Fecha: (1/18/2017 10:06:41 AM)
The Inter-American Institute of Human Rights (IIHR) has published the latest IIHR Review, which has been issued each year since 1985. This edition (No. 64) features critical views and opinions on control of conventionality, from the reality of its application at the domestic level and from different perspectives, which will enrich the debate on a concept and a practice that are extremely complex.
Letícia Soares Peixoto Aleixo and Sophia Pires Bastos (Brazil), in “Controle de convencionalidade e gênero: perspectivas brasileiras no combate à disseminação não consensual de imagens íntimas,” present a very topical issue, the unauthorized dissemination of intimate images with respect to this international obligation. In “El caso Artavia Murillo vs Costa Rica: control de convencionalidad en el proceso de cumplimiento de obligaciones internacionales,” Viviana Benavides Hernández and Marvin Carvajal Pérez (Costa Rica) discuss the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the question of in vitro fertilization in Costa Rica, which was authorized by a decree that was validated by a high court to comply with the obligations of the State with repsect to the American Convention on Human Rights.
André de Carvalho Ramos (Brazil) argues for a dialogue between domestic and international jurisdictions as a mechanism to avoid judicial conflicts in the interpretation of human rights, an area in which dual control might be seen as a means of overcoming such conflicts.
In “O controle difuso da convencionalidade e os direitos humanos no Brasil,” Leandro Caletti (Brazil) examines the diffuse control of conventionality with regard to creating a domestic standard as a practice that contributes to optimizing the observance of human rights by harmonizing the national juridical order with the international treaties ratified by his country.
Continuing on its effect on the domestic plane, Juan Arnulfo Vicente Gudiel and Leslie Argentina Véliz Arriaga (Guatemala) in “Reflexiones sobre el control de convencionalidad en Guatemala” report on the perception of this obligation by the operators of justice of the judiciary of Guatemala, how they understand it, what are their criteria or whether they are still unaware of it, and the international responsibility that this entails.
What is control of conventionality? What are its effects? What is its reach? Karlos A. Castilla Juárez (Mexico) responds to these questions in his article “Control de convencionalidad interamericano: una propuesta de orden ante diez años de incertidumbre,” in which he attempts to fill in some of the conceptual gaps, to pin down exactly what is the juridical operation of the public officials with distinct functions –executive, legislative and judicial- and he concludes with a glance at the present and the future of inter-American control of conventionality.
In “Control de convencionalidad en la Argentina,” Lautaro Pittier (Argentina) describes the evolution and particularities of this obligation in the jurisprudence of the I/A Court and the Supreme Court of Argentina, as well as its scope and the role of national judges with respect thereto. Also from Argentina, Andrés Rousset Siri in “Control de convencionalidad sobre normas procesales convencionales” analyzes the possibility that a domestic judge applies control of conventionality with respect to the inter-American procedural norms, contributing to the effective compliance of the judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights by the State party.
Laura Alicia Camarillo Govea and Elizabeth Nataly Rosas Rábago (Mexico) wrote “El control de convencionalidad como consecuencia de las decisiones judiciales de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos,” in which they make an analysis of specific cases to determine the main elements of the cases that have been subject to control of conventionality in the development of the I/A Court’s jurisprudence.
In the “Aplicación del control de convencionalidad del corpus iuris interamericano de los derechos humanos,” Víctor Hugo Rodas Balderrama (Bolivia) recounts the parameters established in inter-American jurisprudence with respect to the application of control of conventionality and analyzes them from the theory of the juridical system.
In “El control de convencionalidad y sus desafíos en Ecuador,” Pamela Juliana Aguirre Castro (Ecuador) offers a detailed analysis of its evolution and its implications in her country.
Finally, Luis Miguel Gutiérrez Ramírez (Colombia) presents the question on the relationship between control of constitutionality and control of conventionality, which, in his opinion, have very different natures and ends and are independent one of the other. In his article “Control de constitucionalidad y control de convencionalidad: interacción, confusión y autonomía. Reflexiones desde la experiencia francesa” he explains that, in light of the experience in France, the judge of constitutionality cannot be, from a formal perspective, the same as the judge of conventionality.