Argentina and Mexico

Implementation of Inter-American Court of Human Rights Judgments in Latin America: Examples from Argentina and Mexico
  • Christina CernaEmail author


This chapter discusses developments in Argentina and Mexico implementing the Inter-American Court’s “control of conventionality” doctrine. These developments illustrate the perspective of domestic courts in these states, which appears to be markedly different from that of the US Supreme Court in Medellin v Texas. While the latter doubted that other states treat judgments by international courts (in that case the ICJ) as binding in domestic courts, the domestic court cases discussed in this chapter indicate otherwise and make concrete the obligation that treaties are to be complied with in good faith.

In 1994, Argentina reformed its Constitution and granted international human rights treaties to which it was party equal status with the rights protected by the Argentine Constitution. In 2005, the Argentine Supreme Court declared its amnesty laws unconstitutional, applying the Inter-American Court’s holding in Barrios Altos directly. Similarly, Mexico, in 2011, reformed its Constitution and incorporated international human rights from international treaties to which Mexico is a party and gave them constitutional standing. On August 21, 2012, a majority of the Mexican Supreme Court held that human rights violations and other crimes committed by military personnel against civilians will now be subject to prosecution in civilian, not military, courts in accordance with the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence in this area.


  1. Benvenisti E, Herel A (2015) Against hierarchy: the case for discordant parity between constitutional and international law. Paper presented at the University of Chicago public law workshop, IDC faculty seminar, King’s College, London (25 Mar 2015) and Georgetown University Law Center colloquiumGoogle Scholar
  2. Benvenisti E, Herel A (2017) Embracing the tension between national and international human rights law: the case for discordant parity. Int J Const Law 15:36–59Google Scholar
  3. Cerna C (2013) Unconstitutionality of Article 57, Section II, Paragraph a) of the code of military justice and legitimation of the injured party and his family to present an appeal for the protection of constitutional rights. Am J Int Law 107:199–206Google Scholar
  4. Franco LA (2009) Recepción de la Jurisprudencia Interamericana en el Ordenamiento Jurídico Argentino. In: Garcia Ramirez S and Castaneda Hernandez M (eds) Recepción Nacional del Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos y Admisión de la Competencia Contenciosa de la Corte Interamericana. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México – Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Mexico, pp 157–171. Available via Accessed 11 July 2017
  5. Sabsay DA, Onaindia JM (2009) La Constitución de los argentinos – Análisis y comentario de su texto luego de la reforma de 1994; incluye comentarios a las leyes reglamentarias y jurisprudencia posterior a la reforma. Editorial Errepar, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  6. Soltman D (2013) Applauding Uruguay’s quest for justice: dictatorship, amnesty, and repeal of Uruguay Law No. 15.848. Wash Univ Glob Stud Law Rev 12:829–848Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgetown University Law CenterWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations