{"id":6993,"date":"2026-09-24T11:59:01","date_gmt":"2026-09-24T09:59:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/?post_type=blog&p=6993"},"modified":"2026-09-24T11:59:02","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T09:59:02","slug":"from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy","status":"publish","type":"blog","link":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On 7 August 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25<\/a> on the content and scope of the right to care. Beyond its substantive contribution \u2013 recognising care as an autonomous human right in its three-fold dimension of caring, being cared for, and self-care<\/a> \u2013 the Opinion introduced an argumentative innovation  which reaches far beyond the care agenda. To establish the direct justiciability of the right, the Court departed from the logic of Article 26<\/a> of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) as the \u201csole gateway\u201d for economic, social, cultural and environmental rights (ESCER), and derived the right\u2019s autonomy from a joint and systematic reading<\/em> of multiple conventional provisions. This hermeneutic operation offers an argumentative architecture for the Court in Advisory Opinion OC-33 to recognise the human right to democracy as autonomous and justiciable, a question that reaches the tribunal twenty-five years after the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC), adopted on 11 September 2001, proclaimed in its first article that the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments an obligation to promote and defend it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OC-31\/25\u2019s Interpretive Turn<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Since Acevedo Buend\u00eda v. Peru<\/em> (2009) and, above all, Lagos del Campo v. Peru<\/em> (2017), the IACtHR built a line of case law enabling the direct justiciability of ESCER through Article 26 ACHR, read together with the OAS Charter and the American Declaration. That was the route followed in Cuscul Pivaral<\/em>, Lhaka Honhat<\/em> and Vera Rojas<\/em>, and it was (not coincidentally) the central question Argentina posed in its 2023 request<\/a> for an IACtHR advisory opinion: could care be recognised as an autonomous right enforceable under Article 26<\/a>?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

OC-31\/25 answered affirmatively, but by taking an unexpected route. The Court expressly noted that a fragmentary treatment of care \u2013 limited to partial dimensions within other rights \u2013 is insufficient. It illustrated this with situations \u2013 such as unpaid care work and the position of persons in conditions of dependency \u2013 in which addressing the matter solely through the rights to health, family protection, or equality left unprotected the specific relational conditions on which the sustainability of life depends, thereby making an autonomous treatment necessary. Through a systematic, evolutive, and pro persona<\/em> interpretation, it derived the autonomy of care from the joint reading of Articles 1(1), 4, 5, 7, 11, 17, 19, 24 and 26 of the ACHR, complemented by Articles I, II, VI, XI and XIV\u2013XVI of the American Declaration and Articles 34 and 45 of the OAS Charter (paras. 108\u2013114). The right to care, the Court held, \u201cpresupposes its normative and functional autonomy, insofar as it protects a specific set of material and relational conditions essential to human well-being and dignity, the neglect of which may compromise the effective exercise of multiple interdependent rights\u201d (para. 114).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The move is legally significant. The Court no longer grounded autonomy in a single anchor \u2013 Article 26 ACHR as the gateway clause for ESCER \u2013 but in a normative constellation<\/em>: a right that the Convention does not name expressly attains autonomous and justiciable status \u2013 acquiring its own content and direct enforceability, instead of depending on the indirect invocation of other rights \u2013 when its content is indispensable for the simultaneous operation of several expressly recognised rights and none of them, alone, exhausts it. Read as a test, the operation has three steps: (i) the substance of the claimed right is already dispersed across several conventional provisions; (ii) none of them, taken alone, exhausts it; and (iii) its neglect compromises the simultaneous exercise of multiple interdependent rights. Any right satisfying these three conditions is a candidate for the same derivation \u2013 a point to which the democratic phenomenon will return below. An institutional dimension reinforces this, underscored in Judge Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot\u2019s concurring opinion. Under the doctrine of conventionality control, domestic authorities must interpret and apply national law in conformity with the ACHR as construed by the Court. In its dimension of \u201cinterpreted norm,\u201d that duty reaches not only the Convention\u2019s text but the standards the Court derives from it: the criteria set by OC-31\/25 thus enter domestic legal orders and bind all authorities \u2013 legislative, judicial, and administrative \u2013 in the design, interpretation, and implementation of laws and public policies. The operation is not only hermeneutic but also architectural: it defines a mode of incorporation into the Latin American Ius Constitutionale Commune<\/em> (ICCAL)<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How OC-31\/25 Could Unlock the Right to Democracy<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

It is interesting to explore how OC-31\/25 opens the door to the right to democracy. In December 2024, Guatemala requested OC-33 on the existence, scope and content of the right to democracy in the Inter-American System. After an intense participatory process, written observations<\/a> and public hearings in March 2026<\/a>, the tribunal faces a central question: whether democracy is a directly enforceable human right. The possible answers condense into three scenarios: (a) recognising an autonomous and justiciable right; (b) reaffirming democracy as a cross-cutting principle of the System, one that conditions the exercise of many rights without itself being an individually enforceable right; or (c) limiting the Opinion to reiterating the existing standards of the IADC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first two scenarios reveal a shared structural problem: how to ground the autonomy of a right whose substance is already dispersed across the conventional text. That is precisely the problem OC-31\/25 solved for care \u2013 and its solution is replicable. The right to democracy shares three structural features with the right to care that justify an analogous hermeneutic operation. The first is transversality<\/em>. Care, in OC-31\/25, was not one more entitlement neatly bounded alongside the others, but a preexistent right whose substance runs through and underpins the exercise of many of them. Democracy occupies the same structural position on the political plane. It has a content of its own \u2013 the integrity of the institutions and processes through which a political community governs itself \u2013 which at the same time conditions the effective exercise of political participation (Art. 23), freedom of expression (Art. 13), the freedoms of assembly and association (Arts. 15\u201316), equality before the law (Art. 24) and judicial protection (Arts. 8 and 25). Democracy is thus not a mere precondition external to these rights, but a substantive right woven through them, present in each and exhausted by none.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second is the insufficiency of fragmentary treatment<\/em>. The warning of OC-31\/25 (para. 112)<\/a> applies with equal force to the democratic phenomenon: addressing a right piecemeal within other rights is insufficient when the right\u2019s core may be violated for reasons no isolated right captures. Contemporary democratic erosion rarely manifests as a punctual violation of a single political right: it operates as systemic degradation that can only be grasped by reading multiple conventional provisions jointly. Consider the incremental capture of the judiciary: a sequence of individually defensible measures \u2013 enlarging the number of seats, forcing early retirements, redrawing appointment and removal rules \u2013 that, taken together, dismantles judicial independence. The Court has protected individual<\/em> judges through Articles 8 and 23 (Tribunal Constitucional v. Peru,<\/em><\/a> Rever\u00f3n Trujillo v. Venezuela<\/em><\/a>, L\u00f3pez Lone v. Honduras<\/em><\/a>), yet none of those claims captures the systemic harm: the citizenry\u2019s collective loss of an independent guardian of all its other rights. That residue \u2013 what no single conventional right apprehends \u2013 is precisely what an autonomous right to democracy would protect, just as care captured the sustainability of life and the relational conditions that the rights to health, family, or equality, read separately, left unguarded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The objection that an autonomous right would be redundant \u2013 because democracy is already indirectly protected through other rights, as the Venice Commission<\/a> has argued \u2013 is precisely the type of fragmentary reasoning OC-31\/25 rejected as insufficient. A convergent development beyond the region reinforces the point: in Commission v Hungary (Values of the Union)<\/em><\/a>, C-769\/22 (2026), the Court of Justice of the European Union held for the first time that Article 2 TEU \u2013 the clause enshrining the Union\u2019s founding values, among them democracy \u2013 contains legally binding obligations whose autonomous breach can be declared; and although that mechanism operates through inter-State infringement proceedings rather than individual petition, it confirms that the autonomous operativity of a dispersed values clause is not an Inter-American singularity. The third is plurinormative anchoring<\/em>.In OC-31\/25 the autonomy of care did not rest on the Convention alone: the Court read Article 26 ACHR together with the American Declaration and the OAS Charter, so that instruments of different normative weight converged on a single right \u2013 the treaty norms supplying the binding foundation, the non-treaty instruments specifying its content. The right to democracy can rest on a web denser still: Article 23 ACHR and the OAS Charter (Arts. 3(d) and 2(b)) form the conventional, binding base, while the American Declaration and, with particular precision, the IADC (Arts. 1, 3 and 7) articulate the content of a democratic order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Closing Remarks<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Transposing the methodology of OC-31\/25 to the democracy debate carries precise consequences across two planes. On the doctrinal plane<\/em>, it enables the Court to bypass the textualist objection: no right is \u201cinvented\u201d; rather, one is derived<\/em> whose substance is already dispersed across the conventional text, and the tribunal gains a replicable test. This also overcomes electoral reductionism: the right to democracy, read as in OC-31\/25, is not exhausted by the holding of free elections but encompasses civic space, judicial independence, and guarantees against structural regressions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the institutional plane<\/em>, OC-31\/25 demonstrates that the joint reading is not just judicial creativity without destination. Through conventionality control in its dimension of \u201cinterpreted norm\u201d \u2013 recalled in Judge Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot\u2019s concurrence \u2013 the standards bind domestic legal orders and operate as an ICCAL anchor. This matters acutely in a region marked by backsliding: as already happened with care \u2013 where Argentina, the requesting state, subsequently adopted regressive positions with the dissolution of the Ministry of Women, Genders, and Diversity. That reversal does not show the Opinion to be ineffective; it shows why the anchor matters. Because the autonomy of the right derives from a constellation of binding regional instruments, a conjunctural shift in a single state cannot undo it: the standard survives as an interpreted norm<\/em> on which courts, litigants, and social actors can continue to rely, as the ICCAL literature<\/a> on the domestic impact of inter-American standards documents. A robust OC-33 would offer the same normative anchor for the right to democracy against adverse political contexts. The argumentative architecture of OC-31\/25 protects against that type of reversal precisely because no conjunctural shift in a single state can undo a normative constellation derived from binding regional instruments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The normative constellation test is not exclusive to care or social rights: it is, in essence, a broad doctrinal response to the problem of the justiciability of rights not enumerated expressis verbis<\/em> in the ACHR but presupposed by the corpus iuris<\/em> as a whole. It remains to be seen whether the Court, in OC-33, decides to use it.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On 7 August 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 on the content and scope of the right to care. Beyond its substantive contribution \u2013 recognising care as an autonomous human right in its three-fold dimension of caring, being cared for, and self-care \u2013 the Opinion introduced an argumentative innovation  […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":6989,"template":"","blog-author":[568,460],"categorie":[412],"blog-tag":[450,550,497,571,572],"class_list":["post-6993","blog","type-blog","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","blog-author-mariana-brocca","blog-author-mariela-morales-antoniazzi","categorie-articulos","blog-tag-democracia","blog-tag-inter-american-court","blog-tag-inter-american-system","blog-tag-right-to-care","blog-tag-right-to-democracy"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy | ICCAL<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy | ICCAL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On 7 August 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 on the content and scope of the right to care. Beyond its substantive contribution \u2013 recognising care as an autonomous human right in its three-fold dimension of caring, being cared for, and self-care \u2013 the Opinion introduced an argumentative innovation  […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ICCAL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-09-24T09:59:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c-1024x683.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Juri Tino Berger\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/4e0a3793c55302f255461ffdd23e1ae1\"},\"headline\":\"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\\\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-24T09:59:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-24T09:59:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1775,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/\",\"name\":\"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\\\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy | ICCAL\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-24T09:59:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-24T09:59:02+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png\",\"width\":1536,\"height\":1024},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/blog\\\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Startseite\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\\\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"ICCAL\",\"description\":\"Ius Constitutionale Commune en Am\u00e9rica Latina\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/iccal.lat\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/4e0a3793c55302f255461ffdd23e1ae1\",\"name\":\"Juri Tino Berger\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d51b3f8c10110c18fb1c121809142b5ebe9dc7b02b752737e33dd9b311f0792b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d51b3f8c10110c18fb1c121809142b5ebe9dc7b02b752737e33dd9b311f0792b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/d51b3f8c10110c18fb1c121809142b5ebe9dc7b02b752737e33dd9b311f0792b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Juri Tino Berger\"}}]}<\/script>","yoast_head_json":{"title":"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy | ICCAL","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy | ICCAL","og_description":"On 7 August 2025, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) issued Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 on the content and scope of the right to care. Beyond its substantive contribution \u2013 recognising care as an autonomous human right in its three-fold dimension of caring, being cared for, and self-care \u2013 the Opinion introduced an argumentative innovation  […]","og_url":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/","og_site_name":"ICCAL","article_modified_time":"2026-09-24T09:59:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c-1024x683.png","type":"image\/png"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/"},"author":{"name":"Juri Tino Berger","@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/4e0a3793c55302f255461ffdd23e1ae1"},"headline":"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy","datePublished":"2026-09-24T09:59:01+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-24T09:59:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/"},"wordCount":1775,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png","inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/","url":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/","name":"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy | ICCAL","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png","datePublished":"2026-09-24T09:59:01+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-24T09:59:02+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/fd4d83e1-7a4b-4044-9ce2-29479f0bd02c.png","width":1536,"height":1024},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/blog\/from-care-to-democracy-advisory-opinion-oc-31-25-as-a-blueprint-for-a-human-right-to-democracy\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Startseite","item":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"From Care to Democracy: Advisory Opinion OC-31\/25 as a Blueprint for a Human Right to Democracy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/","name":"ICCAL","description":"Ius Constitutionale Commune en Am\u00e9rica Latina","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/4e0a3793c55302f255461ffdd23e1ae1","name":"Juri Tino Berger","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d51b3f8c10110c18fb1c121809142b5ebe9dc7b02b752737e33dd9b311f0792b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d51b3f8c10110c18fb1c121809142b5ebe9dc7b02b752737e33dd9b311f0792b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d51b3f8c10110c18fb1c121809142b5ebe9dc7b02b752737e33dd9b311f0792b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Juri Tino Berger"}}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/blog\/6993","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/blog"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/blog"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"blog-author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/blog-author?post=6993"},{"taxonomy":"categorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categorie?post=6993"},{"taxonomy":"blog-tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/iccal.lat\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/blog-tag?post=6993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}