It's also amusing that angry homophobic Latin American right-wingers, like we saw in Costa Rica, know absolutely nothing about the Inter-American System and all seem to assume that 'withdrawing' from the system would automatically absolve them from having to apply its rulings. Even if that's not the case.
Why not? It's a sovereign country so it's weird if a withdrawal from the system isn't enough.
I may have been unclear in my post: withdrawal from the System would obviously absolve them from any future obligations or rulings, but withdrawal isn't retroactive on past jurisprudence.
During the Costa Rican election campaign, when Fabricio A. was proposing to withdraw Costa Rica from the IAHR Court,
Semanario Universidad asked legal experts how viable his proposal actually was.
Given that the thing most angry homophobic Latin American right-wingers object to is the IAHR Court, they propose to "withdraw from the Court", but this is impossible: you cannot pick and choose what parts of the System you like or dislike, so if a country is to withdraw, they need to denounce the American Convention on Human Rights -- which only two countries (Trinidad and Tobago in 1998 and Venezuela in 2012) have done. Article 78 of the Convention is the relevant part here:
sourceThe conclusions drawn here are that (a) denunciations become effective one year after having been declared and (b) they do not release a party from its obligations resulting from jurisprudence and its effects which have occurred prior to the effective date of denunciation.
