From a restrictive control to a constructive control of conventionality

Abstract

The purpose of this work is to describe the evolution of Conventionality Control through the most significant cases of non-compliance with the American Convention. The methodology uses the qualitative, inductive approach. The type of research is descriptive and the design is narrative. The results reflect that initially the conventionality control was characterized as being restricted, only the judicial authorities (ex officio) were competent. The Gelman vs. Uruguay case extends this jurisdiction to the administrative authorities of the public sector, in order to safeguard and protect human rights. In this way, conventionality control presents a constructive dynamism over time, granting diffuse control to the competent authorities. In conclusion, it is currently observed that it is not enough to incorporate certain international treaties and conventions on human rights; Mandatory compliance must be sought by the ratifying states, as in the case of the American Convention, taking into account the advisory opinions to avoid the violation of human rights.