Inter-American Court of Human Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Spanish)
Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (Portuguese)
Cour interaméricaine des droits de l'homme (French)
Established22 May 1979 (1979-05-22)
LocationCosta Rica San José, Costa Rica
Authorized byAmerican Convention on Human Rights
Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Judge term lengthSix years
Number of positionsSeven
CurrentlyElizabeth Odio Benito
Lead position ends2021
CurrentlyPatricio Pazmiño Freire
Lead position ends2021

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR or IACtHR) is an international court based in San José, Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it was formed by the American Convention on Human Rights, a human rights treaty ratified by members of the Organization of American States (OAS).

Pursuant to American Convention, the Inter-American Court works with the Inter-American Commission to uphold and promote basic rights and freedoms. It has jurisdiction within 25 of the 35 member states of the OAS that have acceded to its authority, the vast majority in Latin America. The court adjudicates claims of human rights violations by government and issues advisory opinions on interpretations of certain legal matters.[1] Twenty-nine OAS members are also members of the wider-scale International Criminal Court.[2]

Purpose and functions[edit]

Members of the IACtHR.
Dark red – accept blanket jurisdiction of the court
Orange – signatories not accepting full jurisdiction
Yellow – former members

The Organization of American States established the Court in 1979 to enforce and interpret the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two main functions are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the former, it hears and rules on the specific cases of human rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.

Adjudicatory function[edit]

The adjudicatory function requires the Court to rule on cases brought before it in which a state party to the Convention, and thus has accepted its jurisdiction, is accused of a human rights violation.

In addition to ratifying the Convention, a state party must voluntarily submit to the Court's jurisdiction for it to be competent to hear a case involving that state. Acceptance of contentious jurisdiction can be given on a blanket basis – to date, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and Uruguay have done so[3] (though Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela have subsequently withdrawn) – or, alternatively, a state can agree to abide by the Court's jurisdiction in a specific, individual case.

Under the Convention, cases can be referred to the Court by either the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or a state party. In contrast to the European human rights system, individual citizens of the OAS member states are not allowed to take cases directly to the Court.

The following conditions must be met:

  • Individuals who believe that their rights have been violated must first lodge a complaint with the Commission and have that body rule on the admissibility of the claim.
  • If the case is ruled admissible and the state deemed at fault, the Commission will generally serve the state with a list of recommendations to make amends for the violation.
  • Only if the state fails to abide by these recommendations, or if the Commission decides that the case is of particular importance or legal interest, will the case be referred to the Court.
  • The presentation of a case before the Court can therefore be considered a measure of last resort, taken only after the Commission has failed to resolve the matter in a noncontentious fashion.

Proceedings before the Court are divided into written and oral phases.

Written phase[edit]

In the written phase, the case application is filed, indicating the facts of the case, the plaintiffs, the evidence and witnesses the applicant plans to present at trial, and the claims for redress and costs. If the application is ruled admissible by the Court's secretary, notice thereof is served on the judges, the state or the Commission (depending on who lodged the application), the victims or their next-of-kin, the other member states, and OAS headquarters.

For 30 days following notification, any of the parties in the case may submit a brief containing preliminary objections to the application. If it deems necessary, the Court can convene a hearing to deal with the preliminary objections. Otherwise, in the interests of procedural economy, it can deal with the parties' preliminary objections and the merits of the case at the same hearing.

Within 60 days following notification, the respondent must supply a written answer to the application, stating whether it accepts or disputes the facts and claims it contains.

Once this answer has been submitted, any of the parties in the case may request the Court president's permission to lodge additional pleadings prior to the commencement of the oral phase.

Oral phase[edit]

The president sets the date for the start of oral proceedings, for which the Court is considered quorate with the presence of five judges.

During the oral phase, the judges may ask any question they see fit of any of the persons appearing before them. Witnesses, expert witnesses, and other persons admitted to the proceedings may, at the president's discretion, be questioned by the representatives of the Commission or the state, or by the victims, their next-of-kin, or their agents, as applicable. The president is permitted to rule on the relevance of questions asked and to excuse the person asked the question from replying, unless overruled by the Court.


After hearing the witnesses and experts and analyzing the evidence presented, the Court issues its judgment. Its deliberations are conducted in private and, once the judgment has been adopted, it is notified to all the parties involved. If the merits judgment does not cover the applicable reparations for the case, they must be determined at a separate hearing or through some other procedure as decided on by the Court.

The reparations the Court orders can be both monetary and nonmonetary in nature. The most direct form of redress are cash compensation payments extended to the victims or their next-of-kin. However, the state can also be required to grant benefits in kind, to offer public recognition of its responsibility, to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future, and other forms of nonmonetary compensation.

For example, in its November 2001 judgment[4] in the Barrios Altos case – dealing with the massacre in Lima, Peru, of 15 people at the hands of the state-sponsored Colina Group death squad in November 1991 – the Court ordered payments of US$175,000 for the four survivors and for the next-of-kin of the murdered victims and a payment of $250,000 for the family of one of the victims. It also required Peru:

While the Court's decisions admit no appeal, parties can lodge requests for interpretation with the Court secretary within 90 days of judgment being issued. When possible, requests for interpretation are heard by the same panel of judges that ruled on the merits.

Advisory function[edit]

The Court's advisory function enables it to respond to consultations submitted by OAS agencies and member states regarding the interpretation of the Convention or other instruments governing human rights in the Americas; it also empowers it to give advice on domestic laws and proposed legislation, and to clarify whether or not they are compatible with the Convention's provisions. This advisory jurisdiction is available to all OAS member states, not only those that have ratified the Convention and accepted the Court's adjudicatory function. The Court's replies to these consultations are published separately from its contentious judgments, as advisory opinions.


The Convention entered into force in 1978. All Latin American countries but Cuba are members, as are Suriname and a few Anglophone countries in the Caribbean.[5]

Trinidad and Tobago signed the Convention on 28 May 1991 but suspended its ratification on 26 May 1998 (effective 26 May 1999) over the death penalty issue. In 1999, under President Alberto Fujimori, Peru announced it was withdrawing its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction. This decision was reversed by the transitional government of Valentín Paniagua in 2001.

Venezuela withdrew from the convention in 2013 under the Maduro government. On 15 May 2019, the National Assembly (opposition Guaidó government) nullified the withdrawal.[6][7]

The Dominican Republic stated in 2014 that it was withdrawing from the IACtHR,[8] the withdrawal would have come into effect the following year. However, the IACtHR notes that the withdrawal was never legally implemented,[9] and as of its 2017 annual report, the IACtHR still counted the Dominican Republic as a member.

The United States signed but never ratified the Convention.

State IACtHR Alone ICC Alone Both Ratification of
IACtHR convention
of jurisdiction
Withdrawal Reinsertion
 Antigua and Barbuda *
 Argentina * 1984 1984
 The Bahamas
 Barbados * 1981 2000
 Belize *
 Bolivia * 1979 1993
 Brazil * 1992 1998
 Canada *
 Chile * 1990 1990
 Colombia * 1973 1985
 Costa Rica * 1970 1980
 Dominica * 1993
 Dominican Republic ?[10] ?[10] 1978 1999 ?[11]
 Ecuador * 1977 1984
 El Salvador * 1978 1995
 Grenada * 1978
 Guatemala * 1978 1987
 Guyana *
 Haiti * 1977 1998
 Honduras * 1977 1981
 Jamaica * 1978
 Mexico * 1981 1998
 Nicaragua * 1979 1991
 Panama * 1978 1990
 Paraguay * 1989 1993
 Peru * 1978 1981
 Saint Kitts and Nevis *
 Saint Lucia *
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines *
 Suriname * 1987 1987
 Trinidad and Tobago * 1991 1991 1999[12]
 United States
 Uruguay * 1985 1985
 Venezuela * 1977 1981 2013 2019 (Guaidó govt)


The court consists of seven judges, held to the highest moral judgement who have a high competency in human rights law.[1] These judges are elected to six-year terms by the OAS General Assembly; each judge may be reelected for an additional six-year term.

Recent policy changes state, when serving on the court, judges are expected to act as individuals, not representing their state. They must be OAS member states’ nationals; however, they do not need to be individuals of a state that has ratified the American Convention or accepted jurisdiction of the Court. Judges are required to recuse themselves from cases involving their home country. States parties are no longer permitted to name a judge ad hoc to their case if a sitting judge is not from their country. If a judge is a national of one of the State Parties to the case, the State Parties can only designate a judge ad hoc if there are inter-state complaints.[1] In order to be nominated as a judge, one must be a national of a member state of OAS, a jurist, have the ‘highest moral authority’, have high competency of human rights law, have ‘the qualifications required for the exercise of the highest judicial functions in conformity with the law of the state of which they are nationals or of the state that proposes them as candidates’.[13]

'Highest Moral Authority' is loosely defined by the ACHR as never having never been convicted of a crime, suspended or expelled from the legal profession, or dismissed from public office.[13]

Judges are elected by State Parties to the Convention from a list of nominated candidates. Each State Party may nominate up to three candidates, but if nominating three, at least one of the three must be a national of a state other than the nominating state. The Secretary General of the OAS organizes the candidates alphabetically and forwards it to the State Parties. The election consists of a secret ballot, requiring an absolute majority of the State Parties to the Convention. Those who receive the most votes are elected.[14]

After the Convention came into force on 18 July 1978, the first election of judges took place on 22 May 1979. The new Court first convened on 29 June 1979 at the Organization of American States Headquarters in Washington, D.C., United States.


The Court's behaviour has also been criticized. Among other issues, some authors have criticized the politicization of the Court.[15] Furthermore, the process of nomination and election is a subject of criticism. It is not a transparent or accountable process at both the National and International levels. There is a push for the OAS to create an independent group in charge of evaluating candidates. Another independent group in charge of overseeing the national processes and ranking the candidates that is separate from OAS is a proposed initiative by scholars to address these criticisms. These would ensure that all candidates have been through two reviews on the National and International level before being able to be elected.[13]

Fair representation when it comes to candidates is also a point of contempt. Scholars have stated that State Parties should strive for equal representation in terms of geographic sub-regions, different ethnic and cultural groups, and female and male judges; however, this should be done without straying from the high standards and qualifications required for candidates.[13]

"Highest Moral Authority", a requirement for nomination, is often criticized because its vagueness. The necessary qualifications are not clearly defined and vary from country to country. The minimum age ranges from none to 45 years old and the number of years of experience ranges from 10–15 years and only Paraguay requires candidates to have a PhD.[13]

Some of the latest criticisms come from Peru [16] and Venezuela.[17] Venezuela subsequently withdrew from the system after President Hugo Chávez declared the court's decision to rule Venezuela guilty of holding a prisoner in "inhumane" jail conditions as invalid.[18] Up to then, Trinidad and Tobago had been the only state to withdraw.[19] Peru tried to do so, but did not follow the appropriate procedure.[20] The last of these criticisms is directed against the Court's decision in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre declaring that some people were murdered with the consent of the Colombian state, a few of whom were subsequently found alive.


Current Judges[edit]

Name State Position Term
Ricardo Pérez Manrique Uruguay Uruguay President 2016–2021
Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto Colombia Colombia Vice President 2013–2024
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot Mexico Mexico Judge 2013–2024
Nancy Hernández López Costa Rica Costa Rica Judge 2016–2021
Verónica Gómez Argentina Argentina Judge 2016–2021
Patricia Pérez Goldberg Chile Chile Judge 2016–2021
Rodrigo Mudrovitsch Brazil Brazil Judge 2016–2021

Former Presidents of the Court[edit]

Years Country Judge
2018–2019  Mexico Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot
2016–2017  Brazil Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas
2014–2015  Colombia Humberto Sierra Porto
2010–2013  Peru Diego García Sayán
2008–2009  Chile Cecilia Medina
2004–2007  Mexico Sergio García Ramírez
1999–2003  Brazil Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade
1997–1999  Ecuador Hernán Salgado Pesantes
1994–1997  Mexico Héctor Fix Zamudio
1993–1994  Colombia Rafael Nieto Navia
1990–1993  Mexico Héctor Fix Zamudio
1989–1990  Uruguay Héctor Gros Espiell
1987–1989  Colombia Rafael Nieto Navia
1985–1987  United States Thomas Buergenthal
1983–1985  Venezuela Pedro Nikken
1981–1983  Honduras Carlos Roberto Reina
1979–1981  Costa Rica Rodolfo E. Piza Escalante

Former members of the Court[edit]

Year State Members of the Court President
1979–1981 Colombia Colombia César Ordóñez
1979–1985 Venezuela Venezuela Máximo Cisneros Sánchez
1979–1985 Jamaica Jamaica Huntley Eugene Munroe
1979–1985 Honduras Honduras Carlos Roberto Reina 1981–1983
1979–1989 Costa Rica Costa Rica Rodolfo E. Piza Escalante 1979–1981
1979–1989 Venezuela Venezuela Pedro Nikken 1983–1985
1979–1991 United States United States Thomas Buergenthal 1985–1987
1981–1994 Colombia Colombia Rafael Nieto Navia 1987–1989, 1993–1994
1985–1989 Honduras Honduras Jorge R. Hernández Alcerro
1985–1990 Uruguay Uruguay Héctor Gros Espiell 1989–1990
1985–1997 Mexico Mexico Héctor Fix-Zamudio 1990–1993, 1994–1997
1989–1991 Honduras Honduras Policarpo Callejas
1989–1991 Venezuela Venezuela Orlando Tovar Tamayo
1989–1994 Costa Rica Costa Rica Sonia Picado Sotela
1990–1991 Argentina Argentina Julio A. Barberis
1991–1994 Venezuela Venezuela Asdrúbal Aguiar Aranguren
1991–1997 Nicaragua Nicaragua Alejandro Montiel Argüello
1991–2003 Chile Chile Máximo Pacheco Gómez
1991–2003 Ecuador Ecuador Hernán Salgado Pesantes 1997–1999
1998–2003 Colombia Colombia Carlos Vicente de Roux-Rengifo
1995–2006 Barbados Barbados Oliver H. Jackman
1995–2006 Venezuela Venezuela Alirio Abreu Burelli
1995–2006 Brazil Brazil Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade 1999–2003
2001–2003 Argentina Argentina Ricardo Gil Lavedra
2004–2009 Mexico Mexico Sergio García Ramírez 2004–2007
2004–2009 Chile Chile Cecilia Medina Quiroga 2008–2009
2004–2015 Costa Rica Costa Rica Manuel Ventura Robles
2004–2015 Peru Peru Diego García-Sayán 2010–2013
2007–2012 Jamaica Jamaica Margarette May Macaulay
2007–2012 Dominican Republic Dominican Republic Rhadys Abreu Blondet
2007–2012 Argentina Argentina Leonardo A. Franco
2010–2015 Uruguay Uruguay Alberto Pérez Pérez
2013–2018 Brazil Brazil Roberto de Figueiredo Caldas 2016–2017

Notable cases heard by the Court[edit]

Case Date Ruling
Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras 29 July 1988 [1]
Caracazo v. Venezuela 11 November 1999 [2]
"The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile 5 February 2001 [3]
Barrios Altos v. Peru 14 March 2001 [4]
Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala 25 November 2003 [5]
Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala 29 April 2004 [6]
Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica 2 July 2004 [7]
Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru 25 November 2004 [8]
Moiwana Community v. Suriname 15 June 2005 [9]
"Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia 15 September 2005 [10]
Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile 26 September 2006 [11]
Gomes Lund et al. ("Guerrilha do Araguaia") v. Brazil 24 November 2010 [12]
Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile 24 February 2012 [13]
Marcel Granier and other (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela 22 June 2015 [14]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b c The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. ISBN 9781139782388.
  2. ^ Evenson, Elizabeth; Pizano, Pedro (20 March 2018). "OAS Members Voice Support for International Criminal Court". Dispatches. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 8 June 2021.
  3. ^ "B-32: AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS "PACT OF SAN JOSE, COSTA RICA"". Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
  4. ^ "Ser. C No. 87". Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  5. ^ "IACHR Annual Report, 2017" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2018. Retrieved 20 June 2018.
  6. ^ "Venezuela: Eventos de 2018". Informe Mundial 2019: Tendencias de los derechos en [node:title. 9 January 2019.
  7. ^ "Reingreso de Venezuela a la jurisdicción de Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos - Examen ONU Venezuela". 3 June 2019. Archived from the original on 15 August 2019. Retrieved 15 August 2019.
  8. ^ "DR withdraws from IACHR". The Nassau Guardian. 17 November 2014. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
  9. ^ Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (see paragraphs 133-134 on page 70)
  10. ^ a b "Latin American and Caribbean State Parties to the Rome Statute, International Criminal Court. Retrieved 10 July 2021".
  11. ^ Morris, Addison (6 November 2014). "Dominican Republic leaves Inter-American Court of Human Rights". JURIST. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
  12. ^ Gibbings, Wesley (5 January 2013). "Caribbean under scrutiny as OAS reforms human rights system". Trinidad and Tobago Guardian Newspaper. Guardian Holdings Ltd. Retrieved 27 May 2022. T&T was an early signatory to the Convention in 1977 but announced its denunciation of the Convention in 1998 which, with one year's notice, saw the country's departure in 1999.
  13. ^ a b c d e Ruiz-Chiriboga, Oswaldo (1 January 2012). "The Independence of the Inter-American Judge". The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 11 (1): 111–135. doi:10.1163/157180312X619051. ISSN 1571-8034.
  14. ^ OAS (1 August 2009). "OAS - Organization of American States: Democracy for peace, security, and development". Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  15. ^ José Francisco García G. y Sergio Verdugo R., Libertad y Desarrollo, “Radiografía Política al Sistema Interamericano de DD.HH.” (in Spanish) Archived 10 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  16. ^ "Rey critica a Corte Interamericana por fallo que favorece a terrorista cercano a "Artemio"". Archived from the original on 7 July 2014. Retrieved 7 January 2011.
  17. ^ "Grabación devela confabulación de la Corte Interamericana de DDHH contra Venezuela | Venezolana de Televisión". Archived from the original on 11 May 2010. Retrieved 7 January 2011.
  18. ^ "Venezuela to reject rights court". BBC News. 25 July 2012. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
  19. ^ "Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Chile". Retrieved 9 July 2019.
  20. ^ "Bibilioteca de los Derechos Humanos de la Universidad de Minnesota". Retrieved 9 July 2019.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]