A Paul, ‘The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ Initial Review of Petitions, Its Backlog and the Principle of Subsidiarity’ (2016) 49 George Washington International Law Review 19, 24;
D Shelton, ‘The Rules and the Reality of Petition Procedures in the Inter-American Human Rights System’ (2015) 5 Notre Dame Journal of International & Comparative Law 1, 10.
2013 IACHR RoP art 26(1).
S Zschirnt, ‘Justice for All in the Americas? A Quantitative Analysis of Admissibility Decisions in the Inter-American Human Rights System’ (2021) 10 Laws 56, 59.
Online Interview by the Author with the IACHR’s Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (2 September 2023).
IACHR, ‘Annual Report 2022’ (2022), 75 accessed 6 April 2025; Paul (n 1) 42–51.
See accessed 6 April 2025. See also Human Rights Clinic of the University of Texas, ‘Maximizing Justice, Minimizing Delay: Streamlining Procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ (2011), 25 accessed 6 April 2025.
As for the remaining studied petitions in 2023, there were 321 decisions to proceed and 111 requests for additional information from petitioners. IACHR, ‘Annual Report 2023’ (2023), 64 accessed 6 April 2025.
IACHR, ‘IACHR Seeks to Reduce the Backlog in the System of Petitions and Cases’ (2016) accessed 6 April 2025.
B Biazatti, ‘Overcoming the Backlog in the Initial Review of Petitions in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ (EJIL:Talk!, 27 October 2023) accessed 6 April 2025.
See accessed 6 April 2025.
OAS Permanent Council, ‘Report of the Special Working Group to Reflect on the Workings of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with a View to Strengthening the Inter-American Human Rights System’ (OEA/SerG, GT/ SIDH-13/11 rev 2, 2011) 11.
IACHR, ‘Reform Process—2012’ (2012), para 106 accessed 6 April 2025.
Biazatti (n 9).
IACHR (n 8); Reform Process—2012 (n 13) para 106.
Paul (n 1) 39.
Human Rights Clinic of the University of Texas (n 6) 8–11.
Biazatti (n 9).
IACHR, ‘Annual Report 2021’ 120 accessed 6 April 2025.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
A Bianchi, ‘On Power and Illusion: The Concept of Transparency in International Law’ in A Bianchi and A Peters (eds), Transparency in International Law (CUP 2013) 9.
F Baetens, ‘Transparency Across International Courts and Tribunals: Enhancing Legitimacy or Disrupting the Adjudicative Process?’ (2022) 91 Nordic Journal of International Law 595, 598;
A Peters, ‘Towards Transparency as a Global Norm’ in A Bianchi and A Peters (eds), Transparency in International Law (CUP 2013) 534–35.
Peters, ‘Towards Transparency as a Global Norm’ in A Bianchi and A Peters (eds), Transparency in International Law (CUP 2013) 534–35.
Paul (n 1) 26–28; Zschirnt (n 3) 58; Shelton (n 1) 10; D 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’ (2001) 7 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 369, 383;
A Dulitzky, ‘Too Little, Too Late: The Pace of Adjudication of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ (2013) 35 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review 131, 146;
F Hampson, C Martin and F Viljoen, ‘Inaccessible Apexes: Comparing Access to Regional Human Rights Courts and Commissions in Europe, the Americas, and Africa’ (2018) 16 International Journal of Constitutional Law 161, 168–69.
P Ishwara Bhat, Idea and Methods of Legal Research (OUP 2019) 342.
P Ishwara Bhat, Idea and Methods of Legal Research (OUP 2019) 341.
These interviews were conducted online between 21 July and 4 September 2023 via Zoom, WhatsApp, or Microsoft Teams.
Except for the Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility, the other five interviewees preferred to remain anonymous. They were identified with codes (E-1 to E-5). Although the author interviewed staff and consultants of the Commission, he used the unqualified word ‘official’ indiscriminately to protect their anonymity more effectively.
Paul (n 1) 21.
P Bentata, R Espinosa and Y Hiriart, ‘Correction Activities by France’s Supreme Courts and Control over Their Dockets’ (2019) 129 Revue d’economie politique 169, 171.
Paul (n 1) 21; American Convention on Human Rights (1969) arts 46–47; 2013 IACHR RoP arts 31–34.
The ‘colourable claim’ requirement involves the indication of facts that tend to establish a violation of rights guaranteed by the legal instruments of the IAHRS and a finding that the petition is not manifestly groundless or obviously out of order (IACHR, ‘Digest of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on Its Admissibility and Competence Criteria’ (2020), OEA/Ser.L/V/II.175 Doc 20, paras 240-271 accessed 6 April 2025).
IACHR, ‘Strategic Plan 2011-2015’ 20 accessed 6 April 2025.
Paul (n 1) 26.
Article 28 of the 2013 IACHR RoP establishes the minimum content required of a petition to be considered.
Regarding the improper or wrongful exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission explained: ‘the petitioner must exhaust domestic remedies in accordance with domestic procedural legislation. The Commission cannot regard the petitioner as having duly complied with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies if said recourse has been rejected on reasonable, not arbitrary, procedural grounds, such as filing an appeal for amparo without previously exhausting the pertinent channels and lodging an administrative dispute with the local courts after the corresponding time limits have lapsed’ (Gustavo Trujillo Gonzalez v Peru [2003] IACHR Report No 90/03, Petition 0581/1999, para 31).
IACHR, ‘Annual Report 2020’ 25 accessed 6 April 2025.
Annual Report 2022 (n 5) 75; Strategic Plan 2011–2015 (n 37) 20; IACHR, ‘Resolution 1/19 (Initial Review of Petitions)’ (2019), 2nd preambulatory clause accessed 6 April 2025.
Annual Report 2022 (n 5) 75.
Guillermo Patricio Lynn v Argentina [2008] IACHR Report No 69/08, Petition 681-00, para 48.
Annual Report 2022 (n 5) 75.
See the subsection ‘Lack of publicity’ below.
2013 IACHR RoP art 30.
2013 IACHR RoP arts 26(1), 29(2), 30(1).
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(7). This notification aims at alerting the Commissioners about these more important applications entering the IAHRS. These specific applications may also be eligible for prioritization (see the subsection ‘The prioritization in the study of petitions’ below).
2013 IACHR RoP art 26(3).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4); Strategic Plan 2011–2015 (n 37) 75. For a different view, see Shelton (n 1) 10–11.
This time indication is important because the IACHR carried out reforms in the Initial Review in the course of its backlog-fighting policies. In this regard, see Biazatti (n 9); Paul (n 1) 23–28.
See accessed 6 April 2025.
Online Interview by the Author with an Official of the IACHR (E-3) (1 September 2023).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4); E-3 (n 54).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(2).
Paul (n 1) 30; Online Interview by the Author with an Official of the IACHR (E-2) (28 August 2023).
See the subsection ‘The prioritization in the study of petitions’ below.
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(4).
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(5).
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(6).
Human Rights Clinic of the University of Texas (n 6) 10, 100–01; Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4); E-3 (n 54).
2013 IACHR RoP art 30(2).
2013 IACHR RoP arts 26(2), 29(3).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
On sana crıtica as a method for the assessment of evidence in the IAHRS, see JM Pasqualucci, The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (CUP 2014) 174;
A Paul, ‘Sana Crıtica: The System for Weighing Evidence Utilized by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2012) 18 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 193.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
E-3 (n 54).
ibid; 2013 IACHR RoP Art 30(3).
E-3 (n 54).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
2013 IACHR RoP art 30(3).
E-3 (n 54).
Paul (n 1) 28.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Resolution 1/19 (n 42).
See the subsection ‘The re-examination of rejected petitions’ below.
Paul (n 1) 26, 28; Shelton (n 1) 10–11; Hampson, Martin and Viljoen (n 25) 168–69; Rodriguez-Pinzon (n 25) 383; Dulitzky (n 25) 146; Zschirnt (n 3) 58.
Paul (n 1) 28; Shelton (n 1) 10–11.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4); Online Interview by the Author with an Official of the IACHR (E-4) (2 September 2023); Hampson, Martin and Viljoen (n 25) 168.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4); E-4, ibid.
E-4 (n 84).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Paul (n 1) 28;
Hampson, Martin and Viljoen (n 25) 168;
Shelton (n 1) 10–11;
Rodriguez-Pinzon (n 25) 383.
See also J Gerards, ‘Inadmissibility Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A Critique of the Lack of Reasoning’ (2014) 14 Human Rights Law Review 148, 154;
M Cohen, ‘When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach’ (2015) 72 Washington and Lee Law Review 483, 504–13.
Apitz Barbera et al. (‘First Court of Administrative Disputes’) v Venezuela [2008] IACtHR Series C No 182, para 77.
Apitz Barbera et al. (‘First Court of Administrative Disputes’) v Venezuela [2008] IACtHR Series C No 182, para 78.
Cohen (n 90) 504–06.
Cohen (n 90) 505.
A Engelhardt, ‘Final Report—External Evaluation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Strategic Plan 2017-2021’ (2022), 19 accessed 6 April 2025.
Baetens (n 23) 599. See also JL Dunoff and MA Pollack, ‘The Judicial Trilemma’ (2017) 111 American Journal of International Law 225.
Ruiz Torija v Spain [1994] ECtHR Application no. 18390/91, para 29.
Marini v Albania [2007] ECtHR Application no. 3738/02, para 106; Kukkonen v Finland (no 2) [2009] ECtHR Application no. 47628/06, para 24.
Cohen (n 90) 522–25; V Perju, ‘Reason and Authority in the European Court of Justice’ (2009) 49 Virginia Journal of International Law 307, 374–75.
See accessed 6 April 2025.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
This calculation does not consider the requests for the re-examination of rejected petitions under Resolution 1/19.
Biazatti (n 9).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Paul (n 1) 39.
Perju (n 99) 375.
Baetens (n 23) 597; Cohen (n 90) 523.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
On the relationship between transparency and accountability, see Cohen (n 90) 506–13.
2013 IACHR RoP arts 28(2), 74(2)(a), 75; IACHR, ‘Petition and Case System: Informational Brochure’ (2010), 10–11 accessed 6 April 2025.
Gerards (n 90) 154.
See the subsection ‘Applicable criteria’ above.
On the relationship between transparency and the public interest of international dispute settlement, see Baetens (n 23) 629; E Shirlow, ‘Three Manifestations of Transparency in International Investment Law: A Story of Sources, Stakeholders and Structures’ (2017) 8 Goettingen Journal of International Law 73, 76.
See the subsection ‘Procedure’ above.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Reform Process—2012 (n 13) para 116.
Paul (n 1) 30; Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Paul (n 1) 30.
Human Rights Clinic of the University of Texas (n 6) 42–43.
Reform Process—2012 (n 13) para 115; Human Rights Clinic of the University of Texas (n 6) 19.
This Special Working Group was created by the OAS Permanent Council in June 2011. In December 2011, the Working Group adopted a report with its recommendations to the IACHR. The Permanent Council approved the report in January 2012.
OAS Permanent Council (n 11) 12.
OAS Permanent Council (n 11) 11.
OAS Permanent Council (n 11) 12.
Reform Process—2012 (n 13) para 117.
Paul (n 1) 31–32.
Paul (n 1) 32.
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(2)(a).
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(2)(b).
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(2)(c).
2013 IACHR RoP art 29(2)(b).
Paul (n 1) 31–33.
Shelton (n 1) 11.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Biazatti (n 9).
Reform Process—2012 (n 13) para 106.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4); Online Interview by the Author with an Official of the IACHR (E-5) (4 September 2023).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4). Despite being set aside by the IRS for the study of petitions, the Processing Section still uses Article 29(2) to prioritize certain petitions for issuing the notification to start the admissibility stage, as there is a backlog in sending these notifications. In the practice of the Processing Section, precedence is often given to petitions dealing with the death penalty and precautionary measures (E-3 (n 54)).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
See the subsection ‘Legal framework and practice’ above.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Annual Report 2021 (n 20) paras 12–16.
IACHR, ‘Resolution 4/23 (Prioritization Policy for Petitions and Cases)’ (2023) accessed 6 April 2025.
ECtHR, ‘The Court’s Priority Policy’ (2017) accessed 6 April 2025.
Resolution 4/23 (n 146) para 2.
E-5 (n 140).
Resolution 4/23 (n 146) para 4.
Resolution 4/23 (n 146) para 5.
For the application of the pro homine principle to the IACHR’s procedure, see Certain Attributes of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights [1993] Advisory Opinion OC-13/93, IACtHR Series A No 13, paras 49, 54.
The IACHR could take inspiration from the fact that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has adopted a holistic and integrated approach with regard to its reparations process (Prosecutor v Ntaganda, First Decision on Reparations Process [2020] International Criminal Court, Trial Chamber VI, ICC-01/04-02/06-2547, para 23; ICC, ‘Independent Expert Review of the International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute System—Final Report’ (2020), para 913 accessed 6 April 2025).
In this regard, the IACHR could refer to Article 29(2) of the RoP and Resolution 4/23 as the legal framework for prioritisation in the Initial Review.
Paul (n 1) 28.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Strategic Plan 2011–2015 (n 37) 76.
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) Transitory provisions.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Resolution 1/19 (n 42).
ibid 3rd preambulatory clause.
ibid 5th preambulatory clause.
ibid para 1.
ibid. It is unclear why Resolution 1/19 singled out these two grounds in particular. In fact, the Resolution could have been more specific on the lack of a colourable claim, because this is one of the criteria that most often leads to the dismissal of petitions in the Initial Review.
Escher et al v Brazil [2009] IACtHR Serie C No 200, paras 57–64; Ivcher-Bronstein v Peru [2001] IACtHR Serie C No 84, para 9; ‘The Last Temptation of Christ’ (Olmedo-Bustos et al) v Chile [2001] IACtHR Serie C No 73, para 41.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) para 1.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) Transitory provisions; IACHR, ‘IACHR Concludes First Two Stages of Its Program for Overcoming Procedural Backlog with Outstanding Results’ (2019) accessed 6 April 2025.
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) Transitory provisions.
ibid Annex.
ibid Transitory provisions.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Resolution 1/19 contains the following wording: ‘the petitioner may exceptionally request that said initial study be repeated’.
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) paras 1, 2.
IACHR, ‘Resolucion 1/19 (Revision Inicial de Peticiones)’ (2019) accessed 6 April 2025.
In fact, Spanish is the working language used daily by the staff of the Commission.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
As stated by Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, ‘the right of individual petition is undoubtedly the most luminous star in the universe of human rights’ (Castillo Petruzzi et al v Peru (Concurring Opinion of Judge A A Cançado Trindade) [1998] IACtHR Series C No 41, para 35).
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) paras 1, 2.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Shelton (n 1) 10–11.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) para 2.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Digest on Admissibility and Competence Criteria (n 36).
IACHR, ‘Informational Booklet: Petition and Case System’ (2022) accessed 6 April 2025.
IACHR, ‘Petition and Case System: Informational Brochure’ (n 112).
The User Support Section of the IACHR was created in 2018 to provide assistance and reply to requests from civil society entities, states, and other users of the IAHRS. As described by the Commission, ‘[t]he Section works as an effective and dynamic link between users and the IACHR’ (IACHR, ‘What is the User Support Section?’ accessed 6 April 2025).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
See the subsection ‘Lack of publicity’ above.
See the subsection ‘Legal framework and practice’ above.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
However, if the case is pending before the national courts for an unwarranted amount of time without a final judgment, the petitioner can request the IRS to apply, in its evaluation of the request for re-examination, the exception to the exhaustion of local remedies rule under Article 46(2)(c) of the ACHR and Article 31(2)(c) of the RoP.
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
See the subsection ‘Limited reasoning’ above.
E-4 (n 84).
Apitz Barbera et al. (n 91) para 78; J v Peru [2013] IACtHR Series C No 275, para 270; Hamilton v Jamaica [1994] Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 333/1988, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/333/1988 (1994), para 8.3; Musaev v Turkey [2014] ECtHR Application no. 72754/11, para 40; Hirvisaari v Finland [2001] ECtHR Application no. 49684/99, para 30.
See the subsection ‘The scope of Resolution 1/19 and the re-submission of rejected petitions’ above.
See the subsection ‘The nature of the re-examination under Resolution 1/19’ above.
E-4 (n 84).
Coordinator of Initial Review and Admissibility (n 4).
Resolution 1/19 (n 42) para 2.
Reform Process—2012 (n 13) para 107.
On the ‘dark sides of transparency’, see Bianchi (n 22).
