Objective: The present study analyzed the case "Las Malvinas," related to the forced disappearance and subsequent murder of four minors in Guayaquil, Ecuador, during a military operation in December 2024. The purpose was to examine their judicial treatment and establish their relevance as an emblematic precedent in contemporary Ecuadorian jurisprudence. Methodology: A mixed methodology was employed, integrating legal-dogmatic, jurisprudential, hemerographic, and comparative analysis. The applicable national regulatory frameworks were reviewed, such as the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador and the Comprehensive Organic Criminal Code. International human rights standards derived from the UN Convention against Enforced Disappearances and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights were also reviewed. Likewise, the case was compared with paradigm experiences in Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina, identifying common patterns of rights violations, levels of impunity, and mechanisms of reparations. Results: The analysis revealed significant progress, including procedural speed, the conviction of 16 military personnel for forced disappearance in December 2025, sentences exceeding 34 years in prison, and the order for comprehensive reparations to the victims. However, persistent limitations were also detected, such as the need to strengthen guaranties of non-repetition, expand investigations to other similar cases, reform norms that facilitate impunity, and consolidate a national system for the search of missing people. Conclusions: The "Las Malvinas" case represented a turning point in the fight against state impunity in Ecuador and a relevant precedent for strengthening the constitutional state of rights and justice. Its main contribution was to demonstrate that there are effective ways to hold accountable for serious human rights violations, highlighting the need to carry out reforms in institutions and to ensure their implementation is maintained.

This paper analyzes how miscarriages and obstetric emergencies, as they are considered manifestations of obstetric violence and consequently gender violence, impact women's human rights, especially the right to privacy and data health. We analyze the Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling in the case of Manuela* et al. v. El Salvador. She had an obstetric emergency, but the physician assumed that Manuela had induced a miscarriage. She was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison for the crime of aggravated homicide. During the trial and imprisonment, she was diagnosed and given late medical treatment for Nodular sclerosis Hodgkin lymphoma, which contributed to Manuela’s death. Based on the above, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights concludes that El Salvador is responsible for the violation of human rights. This paper discusses how obstetric violence affects the patient's right to privacy and their health data protection.

The recent advisory opinions on climate change by the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, alongside the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Klimaseniorinnen, extend their legal implications to international tax law. These implications reach well beyond tax measures that directly impact mitigation, such as exemptions for fossil fuels. According to these pronouncements, the obligations under the Paris Agreement, the customary duty to prevent significant environmental harm and other applicable law, oblige states to undertake tax reforms within their national circumstances when necessary to ensure the fiscal adequacy of domestic climate measures. Also, the duty to cooperate requires states to better align international tax rules with climate objectives. Amending tax treaties to reflect climate objectives – such as introducing variable withholding tax rates or capital gains taxing rights based on environmental concerns – deserves consideration. Through the prism of climate legal obligations, the influence of international law – including customary international law previously considered of limited efficacy in constraining tax sovereignty – is substantially strengthened within the tax domain.

A Rights Revolution in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the IACtHR Advisory Opinion on the Climate Emergency

The Inter-American Court analyzes the scope and content of the obligation of reparation of indigenous peoples when it has been determined that the restitution of ancestral lands and territories is not possible, and establishes the protection of collective indigenous lands to the "alternative" lands assigned as compensation for the displacement of these indigenous peoples by the State. The above, in the context of the displacement of the Kuna indigenous peoples of Madungandí and Emberá of Bayano due to the construction of the Bayano hydroelectric complex and their subsequent resettlement in alternative lands. The Court, consistent with its jurisprudence, points out that indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to effective and expeditious administrative mechanisms to protect, guarantee and promote their rights over indigenous territories, through which the processes of recognition, titling, demarcation and delimitation of their territorial property can be carried out. Therefore, the Court declares the State of Panama internationally responsible for the violation of the right to indigenous collective property; for the failure to comply effectively and in a timely manner, and for the sustained and unjustified delay in delimiting, demarcating and titling the lands assigned to these peoples; as well as for not having guaranteed the effective enjoyment of the collective property title of the Piriatí Emberá community by granting a title to private lands to a non-indigenous third party within the lands in the process of being assigned to this community.

ABSTRACT Refugees often end up separated from their families when they cross international borders. While the right to family life and unity is enshrined in different international human rights documents, the right to family reunification is contested. This paper discusses the right to family reunification for refugees in Latin America by explaining family reunification as a human right in the region and the expanded definition of family based primarily on economic dependency. I conducted a thematic analysis of (a) regional documents on human rights and asylum in Latin America, (b) the Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence and (c) the national asylum legislation of Latin American countries. There has been a consolidation of the right to family reunification for refugees in Latin America as a region, as most countries have directly guaranteed a right to family reunification in their asylum legislation and indirectly by recognising the principle of family unity. Most countries in the region (except Colombia) tend to adopt an expanded definition of family in their asylum legislation. However, it is based on the idea of economic dependency, rather than emotional dependency, as defined by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its Advisory Opinion 21/2014.

ABSTRACT In their advancement of the third wave of autocratisation, states are cloaking their restrictions on human rights and freedoms with so-called ‘legitimate aims’ to avoid accountability under human rights treaties. One response mechanism available to regional human rights courts in this context is to question the motivation of states through the doctrine of misuse of power. This article examines two bodies of jurisprudence in which this doctrine has been applied: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgments against Azerbaijan and Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) judgments against Venezuela. The article finds that the ECtHR has applied the doctrine rather restrictively under Article 18 ECHR; meanwhile, the IACtHR has applied the doctrine more broadly and directly under various rights provisions in the ACHR. This challenges the previous parallels drawn in scholarship between Article 18 ECHR and Article 30 ACHR, and further explains why the IACtHR can be more proactive in its detection of misuses of power, identifying ulterior purposes in a broader array of contexts.

ABSTRACT In what manner can colonial elements embedded within the category of expert evidence be transformed to promote the effectiveness of human rights, particularly with respect to cultural and environmental rights? This paper addresses this topical inquiry from an interdisciplinary perspective that encompasses socio-legal scholarship (inter alia, law and anthropology) and other types of knowledge, including that of Indigenous and Afro-descendant. It argues for a reimagined conception of expert evidence in human rights law as a flexible tool, dynamically shaped by the parties in judicial settings. Expert evidence should not be perceived as a static or immutable construct; rather, it is a contextual instrument, crafted by individuals and legal rules, and subject to ever-evolving interpretations by judges. It may incorporate decolonial and counter-colonial elements and thus, become a powerful tool of strategic litigation and Indigenous advocacy. This argument is illustrated through an analysis of two pivotal issues in the Inter-American case law: the impartiality of knowledge in expert testimony and community-based expert witnessing. The analysis demonstrates a notable evolution in the production and evaluation of expert evidence, indicating a heightened awareness among legal practitioners and judges of the issues involved in socio-cultural and environmental disputes.

ABSTRACT The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) does not contain a list of legitimate aims for the lawful restriction of freedom of expression. Article 9 ACHPR only provides a general formulation, leaving a wide margin to interpretation. Nevertheless, legitimate aims analysis is part and parcel of the case-law of the African Commission and Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This article investigates how the two African bodies identified and applied legitimate aims for the restrictions of freedom of expression, comparing it with the law and practice of the European and the Inter-American courts. By reviewing all the cases on freedom of expression decided to date, the article shows that the African Court and Commission have filled the gap of Article 9 ACHPR by either borrowing legitimate aims from international instruments, rephrasing existing language in African or international documents, or inventing completely new grounds.

This study analyzes how judicial decisions have contributed to the expansion of human rights in Ecuador, with particular emphasis on the recognition of same-sex marriage. It is based on the precedent set by the Constitutional Court, which, relying on international human rights instruments—especially Advisory Opinion OC-24/17 of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—ruled that same-sex marriage must be guaranteed by prioritizing the principle of progressivity of rights over a traditional conception of popular sovereignty. This approach has sparked legal and political debates regarding the democratic legitimacy of such rulings, as some sectors argue that these changes should arise from the legislature or through mechanisms of direct democracy. Using a qualitative methodology grounded in doctrinal, jurisprudential, and normative analysis, the research aims to highlight how these tensions are reshaping the boundaries between judicial functions and popular will. The study concludes that the judicial recognition of same-sex marriage has had significant impacts, exposing gaps in national legal doctrine and revealing the need to rethink the balance between the progressivity of rights and popular sovereignty within Ecuador's democratic context.

How One Idea of Freedom Prevents Platform Workers from Accessing Collective Labour Rights (and How Another Addresses It): Exploring the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-27/21 and the Chilean Reform on Platform Work

Introduction: Due to ILO Convention 169 of 1989 abandoning the assimilationist bias towards indigenous peoples and pioneering the respect for diversity, this text seeks to verify the relevance of the Convention, principally how it has been applied by the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, in particular by the Inter-American Court, and how this application has repercussions in Brazil, especially within the Judiciary due to the Control of Conventionality. Objective: The article aims to highlight the provisions and importance of ILO Convention 169; verify its use by both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Brazilian supreme courts (STF and STJ); and explain what Convention Compliance is, also exposing its mandatory nature as determined by the CNJ. Methodology: A qualitative study is conducted, using the hypothetical-deductive approach, based on the hypothesis that ILO Convention 169 is a turning point in terms of securing the rights of indigenous peoples. The aim is not only to understand it in general terms, but also to note its specific application by the Inter-American System and the higher courts in Brazil. As for the analysis of the objectives, this will be carried out using descriptive methods with regard to the norms studied, aiming to elucidate what they prescribe, and exploratory methods with regard to the application of these norms by the Inter-American and higher courts, focusing on deepening the understanding of the use of Conventionality Control. Finally, with regard to procedures, bibliographic, documentary, and jurisprudential research techniques will be used. Results: Through this study, it was possible to note that, although ILO Convention 169 prescribes the right to a free, prior, and informed consultation and its use has been ratified by the Inter-American Court, even though this is not a right prescribed in inter-American documents, the precedents of this Court dealing with such consultation are not widely used in Brazil by the higher courts (STF and STJ), indicating a problem with regard to the perfection of full Convention Control in the country, even though the CNJ has determined its application in 2022. Conclusion: The text was intended to state that the conventionality control relating to the application of ILO Convention 169, demanded by both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the National Council of Justice, is carried out in Brazil when analyzing the jurisprudence of the higher courts. However, what has been found is that, although the Convention is used in the reasonings, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is not, requiring measures to be adopted, especially in the Judiciary, to disseminate this specific knowledge. KEYWORDS: CNJ Recommendation 123; conventionality control; free, prior, and informed consultation; higher courts; ILO Convention 169.

Informed consent is presented as a fundamental right and principle in modern medical practice. It involves obtaining permission from a patient before any medical procedure, treatment, or research protocol. Although not explicitly recognized as a standalone right in international human rights instruments, informed consent in healthcare is considered a right derived from other rights, such as the rights to health and freedom. The jurisprudence of international human rights courts has permitted the reinterpretation of informed consent beyond just a bioethical principle. This article argues for the normative recognition of informed consent as a self-standing human right, rather than simply a derivative right or an ethical guideline. It does this by analyzing related cases from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to demonstrate how its jurisprudence, though often linking informed consent to related rights like health, personal integrity, and self-determination, supports an understanding of informed consent as a distinct and fundamental right. The source also mentions that its recognition as a right in fundamental laws, such as the Colombian Constitution, should be achieve through the application of these international standards or via the concept of emerging rights.

The study addresses the following research problem: how has the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) been applied (or set aside) by Brazil’s Federal Regional Courts (TRFs) of the 1st through 5th Regions (03 Dec. 2008–31 Dec. 2021), and to what extent does such application incorporate (or fail to incorporate) conventionality control and the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)? The research employs an empirical, jurisprudential methodology (quantitative approach, with an analytical cut), based on a survey of appellate decisions retrieved from the TRFs’ official websites through searches conducted exclusively in the headnotes (ementas) using ACHR-related terms. In the period 2009–2021, out of 5,783,642 appellate decisions published, only 328 (0.005%) mention the ACHR in the headnote. The distribution of these 328 rulings by legal field is concentrated in Criminal Law (30.79%), Criminal Procedure (27.44%), and Civil Law (16.16%), totaling 60.36% within the criminal axis (also including Criminal Enforcement). Social Security and Tax Law – fields that account for the largest caseload in the Federal Judiciary – appear in only 1.22% (4 rulings). The main inferences are: (a) the concentration of ACHR use in criminal matters; (b) the low applicability of the ACHR in the legal fields that constitute the bulk of the Federal Judiciary’s docket; (c) the ancillary character of ACHR reliance in judicial reasoning and its reduced role as an autonomous rights-protecting norm; (d) the predominantly ancillary use of the ACHR in judicial reasoning stems, in part, from a perceived substantive overlap between the ACHR’s protective provisions and those enshrined in the Federal Constitution; (e) conventionality control of domestic norms is predominantly tied to positions previously settled by higher courts, such as the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ); and (f) the Federal Judiciary’s practical disregard of the Inter-American System’s competent interpretive bodies for construing the ACHR.

This paper argues that decarbonization will fail to deliver climate justice unless the transition to clean energy confronts the racialized political economy that has historically structured extractive activity and shaped international economic law. Grounding its analysis in racial capitalism, the paper contends that the growing demand for critical minerals risks reproducing patterns of exploitation, expropriation, and expulsion. Using lithium extraction in Chile as a case study, it shows how colonial legacies, dictator-era neoliberal reforms, and present-day regulatory architectures governing foreign investment and natural resource extraction have prioritized investors over human rights and the environment. Recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change provide a normative counterweight to international investment law and potentially a pathway for inclusive and transformative reforms. By foregrounding racial equity, the clean energy transition can avoid replicating the distributive injustices of the fossil fuel era.

The general objective of this interdisciplinary work between law and linguistics is to strategically analyze the discursive construction of the dissenting opinion based on the analysis of this type of discourse in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. First, we will describe the judicial practice of issuing dissenting opinions from a legal perspective, and second, we will analyze the discursive strategies (Menéndez, 2019) used by judges, as discursive subjects, to express and justify a point of view contrary to that of most of their colleagues. Our approach is the strategic analysis of the combination of lexico-grammatical, pragmatic, and rhetorical resources, which are inscribed as a case of variation within the register we call judicial ruling (Menéndez & Vázquez Neira, in press). Ultimately, we aim to demonstrate how dissent functions discursively. We will illustrate our analysis through a discursive series (Menéndez, 1997) composed of 32 dissenting opinions issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 2021. The conclusions aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of strategic analysis in general, based on a specific series within a specific discursive genre: the legal one.

This paper argues that decarbonization will fail to deliver climate justice unless the transition to clean energy confronts the racialized political economy that has historically structured extractive activity and shaped international economic law. Grounding its analysis in racial capitalism, the paper contends that the growing demand for critical minerals risks reproducing patterns of exploitation, expropriation, and expulsion. Using lithium extraction in Chile as a case study, it shows how colonial legacies, dictator-era neoliberal reforms, and present-day regulatory architectures governing foreign investment and natural resource extraction have prioritized investors over human rights and the environment. Recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change provide a normative counterweight to international investment law and potentially a pathway for inclusive and transformative reforms. By foregrounding racial equity, the clean energy transition can avoid replicating the distributive injustices of the fossil fuel era.

This paper argues that decarbonization will fail to deliver climate justice unless the transition to clean energy confronts the racialized political economy that has historically structured extractive activity and shaped international economic law. Grounding its analysis in racial capitalism, the paper contends that the growing demand for critical minerals risks reproducing patterns of exploitation, expropriation, and expulsion. Using lithium extraction in Chile as a case study, it shows how colonial legacies, dictator-era neoliberal reforms, and present-day regulatory architectures governing foreign investment and natural resource extraction have prioritized investors over human rights and the environment. Recent decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on climate change provide a normative counterweight to international investment law and potentially a pathway for inclusive and transformative reforms. By foregrounding racial equity, the clean energy transition can avoid replicating the distributive injustices of the fossil fuel era.

Beatriz v. El Salvador is an international judgment issued in December 2024 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights involving a claim against El Salvador’s abortion ban. The Inter-American Court is an international tribunal with jurisdiction over most Latin American and Caribbean countries including El Salvador that oversees enforcement of the American Convention on Human Rights. The treaty contains a unique provision that establishes a “right [to life of every person to] be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception”. That provision has been repeatedly challenged in cases against Costa Rica and El Salvador. Beatriz is the latest judgment in that line of cases. Poised to become the regional court’s first abortion ruling, Beatriz v. El Salvador challenged El Salvador’s full ban on induced, elective abortion, similar to that of eight other Latin American and Caribbean states parties to the Convention. The case was litigated by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in conjunction with abortion advocacy organizations for more than a decade, leading to a mixed decision by the Inter-American Court that endorsed a progressive interpretation of the right to health and the concept of obstetric violence, but stopped short of creating abortion rights in the American Convention.

The regulation of force by state authorities is a complex area of international human rights law, balancing state sovereignty, public security, and human dignity. This paper examines the legal framework governing law enforcement and security agencies, focusing on principles of legality, necessity, proportionality, precaution, and accountability as articulated in instruments such as the UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979), the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms (1990), and the right to life provisions of the UDHR, ICCPR, and General Comment No. 36. Leading jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights including McCann and Others v United Kingdom, Nachova and Others v Bulgaria, Makaratzis v Greece, Armani Da Silva v United Kingdom, and Nadege Dorzema et al v Dominican Republic alongside domestic cases such as Tennessee v Garner, illustrates how these standards are applied, emphasizing operational planning, non-discrimination, effective investigation, and institutional accountability. Empirical research and reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Council of Europe, complemented by academic analyses, reveal persistent gaps in practice, including inadequate training, weak oversight, discriminatory policing, militarization, and challenges in protest management. The paper concludes that while international human rights law provides a robust normative framework, structural, political, and cultural barriers continue to impede effective regulation, highlighting the need for strengthened accountability and comprehensive institutional reform.