The Inter-American Human Rights System, like its European counterpart, has become an international entity of enormous relevance on the legal and political horizon of Western societies. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) occupies the central place in the first of these and, in the almost forty years of its activity, has achieved great recognition for its work. Among the various factors underpinning this success, often obtained in unfavorable political contexts, an interpretation of the American Convention on Human Rights that is far from the restrictions of a formalist or mechanistic hermeneutic occupies a preeminent place. Over time, the IACHR Court has developed a progressive and dynamic interpretation of rights, including dimensions or aspects that are relevant not only from a legal perspective, but also from a moral and political one. In this sense, contentious cases, provisional measures and advisory opinions of its judges constitute a central element in shaping the characteristics of the so-called new Latin American constitutionalism and some of its fundamental themes, conceptions and values. These elements go beyond the dogmatic analysis that usually prevails in the world of law and require the analysis of their underlying philosophical assumptions. The objective of the roundtable is to bring together papers that develop a normative approach, from the field of practical philosophy, and in particular from the philosophical-political perspective, to the various concepts, theories, doctrines and ideologies that underlie the advisory and contentious decisions of the IACHR Court. Such reflections will help to understand the political ideas and moral values underlying the recognized human rights. They will also show what paradigms and theories of justice lie in its jurisprudence (among others, we might ask whether they are liberal theories fully respectful of the ideal of autonomy; whether they are liberal egalitarian theories; whether they are theories that hold that there are morally admissible inequalities; whether they are atomistic, individualistic and abstract theories; whether they are theories based on analytical Marxism; whether they are theories that disagree with the neutrality of the State in terms of conceptions of the good; whether they are theories that claim the recognition of pluriculturality; whether they are theories whose conception of freedom is based on non-dependence and non-domination); and they will show what is the content, and whether this is always uniform, of many of the concepts that accompany their language (for example, that of vulnerability). We believe that the foregoing offers a useful approach to understanding the political agenda and the personal, moral and public convictions of the judges of the Court, as well as the degree of their commitment to and responsibility for the values and principles on which the constitutional and democratic States of the Inter-American system are built and with which their jurisprudence may conflict.