The binding character of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinions in light of Ecuadorian constitutional law

Abstract

The enforceability of the Advisory Opinions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights rests on the basic principles of International Public Law and the law of interpretation of treaties. When a treaty is ratifies and the institution entrusted with its supervision issues an authorized interpretation, the States Parties must comply with this interpretation in good faith. In the past years, the mandatory nature of the Advisory Opinions has been questioned through a long doctrinal debate in the different countries of Latin America. The main objective of this paper is to contribute with arguments to reinforce the obligation of judges to apply the standards contained in the Advisory Opinion 24/17, performing a “control of conventionality” of their decisions and taking into account that international human rights treaties and instruments are part of the legal system through the “constitutionality block”, as has been recognized by the Constitutional Court in various decisions. We argue that the task of the judges cannot be limited to observe express norms contained in constitutional and infra-constitutional texts, rather, a conventionality control must be carried out in order to guarantee the effective enjoyment and exercise of the fundamental rights of every person.