Making International Human Rights Protection More Effective: A Rational-Choice Approach to the Effectiveness of Ius Standi Provisions



dering pecuniary compensation.182 The decisions are published183 and the Court supervises itself
the compliance with its decisions by documenting the non-compliance in its reports.184

As petitions need to go trough the admissibility procedures of the IACHR, which thus acts as the
gate keeper, the following will mainly focus on the standing provisions of the IACHR. The
IACHR receives, analyzes and investigates individual petitions that allege human rights viola-
tions,185 and declares petitions inadmissible only if there is no prima facie case for a violation.186
The IACHR may also initiate the processing of a petition motu proprio, which, in its view, prima
facie meets the necessary requirements.187 This arrangement shows the wide ambit of tasks and
the very active role the IACHR is supposed to play in the Inter-American context.

Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or
more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the IACHR containing denun-
ciations or complaints of violation of a right recognized in the ACHR, the American Declaration
or other pertinent instrument in accordance with their respective provisions and the IACHR’s
Statute and Rules.188 It allows groups of individuals to bring a case. Corporations and legal enti-
ties are excluded as victims because of the wording “person”, which is understood to mean “hu-
man being”.189 The wording of Art. 44 ACHR dispenses with the victim requirement found in
other human rights treaties, although that does not imply the victim requirement is dispensed
with altogether, rather it allows for nominal complainants. The IACHR has therefore understood
this requirement to be broad; in principle anyone may file a petition, even without the authoriza-
tion of the actual victim.190 Petitions may also be lodged by third parties with no direct stake in

182 See e.g. reward of damages, including immaterial damages, for disappearances in I/A Court H.R. Case of
Velasquez-Rodrlguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988 (Series C, No. 4) and I/A Court H.R. Case of
Godinez-Cruz v. Honduras. Judgment of January 20, 1989 (Series C, No. 5). See also I/A Court H.R. Case of
Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Judgment of September 10, 1993 (Series C, No. 15), where the court not only
ordered material and immaterial damages for the whole tribe (because seven of its members were murdered),
but also requested the establishment of two trust funds and a foundation as well as ordered to reopen the
school, where the tribe is located.

183 Art. 30 Rules of Procedure of the Court.

184 Arts. 67 and 68 (1) ACHR. The monitoring reports are published on the website and are very detailed. See
<
www.corteidh.or.cr/cumpli_ing/index.html>. Generally, states partly comply with the Court's judgments
and orders of provisional measures. In most cases, the state is prepared to pay the pecuniary reparations
ordered by the Inter-American Court, but only in the rarest case is it willing to investigate, try and punish the
perpetrators, see Cerna, supra note 171, at 203 et seq.

185 Pursuant to Arts. 44 to 51 of the ACHR, Arts. 19 and 20 of the IACHR’s Statute, and Arts. 22 to 50 of the
IACHR 2003 Rules of Procedure.

186 See Art. 46 and 47 ACHR for admissibility conditions.

187 Art. 24 IACHR 2003 Rules of Procedure. The Court cited this provision, in I/A Court H.R. Case of Blake v.
Guatemala, Judgment of January 24, 1998 (Series C, No. 36), at para. 85, where the Court stated that it “was
surprised that the Commission did not use its authority to include Mr. Griffith Davis (who also disappeared,
A.v.A.) as an alleged victim in the application.“

188 Art. 44 ACHR and Art. 23 IACHR 2003 Rules of Procedure.

189 Art. 1 (2) ACHR, see also Cerna, at supra note 172. Nevertheless, shareholders as natural persons or owners
of businesses may file complaints, also on behalf of the legal entity. See with an interesting reasoning I/A
Court H.R. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001 (Series C,
No. 85), at para. 22-29.

190 Pasqualucci, supra note 52, at 100, Diego Rodriguez Pinzon, “The "Victim" Requirement, The Fourth
Instance Formula and the Notion of "Person" in the Individual Complaint Procedure of the Inter-American
Human Rights System”, ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law 7 (2001), 369-383, at 373 et
seq. and Carazo, supra note 161, Chapter II. C. II. 3. a).

39



More intriguing information

1. MATHEMATICS AS AN EXACT AND PRECISE LANGUAGE OF NATURE
2. A MARKOVIAN APPROXIMATED SOLUTION TO A PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT PROBLEM
3. The name is absent
4. Estimated Open Economy New Keynesian Phillips Curves for the G7
5. The name is absent
6. The Response of Ethiopian Grain Markets to Liberalization
7. Strategic Investment and Market Integration
8. The name is absent
9. On the Existence of the Moments of the Asymptotic Trace Statistic
10. Factores de alteração da composição da Despesa Pública: o caso norte-americano
11. Consciousness, cognition, and the hierarchy of context: extending the global neuronal workspace model
12. Optimal Private and Public Harvesting under Spatial and Temporal Interdependence
13. EMU's Decentralized System of Fiscal Policy
14. CGE modelling of the resources boom in Indonesia and Australia using TERM
15. The name is absent
16. Popular Conceptions of Nationhood in Old and New European
17. Nurses' retention and hospital characteristics in New South Wales, CHERE Discussion Paper No 52
18. Pricing American-style Derivatives under the Heston Model Dynamics: A Fast Fourier Transformation in the Geske–Johnson Scheme
19. The name is absent
20. The name is absent