have an alleged illegal situation or law scrutinized, is not permitted.198 Nevertheless, cases are
considered, where a law per se amounts to a potential violation, that is, a potential victim may
have the rights to file a complaint, similarly to the ECtHR jurisdiction.199 Especially if a law af-
fects a considerable part of the population, e.g. because it is discriminatory against a certain
class, and the whole class is potentially affected, this would amount to a violation of all members
of the class.200 Thus, under the Inter-American system, complaints in abstracto are inadmissible,
but it allows for collective complaints by NGOs and it allows for group complaints. This allevi-
ates strongly the incentive problems identified above.
Already in the very beginning the IAC took the step, which the ECtHR just took in 2004, of de-
ciding in its operative part of the decision on general measures the state has to take, even when
dealing with a singular case,201 perhaps because of higher occurrence of systemic problems, or
maybe because its mandate is broader. It did not stop short of ordering the necessary repeal of a
law by stating that the respondent state, in order to fulfill its international obligations, has to
adopt internal legal measures.202 It thereby extended the collective good character of precedent
by producing a collective good concerning legal or administrative measures to be taken.
The petitioner may, but does not need to, designate an attorney or other person to represent her
before the IACHR.203 There is no legal aid provided for and legal costs are not explicitly recov-
erable by a winning petitioner but may be included in the award.204 Many alleged victims are too
poor to hire lawyers and would need to do so at least in the domestic legal system - which they
need to go through due to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies. The IAC has seen this
problem and therefore dispensed with the domestic remedies requirement in exceptional cases,
198 E.g. the IACHR declared a case inadmissible in which the petitioners alleged discriminatory application of
the death penalty in detriment of black persons in the US. IACHR Case 7465 v. US, Decision of October 4,
1984. See for further cases Carazo, supra note 161, Chapter II. C. II. 3. a).
199 I/A Court H.R. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, Judgment of June
21, 2002 (Series C, No. 94), at para. 116 at seq. and I/A Court H.R. Case of Suarez-Rosero v. Ecuador,
Judgment of November 12, 1997 (Series C, No. 35), at para. 98.
200 I/A Court H.R., International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of
the Convention. Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, (Series A, No. 14), at para. 41 et seqq.
See also Pasqualucci, supra note 52, at 105.
201 See e.g. I/A Court H.R. Case of Bamaca-Velasquez v. Guatemala. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American
Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002 (Series C, No. 91), at para. 106 (4).
202 Whereas in I/A Court H.R. Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru. Compliance with Judgment. Order of November
17, 1999 (Series C, No. 60), at para. 12 (d), the court was more cautious in I/A Court H.R. Case of Barrios
Altos v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on the Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001 (Series C, No.
83), at para. VI, 17 the court stated that there was a general obligation of the State to adopt measures to
suppress laws and practices of any kind that imply a violation of the guarantees established in the
Convention, and also to adopt of laws and the implementation of practices leading to the effective observance
of the relevant guarantees. It further stated in its operative part at para. 2 that the judgment had generic
effects.
203 Art. 23 IACHR 2003 Rules of Procedure.
204 Art. 65 (1) (h) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court states that the judgment shall contain: “the decision, if
any, on reparations and costs.“
41