Inter-American Commission & Court of HR — Human Rights Law Notes

Inter-American Commission & Court of HR

In the 1970s and 80s, as military juntas across Latin America “disappeared” thousands of citizens, one body kept a record and named the truth: the Inter-American Commission. Its work fed the Court’s landmark ruling in Velásquez Rodríguez (1988) — the case that told every State it has a positive duty to prevent, investigate and punish disappearances.

The Inter-American system, built under the Organization of American States (OAS), works through two organs — a Commission and a Court. A full-mark answer covers the composition and functions of both.

A. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Washington, D.C.)

Composition — 7 independent members, elected by the OAS General Assembly for four-year terms.
Functions — promote human rights across the Americas; receive and examine individual petitions; conduct on-site investigations and country reports; and, where a case is not resolved, refer it to the Court. The Commission is the gateway to the Court.

B. Inter-American Court of Human Rights (San José, Costa Rica)

Composition — 7 judges, elected by the States parties to the American Convention.
Jurisdiction — contentious (deciding cases of Convention violations, with binding judgments including compensation) and advisory (giving opinions on the interpretation of the Convention).
Access — an individual cannot approach the Court directly; only the Commission or a State party can refer a case, and only against States that have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the route of a complaint

Facts. A victim of a State disappearance in the Americas wants the Inter-American Court to rule.

Rule. Access to the Court runs through the Commission; the individual petitions the Commission, which, if unresolved, refers the case to the Court.

Apply. The victim files with the Commission (Washington); the Commission investigates, attempts settlement, and, failing that, refers the case to the Court (San José), which delivers a binding judgment.

Conclusion. Commission first, Court second — the individual never reaches the Court directly.

American Convention on Human Rights, 1969, Article 33: competence over matters relating to the parties’ obligations is vested in “(a) the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights … and (b) the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.”

In Simple Terms: The Americas run a two-door system: complaints enter through the Commission, and only the Commission (or a State) can push a case on to the Court for a binding decision.

flowchart TD
    A["INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM<br/>OAS - Convention 1969"]:::root
    A --> B["Commission - Washington<br/>7 members"]:::leaf
    B --> B1["Petitions, reports,<br/>on-site visits, REFERRAL"]:::leaf
    A --> C["Court - San Jose<br/>7 judges"]:::leaf
    C --> C1["Contentious + advisory<br/>binding judgments"]:::leaf
    B1 --> C
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras (1988) — States have a positive duty to prevent, investigate and punish enforced disappearances (see brief C-3).

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Human Rights Law topics