§

§ Charter of the Organisation of American States, 1948

§ American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, April 1948
§ American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José, Costa Rica), 1969 and
entered into force in 1978
§ Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), 1988
§ Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death
Penalty, 1990
§ Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, 1984
§ Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, 1985
§ Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of persons, 1994
§ Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of
Violence against women (Convention of Belēm Do Para’), 1994
§ The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
§ Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR)
§ The Inter-American Commission of Women

§ The Working Group on the Protocol of San Salvador

§ The Follow-up Mechanism to the Belém do Pará Convention (MESECVI).
§ Seven commissioners elected by the General Assembly of OAS

§ General mandate provided by its statute

§ Mandate provided by the American Convention on Human Rights and other
treaties: Individual petitions/Precautionary measures – Inter-states communications
§ Examine communications involve member states that are not parties to the
American Convention on Human Rights but under limited conditions.
§ Rapporteurships: geographical and thematic
§ The juridical organ of the Inter-American system which is located in San Jose,
Costa Rica.
§ Created by the American Convention on Human Rights

§ 20 states accepted the IACtHR’s contentious jurisdiction

§ The Court can issue advisory opinions (e.g. habeas corpus in emergency
situations, 1987)
§ The IACHR and IACtHR addressed major human rights issues in post-conflicts and
post-authoritarian contexts.
§ Responded to the human rights violations such as forced disappearance, torture,
extra-judicial killings that were common in the region between 1970s-1990s
§ Responded to amnesty laws and impunity
§ Rights of indigenous communities
§ Discrimination on the basis of race, gender and sexual orientation
§ Freedom of expression
§ Environmental justice
§ Labour rights
§ Rights of children
§ Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, 1989. (Enforced disappearance)

§ Barrios Altos v. Peru, 2001 (Amnesty laws/impunity)

§ The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, 2001 and Pueblo
Indígena Kichwa de Sarayaku v. Ecuador, 27 June 2012 (Indigenous rights-
collective land)
§ Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, 29 November 2011 (Freedom of
expression)
§ Norín Catriman et al. v. Chile, 29 May 2014 (Right to protest)
§ Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, 24 February 2012 (Sexual orientation rights)
§ ‘Human rights treaties are live instruments whose interpretation must adapt to the
evolution of the times and, specifically, to current living conditions’
§ An evolutionary interpretation of international human rights treaties
§ Article 29(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights:
“No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: a. permitting any State
Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and
freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is
provided for herein; b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom
recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention
to which one of the said states is a party; c. precluding other rights or guarantees that
are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as
a form of government; or d. excluding or limiting the effect that the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same
nature may have.”
A foundational case
addressing the practice of
enforced disappearance in
Latin America
- Amnesty laws/impunity/
extra-judicial killing
Barrios Altos neighbourhood in
Lima. The massacre had been
committed on 3 November 1993: six
heavily armed and masked killed
15 persons and seriously injured
four others
-Barrios Altos massacre: Incident of
extra-judicial killing committed by
members of death squad affiliated
to the army in the context of anti-
terrorism operation
-National judge could do not
prosecute the perpetrators because
of the Amnesty Law
- The InterAmerican Court
challenged the validity of amnesty
law under the American
Convention on Human Rights.
§ On 19 February 2001, Peruvian government recognised its international
responsibility for wrongful acts under the American Convention on Human Rights:
Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the InterAmerican Court: The procedure
of acquiescence
§ The state is responsible for violating Article 4 (right to life), Article 5 (right to
human treatment), Article 8 (right to fair trial), Article 25 (judicial protection),
Article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights), Article 2 (domestic legal effects due to
the application of Amnesty Law)
§ THE INCOMPATIBILITY OF AMNESTY LAWS WITH THE CONVENTION
§ RIGHT TO THE TRUTH AND JUDICIAL GUARANTEES IN THE RULE OF LAW
§ ‘This Court considers that all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and
the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are
inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and
punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as
torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance,
all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by
international human rights law’ (para41).’
§ ‘Self-amnesty laws lead to the defenselessness of victims and perpetuate impunity;
therefore, they are manifestly incompatible with the aims and spirit of the
Convention. This type of law precludes the identification of the individuals who are
responsible for human rights violations, because it obstructs the investigation and
access to justice and prevents the victims and their next of kin from knowing the
truth and receiving the corresponding reparation’ (para43).
Indigenous rights
collective land
Right to property