the conflict on behalf of the victims.191 Thus, the system also allows for NGOs and individuals to
bring an altruistic complaint.192 In sum: anybody, that is, individuals, groups or NGOs may bring
a complaint, but the victim requirement is upheld, that is, (potential) victims must at least be
identifiable.193 They should be named “if possible”.194
Even though the text of Art. 44 ACHR allows only for complaints brought by NGOs legally rec-
ognized in one or more member states of the Organization, the IAC admitted petitions from
NGOs which were not recognized in the respective country.195 This jurisdiction dismisses the
gate-keeping possibility for states, which may hinder complaints by a restrictive recognition
praxis for NGOs.
Concerning groups, the standing requirement is also broad. Not only may the IACHR and the
IAC, at any stage of the proceedings, order the joinder of interrelated cases, when there is iden-
tity of the parties, subject-matter and ruling law.196 As set out above, this only leads to a small
cost reduction, as then every complainant is still filing an individual petition. But the IAC also
allows for groups as a whole to file complaints, alleging a violation of group rights.197 Here, not
all of the victims need to be named by previous identification. This is especially useful for in-
digenous people.
In spite of the very broad standing requirement, IACHR and IAC do not hear cases in abstracto.
Therefore, the IACHR admits only petitions which allege a concrete violation of specific human
rights. This means in principle that an actio popularis which is filed in the general interest to
191 Art. 44 ACHR and Art. 23 IACHR 2003 Rules of Procedure do not contain an explicit victim requirement.
See I/A Court H.R. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of September 24, 1999 (Series C, No.
55), at para. 3, where 27 Peruvian Congressional Representatives filed a petition on behalf of 3 dismissed
Constitutional Judges of Peru.
192 I/A Court H.R. Bustios-Rojas Case v. Peru, (Provisional Measures), Order of the President of the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights of June 5, 1990. See also Pasqualucci, supra note 52, at 101, who views
this system especially useful in the American context, where poverty, lack of education and lack of legal
assistance might otherwise hinder access to the IACHR.
193 See I/A Court H.R. Case of Haitians and Haitian-origin Dominicans v. Dominican Republic, Order of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 18, 2000, at para. 8 (considerations). See also Dinah
Shelton, “The Legal Status of the Detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Innovative Elements in the Decision of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of 12 March 2002”, Human Rights Law Journal 23 (2002),
13-14 and with a different interpretation of the decision Carazo, supra note 161, Chapter II, C.II.3.a) i).
194 See Art. 28 e) IAHCR 2003 Rules of Proecedure.
195 I/A Court H.R. Case of Castillo-Petruzzi v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 4, 1998
(Series C No. 41), at para. 77.
196 Art. 28 Rules of Procedure of the Court. The Court may also order that the written or oral proceedings of
several cases, including the introduction of witnesses, be carried out jointly.
197 This practice started already in the seventies. See for further cases Carazo, supra note 161, Chapter II. C. II.
3. a). IACHR Case No. 1690 v. Columbia, at 112. Also IACHR Case. No. 1802 v. Paraguay, May 27, 1977,
at 34 et seq. and IACHR Case No. 11.071, Cherokee Nation v. US, March 12, 1997, which was declared
inadmissible only due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. More recently there was the I/A Court
H.R. Case of The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections.
Judgment of February 1, 2000 (Series C, No. 66), where a petition was lodged by Jaime Castillo Felipe,
principal leader of the Community, in his own name and on behalf of the Community (about 630 people).
See for that decision S. James Anaya / Claudio Grossman, “The Case of Awas Tingni v. Nicaragua: A New
Step in the International Law of Indigenous People”, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law
19 (2002), 1-15.
40