Global Issues: Human Rights Violations and Advocacy

Overview

International Commitments for Human Rights

States have several options to raise awareness of human rights violations on the global stage. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the United Nations was the initial step for the process of norms pertaining human rights in the international sphere. Several treaties that support human rights, which require signatures and ratification from participating states, have been established since the Declaration. They cover various aspects, such as civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.

International human rights laws serve as a framework for activists and organizations to advocate for victims, but the full compliance of such treaties has proved challenging in many cases. Moreover, these treaties advocate for existing rights; however, international law does not exhaustively list all rights. Thus, as human rights advocacy continues to evolve, new rights and language are introduced, such as the recognition of climate change as a human rights issue.

International Commitments for Human Rights

Photo: United Nations Photo / Flickr

States have taken several steps on the global stage to claim their diplomatic support for human rights. There now exist a wide array of international mechanisms dedicated to upholding human rights worldwide, ranging from the establishment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the formation of the International Criminal Court. International treaties have promoted physical integrity rights, protection against torture and ill-treatment, protection against gender and racial discrimination, and support for economic, social, and cultural rights. When countries sign these treaties, they, in turn, make diplomatic promises to uphold these rights. However, this has often proved to be a challenge. States often lack political incentives, resources, or a combination of both to fully comply with these treaties. For this reason, local and international human rights organizations have emphasized states’ commitments to these rights as a way to pressure countries to change their repressive behavior. Human rights organizations and the individuals they advocate for continue to grapple with numerous obstacles in their quest for accountability.

The largest obstacle in the pursuit for international compliance for human rights has been the lack of accountability for past and present human rights violations. In some cases, this lack of action is due to the continued presence of political leaders and elites that continue to reside in powerful positions that allow them to block measures against impunity. For this reason, victims and human rights organizations have taken their cases to regional and international courts. However, only the most critical cases with extensive evidence make it to these courts for review. These courts have no power over the governments when they are found guilty. Instead, the judgements from these courts serve to support and provide legitimacy to the people seeking justice. States are often pressured to accept the facts and open investigations if found guilty by regional courts.

These international mechanisms that have been used to seek and promote human rights have faced criticism. Some critics argue that the courts are biased, particularly the International Criminal Court. This court has primarily focused on cases in the African region. For example, in 2016, Burundi and South Africa withdrew from the Rome Statute, the treaty used to accept and support the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, some scholars have argued that there has been an increasing promotion for human rights in the last few decades. Kathryn Sikkink has argued that we have recently experienced a ‘justice cascade’ where it is now more common to see cases against individuals for their participation in human rights violations.

The Creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Prior to the Universal Declaration of Human rights in 1948, advocacy for different types of human rights<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">existed</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Donnelly, J. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press, 1989.</div></div></span>in different regions worldwide. However, the creation of this declaration within the United Nations marked the beginning of a unified understanding of human rights on an international scale. Contributors to the drafting process were from the<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">West and Global South.</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Drafters of the Declaration.</div></div></span>Eleanor Roosevelt, first lady of the U.S. under Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency, John Humphrey, a Canadian legal scholar, and René Cassin, a French scholar were some of the authors from the West that played key roles in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Authors from the Global South were also paramount to the creation of the Declaration, including Charles Malik, a Lebanese academic and diplomat, Hernan Santa Cruz, a Chilean lawyer, and Hansa Mehta, a social activist and writer from India. Despite the diverse participation from different regions of the world, the creation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights had its own challenges. Debate<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">emerged</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Donnelly, J. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press, 1989.</div></div></span>over the rights and language that ought to be included. There were also many states that did not receive an opportunity to participate due to their lack of sovereignty at the time.

International Human Rights Treaties

The creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">led</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights - The Foundation of International Human Rights Law.</div></div></span>a path to the adoption of international treaties that supported human rights. Unlike the Declaration, these treaties required signatures and ratification from the participating states to show their commitment. Treaty signatures are recognition and support of the international law under consideration. However, the ratification process represents an initiative from the state to fully comply with the international law by implementing it in their own state. The ratification process is a higher stage of commitment since, in many cases, it requires approval from the state’s legislature. This meant that states led the decision to declare full support for these rights. The Geneva Conventions were some of the first international commitments that required ratification to support<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">physical integrity rights</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>International Committee of the Red Cross. Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. 1949.</div></div></span>of the person, including freedom from torture and extrajudicial killings. The Conventions were adopted in 1949 to protect wounded soldiers and innocent civilians during times of war.

Since the Geneva Conventions, the number of treaties declaring protections for human rights<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">have increased</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ratification of 18 International Human Rights Treaties.</div></div></span>over time. Each adversary<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">supported</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Donnelly, J. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press, 1989.</div></div></span>its own treaty during the Cold War. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), created in 1966, commits states to respect the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and electoral rights, among others. This treaty was supported by the United States. Ratification of this Covenant<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">increased to</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. UN Treaty Body Database.</div></div></span>172 as of December 2018. The Soviet Union<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">supported</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Donnelly, J. Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice. Cornell University Press, 1989.</div></div></span>the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), created in 1966. This Covenant supports the right to food, the right to adequate housing, and the right to water, sanitation, health, and social security. As of 2021, 169 countries<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">have ratified</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. UN Treaty Body Database.</div></div></span>the ICESCR. There are five additional conventions protecting human rights<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">including</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Ratification of 18 International Human Rights Treaties.</div></div></span>the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Promotion of International Human Rights Treaties

The support for international treaties on human rights via signature and ratification<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">does not guarantee</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Kleinlein, T. and Steiger, D. The State of the International Human Rights System—Normativity and Compliance: Introduction. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2022.</div></div></span>that states will actively promote these rights. Nevertheless, the creation of international human rights law<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">equips</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Murdie, A. M. and Davis, D. R. Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly, 2012.</div></div></span>local activists and organizations with a framework to advocate for victims and pressure their governments to address impunity. Full compliance<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">has remained</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Kleinlein, T. and Steiger, D. The State of the International Human Rights System—Normativity and Compliance: Introduction. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2022.</div></div></span>challenging. Scholars critical of the efficacy of international law<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">argue</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Hafner-Burton, E. M. Making Human Rights a Reality. Princeton University Press, 2013.</div></div></span>that without a powerful state exerting pressure on other governments, the potential for international law to create meaningful change in human rights norms is significantly curtailed.

International law does not hold an exhaustive list of rights. There continue to be advocates promoting new rights and new language to existing rights. For example, the Human Rights Council, a body in the United Nations that promotes human rights around the world,<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">began</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>United Nations. OHCHR and climate change.</div></div></span>to add human rights language in the context of climate change in 2010. The Council argues that climate change ought to be considered a human rights crisis. This advocacy emerged due to an increasing concern about the effects that climate change has had on the livelihoods of people who are displaced due to climate change-related events.

Overall, human rights advocates continue to pressure states to support existing rights based on international law and also promote new rights based on new challenges that emerge around the world. Although there is no international enforcement mechanism to implement compliance, the frameworks used in these treaties are used by advocates and human rights organizations to remind states of their commitments.

OVERVIEW

Factors Leading to Abuse

There are multiple causes for abuse. Much of the literature argues that protests and demonstrations, times of war, and dehumanizing language are some explanations for this. For example, during protests and demonstrations that challenge political leaders' authority, governments may resort to repression, using force to deter dissent and instill fear.

Human rights violations are also prevalent during times of war, whether international conflicts, civil wars, or armed conflicts. During such periods, oversight diminishes, and norms regarding the sanctity of life may erode, with perpetrators often believing they will face no consequences.

In addition, the use of dehumanizing language plays a significant role in human rights abuses. When people are subjected to such language, it fosters the perception that the targeted group is unworthy of basic rights. This dehumanization reduces hesitancy to inflict harm on the targeted group and can facilitate violence.

Photo: Koshu Kunii / Unsplash

Protests and Demonstrations

Scholars from multiple disciplines<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">argue</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Hafner-Burton, E. M. Making Human Rights a Reality. Princeton University Press, 2013.</div></div></span>that human rights abuses stem from various factors. One of these factors is protests and demonstrations. Protests and demonstrations offer a means to<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">exert pressure</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Moore, W. H. The Repression of Dissent: A Substitution Model of Government Coercion. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2000.</div></div></span>on the government to address new demands. These protests can call for policy changes, such as wage increases, inflation reduction, and protection of citizens’ rights, among other things. In 2021, the George Floyd death in the U.S.<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">sparked protests</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Taylor, D. B. George Floyd Protests: A Timeline. The New York Times, 2021.</div></div></span>across the country and across the world. Protesters demanded police reform and respect for Black lives. However, governments may not always have the capacity or inclination to implement such changes. Consequently, when demonstrations take place, they can<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">undermine</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Carey, S. C. The Dynamic Relationship between Protest and Repression. Political Research Quarterly, 2006.</div></div></span>the legitimacy and support for the government. In cases where governments lack the means and intent to grant protesters’ demands, they<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">may resort</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Poe, S. C. and Tate, C. N. Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the 1980s: A Global Analysis. The American Political Science Review, 1994.</div><br><br><div>—</div><div>Davenport, C. State Repression and the Domestic Democratic Peace. Cambridge University Press, 2007.</div><br><br><div>—</div><div>Carey, S. C. The Dynamic Relationship between Protest and Repression. Political Research Quarterly, 2006.</div><br><br><div>—</div><div>Young, J. K. Repression, Dissent, and the Onset of Civil War. Political Research Quarterly, 2013.</div></div></span>to repressive behavior to stop dissent. For example, protestors in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, in the U.S.,<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">were injured</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Taylor, D. B. George Floyd Protests: A Timeline. The New York Times, 2021.</div></div></span>with rubber bullets during the George Floyd protests. Repression is also used after protests to deter others from joining the protests and instill fear among those who have already participated. In 2021, Myanmar<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">faced</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Maizland, L. Myanmar’s Troubled History: Coups, Military Rule, and Ethnic Conflict. Council of Foreign Relations, 2022.</div></div></span>demonstrators requesting a return to democratic government after experiencing a military coup. The government responded by using lethal force against the demonstrators. Other scholars<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">have argued</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Gartner, S. S. and Regan, P. M. Threat and Repression: The Non-Linear Relationship between Government and Opposition Violence. Journal of Peace Research, 1996.</div><br><br><div>—</div><div>Gurr, T. R. and Moore, W. H. Ethnopolitical Rebellion: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the 1980s with Risk Assessments for the 1990s. American Journal of Political Science, 1997.</div><br><br><div>—</div><div>Piazza, J. A. and Walsh, J. I. Transnational Terror and Human Rights. International Studies Quarterly, 2009.</div></div></span>that repression leads to dissent behavior. According to Walsh and Piazza, the use of torture and extrajudicial killings fuels terrorism because of the loss of the support of the population, particularly groups of the population that could provide intelligence about extremist organizations. However, this relationship between repression and dissent behavior can change when governments use<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">preventive repression.</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Ritter, E. and Conrad, C. Preventing and Responding to Dissent: The Observational Challenges of Explaining Strategic Repression. The American Political Science Review, 2016.</div></div></span>Ritter and Conrad argue that when they account for groups who expect repression, there is no systematic trend in the dissent–repression cycle because, in such cases, some groups self-censor.

Times of War

A second contributing factor is the occurrence of war. Oftentimes, human rights violations<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">occur</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Poe, S. C. and Tate, C. N. Repression of Human Rights to Personal Integrity in the 1980s: A Global Analysis. The American Political Science Review, 1994.</div><br><br><div>—</div><div>Peksen, D. Does Foreign Military Intervention Help Human Rights?. Political Research Quarterly, 2011.</div></div></span>during an international conflict, a civil war, and armed conflicts. During such periods, there is often less oversight, and norms surrounding the respect for life are often undermined. Additionally, due to a significant focus on eliminating adversaries, government institutions, such as the judiciary, may lack support from other governmental branches and can become politicized. As a result, independent institutions that examine and protect human rights may be absent within the government. During times of war, nongovernmental institutions that may denounce human rights violations face the risk of being targeted by the state.

Dehumanizing Language

A third<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">factor</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Hafner-Burton, E. M. Making Human Rights a Reality. Princeton University Press, 2013.</div></div></span>is the use of dehumanizing language. When people are subjected to dehumanizing language, it can foster the perception that the targeted group is unworthy or undeserving of basic rights. For instance, in<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">Rwanda,</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>BBC News. Rwanda Genocide: 100 Days of Slaughter. 2019.</div></div></span>Hutu extremists used dehumanizing language to spread hate against the Tutsi minority.

OVERVIEW

The Promotion of Human Rights

International treaties aimed at promoting human rights facilitate collaboration between local and global human rights organizations. These organizations often use international law to pressure states to comply with their previous diplomatic commitments related to the protection of human rights. In addition, local and international organizations often cooperate to pressure repressive governments to open investigations against state officials that have been accused of an excessive use of force.

While local organizations collect factual information regarding these cases, international organizations use international law to remind the state of their commitments to uphold human rights.

Despite this, human rights organizations and activists often face challenges when persuading states to uphold fair trials, conduct thorough investigations, and make positive behavioral changes. To overcome these challenges, they turn to international organizations and other states for support, whose influence can manifest in various ways, such as affecting the state's international reputation, implementing sanctions, or other forms of international repercussions.

Photo: Unseen Histories / Unsplash

The Role of International Organizations

The establishment of international treaties aimed at promoting human rights<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">has fostered</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. Activists beyond borders : advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press, 1998.</div></div></span>transnational collaboration between local human rights organizations and their global counterparts. The main duty of international organizations that support human rights is to promote these rights and condone impunity. There are intergovernmental organizations at the national level, like the United Nations, that promote human rights using international law. The main actors in these platforms are diplomats promoting their country’s policies and perspectives. This can often come with its own limitations (see the Accountability Section). Other international platforms that seek to promote human rights are nongovernmental international organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Human Rights First. These organizations provide a framework to support human rights across different parts of the world by criticizing states based on a cluster of violations of human rights international law rather than individual cases.

The Role of Local Organizations and Civil Society

However, it is local organizations and civil society that play a pivotal role in the adoption and advocacy of international human rights norms, serving as<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">vital drivers for change</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Murdie, A. M. and Davis, D. R. Shaming and Blaming: Using Events Data to Assess the Impact of Human Rights INGOs. International Studies Quarterly, 2012.</div></div></span>on the global stage. These organizations collect information for individual cases and provide resources to victims to pursue accountability or receive the support via accompaniment. Local organizations encompass both intergovernmental entities, government departments focused on promoting human rights, and nongovernmental organizations, where the pursuit of rights falls outside the political sphere. Nongovernmental local human rights organizations<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">often collaborate</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. Activists beyond borders : advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press, 1998.</div></div></span>across borders with other organizations to strengthen the collective voice for human rights. These transnational networks work together to exchange tools, information, and support for human rights advocacy.

The Boomerang Effect: Pressure from External Actors

Nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations, together with dedicated activists,<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">engage</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. Activists beyond borders : advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press, 1998.</div></div></span>in criticizing states for their human rights abuses. Oftentimes, local human rights organizations face numerous obstacles when attempting to persuade states to embrace fair trials, conduct thorough investigations, and execute positive changes in their behavior. For this reason, these organizations often reach out to international organizations and other states. They recognize the influence that external actors may have over a state’s sanctions. The leverage from international actors can manifest in various forms, including influencing international reputation, the implementation of sanctions, or other types of international repercussions. The use of states and organizations to pressure changes in state behavior is a phenomenon often referred to as the<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">boomerang effect.</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Keck, M. E. and Sikkink, K. Activists beyond borders : advocacy networks in international politics. Cornell University Press, 1998.</div></div></span>

OVERVIEW

Challenges Faced by Human Rights Advocates

While the number of human rights treaties and ratifications has increased, there remain various challenges. For example, some powerful states, like the United States, have yet to ratify certain important human rights treaties.

Another challenge is holding perpetrators accountable for past human rights abuses, with advocates often facing long delays when examining cases.

Victims reach out to regional and international courts when they have exhausted all measures for accountability in their residing country. This often occurs when the state decides not to open a fair investigation and trial or moves the case very slowly. These courts exist to review the evidence and provide legitimacy to the victims and their case. While the regional courts might be unable to create action, they can often pressure the states to comply with certain judgements.

Challenges Faced by Human Rights Advocates

Photo: United Nations Photo / Flickr

A Lack of Accountability

One significant challenge has been the slow progress towards holding perpetrators accountable for serious human rights abuses committed in the past. The International Criminal Court is the only international court that investigates and holds trials against individual perpetrators of the most heinous crimes, including war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. However, the ICC only holds jurisdiction in states that have ratified the Rome Statute and crimes committed after 2002. Not all cases are investigated in the International Criminal Court. In Colombia, human rights advocates sought an<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">investigation</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>International Criminal Court. Preliminary examination: Colombia.</div></div></span>into cases of human rights violations resulting from the prolonged armed violence in the country. In 2004, the ICC initiated a preliminary investigation into some of these cases. Following extensive legal and factual analyses, the ICC concluded in 2021 that the state of Colombia was not inactive, unwilling, or unable to genuinely investigate and prosecute crimes against international law, including war crimes. Nonetheless, advocates in Colombia faced delays in examining these cases due to the ongoing peace process.

Cases that reach the International Criminal Court (ICC) have also<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">faced criticism.</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Ba, O. A Truly International Criminal Court- Why the Prosecutor Should Look Beyond Africa. Foreign Affairs, 2021.</div></div></span>Many African leaders contend that the focus has predominantly been on prosecuting perpetrators in the African region, while accountability for perpetrators in the West remains limited. For instance, human rights organizations and advocacy groups accused the former U.S. President, George W. Bush, of<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">war crimes</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. Criminal complaint against Gerorge W Bush.</div></div></span>related to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and his endorsement of interrogation methods that violated international human rights standards. However, no investigations were conducted following these investigations. Pursuing such investigations at the international level is challenging, particularly because the U.S. has not ratified the Rome Statute, which grants jurisdiction to the International Criminal Court.

Establishing the Facts: Regional Organizations and Courts

Even though there are many mechanisms through which to pursue accountability, cases involving extensive human rights violations rarely receive government support for an accountability process. As a result, victims and local human rights organizations<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">often turn to</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>Dancy, G. and Sikkink, K. Ratification and Human Rights Prosecutions: Toward a Transnational Theory of Treaty Compliance. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 2012.</div></div></span>regional organizations for oversight in such cases. Some of these regional entities have their own courts, which play a critical role in establishing the legitimacy of the facts and the plight of the victims. They exert pressure on governments to pursue a process of accountability. In Europe, the Council of Europe houses both the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is responsible for referring cases to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, which operates within the Organization of American States. These regional organizations and courts put pressure on states and provide guidance in the face of severe cases of human rights violations.

Before a case reaches a regional court, it undergoes examination by a<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">Commission.</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>InterAmerican Court of Human Rights. What is the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights?.</div></div></span>The Commission assesses whether there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that regional international laws on human rights were broken. Despite the significant impact these courts have in terms of advancing cases of human rights violations, they lack the direct authority to investigate and prosecute perpetrators. Instead, they issue judgments that formally request action from the accused governments. These judgements pressure governments to address the violations and work towards a resolution. These requests take various forms, including calls for financial reparations, thorough and independent investigations and fair trials, and the establishment of memorials. For example, a significant case reviewed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights involved the<span class="span"><span id=hint class="box-source">1982 genocide in Guatemala.</span><div class="popover">Source:<br><br><div>The Center for Justice and Accountability. Guatemala Genocide Case.</div></div></span>Despite the presence of evidence supporting the claim of genocide and continued pressure from multiple human rights organizations, the Guatemalan government failed to acknowledge the facts and take appropriate measures to investigate and address the severe human rights violations. For this reason, local human rights organizations took cases of genocide to the regional Commission, which accepted and forwarded the cases to the regional court. Upon reaching the court, the Inter-American Court evaluated the evidence and issued judgments to exert pressure on the state to pursue accountability against the perpetrators.