Caititu BETA
How to use

You ask and interpret. Caititu does the searching.

Caititu works inside an artificial intelligence chat and offers it a set of tools for researching the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). You write your request in your own words. The chat picks the right tools and answers from what they find.

Tools

  1. Search by words

    search_by_keyword

    Finds the paragraphs where the words you chose appear: a technical term, an exact expression, the name of a case, an article such as “8.2.h”. It filters by State, year, judge, type of decision or heading, and also searches the footnotes and the official summaries.

    You write

    When did the IACtHR first use the expression “proyecto de vida” (life project)?

    Caititu
    Searches for the exact expression in the whole base, then only up to 1999.
    What comes back

    1,686 results in 207 decisions. The oldest is Loayza Tamayo Vs. Perú, in the judgment on reparations and costs of 27 November 1998, which gives the expression chapter XII, “Proyecto de vida”, párrs. 144–154; párr. 148 links the life project to personal fulfilment.

  2. Semantic search

    search_by_meaning

    Finds the paragraphs that deal with the subject of your question, even when they use other words. You can ask in English, Spanish or Portuguese: the search compares the meaning of the question with that of the IACtHR's texts, which are in Spanish. Usually it adds the search by words to that, but it can also search by meaning alone, as in the example.

    You write

    What does the IACtHR say about laws that prevent those responsible for serious human rights violations from being investigated and punished?

    Caititu
    Searches by the meaning of the question alone, in the judgments, without depending on any word.
    What comes back

    Ten paragraphs from eight judgments, all on the duty to investigate and punish, in Spanish though the question was asked in English. Among them, paragraphs on amnesty laws, though the question never uses the word: Masacres de Ituango Vs. Colombia, párr. 402; Maidanik y otros Vs. Uruguay (Fondo y Reparaciones), párr. 147; Caracazo Vs. Venezuela, párr. 119; Masacre de Las Dos Erres Vs. Guatemala, párr. 129.

  3. Decision record and rights found violated

    decision_record decisions_by_right

    The record of a decision: official title, date, State, the rights the IACtHR found violated in the operative paragraphs, with the articles it relied on, the judges' separate opinions, the Cuadernillos that cite it and the address of the official PDF. The other way round, the judgments in which a right was found violated, with the articles that grounded it in each one.

    You write

    In which judgments did the IACtHR find the right to prior consultation violated, and on what grounds? Show the record of the first one.

    Caititu
    Lists the judgments from their operative paragraphs, with the articles of each, and brings the record of the first.
    What comes back
    • 2012Pueblo Indígena Kichwa de Sarayaku Vs. Ecuadorart. 21
    • 2024Pueblos Rama y Kriol […] Vs. Nicaraguaarts. 13, 23 and 26
    • 2024Comunidades Quilombolas de Alcântara Vs. Brasilarts. 13, 23 and 26
    • 2025Comunidad Garífuna de Cayos Cochinos […] Vs. Hondurasarts. 23, 21, 26 and 13

    The same right, other grounds: article 21 in 2012; articles 13, 23 and 26 in 2024; all four in 2025.

    The record of Sarayaku: Fondo y Reparaciones, judgment of 27 June 2012; seven rights found violated, among them collective property and cultural identity, also on article 21; no separate opinion in the base; cited in five Cuadernillos, above all No. 11, Pueblos indígenas y tribales (43 paragraphs); and the address of the official PDF.

  4. Search in the Cuadernillos de Jurisprudencia

    list_cuadernillos standards_by_topic paragraph_in_cuadernillos

    The Cuadernillos are the IACtHR's own thematic compilations. Caititu lists the Cuadernillos and their topics, brings the excerpts the IACtHR chose for each topic, in the official order, and tells in which Cuadernillos a paragraph was selected. As each edition stops at a date, the chat looks for later decisions separately.

    You write

    What are the main standards of the IACtHR on freedom of expression?

    Caititu
    Starts from Cuadernillo No. 16, in the order the IACtHR gave it, and looks separately for decisions more recent than it.
    What comes back

    The Cuadernillo de Jurisprudencia No. 16, “Libertad de Pensamiento y de Expresión”, with decisions up to 2024, topic by topic. The first three headings, with the number of excerpts selected under each, counting those of its subheadings:

    • La libertad de expresión como piedra angular de una sociedad democrática35 excerpts
    • Doble dimensión de la libertad de pensamiento y expresión12 excerpts
    • El derecho de acceso a la información bajo control del Estado74 excerpts

    “La libertad de expresión es una piedra angular en la existencia misma de una sociedad democrática.” The first excerpt under the first heading: La colegiación obligatoria de periodistas (OC-5/85), párr. 70.

  5. Genealogy and citations between decisions

    citations genealogy

    Who cites a paragraph, and what it cites, read from the footnotes and paragraphs of the whole base. The genealogy follows the citations back, generation by generation, to the likely origin of a standard, and forward, to the decisions that took it up.

    You write

    Where does the right to a healthy environment affirmed in La Oroya come from, and who took it up afterwards?

    Caititu
    Starts from párr. 118 of Habitantes de La Oroya Vs. Perú (Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas) and follows the citations back and forward.
    What comes back
    1. 1999“Niños de la Calle” Vs. Guatemala (Fondo), párr. 1444th generation: the oldest point of the line
    2. 2005Yakye Axa Vs. Paraguay (Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), párr. 1632nd generation
    3. 2017Medio ambiente y derechos humanos (OC-23/17), párrs. 59, 62, 64 and 2121st generation: cited in the starting paragraph
    4. 2020Lhaka Honhat Vs. Argentina (Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), párr. 2031st generation: cited in the starting paragraph
    5. 2023Habitantes de La Oroya Vs. Perú (Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), párr. 118Starting point
    6. 2025Emergencia Climática y Derechos Humanos (OC-32/25), párr. 297Afterwards: the opinion on the climate emergency
    28

    paragraphs reached backwards, in four generations of citations, and 6 decisions that cite the paragraph afterwards, 3 of them only in the judges' separate opinions.

  6. Similar paragraphs

    similar_paragraphs

    The IACtHR often repeats a wording from one decision to the next without saying where it came from. This tool finds the paragraphs whose wording is nearly the same as that of a given paragraph, oldest first, with how close they are, even when one does not cite the other.

    You write

    Are there other paragraphs with the same wording as párr. 370 of Hacienda Brasil Verde, on the criteria of reasonable time?

    Caititu
    Compares the wording of párr. 370 with the whole base.
    What comes back

    7 paragraphs with a similarity of 0.85 or more (1 would be the same text), among them Gonzales Lluy y otros Vs. Ecuador, párr. 298 (0.86), Favela Nova Brasília Vs. Brasil (Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), párr. 218 (0.91), and Leite de Souza y otros Vs. Brasil (Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), párr. 149 (0.87). None of the three cites párr. 370; like it, all three cite Valle Jaramillo y otros Vs. Colombia (Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), párr. 155.

  7. Citations to other courts and bodies

    external_citations

    The decisions and documents of other courts and bodies that the IACtHR and its judges cite: the European Court, the UN committees and special rapporteurs, the Inter-American Commission (IACHR), the International Court of Justice, the international criminal tribunals, the high courts of the States. For each document, who cites it and in which paragraph.

    You write

    Which judgments of the European Court do the IACtHR and its judges cite most? And where do they cite Soering v. the United Kingdom?

    Caititu
    Counts the citations of the European Court in the whole base and lists, in order, the decisions that cite Soering.
    What comes back

    At the top, Cyprus v. Turkey (cited in 26 decisions), Kurt v. Turkey (23) and Soering v. the United Kingdom (22). Soering appears from Ivcher Bronstein Vs. Perú (Competencia, 1999), párr. 45, to Dial y otro Vs. Trinidad y Tobago, 2022, párrs. 66 and 72.

  8. Scholarly writing

    doctrine_citations

    The books, articles and courses cited in the base, almost always by the judges in their separate opinions: who is cited, which works, by which judge, in which decision and paragraph. A judge citing his or her own writings is counted apart.

    You write

    Which authors does Judge Cançado Trindade cite most in his separate opinions?

    Caititu
    Gathers the scholarly references of his separate opinions and counts in how many decisions each author appears.
    What comes back

    1,312 citations of 521 authors. At the top, Ian Brownlie, G. Radbruch and Ch. de Visscher, each in 8 decisions. Radbruch appears, for example, in Cançado Trindade's voto razonado in Almonacid Arellano y otros Vs. Chile, párrs. 7 and 9.

  9. Statistics

    statistics

    Counts over the whole base, by year, State, type of decision, judge or right found violated, with the same filters as the searches and, if you wish, only in the paragraphs that hold certain words. Each line gives the number of decisions and, depending on the count, of paragraphs: the chat need not estimate from a page of results.

    You write

    For violating which rights has Brazil been held responsible, and in how many judgments each?

    Caititu
    Counts over the whole base, from the operative paragraphs of each judgment.
    What comes back
    40

    rights and duties that the judgments against Brazil found violated, by the name the IACtHR uses in the operative paragraphs. The most frequent, with the number of judgments:

    A judgment counts once for each right it found violated, whatever the articles it relied on.

    You write

    With Caititu, make a heatmap of the Series C judgments on the merits, by respondent State and by year. When I click, show the judgments, with the PDF.

    Caititu
    Counts only the judgments on the merits, State by State and year by year. Decisions only on preliminary objections or reparations, and interpretations, revisions and compliance, are left out.
    What comes back

    Series C judgments on the merits by State and year

    Judgments in the year:123–45–7

    Swipe the table sideways to see every year.

    Skip the table
    Series C judgments on the merits by respondent State (rows) and by year (columns). The first row gives the total of each year; the last column, the total of each State.
    State198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020202120222023202420252026Total
    All States120100131434472511161710101591319131216141021211924252631195
    Argentina1111233317612313140
    Barbados112
    Bolivia1111239
    Brazil22111211125322
    Chile11211112122419
    Colombia1112221121121421233134
    Costa Rica1111217
    Dominican Republic1214
    Ecuador1111312232313554644
    El Salvador11111111311
    Guatemala2112321113213137321141
    Haiti1113
    Honduras1212111311212221
    Mexico123131111216
    Nicaragua11111133214
    Panama111115
    Paraguay21311112214
    Peru1222313351212262323232423163
    Suriname1111116
    Trinidad and Tobago1124
    Uruguay213
    Venezuela111115331112222121132
    You write

    With Caititu, make a timeline of the advisory opinions, one dot per opinion. When I click a year, show the opinions, with the PDF.

    Caititu
    Gives the year of each advisory opinion.
    What comes back

    Advisory opinions by year

    Swipe the timeline sideways to see every year.

    1. 1982: OC-1/82 and OC-2/82
    2. 1983: OC-3/83
    3. 1984: OC-4/84
    4. 1985: OC-5/85
    5. 1986: OC-6/86 and OC-7/86
    6. 1987: OC-8/87 and OC-9/87
    7. 1989: OC-10/89
    8. 1990: OC-11/90
    9. 1991: OC-12/91
    10. 1993: OC-13/93
    11. 1994: OC-14/94
    12. 1997: OC-15/97
    13. 1999: OC-16/99
    14. 2002: OC-17/02
    15. 2003: OC-18/03
    16. 2005: OC-19/05
    17. 2009: OC-20/09
    18. 2014: OC-21/14
    19. 2016: OC-22/16
    20. 2017: OC-23/17 and OC-24/17
    21. 2018: OC-25/18
    22. 2020: OC-26/20
    23. 2021: OC-27/21 and OC-28/21
    24. 2022: OC-29/22
    25. 2025: OC-30/25, OC-31/25 and OC-32/25
    You write

    With Caititu, count each judge's separate opinions in the Series C decisions and the advisory opinions, by type, and make a bar chart, from the most recent judges to the earliest, the ad hoc judges apart. When I click, show the opinions.

    Caititu
    Counts each judge's separate opinions by type, and reads the bench at the start of each decision. A joint opinion counts for each judge who signs it, but adhering to another's does not. The years are those of the decisions the judge took part in.
    What comes back

    Each judge's separate opinions

    Type of opinion:dissentingpartially dissentingconcurringreasonedother type
    Titular judges
    1. Alberto Borea OdríaYears in decisions: 2025–2026Opinions: 193 dissenting opinions9 partially dissenting opinions3 concurring opinions4 reasoned opinions
    2. Diego Moreno RodríguezYears in decisions: 2025–2026Opinions: 62 dissenting opinions2 partially dissenting opinions2 concurring opinions
    3. Nancy Hernández LópezYears in decisions: 2022–2026Opinions: 335 dissenting opinions15 partially dissenting opinions9 concurring opinions3 reasoned opinions1 opinion of another type
    4. Patricia Pérez GoldbergYears in decisions: 2022–2026Opinions: 484 dissenting opinions38 partially dissenting opinions6 concurring opinions
    5. Rodrigo MudrovitschYears in decisions: 2022–2026Opinions: 492 dissenting opinions16 partially dissenting opinions28 concurring opinions3 reasoned opinions
    6. Verónica GómezYears in decisions: 2022–2026Opinions: 81 dissenting opinion1 partially dissenting opinion5 concurring opinions1 opinion of another type
    7. Ricardo C. Pérez ManriqueYears in decisions: 2019–2026Opinions: 471 dissenting opinion21 partially dissenting opinions23 concurring opinions2 reasoned opinions
    8. Elizabeth Odio BenitoYears in decisions: 2016–2024Opinions: 32 partially dissenting opinions1 concurring opinion
    9. Eugenio Raúl ZaffaroniYears in decisions: 2016–2024Opinions: 114 dissenting opinions1 partially dissenting opinion6 concurring opinions
    10. L. Patricio Pazmiño FreireYears in decisions: 2016–2024Opinions: 142 dissenting opinions2 partially dissenting opinions10 concurring opinions
    11. Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor PoisotYears in decisions: 2013–2025Opinions: 684 dissenting opinions13 partially dissenting opinions30 concurring opinions21 reasoned opinions
    12. Humberto Antonio Sierra PortoYears in decisions: 2013–2025Opinions: 632 dissenting opinions38 partially dissenting opinions23 concurring opinions
    Show moreShow less
    1. Roberto F. CaldasYears in decisions: 2013–2018Opinions: 113 partially dissenting opinions2 concurring opinions5 reasoned opinions1 opinion of another type
    2. Eduardo Vio GrossiYears in decisions: 2010–2022Opinions: 5614 dissenting opinions15 partially dissenting opinions22 concurring opinions5 opinions of other types
    3. Alberto Pérez PérezYears in decisions: 2010–2016Opinions: 141 dissenting opinion8 partially dissenting opinions3 concurring opinions2 reasoned opinions
    4. Leonardo A. FrancoYears in decisions: 2007–2013Opinions: 11 partially dissenting opinion
    5. Margarette May MacaulayYears in decisions: 2007–2013Opinions: 31 dissenting opinion2 concurring opinions
    6. Rhadys Abreu BlondetYears in decisions: 2007–2013Opinions: 22 concurring opinions
    7. Manuel E. Ventura RoblesYears in decisions: 2004–2017Opinions: 166 dissenting opinions2 partially dissenting opinions1 concurring opinion7 reasoned opinions
    8. Diego García-SayánYears in decisions: 2004–2016Opinions: 121 partially dissenting opinion10 concurring opinions1 reasoned opinion
    9. Cecilia Medina QuirogaYears in decisions: 2004–2011Opinions: 134 dissenting opinions4 partially dissenting opinions4 concurring opinions1 reasoned opinion
    10. Sergio García RamírezYears in decisions: 1998–2011Opinions: 641 partially dissenting opinion35 concurring opinions28 reasoned opinions
    11. Carlos Vicente de Roux RengifoYears in decisions: 1998–2003Opinions: 121 dissenting opinion3 partially dissenting opinions1 concurring opinion6 reasoned opinions1 opinion of another type
    12. Alirio Abreu BurelliYears in decisions: 1996–2006Opinions: 91 dissenting opinion1 partially dissenting opinion3 concurring opinions4 reasoned opinions
    13. Oliver JackmanYears in decisions: 1996–2006Opinions: 91 dissenting opinion2 partially dissenting opinions6 concurring opinions
    14. Antônio Augusto Cançado TrindadeYears in decisions: 1995–2008Opinions: 769 dissenting opinions14 concurring opinions52 reasoned opinions1 opinion of another type
    15. Máximo Pacheco GómezYears in decisions: 1994–2003Opinions: 53 dissenting opinions2 reasoned opinions
    16. Hernán Salgado PesantesYears in decisions: 1993–2003Opinions: 97 concurring opinions2 reasoned opinions
    17. Alejandro Montiel ArgüelloYears in decisions: 1993–1998Opinions: 106 dissenting opinions4 concurring opinions
    18. Asdrúbal Aguiar-ArangurenYears in decisions: 1993–1994Opinions: 11 dissenting opinion
    19. Julio A. BarberisYears in decisions: 1991–1993Opinions: 11 reasoned opinion
    20. Sonia Picado SotelaYears in decisions: 1989–1994Opinions: 11 dissenting opinion
    21. Héctor Gros EspiellYears in decisions: 1986–1989Opinions: 11 opinion of another type
    22. Rafael Nieto NaviaYears in decisions: 1983–1997Opinions: 32 dissenting opinions1 opinion of another type
    23. Thomas BuergenthalYears in decisions: 1982–1991Opinions: 22 dissenting opinions
    24. Pedro NikkenYears in decisions: 1982–1990Opinions: 21 dissenting opinion1 opinion of another type
    25. Rodolfo E. Piza EscalanteYears in decisions: 1982–1990Opinions: 71 dissenting opinion6 opinions of other types
    26. Máximo CisnerosYears in decisions: 1982–1985Opinions: 11 opinion of another type
    27. Carlos Roberto ReinaYears in decisions: 1982–1984Opinions: 11 opinion of another type

    Another 5 titular judges sat on decisions without writing an opinion: Policarpo Callejas Bonilla, Orlando Tovar Tamayo, Héctor Fix-Zamudio, Jorge R. Hernández Alcerro and Huntley Eugene Munroe.

    Ad hoc judges
    1. Alejandro Carlos EspinosaYears in decisions: 2010–2011Opinions: 22 concurring opinions
    2. Augusto Fogel PedrozoYears in decisions: 2010Opinions: 11 dissenting opinion
    3. Einer Elías Biel MoralesYears in decisions: 2009Opinions: 11 dissenting opinion
    4. Pier Paolo Pasceri ScaramuzzaYears in decisions: 2009Opinions: 22 dissenting opinions
    5. Ramón Cadena RámilaYears in decisions: 2009Opinions: 11 concurring opinion
    6. Víctor Oscar Shiyín García TomaYears in decisions: 2009Opinions: 21 partially dissenting opinion1 concurring opinion
    7. Diego Rodríguez PinzónYears in decisions: 2008–2011Opinions: 22 partially dissenting opinions
    8. Álvaro Castellanos HowellYears in decisions: 2008Opinions: 11 concurring opinion
    9. Diego Eduardo López MedinaYears in decisions: 2007–2008Opinions: 11 concurring opinion
    10. Arturo Alfredo Herrador SandovalYears in decisions: 2005Opinions: 11 reasoned opinion
    11. Gustavo Zafra RoldánYears in decisions: 2005Opinions: 11 concurring opinion
    12. Jorge Santistevan de NoriegaYears in decisions: 2005Opinions: 11 partially dissenting opinion
    13. Ramón FogelYears in decisions: 2005Opinions: 11 partially dissenting opinion
    14. Emilio Camacho ParedesYears in decisions: 2004Opinions: 11 concurring opinion
    15. Francisco Eguiguren PraeliYears in decisions: 2004Opinions: 11 reasoned opinion
    16. Arturo Martínez GálvezYears in decisions: 2003Opinions: 22 partially dissenting opinions
    17. Ricardo Gil LavedraYears in decisions: 2003Opinions: 11 reasoned opinion
    18. Charles N. BrowerYears in decisions: 2000–2002Opinions: 11 reasoned opinion
    19. Fernando Vidal RamírezYears in decisions: 1998–2007Opinions: 73 dissenting opinions2 partially dissenting opinions1 concurring opinion1 reasoned opinion
    20. Edgar Enrique Larraondo SalgueroYears in decisions: 1996–2001Opinions: 11 dissenting opinion
    21. Alfonso Novales AguirreYears in decisions: 1996–1999Opinions: 33 concurring opinions
    22. Jorge E. Orihuela IbericoYears in decisions: 1991–1996Opinions: 21 dissenting opinion1 opinion of another type

    Another 15 ad hoc judges sat on decisions without writing an opinion.

    You write

    With Caititu, which other courts and bodies does the IACtHR cite most in its decisions, leaving out the separate opinions? Chart the ten courts and the ten other bodies cited in the most decisions. When I click, show the decisions.

    Caititu
    Counts, decision by decision, the citations of other courts and bodies in the paragraphs and footnotes, leaving out the judges' opinions, the State's own courts and the documents of the case file.
    What comes back

    The other courts and bodies cited most

    Courts
    1. European Court of Human Rights313 decisions2,264 citations
    2. International Court of Justice93 decisions405 citations
    3. Constitutional Court of Colombia62 decisions165 citations
    4. International Criminal Court47 decisions62 citations
    5. Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica42 decisions64 citations
    Show moreShow less
    1. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Mexico)42 decisions61 citations
    2. Constitutional Court of Peru39 decisions71 citations
    3. Permanent Court of International Justice34 decisions64 citations
    4. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia29 decisions84 citations
    5. Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (Argentina)28 decisions59 citations
    Other bodies
    1. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights224 decisions905 citations
    2. Human Rights Committee (UN)214 decisions1,249 citations
    3. Special rapporteurs and procedures (UN)209 decisions1,786 citations
    4. OAS General Assembly155 decisions547 citations
    5. United Nations General Assembly141 decisions484 citations
    Show moreShow less
    1. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights113 decisions539 citations
    2. OAS Permanent Council94 decisions190 citations
    3. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN)80 decisions759 citations
    4. Human Rights Council (UN)80 decisions329 citations
    5. Committee on the Rights of the Child (UN)62 decisions721 citations
    You write

    With Caititu, which scholarly authors do the judges cite most in their separate opinions, leaving out their own writings? Chart the first fifteen. When I click, show the decisions.

    Caititu
    Counts the scholarly citations in separate opinions, author by author, leaving out judges' citations of their own writings.
    What comes back

    The scholarly authors cited most in separate opinions

    1. Carlos Fernández Sessarego11 decisions24 citations
    2. Luís Greco10 decisions37 citations
    3. Ian Brownlie9 decisions15 citations
    4. G. Radbruch9 decisions12 citations
    5. Ch. de Visscher8 decisions10 citations
    Show moreShow less
    1. S. Rosenne7 decisions13 citations
    2. J. Crawford7 decisions12 citations
    3. Cecilia Medina7 decisions12 citations
    4. S. Weil7 decisions12 citations
    5. A. Cassese7 decisions9 citations
    6. C. Tomuschat7 decisions7 citations
    7. John Rawls6 decisions12 citations
    8. R. Cassin6 decisions11 citations
    9. H. Lauterpacht6 decisions10 citations
    10. C.W. Jenks6 decisions9 citations

  10. Reading paragraphs, footnotes and articles

    read_paragraph read_article

    Brings the full official text of a paragraph, or of several in a row, with the footnotes it calls, the headings it stands under and the line to cite it in the IACtHR's format. It also reads the judges' separate opinions (votos) and the articles of the American Convention and of the other basic documents of the system, such as the IACtHR's Rules of Procedure and the Protocol of San Salvador.

    You write

    Show paragraph 118 of Habitantes de La Oroya, with its footnotes, and article 26 of the American Convention.

    Caititu
    Reads the paragraph, the footnotes it calls and the article, as the base holds them.
    What comes back

    The paragraph, in Spanish, with the mark of each footnote where it is called:

    […] Asimismo, ha establecido que el derecho al medio ambiente sano está comprendido por un conjunto de elementos procedimentales y sustantivos[nota 180]. De los primeros surgen obligaciones en materia de acceso a la información (infra párr. 144 a 149), participación política (infra párr. 150 a 152) y acceso a la justicia (infra párr. 272)[nota 181]. […] En este sentido, este Tribunal ha señalado que el derecho al medio ambiente sano “protege los componentes del […] ambiente, tales como bosques, ríos, mares y otros, como intereses jurídicos en sí mismos, aún en ausencia de certeza o evidencia sobre el riesgo a las personas individuales”[nota 182]. […]

    [nota 180] Cfr. Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17, supra, párrs. 62 y 212.[nota 181] Cfr. Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17, supra, párr. 212.[nota 182] Cfr. Opinión Consultiva OC-23/17, supra, párrs. 59, 62 y 64, y Caso Comunidades Indígenas Miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (Nuestra Tierra) Vs. Argentina, supra, párr. 203. […]

    The line to cite it: Corte IDH. Caso Habitantes de La Oroya Vs. Perú. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 27 de noviembre de 2023. Serie C No. 511, párr. 118.

    And the article:

    Artículo 26. Desarrollo Progresivo. Los Estados Partes se comprometen a adoptar providencias, tanto a nivel interno como mediante la cooperación internacional, […] para lograr progresivamente la plena efectividad de los derechos que se derivan de las normas económicas, sociales y sobre educación, ciencia y cultura, contenidas en la Carta de la Organización de los Estados Americanos […].

  11. Free queries

    sql_query

    For what the other tools do not cover, the chat writes a read-only query to the base and crosses whatever it needs: decisions, paragraphs, footnotes, rights found violated, citations, Cuadernillos, other courts, scholarly writing.

    You write

    Which judgments of the European Court does the IACtHR cite on reasonable time?

    Caititu
    Crosses the citations of the European Court with the text of the paragraphs that make them, in the judgments and advisory opinions, and keeps those that speak of “plazo razonable”.
    What comes back
    66

    citations in 20 decisions, from 1997 to 2017 (23 more in the judges' separate opinions).

    The most cited are Motta v. Italy and Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, each in 5 decisions, then H. v. the United Kingdom, Panchenko v. Russia, Stoidis v. Greece and Wimmer v. Germany, in 3. In 10 of the 66 citations the base recognises the court but does not identify the judgment cited. The first citation, in Genie Lacayo Vs. Nicaragua (Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas), párr. 77, already brings Motta and Ruiz-Mateos for the three elements of reasonable time: the complexity of the matter, the procedural activity of the interested party and the conduct of the judicial authorities.

  12. Reporting an error

    report_problem

    If something in the answer looks wrong (a citation, a paragraph, a footnote, a count, a missing decision), the chat can send a report to the Caititu team. First it asks whether you agree. Your question goes along only if you allow it. Do not put personal data in the report. What is kept.

    You write

    In Rodríguez Pacheco y otra Vs. Venezuela, Caititu records only Article 7(b) of the Belém do Pará Convention, but operative paragraph 3 says “artículo 7.b), f) y g)”. Is this an error in the base?

    Caititu
    With your yes, reads again what the base holds for that operative paragraph and writes a short report, with the date of the base.
    What comes back

    The report, for you to read: Rodríguez Pacheco y otra Vs. Venezuela, operative paragraph 3, what looks wrong, what you expected and what the base holds today. And word that it reached the team.

    This error really happened and was fixed in October 2026: the base now records all three subparagraphs, (b), (f) and (g).

Recommendations

Do not ask the chat to write for you

We recommend that you never ask a chat for paragraphs “ready” for your petition or any other court filing. Caititu helps to see better what has been decided, but interpreting, applying and developing international human rights law is a human task.

Ask it to find

  • “Which paragraphs deal with this topic?”
  • “Where does this standard come from, and who cited it afterwards?”
  • “Show the official text, with the footnotes.”

Do not ask it to draft

  • “Write the case-law section of my petition.”
  • “Draft the grounds of my appeal.”
  • “Make a ready paragraph with these citations.”

Choose a capable model

The chat gives Caititu its instructions, reads what it returned and writes a summary for you. So choosing a good model matters: for its instructions to be complete, its reading careful and its summary faithful to what Caititu found.

Ask for the paragraph number

It is the number that lets anyone audit Caititu's results by going straight to the sources. If the answer comes without references to specific paragraphs, ask for them.

Distrust an answer without a source

If the chat still states something about the IACtHR's case law without giving a case and paragraph, ask for the reference and read the original text.

Expect errors

The tool can find details that would go unnoticed, but it misses many others. A search with no result does not prove that the IACtHR never dealt with the matter, and a search with many results may contain false positives.

How to install Contact the project