Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the measures of satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition granted by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) in eight cases in which the responsibility of the Chilean State has been determined. It is proposed to analyze whether such measures are compatible with the subsidiary nature of the IACHR’s jurisdiction, how their dictation in some cases seems to cross the border of the specific case and how they could be generating problems from the democratic point of view and being decisions that weaken the authority of the IACHR.References
Arias Castillo, T. (2013). Positivismo Jurídico, Estado de Derecho y Libertad en L.A Herrera O. (Coord.). Enfoques sobre Derecho y Libertad en Venezuela (pp. 3-20). Caracas: Academia de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales.
Corral Talciani, H. (2019). Improcedencia e inutilidad de que se revoquen sentencias firmes por mandato de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Diario Constitucional. https://cutt.ly/EQceyb7.
Gabriel Maino, C. (2019). El carácter subsidiario del sistema interamericano de protección de los derechos humanos. Revista Universidad y Sociedad, 11, 350-358. https://cutt.ly/SQvW7Yy.
Rousset Siri, A. (2011). El concepto de reparación integral en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Revista Internacional de Derechos Humanos, (1), 59-79. https://cutt.ly/WQvElkN.
Silva Abbott, M. (2016). El “deber de prevenir” violaciones a los derechos humanos y algunas de sus posibles consecuencias. Revista de Derecho y Ciencias Penales, (22), 45-70. https://cutt.ly/vQvRq6E.
The authors of the articles published in the Digital Legal Magazine UANDES agree on the terms of publication, distribution, preservation, and content use contemplated in the licence:
This work is under a license of Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional.