Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mobilising the Inter-American Human Rights System: Regional Litigation and Domestic Human Rights Impact in Latin America

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Inter-American Human Rights System

Part of the book series: Studies of the Americas ((STAM))

Abstract

This chapter draws on theoretical insights from the literature on social movements and legal mobilisation to develop an analytical framework for understanding both how the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) fosters transnational litigation and how such mobilisation affects domestic human rights change. The chapter also empirically examines patterns of human rights litigation before the IAHRS, the System’s responses and the impact of such mobilisation. Building on the analysis of petition data, the chapter provides an in-depth qualitative assessment of key litigating human rights organisations in Peru, Colombia and Brazil. Overall, Engstrom and Low argue that organisations with a strategic vision that recognises both the potential and the limitations of the System are best placed to leverage IAHRS mechanisms and jurisprudence to achieve human rights impact.

The authors express their gratitude to Bruno Boti Bernardi for sharing research materials on Peru, and to all those interviewed as part of this study. Thanks are also due to colleagues who offered very helpful feedback on an earlier draft: Courtney Hillebrecht, Oscar Parra-Vera, Tom Pegram, Rossana Rocha Reis, Camilo Sánchez, Clara Sandoval, Lisa Vanhala, and participants at a UCL Institute of the Americas staff seminar.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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.

    The contrast with the European Human Rights System is also noteworthy. As of February 2016, there were some 67,200 cases pending before the European Court (ECtHR 2016).

  2. 2.

    Any person, group of persons or non-governmental organisation (NGO) may present a petition to the Commission alleging violations of the rights protected in the American Convention and/or the American Declaration. The Commission may decide to take a case to the IACtHR. Individuals and litigating groups do not have direct access to the Court, but are instead formally represented by officials appointed by the Commission.

  3. 3.

    It should be noted, however, that the IAHRS’ regional human rights frameworks, as with global frameworks more generally, are frequently subject to local processes of adaptation, resistance and, at times, rejection (Merry and Levit 2009).

  4. 4.

    The dataset was compiled from the IACHR’s annual reports and includes the total number of petitions submitted per country and per year. In addition, the dataset includes case files for every petition that was declared either admissible or inadmissible by the Commission and published each year. These case files were then reviewed in order to identify HROs involved in litigation before the IACHR. For further details on the dataset and methodology, see http://interamericanhumanrights.org/output/. Several caveats are in order when using the petition data as a yardstick of civil society engagement with the System. The IACHR does not publish comprehensive data on all petitions it receives. Information, including details of the petitioner’s identity, is generally published only for relatively few petitions which are declared admissible or inadmissible each year. While details of most, if not all, ‘admissible’ petitions are made publicly available, inadmissible petitions are generally published only if aspects of the case are deemed of broader interest. Thus, the participation of even prolific petitioners will not be reflected in the data if their submissions are rejected by the Commission at an early stage. It is for this reason that the number of petitions received by the Commission as captured in Chart 2.1 and Table 2.1 (by country) are significantly higher than the number of petitions published, listed for the sample of three countries in Table 2.2. It is also important to note that other areas of HRO activity before the IACHR, such as requesting and receiving precautionary measures, providing assistance to fact-finding missions, assisting in IACHR hearings, carrying out research, and advising victims outside of the petition process, are not captured in these statistics. Accordingly, trends evident in the available data do not reflect the totality of HRO engagement with the Commission. If anything, the dataset is likely to underestimate advocacy and litigation activities.

  5. 5.

    Miguel Jugo, interview by Bruno Boti Bernardi, 31 August 2012.

  6. 6.

    Francisco Soberón, interview by Bruno Boti Bernardi, 29 August 2012.

  7. 7.

    Soberón interview.

  8. 8.

    Jugo interview.

  9. 9.

    Soberón and Jugo interviews.

  10. 10.

    Soberón and Jugo interviews.

  11. 11.

    Soberón interview.

  12. 12.

    Gloria Cano, interview by Bruno Boti Bernardi, 14 September 2012.

  13. 13.

    Cano interview.

  14. 14.

    Cano, Soberón and Jugo interviews.

  15. 15.

    The first Colombia HRO to file a petition before the IAHRS was the Comisión Colombiana de Juristas (CCJ), an organisation founded by a group of lawyers with the express purpose of pursuing international litigation as a tool to bring about domestic human rights changes. Luz Marina Monzón, interview by Peter Low, 29 March 2015. Together with CAJAR, CCJ as well as Grupo Interdisciplinario por los Derechos Humanos have emerged as prominent Colombian litigants before the IAHRS.

  16. 16.

    Jomary Ortegon, interview by Peter Low, 26 March 2015.

  17. 17.

    Ortegon interview.

  18. 18.

    Ortegon interview.

  19. 19.

    See also, 2006 IACHR admissibility report detailing attacks on CAJAR members. Retrieved from: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006sp/colombia12380sp.htm

  20. 20.

    Ortegon interview.

  21. 21.

    Ortegon interview.

  22. 22.

    Ortegon interview.

  23. 23.

    Twenty of the twenty-two CAJAR petitions published by the Commission in the period 1999–2014 were deemed admissible.

  24. 24.

    The major judgments in this regard included the following cases: 19 Comerciantes (2004), brought by CCJ; Mapiripán (2005), filed by CAJAR; Pueblo Bello (2006), submitted by CCJ and Asociación de Familiares de Detenidos Desaparecidos; La Rochela (2007), filed by CAJAR and CEJIL; and, Cepeda Vargas (2010), brought by CAJAR and Fundación Manuel Cepeda Vargas.

  25. 25.

    Ortegon interview.

References

  • Abrão, Paulo, and Marcelo Torelly. 2012. Resistance to Change: Brazil’s Persistent Amnesty and Its Alternatives for Truth and Justice. In Amnesty in the Age of Human Rights Accountability: Comparative and International Perspectives, ed. Leigh A. Payne and Francesca Lessa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anaya Muñoz, Alejandro. 2011. Explaining High Levels of Transnational Pressure over Mexico: The Case of the Disappearances and Killings of Women in Ciudad Juárez. The International Journal of Human Rights 15 (3): 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastos Arantes, Rogério. 1999. Direito e Política: O Ministerio Publico e a Defesa dos Direitos Coletivos. Revista Brasileira de Ciencias Sociais 14 (39): 83–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borda, Sandra. 2011. Política exterior y derechos humanos en Colombia: un manual para la contención de la presión internacional. In Derechos Humanos En Política Exterior Seis Casos Latinoamericanos, ed. Natalia Saltalamacchia Ziccardi and Ana Covarrubias Velasco. Mexico: Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo De México.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borda, Sandra, and Camilo Sánchez. 2013. La administración Santos y el proceso de reforma del Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos: De la negación y las concesiones tácticas al estatus descriptivo. Pensamiento Propio 38: 151–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boti Bernardi, Bruno. Forthcoming. Silence, Hindrances and Omissions: The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Brazilian Military Dictatorship. International Journal of Human Rights. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642987.2017.1299915

  • Burt, J.M. 2009. Guilty as Charged: The Trial of Former President Alberto Fujimori for Human Rights Violations. International Journal of Transitional Justice 3 (3): 384–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, J.M., and Casey Cagley. 2013. Access to Information, Access to Justice: The Challenges to Accountability in Peru. Sur: International Journal on Human Rights 10 (18): 75–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • CAJAR. 2001. Estrategia de exigibilidad jurídica de los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales en Colombia mediante acciones jurídicas en el plano nacional e internacional.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. Undated. Quiénes Somos. Retrieved from https://www.colectivodeabogados.org/?-Quienes-Somos264-

  • Cavallaro, James L. 2002. Towards Fair Play: A Decade of Transformation and Resistance in International Human Rights Advocacy in Brazil. Chicago Journal of International Law 3 (2): 481–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conectas. 2004. Interview with Denise Dora. Sur: Revista Internacional de Direitos Humanos 1 (1): 57–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDDHH). 2010. APRODEH: Acusados de violaciones a derechos humanos pidieron la cancelación de sus procesos, September 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Pais. 2011. Escándalo por masacre de Mapiripán será llevado a la OEA, October 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epp, Charles. 1998. The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Human Rights. 2016. Pending Applications Allocated to a Judicial Formation, February 29. Retrieved from http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Stats_pending_2016_BIL.pdf

  • Gamson, William. 1991. Commitment and Agency in Social Movements. Sociological Forum 6 (1): 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvard International Law Journal Online (HILJO). 2011. An Interview with James Cavallaro. Harvard International Law Journal Online 52: 204–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillebrecht, Courtney. 2012. The Domestic Mechanisms of Compliance with International Law: Case Studies from the Inter-American Human Rights System. Human Rights Quarterly 34 (2): 959–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IACHR. 2000. Annual Report 2000 – Chapter II: Administration of Justice and Rule of Law. Washington, DC: OAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Audrey. 2012. The InterAmerican Commission and Human Rights Protection in Brazil. Rights News 30 (2): 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Las2Orillas. 2013. Las batallas del Colectivo José Alvear, July 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald, eds. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, Doug, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. 2001. Dynamics of Contention. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy, John D., and Mayer Zald. 1987. Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory. In Social Movements: Perspectives and Issues, ed. S.M. Buechler and F.K. Cylke, 149–172. Mountain View: Mayfield Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, Sally, and Peggy Levit. 2009. Vernacularization in Action: Using Global Women’s Human Rights Locally. Global Networks 9 (4): 441–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin, Robert, and Lewis Kornhauser. 1979. Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law. The Yale Law Journal 88 (5): 950–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolette, Paul. 2015. Law Enforcement as Legal Mobilization: Reforming the Pharmaceutical Industry Through Government Litigation. Law & Social Inquiry 40 (1): 123–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noticias Uno. 2012. Colectivo de abogados devolverá honorarios por representación de víctima falsa, June 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • PBS. Undated. Speaking Truth to Power: Francisco Soberón, Peru. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/speaktruthtopower/francisco.html

  • Root, Rebecca K. 2009. Through the Window of Opportunity: The Transitional Justice Network in Peru. Human Rights Quarterly 31 (2): 452–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosato, Cássia Maria, and Ludmila Cerqueira Correia. 2011. The Damião Ximenes Lopes Case: Changes and Challenges Following the First Ruling Against Brazil in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Sur: International Journal of Human Rights 8 (15): 91–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos MacDowell, Cecilia. 2007. Transnational Legal Activism and the State: Reflections on Cases Against Brazil in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Sur Revista Internacional de Derechos Humanos 4 (7): 28–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarat, Austin, and Stuart Scheingold, eds. 1998. Cause Lawyering: Political Commitments and Professional Responsibilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shawki, Noha. 2010. Political Opportunity Structures and the Outcomes of Transnational Campaigns: A Comparison of Two Transnational Advocacy Networks. Peace & Change 35 (3): 381–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikkink, Kathryn. 2005. The Transnational Dimension of the Judicialization of Politics in Latin America. In The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America, ed. Rachel Sieder, Line Schjolden, and Alan Angell, 263–292. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, Beth. 2009. Mobilizing Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. The New Transnational Activism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tsutsui, Kiyoteru, Claire Whitlinger, and Alwyn Lim. 2012. International Human Rights Law and Social Movements: States’ Resistance and Civil Society’s Insistence. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 8: 367–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uribe Sanabria, Camila, and Natalia Restrepo Ortiz. 2013. Could the Interamerican Human Rights System Have Prevented the Existence of False Victims in the Mapiripán Case? International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional 23: 203–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilhena Vieira, Oscar. 2008. Public Interest Law: A Brazilian Perspective. UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs 1 (99): 219–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villarán, Susana. 2007. Peru. In Victims Unsilenced: The Inter-American Human Rights System and Transitional Justice in Latin America, ed. Due Process of Law Foundation, 105–107. Washington, DC: Due Process of Law Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). 2011. A Human Rights Counteroffensive in Colombia, December 1.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the Americas, University College London, London, UK

    Par Engstrom

  2. Independent Political Analyst, Barcelona, Spain

    Peter Low

Authors
  1. Par Engstrom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Par Engstrom .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the Americas, University College London, London, UK

    Par Engstrom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Engstrom, P., Low, P. (2019). Mobilising the Inter-American Human Rights System: Regional Litigation and Domestic Human Rights Impact in Latin America. In: Engstrom, P. (eds) The Inter-American Human Rights System. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89459-1_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation