latter interpretation is gaining a wider support, which is desirable, because only this reading would be compatible with the principles of international law, and possibly accepted by all member States.

When Illiberals Embrace Human Rights

A topic motivating much research since 2016 is the turn away from international law caused by a surge in non-liberal and nationalist governments across the world. In the realm of human rights law, scholars have noted how states are now more apt to repudiate, resist, or simply ignore their human rights obligations. This essay makes a different cut into this topic. It considers not how non-liberal actors reject human rights law, but rather what happens when they embrace it. International human rights law in Latin America—often understood as a means of promoting a cosmopolitan, liberal political order—is also being harnessed toward other types of political projects. This raises the question of how necessary the link is between human rights and political liberalism: is non-liberal engagement an existential threat, or can human rights law have a thinner commitment to liberal principles than does, for example, national constitutional law? As the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) turns fifty, this essay argues that the human rights law of the Americas is open-ended enough that it can incorporate, and has at times incorporated, non-liberal concerns and norms without losing coherence or legitimacy. Further, this may be an apt survival strategy, albeit not the only one, for the region's human rights institutions in our time.

LA APLICACIÓN DEL PRINCIPIO DE SUBSIDIARIEDAD EN LA JURISPRUDENCIA DE LA CORTE INTERAMERICANA DE DERECHOS HUMANOS, AVANCES Y RETOS.

<p>El principio de subsidiariedad es un elemento clave para la correcta interacción de los distintos actores del derecho internacional de los derechos humanos (DIH). Históricamente, el principio de subsidiariedad ha servido como un mecanismo de balance para la ponderación de los valores y derechos que se resguardan en el DIDH.</p><p> </p><p>La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Corte Interamericana o Corte IDH), como organismo internacional de derechos humanos, se enfrenta continuamente a la necesidad de impartir justicia ante violaciones de derechos humanos, guardando el respeto adecuado a la soberanía de los Estados parte de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Convención Americana o CADH), para garantizar un balance que respete el espíritu de la Convención Americana.</p><p> </p><p>Dentro de su labor, la Corte Interamericana ha conocido de diversos casos a través de los cuales ha desarrollado su jurisprudencia estableciendo principios y aplicando estándares. El principio de subsidiariedad ha estado presente en algunas sentencias de la Corte IDH, y si bien su aplicación hasta el momento no es del todo precisa, es posible ver avances en jurisprudencia reciente, lo cual permite detectar áreas de oportunidad para el aumento en la precisión de la aplicación del principio de subsidiariedad por parte de la Corte, así como reconocer los adelantos hechos hasta ahora en ese sentido.</p><p> </p>El presente ensayo analiza en un primer momento, y de manera breve, el concepto del principio de subsidiariedad y su entendimiento por parte de la Corte Interamericana; posteriormente, señala la relación del principio de subsidiariedad con el artículo 2 de la Convención Americana; después, se estudia la aplicación del principio de subsidiariedad en algunas sentencias recientes de la Corte IDH, señalando aciertos y áreas de oportunidad. Finalmente, se presenta una conclusión resaltando la buena práctica que resulta de la correcta aplicación del principio de subsidiariedad por parte de la Corte Interamericana y los retos que puede enfrentar en un futuro para continuar ampliando su desarrollo en la jurisprudencia interamericana.

Surrogacy, privacy, and the American Convention on Human Rights.

Under the Inter-American Human Rights System, individuals have a right to access reproductive technologies. However, the legal status of surrogacy agreements in State Parties to the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) is mostly uncertain. The article discusses whether a complete ban on surrogacy is compatible with the ACHR. It considers potential objections to surrogacy agreements: ‘corruption objections’—surrogacy denigrates the nature of what is being exchanged-, the potential exploitation of surrogates and welfare concerns of children born from surrogacy. The article concludes that States Parties to the ACHR should allow both altruistic and commercial surrogacy, but that regulatory schemes for appropriate protection of the rights of surrogates, intending parents, and children resulting from surrogacy ought to be secured.

The Duty to Investigate Violations of the Right to Life in Armed Conflicts in the Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

This article explores how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court) has dealt with allegations of violations of the right to life during an armed conflict and, in particular, how it has dealt with allegations of violation of the obligation to investigate such allegations. The article notes that international humanitarian law (IHL) was initially used by the Court to strengthen the general obligations of states to protect the rights guaranteed by the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Later IHL began informing the interpretation of specific rights. This change has been more significant in relation to the interpretation of the right to life under the ACHR than in the examination of state compliance with the right of access to justice, which encompasses the duty to investigate allegations of violations of the right to life during an armed conflict. The analysis of the Court's jurisprudence demonstrates that the different ways in which the Court has addressed the relationship between IHL and international human rights law (IHRL) have been informed by its primary effort to ensure that the interpretation of the ACHR provides the widest protection possible to individual rights.

Disability rights in the Inter-American System of Human Rights

In recent years the Inter-American Human Rights System has moved in the direction of increasingly protecting the rights of persons with disabilities. Although the Inter-American singular instrument dealing with disability rights (CIADDIS) does not provide a strong tool for the analysis of individual claims in cases of violations of these rights, both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have relied on an expansive interpretation of the Inter-American treaties, particularly the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), in order to protect them. The purpose of this article is to trace the evolution of Inter-American jurisprudence and practice with regard to the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities. In its first decisions on persons with disabilities, the Inter-American System took a general approach by simply recognising that persons with disabilities are entitled to the same rights as all persons; in its more recent decisions the Inter-American System has taken a proactive approach by interpreting those rights from a particular disability rights perspective. This article will argue that in doing so, the Inter-American System has, in some aspects, progressively caught up with international standards of protection regarding disability rights, while in others, it has developed a particular standard of interpretation that is in conflict with the CRPD’s standards. Inter-American jurisprudence is thus slowly becoming an internationally relevant actor for the interpretation of disability rights, one that should be taken into account.

Conventionality Control the New Doctrine of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

One of the most recent and most effective efforts of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Inter-American Court) to increase the level of compliance with the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) has been the creation of the “conventionality control” doctrine. The Inter-American Court describes this as a “mechanism for the application of International Law,” mainly “International Human Rights Law, and specifically the American Convention and its sources, including this Court’s jurisprudence.”

¿Referéndum tras denunciar un tratado de derechos humanos?

Los recientes y recurrentes pronunciamientos del Estado ecuatoriano frente al Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos (SIDH) están basados principalmente en la crítica de las Medidas Cautelares operadas por la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (CIDH). Ante este escenario, el Estado ha amenazado con denunciar la Convención Americana de Derechos Humanos (CADH), tratado contenedor del SIDH. Se realizará un análisis acerca de la naturaleza de las medidas cautelares, la pertinencia de un referéndum en caso de que se denuncie la CADH, en virtud del bloque de constitucionalidad, y finalmente se analizará la constitucionalidad de estos actos en conjunto e independientemente.