README file ================================================== Dataset Title: Transjudicial Dialogue on Collective Expulsions: The IACtHR and Courts in Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador Dataset Author/s: Sara Mariella Lambertini (Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali), ORCID: 0000-0002-3204-2200, sara.lambertini8@unibo.it; Madalina Moraru (Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali), ORCID: 0000-0001-5976-7968, madalina.moraru@unibo.it; Data Set Contact Person/s: Sara Mariella Lambertini (Dipartimento di Scienze Politiche e Sociali), ORCID: 0000-0002-3204-2200, sara.lambertini8@unibo.it; Data Set License: This data set is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Publication Year: 2025 Project Info: ACCESS, Gatekeepers to International Refugee Law? - The Role of Courts in Shaping Access to Asylum, Project ID: 101078683, Funded by: EC Data set Contents -------------------------------------------------- Files in this dataset: ACCESS_Collective-expulsion_Brazil-Chile-Ecuador.xlsx (13.24 KB) ACCESS_Collective-expulsion_Brazil-Chile-Ecuador_README.txt Abstract -------------------------------------------------- This dataset analyzes thirteen judicial decisions from Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador (2016–2021) concerning the collective expulsion of migrants in contexts of irregular entry. The case law is codified according to twelve variables derived from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence. The data enables an assessment of transjudicial dialogue, measuring how domestic courts engage with Inter-American precedents. By mapping commonalities and discrepancies in the application of regional standards, this dataset supports the findings presented in the article “Vertical Transjudicial Dialogue and Collective Expulsions in South America: The Cases of Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador. Content of the files: -------------------------------------------------- file Dataset Collective Expulsion Brazil, Chile and Ecuador.xlsx comprises thirteen national court rulings from Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador (2016–2021) concerning collective expulsions. The information from these rulings is analyzed according to 12 variables, as explained below. Data sources -------------------------------------------------- The rulings analyzed were obtained from official digital repositories of the courts and judicial branches: Brazil: https://processual.trf1.jus.br/consultaProcessual/numeroProcesso.php?secao=RR&enviar=ok Chile: https://juris.pjud.cl/busqueda?Corte_Suprema Ecuador: https://procesosjudiciales.funcionjudicial.gob.ec/busqueda and https://buscador.corteconstitucional.gob.ec/buscador-externo/principal/fichaSentencia?numero=639-19-JP%2F20 Methodology -------------------------------------------------- The data collection and processing for the dataset were conducted as follows: Data Collection: The data was collected through a Boolean search strategy using specific keywords related to the research topic, including "collective expulsion," "mass deportation," "due process," and "refuge". The researchers accessed primary legal sources through the official digital repositories of the courts and judiciaries of Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador. The search was limited to the period from 2016 to 2021 to coincide with the peak of the Venezuelan displacement crisis and the implementation of restrictive border measures. The judgments were downloaded between December 2024 and January 2025. Data Processing and Selection: The processing phase involved filtering the search results to focus exclusively on cases challenging collective or summary expulsions. This process initially identified 16 judicial decisions across the three jurisdictions, including first and second-instance rulings and a decision from the Constitutional Court of Ecuador. To ensure analytical rigor, the researchers: Excluded Redundancies and lack of progretion: Two first-instance decisions from the Court of Appeals of Iquique (Chile) were removed from the dataset because they contained reasoning identical to other selected rulings. In the case of Brazil, an interim relief was excluded from the analysis because the judgment was not public. Established a Benchmark: The selected national judgments were analyzed against an "ideal legal standard" derived from a doctrinal analysis of the Inter-American corpus juris (including the ACHR, Cartagena Declaration, and IACtHR jurisprudence). Minority opinions: The processing included an examination of concurring and dissenting opinions. Analyzed Judicial Dialogue: To identify how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' norms were received and interpreted in national jurisdictions, the decisions were analyzed based on four constructed scenarios (variables). List of variables -------------------------------------------------- Country: Jurisdiction from which the judicial decisions originate. Case / Dec: Case identification number (original case number in that jurisdiction) Date : Date on which the analyzed judgment was adopted and published. Court : pEnglish name of the court that made the decision under analysis. Matter : Concise indication of the number of individuals expelled who filed the legal action. Ruling: Court decision regarding the legal action filed (granted or denied, upheld or overturned). Concurrent: Number of concurrent decisions and main arguments and Inter-American precedents to which reference is made. Dissenting : Number of dissenting decisions and main arguments or precedents to which reference is made. 1.Explicit citation: Scenario 1: The panel or judge expressly invokes Inter-American precedents or specific human rights instruments, citing authoritative sources such as the American Convention on Human Rights, the Cartagena Declaration, or the jurisprudence of the IACtHR to support their ruling. 2.Indirect reference: Scenario 2: The panel or judge alludes to Inter-American standards without specific citation, relying instead on generic terminology such as “Inter-American instruments,” “International Conventions,” or “International Commitments” to ground their legal authority. 3. Substantive Convergence: Scenario 3: The decision reflects substantive compliance with Inter-American human rights standards, yet the judicial reasoning omits any direct or indirect reference to the supranational precedents or instruments that established those interpretations. 4. Restrictive Divergence: Scenario 4: The panel or judge departs from the pro personae principle favored by Inter-American jurisprudence, adopting instead a restrictive interpretation that narrows the scope of the rights in question.