Bibliographic citations
Tovar, M., (2024). Interpretación evolutiva en el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos: Un estudio de casos de la comunidad LGTBIQ por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos sobre la orientación sexual como categoría prohibida de discriminación [Trabajo académico, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27325
Tovar, M., Interpretación evolutiva en el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos: Un estudio de casos de la comunidad LGTBIQ por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos sobre la orientación sexual como categoría prohibida de discriminación [Trabajo académico]. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2024. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/27325
@misc{renati/538950,
title = "Interpretación evolutiva en el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos: Un estudio de casos de la comunidad LGTBIQ por la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos sobre la orientación sexual como categoría prohibida de discriminación",
author = "Tovar Parada, Miriam Estefanía",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2024"
}
This essay seeks to determine the validity of evolutionary interpretation despite its lack of explicit recognition in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The aim is to analyze how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has employed evolutionary interpretation in cases involving the LGBTQ+ community. Subsequently, an examination is conducted to assess whether this use of evolutionary interpretation is carried out correctly in determining the international responsibility of states. Furthermore, the essay explores whether the IACHR's argumentation for holding a state accountable internationally is the most strategic or if alternative, more robust approaches exist. The underlying hypothesis posits that the IACHR retroactively applies the standard that sexual orientation is a prohibited category of discrimination to all LGBTQ+ cases. Additionally, it posits that the IACHR implicitly acknowledges the weakness of its argument, resorting to auxiliary or complementary arguments to progressively solidify its standard over time. With the hypothesis validated, recommendations are proposed for the IACHR to utilize, when feasible, the most protective domestic norm rather than its retroactive standard. A secondary recommendation suggests that the application of a new standard be reserved for future resolutions, thereby enhancing legal certainty for states.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License