The 21st role of the Inter- American System of Human Rights: the challenges of the case of Peru and the Constitutional Court

Notorious in Latin-America the Inter- American System of Human Rights has an important impact in the policies of the 35 States parties of the Organization of American States (OAS) and had a significative role in the development of democracy in the region, however, diverse States and experts critics the activities of the two entities of this system: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) arguing that they would acting beyond their conventional faculties of the Charter of OAS and the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). In consequence, this situations has become in an international challenge, because, on one hand this System is become the procedural route to the victims of serious human rights violations to access to international justice and a reparation, on the other hand, for the states the sentences of the IACtHR, have become a challenge to implement and a politics discussion in each country. This proposal will be focus in two sentences of the IACtHR against to Peru in 2001 and 2006 and how they have impacted today, generating various national debates about the need and current role of the System; that are replicated in the Region, evidencing that reforms are needed so that the original purpose of the system is achieved, but in accordance with the changes that have occurred in recent years. This is to be seen in the recent Sentence of the Constitutional Court of Peru (Exp. N° 02010-2020-PHC/TC) to ignore the decision of the IACtHR, in a Monitoring Compliance with Judgment of the cases of Barrios Altos and La Cantuta, ordering the freedom of the former president of Peru and guilty of the serious human rights violations after; we should remark that the IACtHR after that decision of the Constitutional Court order to Peru not implement this decision, nevertheless, the peruvian Court ratified his decision. This is an unprecedent decision in the Region, a barely similar situation occurs when the Constitutional Court of Domincan Republic declared unconstitutional the international act of recognition the competence of this system. This decision put on evidence two relevant points to analyze in this paper: firstly, how work the Monitoring Compliance with Judgment process, because the article 65 of the ACHR let the Monitoring process to the OAS General Assambly, but is in the art. 69 of the rules of procedure of the IACtHR when we can find the details of this process, giving the Court faculties to supervise and expediate orders to the States. In an International Law perspective, the will of the states is found in the treaties that were discussed and approved, so is necessary to reform this process? And secondly, is sufficient the participation of the OAS in the monitoring process and even when States fail to comply with court orders or maybe is necessary adopt a similar procedure as the European Court of Human Rights and the role of the Committee of Ministers or our region wont’ be prepared to that?