Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:55:26.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Part of: Constitutionalization of International Law in Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor
Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor*
Affiliation:
Inter-American Court of Human Rights National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.”

Type
Symposium on the Constitutionalization of International Law in Latin America
Information
AJIL Unbound , Volume 109 , 2015 , pp. 93 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

References

1 Gelman v. Uruguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the Court, para. 65 (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Mar. 20, 2013).

2 For more on the “block of conventionality”, see our opinion in the case Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 220, especially paras. 26, 44-55, 61 and 66 (Nov. 26, 2010).

3 See the case Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 35 (Nov. 12, 1997); Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 75 (Mar. 14, 2001).

4 Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 75, para. 44 (Mar. 14, 2001).

5 Barrios Altos v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 83, para. 18 (Sep. 3, 2001) (emphasis added).

6 Cassese, Antonio & Delmas-Marty, Mireille, Crimes Internationaux Et Juridictions Internationales 13, 16 (2002)Google Scholar; see also Binder, Cristina, The prohibition of amnesties by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 12 Ger. L.J. 1212 (2011)Google Scholar.

7 “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo-Bustos et al.) v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 73 (Feb. 5, 2001).

8 See Burgorgue-Larsen, Laurence, La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos como tribunal constitucional, in Ius constitututionale commune en AméRica Latina 421 (von Bogdandy, Armin et al. eds., 2014)Google Scholar; see also, Mac-Gregor, Eduardo Ferrer, La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos como intérprete constitucional. Dimensión transnacional del derecho procesal constitucional, in 3 Memoria del IV Congreso Nacional de Derecho Constitucional 209 (Valadés, Diego & Rivas, Rodrigo Gutiérrez eds., 2001)Google Scholar.

9 Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Separate Opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 101 para. 27 (Nov. 25, 2003) (Translator’s note: in the IACHR’s official English translation of the judgment, the phrase “control de convencionalidad” appears as “treaty control”, not “conventionality control” as above).

10 Tibi v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Separate Opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 114, para. 3 (Sep. 7, 2004).

11 Vargas Areco v. Paraguau, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Separate opinion of Judge Sergio García Ramírez, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 155, para. 6 (Sep. 26, 2006).

12 Dismissed Congessional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Sepa rate Opinion of Judge Antonio Augusto Cançado Trindade, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 158, paras. 2-3 (Nov. 24, 2006).

13 Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 154, para. 124 (Sep. 26, 2006).

14 Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judg ment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 158, para. 128 (Nov. 24, 2006).

15 Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 220, para. 225 (Nov. 26, 2010).

16 Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 221, para. 239 (Feb. 24, 2011).

17 Gelman v. Uruguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the Court, para. 65 (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Mar. 20, 2013).

18 Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and / or in Need of International Protection, Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) No. 21, para. 31 (Aug. 19, 2014).

19 The expression “interpretation given to a provision of the Convention” is used for the first time in the Monitoring Compliance with Judgment in the case Gelman v. Uruguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the Court, from para. 67 (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Mar. 20, 2013); see also my separate opinion in this same case regarding the distinction between direct effects for the parties (res judicata ) and indirect effects for ACHR signatory states (res interpretata ) of the Inter-American judgment, and its relation to convention ality control, Gelman v. Uruguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Separate Opinion of Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor, in particular, from para. 22 (Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. Mar. 20, 2013).

20 Rights and Guarantees of Children in the Context of Migration and / or in Need of International Protection, Advisory Opinion OC-21/14, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) No. 21, para. 31 (Aug. 19, 2014).

21 See Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Concurring Opinion of Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 276 (Jan. 30, 2014).

22 Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judg ment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 158, para. 128 (Nov. 24, 2006).

23 See American Convention on Human Rights, Nov. 21, 1969, 1144 UNTS 143, art. 29 b) and d); see also Familia Pacheco Tineo v. Bolivia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. C) No. 272, para. 143 (Nov. 25, 2013) (The Court ruled that article 29 d) enables the Court to interpret the ACHR in light of other sources of international law relevant to the subject in question (in this particular case, international refugee law). This criteria could also be applied to the interpretation of other articles of the convention, such as art. 26.)

24 See “Other Treaties” Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) No. 1(Sep. 24, 1982).

25 Organization of American States, Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Oct. 1 1979, art. 1.