This is the first judgment delivered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that recognizes the direct enforceability of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) under Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights. In this case, a labor leader successfully asserted a claim against Peru for violating his rights to work, to freedom of expression, and to a fair trial.
Currently there is no updated information regarding enforcement of this decision.
This first judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recognizing the direct enforceability of ESCR is a landmark case within the Inter-American regional human rights system, and also strengthens global recognition of ESCR more broadly. The Court had previously applied a vague ‘duty of progressive realization’ to independent ESCR claims under Article 26 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which led the Court to reject all such claims argued before it as ‘non-justiciable’, and therefore privileged the assessment of certain human rights over others. This decision demonstrates a significant shift by the Court in its determination of State responsibility for ESCR violations.
The Special Rapporteurship on Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental Rights of the IACHR has welcomed the decision as a “historic milestone” and “a step forward in the region for the interdependence and indivisibility between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social, cultural and environmental rights, on the other.”
The petitioner’s representatives, APRODEH, commented: “[F]rom the beginning [this] represented an unprecedented case: it was the first time that the Court was going to pronounce on the right to freedom of expression in a labor context. Also, labor representation was going to be analyzed beyond the union. Subsequently, the Inter-American Court, in issuing its judgment – in contrast to the former criterion of mere progressive development of ESCR – achieves the justiciability of labor stability and freedom of association.” (Email interview with Christian H. Huaylinos C., APRODEH, 6 April 2018)
Professor Tara J. Melish noted: “This decision is jurisprudentially extremely important because it opens the door to new, more rational and effective ways of framing ESCR cases in the individual petitions process, focusing clearly on the specific public acts and omissions that gave rise to the violation and making clear that precisely the same conduct-based obligations under Articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights apply to alleged violations of ‘all’ protected rights in the Convention for purposes of establishing state responsibility and remediation duties.” (Email interview, Professor Tara J. Melish, University at Buffalo School of Law, 17 April 2018)
While historically there has been much debate regarding the direct enforceability of ESCR as autonomous rights, the sheer number of judicial decisions focused on ESCR across the world has confirmed that such claims can be argued before and decided by courts in practice. By overcoming politically constructed categories of human rights that historically led to different legal assessment standards, the case advances a consolidated vision of an integrated approach to human rights protection.
For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net members:
APRODEH, Professor Lucy Williams [Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy at Northeastern University (PHRGE)] and Professor Tara J. Melish, University at Buffalo School of Law.
Last updated on 26 April 2018
ESCR-Net member Pro Human Rights Association (APRODEH) represented Mr. Lagos del Campo before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
