The Inter-American Court of Human is primarily concern with the interpretation and application of the provision of the Convention. The world has seen the gradual evolution of regional human rights arrangements by the due interest of the states of different region. The creation of numerous regional instruments addresses concerns of particular importance in the regional context. But, whether it’s an international or regional organization, the main problem with Human rights is, here “the protector is the prime violator.” Ever since the advent of political society some hundreds of thousands of years ago, states have carelessly violated Human Rights for one reason or another. In most countries even today also, Human Rights violation is the norm rather than the exception, because the scope of the domestic court is confined to the law enacted by the competent authority of the states. Furthermore, domestic court gives priority to the municipal law over international law, when conflict arises between them, and more or less these organs are influenced by the state (the violator). So the demand of the day is the establishment of effective, independent and impartial implementation mechanism at international level to oversee the compliance of the state parties.
In 1969, the American Convention on Human rights was adopted by the OAS member States. The American Convention entered into force in 1978. The Convention enunciates a series of rights creates the Inter-American court of Human Rights and defines the functions and procedures of both the Inter-American commission and Commission and the Inter-American Court. The inter-American system is a two tier institutional structure with the commission acting like a court of first instance to which all complain must initially be taken and the court more or less like an appeal court. The Inter-American Court on Human is primarily concern with the interpretation and application of the provision of the Convention. In pursuant to this, time to time the court has made a lot of modification in its rule and procedure to provide remedies to the victims. In the contemporary world the court enjoy the broadest advisory jurisdiction and is also empowered to provide provisional measures to the victims and most notably it can monitor the compliance of its judgement by the state parties.