Between 1973 and 1990, Chile was ruled by Augusto Pinochet, a military dictator known for his persecution of leftists and political opponents. Although Chile transitioned to democracy, ratified the American Convention on Human Rights and joined the Inter-American System for the protection of human rights (IAHRS) in 1990, Pinochet's legacy of human rights abuse lingers. This is exemplified by the Chilean military justice system's ongoing jurisdiction over cases in which military personnel harmed civilians, which violates the Convention's guarantee of access to competent courts and fair trials. This research fills a gap in the existing literature on this violation by exploring the following question: how do the combined structural weaknesses of the Chilean judiciary and IAHRS limit the Chilean military justice system's compliance with the Convention? To address this question, I qualitatively analyzed the foundational documents of the Chilean judiciary and IAHRS with a focus on how vague or inconsistent language in the articles that are procedurally connected in the interactions between the two institutions overlap and create loopholes that allow for Chile's ongoing Convention violation. This thesis argues that ambiguous and contradictory language in the articles of the Chilean and IAHRS documents involved in the referral of human rights petitions to the Inter-American Court limits compliance by jeopardizing the legitimacy of petitions against Chile for inappropriate military jurisdiction and by creating significant deterrents for those considering petitioning against Chile. As many Latin American countries were ruled by military dictatorships and have since ratified the Convention, this research could illuminate tendencies central to understanding and rooting out dictatorial legacies in the region and inform more effective collaboration between the IAHRS and its member states in addressing impunity for human rights abuse. 

The U Visa was introduced by Congress in 2000 as a form of relief for undocumented victims of violent crime. To qualify for the U Visa, an applicant must submit an I-918B Certification, signed by a local legal authority, certifying that the applicant has been helpful in the prosecution of the crime to which they are victim to. However, in some localities throughout Oregon and the United States at large, the efforts and interests of local law enforcement are entangled with those of federal immigration enforcement. Thus, for undocumented individuals, the act of contacting a local legal agency may present daunting consequences. This study explores the question—how does a collaborative relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement affect the extent to which U Visa protections are accessed by undocumented individuals in the state of Oregon? The purpose of this study is to assess the dichotomous relationship between local policing practices and forms of protective legislation offered to immigrants at the federal level. I hypothesize that fewer U Visa applications are successfully submitted in areas in which local law enforcement maintains a collaborative relationship with federal immigration enforcement, as I anticipate that undocumented individuals are ultimately deterred by the risk of deportation. To test this hypothesis, I compare the rate at which U Visa Certification requests are received and subsequently, approved and/or denied throughout the 36 counties of Oregon. The findings of this study will make clear how local policing practices may affect and ultimately, inhibit federally-offered forms of protective legislation. By understanding the ways in which undocumented individuals are systemically barred from mobilizing legislation, we may revise legal language and redefine local policing practices to make the U Visa more accessible and ultimately, better support immigrant communities.