|
|
|
CHAPTER II ACTIVITIES OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Since September, 1986, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights held three regular sessions at the OAS General Secretariat, in
Washington, D.C., headquarters of the Commission.
The respective inauguration, which took place at the Salon
Miranda in the main building of the Organization, were attended by the
Secretary General of the OAS, Ambassador João Clemente Baena Soares;
the Assistant Secretary General, Mr. Valerie T. McComie; the
Ambassadors, Representatives of the member countries of the
Organization; members of the OAS missions and delegations; and members
of the press. Speeches were given by the Chairman of the Permanent
Council, the Secretary General or the Assistant Secretary General, and
the Chairman of the Commission at each of the inaugural sessions.
It is worth mentioning that the Secretary General reiterated the
support of the General Secretariat, both technical and administrative,
to the Commission’s work. On the three occasions, the President of the
Commission referred to the most relevant matters under consideration and
thanked both the General Secretariat and the different Chairmen of the
Permanent Council for their support of the Commission.
The following is a summary of the work done during the sessions
held in the period covered by this report:
1.
Sixth-Eighth Session
This session was held from September 16 to the 26, 1986, with the
participation of all the members of the Commission.
At this session the Commission approved a Draft Protocol
Additional to the American Convention on Human Rights, as it refers to
economic, social and cultural rights, prepared under the mandate of the
OAS General Assembly, to be submitted to its sixteenth regular session
(Guatemala, 1986).
The Commission also approved its Annual Report to the General
Assembly, in which it analyzes the evolution of human rights in Cuba,
Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Suriname.1
The Commission considered the special report presented by its
Subcommission on its on-site visit to El Salvador, in order to examine
the state of human rights and, in particular, that of the political
detainees imprisoned in that country. The visit, which had taken place
between the 11 and the 15 of August of 1986, resulted in a “friendly
settlement” of several cases submitted to the Commission, and it also
gave the government of El Salvador a new opportunity of exchanging
points of view directly with the Commission on the most effective ways
and means of protecting the fundamental human rights in that country.
Additionally, the Commission held a number of interviews with members of
the Catholic Church, and with representatives of private and public
institutions on this matter.
The Commission also examined the situation of increased violence
in Central America and its impact on the observance of human rights, in
particular, as it refers to the rights to personal liberty and security;
of movement and residence; and as regards justice and equality before
the law. In this regard, the Commission considered, as a matter of
utmost relevance, the need to accelerate the normalization and
pacification of this region as an essential condition without which it
will be impossible to expect any significant improvement in the respect
of human rights stipulated in the American Convention, in the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, in the Convention against
Torture and the OAS Charter itself.
The Commission again considered, with concern, the state of human
rights in Chile, where, as a result of a systematic policy of violating
basic human rights, a climate of fear has emerged which deprives
political parties of the most elementary guarantees for engaging in
political activities, for exercising the rights of thought and
expression, of association and assembly, and, what is even more serious,
the rights to due process and protection against arbitrary arrests. The
Commission observed that, in general, Chile is still under the same
conditions and circumstances as those described in the last Report on
the situation of human rights in Chile, approved in 1985.2
With regard to Haiti, the Commission decided to accept the invitation to
conduct an on-site investigation of the situation of human rights in
that country, to take place in January, 1987. With regard to Haiti, the
Commission decided to accept the invitation to conduct an on-site
investigation of the situation of human rights in that country, to take
place in January, 1987.
2.
Sixty-Ninth Session
This session was held from March 16th to the 28th,
1987, with the participation of all the members of the Commission.
During this session, the Commission elected a new board of
officers composed of the following members: President, Dr. Gilda M.C.M.
Russomano; First Vice President, Dr. Marco Tulio Bruni Celli; Second
Vice President, Mr. Oliver T. Jackman. Dr. Russomano, who had been
performing as First Vice President, is a distinguished jurist and
professor of private and public international law at the Universidad
Federal, Brazil, and the Rio Branco Institute of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Brazil. Prior thereto, from 1969-1974, she was Dean of the
Law Faculty of Pelotas of the Universidad Federal of Rio Grande do Sul;
and also affiliated with the Institute of Political Sociology of the
same University. She is also a member of INLADI, which is headquartered
in Madrid and a member of the Council of the Institute of Lawyers of Rio
Grande do Sul. She received her law degree in 1956. Dr. Marco Tulio
Bruni Celli is professor of political science at the Universidad Central
de Venezuela; Ambassador, he has served as Venezuela’s Representative
to the United Nations organs in Geneva, and as Ambassador to the ILO;
and as Vice Minister of the Interior. At the present time he is a member
of the House of Representatives of his country. Mr. Oliver T. Jackman is
a distinguished lawyer and diplomat from Barbados, former Ambassador to
the United States, the OAS, Belgium and the EEC. Between 1968 and 1971
he was Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and from 1971 to
1975 he was High Commissioner in Canada. During his long diplomatic
career, Mr. Jackman was also Ambassador at large for Latin America and
Europe, including Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico and Austria.
During this session, the Commission considered the state of human
rights in Paraguay, and its request to the Government to set a date for
the on-site investigation in that country, which had been pending for a
long time. The Commission also decided that the Secretariat should
submit to the 70th session (scheduled for June 1987) a draft
report on the state of human rights in that country which would cover
the relevant and current aspects of the situation.
The Commission also studied the memorial presented by the
Government of Honduras to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on
the litigious cases presented to the Court by the Commission in the
curse of its sixty-seventh session (April, 1986). As a result the
Commission approved the counter-memorials on cases Nº 7920, 7951 and
8097, which are before the Court, and transmitted them to the
Inter-American Court, in conformity with the time-limit set by the
President of the Court.1
The Commission also considered the state of human rights in
Haiti, in the light of the on-site investigation carried out in January
1987. A more detailed account of the visit is contained in the relevant
part of this chapter. The Commission instructed its Secretariat to
prepare a report on the state of human rights in that country, to be
submitted to its seventy-first session.
As to the state of human rights in other American countries the
Commission examined individual cases of alleged violations, and adopted
resolutions and decisions on these cases or presumed the facts set forth
in the complaints to be true, in accordance with Article 42 of its
Regulations, if it was unable to reach a different conclusion based on
“other evidence”, either because the affected government had not
submitted the pertinent information to discredit the charges or because
the government’s response was insufficient, according to the
Commission. Mention should be made of the cases involving the execution
of juvenile offenders in South Carolina and in Texas, states of the
United States, which, in the judgment of the Commission, violated the
right to life and equality before the law provisions of the American
Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (Bogotá, 1948).1
Finally, it should be recalled that the Commission held a special
meeting with the President and Vice President of the Court, Drs. Thomas
Buergenthal and Rafael Nieto Navia, respectively, during which a wide
exchange of views took place, on matters related to the relations that,
according to the American Convention, link these two inter-American
organs dedicated to the protection of human rights in the member states
of the OAS, particularly as concerns the litigious jurisdiction of the
Court.
The Commission also held meetings with private entities and
claimants at their request.
3.
Seventieth Session
This session was held from June 22 through July 2, 1987, with the
participation of all the members of the Commission.
The Commission approved, in a preliminary form, the report on the
state of human rights in Paraguay, and agreed to transmit it to the
Government of that country to enable it to present its observations and
comments within the time-limit specified in the Regulations. On the
basis of such observations, the Commission would approve its final
version of this document during its 71 session (September, 1987). On
approving the report, the Commission stated, for the record, that it had
not been permitted to carry out an on-site investigation which would
have obviously been of enormous value in the preparation of the report.
The Commission considered the state of human rights in Haiti, and
in view of the seriousness of the events that recently took place in
that country, decided to address the Minister of Foreign Relations,
Colonel Herard Abraham, reminding him of the obligations undertaken by
the Government of Haiti on ratifying the American Convention on Human
Rights. The Commission reiterated the importance of the democratization
process begun on February 7, 1986, and the necessity of guaranteeing the
independence of the Provisional Electoral Council. Upon agreement as
concerns this matter, the Commission sent a cable to the Government of
Haiti on July 1, 1987.
The Government of Suriname invited the Commission to visit that
country, and it was agreed to accept the invitation, the date of which
would be determined later on.
The Commission took notice of the Inter-American Court’s
decision on the preliminary objections in cases 7920, 7951 and 8097
(Honduras), which referred to forced disappearance of persons, and
expressed satisfaction over the results both of the presentation of such
cases to the Court and the performance of the Chairman, Dr. Russomano,
the Executive Secretary, the advisors designated to that effect and the
work done by the Commission’s Secretariat on preparing the
documentation required for the presentation of the cases. It is worth
mentioning that the Court’s resolutions uphold a substantial number of
the points of view maintained by the Commission on the preliminary
exceptions presented by Honduras.
As in other sessions, the Commission examined individual cases of
alleged violations of human rights and adopted different decisions which
have been duly transmitted to the interested governments and to the
claimants, as provided by the Regulations. On taking one of these
resolutions in particular, the Commission agreed to make itself
available to the parties in order to arrive at a friendly settlement of
the case, in conformity with Articles 48, 1, f. of the American
Convention.
As is customary, the Commission also held meetings with persons
and entities which had requested to present their claims before the full
Commission or to report on the state of human rights in some American
countries. B.
Sixteenth regular session of the General Assembly
The General Assembly held its sixteenth regular session in
Guatemala City, Guatemala, between November 11 and 15, 1986.
The Commission, in compliance with dispositions contained in its
Statute (Article 18, f) and in the Rules of Procedure of the General
Assembly (Article 39, submitted to the General Assembly its Annual
Report.1
The Report, which is divided into five chapters, contains the
origin, bases and structure of the Commission; the activities it carried
out; the resolutions on individual cases; the state of human rights in
the Americas; and, finally, the areas in which measures should be taken
to strengthen the respect of human rights and some recommendations of
the Commission to that effect.
The then President of the Commission, Dr. Luis Adolfo Siles
Salinas, presented the Annual Report to the General Assembly with an
oral explanation of its subject matter and the overall problem of human
rights in the inter-American system.
As a result of its consideration of this topic, the General
Assembly approved the following resolutions on human rights:1 AG/RES. 835 (XVI-0/86) ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN
RIGHTS (Resolution adopted at the ninth plenary session, held on November 15, 1986)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
HAVING SEEN the annual report of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights (AG/doc.2054/86); and
CONSIDERING:
That in the Charter of the Organization of American States, the
member states have proclaimed that respect for the fundamental rights of
the individual, without distinction as to race, nationality, creed or
sex, is one of the principles of the Organization;
That the principal purpose of the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights is to promote the observance and defense of human rights, a
noble task with which all the states of the region and the organs and
bodies of the inter-American system should cooperate;
That the democratic system is essential to the establishment of a
political society in which human rights can be fully realized;
That in its annual report, the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights notes as positive steps the return to representative democracy by
several states as well as the measures adopted by certain countries to
contribute significantly to the observance of the rights set forth in
the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and in the
American Convention on Human Rights;
That despite the foregoing, the report of the Commission shows
the persistence of serious violations of basic rights and freedoms in
certain countries, especially because of inadequate or negative measures
being adopted by the governments of those countries with regard to
reestablishing a representative democratic form of government,
RESOLVES:
1. To note with interest the
annual report and the recommendations of the Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights and to express appreciation and congratulations for the
vitally important work it is doing to protect and promote human rights.
2. To urge the governments
of the states mentioned in the annual report to adopt the corresponding
recommendations of the Commission, in accordance with their
constitutional precepts and domestic laws, in order to guarantee
faithful observance of the rights set forth in the American Declaration
of the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human
Rights.
3. To express its concern
over the persistence of serious violations of fundamental rights and
freedoms in several countries of the region.
4. To take note of the
comments and observations made by the governments of the member states
and of the information on the measures they have adopted and will
continue to implement in order to strengthen human rights in their
countries.
5. To note with satisfaction
the decision of the governments of the member states that have invited
the Commission to visit their respective countries, and to urge the
governments of states that have not yet agreed to or set a date for such
visits to do so as soon as possible.
6. To reiterate to those
governments that have not set reinstated the representative democratic
form of government that it is urgently necessary to implement the
pertinent institutional machinery to restore such a system in the
shortest possible space of time, through free and open elections, by
secret ballot, since democracy is the best possible guarantee for the
full exercise of human rights and is a firm support for solidarity
between the states of the hemisphere.
7. To recommend to the
governments of the member states that they grant the necessary
guarantees and facilities to nongovernmental human rights organizations
so that they may continue to contribute to the promotion and defense of
human rights, and to respect the freedom of integrity of the leaders of
such organizations.
8. To recommend to the
member states that are not Parties to the American Convention on Human
Rights or Pact of San José, Costa Rica of 1969 that they ratify or
accede to that instrument, and, to those states that do not recognize
the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to
receive and examine interstate communications pursuant to Article 45 (3)
of the Convention or accept the binding jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights in accordance with Article 62 (2)
of the aforementioned Convention, that they do so.
9. To encourage the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its ongoing efforts in the
defense of human rights in the region, for which purpose it has the most
decided support of the democratic governments of the Organization. AG/RES. 836 (XVI-0/86) DRAFT ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (Resolution adopted at the ninth plenary session, held on November 15, 1986)
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
HAVING SEEN:
The draft Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human
Rights prepared by the General Secretariat, as well as the observations
of the governments of the member states on that Additional Protocol
(AG/doc.1656/83);
The draft Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human
Rights as regards economic, social and cultural rights, presented by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and included in the annual
report of that organ to the General Assembly at its sixteenth regular
session (AG/doc.2054/86); and
The annual report of the Permanent Council to the General
Assembly, which gives an account of the report of the Committee on
Juridical and Political Affairs on the study of the draft Additional
Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights (CP/doc.1737/86), as
well as the recommendations included in this latter report, and
CONSIDERING:
That both the draft Additional Protocol to the American
Convention on Human Rights prepared by the General Secretariat and the
draft Additional Protocol presented by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, and the recommendations included in the annual report of
the Permanent Council on this same subject are efforts made in pursuance
of the provisions of resolutions AG/RES. 619 /XII-0/82), 778 (XV-0/85)
and 781 (XV-0/85), respectively,
RESOLVES:
1. To take note of the draft
Additional Protocol to the American
Convention on Human Rights submitted by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights and to thank that body for the major effort
accomplished.
2. To transmit to the
governments of the States Parties to the American Convention on Human
Rights the draft Additional Protocol presented by the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, in order that they may make observations and
comments on it prior to March 31, 1987 and forward them to the Permanent
Council so that, in light of those observations and comments and any
other information it considers appropriate, it may submit proposals on
the subject to the seventeenth regular session of the General Assembly. AG/RES. 837 (XVI-0/86) HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY (Resolution adopted at the ninth plenary session, held on November 15, 1986)
WHEREAS:
The member states of this Organization, in the preamble to the
Charter of the Organization of American States, stated “that the true
significance of American solidarity and good neighborliness can only
mean the consolidation on this Continent, within the framework of
democratic institutions, of a system of individual liberty and social
justice based on respect for the essential rights of man”;
The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, in its annual
report for the period 1985-86 presented to this regular session of the
General Assembly for consideration, recommended “that it reaffirm the
urgent need for the governments that have not yet reestablished
representative democracy as their system of government to put in place
the relevant institutional mechanisms for restoring that system in as
short a period of time as possible by means of free, secret and informed
elections, since democracy is the best guarantee for the observance of
human rights and the basis of solidarity among the states of the
hemisphere;” and
For the first time in many decades, many member states held free
elections, with the result that democratic, representative and pluralist
systems of government have been established, and it is the aim of the
Organization of American States to promote and consolidate
representative democracy while respecting the principle of
non-intervention.
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
RESOLVES:
1. To reaffirm the
inalienable right of all the peoples of the Americas freely to determine
their political, economic and social system without outside
interference, through a genuine democratic process and within a
framework of social justice in which all sectors of the population will
enjoy the guarantees necessary to participate freely and effectively
through the exercise of universal suffrage.
2. To urge the governments
of the Americas whose societies have problems that call for
reconciliation and national unity to undertake or continue a genuine
dialogue, pursuant to their respective legislations, with all political
and social sectors until they reach a political solution that will put
an end to conflicts and contribute decisively to improving the human
rights situation and to strengthening the representative and pluralist
democratic system.
During the year covered by this report, the Commission, with the
consent of the respective governments, undertook on-site investigations
directly related to the defense or promotion of human rights in Haiti,
El Salvador and Suriname. The following are summaries corresponding to
each of them.
1.
Visit to the Republic of Haiti
a.
Background
Haiti ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on
September, 1977. On January, 1978, the Government invited the Commission
to make an on-site investigation of the state of human rights. As a
result of that visit, the Commission approved the “Report on the State
of Human Rights in Haiti”, which was transmitted to the Government on
July 2, 1979, and also presented to the eleventh regular session of the
General Assembly of the OAS (Washington, D.C., 1980). The General
Assembly, through resolution AG/RES. 510 (X/80), adopted on November 27,
1980, recommended that the governments of the member states mentioned in
this resolution, among them Haiti, take the necessary measures to
improve their observance of human rights in their countries.
One day later, on November 28, 1980, about 100 prominent persons
were subjected to arbitrary arrest, and 30 of them to summary exile, in
an attempt to eradicate political opposition in Haiti.
On March, 1985, the Government of Haiti again invited the
Commission to visit its country. At its 65th session, the
Commission accepted the invitation, and the then Chairman, Dr. Andrés
Aguilar, formalized it by a note dated July 1 of that same year,
indicating the intention of realizing the visit during the early months
in 1986. In preparation thereof, a member of the Secretariat, Dr.
Christina Cerna, in charge of Haiti’s affairs, visited the country in
December, 1985, in order to do the advance work for the Commission’s
visit.
The Government of Jean Claude Duvalier, President for life, fell
on February 7, 1986. Three weeks earlier, on January 14, 1986, the
Government had required that the visit by the Commission be postponed.
The Junta which took charge of the government of Haiti, by note
of July 29, 1986, invited the Commission to visit the country in order
to evaluate the state of human rights. The Commission accepted the
invitation and decided to set the date later on.
During the 68th session (September, 1986) the
Commission, in agreement with the Government of Haiti, set January,
1987, as the date for the visit. Dr. Christina Cerna made a new
preliminary visit to Haiti, during which a press release was issued to
report on the purpose of the visit, the names of the members of the
Commission who would participate in it, the activities scheduled, and
other details on the activities the Commission would carry out in the
country.
b.
Activities
The visit, which took place from January 20 through 23, 1987,
included all the members of the Commission: Dr. Luis A. Siles, then
President; Dr. Gilda Russomano, Vicepresident; Dr. Marco Tulio Bruni
Celli, Second Vice President; Dr. Elsa Kelly, Dr. Gerardo Monroy Cabra,
Dr. Oliver T. Jackman, and Mr. Bruce McColm. Also included were Dr.
Edmundo Vargas Carreño, Executive Secretary, Dr. Christina Cerna, Dr.
Luis Jiménez, Mrs. Diana Decker, and Miss Gabriela Restrepo,
Secretariat officials; and Mr. Max Gautier, and Ms. Rose Marie Brierre,
interpreters.
As mentioned before, the purpose of the visit consisted in
evaluating the state of human rights beginning after the last visit paid
by the Commission, that is, since August, 1978.
First, the Commission paid a visit to the President of the
National Government Council, Lieutenant General Henry Namphy; to the
Minister of the Interior, Col. Williams Regala; the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Col. Herard Abraham, as well as the Minister of Justice, Mr.
François St. Pleur, and other government authorities.
Second, it paid a visit to the Chairman, Mr. Dupleix Jean
Baptiste, and members of the Advisory Council to the Government, at its
headquarters in the Legislative Palace, and to the Chairman Mr. Emile
Jonaissant and the members of the Constituent Assembly.
Third, the Commission visited the detention center of “Fort
Dimanche” and the National Penitentiary, both infamous centers of
detention which confined political prisoners during the dictatorships of
the Duvalier dynasty. The Commission interviewed detainees, in private,
in order to get acquainted with the conditions in the prisons, and to
verify whether detainees were mistreated and were receiving medical and
legal assistance.
The Commission also interviewed political leaders in order to be
informed on the state of the democratization process in the country.
Among those leaders were reverend Silvio Claude, Chairman of the
Democratic-Christian Party (PDCH); Mr. Louis Dejoie, II, President of
the National Industrial Agriculture Party (PAIN); Mr. Thomas Désulmé,
Chief of the National Workers’ Party (PNT); Mr. Gregoire Eugene,
Chairman of the Social-Christian Party (PANAGRA); Mr. Leslie Manigat,
Secretary General of RDNP; Mr. Hubert de Ronceray, President of the
Party to Mobilize for National Development (MDN), and Mr. Rene Theodore,
Chairman of the United Haitian Communist Party (PUCH).
During its visit, the Commission heard the testimony of members
of the press, both written and oral, on the state of the right to
freedom of thought and expression. It is worth mentioning, in
particular, the testimony offered by Mr. Jean Dominique, Director of
Radio “Haiti-Inter”, closed down in November, 1980, who reassumed
his functions when the new post-Duvalier regime government took charge.
Also worth mentioning are the interviews with the Director of Radio
“Soleil”, of the Catholic Church, Father Hugo Triest, who had been
expelled by the Duvalier Government on July, 1985, and the Director of
Radio “Lumiere”, of the Haitian Baptist Church. The Commission also
received testimony from representatives of the written press. The
Commission met with Mr. Willem Romélus, director of the newspaper Haiti
Libéree, with Mr. Lucien Montas, Director of the newspaper The
Nouvelliste and with Mr. Franck Magloire, director of the newspaper Le
Matin.
The Commission heard additional testimony from leaders in the
business and labour sectors on the democratization process and its
effect on the activities carried out by entities such as the Industrial
Corporations Association and the Chamber of Commerce; the Autonomous
Federation of Haitian Workers (CATH-CLAT); the Committee for Unity and
Democracy (KID); and the Committee for the literacy campaign, which,
known as “Misyon Alfa”, was organized and financed by the Catholic
Church.
The Commission also visited Gonaives and Cap Haitien, the second
largest city after Port-au-Prince, where it interviewed religious and
social authorities and leaders, such as the Bishop of Gonaives,
Monsignor Emmanuel Constant; Mr. Paul Latortue; the Commissioner of the
General Procurator; Mr. Hilton Benoit; and Father Yvon Joseph, Director
of the Haitian Conference of Religious, with headquarters in Cap
Haitien.
The testimonies offered on specific aspects of human rights in
Haiti, both by the people and entities mentioned above and others, are
of confidential nature, and have been processed by the Commission in
conformity with its Regulations.
c.
Results of the visit: Preliminary observations
On January 23, 1987, the President of the Commission, Dr. Siles
Salinas, and members of the Commission held a meeting with the Haitian
press in the Villa Creole Hotel, where the President issued a press
release containing the preliminary observations of the Commission as a
result of its visit to Haiti. The observations can be summarized as
follows:
i.
The Commission congratulated the Haitian people for its courage
in ousting Duvalier, and putting an end to the tyranny, though it also
lamented the persecution and suffering of those who had denounced the
abuses and crimes committed by the fallen regime, to whose overthrow the
Commission had contributed with its Report on the state of human rights
of 1978 and its subsequent Annual Reports;
ii.
The Commission stated that it had seen favorable changes in the
situation of human rights, in particular as regards the right to freedom
of speech, and that it was satisfied with the process initiated by the
National Council of Government (CNG) to carry out elections within a
schedule timetable;
iii.
The Commission expressed its concern over the future of this
process and the danger of its course being altered by the violations of
human rights still occurring in the country, in particular as regards
the rights to be protected against arbitrary detention, forced
disappearance of persons, and guaranteed the right to due process and
the right to humane treatment during detention or arrest. The Commission
also stated that in its opinion, for the process of democratization to
succeed, the regime must undergo a “deduvalierization”, so that
human rights could be respected, which, according to reports received by
the Commission, continued to be violated repeatedly.
iv.
The Commission stated that it would continue to monitor closely
the human rights situation in Haiti, hoping to have count on both the
cooperation of the Government and that of the representative sectors of
the population in order to carry out its mandate to supervise the
observance of the rights stipulated in the American Convention on Human
Rights.
v.
The Commission said that it had received full cooperation and
support from the authorities of Haiti during its visit to the country.1
2.
Visit to El Salvador
In conformity with the decision adopted by the Commission in its
68th session (September, 1986), Dr. Manuel Velasco, in charge
of El Salvador in the Secretariat, traveled to El Salvador with the
consent of its Government, from February 15-19, 1987.
Dr. Velasco, in order to fulfill his functions, held interviews
with:
The Commission on Human Rights of the Government of El Salvador;
The International Organizations Desk, in the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs;
The Office of the Christian Juridical Assistance;
The General Fiscal Office of the Republic;
The Military Examining Magistrates;
The Magistrates of First Instance Courts (Military Examining
Magistrates);
The Department of Forensic Medicine.
Dr. Velasco also made on-site investigation visits to detention
centers, the Committee for the Review of Salvadorian Laws, and other
institutions dedicated to the protection of human rights, such as the
Legal Assistance Office, of the Archbishopric, and the Institute of
Human Rights of the V.C.A.
During the 69th session (March, 1987) Dr. Velasco made
an in-depth report to the full Commission on the terms and results of
his visit and the steps taken in fulfilling the instructions he had
received.
3.
Visit to Suriname
In conformity with the decision adopted by the Commission in its
70th session (June-July, 1987) to visit Suriname, in order to
investigate the situation of human rights, Dr. David Padilla, Assistant
Executive Secretary of the Commission, visited Paramaribo, Suriname, to
do the advanced work for the visit of the Commission, scheduled for
October, 1987.
During his stay in Suriname, Dr. Padilla had several interviews
with Mr. Philip Akrum, Chairman of the government’s Institute of Human
Rights. Several other officials and members of the Board also attended,
and as a result of those meetings, a draft program of activities for the
Commission was prepared. They also discussed cases of alleged violations
of human rights which are before the Commission.
During the visit, Dr. Padilla, on behalf of the Commission,
extended invitations to individuals and entities interested in human
rights, so that they could become acquainted with the Commission during
its visit to Suriname. Finally, he made the necessary logistic
arrangements for the visit of the Commission next October. D.
Hearings before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
In the period covered by this Report hearings were held before
the Court. One was held pursuant to the advisory jurisdiction (Article
64.1 of the Convention) and the other was held pursuant to the
contentious jurisdiction of the Court (Articles 61-63 and 66-69 of the
Convention).
1.
Advisory opinion on habeas corpus
In its Annual Report to the General Assembly (1985-1986) the
Commission referred to the need to strengthen the judiciary in each of
the member states of the OAS to ensure the availability of legal
remedies to protect human rights, such as habeas corpus, and its
suspension during so-called states of emergency. The Commission decided
that, given the importance of the problem, this matter should be the
subject of a request for an advisory opinion from the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights.1
Thus, the Commission, by note dated October 10, 1986, submitted
the request for an advisory opinion to the Court, as concerns the
interpretation of Articles 25.1 and 7.6 of the American Convention on
Human Rights. The consultation was presented in conformity with Article
64.1 of the Convention, since the Commission is one of the organs
mentioned in Article 51 (Chapter X) of the Charter of the OAS.
The object of the consultation was limited to the scope and
validity of the habeas corpus remedy during situations of public
emergency.
In its opinion dated January 30, 1987, the Court unanimously
decided that “the judicial procedures stated in Articles 25.1 and 7.6
of the American Convention on Human Rights cannot be suspended in
conformity with Article 27.2 of the same Convention because they
constitute judicial guarantees essential for the protection of rights
and freedoms which, according to the same provision, also cannot be
suspended.” It is worth mentioning that the scope of the remedy of habeas
corpus should be considered by the states parties to the American
Convention among those rights and guarantees which, together with the
procedures of protection, are “essential for the protection of human
rights whose suspension is prohibited by Article 27.2 of the Convention,
and which additionally serve to preserve the legality of a democratic
society.”2
2.
Litigious cases
At its 67th session (April, 1986), the Commission approved
resolutions Nº 22/86, 23/86 and 24/86 which refer, respectively, to
cases Nº 7920, 7951 and 8097, versus the Republic of Honduras, which
the Commission had before it, and transmitted them to the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, in compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the
American Convention on Human Rights and exercising the authority
provided in Article 61 of the said Convention.
Once the written stage before the Court was completed (Article 28
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court), that is, having been presented
the memorials pertaining to the Government of Honduras on the cases in
question and the observations to those Memorials made by the Commission,
hearings related to the appeals took place before the Court on June 15
and 16, 1987, with the presence of the parties involved.
On June 15, the Court held a hearing on case 7951, which affects
the forced disappearance of Mr. Francisco Fairén Garbi and Ms. Yolanda
Solis, both citizens of Costa Rica. On June 16, a hearing took place on
the forced disappearance of the student Angel M. Velásquez Rodríguez
(case 7920) and Professor Saul Godínez Cruz (case 8097).
Representing the Commission at the hearings were its President,
Dr. Gilda Maciel Russomano, and its Executive Secretary, Dr. Edmundo
Vargas Carreño. Also attending the hearings, as advisors, were Dr. José
Miguel Vivanco, Dr. Juan Méndez, Dr. Claudio Grossman and Dr. Hugo Muñoz
Quezada, designated by the Commission at the request of the claimants,
within the terms of Article 68.4 of its Regulations.
On June 26, 1987, the Court read the resolutions on the
admissibility of the mentioned cases (preliminary exceptions).
The following is a short summary of the three resolutions of the
Court:
i)
On case 9720 (Velásquez Rodríguez), and as it refers to the
previous exhaustion of domestic law (Article 46.1.a of the Convention)
the Court deemed that “provision on previous exhaustion can, in no
way, result in suspension or postponement of international action in
favor of a helpless victim1
which will render it null,” deciding (unanimously) to reject this
preliminary exception on the admissibility of the case presented by the
Government of Honduras and to continue to deal with the case, postponing
the determination of costs until it reaches a decision on the merits of
the case, at which time it will also make a statement on the problem of
domestic remedies.
ii)
On case 7951 (Fairen Garbi and Solis Corrales), and referring to
the effectiveness of domestic remedies and their exhaustion by the
claimant before resorting to international protection, the Court
(concurring with its previous decision) observed that the provision
“has certain implications which are present in the American
Convention”, and continues to express that: “In fact, according to
it, the States Parties assume the obligation of providing effective
judicial remedies to the victims of violation of human rights (Article
25), remedies which would be substantiated in conformity with the rules
of due process (Article 8.1) all of which fall within the overall
obligation of the States themselves to ensure to all persons under their
jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the
Convention (Article 1).” The Court decided unanimously to reject the
preliminary exceptions presented by the Government of Honduras, and to
continue the case.1
iii.
On case 8097 (Saul Godínez Cruz) the Court unanimously decided
to reject the preliminary exceptions, avoiding prejudgment on the
merits, “with the exception of the non exhaustion of domestic judicial
remedies” which it instructed to be included in the subject matter.
The Court decided to continue the case.2
Joint Inter-American Commission/Inter-American Court Mission
To various Caribbean member states
During the period covered by this Report a joint delegation of
the Commission and the Court visited four English-speaking member states
of the Organization—Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago, St. Vincent &
The Grenadines and Barbados. The purposes of the mission were to:
1.
Seek additional ratifications of the American Convention on Human
Rights by those states which have yet to ratify it;
2.
Seek the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights, and
3.
Engage in a discussion with governmental authorities and private
human rights organizations regarding the inter-American human rights
system.
The delegation was headed by Mr. Oliver Jackman, Second
Vice-President of the Commission, who was accompanied by Judge Thomas
Buergenthal, former President of the Court. The Secretariat of the
Commission was represented by Mr. David J. Padilla, Assistant Executive
Secretary.
In Jamaica, Messrs. Jackman and Buergenthal addressed a meeting
of Supreme Court Justices from the Caribbean region. In addition, they
conversed with the Attorney General of Jamaica, the Hon. Oswald Harding.
In Trinidad & Tobago the delegation was welcomed by Mr.
A.N.R. Robinson, Prime Minister; Ms. Basdeo Panday, Minister of External
Affairs, and Mr. Selwyin Richardson, Attorney General. Excellent
discussions were held with these leaders on the topics mentioned above.
In addition, the delegation met with leaders of the Trinidad &
Tobago Law Association and attorneys active in the field of human
rights.
In St. Vincent & The Grenadines the delegation met with the
Right Hon. James F. Mitchell, Prime Minister, who in an important
gesture of support, indicated that his Government would make the
necessary arrangements to accede to the American Convention.
The delegation also met with the Solicitor General, Mr. Donald
Trotman as well as the leaders of the St. Vincent Human Rights
Committee, the St. Vincent Bar Association and Caricare. These groups
are led by Mr. Victor Cuffy, Mr. Othneil Sylvester and Mr. Rupert John,
respectively.
In Barbados the delegation was received by Prime Minister, the
Rifht Hon. Erskine Sandiford; Foreign Minister and Senator, the Hon. Sir
James Tudor, and Attorney General, the Hon. Maurice King.
Discussions in Barbados centered on the issue of Barbados’
acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. Assurances were given that
this matter will be the subject of serious and prompt study by the
Government.
Likewise while in Barbados, the delegation met with
representatives of the National Bar Association, the Barbados Christian
Council, Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International, Barbados.
The leaders of these groups respectively are: Mr. Peter D.H. Williams,
Reverend David Mitchell and Mr. Gregory Castagne.
In each of the countries visited the Governments and private
organizations with which the OAS delegation met demonstrated their
commitment to respect human rights. The delegation so stated in the
press conferences they gave at the conclusion of each visit. Finally, Vice-President Jackman and Judge Buergenthal appeared as guests on the CANA radio program called Crossfire which is beamed to most of the Caribbean islands. [ Table of Contents | Previous | Next ] 1
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.68, doc. 8, rev. 1, October 26, 1986. This
report contains on page 201 through 211 the text of the Draft
Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. 2
OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66, doc. 17. 1
See Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, Article 20, in “Handbook of Existing Rules Pertaining to
Human Rights in the Inter-American System”, (OAS/Ser.L/V/II.65,
doc. 6, p. 166). 1
Case Nº 9467 (James Roach and Jay Pinkerton). 1
OAS/Ser.L/V/II.68, doc. 8, rev. 1, September 26, 1986. 1
Proceedings, Vol. I, Resolutions pp. 65-69
(OEA/Ser.P/XVI.0.2.) 1
A complete report appears in OAS/Ser.L/V/II.69, doc.11. 1
See the mentioned IACHR Annual Report, p. 194. 2
Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, January 30, 1987: Habeas Corpus
under suspension of guarantees. 1
Judgment mentioned, p. 40. 1
Judgment, p. 40. 2 Judgment, p. 41. |
