Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:59:08.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights)

Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  09 December 1994 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

State responsibility — Violation of human rights treaty — International obligations under American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — Promulgation of domestic law manifestly violating Convention — Whether violation affecting protected rights and freedoms of specific individuals — Whether State incurring international responsibility — Enforcement of domestic law by agents or officials of State — Whether State incurring international responsibility — Whether enforcement of law constituting international crime — Duties and responsibilities of agents or officials — Whether agents or officials of State incurring individual responsibility

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — 1993 Peruvian Constitution manifestly violating Peru's international obligations under Convention — Legal effects of municipal law in domestic sphere — Legal effects of municipal law in international sphere — General principles of international law — Duty to fulfil international obligations in good faith — Municipal law no justification for non-fulfilment of international obligation — Articles 26 and 27 of Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969

Treaties — American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 — International obligations of State Party to Convention — Article 1 — Duty to respect rights and freedoms recognized in Convention — Article 2 — Duty to adopt domestic measures giving effect to rights — Whether encompassing duty to refrain from adopting domestic measures violating rights

International tribunals — Inter-American Court of Human Rights — Advisory jurisdiction — Purpose — Whether Court possessing requisite competence to render opinion — Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requesting Advisory Opinion — Nature of request — Whether Commission basing request on Article 64(1) or 64(2) of Convention — Whether Commission having necessary standing

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)