Inter-American Human Rights System and Social Change in Latin America

Abstract

The role of human rights is increasingly subject to scrutiny and debate. However, historically, human rights functioned as powerful tools for social change. In this context, this paper explores the origin, evolution and impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System, analysing its impact from three perspectives. First, it reviews empirical studies that advocate distinguishing between compliance with the system’s orders and their broader impact. Case examples are presented to demonstrate how compliance with general orders, such as guarantees of non-repetition, can influence human rights practices across the region, even when compliance is only partial. The analysis highlights that impact extends beyond formal compliance, encompassing the strategies of human rights organisations, interactions between national and international spheres, and progress in the recognition and justiciability of rights, along with measures aimed at benefiting specific groups. Finally, the relationship between the region’s democratic development and the system’s relevance is explored, highlighting its remarkable adaptability to emerging realities and societal demands despite persistent challenges. In the face of prevailing scepticism, the system continues to function as a vital mechanism for promoting social transformation across Latin America.

1. Introduction

Do human rights work? This is the question posed by Sikkink as she examines the effectiveness of institutions and activism related to international human rights law. She warns that pessimism about the legitimacy and efficacy of international human rights law is growing not only within academic and governmental spheres but also among human rights movements themselves (Sikkink 2018).

Are we truly worse off in terms of human rights? Or is it that we now have more data, more rights, and greater oversight, which, by revealing more about human rights issues, fosters a catastrophist perspective? In response to this spreading negativity, Sikkink (2018) calls for a reconsideration of the historical trajectory of human rights. She argues that while there are undoubtedly areas of concern, there are also notable improvements, providing reasons for hope.

Pessimistic views of human rights are often shaped by comparisons to the ideal (that is, the full spectrum of rights enshrined in treaties) rather than longitudinal and empirical comparisons that reflect both progress and setbacks over time. Furthermore, such pessimistic perspectives tend to overlook the significance of human rights at the regional level, particularly in Latin America, where the development of democracies is fundamentally linked to the evolution of international and regional human rights norms and institutions (Sikkink 2018; Engstrom 2019).

It is also crucial to recognise that the international human rights framework consists not only of treaties but also of decisions by national and international courts. These decisions, in turn, are driven by social actors who make demands for rights and monitor their implementation. Reducing human rights to norms and judicial decisions neglects the way these frameworks and institutions have taken shape and evolved (Bakiner 2023). Moreover, it overlooks the pivotal role of civil society in its development and transformation (Sikkink 2018; Engstrom 2019; Kletzel 2024).

In this context, this paper seeks to examine the evolution and impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS). It aims to demonstrate that, despite persistent challenges, the IAHRS has adapted to new realities and demands, remaining a vital tool for social change in the region, even amidst prevailing pessimism. Following this introduction, Section 2 examines the origin and evolution of the IAHRS, followed by an analysis of its impact in Section 3. Section 3.1 reviews empirical studies that distinguish between compliance with and the impact of the system’s orders, illustrating through case examples how partial compliance with general orders can influence human rights behaviour. Section 3.2 demonstrates, using cases brought before the IAHRS, that its impact extends beyond the orders issued to states, encompassing the strategies of human rights organisations (HROs), interactions between national and international spheres, and progress in the recognition and justiciability of rights, along with measures that benefit certain groups. Section 3.3 explores the relationship between the region’s democratic development and the continued relevance of the IAHRS, which remains highly significant, before concluding the discussion.

2. Origin and Evolution of the Inter-American Human Rights System

The IAHRS traces its origins to the creation of the Organisation of American States (OAS) in April 1948 through the adoption of the OAS Charter, which came into force in 1951 (Sikkink 2018). As part of the OAS’s establishment, the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man was adopted in Bogotá on 30 April 1948, eight months before the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December 1948.

Even earlier, Latin American delegates played a prominent role in the 1945 San Francisco Conference, which led to the creation of the United Nations (UN) (Sikkink 2018). With 20 of the 50 signatory states of the UN Charter, Latin America formed the largest regional coalition at the conference, making decisive contributions to the inclusion of explicit references to human rights in the Charter (Sikkink 2018).

It took another 20 years for the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) to be adopted in San José, Costa Rica, in 1969. The ACHR, which came into force in 1978, established the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), whose jurisdiction requires explicit ratification by states. However, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) had already been created in 1959. The IACHR was established as part of the OAS and, consequently, has jurisdiction over all member states of this regional organisation, regardless of whether they are signatories to the ACHR (Sobers 2013). The Commission began conducting visits to monitor human rights conditions in various countries in 1961 and was authorised to receive individual petitions in 1965.

From its start, the system’s institutions have focused on monitoring the state of democracies and protecting human rights in member states, prioritising attention to countries with the greatest repression or least guarantees at different historical moments. This focus is evident in the IACHR’s monitoring reports on the state of human rights in the region. While there are currently recurring reports for countries such as Venezuela (2025, 2017, 2009), El Salvador (2024, 2021), Honduras (2024, 2019, 2015), and Nicaragua (2023, 2021, 2018), this phenomenon of focused attention dates back decades to the era of the dictatorships, as seen in reports for the Dominican Republic (1965, 1966), Chile (1974, 1976, 1977), Uruguay (1978), and Argentina (1980). Furthermore, through its handling of individual petitions and the measures it orders during these processes, the IAHRS has sought to address broader issues beyond the specific cases brought to its attention1.

In recent years, the number of individual cases submitted to the IAHRS has steadily increased (Sánchez and Lyons Cerón 2015; Engstrom and Low 2019; Zschirnt 2021). The statistics published by the IAHRS on its website indicate that, while 1325 petitions were received in 2006, this figure had risen to 2567 per year a decade later. The numbers for 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 are 2448, 2327, 2440, and 2692, respectively2. On the one hand, this trend negatively affects the capacity of its bodies to handle these petitions efficiently (Sánchez and Lyons Cerón 2015). On the other hand, it reflects the inability of domestic judicial systems to effectively address human rights issues.

Discussions about the tensions between the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention and the establishment of an international regime for democracy and human rights protection in the Americas ultimately favoured the idea that such protection ensures the rights of the most vulnerable (Sikkink 2018). The ACHR enshrines the principle of subsidiarity, which ensures that states have the first opportunity to provide redress for individual cases. Failure to do so triggers the system’s jurisdiction (Article 46).

Not all cases brought before the IACHR reach the IACtHR. Some are resolved through friendly settlements or compliance with the Commission’s recommendations, while many others are archived during the pre-admissibility and admissibility stages (Zschirnt 2021). According to statistics published by the IACHR, in 2024, 74 cases were admitted, 59 were deemed inadmissible, 13 friendly settlements were reached, two merits reports were published, and 152 cases in progress and 153 petitions under initial review were archived3. However, in some cases, civil society organisations that support victims in their pursuit of justice—claims that have been denied in their own states—approach the IAHRS with purposes that extend beyond the specific case, doing so as a means of “guided the actions of State agents and operators of the law throughout the continent” (Salazar and Cerqueira 2024, p. 623)4. Regardless, as will be discussed, the IACtHR’s rulings, like those of other courts, can have significant general effects on human rights protection, extending beyond the specific cases adjudicated (Rodríguez-Garavito 2017; Engstrom 2019).

3. Impact of the Inter-American Human Rights System

Numerous studies have explored the intersection of law and politics, as well as the role of courts and legal institutions in driving social change (Rosenberg 1991, p. 16; Minnow 2000; Stacey 2009; Sikkink 2013; Navarro 2024). While much of this scholarship has focused on Supreme and Constitutional Courts, it has also extended to international tribunals. In Latin America, especially on the organs of IAHRS (Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman 2015; Rodríguez-Garavito 2017; Engstrom 2019; Von Bogdandy and Urueña 2024). This focus aligns with the growing body of research on international courts, reflecting their increasing number, importance, and impact (Navarro 2024). These courts are no longer viewed solely as forums for resolving international conflicts but are recognised as key players in shaping domestic legal and political landscapes (Navarro 2024)5.

One specific area of study examines the effects of judicial decisions on social change (Rosenberg 1991; Minnow 2000; Stacey 2009). While some scholars argue that judicial decisions alone are insufficient to catalyse significant social change (Rosenberg 1991), others, such as Minnow (2000) and Stacey (2009), emphasise the law’s and judicial decisions’ capacity to bring about meaningful, albeit incremental, transformations.

Although only a small percentage of cases reach national high courts, and an even smaller fraction proceed to the IAHRS or other international courts, their influence can ripple outward, affecting analogous cases at both local and international levels (Sikkink 2013). These cases contribute positively to the consolidation of the rule of law by affirming that even the most powerful political actors are not above the law.

Regarding the courts’ ability to influence other cases, particularly within the IAHRS, it is important to consider the binding nature of “conventionality control,” a term first introduced in the Almonacid Arellano v. Chile (2006) ruling. This concept refers to the necessity of aligning domestic legislation with the ACHR. When such alignment does not occur, local judges ought to conduct a test where “the adjudicator must either interpret the applicable norms in a way that is compatible with the obligations derived from the American Convention as elaborated in IACtHR jurisprudence or, if such interpretation is impossible, invalidate or decline to enforce the domestic law” (Henríquez and Núñez 2024, p. 122).

The question of how supranational legal institutions influence states has been explored more extensively in the European system than in the IAHRS (Huneeus 2010). Nonetheless, some studies have examined this issue in the Inter-American context. Scholars have emphasised the importance of distinguishing between compliance with and the broader impact of judicial decisions, whether at the national or international level (Rodríguez-Garavito 2017; Engstrom 2019; Ureña 2021).

Rodríguez-Garavito (2017) and Zuloaga (2020) suggest that judicial decisions can have significant effects even when they are not fully complied with. For instance, these decisions can inspire the formation of advocacy networks and foster general, indirect, or symbolic impacts, such as strengthening institutions, creating new mechanisms for safeguarding rights, or bolstering rights-based social movements and organisations.

Similarly, Cavallaro and Brewer (2008) argue that, given the endemic human rights challenges in some Inter-American member states, each case decided by the IACtHR presents an opportunity for broader social impact. This impact extends beyond delivering justice to individual victims through measures of reparation and guarantees of non-repetition. It also includes providing jurisprudential tools and precedents for social movements and actors advocating for rights, both within and outside the state apparatus.

In societies marked by structural inequalities, achieving the full realisation of rights recognised at national and international levels encounters significant barriers. These obstacles are rooted in systemic patterns of racism, violence, and exclusion, further exacerbated by entrenched barriers within the administration of justice (Abramovich 2009, 2011). Faced with these challenges, the IAHRS has increasingly focused its efforts on advancing equality for traditionally excluded or marginalised groups, who often contend with the institutional weaknesses of their own states (Kletzel et al. 2015).

The impact of the IAHRS stems from multiple fronts. On the one hand, it derives from compliance with the reparation orders issued in the court’s rulings and the recommendations of the IACHR, many of which have general effects, a topic addressed in the first subsection of this part.

However, beyond analysing compliance, any discussion of impact must consider the role of the IAHRS “in advancing, interpreting and enforcing human rights standards” (Engstrom 2019, p. 7). This role extends not only to the IACtHR and the IACHR but also to the contributions of victims in shaping rights and their development. These standards have permeated domestic institutions as well as political and judicial actors, as discussed in the second subsection.

Finally, the system’s impact is neither uniform over time nor across all rights or member countries. The fragile context of some states, where rights are difficult to realise and human rights violations are challenging to prove, makes the task more complex in certain cases and for specific issues. Nevertheless, this must not overshadow the progress that has been achieved. The third subsection of this part explores these points, understanding impact as a “prolonged and contested political and socio-legal” process (Engstrom 2019, p. 8), in which the IAHRS remains vital to the region.

3.1. Compliance and Impact

Empirical studies confirm that the IAHRS has significantly impacted human rights protection and development in the region. Some of these studies include those by Basch et al. (2010), González-Salzberg (2010), and Baluarte (2012), as well as those compiled in the books of Engstrom (2019) and Von Bogdandy et al. (2024). However, the implementation of reparations and guarantees of non-repetition ordered by the IACtHR and the IACHR remains low (Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman 2015)6. Paradoxically, this low implementation rate underscores states’ efforts to comply with IAHRS orders, albeit with varying degrees of success.

Article 63 of the ACHR has enabled the IACtHR to design a complex catalogue of reparations that includes measures of restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and compensation, as well as guarantees of non-repetition guided by international standards. In exercising this ability, the court has emphasised the need for reparations to have a transformative purpose. It has been argued that it is insufficient to restore things to their previous state if that state was marked by structural violence, exclusion, or discrimination, as was the case in Gonzales et al.—Cotton Field—v. Mexico (2009) and Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile (2012).

One of the IACtHR’s most challenging tasks is monitoring compliance with its judgements, a responsibility it has undertaken since its first reparations rulings in 1989 (Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman 2015). The court assesses compliance based on information provided by the state, the IACHR, and victims, closing cases only when full compliance is achieved. The compliance analysis, however, considers the different orders in each case separately.

Basch et al. (2010) examined compliance with decisions issued by the IACtHR and the IACHR under the individual petitions system between 2001 and 2006. Their findings revealed that at least 50% of decisions were partially or fully implemented. Symbolic and financial reparations were the most frequently complied with, while legislative changes and investigations or prosecutions of perpetrators were less likely to be fulfilled. These findings align with Hawkins and Jacoby’s (2010) observations regarding the prevalence of partial compliance with IACtHR’s orders.

González-Salzberg (2010) similarly found that the IAHRS is effective in influencing states’ behaviour in certain areas, such as recognising human rights violations and paying economic reparations. However, orders requiring the prosecution of perpetrators or legislative reforms to prevent future violations were less often implemented.

As for factors influencing compliance, Staton and Romero (2019) argue that the clarity of IACtHR’s orders affects governments’ responses and compliance levels. Huneeus (2011) notes that orders requiring actions beyond the executive branch’s purview are less likely to be fulfilled, attributing low compliance rates to the actors responsible for implementation. Orders directed at judicial systems and legislatures are particularly challenging to enforce.

Huneeus also contends that coordination difficulties between state institutions do not fully explain non-compliance. She highlights the executive branch’s role, noting that, as the state’s representative in the international arena, it has the strongest incentive to demonstrate respect for human rights (Huneeus 2011).

Hillebrecht (2012), analysing compliance in Argentina, Colombia, and Brazil, suggests that executive will and capacity to promote compliance among other actors, such as judges and legislators, are critical factors.

Baluarte (2012) underscores the importance of compliance orders issued by the IACtHR during its supervision process. These orders often include revised deadlines or specific implementation requirements after hearing from the parties involved (the state, the IACHR, and the victims).

Finally, Pérez-Liñán et al. (2023) highlight the time elapsed between a Court decision and the declaration of compliance as a key variable. They found that orders are more likely to be implemented within the first three years after the ruling. They also note that the IACtHR tends to prioritise reparations requiring extended implementation periods. Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman (2015) add that reparations addressing structural inequalities are often more complex and creative, posing greater implementation challenges.

In general, these studies show that states tend to comply, at least partially, with IAHRS orders. Compliance or non-compliance often depends on the specific nature of the orders and the actors or institutions responsible for their implementation (Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman 2015). Compensatory orders, orders for the publication of judgements, and those that do not require coordination with other state actors or victims are easier to comply with. In contrast, orders that require action from the judiciary or legislature are more challenging to implement (Basch et al. 2010; Huneeus 2011; Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman 2015), especially when they involve legal reforms subject to more complex procedures, such as special-status laws or constitutional amendments. Thus, rather than systemic disregard for the IAHRS, non-compliance often reflects the inherent difficulties of implementing certain orders and does not imply a lack of impact.

As previously mentioned, it is important to consider that some of the orders issued by the IACtHR and the IACHR have general effects, such as those aimed at guaranteeing non-repetition. Consequently, when these orders are executed, even partially, they have the potential to enhance the protection of human rights.

Examples of such orders include guarantees of non-repetition, which are measures adopted to prevent future human rights violations. These measures often involve legal reforms, the creation and strengthening of public institutions, and the training of public officials. Human rights training has been required in multiple cases and for various categories of state agents. For instance, training was ordered for military or police forces in Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia (2005) and Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras (2021); for judges and judicial investigators in Gonzales et al.—Cotton Field—v. Mexico (2009), Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile (2012), and Angulo Losada v. Bolivia (2022); and for educators in Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador (2020).

Although not all of these orders have been declared fully implemented by the IACtHR, partial compliance should already be recognised as progress. In the case of Mapiripán, it is worth noting that the respondent state went beyond what was ordered, establishing a permanent human rights training programme for its Armed Forces, not just the Air Force, which the measure originally targeted (Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman 2015).

Among the cases where legal reforms have been ordered are those concerning the invalidation of amnesty laws, which will be discussed later. Notable examples include the modification of legal frameworks to prevent the removal of popularly elected officials without judicial decisions, as in the case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia (2020). Some cases even address the incompatibility of constitutional norms with the ACHR, such as Olmedo et al.—The Last Temptation of Christ—v. Chile (2001), where the IACtHR ordered the invalidation of censorship provisions found, among others, in Article 19 of the Chilean Constitution. Similarly, in Tzompaxtle Tecpile et al. v. Mexico (2022), the IACtHR mandated the annulment of certain provisions concerning detention practices that violated human rights, some of which had constitutional status.

The IACtHR has also ordered the adjustment of domestic legislation regarding crimes against sexual freedom in Angulo Losada v. Bolivia (2022) and the adoption of domestic regulations to “create an effective mechanism for the delimitation, demarcation, and titling of the properties of indigenous communities, in accordance with customary law, values, uses, and customs” in the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua (2001).

Other examples of cases that do not reach the IACtHR but have general effects include certain friendly settlements before the IACHR, in which states and petitioners agree to take measures aimed at improving the general protection of certain human rights beyond individual cases through non-repetition measures (Saltalamacchia et al. 2019). These friendly settlements, which have higher compliance rates than other procedures within the IAHRS (Basch et al. 2010; Saltalamacchia et al. 2019), reflect a strategy employed by international HROs to obtain structural measures within shorter timeframes. This strategy was evident in cases that led to the creation of a provincial mechanism for the prevention of torture in Mendoza, Argentina, and to the establishment of a National Council of the National Indigenous Development Corporation (CONADI) in Chile (Saltalamacchia et al. 2019).

3.2. Impact Beyond Compliance

The impact of the IAHRS extends beyond cases resolved by the IACtHR, including indirect effects such as the strengthening of HROs, the expansion and development of rights, and the enhancement or creation of domestic institutions. In this regard, Engstrom and Low (2019) find that the norms and standards provided by the IAHRS help HROs shape their litigation strategies. In turn, these HROs’ interactions with the IAHRS contribute to their recognition and institutional identity consolidation, driven by the professionalisation of groups of human rights defenders (Engstrom and Low 2019).

Examples of HROs offered by the cited authors to deepen their quantitative analysis include the Corporación Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo (CAJAR) in Colombia and the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH) in Peru. Regarding the Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo, they point out the following: “CAJAR has noted that simply submitting cases to the IACHR could, occasionally, prod state authorities into taking action” (Engstrom and Low 2019, p. 51). In a 2024 decision (Members of the Colectivo de Abogados José Alvear Restrepo v. Colombia), the IACtHR recognised the harassment and persecution suffered by CAJAR members and their families at the hands of the state. Among the guarantees of non-repetition ordered in the ruling was the requirement to amend intelligence and counterintelligence regulations across various state agencies to align with international standards, marking a significant milestone for HROs in the region.

These HROs not only contribute to realising victims’ rights through their interactions with the IAHRS but also play a broader role by supporting social demands through international pressure (Sikkink and Walling 2007), defending their own activities, and inspiring future revisions of national precedents. On this latter point, Boti-Bernardi (2019) highlights that the IACtHR has repeatedly ruled on the inadmissibility of granting amnesties for certain crimes, the jurisdiction of military courts, and the permanent nature of the crime of enforced disappearance, influencing transitional justice processes across the region.

The Barrios Altos v. Peru (2001) ruling, which annulled two amnesty laws from the Alberto Fujimori period, led to Peru’s Supreme Court annulling those same laws just one week after the IACtHR decision (Boti-Bernardi 2019). This position was subsequently adopted by the Peruvian Constitutional Court in 2005 and influenced decisions in other countries, such as Argentina’s Supreme Court ruling in the Simón case in 2005 (Malarino 2009).

Torelly (2019) analyses the interpretative choices made by domestic courts regarding IACtHR’s decisions, noting that these responses are not solely dependent on the constitutional status of international human rights norms. The commitment of national judges to these norms also plays a significant role. To support his findings, Torelly (2019) examines anti-impunity decisions issued by the IACtHR and their reception by national courts.

The Almonacid Arellano v. Chile (2006) case illustrates how national judges can adopt international standards positively. Only a few months after the IACtHR ruling, the Criminal Chamber of Chile’s Supreme Court, directly citing the Almonacid Arellano ruling and the ACHR, “declared for the first time, crimes against humanity as not subject to the statute of limitation” (Torelly 2019, p. 124). Another example of a positive national judicial response is the Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico (2009) case, in which the IACtHR addressed the use of military jurisdiction during peacetime. Two years later, in 2011, the Mexican Supreme Court ruled that “when the IACtHR rules against a general legal provision, all judges must follow its interpretation” (Torelly 2019, p. 130)

However, local judges do not always respond favourably to the implementation and integration of international decisions. The Gomes Lund v. Brazil (2010) case illustrates the persistence of resistance to incorporating international standards in Brazil, where Supreme Court judges continue to maintain—by a majority—that amnesty is a domestic issue that should be addressed within the legislative sphere (Torelly 2019).

The Gelman v. Uruguay (2011) case demonstrates contradictory interactions among different branches of the state. In response to the ruling, Uruguay’s National Congress passed legislation classifying crimes committed during the dictatorship as crimes against humanity, thereby rendering statutes of limitation inapplicable. However, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no constitutional obligation to adopt the standards established by the IACtHR decision. It held that while the victims’ rights must be guaranteed, the defendants’ rights must also be protected (Torelly 2019).

The Diego García-Sayán concurring opinion in El Mozote and Nearby Places Massacres v. El Salvador (2012) case holds particular relevance for the Colombian peace process concluded in 2016 and the subsequent decisions by Colombia’s Constitutional Court. This opinion is noteworthy for balancing the obligation to investigate and prosecute those responsible for gross human rights violations and the need to achieve negotiated peace in the context of non-international armed conflict (Martínez-Barahona and Gutiérrez 2019).

Another significant development within the IAHRS is the recognition and expansion of the right to truth (Malarino 2009). As early as its decisions in Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988) and Godínez Cruz v. Honduras (1989), the IACtHR acknowledged the right of victims’ families to know the whereabouts of disappeared persons. Over time, this right was linked to judicial investigations and recognised as a necessary component of reparations (Malarino 2009).

Although the right to truth is not explicitly recognised as an independent right in the ACHR, its development as part of the principles against impunity has been studied and addressed by UN resolutions. This right has been prominently echoed in several IACtHR rulings, including Castillo Páez v. Peru (1997), Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay (2006), and García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador (2015), among many others. The IACHR has also interpreted this right progressively, recognising it as a collective right as early as 1999 in its report on the case of the murdered Jesuit priests at the Central American University in El Salvador. This perspective has since been incorporated into the case law of countries such as Peru, Argentina, and Colombia (Malarino 2009).

The jurisprudence on economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights is particularly significant within the IAHRS, not only because of the entrenched inequality and exclusion in the Latin American context but also due to judicial interpretations that have made these rights enforceable. Although these rights are generically referenced in Article 26 of the ACHR as rights to be progressively realised, the Lagos del Campo v. Peru (2017) case is especially remarkable. This was the first case in which the IACtHR declared a direct violation of Article 26 of the ACHR, thus moving beyond the notion of indirect justiciability for these rights (Ferrer Mac-Gregor 2024).

Finally, the IAHRS has also advanced in the protection of indigenous communities’ rights aimed at addressing historical conditions of inequality and exclusion. This includes the right to cultural identity, recognised in the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador (2012) case, and the right to ancestral land ownership, which is based not on state recognition but on the use and possession of lands and resources by the respective community. This position was established in Saramaka v. Suriname (2007) and reaffirmed in Xucuru Indigenous People and Their Members v. Brazil (2018).

3.3. The Inter-American Human Rights System and Social Change

The role of human rights is increasingly subject to scrutiny and debate. Global developments have amplified the voices of those advocating for the dismantling of international institutions, often deemed costly and inefficient. However, this pessimistic perspective fails to acknowledge that human rights are not solely normative frameworks or institutional constructs. Instead, they represent a dynamic network of actors and practices that have evolved over time, driving profound changes in regions such as Latin America (Sikkink 2018). Historically, human rights functioned as powerful tools for resisting authoritarian regimes; today, they serve as crucial instruments for addressing entrenched structural inequalities in the region (Abramovich 2009, 2011).

Latin America experienced a period marked by the return to democracy in many of its countries during the 1980s and 1990s. This transition was generally accompanied by adherence to the fundamental principles of electoral democracy (Morlino 2011). Since then, despite pessimistic perspectives regarding human rights and the international systems designed for their protection, the region has made significant progress in this area (Sikkink 2018). However, substantial challenges remain in ensuring that justice and equity are effectively realised.

Since the early 1980s, advances in human rights, particularly those related to transitional justice processes, have been centred in the Global South, with a notable focus on the Southern Cone of Latin America (Teitel and Weis 2024). The measures aimed at enforcing compliance with international human rights standards, including the prosecution of perpetrators of the most serious crimes, led to the coining of the term “justice cascade” (Lutz and Sikkink 2001). Subsequent studies have identified the influence of this cascade on state behaviour (Sikkink and Walling 2007), with findings further corroborated for Latin America by Olsen et al. (2010) and by Sikkink (2013).

In this justice cascade, the interaction between international and domestic spheres is crucial. Citizens whose states fail to respond to their demands for justice initiate proceedings in foreign jurisdictions, employing mechanisms such as universal jurisdiction, or turn to international courts and bodies like the IAHRS. This dynamic, often referred to as a “boomerang effect,” prompts domestic judicial systems to act, leading to a gradual increase in national trials over the years (Lutz and Sikkink 2001). Cases concerning the fight against impunity and the development of the right to truth, as outlined in the previous section, highlight the importance of the IAHRS in shaping interactions between the local and international spheres in the region. Some examples are Barrios Altos v. Peru (2001), Almonacid Arellano v. Chile (2006), Gelman v. Uruguay (2011), and El Mozote and Nearby Places v. El Salvador (2012).

The return to democracy from the 1970s onwards marked significant progress in the field of human rights. However, this progress has not been equivalent across all time periods, for all rights, or in all countries7. The third wave of democratisation also brought attention to a concept rooted in the Common Law tradition: the rule of law. This notion is closely tied to the judiciary’s role and the need to guarantee rights enshrined in constitutions and laws, as well as those enshrined in the ACHR, such as Articles 8 (due process) and 25 (judicial guarantees), whose violations are repeatedly declared by the IACtHR in its rulings. These rights are among the most frequently violated, beaten only by Article 1.1, which concerns the adoption of laws and policies aimed at ensuring compliance with the provisions of the ACHR.

The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index measurement8, in 2023, reveals a continued global decline in rule of law scores, particularly regarding checks and balances on governments, fundamental rights (signalling authoritarian tendencies), and the capacity of civil and criminal justice systems to respond promptly and effectively to the needs of the population9. This can be seen as a sign of the IAHRS’s lack of effectiveness or limited impact. However, over the years, we have become increasingly demanding regarding the substance of democracy, which is no longer viewed as a purely procedural matter (Morlino 2011), and we have also raised our expectations about the scope and content of rights, which are an essential part of the substantive nature of democratic regimes (Sikkink 2018; Morlino 2011). Although the data provided by the WJP are concerning, they demonstrate that the IAHRS remains essential for the defence of rights in the region.

In 2023, the best-performing Latin American country in the global Rule of Law Index was Uruguay, placed 25th with a score of 0.72, while the worst was Venezuela, ranked 142nd with a score of 0.26. Latin American countries showing a negative variation in this edition include Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Paraguay10. It is to be expected, then, that the IAHRS will become increasingly relevant for these countries, but this will also depend on the ability of HROs to document human rights violations and pursue their justiciability.

Across all countries, the lowest-performing dimension is criminal justice11. Moreover, except for Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Chile, most countries face significant difficulties in implementing checks and balances to prevent power concentration. A recurring challenge in presidential systems that, if unrestrained, may lead to undemocratic abuses under the guise of electoral mandates. However, history has shown how the interaction between the local and the international can help foster more positive changes, always bearing in mind that this is a long-term political, social, and legal process that cannot be assessed with short-term criteria (Engstrom 2019).

Similarly, most countries struggle to enforce fundamental rights12. This demonstrates that recognising rights does not ensure their effective implementation or protection, making it particularly disheartening that decades of efforts appear to have yielded limited results. Simultaneously, under the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity, it opens the door to international human rights protection systems, particularly the IAHRS.

The deficiencies in justice provision across the region are compounded by the inability of Latin American democracies to reduce inequalities and redistribute income more effectively. These structural inequalities, which democratic states in the region have struggled to address, also pose challenges to the realisation of rights (Abramovich 2009, 2011). This has prompted the IAHRS to focus on advancing equality for traditionally marginalised groups (Kletzel et al. 2015), who often encounter significant, if not insurmountable, obstacles in asserting their rights through domestic judicial systems (Vilhena Vieira 2011). Decisions such as those in which the IACtHR has established the direct justiciability of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights, as in the case of Lagos del Campo v. Peru (2017), provide a pathway for expanding the effectiveness of these rights.

Although the literature has extensively critiqued the IAHRS, and the system itself has acknowledged its shortcomings and implemented adjustments, empirical and longitudinal analyses have demonstrated that many criticisms are unfounded or outdated (Zschirnt 2021)13. The system’s institutions, alongside those who engage with them, have adapted their strategies to the evolving demands and realities of the region (Abramovich 2009, 2011; Kletzel et al. 2015; Sánchez and Lyons Cerón 2015). Moreover, states generally take measures to comply with the orders issued by the IACtHR and IACHR (Rodríguez-Garavito and Kauffman 2015), with many of these measures producing impacts that extend beyond individual cases, as seen in the cases outlined in the latter part of Section 3.1. Over time, these gradual and discreet changes positively influence human rights, contributing to the broader goal of achieving more equitable societies.

4. Conclusions

Currently, and for quite some time, there have been those who question the impact of international human rights protection frameworks and institutions, with pessimistic views on their effectiveness gaining significant traction. In response to these perspectives, others call for a focus on the progress achieved in this area rather than solely on the criticisms (Sikkink 2018; Engstrom 2019; Von Bogdandy et al. 2024).

In line with this view, this work aims to highlight how, from its origin, the IAHRS has influenced the evolution of rights in the region, extending beyond the specific cases. The steady rise in petitions submitted to the IAHRS reflects its growing significance (Sánchez and Lyons Cerón 2015; Engstrom and Low 2019; Zschirnt 2021), but it also places increasing pressure on the system and fosters frustration among petitioners whose demands do not receive a favourable response. Nevertheless, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity that underpins international human rights systems, it is essential to emphasise that the primary responsibility for addressing these cases lies with the states themselves. However, the impact of the system’s decisions often transcends the particular cases it adjudicates.

On the other hand, the empirical studies reviewed here on the levels of compliance with the IAHRS’s orders, the overall impact of some of those orders, and the reasons behind various states’ positions reveal several key points. These studies not only show that states tend to take action to comply with such orders but also highlight that some orders, by their nature, are easier to complete—such as pecuniary measures—while others present intrinsic challenges, particularly those requiring the involvement of the judiciary, the legislature, or even constitutional reforms.

Difficulties in achieving justice at the domestic level may prompt citizens to seek support from international organisations or institutions, particularly when they can organise through networks and secure the necessary resources. The history of international human rights law is intrinsically linked to the need for an international response to abuses by states that systematically violate the rights of their citizens, and Latin America has played a pivotal role in this history (Sikkink 2018).

National and international HROs have developed litigation strategies before the IAHRS to advance their demands, not only seeking justice for victims whose rights were denied by their states but also influencing the development of certain rights and measures aimed at improving human rights conditions. Challenges to amnesty laws following transitions during the third wave of democratisation are a clear example of this, though not the only one. Advances in the right to truth and measures related to indigenous peoples also illustrate these efforts.

It is not uncommon to hear voices from political leaders in the region advocating for a more restrained approach by the IAHRS or even calling for limitations on its scope (Sikkink 2018; Zschirnt 2021). Their arguments often rest on the belief that the democratic development of Latin American countries has rendered a supranational system monitoring state behaviour in human rights matters unnecessary, particularly when it can hold states internationally accountable in individual cases (Sikkink 2018).

Despite this, data on the rule of law in Latin America simultaneously raise concerns about the rise of authoritarian tendencies, which weaken systems of checks and balances, as well as the persistent failures within states to deliver opportune and effective justice (WJP Rule of Law Index). These challenges are further compounded by the inability of states to ensure the realisation of fundamental rights within a historical context of structural inequalities that continue to hinder the region’s progress (Abramovich 2009, 2011).

In response to these evolving realities, the IAHRS has played a crucial role in ensuring justice for cases unresolved at the local level while simultaneously adjusting its strategies to increasingly prioritise efforts aimed at achieving equality for traditionally marginalised groups. Some of these strategies involve the direct justiciability of economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights, as well as reparation orders aimed at overcoming these inequalities (Abramovich 2009, 2011; Garavito and Kauffman 2015). These measures recognise that restitution alone is often insufficient, as pre-existing conditions of violence, exclusion, or discrimination were present before the rights violations occurred. While its orders are not always fully implemented, their impact remains significant. The system’s decisions influence case law, generate symbolic effects, strengthen networks of rights defenders, and raise awareness of the issues that states must address.

Similarly, the fact that the least implemented orders are those requiring actions by the judiciary and legislature highlights the inherent nature of judicial processes. These are adversarial by design, requiring time and proactive action from all parties. This also underscores the importance of judicial decisions, including those from international tribunals, in driving legislative changes that are often resisted by parliaments. Such resistance typically stems from the electoral costs that these changes may entail, even when they aim to guarantee the rights of marginalised minorities. The case of Dominican and Haitian Expelled Persons v. Dominican Republic (2014) is a clear example of this, as are the cases related to the LGBTIQ+ population.

In the midst of the prevailing pessimism, it is crucial to acknowledge the efforts and contributions of the regional human rights system in the Americas, the social actors who demand rights and monitor their enforcement, and the civil society that claims and defends those rights. These efforts continue despite the risks often involved in the pursuit of justice within social contexts still marked by exclusion and violence. It is also crucial to develop new quantitative research on compliance and impact to provide updated and comprehensive information on these matters. Such research would help verify—or challenge—the IAHRS’s significant role in promoting and protecting human rights.