immediately by even ordering in the operative part of the judgment appropriate legal measures to
be adopted.163 Those kind of decisions, even though they still require the individual victim,
amount to a functional equivalent of actio popularis concnering their legal consequence and
amount to the provision of a collective good.
The ECtHR started to admit amicus curiae briefs in the beginning of the eighties by adopting
new Rules of Procedure.164 From the case evidence as of 1994 it seems that more amicus curiae
are filed in cases decided by the plenary court than by the Chambers, the reason for that being
that the cases tend to be more important and the impact particularly broad.165 That seems to indi-
cate a cost-benefit calculus by NGO briefers, which are presumably more interested in crucial,
law-developing cases as those generate more publicity.
b. American System of Human Rights
The Inter-American system of human rights was created by the Organization of American States
(OAS),166 and consists of several Conventions. The American Declaration of the Rights and Du-
ties of Man167 has a broad coverage of civil and political rights, as well as social, cultural and
economic rights. Most important is the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), which
contains in Chapter II only civil and political rights (Arts. 3-25).168
The Inter-American system of human rights protection centers around two monitoring bodies:
the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of
Human Rights (IAC). The IACHR was created in 1959 as an autonomous OAS organ, and later
163 As for the first recommendation, see Case of Assanidze v. Georgia, (Appl. No. 71503/01), Judgment of 8
April 2004, see at
<http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=Case%20%7C
%20of%20%7C%20Assanidze%20%7C%20v.%20%7C%20Georgia&sessionid=2435837&skin=hudoc-en>
and for the second recommendation, see Case of Broniowski v. Poland, supra note 143, where the ECtHR
first identified a systemic problem and then ordered the first time in its history in the operative part of the
judgment that the state had to take appropriate legal measures and administrative practices. As there were
167 other pending cases at the Court and about 80.000 similar cases in Poland, this was a decision trying to
create a de facto erga omes obligation and by this means trying to avoid further cases coming to the Court.
Here, the problem of ne ultra petita might be discussed, but in cases where national legislation is concerned,
the same de facto erga omes effect always applied.
164 For the development including the relevant case law, see Shelton, supra note 8, at 630 et seqq.
165 Ibid., at 633 et seq. She finds that cases where amici were granted permission to intervene the Court found
violations in 75% of the cases, whereas it found violations only in 50% of the cases where the amici were
declined participation (at 637).
166 See Charter of the Organization of American States, Apr. 30, 1948, 2 U.S.T. 2394, 119 U.N.T.S. 3, T.I.A.S.
2361, as amended by the Protocol of Buenos Aires, Feb. 27, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 607, 721 U.N.T.S. 324. All 35
independent countries of the Americas have ratified the OAS Charter and belong to the Organization. Cuba
remains a member, but its government has been excluded from participation in the OAS since 1962.
167 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Res. XXX, OAS Int'l Conf. of Am. States, 9th Conf.,
OEA/ser. L/V/I.4 (1948), reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American
System 17, OEA/ser. L.V/II.71, doc. 6 rev. 1 (1988).
168 This treaty protects twenty-six substantive rights, including, inter alia, the rights to life, humane treatment,
personal liberty, a fair trial, privacy, and freedom of thought, expression, and religion. Chapter III, Art. 26,
which contains economic, social and cultural rights, demands only progressive development.
36