@article{oai:bunkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp:00003968,
 author = {齊藤, 功高},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {文教大学国際学部紀要, Journal of the Faculty of International Studies},
 month = {Jul},
 note = {The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights work in cooperation in the Inter-American human rights system. The former has been growing in significance as an organ for refering petitions to the Court after American Convention on Human Rights was established. And the latter became a very important organ as the last fortress to guard human rights of the alleged petitioner in his or her own country.
　　However, when the Commission complains about a case of rights violated by the state to the Court, it is limited in its authority to receive and admit a petition lodged by a victim of the violation of human rights because the victim should exhaust all available remedies in the local legal system before resorting to the international court.
　　One of the reasons which a state submits preliminary objections against the Court's jurisdiction is that the petitioner did not exhaust domestic remedies in the state of the alleged violation before lodging the petition with the Commission. Although local remedies should be adequate and effective for the type of violation alleged, States have often filed objections in an attempt to have the case dismissed on admissibility grounds. However, there are different assertions between the Commission and the state as to what are adequate and effective procedures of local remedies.
　　Section I of this article explains the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies for the alleged violation in International Law and International Human Rights Law. Section II analyzes the requirement of the admission by the Commission on article 46 which provides exhaustion of domestic remedies in American Convention on Human Rights. Section III discusses the Court's judge of the remedies which have been pursued and exhausted under domestic law, the condition for exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the period to file a petition to the Commission. Section IV examines how the Court has judged exceptions of local remedies utilized by the alleged petitioner who has had his or her rights violated when one has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them. The last section confirms the attitude of the Court as a guard which tries to protect the human rights of the alleged victim.},
 pages = {63--82},
 title = {米州人権裁判所における国内的救済悉尽の原則とその実際},
 volume = {24},
 year = {2013}
}