Rodrigo Mudrovitsch: ‘We perceive a strong disenchantment with human rights among young people’

Rodrigo Mudrovitsch, 41, is the second-youngest jurist to preside over the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR). In January, he began a two-year term at the highest court of the Inter-American justice system, at one of the most politically turbulent periods in recent memory. However, he has unwavering faith in the court’s strength and in the fresh energy that younger leadership can bring to modernizing an institution that feels abstract to many. His main objective, he acknowledges, is to bring young people closer to the court. “Young people can help us build a court with open doors,” he says in a video call with EL PAÍS. “We perceive a strong disenchantment with politics, human rights and the future among young people,” he laments.

Mudrovitsch, who will preside over the court alongside Chilean jurist Patricia Pérez Goldenberg as vice president, holds a doctorate in law, has devoted his prolific career to constitutional and public law, and has taken part in significant Inter‑American Court rulings on issues as varied as Indigenous peoples’ rights, the inviolability of the home, and the protection of freedom of expression. He says that during his term, three main pillars will be reinforced: climate action, bringing the court closer to the citizens, and expediting measures. “You will be able to hold the Court accountable for this later, because it is our priority.”

Question. You are one of the youngest judges to join the court. Do you bring a different generational perspective?

Answer. I think so. It is very important to have more experienced colleagues on the court, such as Judge [Ricardo C.] Pérez Manrique, with his extensive career in his country, or Judge Alberto Borea Odría, who has a history of working in different branches of government. But I believe that youth also has its value, so that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights can reach out to younger generations. Young people can help us build an open court. A major goal I have is to renew the commitment of younger people to the Inter-American system, because we perceive a strong disenchantment with politics and human rights among young people.

Q. What other priorities are part of your mandate?

A. One of them is reinforcing the culture of conventionality control. We have examples of how rulings issued for certain countries end up becoming a reference for others. There are recent examples such as Gadea Mantilla v. Nicaragua and Capriles v. Venezuela, which dealt with the authenticity of the electoral process and ended up having an impact in Costa Rica because local courts understood the importance of understanding and applying the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ standards. Strengthening this is what my mandate seeks to achieve. Currently, we are moving forward with two very important advisory opinions: on the climate emergency and on the right to care. This will create an opportunity for states to generate direct impacts on the population through these standards.

Q. While many countries trust the court, governments of varying ideological leanings have criticized its role, such as El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Peru. How easy is it to work with these governments?

A. Our numbers show that year after year, the rulings are being complied with. Specific criticisms are part of this, but we must respond to them in a politically neutral manner. We have a judge from Peru, one from Paraguay… When states nominate their judges to be part of the court, this also implies a renewal of confidence in the Inter-American system.

Q. From a legal standpoint, is the court concerned about the capture of Nicolás Maduro?

A. Regarding specific cases, I prefer not to comment. I don’t think it’s appropriate to take a position.

Q. But I was asking from a legal standpoint, whether this sets a precedent that worries you...

A. We have several cases involving the state of Venezuela currently in the trial phase, and some judgments have already been issued. The legal criteria are those established in those judgments.

Q. A few weeks ago, we learned of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ ruling on Leonela Zelaya, a trans woman whose rights were violated by Honduras. This is the court’s second ruling on this matter. Human rights activists lament that these rulings often end up being ignored.

A. The court acts as a very powerful microphone, a sounding board that generates something that goes beyond the specific case of each country. This ruling is being studied by other countries seeking to guarantee the protection of vulnerable groups. But it is undoubtedly important to create solutions for the victims, and one of the priorities of my term is to accelerate compliance with the rulings. This is the court’s noblest role. That is why it is important to increase the staff dedicated to monitoring rulings and the frequency with which judges visit the countries.

Q. You have several publications on access to health. Do you recognize the right to abortion as part of the right to health?

A. That wasn’t an issue examined in the most recent case, Beatriz vs. El Salvador. The Court understood that it’s not a question to be answered in that case; it remains open. So I can’t take a position.

Q. El Salvador has been under a state of emergency for almost four years, and Nayib Bukele is known as “the coolest dictator in Central America.” Are more cases than usual arriving from El Salvador?

A. What the court is still considering, and I believe it will be a very interesting area of ​​discussion about democracy, is the advisory opinion on democracy in the state of Guatemala. I can’t anticipate it, but I know it will be the most important one received, along with the one on climate action. If the court is an open microphone, these advisory opinions are where it becomes most democratic. We listen to students, associations, states… It is then that the court can contribute more concretely on the institutional obligations for the preservation of democracy. All of this will be discussed in a qualified and open environment.

Q. This is the most dangerous region in the world for environmental defenders. This year marks the 10th anniversary of Berta Cáceres’ assassination. What importance do provisional measures have for the Court today?

A. It’s extremely important. Environmental defenders are human rights defenders and deserve enhanced protection, and the same goes for journalists and law enforcement officers. The impact of recognizing this right is enormous because it creates an additional layer of visibility and protection, but the Inter-American Court of Human Rights needs to keep moving forward. We need to create new protection criteria, more robust protection that takes into account emails, cell phones, physical integrity… We have to broaden the scope of protection.

Q. As vice president, you have conducted supervisory visits to various Indigenous communities. Does the court need to visit the territory more often?

A. Yes. Absolutely. These visits create positive pressure on states to accelerate change. When visits intensify, everything moves faster. They can then take it up with the court, because it’s our priority.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition