International Protection of Human Rights
Chapter 7
The Inter-American System
Learning objectives
• Describe the structure of the Inter-American system for the protection
of human rights.
• Outline the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights.
• Describe the basic functions and powers of the Commission and the
Court.
1. The OAS and Human Rights.
• The historical roots of the Inter-American system can be found in the movements to achieve unity among the North American and
Latin American states in the mid-19th century.
• It was not until after WWII that the states sought to reorganise the terms of their union and protect human rights: seeking to secure
‘peace and security, representative democracy, eradication of poverty and the pacific resolution of disputes between the nations of
the region’.
• The first key human rights document adopted was the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (ADHR). This
document, predates the Universal Declaration, 1948. In 1959, it was resolved that an Inter-American Commission for Human Rights
would be created.
• In 1969, the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) was adopted.
• The Convention redefined the powers of the Inter-American Commission that had been created. However, the new powers of the
Commission would only be binding on those nations who ratified the Convention. The Convention also established the Inter-
American Court.
• Countries like the USA and Canada are not party to the 1969 American Convention.
• Unlike the European Convention, which despite threats has not yet been denounced, the ACHR has been denounced by Trinidad
and Tobago and Venezuela. In both cases, the states had long- standing issues of contention with the American Court.
• Neither state has, however, denounced the ADHR, which requires denunciation of the statute of the OAS and thus leaving the OAS itself.
2. The OAS and Human Rights.
• The Inter-American system is, like the Council of Europe system, a regional one.
• The Inter-American system is more complex than the Council of Europe system, in that it is based
upon two overlapping instruments – the ADHR and the ACHR.
• The jurisdiction of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over States depends upon
whether they are parties to the Convention or not. Under the ACHR, the Inter-American
Commission can also consider petitions.
• The Court has jurisdiction in contentious cases only over Convention parties.
• The Inter-American Commission not only hears petitions but also conducts visits to consider
violations, leading to the adoption of Country Reports on the human rights situations in OAS
Member States.
• There is effectively a dislocation in the OAS system. The developed liberal democracies of North
America, the USA and Canada, are only partial players in the OAS system due to their refusal to
become parties to the ACHR.
3. The American Convention on Human Rights.
• The Preamble to the American Convention outlines the values that inform
the document.
• Rooted in the politics of North and South America and the Caribbean, it is also in
touch with the broader currents of thought represented by the Universal Declaration.
• The American Convention can thus be seen as a regionally specific articulation of
principles that are seen as universal.
• Covers civil and political rights but highlights cultural relativity – right to life,
for example, protected from moment of conception.
• San Salvador Protocol on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1988.
4. The Inter-American Commission and Court:
• Opinions and Cases: pioneering jurisprudential developments.
• Country Reports: have had significant value.
• Political context of the OAS system has been incredibly challenging –
and has still made great strides.
Further reading
• C. Sandoval, ‘The Inter-American system of human rights and approach’ in Sheeran
and Rodley (eds), pp.427–443;
• J. Pasqualucci, ‘The Americas’ in Moeckli, Shah and Sivakumuran (eds), pp.398–
415;
• T. Farer, ‘The rise of the Inter-American Human Rights Regime: No Longer a
Unicorn, Not Yet an Ox’, (1997) Human Rights Quarterly, pp.510–46.
• T.M Antkowiak and A. Gonza The American Convention on Human Rights: Essential
Rights (Oxford University Press, 2017).