The Inter-American Court's review of conventionality as a Driver of Public Policies in the health sector

Abstract

This paper analyzes the role of conventionality control and structural judgments by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court) as drivers of public health policies. The central issue lies in the Court's ability to move beyond purely retroactive and individual reparations, requiring States to undertake profound institutional reforms to remedy systemic and structural omissions. Methodologically, the research relied on a qualitative, empirical analysis of judgments fully complied with by the respondent States, selecting three paradigmatic cases with a direct impact on health: Artavia Murillo v. Costa Rica (assisted reproduction and in vitro fertilization), Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil (mental health rights and psychiatric reform), and Hernández v. Argentina (tuberculosis prevention and treatment in prison facilities). The findings demonstrate that international mandates do not violate state sovereignty but rather constitute an effective transnational dialogue. This process compels domestic authorities to internalize Inter-American System standards, thereby guaranteeing the right to health across the dimensions of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality.