Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Compliance to Engagement: Assessing the Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Constitutional Law in Latin America

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

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

Abstract

Torelly argues that rather than converging/complying or resisting/non-complying with the Inter-American Human Rights System, domestic judges often engage with it, producing hybrid solutions that combine constitutional and international law. From this engagement perspective, the chapter examines the role of domestic courts as one of the key actors shaping the impact of international human rights law on domestic fundamental rights. Assessing case law from Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay, the chapter addresses cases of harmonising and dissonant engagement in contrast with cases of resistance and convergence. It concludes that in the absence of possibilities of hierarchical solutions to legal conflicts, the pursuit of engagement may increase the impact of the IAHRS, and amplify the use of international human rights norms by domestic judges.

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.

    Aleinikoff (1987) states that ‘The metaphor of balancing refers to theories of constitutional interpretation that are based on the identification, valuation, and comparison of competing interests. By a “balancing opinion”, I mean a judicial opinion that analyses a constitutional question by identifying interests implicated by the case and reaches a decision or constructs a rule of constitutional law by explicitly or implicitly assigning values to the identified interests’.

  2. 2.

    This idea of rule of lawgap is derived from Teitel’s (2000) idea of transitional rule of law: ‘Whereas the conventional understanding of the conception of tyranny is the lack of the rule of law as arbitrariness, the transitionalrule of law in the modern cases illuminates a distinctive normative response to contemporary tyranny. From its inception in the ancient understanding term “isonomy”, the ideal of the ruleof law emerges in response to tyranny. In ancient times, isonomy is forged in response to tyranny understood as arbitrary and partial enforcement of law. Because prior tyranny associated with law-making that is both arbitrary and unequal, the ancient understanding of therule of law comprehended both values of security in the law and equal enforceability of the law. As in ancient times, the contemporary ideal of the rule of law is forged in the context of the move from repressive to more liberalising rule. Where persecution is systematically perpetuated under legal imprimatur, where tyranny is systematic persecution, the transitional legal response is the attempt to undo these abuses under the law’.

  3. 3.

    Sentencia Juez letras de Lautaro, Sr. Christian Alfaro Muirhead, Causa Rol 37.860, 5th consideration. Author’s translation.

  4. 4.

    This new interpretation was issued just one month before former dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London in October 1998 after a request from Spain. Roht-Arriaza (2005).

  5. 5.

    Corte Suprema de Chile. Segunda Sala Crimina. Rol n° 469-98, 9 September 1998.

  6. 6.

    Corte Suprema de Chile. Segunda Sala Criminal. Rol n° 469-98, 9 September 1998, 10th consideration. Author’s translation.

  7. 7.

    Corte Suprema de Chile. Segunda Sala Crimina. Rol n.° 248-98, 7 January 1999.

  8. 8.

    IACtHR. Almonacid Arellano v. Chile, November 18, 2010. 171(6).

  9. 9.

    Corte Suprema de Chile. Segunda Sala Criminal. Rol n° 559-04, 13 December 2006.

  10. 10.

    Corte Suprema de Chile. Segunda Sala Criminal. Rol n° 3125-04, 13 January 2007

  11. 11.

    Corte Suprema de Chile. Segunda Sala Criminal. Rol n° 2666-04, 18 January 2007.

  12. 12.

    Corte Suprema de Chile. Segunda Sala Criminal. Rol n° 3452-06, 10 May 2007.

  13. 13.

    In the 2010 monitoring report regarding Almonacid, the Court held that the Chilean State had failed ‘to investigate, identify, try and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the extrajudicial execution of Mr. Almonacid Arellano and the duty to ensure that Decree Law No. 2.191 does not continue to hinder the continuation of investigations’ (operative paragraph five and paragraphs 145–157 of the Judgement). IACtHR. Almonacid Arellano v Chile, November 18, 2010. Declaration 2(b).

  14. 14.

    In fact, most transitional justice efforts in Brazil have focused on administrative reparations (Abrão and Torelly 2011).

  15. 15.

    A notable exception is Teles Family v Alberto Brilhante Ustra. In this case, São Paulo State Court recognised the defendant as guilty and ordered compensation. Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo. 1ª Câmara de Direito Privado. Processo n° 0347718-08.2009.8.26.0000, 14 August 2012, 325(3).

  16. 16.

    For example: Justiça Federal. 8ª Vara Federal Cível de São Paulo. Ação Civil Pública n° 2008.61.00.011414-5.

  17. 17.

    IACtHR. Julia Gomes Lund and others v. Brazil. 24 November 2010.

  18. 18.

    Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil. Ação de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n° 153/2008 (Torelly 2011).

  19. 19.

    See Judge Marco Aurélio Mello vote.

  20. 20.

    See Judge Carmen Lúcia Antunes Rocha vote.

  21. 21.

    Author’s translation. Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil. Ação de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n° 153/2008. Voto do Ministro Celso de Melo vote, 27.

  22. 22.

    Supremo Tribunal Federal do Brasil. Ação de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental n° 153/2008. Manifestação do Procurador Geral da República, Roberto Gurgel.

  23. 23.

    The Ministério Público organised a workshop in partnership with the Ministry of Justice and the International Center for Transitional Justice, and invited prosecutors from Argentina and Chile. The findings of the workshop are available in: Ministério Público Federal. 2ª Câmara. ‘Documento n.°02/2011’. Revista Anistia Política e Justiça de Transição 7 (2012): 358–371.

  24. 24.

    Segunda Câmara de Coordenação e Revisão. Ministério Público Federal (Brazil). Crimes da Ditadura Militar – Relatórios de Atuação, vol. 2. Brasília, (2017).

  25. 25.

    Ministério Público Federal (Brazil). Parecer N. 4.433/AsJConst/SAJ/PGR. Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental 320/DF. Brasília: 29 August 2014.

  26. 26.

    For example, in a criminal claim at the São Paulo Federal Tribunal, Judge Hélio Egydio de Matos Nogueira held that the IACtHR has classified forced disappearance as a ‘multiple gross and continuous human rights violation with a permanent nature […] emphasizing the duty to always investigate when there are reasonable suspicion that someone has been subjected [to it]’. Author’s translation. Justiça Federal. 9ª Vara Criminal. Processo 0011580-69.2012.4.03.6181. São Paulo, 23 October 2012.

  27. 27.

    Tribunal Regional da 2ª Região. Proc. 0005684-20.2014.4.02.0000 (TRF2 2014.02.01.005684-7). 3 July 2014.

  28. 28.

    Tribunal Regional da 2ª Região. Proc. 0104222-36.2014.4.02.0000 (2014.00.00.104222-3). 10 September 2014.

  29. 29.

    IACtHR. Radilla-Pacheco v Mexico. 23 November 2009 at para 245.

  30. 30.

    Author’s translation. Mexico. Resolución dictada por el Tribunal Pleno en el expediente varios 912/2010. 21 September 2011, section 17.

  31. 31.

    Author’s translation. Suprema Corte de Justicia. Ficha 97-397/2004. Sentencia n.° 365. 19 October 2009, p. 30.

  32. 32.

    Author’s translation. Suprema Corte de Justicia. Ficha 97-397/2004. Sentencia n.° 365. 19 October 2009, p. 48.

  33. 33.

    IACtHR. Gelman v. Uruguay. 24 February 2011, 312(11).

  34. 34.

    Ley 18.831, 27 October 2011. Article 3.

  35. 35.

    Ley 18.831, 27 October 2011. Article 2.

  36. 36.

    Author’s translation. Suprema Corte de Justicia. Sentencia n° 20, 22 February 2013, p. 17.

  37. 37.

    Author’s translation. Suprema Corte de Justicia. Sentencia n° 20, 22 February 2013, p. 23.

References

  • Abrão, Paulo, and Marcelo D. Torelly. 2011. The Reparations Program as the Lynchpin of Transitional Justice in Brazil. In Transitional Justice – Handbook for Latin America, ed. Felix Reategui. New York: International Center for Transitional Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Resistance to Change: Brazil’s Persistent Amnesty and Its Alternatives for Truth and Justice. In Amnesty in the Age of Human Rights Accountability, ed. Francesca Lessa and Leigh Payne. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aleinikoff, T.Alexander. 1987. Constitutional Law in the Age of Balancing. Yale Law Journal 96 (5): 943–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, Roger P. 2004. Misusing International Sources to Interpret the Constitution. American Journal of International Law 98 (1): 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balardini, Lorena. 2013. América Latina en búsqueda de memoria, verdade y Justicia por crímenes de lesa humanidade. Una mirada en clave regional. In Derechos Humanos en Argentina – Informe 2013, ed. CELS. Buenos Aires: CELS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boti Bernardi, Bruno. 2015. O Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos e a Justiça de Transição: impactos no Brasil, Colômbia, México e Peru. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, Jo-Marie, Gabriela Amilivia, and Francesca Lessa. 2013. Civil Society and the Resurgent Struggle Against Impunity in Uruguay (1986–2012). International Journal of Transitional Justice 7: 306–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Cath. 2010. Human Rights Trials in Chile During and After the “Pinochet Years”. International Journal of Transitional Justice 4 (1): 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dulitzky, Ariel E. 2015. An Inter-American Constitutional Court – The Invention of the Conventionality Control by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Texas International Law Journal 50: 45–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1995. A Matter of Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, Bardo. 1998. The United Nations Charter as Constitution of the International Community. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 36: 529–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández Neira, Karinna. 2010a. Breve Análisis de la jurisprudencia Chilena, en Relación a las Graves Violaciones a los Derechos Humanos Cometidos Durante la Dictadura Militar. Estudios Constitucionales 8 (1): 467.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010b. La prescripción gradual, aplicada a los delitos de lesa humanidad. M.Sc. Dissertation, University of Chile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galain, Pablo. 2010. The Prosecution of International Crimes in Uruguay. International Criminal Law Review 10 (4): 601–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Ramirez, Sérgio. 2013. El Control Judicial Interno de Convencionalidad. In Diálogo Jurisprudencial en Derechos Humanos, ed. Eduardo Ferrer MacGregor and Alfonso Herrera Garcia. Mexico City: Tirant lo Blancj.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, Harbert L.A. 1994. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (ILA). 2006. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law: Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Vicki. 2010. Constitutional Engagement in a Transnational Era. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskenniemi, Martii, and Leino Päivi. 2002. Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties. Leiden Journal of International Law 15: 553–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lixinski, Lucas. 2010. Treaty Interpretation by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Expansionism at the Service of the Unity of International Law. European Journal of International Law 21 (3): 585–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malarino, Ezequiel. 2010. Acerca de la pretendida obligatoriedad de la jurisprudencia de los órganos interamericanos de protección de los Derechos Humanos para los Tribunales Nacionales. In Sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos y derecho penal internacional, 425–446. Bogotá: Fundación Konrad-Adenauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, Gerald. 2000. Human Rights and Constitutional Rights: Harmony and Dissonance. Stanford Law Review 55: 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, Gerald L. 2004. Uses of International Law in Constitutional Interpretation. The American Journal of International Law 98: 82–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, Pamela. 2011. The Path to Prosecutions: A Look at the Chilean Case. In Transitional Justice – Handbook for Latin America, ed. Felix Reategui. New York: International Center for Transitional Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roht-Arriaza, Naomi. 2005. The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salazar, Pedro, et al. 2014. La Reforma Constitucional sobre Derechos Humanos. México D.F.: Senado da República.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2003. A Global Community of Courts. Harvard International Law Journal 44: 191–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teitel, Ruti G. 2000. Transitional Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubner, Gunther. 2012. Constitutional Fragments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torelly, Marcelo D. 2011. Justiça transicional e estado constitucional de direito: Perspectiva teórico-comparativa e análise do caso brasileiro. Belo Horizonte: Fórum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. Transnational Legal Process and Fundamental Rights in Latin America: How Does the Inter-American Human Rights System Reshape Domestic Constitutional Rights? In Law and Policy in Latin America: Transforming Courts, Institutions, and Rights, ed. Pedro Fortes et al. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Brasilia (UnB), Brasilia, Brazil

    Marcelo Torelly

Authors
  1. Marcelo Torelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Torelly, M. (2019). From Compliance to Engagement: Assessing the Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on Constitutional Law 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_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation