@article{oai:bunkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp:00003997,
 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 = {2014-07-01, 2014-08-18},
 note = {The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (here in after “the Court”) was formally established in 1979. However, it was 1989 when the Court issued its fi rst reparations orders against Honduras.
The Court took first step to outline a framework for monitoring compliance with those orders in this case. It was that the Court decided to supervise the indemnification ordered and close the fi le only when the compensation has been paid. In 2001, the Court issued the order that States Parties should present a report on compliance to the Court within six months of the date that the decision was issued. And in 2010, the Court took a newest revision of its Rules of Procedure which strengthened the Court’ authority. In this way, the Court has had the great power to keep States compliance with its orders. Some States have admitted human rights violations before the Court and taken partial or full responsibility for their actions.
　　The Court issues the various reparations orders to States. One form of the reparations is the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish human rights offenders. States are willing to comply with orders to pay compensatory damages. However, they are seen the tendency to hesitate that they amend domestic judgments or punish human rights offenders. Generally, States are inclined to comply with the Court orders, because the Court has the strong authority to States.
　　The Court asserts that it is not an appellate body with the authority to examine alleged errors of domestic law or fact that national court may have committed against human right violations occurred within its jurisdiction, but the objective of the Court is to determine whether a State Party has violated the international human rights obligations that it contracted to observe when it ratified the American Convention on Human Rights.
　　However, the Court seems to be the substantial Fourth Instance Formula that has the function to realize its decision as the Court ranking above the national court.},
 pages = {11--40},
 title = {国家の米州人権裁判所の判決遵守義務とその実態},
 volume = {25},
 year = {}
}