On March 18, 2026, Professor Angel Gabriel Cabrera Silva, University of Washington Center for Human Rights faculty associate and Assistant Professor of International Law at the University of Washington Tacoma, appeared before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to argue in favor of recognizing democracy as a human right with political, social, and economic dimensions.
Speaking from Brasília, Professor Cabrera’s intervention took place in the context of Advisory Opinion OC-33, an international legal proceeding expected to provide the first authoritative interpretation of the status of democracy in international human rights law.
What is the Advisory Opinion OC-33?
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) is an international court with binding jurisdiction over most of Latin America. Besides playing a central role in shaping regional human rights standards, its rulings often influence the evolution of international law more broadly.
In addition to deciding contentious cases, the Inter-American Court can issue advisory opinions that clarify the meaning of the American Convention on Human Rights. These advisory proceedings do not address specific cases; instead, they allow the Court to interpret legal questions in advance and assist governments in fulfilling their human rights obligations.
In recent years, this mechanism has become a key tool for developing important legal standards. Through advisory opinions, the IACHR has addressed complex issues, such as the legal obligations of states in relation to the climate emergency and firearms trafficking.
In 2024, the Government of Guatemala activated this mechanism by requesting Advisory Opinion OC-33. Among other questions, this request asked the IACHR to determine whether democracy is protected as a human right—and if so, what does that right entail?
Advisory Opinion OC-33 arrives at a critical moment. The world is going through an unprecedented wave of autocratization, with Latin American countries seeing an especially rapid surge in popular authoritarianism. Unlike prior forms of autocratic governance, these new regimes are not overtly dictatorial. On the contrary, they assume power through elections and use their popular legitimacy to gradually erode the institutional foundations of democracy.
These circumstances call for an urgent reexamination of democracy’s status in international law. While democracy is widely recognized as a valuable legal principle, whether it constitutes a justiciable human right remains a highly contested question. Even if all States of the Americas have signed the Inter-American Democratic Charter—which affirms that the “peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy”—the Charter is not legally binding. It remains unclear whether it gives rise to any legal obligations. This is precisely what the Inter-American Court’s Advisory Opinion OC-33 is now called to resolve.
An Argument to Recognize Democracy as a Socio-Economic Right
As part of these advisory proceedings, the Court invited governments, civil society, and academics to submit written observations on the legal question at hand. The deadline to file these submissions expired in November 2025. The Court then invited the authors of these submissions to present their arguments before the judges during its recent sessions, held in Brasília from March 16-20, 2026. Professor Cabrera and his co-counsel, Sahib Singh, Senior Expert at Demos Helsinki, were among those who engaged in this legal process.
Watch the oral arguments here. (Minute 3:05:00-3:12:45)
In their submission, Professor Cabrera and Mr. Singh advanced a simple yet innovative claim: democracy cannot survive without confronting inequality; therefore, democracy must be conceived as a human right with socio-economic dimensions.
Their legal argument was fully developed in the written observations they submitted to the Court in November 2025. This legal brief shows that systemic inequalities create a vicious cycle that threatens democracy. In Latin America, this cycle begins when socio-economic inequalities translate into political inequalities, for instance, by creating barriers to political participation and allowing elites to distort political processes. The cycle then continues when political inequalities make democratic institutions less responsive to the needs of marginalized groups. This worsens existing socio-economic inequalities, which in turn furthers democratic erosion.
In their submission, Professor Cabrera and Mr. Singh advanced a simple yet innovative claim: democracy cannot survive without confronting inequality; therefore, democracy must be conceived as a human right with socio-economic dimensions.
This insight carries important legal implications. Recognizing the socio-economic underpinnings of democracy reveals a direct connection to international jurisprudence on social and economic rights—particularly the Court’s interpretation of Article 26 of the American Convention, relating to the pro-egalitarian and pro-participatory norms contained in the Inter-American Democratic Charter.
By exploring this connection, Prof. Cabrera’s intervention argued that democracy is not only a civil and political right; it is also a social and economic right requiring states to address entrenched inequalities. And because the sources of socio-economic inequality evolve, democracy must continuously renew itself to progressively achieve a more equitable society.
The Role of Democratic Innovation
One of the most important implications of this approach is that it reframes the right to democracy as a dynamic right to continuous democratization, not a static right to preserve (or establish) a fixed institutional design.
From this perspective, the right to democracy requires Latin American states to continuously renew their democratic institutions in ways that deepen the political agency and strengthen the socio-economic resilience of ordinary citizens.
This goes beyond organizing periodic elections, which is already required under Article 23 of the American Convention. Instead, it asks states to expand opportunities for heightened political participation, that is, mechanisms that allow citizens to exercise direct, meaningful, permanent, inclusive, and sustainable influence over public affairs.
One of the most important implications of this approach is that it reframes the right to democracy as a dynamic right to continuous democratization, not a static right to preserve (or establish) a fixed institutional design.
Latin America has been a global leader in the implementation of these democratic innovations— from the invention of participatory budgeting to the use of citizens’ assemblies.
The written argument presented by Professor Cabrera and his co-authors compiled and systematized quantitative and qualitative analyses of these innovations. This provided the Court with empirical evidence showing that mechanisms of heightened political participation are not only a reality but are already reshaping how public decisions are made in Latin America.
Within Advisory Opinion OC-33, this evidence is legally significant. The fact that several Latin American states have recognized the centrality of these participatory mechanisms reflects an evolving understanding of what democracy requires. In determining the scope of a right to democracy, the Court must interpret the American Convention in light of this regional trend. Ultimately, the Court must articulate legal standards that capture the dynamic and participatory norms shared by many contemporary democracies.
What happens next?
The public hearings held in Brasília brought together a wide range of participants, including States, international organizations, academic institutions, and civil society groups. Each offered different perspectives on the meaning and scope of democracy under international law.
With the hearings now concluded, the judges will begin deliberations. While the exact timeline remains uncertain, a decision is expected in the coming months or, more likely, during 2027.
The Court’s decision will not, on its own, reverse democratic backsliding in Latin America, let alone the world. However, the recognition of democracy as a human right could have far-reaching implications—especially if the Court establishes its socio-economic dimensions. Such a norm would provide Latin American advocates, policymakers, and communities with new legal tools to challenge inequality, demand institutional reform, and expand participation.
Most importantly, such a decision could help shift the broader conversation about democracy itself. Rather than treating democracy as a fixed institutional arrangement to be preserved, the Court may invite us to see it as a collective and ongoing project—one that requires constant renewal and active engagement from society. At a time when democratic institutions face growing pressure, this shift in perspective may prove not only timely but necessary.
