The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Ambassador of Universalism 73 conform to the Convention. A serious, impartial, effective, and diligent investigation must be conducted particularly in the context of grave human rights violations, which include violent deaths or disappearances. The duty to investigate, then, takes the form of a legal duty imposed upon the State to investigate the truth, which responds to the victims’ right to the truth. Similarly, when the Court evaluates whether a State is respecting its duty to punish perpetrators, it analyses the quality of the procedures that have been carried out and of the trials that have taken place. In certain cases, this takes the form of a fourth instance criminal appeal, even though the Court itself denies this. For example, the Court may require a State to review a criminal trial which ended in a dismissal or an acquittal due to a procedural objection such as an amnesty law or a limitation of the action by lapse of time which was successfully invoked by the accused during the initial trial. According to the Court, these procedural obstacles to the effective implementation of the duty to punish must be minimized by the national judge so that justice may be done. The Inter-American Court uses the same reasoning when examining national legislative measures or the conformity of a national practice to the

Convention, in accordance with Article 2 of the Pact of San José. Acting somewhat like a constitutional court, the Inter-American Court seizes the opportunity of contentious control to scrutinize national legislation, including constitutional law and, if necessary, to declare it incompatible with the Convention, thus forcing the State to amend it. Amnesty laws, security legislation in the fight against terrorism, death penalty legislation, legislation permitting corporal punishment, and constitutional measures providing for censorship of cinematographic works are all examples of measures which may be subject to the Court’s control, depending on the case in question. Consequently, the Court has adopted a clear position with regard to amnesty laws by declaring them incompatible with the Convention. This has been the case since Barrios Altos v. Peru (2001) in which the Court substantially held that all amnesty measures, limitations of criminal action, or measures designed to prevent the enforcement of responsibilities are incompatible with the Convention as they aim to prevent the exercise of the duties to investigate and punish the perpetrators of grave violations of intangible human rights (torture, executions, forced disappearances). 53

The Inter-American Court added that no national legal measure may contravene the execution in national law of a decision by the Inter-American Court ordering a State to investigate a violation or to punish the perpetrators of that violation. 54 Here, the Court acts precisely as would a constitutional court. Despite controlling the conformity of national law to the Convention, the Inter-American Court’s consultative function must not be forgotten. 55 Indeed, States

53Barrios Altos Case (Peru) (2001), Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (Ser. C) No. 75, at para. 41, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights : 2001, OEA/ Ser. L/ V/ III. 54/ doc. 4 (2000) 22 [ Barrios Altos Case].

54Bulacio Case (Argentina) (2003), Inter-Am. Ct. H. R. (Ser. C) No. 100, at para. 117 , Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights : 2001, OEA/ Ser. L/ V/ III. 61/ doc. 1 (2004) 25 [ Bulacio Case].

55See e. g. Proposed Amendments of the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica

(1984), Advisory Opinion OC-4/ 84, Inter-Am Ct. H. R. (Ser. A) No. 4, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights : 1984, OEA/ Ser. L/ V/ III. 10/ doc. 13 (1984) 40.