Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 28))

  • 577 Accesses

Abstract

Antidiscrimination law has been part of the Inter-American Human Rights system from its beginnings: the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man provided for the equal protection of the law of all persons and the right to enjoy the rights and duties of the Declaration “without distinction as to race, sex, language, creed or any other factor.” Now, the principle of non-discrimination is guaranteed in several other regional Human Rights instruments. In particular, the American Convention on Human Rights (hereafter the American Convention, adopted in 1968 and entered into force in 1978) is the most exhaustive human rights instrument of the region, and is enforced by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereafter the IACHR), along with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereafter the Commission).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, “Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica” (1984) [Advisory Opinion OC-4/84].

  2. 2.

    Caso Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas [in Spanish only]. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Ser C No 298, para 243.

  3. 3.

    Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, “Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants” (2003), para 101.

  4. 4.

    Caso Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas [in Spanish only]. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Ser C No 298, paras 256 and ff.

  5. 5.

    Including: Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 3; Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 1.

  6. 6.

    Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989, Ser C No 7 at para 60(5): “The Court […] [d]ecides that the Court shall supervise the indemnification ordered and shall close the file only when the compensation has been paid.”

  7. 7.

    Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Ser C No 130 at paras 236–240.

  8. 8.

    Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Ser C No 130 at paras 236–240, paras 241–242.

  9. 9.

    Case of Atala Riffo and daughters v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 24, 2012 Ser C No 239 [Atala].

  10. 10.

    Case of González et al (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Ser C No 205 [Cotton Field], para 471.

  11. 11.

    Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Ser C No 214, paras 276 and ff.

  12. 12.

    Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Ser C No 214, paras 85–87.

  13. 13.

    Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245 [Sarayaku]. The IACHR held, unanimously, that the State of Ecuador was responsible for the violation of the rights to consultation, to indigenous communal property, and to cultural identity, in the terms of Article 21, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku, for granting a permit to a private oil company to carry out oil exploration activities in its territory from the late 1990s, without previously consulting the Sarayaku.

  14. 14.

    Case of Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2012. Series C No. 257 [In Vitro Fertilization].

  15. 15.

    Atala, supra note 9 at paras 142 and 145.

  16. 16.

    Cotton Field, supra note 10 at paras 541–543. Some orders were still not complied with in 2013 (See Resolution from the IACHR of May 2013 on the compliance with the judgment, at para 111: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/supervisiones/gonzález_21_05_13.pdf).

  17. 17.

    Cotton Field, supra note 10 at para 450.

  18. 18.

    In Vitro Fertilization, supra note 14 at para 381.

  19. 19.

    Xákmok Kásek, supra note 11 at paras 2 and 306.

  20. 20.

    Caso Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas [in Spanish only]. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Ser C No 298, paras 359–360 and 372–373.

  21. 21.

    Caso Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas [in Spanish only]. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Ser C No 298, para 377.

  22. 22.

    Caso Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas [in Spanish only]. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Ser C No 298, paras 407–409.

  23. 23.

    Caso Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas [in Spanish only]. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Ser C No 298, paras 412–416.

  24. 24.

    Caso Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas [in Spanish only]. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Ser C No 298, para 386.

  25. 25.

    In Vitro Fertilization, supra note 14 at para 341.

  26. 26.

    Case of Nadege Dorzema et al v Dominican Republic. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Ser C No 251 [Nadege] at para 9.

  27. 27.

    See the Escrito sobre Argumento y Pruebas submitted by the representatives of the victims in Nadege at para 1.

  28. 28.

    See, for example, Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282 [Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians] at para 460.

  29. 29.

    Huneeus (2011), p. 513.

  30. 30.

    Cotton Field, supra note 10 at para 27.

  31. 31.

    Basch et al. (2010), pp. 25–26.

  32. 32.

    The three cases are: Yean and Bosico, supra note 7; Nadege, supra note 26; Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians, supra note 28.

  33. 33.

    See Commission (2014).

  34. 34.

    Yean and Bosico, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, Order of the IACHR of October 10, 2011 at p. 7.

  35. 35.

    In the judgment TC-0256-14: see Commission (2014).

  36. 36.

    Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians, supra note 28 at para 512(13).

  37. 37.

    Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 3 at paras 100–101, 110.

  38. 38.

    Yean and Bosico, supra note 32 at para 155.

  39. 39.

    Atala, supra note 9 at paras 86–91.

  40. 40.

    Gonzales Lluy, supra note 2 at para 255.

  41. 41.

    Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 1 at para 53.

  42. 42.

    Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127 [Yatama] at para 186; Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, supra note 1 at para 54.

  43. 43.

    Yean and Bosico, supra note 32 at para 173; Yatama, supra note 42 at para 185.

  44. 44.

    Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160.

  45. 45.

    Ibid at para 293.

  46. 46.

    Ibid at para 306.

  47. 47.

    See also Gonzales Lluy, supra note 2 at para 288.

  48. 48.

    Ibid at paras 344–346.

  49. 49.

    Gonzales Lluy, supra note 2 at paras 285–291.

  50. 50.

    In Vitro Fertilization, supra note 14 at para 292; Sarayaku, supra note 13 at para 244.

  51. 51.

    Ibid at para 292.

  52. 52.

    Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra note 3 at para 104; Atala, supra note 9 at para 80.

  53. 53.

    Cotton Field, supra note 10 at para 450.

  54. 54.

    Atala, supra note 9 at paras 273–274.

  55. 55.

    But it did order the State to continue implementing trainings related to discrimination, overcoming gender stereotypes of LGBTQI persons and homophobia, at paras 271–272.

  56. 56.

    Several ideas of this answer are taken from González Le Saux and Parra Vera (2008), pp. 151–152 [Le Saux and Parra Vera].

  57. 57.

    Yatama, supra note 42 at para 229.

  58. 58.

    Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124.

  59. 59.

    Ibid at para 94.

  60. 60.

    Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125 at para 51.

  61. 61.

    Basch et al. (2010), p. 21. This study analysed all the holdings of the IACHR between 2001 and 2006, and surveyed all the resolutions supervising compliance with the remedies ordered up until June 30, 2009. Non-compliance was observed in 50% of awareness raising measures, 57% of training measures, 84% of institutional strengthening measures, and 93% of legal reforms measures.

  62. 62.

    Xákmok Kásek, supra note 11 at paras 56–84.

  63. 63.

    Cotton Field, supra note 10 at paras 113 and ff.

  64. 64.

    On these aspects, see Le Saux and Parra Vera (2008).

  65. 65.

    Huneeus (2011), p. 495.

References

  • Basch FF et al (2010) The effectiveness of the Inter-American system of human rights protection: a quantitative approach to its functioning and compliance with its decisions. Int J Human Rights (English Version) 7(12):9

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission (2014) IACHR Condemns Judgment of the Constitutional Court of the Dominican Republic. Commission’s Press Release (6 November 2014). http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/130.asp

  • Huneeus A (2011) Courts resisting courts: lessons from the Inter-American Court’s struggle to enforce human rights. Cornell Int Law J 44:493

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Saux MG, Parra Vera Ó (2008) Concepciones y cláusulas de igualdad en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana. A propósito del Caso Apitz. Revista IIDH 47:127

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. La Cimade, Rhône-Alpes Auvergne, Bourg-en-Bresse, France

    Anne-Claire Gayet

Authors
  1. Anne-Claire Gayet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Paris, France

    Marie Mercat-Bruns

  2. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    David B. Oppenheimer

  3. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    Cady Sartorius

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gayet, AC. (2018). The Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In: Mercat-Bruns, M., Oppenheimer, D., Sartorius, C. (eds) Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_30

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_30

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90067-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90068-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation