Both the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) follow a rights agenda that takes little account of the daily needs of the region in terms of Human Rights.

In the case of the IACHR, the promotion of abortion is very clear and recently became visible even in its 2023-2027 Strategic Plan, in which the IACHR affirms that its objective is to “strengthen reproductive justice standards, with an emphasis on decriminalization of abortion”

Regarding the Inter-American Court, it never recognized an alleged right to abortion, respecting Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which explicitly protects unborn children.

However, many of the judges members of the Inter-American Court have made statements in which their support for abortion is manifest, such is the case of the Colombian judge Humberto Antonio Sierra Porto who, being a judge of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, elevated to the rank constitutional abortion for reasons, or the Uruguayan judge Ricardo C. Pérez Manrique, as stated in a recent interview.

In addition, in a precedent of the Inter-American Court, the case Manuela vs. El Salvador, the Inter-American Court requested El Salvador to modify its penal code to reduce the penalties corresponding to the crime of infanticide, and considered, following what was stated by the IACHR, that there was a “context” of criminalization of women in El Salvador, due to the laws of the country that protect the unborn. There are 3 judges who continue to function in the Inter-American Court and joined this opinion in the Manuela vs. The Savior.

There are then legitimate doubts about the impartiality of the Inter-American Court regarding the issue of abortion.

We only ask judges to apply the law, and respect the American Convention on Human Rights.

If you want to know more about the impartiality of the Inter-American Human Rights System and the impact of the financing it receives from NGOs and governments outside the OAS, click here .