Impact of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence

Case study

Abstract

Conventionality control as a mechanism of comparison and control of the obligation to adjust domestic law to conventional rules —in particular to the American Convention on Human Rights, which has been conceptually developed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights jurisprudence— became notably relevant to our country with the judgments of the Case Gelman v. Uruguay. These judgments indicate to States not only who must carry out such control, but also the scope thereof and the connection of the interpreted rule with respect to the States parties to the case and the other States of the Inter-American System. Thus, there is a move towards an "integrated system" for the protection of human rights and the formation of a Ius Constitutionale Commune Americanum. This study analyzes a set of judgments delivered by Courts of Appeals in our country in which conventionality control is carried out ex officio and "from the bottom", applying the ius interprettata, of the Case Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica.