The interpretation of fundamental rights through the pronouncements of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: considerations regarding Law 32153

Abstract

The approval of Law 32153 has brought the legal status of rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights back into the spotlight in our country. According to the recent regulatory amendment, national judges may only consider, for the purposes of interpreting the rights contained in the Constitution, the rulings of this international court in cases in which the Peruvian State has been a party.
This article will explain the reasons why this law is considered unconstitutional, since it not only affects the jurisdictional authorities’ ability to select the normative material they will consider in analyzing a dispute, but also undermines the internationalist bias of the 1993 Charter. In this sense, it is considered that domestic courts, by virtue of the principle of useful effect (effet utile), may consider all decisions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in interpreting domestic law, regardless of whether the judgment is issued against the Peruvian State or not.