Fragmentation in the European and Inter-American Human Rights Courts Regarding the Scope of Religious Autonomy: An Analysis of the Use of Sources and Methodologies

<jats:title>ABSTRACT</jats:title>
<jats:p>Fragmentation in International Human Rights Law (IHRL) may affect the universality of human rights norms and their legitimacy. This article analyses a recent case of contradiction between the European and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) regarding employment contracts of religious education teachers and the scope of religious autonomy. These courts reached contradictory conclusions on key substantive issues because they used different ways of framing the issue at stake, and different legal sources and interpretative methodologies. The analysis reveals that while the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) relied on the use of comparative law, a test of proportionality, and the margin of appreciation, the IACHR relied mainly on American domestic law and the opinions of two expert witnesses. In this case, the IACHR could learn from the approach of the ECHR to develop a more rigorous legal methodology in order to keep the coherence of the international legal system.</jats:p>