Legal Argumentation at the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: The Barrios Altos v. Peru case

Abstract

The aim of this article is to describe and explain the components of the arguments used by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) in the case Barrios Alto v. Peru. As a starting point for the following analysis, it is assumed that every legal norm operates within a framework that has, as a vanishing point, a basic norm whose validity is presumed. This type of norm has an orienting function within the legal system, not only with regard to the making of the law, but also with regard to the process of interpreting the law. Although there may be disagreement as far as the meaning of the norm is concerned, its validity is not in question. This norm is irrevocable until it is replaced by another norm whose validity is equally presumed. But when this happens, we have more than a mere political rupture, because the replacement of such a norm by another means the end of an era and, at the same time, the beginning of a new era.

Keywords: Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Barrios Altos v. Peru, legal argumentation, justification.