Análisis dinámico de las fórmulas de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos sobre dignidad y autonomía
Abstract: This paper aims to reconstruct the jurisprudential lines of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that reflect a close connection between dignity and autonomy. To achieve this, a dynamic method of jurisprudential analysis is applied, based on contentious cases and advisory opinions...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Universidad Católica de Colombia
2024
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://repositorio.uca.edu.ar/handle/123456789/18302 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | Abstract:
This paper aims to reconstruct the jurisprudential lines of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
that reflect a close connection between dignity and autonomy. To achieve this, a dynamic method of
jurisprudential analysis is applied, based on contentious cases and advisory opinions, which allows identifying
the foundational documents of these lines and the subsequent ones that compose them. Four formulas have
been identified, which are used by the Court as argumentative standards on at least two occasions. The first
appearance of the formulas concerning dignity and autonomy dates back to 2012, and the 2016 judgment
"I.V. v. Bolivia" is a significant milestone. In this judgment, the Court employs all four analyzed formulas
and it serves as the foundational decision for three of the formulas. Regarding whether the Court does or
does not conduct an analysis of analogy between the factual scenarios of different judgments that employ
the formula, following a typology designed by López Medina, it was found that in two of the four analyzed
lines, the Court references its own judgments on dignity and autonomy as citations of common concepts,
without comparing the factual platforms when resorting to the formulas. In one of the lines that links dignity,
autonomy, and informed consent, the Court cites a previous judgment based on a strict analogy between
the factual assumptions, while in the other line, there are cases of citations involving common concepts and
strict analogy. Overall, citations are made with accuracy and fidelity, although some inconsistencies in the
Court's manner of citing its own previous judgments are noted. |
|---|