Measuring the Impact of Advisory Opinions in the Inter-American Human Rights System: Categorizing the Effects of Advisory Opinions in States and the Organs Involved in Their Implementation

The article aims to contribute to the discussion about measuring compliance with advisory opinions in the Inter-American Human Rights System by providing criteria that can help in the understanding of both the effects of advisory opinions in States and the local actors involved in their implementation. The contribution analyses how the criteria expressed in the advisory opinions issued by the Court over the last 42 years has impacted on the States that are part of the Inter-American System, aiming to propose four criteria to measure the impact of and compliance with advisory opinions in the domestic law of State parties, including instances when advisory opinions have been implemented with different effects, such as (i) guidelines for restriction on local state agents (ii) as a guideline for the elaboration of public policies (iii) as means of judicial expansion and strengthening treaty obligations and (iv) as preemptive conventionality control tools. Finally, the article identifies three categories that reflect on the main actors in the domestic law field, that have a fundamental role in the implementation of advisory opinions within the States: (a) the state itself, embodied in the Executive power, when acting as a promoter of a specific advisory opinion request, which necessitates internal and international support; (b) the national judiciary, when resolving cases or setting national standards based on the res interpretata of advisory opinions; and (c) the lawmakers and public administration bodies when developing public policies based upon the contents of advisory opinions.