No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Case note prepared by Caroline G. Harris of the Texas Bar, and application pending for the New York Bar.
1 The Court commenced operations in May 1979. It has rendered one decision under its contentious jurisdiction, Government of Costa Rica (In the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al.), Decision of Nov. 13, 1981.20ILM 1424 (1981). It has written two opinions under its advisory jurisdiction; this is the first advisory opinion published by the Court. See infra p. 640 for a summary of the second advisory opinion.
2 American Convention on Human Rights [hereinafter cited as American Convention], OASTS No. 6, at 1, OAS Official Records, OEA/Ser.K/XVI/1.1, doc. 65, rev. 1, corr. 2 (1970), reprinted in 9 ILM 673 (1970), opened for signature in San José, Costa Rica, Nov. 22, 1969, entered into force July 8, 1978. For the official text, see Organization of American States, Handbook of Existing Rules Pertaining to Human Rights 27, OEA/Ser.L/V/11.50, doc. 6 (English) (1980).
3 American Convention, Arts. 61–65.
4 Article 64 provides, in full:
1. The member states of the Organization may consult the Court regarding the interpretation of this Convention or of other treaties concerning the protection of human rights in the American states. Within their spheres of competence, the organs listed in Chapter X of the Charter of the Organization of American States, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, may in like manner consult the Court.
2. The Court, at the request of a member state of the Organization, may provide that state with opinions regarding the compatibility of any of its domestic laws with the aforesaid international instruments.
5 Request for an Advisory Opinion Presented by the Government of Peru (1982).
6 Id. at 1–2.
7 Advisory Opinion No. OC-1/82, at 11 (Inter-Am. Ct. of Hum. Rights, Sept. 24, 1982), reprinted in 22 ILM 51, 60 (1983).
8 Article 29 provides, in full:
No provision of the Convention may be interpreted as:
a. permitting any State Party, group, or person to suppress the enjoyment or exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in this Convention or to restrict them to a greater extent than is provided for herein;
b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party;
c. precluding other rights or guarantees that are inherent in the human personality or derived from representative democracy as a form of government; or
d. excluding or limiting the effect that the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and other international acts of the same nature may have.
9 Slip op. at 8, 22 ILM at 57.
10 Slip op. at 8, 22 ILM at 57–58.
11 Slip op. at 9, 22 ILM at 58.