Extract

The Inter-American human rights system is in many respects a trailblazer in international human rights law. Its most celebrated attribute is the rich vein of jurisprudence emanating from the two adjudicative bodies of the American Convention on Human Rights: the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (‘the Commission’). The judgments and advisory opinions of the Court, and published decisions, reports and other documents of the Commission are the Inter-American system’s chief export. A combination of a history of state-sponsored violence, unique socio-political factors, a civil society determined to see justice done, and a crop of creative jurists seated in the Commission and in the Court has seen the Inter-American system produce a number of notable firsts. Emblematic of these is having: the first human rights court to affirm indigenous rights to communal property; the first regional human rights body to hold that rape by state agents may constitute torture; the first human rights court to recognize an individual right to notice of consular assistance; and the sole human rights system to create an autonomous right to simple, prompt and effective judicial recourse (amparo). Yet, these remarkable merits sit alongside a few dispiriting shortfalls.

You do not currently have access to this article.