The Independent Panel's objective is to review the nomination and election processes for IACHR Commissioners, assess the qualifications of the candidates, and make recommendations on how to improve future nominations and elections. Since its creation in 2015, the IACHR Panel reports have gained legitimacy and continued to refine their methodology.

The Panel's reports have been well received by both government representatives and civil society, as they are based on objective criteria derived from: the American Convention on Human Rights (CADH), the statutes and regulations of the respective organs, and relevant OAS resolutions. Those OAS resolutions include: (i) high moral authority; (ii) recognized expertise in human rights; (iii) independence, impartiality, and absence of conflicts of interest; (iv) contribution to the balanced and representative integration of the body; and (v) national-level nomination processes.

This year's elections were of great importance for the IACHR as more than half of the CIDH members (four out of seven) would be renewed. Therefore, in 2023, the IACHR Panel received sixty-two (62) communications from civil society organizations, collectives, universities, and other interested parties, through a form provided for this purpose and via email to the Secretariat. Additionally, to evaluate the candidacy seeking reelection, the Panel's Secretariat requested and received reasoned votes from the candidate in question, provided by the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR. Likewise, the Panel prepared and sent a differentiated questionnaire to the candidates based on whether the candidacy was new or presented for reelection, and the Panel interviewed all candidates in online meetings.

As a result, the Panel concluded that the candidate Andrea Pochak (nominated by Argentina), the candidate Christopher Arif Bulkan (nominated by Guyana), and the candidate Lidia Casas Becerra (nominated by Chile) met all the evaluation criteria to be elected as Commissioners. On the other hand, the Panel determined that the candidate Edgardo Stuardo Ralón Orellana (nominated by Guatemala) and the candidate Gloria Monique de Mees (nominated by Surinam) did not meet the requirement of recognized expertise in the IACHR human rights standards and the requirement of independence, impartiality, and absence of conflicts. Additionally, the Group concluded that the candidate Pier Paolo Pigozzi (nominated by Ecuador) only met some selection criteria because he did not have recognized expertise in human rights.

The Panel expressed concern about the unjustified withdrawal of four candidacies in the nomination process as this had never occurred to this extent before. Panel experts noted that this type of occurrence has an impact on the transparency of the process and implies a lower chance of achieving an open, plural, and competitive process, conducive for states to vote based on the merit and suitability of various candidates. States should be guided by the criteria contained in Inter-American instruments, both for nominating and withdrawing candidacies.

Finally, the Panel issued a series of recommendations for national-level nomination processes, such as: bilingualism of candidates, conducting interviews, presenting evidence of the selection criteria provided by the CADH and the Statute of the IACHR by applicants, each state having a formal diverse and independent body to select national-level candidates, states designating at least two candidates for each election, with at least one being a woman, among others.

Similarly, for the selection process in the OAS, it was recommended that the OAS: establish an Advisory Committee responsible for ensuring the suitability of nominated individuals and that the names and resumes of candidates be published well in advance, taking into account diversity based on gender, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability status, professional expertise, gender identity, or other considerations, among other recommendations. Additionally, the IACHR was recommended to publish all reasoned or dissenting votes of commissioners as an exercise of transparency and guarantee of access to public information.