In April 2019, the governments of five Latin American countries – Paraguay, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, and Colombia – signed a joint statement expressing several concerns regarding the Inter-American Human Rights System and proposed greater autonomy for states in the investigation and prosecution of human rights abuses. The statement provoked immediate backlash from a broad coalition of Latin American pro-human rights civil society groups. They condemned the joint statement as “a coordinated effort to weaken the promotion and protection of human rights in [the region]”  and called on the signatory countries to “abstain from any actions aimed at restricting the effectiveness of the regional protection.”

Among the mentioned concerns, the statement calls for the strict application of the recognition of the margin of appreciation. The margin of appreciation is a doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights that provides member states deference to determine violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. Respect for the internal democratic processes of member states provides the theoretical justification for favoring, on the margin, national sovereignty above human rights. There is a recognition in some European human rights jurisdictions, for example French, Dutch, and German states, that states may have slight differences in the implementation of their treaty obligations. The maturity of these democracies has earned them greater autonomy in the enforcement of human rights at the national level.

The Inter-American Human Rights System, however, has adopted no similar doctrine. Latin American democracies have historically suffered from instability and reversions to authoritarian rules. As a result, the Inter-American Human Rights System was designed to empower the Inter-American Court to freely criticize member states’ compliance with human rights obligations. The retort by the signatories of the recent statement is that they have consolidated their democracies and should now be due commensurate autonomy.

Nevertheless, Latin American judiciaries lag behind their European counterparts in numerous areas. In most countries, judges are still subject to undue intimidation – many have parallel legal systems for the military – and impunity has proven intractable. The signatories of the statement have several cases pending before the Inter-American Court. Brazil has a president notorious for attacking human rights and his government is facing criticism for abuses in the military’s crackdown on crime. Self-interested motives are likely behind at least some, if not all, of the governments that signed the statement. This lends credibility to the charge by civil society groups that the call for reform would restrict “the effectiveness of the regional protection.” For the integrity of the system and continued promotion of human rights in the region, the statement by the five countries ought to be opposed.