This paper explores whether national legislatures act as credible mechanisms for international human rights treaty compliance. It finds that legislative veto players raise the cost of repression by requiring executive consent, making formalistic tactics less appealing and extralegal ones riskier. Using an empirical strategy addressing selection effects, I demonstrate that treaties enhance democratic accountability more significantly when there are stronger legislative veto players.

The study suggests that for treaty member-states, legislatures can further constrain executives through other powers in response to treaty commitments.