How the European Court and the Inter-American Court protect human rights
Introduction
After the Second World War, the proliferation of international human rights courts with the capacity to issue binding resolutions has transformed the classical conception of the jurisdictional power of States.
Among them stand out the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), protagonists of the regional system for the protection of fundamental rights in Europe and America.
This article analyzes its functions, common characteristics and structural differences, offering a comparative view of both jurisdictional models.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Origin and legal basis
The ECHR is established by Article 19 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in force since 1953.
Its main mission is ensure compliance with the obligations assumed by the States Parties to the Convention.
Functions and powers
Based in Strasbourg, the ECHR is the chief interpreter of the ECHR, its Protocols and other development instruments, as provided for in Articles 32.1, 33, 34, 46 and 47 of the Convention itself.
Since its creation, the Court has assumed a central role as body that oversees the legality of internal regulations and acts of national governments.
A pioneering model in international protection
The ECHR represented the first example of international human rights jurisdiction with full jurisdiction, serving as a model for other regional courts created later, such as the Inter-American Court.
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR)
Creation and regulatory framework
Almost two decades after the birth of the ECHR, in 1969 the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), Also known as San José Convention.
Article 33.b establishes the creation of the Inter-American Court, although this It shares functions with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, unlike the more centralized European model.
Competencies and functioning
Despite this institutional two-headedness, the Inter-American Court acts as fully constituted international tribunal, with powers to:
- know of interstate petitions e single (Articles 44 and 45 ACHR)
- Advisory function (Article 64 ACHR)
- Interpret and apply the Convention and its protocols
European influence in the inter-American system
A system inspired by the ECHR model
The development of the inter-American system shows a clear inspiration from the European modelIn both its procedures and admissibility requirements and the structure of its jurisprudence, the IACHR has largely replicated the ECHR's approach.
Differentiating reforms: Protocol No. 11 of the ECHR
The entry into force of Additional Protocol No. 11 of the ECHR made a key difference. This reform:
- Eliminated the former European Commission on Human Rights
- Reduced the powers of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe
- It consolidated the ECHR as sole permanent and compulsory jurisdictional body for the States Parties
This evolution accentuated the structural divergence between the two courts, especially when introducing figures such as the sole judge, committees, chambers and Grand Chamber in the ECHR, while the IACHR maintains a traditional unitary structure.
Composition and election of judges
Appointment of judges
Both courts share their international jurisdictional nature and the fact that their judges are designated by the Member States.
However, the process and composition differ:
| Appearance | ECHR | IACHR |
|---|---|---|
| Number of judges | One for each State Party | 7 judges (less than the total number of Member States) |
| Term of office | 9 years, without re-election (art. 23 ECHR) | 6 years, with the possibility of re-election (art. 54.1 ACHR) |
These differences reflect the institutional and political diversity of each region, although both bodies are inserted in the sovereign will of the States that comprise them.
Conclusions: convergences and divergences in regional protection
Despite his structural and evolutionary differences, the ECHR and the IACHR perform similar functions: interpret their respective treaties and ensure their compliance, offering people an effective mechanism for the protection of their fundamental rights.
While the ECHR has undergone greater institutional evolution, the The Inter-American Court has maintained a solid and progressive influence in the American region, adopting elements of the European model without losing its own identity.
RRYP Global, international law lawyers.
