The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Ambassador of Universalism 71 Inter-American justice plays in the region. The criminalization of Inter-American law does not end here. Indeed, it fosters the Inter-American contentious procedure itself. The State’s role before the Inter-American Court is comparable to the position of an accused before the Inter-American Commission in its role of public ministry and before the victims’ representatives. The Inter-American process is inquisitorial in nature, with the Court seeking to bring the relevant facts to light and to reveal “ the truth”. The hearings are lengthy and meticulous, and place great importance on emotionally charged testimonies. The judgments render detailed accounts of factual events and expert reports. A substantial part of the reparations may be described as “ measures of general interest” rather than as individual reparations seeking to restore the wronged party’s rights. The State is invited to “ admit” the violating acts and to recognize its international responsibility. Such an admission is perceived positively by the Court, which, however, does not deny itself the right to publish a judgment detailing the facts and the mechanisms of imputability in such cases. Finally, the parties may negotiate a friendly settlement at any time, though its terms must be compatible with Inter-American human rights law. Amicable settlements in the Inter-American procedure are comparable to plea bargaining in common law. The petitioner – the prosecutor in our analogy – may negotiate an appropriate reparation which will be obtained more quickly than if the full procedure had to be followed. 51 The State in question – the accused in our analogy – avoids the lengthy Inter-American procedure, the publicity of an “ embarrassing” public trial, the Commission’s enquiries – the judge as well as the prosecutor in our analogy – and, depending on the case, a conviction contained in a jurisdictional decision by the Inter-American Court. This criminal aspect of the Inter-American procedure naturally goes in line with the nature of the violations dealt with: massive and systematic. Thus, it may be argued that the criminalization of Inter-American law is not simply limited to the interpretation of the law, but that it defines Inter-American litigation itself.

C. The “constitutionalization” of Inter-American law

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights does not limit itself to interpreting or controlling whether the American Convention is respected. Its mandate, or at least the way in which it interprets its mandate, is significantly wider than this and assists in contributing to the establishment of a real human rights and justice culture in the region. Thus, it works towards what might be referred to as the “ constitutionalization” of the American Convention and of Inter-American law in general. It is not surprising that the Inter-American Court more and more often holds sessions not at its headquarters in San José, but in other member States, symbolically occupying the prestigious courtrooms of their various palaces of justice for the

51See e. g. “ Caloto” Massacre v. Colombia (2000), Inter-Am. Comm. H. R. No. 36/ 00, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights : 1999, OEA/ Ser. L/ V/ II. 106/ doc. 6 rev. (2000) c. III ;

“ Los Uvos” Massacre v. Colombia (2000), Inter-Am. Comm. H. R. No. 35/ 00, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights : 1999, OEA/ Ser. L/ V/ II. 106/ doc. 6 rev. (2000) c. III.