Scales of justice balancing national law and international treaties

Safeguarding Rights: How 'Conventionality Control' Can Strengthen Human Rights

Theo Raines in Law & Justice June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Exploring the doctrine of conventionality control and its impact on international human rights law."

In an evolving global landscape, the doctrine of conventionality control has emerged as a pivotal tool for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This innovative approach seeks to bolster the effectiveness and influence of the Inter-American human rights framework within national legal systems.

While still developing in both theory and practice, conventionality control has gained increasing recognition. This mechanism ensures domestic laws align with international human rights standards. This doctrine uniquely addresses the implementation of international human rights law, offering a distinctive approach to protecting fundamental rights.

This article offers an in-depth analysis of conventionality control, examining its evolution through key rulings of the Inter-American Court, from the foundational Almonacid Arellano case (2006) to the more recent Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia (2016). It critically assesses the international obligations arising from this doctrine and addresses potential objections, emphasizing the principle of subsidiarity.

The Genesis and Development of Conventionality Control

Scales of justice balancing national law and international treaties

The doctrine of conventionality control emerged in the 2006 Almonacid Arellano case, concerning the Chilean state's responsibility for applying Decree Law No. 2.191, which granted amnesty for crimes committed during the Pinochet regime. The Inter-American Court declared this law invalid, as it obstructed investigations into human rights violations. The Court emphasized that domestic courts must ensure the effects of the American Convention on Human Rights are not undermined by conflicting laws. This ruling established a judicial 'control of conventionality,' compelling domestic courts to align national laws with the American Convention and its interpretations.

Subsequent rulings expanded on this concept. The Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Aguado Alfaro) v. Perú (2006) case determined that conventionality control should be applied ex officio by authorities within their respective competencies. Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá (2008) linked conventionality control to Article 2 of the American Convention, requiring states to adapt their internal laws. Radilla Pacheco vs. México (2009) further defined the duty of judges to interpret national law in accordance with the Inter-American human rights framework.

While there is no limit to bullet points, a maximum of 4 is recommended

All state authorities must exercise conventionality control.
National laws must be interpreted to align with the Inter-American human rights framework.
States must suppress norms or practices that violate the guarantees established in the Convention.
Judges must ensure the instruments of international law are effective.

Masacre de Santo Domingo v. Colombia (2012) grounded conventionality control in the principles of complementarity and subsidiarity, reflecting the Inter-American System's overarching philosophy. Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia (2016) reiterated that states are the primary guarantors of human rights and that conventionality control serves to assist state authorities in ensuring their laws are consistent with international obligations. These rulings have shaped the doctrine, reinforcing its application across all levels of the judiciary and emphasizing the need for states to proactively ensure their legal frameworks align with international human rights standards.

Conclusion: A Balanced Approach to Human Rights Protection

The doctrine of conventionality control, interpreted through the lens of subsidiarity, offers a framework for enhancing the effectiveness of international human rights law while respecting national legal systems. This balanced approach allows the Inter-American Court to guide states in aligning their laws with international standards without infringing on their sovereignty. This mechanism promotes a more robust and consistent protection of human rights throughout the Americas.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.4067/s0718-52002017000100003, Alternate LINK

Title: La Doctrina Del Control De Convencionalidad A La Luz Del Principio De Subsidiariedad

Subject: Law

Journal: Estudios constitucionales

Publisher: SciELO Agencia Nacional de Investigacion y Desarrollo (ANID)

Authors: Pablo González Domínguez

Published: 2017-01-01

Everything You Need To Know

What is the doctrine of conventionality control and what purpose does it serve in protecting human rights?

Conventionality control is a doctrine developed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. It requires national courts and authorities to ensure that domestic laws are in line with the American Convention on Human Rights and its interpretations. The doctrine aims to strengthen human rights protection by compelling states to proactively align their legal frameworks with international human rights standards, thereby preventing violations and ensuring effective remedies.

How did the Almonacid Arellano case contribute to the development of conventionality control, and what specific obligations did it place on domestic courts?

The Almonacid Arellano case (2006) established the foundation of conventionality control. The Inter-American Court ruled that a Chilean decree law granting amnesty for crimes during the Pinochet regime was invalid because it obstructed investigations into human rights violations. This case set a precedent, obligating domestic courts to ensure national laws do not undermine the American Convention on Human Rights. Subsequent cases like Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Aguado Alfaro) v. Perú and Radilla Pacheco vs. México further refined its application.

How does the principle of subsidiarity relate to conventionality control, and how does it balance international human rights law with state sovereignty?

The principle of subsidiarity acknowledges that states have the primary responsibility for protecting human rights within their jurisdictions. Conventionality control, when applied through the lens of subsidiarity, allows the Inter-American Court to guide states in aligning their laws with international standards without infringing on their sovereignty. This balance ensures that the international human rights framework supports, rather than supplants, national legal systems in safeguarding fundamental rights.

Besides the Almonacid Arellano case, what other key rulings of the Inter-American Court have significantly shaped the doctrine of conventionality control?

Several Inter-American Court rulings have been pivotal in shaping the doctrine of conventionality control. Beyond the foundational Almonacid Arellano case, Trabajadores Cesados del Congreso (Aguado Alfaro) v. Perú established that conventionality control should be applied ex officio. Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá linked the doctrine to Article 2 of the American Convention, requiring states to adapt their internal laws. Masacre de Santo Domingo v. Colombia grounded it in the principles of complementarity and subsidiarity, while Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia reiterated the state's primary role as guarantors of human rights.

What are the specific implications of conventionality control for state authorities and judges regarding national laws and international human rights obligations?

Conventionality control implies that all state authorities, including judges, must actively ensure national laws are consistent with the American Convention on Human Rights. This includes interpreting national laws in a way that aligns with the Inter-American human rights framework and suppressing any norms or practices that violate the guarantees established in the Convention. Furthermore, it means that judges must ensure the instruments of international law are effective in protecting human rights within their jurisdiction. States are therefore expected to proactively adapt their legal frameworks and address any inconsistencies to prevent human rights violations.