Specificity in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Human rights bodies formulate highly specific orders to minimize the risk of State non-compliance. However, specificity comes at a cost, reducing State autonomy when local agents implement measures on the ground. This article develops the concept of specificity in human rights reparations and analyses the specificity formulas deployed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in structural measures as a form of positive subsidiarity. We employ qualitative data analysis software to process 322 measures of non-repetition ordered by the Inter-American Court through to the end of 2020. This analysis identifies two modes of specificity: process-based, which defines procedures for compliance, and outcome-based, which sets the goals for the State. After coding over 800 segments of text from Court decisions, we outline an exhaustive legal framework with 26 process-based categories and 2 outcome-based forms of specificity. We conclude that outcome-based specificity can help courts balance positive subsidiarity and State autonomy in the design of reparations.