It has jurisdiction within around 20 of the 35 member states in the American continent that have taken steps to accede to its authority, the vast majority in Latin America.

[1] The court adjudicates claims of human rights violations by governments, and issues advisory opinions on interpretations of certain legal matters.

Under the latter, it issues opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to its attention by other OAS bodies or member states.

The adjudicatory function requires the Court to rule on cases brought before it in which a state party to the convention, and thus has accepted its jurisdiction, is accused of a human rights violation.

Acceptance of contentious jurisdiction can be given on a blanket basis – to date, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela and Uruguay have done so[4] (though Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela have subsequently withdrawn) – or, alternatively, a state can agree to abide by the Court's jurisdiction in a specific, individual case.

In contrast to the European human rights system, individual citizens of the OAS member states are not allowed to take cases directly to the Court.

Within 60 days following notification, the respondent must supply a written answer to the application, stating whether it accepts or disputes the facts and claims it contains.

Once this answer has been submitted, any of the parties in the case may request the Court president's permission to lodge additional pleadings prior to the commencement of the oral phase.

The president sets the date for the start of oral proceedings, for which the Court is considered quorate with the presence of five judges.

If the merits judgment does not cover the applicable reparations for the case, they must be determined at a separate hearing or through some other procedure as decided on by the Court.

However, the state can also be required to grant benefits in kind, to offer public recognition of its responsibility, to take steps to prevent similar violations occurring in the future, and other forms of non-monetary compensation.

For example, in its November 2001 judgment[5] in the Barrios Altos case – dealing with the massacre in Lima, Peru, of 15 people at the hands of the state-sponsored Colina Group death squad in November 1991 – the Court ordered payments of US$175,000 for the four survivors and for the next-of-kin of the murdered victims and a payment of $250,000 for the family of one of the victims.

The Court's advisory function enables it to respond to consultations submitted by OAS agencies and member states regarding the interpretation of the convention or other instruments governing human rights in the Americas; it also empowers it to give advice on domestic laws and proposed legislation, and to clarify whether or not they are compatible with the convention's provisions.

This advisory jurisdiction is available to all OAS member states, not only those that have ratified the convention and accepted the Court's adjudicatory function.

The court consists of seven judges, held to the highest moral judgement who have a high competency in human rights law.

[15] 'Highest Moral Authority' is loosely defined by the ACHR as never having never been convicted of a crime, suspended or expelled from the legal profession, or dismissed from public office.

Another independent group in charge of overseeing the national processes and ranking the candidates that is separate from OAS is a proposed initiative by scholars to address these criticisms.