Abstract
This article co-authored by two lawyers working at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, one of whom has also worked at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, will delve into the differences and similarities of these two courts. It will look into the jurisdiction of these two courts and enter into their internal functioning, in particular their judicial compositions, their secretariats/registries, and some aspects of their procedures and working methods. A certain detail will be devoted to the latter to enable the two courts at issue and other international as well as domestic courts to benefit from a sharing of know-how and good practices, allowing for the possibility of such courts to adopt and adapt, what they might consider, relevant and effective working methods.
The authors wish to thank Marta Cabrera Martín, legal adviser to the President and the Secretary of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and former lawyer at the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights, for the useful comments and suggestions she has made to this contribution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is a novelty resulting from the coming into force of Protocol No. 16, on 1 August 2018. It applies only to those States that have ratified the Protocol (currently 11 State Parties to the Convention).
- 2.
The role and functions of the Committee of Ministers are set out in Chapter V of the Statute of the Council of Europe ETS No. 001.
- 3.
Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela, which had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, have denounced the Convention.
- 4.
According to Articles 51 and 61 of the American Convention.
- 5.
Article 64 of the American Convention.
- 6.
The legal grounds for this competence can be found in Article 65 of the American Convention and Article 30 of the Statute of the IACtHR. See Baena Ricardo et al. (270 workers) v. Panama, 28 November 2003, where the IACtHR came to the conclusion that the intention of the States was to grant the Court the authority to monitor compliance with its decisions.
- 7.
Article 26 § 1 of the European Convention.
- 8.
Article 26 §§ 3 and 4 of the European Convention.
- 9.
Rule 29 (3) of the Rules of Court.
- 10.
Article 25 of the European Convention.
- 11.
The last edition of the Rules of Court entered into force on 1 August 2018.
- 12.
Rule 12 of the Rules of Court.
- 13.
Rule 8 of the Rules of Court.
- 14.
Articles 52 and 53 of the American Convention. Each of the States Parties may propose up to three candidates.
- 15.
Article 54 § 1 of the American Convention.
- 16.
Article 16 of the Statute of the IACtHR.
- 17.
See Advisory Opinion OC-20/09 on Article 55 of the American Convention, 29 September 2009. This position was reflected in Article 19 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR.
- 18.
Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR.
- 19.
See current Article 24 § 1 of the European Convention.
- 20.
Rule 15 and 17 of the Rules of Court.
- 21.
Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
- 22.
See the explanations set out in § 58 of the Explanatory Report to Protocol No. 14.
- 23.
Rule 18 and 22 of the Rules of Court.
- 24.
Rule 18A of the Rules of Court.
- 25.
Rule 18B of the Rules of Court.
- 26.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Registry_ENG.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2019.
- 27.
Lawyers at the Registry are staff members of the CoE, the organisation within which the ECtHR functions.
- 28.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Filtering_Section_ENG.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2019.
- 29.
Article 59 of the American Convention and Article 14 of the Statute of the IACtHR. According to Article 14.4 of the Statute, the staff of the Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary General of the OAS, in consultation with the Secretary of the Court.
- 30.
Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR. His/her functions are described in Article 10.
- 31.
Article 8.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR.
- 32.
https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_analysis_2018_ENG.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2019.
- 33.
The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR, in 2018, delivered 14 judgments and one strike-out decision.
- 34.
For instance, in 2017 the Inter-American Commission received 2494 new petitions. At the end of the year, there were 4002 petitions pending initial evaluation and 2622 petitions pending in the admissibility and merits phases. See the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission, 2017, chapter II: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/docs/annual/2017/TOC.asp. Accessed 3 April 2019.
- 35.
Without prejudice to the application of the ECtHR’s Priority Policy.
- 36.
Under Article 37 § 1 (c) or Article 39 of the European Convention.
- 37.
Period 1 January to 31 October 2017. Statistics prepared for the Court’s meeting with Government Agents on 4 December 2017.
- 38.
See Rule 61 of the Rules of Court. See, for instance, the case Torreggiani and Others v. Italy, nos. 43517/09 and 6 others, 8 January 2013.
- 39.
See for more details the Follow-up to the CDDH Report on the Longer-Term Future of the system of the European Convention on Human Rights—GR-H (20 February 2018).
- 40.
Article 30 of the European Convention.
- 41.
Article 43 of the European Convention.
- 42.
For instance in 2018, the panel of the Grand Chamber considered 120 referral requests but only accepted them in 5 cases. See Annual Report ECtHR 2018, p. 162: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2018_ENG.pdf. Accessed 3 April 2019.
- 43.
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
- 44.
See, for instance, Order of the President of the IACtHR, 18 December 2013, case of the Garifuna Community and its members v. Honduras.
- 45.
Norway’s contributions to the Fund represented 80% of the contributions in 2017.
- 46.
Article 5 of the Rules for the Operation of the Victim’s Legal Assistance Fund of the IACtHR.
- 47.
Rules 100 to 105 of the Rules of Court set out the details of such legal aid.
- 48.
Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR. Although the cases are submitted to the Inter-American Court by the Inter-American Commission and not by the alleged victims, the alleged victims can participate in the written and oral proceedings before the Court (Articles 40, 46 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the IACtHR).
- 49.
See the order of 8 September 2004 in the matter of Luisiana Ríos et al. regarding Venezuela, para. 5.
- 50.
For instance, in the case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, judgment of 20 November 2007 and order of 3 February 2010.
- 51.
In 2017, the IACtHR visited a prison in Brazil in order to verify the compliance with provisional measures applied with respect to persons deprived of their liberty in that prison, in the case of the Plácido de Sá Carvalho Prison Complex with regard to Brazil.
- 52.
Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela, order of 30 May 2013.
- 53.
Case of “El Nacional” and “Así es la Noticia” Newspapers v. Venezuela, order of 6 July 2004.
- 54.
For a comparison between the American and the European human rights protection systems in terms of reparation, execution of judgments and monitoring of the execution of judgments, see Saavedra Alessandri et al. (2017), pp. 211–267.
Reference
Saavedra Alessandri, P., Cano Palomares, G., & Hernández Ramos, M. (2017). Reparación y supervisión de sentencias. In J. García Roca & E. Carmona Cuenca (Eds.), ¿Hacia una globalización de los derechos? El impacto de las sentencias del Tribunal Europeo y de la Corte Interamericana (pp. 211–267). Pamplona: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Muscat, R., Cano Palomares, G. (2019). Internal Organisation of Regional Human Rights Courts: The European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In: Pinto de Albuquerque, P., Wojtyczek, K. (eds) Judicial Power in a Globalized World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_21
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20743-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20744-1
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)