PRESENTATION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE IACHR,

PROF. MICHAEL REISMAN TO THE COMMITTEE ON JURIDICAL AND

POLITICAL AFFAIRS OF THE PERMANENT COUNCIL OF THE OAS

April 9, 1994

          Mr. President, distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

          It is an honor and a privilege, Mr. President, in this 35th anniversary year of the foundation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to come before this Committee to present the Annual Report for the year 1993 as well as the Commission's special reports on Colombia, El Salvador and Haiti.

          Before I describe the Report and the activities of the Commission throughout the year that it encapsulates, I would like to note a number of personnel changes that have occurred in the Commission since my predecessor, Dr. Oscar Luján Fappiano, appeared here last year to present the report then. In periodic elections of the General Assembly, Dr. Marco Tulio Bruni Celli and Ambassador Oliver Jackman retired from the Commission, having fulfilled the maximum two terms which the Convention allows. Each of these men had served as Chairman of the Commission and gave distinguished service to it. Dr. Bruni Celli now serves as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee which oversees the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and as the United Nations' special rapporteur on Haiti. Ambassador Jackman, who once served as permanent representative of his country, Barbados, in the Permanent Council of the OAS, is now a candidate to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

          Happily, the Assembly selected equally outstanding jurists to take their place. Ambassador John Donaldson, the former Foreign Minister of Trinidad and Tobago who has, through a long and distinguished career served his country in many important posts, has joined the Commission as has Dean Claudio Grossman, a renowned scholar on international human rights, a specialist on the inter-American human rights system and a successful advocate before the Inter-American Court.  In its February session of this year, the Commission elected Ambassador Alvaro Tirado Mejía as its First Vice-President and Dr. Leo Valladares Lanza as the Second Vice-President.  I was privileged by my colleagues to serve as President. Both Commission officers are present at this meeting.  In addition, both Mr. Donaldson and Professor Grossman are here with us today.  Their presence here is an indication of the importance that all members of the Commission attach to the annual review by the political branches.  Hopefully, this wider attendance will become a precedent.

          Before proceeding, I would like to express, on behalf of the Commission, our congratulations to the Government of Dominica for having ratified the American Convention during the past year. Likewise, it is fitting to recognize and congratulate publicly the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court by Bolivia and Paraguay.  Similarly, congratulations are in order for Ecuador and Panama, both of which deposited their instruments of ratification to the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Riqhts, the "Protocol of San Salvador" during the course of the past year. I am also pleased to record, in this regard, that Uruguay and Venezuela have recently ratified the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty.  All of these actions demonstrate the commitment of these member states to the extension of human rights obligations under international law.

          The year under review has been one of intense activity for the Commission. In its course, the Commission conducted on site visits to Haiti, Guatemala and Peru.   I wish to thank the governments of those countries for having invited the Commission to carry out these important tasks.

          In the course of its two regular sessions, the Commission conducted hearings at which numerous representatives of governments, non-governmental human rights organizations, victims of human riqhts violations and witnesses came before it.

          In addition, the Commission continued to litigate a growing number of cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  A full account of the IACHR's diverse activities is contained in the Report.

          All of this work was facilitated by the extraordinary committed and skillful work of the Secretariat, led by Ambassador Edith Márquez.  It is common knowledge that given the range of tasks that have now been assigned to the Commission by the Convention and by the General Assembly, our staff resources are insufficient.  It is a great tribute to the Commission that so much has been accomplished with so little resource base.

          The Annual Report, which was duly presented to the Secretary General, in a timely fashion, in accordance with the request of the Permanent Council, and pursuant to Article 91(f) of the Charter, is a comprehensive report of the Commission's activities in the year under review. Structurally, it is comprised of five chapters which treat sequentially, the following matters:

          -          A brief examination of the history and legal bases of the IACHR;

          -          A summary of the main activities of the Commission during

                    the period covered by the Report;

          -          Reports on individual cases;

          - A chapter on the human rights situation in several countries; and

          - A section containing studies and recommendations on various specific matters affecting human rights in the Americas.

          For the sake of completeness, the Report also contains updated information on the status of all of the inter-American treaties on human riqhts, the press communiques issued by the Commission during the year, the speeches delivered ex officio by my predecessor and  a summary of the Commission's on site visits.

          Three chapters of the Annual Report merit some additional comment.

          Chapter III, entitled "Report on Individual Cases," is by far the lengthiest section of the Annual Report.  Individual cases are initiated by individual petitioners, so the size of this part of the Commission's report is not something it determines.  This is a particularly important part of the Report, because it treats the plight of many citizens of our countries.  In the final analysis, they are the intended beneficiaries of our system, for human rights are the rights of individual human beings.  In sum, this Chapter comprises 350 pages and a total of 23 reports, covering 37 numbered and 65 named victims, brought against 10 countries.  In addition, there are lengthy decisions on the admissibility of two cases involving, in principle, hundreds of putative victims.

          The fourth chapter of the Commission's report discusses the human riqhts situation in Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Peru.  I will not go into the specifics of the Commission's findings regarding the status of human rights of these countries at this moment, since I am sure you are all familiar with the Commission's observations in this regard.  Suffice it to say, however, that chapter IV reflects the Commission's continuing concern about the human rights situation in each of these states.

          Chapter V contains three reports that are direct responses to recommendations of the General Assembly of the OAS.  They deal respectively with economic, social and cultural rights, the situation of refugees, displaced persons and repatriated peoples in a number of OAS member states, and lastly, a distillation of the Commission's reflections on the World Conference on Human Rights held last year in Vienna, Austria and its implications for the inter-American human rights system.

          Permit me to note, Mr. Chairman, that with the publication of these studies the Inter-American Commission has now responded to all of the recommendations and requests of the General Assembly in its various resolutions, creative and thoughtful, and in doing so has sought to provide guidance to the member states on these great issues confronting our governments and peoples.

          The 1993 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission concludes with a series of recommendations to the foreign ministers who will meet soon at Belem do Para at the twenty fourth regular session of the General Assembly.

          Some of the recommendations are reiterations of recommendations made in years past while others are novel.  All have the same aim: to secure greater respect for the political, civil, social, economic and cultural rights, which are prescribed in the Convention, for the citizens of our countries.

          In addition to its Annual Report, the Commission has also published three special country reports since the last General Assembly. These examine the human rights situations in Colombia, El Salvador and Haiti.  Each is an extensive and thorough undertaking.  I wish to note Mr. Chairman that each of these three reports were duly sent to the governments of the states in question in conformity with the pertinent provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Commission's regulations and the observations provided to the IACHR by the governments concerned were carefully considered and taken into account.

          I will not try to summarize these country reports for the Committee during this hearing, Mr. Chairman.  To do so would exceed the time and scope of this presentation.  Nevertheless, later during the course of our meeting, I and my colleagues would be happy to respond to any questions or observations the delegates may wish to make in this connection.

          Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates, 1993 was a year of achievements as well as frustrations in the field of human rights in the Americas.  While notable advances have been achieved in many countries in their efforts to consolidate democratic institutions, human rights violations, alas, still persist on a large scale in some countries.

          The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has sought to fulfill its obligations under the Charter, the Convention and the American Declaration in a dynamic manner while scrupulously adhering to the instruments that regulate its conduct.  Our objective, like yours, is, in the words of the preamble of the American Convention on Human Rights, "to consolidate in this hemisphere, within the framework of democratic institutions, a system of personal liberty and social justice based on respect for the essential rights of man."

          On behalf of my colleagues I am proud to present the reports before you and at the appropriate moment, I will be pleased to entertain your questions.

          Thank you very much.

ADDRESS BY PROFESSOR CLAUDIO GROSSMAN TO THE OAS PERMANENT

COUNCIL AT ITS SPECIAL MEETING OF MAY 11, 1994 TO ASSESS THE

     SITUATION OF HAITI

Chairman of the Permanent Council

Ambassadors Permanent Representatives

Permanent Observers

Secretary General

Assistant Secretary General

Deputy Dante Caputo, Special Representative of the Secretaries General of the OAS     and the United Nations for Haiti

Ladies and Gentlemen

          On behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, I would like to thank the Permanent Council for inviting us to participate in this special meeting on Haiti.

          The Commission has been observing the human rights situation in that country on an ongoing basis.  As is widely known, the legal bases for the Commission's work are enshrined in the OAS Charter, in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and in the American Convention on Human Rights, which was ratified by Haiti on September 27, 1977.

          These legal instruments provide a regulatory framework that includes a list of rights used by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to ensure compliance with international obligations freely assumed by the member states.

          In Haiti's case, the Commission has received numerous individual complaints of human rights violations, has conducted investigations on its own initiative, and has asked for and received evidence.  In view of the serious nature of the claims of widespread and systematic human rights violations in Haiti since the military coup of September 1991, the Commission made two on-site visits to that country, one in December 1991 and the other in August 1993.  Its findings were described in special reports on the human rights situation in Haiti in 1993 and 1994, respectively.

          Based on those visits, the Commission has decried the continued and drastic worsening of the human rights situation in Haiti noting that those who hold power in the country have escalated the repression against the people of Haiti.  As stated by the Commission in its 1994 report,  summary executions, disappearances, arbitrary arrests, torture and extortion are carried out with complete impunity by the military and paramilitary.  The attacks perpetrated against President Aristide's supporters in broad-daylight go unpunished.   Suffice it to cite a single example of such outrageous conduct:  the murders of Antoine Izmery and Guy-François Malar.   The people have no legal recourse or any other type of protection against these violations.  The restrictions of freedom of expression and the  attacks and physical threats on journalists stymie the internal publicizing of such acts.  The Commission has concluded that, paradoxically, human rights violations increase each time the military decide to renege on the political agreements designed to establish democracy in Haiti.  Such agreements, espoused by the international community, have led the supporters of democracy in Haiti to rejoice publicly at the adoption thereof, only to discover subsequently and tragically that the pacts were a prelude to new murders and torture.  The brutal nature of these fundamental human rights violations should not conceal the fact that they constitute deliberate political activities meant to terrorize those who seek the reestablishment of democracy and the reconciliation of Haiti'_ people.  After conducting a detailed study of the de facto power structure and the causes contributing to human rights violations, the Commission concluded that the army has become a tool for violating human rights, a palpable distortion of its primary purpose of protecting national sovereignty.  In addition, the army enjoys absolute power, free of any checks or balances, within a framework of armed institutions that have not received and continue to need basic training to respect the fundamental rights of their own people.

          In the Commission's view, the army is responsible for repressing its own people and maintaining a veritable reign of terror in Haiti.

          In light of this situation, the latest IACHR Special Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti noted that:

         The Commission is convinced that the essential requirement to remedy the grave human rights situation in Haiti is quick reestablishment of the constitutional democratic regime elected at the polls on December 16, 1990, and  deposed in the coup d'état of September 29, 1991.  This restoration should be accompanied by fundamental changes such as separation of the Army and the police as provided in the Constitution of 1987.  At the same time, the necessary steps should be taken to professionalize an independent police force.

         ...The Commission is convinced that in order to safeguard the personal rights and liberties of Haitians and to protect the population from abuses by the military, there must be:

         a. a substantial reform of the legal system to ensure that the perpetrators of the criminal acts are brought to justice and that persons who are arrested are brought to trial in as short a time as possible, and

         b. an immediate disarming and disbanding of the paramilitary forces and section chiefs who commit indiscriminate acts of violence with impunity.

          Given the serious deterioration of fundamental values in Haiti, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has decided to conduct another on-site visit to the country, starting on Saturday, May 14.  Dr. Patrick L. Robinson, Ambassador John Donaldson, and I will be members of the visiting group.  The Commission will be represented by its Executive Secretary, Ambassador Edith Márquez Rodríguez, and a team of three lawyers.

          As is its custom, the Commission will meet with all sectors of the Haitian population; hear individual complaints; and prepare a report on each of the situations observed.

          Pursuant to the resolution adopted by this distinguished Council just last Monday, the Commission will give priority to investigating mass executions of defenseless groups of the population and other crimes of equal magnitude.  It will also prioritize investigation of the crimes of rape, sexual abuse, and kidnapping of children, particularly when they are used as pawns in political terror tactics.

          The Commission will report on the findings of their visit to Haiti to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States at its twenty-fourth regular session.

          Complying with the mandate conferred by the Charter of the Organization of American States and the other existing treaties, the Commission will continue to perform its task of thoroughly documenting the human rights situation in Haiti.

          The Commission's reports will tell the victims, their relatives and the Haitian people that their tragedy will not remain undocumented; that there are no anonymous dead in Haiti; and that each human rights violation is perceived and condemned by the nations and public opinion in this hemisphere.

          As one of its ongoing objectives, the Commission provides the political organs of the OAS with information that will help them perform their duties as guarantors of freely assumed obligations in respect of human rights.

          As a body established by the Charter, whose principal function shall be to promote the observance and protection of human rights and to serve as a consultative organ of the organization, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will continue to perform its duties indefatigably until democracy and human rights are reestablished in Haiti.

          Thank you.

TEXT OF THE SPEECH OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ONHUMAN RIGHTS, PROFESSOR MICHAEL REISMAN, BEFORE

THE FIRST COMMITTEE OF THE TWENTY FOURTH REGULAR SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE OAS TO PRESENT THE 1993 ANNUAL REPORT OF

     THE IACHR

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Delegates, Members of the Com­mission, Ladies and Gentlemen:

          The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is a juridi­cal commission, based on law and charged with applying law, so it is appropriate to begin with the law. Article 41 (g) of the American Convention on Human Rights prescribes that the Commission submit an annual report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American State.  In fulfillment of that function, I have the privilege of presenting to you today the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for 1993.  In addition, the delegations have received the Commission's special reports on Colombia, El Salvador and Haiti.  I will refer to these later in the course of my remarks.

          But allow me, first, Mr. Chairman, to introduce my fellow officers and colleagues on the Commission. I am joined here today by Ambassador Alvaro Tirado Mejía, the First Vice-President, and Dr. Leo Valladares Lanza, the Second Vice-President, as well as by Dr. Patrick Robinson, a former Chairman of the Commission. Our collective presence here today, Mr. Chairman, which I believe is unprecedented, underscores the gravity with which the Commission views this task, our perception of the critical character of the relationship between the Assembly and the Commission for our work and the importance that we attach to the Assembly's understanding of what we are doing and why we are doing it. Above all, our presence underlines the seriousness with which the Commission takes the work of the General Assembly, the supreme legislative body of our Organization and the ultimate political decision maker in all matters under the Charter, including the enforcement of those human rights on which you have charged us to study and report to you.

          May I also note, Mr. Chairman, that, following elections in the Assembly, there have been changes in membership in the Com­mission starting on January 1 of this year.  Two very devoted and experienced members of the Commission, Marco Tulio Bruni Celli and Oliver Jackman, both of whom had served at different times as Chairmen, completed their second terms, the statutory limit, and have retired.  They have earned the thanks of the entire Commis­sion and, I daresay, of all those in our region who cherish human rights.  Dr. Bruni Celli is now a member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and serves as its rapporteur for Haiti.  Ambassador Jackman has been nominated for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.  The General Assembly elected two new members of the Commis­sion, Ambassador John Donaldson and Dean Claudio Grossman. I congratulate and thank the General Assembly for selecting two such outstanding jurists for our work and, likewise, for having re-elected to a second term Dr. Oscar Luján Fappiano, a veteran in the struggle for winning respect for human rights for all.

          Mr. Chairman, it is a source of particular pride for me to present these reports to you in the year in which the Commission is celebrating its thirty-fifth anniversary. With your permis­sion, Mr. Chairman, I think it appropriate, in this anniversary year, to consider briefly the historic commitment of the Organi­zation of American States to human rights and the role the Organization has assigned to the Commission in its oversight. The OAS was among the pioneers of modern human rights law.  The Charter--the Pact of Bogota of 1948-- is an agreement between states but it incorporates the "fundamental rights of the individual" as one of the Organization's founding principles. The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, prepared by the Inter-American Juridical Committee in 1947, was adopted by the OAS in Bogota the year after to elaborate on the Charter's general commitment to human rights. In 1959, at Santiago, Chile, your predecessors, the foreign ministers of our countries of this hemisphere, established the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights.

          The Commission started life with a rather vague mandate. In 1965, the Commission's competence was expanded to accept communications, request information from governments and make recommendations "with the objective of bringing about more effec­tive observance of human rights." In 1967, the Charter was amend­ed and the Commission became a principal organ of the OAS.

          The American Convention of Human Rights, signed in 1969, incorporated the Commission and assigned it specific convention­al competences.  It also created an American Court of Human Rights. The Convention entered into force in 1978. Currently, there are 25 parties to the Convention, but because of the histo­ry of the evolution of the Commission, which I reviewed, all states in the hemisphere, whether or not they are party to the American Convention, are subject to some form of the Commission's jurisdiction. Let me explain.

          The Commission's conventional jurisdiction applies to the 25 states that have, to date, become party to the American Convention.  Its judicial invocative jurisdiction,i.e., its competence to invoke the American Court, applies to the States Parties to the American Convention that have declared that they accept the Court's jurisdiction.  But the Commission's Declaration jurisdic­tion, i.e., jurisdiction based on the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948, applies to all the members of the OAS, for the Declaration elaborates the human rights commitments that all members have undertaken in the Charter.  Thus, the Commission may receive petitions from citizens of states-parties to the Convention, based on the rights enunciated in the Convention, and it may receive petitions from citizens of member-states of the OAS, who are not yet party to the American Convention, based on the rights enunciated in the American Decla­ration.  The Court, in one of its Advisory Opinions, has authorized the interpretation of each of these human rights instruments by reference to the other.

          Human rights are about individuals so it should be no sur­prise that a substantial part of the daily work of the Commission comes from individual petitions. Article 44 of the Convention states that:

         Any person or group of persons, or any nongovern­mental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denuncia­tions or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party.

          A case begins on receipt of a petition about an alleged violation of human rights. Petitions about the same event often come from a number of different sources. The events they refer to are sometimes heartrending.  The Commission examines the petition in terms of the basic requirements of Articles 46 and 47--whether the petition contains names and signatures, whether it states facts that tend to establish a violation of the Convention or whether it is manifestly groundless, whether domestic remedies have been exhausted, whether the petition has been lodged within specified time limits, whether the petition is pending in another interna­tional proceeding, or has already been before the Commission.  If the petition does not fail these threshold tests, it is relayed to the government it names for information and its views.  The information that is supplied may lay the matter to rest, in which case Article 48(b) instructs the Commission to order that the record be closed or the information provided may establish that the petition is inadmissible which also terminates the procedure. If not, the Commission, with the knowledge of the parties, must proceed to investigate the matter, asking for information it deems necessary, hearing oral arguments and receiving written statements. It also puts itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement.

          If a friendly settlement can be arranged, the Commission issues a short report to that effect to the Secretary General of the OAS.  If there is no settlement, the Commission draws up a report with the facts and its conclusions and recommendations and sends it only to the state concerned, which may not publicize it. If, within three months, the matter has not been settled, the Commission must either issue a final report, which becomes part of the Annual Report to the Assembly, or, for those states that have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, the Commission may refer the matter to the Court. Advisory Opinion 13 instructs the Commission to decide this matter, not on discretionary grounds but to select "the alternative that would be most favorable for the protection of the rights established in the Convention".

          Aside from petitions, the Commission must stay abreast of general trends in order to perform the various functions pre­scribed by Article 41 of the Convention.  It accomplishes this by using a wide-ranging methodology: in addition to its scrutiny of all relevant documents, the Commission devotes a great deal of its efforts to meeting with numerous government officials, spoke­persons for non-governmental human rights organizations and citizens of our countries from all walks of life. This method­ology is important, for Article 41 also specifies, as a function of the Commission, that it is to prepare "reports" or "studies" as it considers advisable.

          One form of report is a country-study. The Annual Report explains:

         Under its mandate to promote the observance and defense of human rights, the IACHR has been re­viewing the status of human rights in the countries of the hemisphere and has drawn up special reports on some of them. These reports have been prepared on the Commission's own initiative, or upon instructions from an organ of the Organization of American States, and, in some cases, at the spontaneous request of the country concerned. (id. at 379).

          A country report examines the aggregate human rights situation ln the particular country on which it focusses and, where appropri­ate, makes recommendations to the government.  Every application of a legal instrument requires interpretation and judgment and governments do not always agree with all of the conclusions the Commission may have reached in country reports.  Nevertheless, many governments have accepted the reports in a positive way and have entered into a dialogue with the Commission about ways of dealing with the problems that have been indicated, of which, one might add, elements of the government may have already been aware. A number of governments have been critical of the Commis­sion, feeling that they were being singled out unfairly or arbi­trarily. In no case is a country report about a member-state of the OAS prepared without consultation with government officials and without giving opportunities to the government to express its views on the issues in the report.

          Sometimes, as a result of the methodology I described above and other information received, the Commission finds that essen­tially the same discrepancies from the standards prescribed by the Convention are occurring in many countries. There are some human rights violations that are widespread, if not virtually universal. In some cases, they are the result of major political, moral or technological changes, to which national laws or insti­tutional practices have not yet adapted themselves. If the Commission were only to confront such pathologies through the petition procedure, case-by-case and country-by-country, reme­dies might be secured in the individual cases that were lodged, but the underlying factors that precipitated the problem would continue as would the broader pattern of abuses. Some of these problems call for fundamental institutional change, such as is contemplated in Articles 2 and 41(b) of the Convention. Moreover, it does not seem fair to single out in a country report only one of many countries engaged in a practice inconsistent with the Convention.

          To deal with these types of problems, the Commission may prepare "studies," in the language of Article 41. Studies enable the Commission to see things in hemispheric perspective and to develop recommendations on a hemispheric scale. Currently, the Commission is studying the status of women in national legislation in the hemisphere and prison practices throughout the hemisphere and is considering a study of the consequences on the rights in the Convention of large-scale migration, both inter­state and internal, which would follow on a recommendation the Assembly had made to the Commission on a cognate subject.

          Thus, the Commission processes petitions for individualized cases, undertakes country-studies for national patterns of human rights conformity or violation and special studies for general­ized problems. This Annual Report reflects all these dimensions of the Commission's work, in addition to special tasks referred to the Commission by the Assembly. In keeping with AG/RES. 331 (VIII-0/78) and Article 63 of its Rules of Procedure, the 1993 Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is composed of five chapters.  I should like to review them briefly.

          - In the first chapter, the Commission sets forth the legal bases and history of its work. I have related some of this to you this morning.

          - In the second chapter, the Commission summarizes its numerous and varied activities during the year in question.  The Commission's work last year included, of course, its two regular periods of sessions, as well as an extraordinary meeting held in Mar del Plata, Argentina, and, as I mentioned to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs, on-site visits to Guatemala, Haiti and Peru.  Since I appeared before the Committee in April, the Commission has had another extraordinary meeting in Washing­ton, and has again visited Haiti and has also visited The Baha­mas.  I will return to the acute and generalized human rights crisis in Haiti--the subject of a special report before you and the special difficulties the Commission has encountered there, both in its on-site work and its scrutiny from OAS head­quarters.  Other than for Haiti, none of the on-site visits could have been accomplished without the cooperation and assistance of the governments, each of which acceded to the Commission's desire to carry out on-site visits in their respective territories and helped in many ways. I should also like to express special thanks to the Government of Argentina for its help in making the Commis­sion's extraordinary meeting in Buenos Aires a fruitful one.  Chapter Two also provides up-dated information on the con­tentious cases the Commission has litigated before the Court during the year under review: with regard to Colombia, Peru and Suriname respectively.  In all of these cases, regardless of their merits and their adversarial character, the Commission salutes the governments in question for freely and voluntarily taking part in these judicial proceedings. Adjudication is one of the best and fairest ways our civilization knows for making factual findings, determining responsibility and achieving jus­tice in individual cases; all of these are basic functions of the human rights system of the Americas. Accepting the Court's juris­diction and participating in such litigation demonstrates, in what we hope will prove to be an exemplary way, how democratic and civilized governments can address and resolve disputes in­volving the human rights of their citizens.

          In the period under review, the Commission also participated in two cases under the advisory jurisdiction of the Court. One, requested by Argentina and Uruguay, dealt with questions about the Commission's jurisdiction and competence and the procedures to be followed under the American Convention.  The Court's opinion, which the Commission has carefully studied and discussed and on which it has had the benefit of learned studies prepared and submitted to it by several governments, has been incorporated into the procedures of the Commission.  In particular, as I mentioned, Advisory Opinion 13 has refined the criteria and procedures by which the Commission is to submit cases to the Court.  The other request for an advisory opinion, this one submitted by the Commission itself, poses two questions to the Court: the legal effect of national laws that patently violate terms of the Convention and the individual responsibility of state agents who implement such national laws.  The Court has not yet handed down its opinion in this case.

          In part because of Advisory Opinion 13 and in part because of the growing number of adherences to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in accord with Article 62 of the American Convention, the Commission's work before the Court is taking on greater significance both for individual cases and for the human rights system as a whole. As the Court renders decisions in each of these cases, the cumulation of jurisprudence may help estab­lish a carefully considered and regionally responsive body of the international law of human rights.

          Mr. Chairman, Chapter Three - entitled "Reports on Individu­al Cases" is by far the longest section of the Report, and rightly so, for human rights are, quintessentially, the rights of individuals.  In the course of the year under review, the Commis­sion opened 107 individual cases, bringing the total number of individual cases being processed to 635.  Hundreds more were submitted but failed to pass the threshold tests of the Convention and were dismissed.  As I noted to the members of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Permanent Council, Chapter III is 350 pages long. It is comprised of 23 reports covering 37 numbered cases and 65 named victims brought against 10 different countries.  A tabular summary of these reports appears on pages 29 to 31 of the English and Spanish versions of the Report.

          Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I have worked on many of these cases for years.  The summaries in the Annual Report cannot convey the details of these tragedies as we have come to know them.  It is a wonderful indication of the commitment of the OAS to human rights that the legal conclusions about these individual tragedies go directly to this Assembly and are not shunted off to a terminal obscurity.  We hope that, as a result of the scrutiny of this distinguished body, the recommendations in the reports will be implemented promptly.  One State in the hemisphere--Colombia--is now working actively to revise its laws so that the Commission's recommendations in individual cases can be promptly implemented at the national level; the Commission has worked with it on this important development, which we hope will be emulated widely. I regret to note that, in many countries, the recommendations in many individual cases from previous years still remain to be implemented.

          It may also be worth noting that while the majority of these individual case reports find the state against whom the petition was brought responsible for the commission of human rights viola­tions, that is far from always being the case. The two lengthy reports dealing with admissibility--one confirming admissibili­ty, the other finding the petition inadmissible--are rather mundane illustrations of the extraordinary care the Commission takes in its analyses of the facts as well as the preliminary procedural and jurisdictional requirements that guide its work.

          The fourth chapter of the Commission's report discusses the human rights situation in Cuba, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Peru.  Before examining these respective reports, a number of considera­tions should be borne in mind. First, as I mentioned, the Com­mission sought information from all those mentioned governments that are members of the OAS before drafting these reports. Second, the reports are intended to be up-dates of earlier special country reports, so, except for necessary background infor­mation, they are limited to the year covered by the Annual Report.

          With regard to Cuba, the Commission focussed on personal freedom, the right to justice and due process; generally prac­ticed methods of harassment of human rights activists; the situation in jails; and freedom of movement. Free speech and dissent are still subject to unrelenting repression.  There is a lack of due process in trials of government critics and, what is worse, this is sanctioned by law. Numerous individuals were tried and convicted in Cuba in 1993 in violation of their right to free expression under the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.  Among these were a number of courageous human rights monitors.  Methods cited by the Commission in dealing with human rights activists ranged from dismissal from employment, the imposition of fines, beatings, imprisonment, internment in psy­chiatric hospitals, to forced disappearance. The prison situa­tion in Cuba and, in particular, the fate of political prisoners in that country is a cause of particular concern. The severe limitations and punishments placed on free travel, particularly in cases of Cuban citizens seeking to live abroad, remain largely unchanged. The Commission finds that:

         the human rights situation in Cuba has changed little in comparison to years past. Civil and political rights are not effectively exercised, primarily because of the concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people and the absence of the rule of law. In effect, individuals have no recourse against arbitrary measures that may be taken by the state. (id. at p. 380).

          The Commission will continue to monitor the situation in Cuba.

          With regard to Guatemala, Mr. Chairman, the Commission up-dates its June, 1993 special report. I should mention at the outset that since publishing its Annual Report, the Government of Guatemala has permitted and actively aided the Commission in conducting another on-site visit to that country in March of this year. On that occasion, the Commission visited a number of so called CPRs, Comunidades de Poblaciones en Resistencia, in the Department of El Quiche, and thereafter, held a long and useful talk with President Ramiro de Leon Carpio, which covered some of the issues treated in the Report.

          In general, the Government of Guatemala has taken and con­tinues to take notable steps to improve the human rights situa­tion in its country--actions such as the demilitarization of the police force, the strengthening of the Office of Ombudsman for Human Rights, the increasing return and resettlement of refugees and internally displaced persons.  Yet the phenomena of insecurity and violence continue at alarming levels. While a portion of the violence is attributable to continuing actions of subversives under the banner of the URNG and as a result of large scale private criminal activity, it is, nevertheless, clear that un­solved, extra-judicial executions are still occurring and bear all the signs of traditional military and paramilitary repres­sion. Victims have included students, professors, union organizers, human rights defenders, journalists and indigenous leaders.

          The Commission also continues to be greatly concerned by socio-economic indicators in Guatemala that show that the over­whelming majority of people live in a state of bare subsistence while wealth and land continue to be concentrated in the hands of a very small minority of citizens.  Tax policies have not been reformed and the provision of public services, particularly in the areas of health and education, are still greatly neglected while the country appears to be mired in an institutional crisis. Despite efforts, fundamental reform of the judicial system re­mains an unfulfilled dream and the so-called Voluntary Civil Defense Committees composed of hundreds of thousands of armed peasants continue to operate in the countryside despite recom­mendations to the contrary made by this Commission and other human rights organizations.

          The Commission concludes its study on Guatemala with five recommendations. They are:

         first, to follow a policy of the strictest compliance with the decisions included in the Official Declaration on Human Rights of October 1993, as the basis for the conduct of all state agencies and agents;

         second, to see to it that all investigatory and protective resources of the state are used to assure the life, personal liberty and freedom of expression of the leaders of human rights agencies and social and political interest groups, as well as the press, in order to restore a democratic dialogue among different sectors;

         third, to instruct military and security organizations and civil self-defense patrols that they must respect the rights of free association and free speech of the people, and that they must refrain from intimidating or attacking organizations that serve rural people or which call for better living conditions and compliance with the law;

         fourth, to end an arrangement that facilitates military control over the actions of the Executive Branch of government by means of the Presidential General Staff, whether by disbanding it or by redefining its functions; and

         fifth, to recommend to the members of the Legislative Branch that they take the necessary measures to overcome a type of institutional paralysis so that they can comply with their constitutional responsibilities.

          Regarding Nicaragua, the Commission expresses its continuing concern, primarily in four inter-related areas.  Violence against the citizenry both in rural as well as urban areas; the failure to reform and strengthen the judiciary; the excessive and inap­propriate power which remains vested in the army high command and its military courts; and the seemingly intractable problem of restitution of private property.

          On the first matter, both decommissioned members of the Sandinista army and the Resistance have in numerous instances failed to lay down their arms as agreed to, and, on the contrary, have engaged in armed actions that have led to the taking of hostages and, in some cases, to the deaths of non-combatants.  In the case of the Courts, impunity with respect to past and recent political crimes continues to be the norm, as documented by Nica­ragua's Tripartite Commission.  For example, according to the Tripartite Commission, of 28 cases of homicide of former members of the Nicaraguan Resistance, only four were properly investigat­ed. (id. at 448).  The Tripartite Commission speaks of "the com­partmentalization, politicization and slowness" of the Nicaraguan judiciary, all of which have lead to violations of due process and the denial of justice.

          The Commission examines the broad competence exercised by Nicaragua's military tribunals and the Government's failure to limit their jurisdiction to bring them into conformity with provisions of the American Convention to which Nicaragua is a State party.

          Article 21 of the Convention protects the right to private property. The Nicaraguan legal system incorporates the interna­tional norms as national law.  In practice, according to reports received by the Commission, the protections do not work.  While some progress has been made in restoring or compensating for property wrongfully confiscated by the predecessor government, the process is often very slow and cumbersome.  Even when orders are issued by the National Confiscations Review Commission, they have not been enforced by the police against persons connected with the previous government. (id. at 464).

          The final country study is devoted to Peru. As I mentioned earlier, the Commission visited Peru during 1993 to observe the human rights situation in that country; the itinerary, work program and prison visits conducted on that visit are described. This country study takes particular pains to describe the terror­ist activities of the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement and Sendero Luminoso, which have caused untold suffering among peas­ants, indigenous peoples and urban dwellers alike. In doing so, the Commission again expressly repudiates the violent conduct of these groups and recognizes the Government's right, and indeed, its duty to suppress them under the law.

          At the same time, however, the American Convention requires that the detection, arrest, trial and punishment of subversives, as with any criminal suspects, be carried out within the parame­ters of due process.  The Commission had carefully analyzed Peru's anti-terrorist legislation and sought, during the on-site visit, to verify how it is actually applied. In a series of specific cases, the Commission documents violations of the right to life, personal liberty, the right to humane treatment and due process.

          The Commission also calls for the repeal of the Peruvian law on the loss of citizenship which punishes persons of suspect loyalty by denationalizing them. The report likewise demonstrates how the fight against subversion has sometimes been used to justify repression of legitimate dissent and free speech.  Lastly, the Commission regrets that Peru has altered its Constitution to expand the application of the death penalty, contrary to the provisions of Article 4 of the American Convention.

          In Chapter Five, entitled "Areas in Which Steps Need to be Taken Towards Full Observance of the Human Rights..." set forth in the Convention and the Declaration, the Commission has pre­pared essays on three matters of paramount concern. The first is an up-dated account of the status of social, economic and cultur­al rights in our member states.  The second treats the situation of refugees, displaced persons and repatriates in the Americas. The third reflects on the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, Austria last year and its implica­tions for the inter-American human rights system.  All three essays are specific responses to various mandates adopted by the Assembly in past years. Each essay undertakes a comprehensive recounting of the relevant international human rights and humani­tarian international law norms as well as statistical, demograph­ic and economic data pertinent to these topics.  For all that they say of the past, they are even more revealing of the challenges that lie before us.  The sections on economic and social rights as well as on refugees contain specific recommendations that merit consideration by this body and individual governmental leaders present here today.

          Mr. Chairman, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights concludes its 1993 Annual Report with a series of 16 concrete recommendations.  Some of these reiterate those made in years past and deal primarily with ratification or adherence to the various inter-American human rights treaties.  Others refer to large matters such as economic, social and cultural rights.  Still others underscore the need to improve our system by better training of government personnel for handling Inter-American Commission matters.  The Commission would also recommend the prompt ratification of the Convention Against Forced Disappearance of Persons, which is in the process of being adopted.  Another set of recommendations speaks to the practical needs of the Commission and its Secretariat.

          I would like to take this opportunity to amplify one, in particular. The demands placed on the Commission are mushrooming.  The number of petitions has increased dramatically, as have the General Assembly's special assignments.  The number of on-site visits the Commission takes has increased substantially.  A decade ago, it was common for the Commission to carry out only one or two on-site visits per year.  Now it undertakes annually an aver­age of four on-site visits.  These engage a great deal of lawyers' time, arranging agendas, setting up appointments and preparing background papers, not to speak of the increased follow-up re­search.  The Commission is submitting many more cases to the Court.  Other areas, such as economic and social rights are becom­ing more important.  All of this is reflected in the number and length of our publications. In 1982-1983, the Commission published approximately 310 pages. This year, the Commission will publish well in excess of 1,600 pages.  Yet the legal and non-legal staff of the Commission has not increased.  Quite the contrary.  A decade ago, the Commission had twelve lawyers.  Now it has ten.  There has been an even greater reduction in clerical staff and in the space in which the Commission operates.  The Commission needs four more lawyers with an appropriate expansion of clerical staff and equipment.  We are now turning to the General Assembly with this request.

          Mr. Chairman, that concludes my general remarks of the Commission's 1993 Annual Report.  I turn now, with your permission to the Commission's three special reports on the human rights situation in Colombia, El Salvador and Haiti.

          The Delegates will recall that the Commission was invited to conduct an on site visit to Colombia in 1990.  Following a pre­liminary visit that year, the on-site investigation was carried out in May, 1992.  The special country report under discussion was, in part, a product of those visits.

          In the process of preparing the report, the Commission visited the capital, Santafé de Bogotá, as well as Medellín and Barrancabermeja in the Department of Santander in Magdalena Medio.  In addition, it interviewed literally hundreds of government officials, churchmen, scholars, jurists, unionists, reporters, human rights workers and ordinary citizens.

          The Commission notes that a number of innovative and promis­ing mechanisms have been put in place in Colombia to try to address a history of persistent, massive and systematic human rights violations.  These include the creation of the Office of the Defender of the People, the Presidential Advisor on Human Rights, the establishment of computerized human rights networks in all relevant government ministries and a close working rela­tionship between some sectors of the Government and the principal non-governmental human rights organizations in the country.  The Government is moving rapidly toward ratification of Protocol 2 Additional to the Geneva Conventions and is, as I mentioned, preparing legislation to implement individual reports of the Commission.

          Nevertheless, the Commission observes with concern, and thoroughly documents, a series of persistent problems commencing with the alarming violence that characterizes Colombian society, the inability of the courts to address the problem, and the record of decision with regard to right of life, personal liberty, humane treatment, and the formation of trade unions.

          The Commission is acutely aware of the harm done by irregu­lar armed groups in Colombia, regardless of whether they charac­terize themselves as revolutionaries, drug traffickers, paramili­tary bands, kidnappers, extortionists, paid assassins or common brigands.  There is no question that the lawless element in Colom­bia is large, diverse, decentralized, armed and dangerous.  The Commission also views with sympathy and admiration the extraordi­nary lengths to which the Governments of Colombia, past and present, have gone to pacify such groups.

          At the same time, by virtually universal agreement, it is recognized in Colombia, and the Commission so ratifies in its report, that a substantial percentage of human rights abuses are committed by Government agents, mostly police and military, who, by and large, act with impunity from the law.

          The Commission will continue to report on conditions in Colombia in the future and strongly urges the Government to put into practice the recommendations it has formulated at the con­clusion of its account.

          The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has reported on the human rights situation in El Salvador every year since 1979.  During the terrible civil war in that country, the Commission verified and reported in great detail year after year the grim litany of violations committed on both sides of that conflict, but preponderantly by Government forces throughout El Salvador's ordeal.

          Happily the war in El Salvador has ended and with it the number and gravity of human rights violations have plummeted.  Nevertheless, periodic assassinations with all the traditional characteristics of death squads continue to mar the peace.

          What is particularly disturbing to the Commission is the impunity with which these violations have been carried out by their perpetrators both before and after the signing of the Peace Accords.

          The Commission's special report recounts the Commission's work in El Salvador over the years and examines the peace negotiations and the work of the Truth Commission in the light of El Salvador's duties as a state party to the American Convention on Human Rights.

          Thereafter, in searching for patterns, the Commission renders a series of 30 synoptic reports on specific denunciations presented to it in the course of recent years.  These cases, all involving the rights to life and physical integrity, cover multiple victims.  One, the matter of the Las Hojas Masacre, claimed 74 victims, who died at the hands of the Salvadoran armed forces.  It is notable that not a single government agent has ever been called to account for any of these bloody deeds.

          In addition, the Special Report cites 37 other individual cases, again with numerous victims, in which the Government never provided a satisfactory accounting. The failure to investigate these cases and to punish those responsible for their commission has ineluctably led the IACHR to conclude that El Salvador is responsible for these violations.  Justice requires that states parties to the Convention honor their commitments to their citizens.  The Commission is on record to the effect that amnesties that deprive victims and their families of a remedy are inconsistent with the obligations of the Convention.

          El Salvador has recently celebrated general elections.  The Inter-American Commission congratulates the people and Government of El Salvador for the peaceful and democratic manner in which these were carried out.  While the Commission will continue to monitor the human rights situation in the Country, it is convinced that El Salvador is back on the path of democracy, development and respect for human rights.

          Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague Dr. Patrick Robinson, who will present the report on Haiti. Thereafter, I will briefly conclude.

          I must close, Mr. Chairman, on the somber note of Haiti and the larger implications it holds for our work.  The human rights situation in Haiti is, in a word, dreadful and despite repeated international condemnation and programs, it has gotten worse.

          Faced with this horror, the Commission can only do what it was designed to do: to bear witness and report to you.  The inter­national observers still present in Port au Prince--those of the OAS now greatly outnumber their UN counterparts--are simply magnificent. We should take pride in them.  But the continuing tragedy of Haiti points up the built-in limitations of all inter­national human rights regimes.  The deterrent effect of the Com­mission and of international observers on the Haitian military depends on the military believing that those to whom the reports are brought will do something other than send more observers and ask for more reports.  My personal experience in Haiti makes me believe that the military there do not believe that our reports of their unspeakable practices will elicit effective internation­al action. Hence they ignore all international criticisms and recommendations.  And if they demonstrate they can ignore them without suffering effective condemnation, will others do the same?

          You created the Commission and, over the years, it has been you and your predecessors who have steadfastly defended the Commission, following its work carefully, studying its annual reports and periodic special reports on the situation of human rights throughout our hemisphere, discussing and appraising and criticizing its performance in committee and plenary session, making recommendations and responding to its communications to you.  It is to you that we refer our recommendations and our requests.  To put it simply, we depend on you.  The effectiveness of the human rights system of our hemisphere depends on you.

          In that human rights system, the Inter-American Commission has been assigned nothing other than a voice.  Applying the stand­ards that political bodies have established and using a rigorous juridical method, the Commission can determine the facts and relate them to the law.  It can report the results to the Assem­bly, to the people of our hemisphere and to the world.  But it is only a voice. A voice must be heard and acted on.  A voice, as the prophet Isaiah said, that "cries out in the wilderness" can not.  On behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States, I am honored to submit to this distinguished Assembly of the States of our hemisphere the report of our work, our voice, this year. Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegates.  Please.  Let it not be a voice in the wilderness.

Belém do Para, June 7, 1994

REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

BEFORE THE AD HOC MEETING OF MINISTERS OF

        FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON HAITI

Mr. President, Distinguished Ministers, Secretary General, Assistant Secretary General, Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

          The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has given Haiti priority in its work since the military coup of September 29, 1991.  After repeated requests to visit Haiti to conduct an on-site investigation were ignored or rebuffed by the military, President Aristide asked the Commission on July 19, 1993 to visit the country and the de facto Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that it would allow the Commission to carry out its investigation.  From August 23 to 27, 1993, four members of the Commission visited the country, where they met with a wide range of Haitians, including the Military, visited three prisons and conducted interviews in Hinche in the Central Plateau, as well as Gonaives and St. Marc. The Commission found a people that was terrorized by the military and by irregulars, whether called "Attachés" or "Zenglendos," who were operating with the tacit support of the military, a people that yearned for the return of its elected President, but, especially in the countryside, was so fearful of reprisals by military and paramilitary forces that many insisted on meeting with us clandestinely.  The results of that on-site visit and our follow-up research were published in a special report on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, which has been submitted to the Assembly and will be commented upon when the Annual Report is presented later this week.

          Shortly after the Commission left, one of the witnesses who had testified before us, M. Antoine Izmery, was taken from a church where he was attending a mass and assassinated in broad daylight.  Other reports of frightful incidents were received, like the assassination of Minister of Justice Guy Malary, notable for its sheer audacity.  In the face of reports of a worsening human rights situation, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decided, in February of this year, to conduct another on-site visit to Haiti.  Three members of the Commission, Patrick Robinson, John Donaldson and Claudio Grossman, accompanied by Dr. Edith Márquez Rodríguez, the Executive Secretary, Dr. Bertha Santoscoy, Specialist on Human Rights, Dr. Relinda Eddie and Dr. Isabel Ricupero, conducted the visit from May 16 through 20, 1994.  A week later, three members, Leo Valladares Lanza, John Donaldson and myself, also accompanied by Dr. Márquez, Dr. David Padilla, and Relinda Eddie, visited the Bahamas at the invitation of the Government, to examine some of the problems of the Haitian diaspora in the Bahamas.  Thus, the Commission has seen, at first hand and within the last month, two dimensions of the Haitian human rights problem. I Appreciate the opportunity, on behalf of the Commission, to report our findings to you.

          Let me start with the situation within Haiti.

          During its stay in Haiti, the Delegation met with Prime Minister Robert Malval accompanied by four cabinet ministers; Ambassador Colin Granderson, Director of the OAS/UN International Civilian Mission; Papal Nuncio Monsignor Lorenzo Baldisseri; the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Frantz Robert Mondé, and the President of the Senate Firmin Jean Louis. The Delegation also asked to meet with the Chief-in-Command of the Armed Forces of Haiti, General Raoul Cedras, and members of the Chief of Staff as well as the Chief of Police, Lt. Col. Joseph Michel François, but received no response to their request.

          The Commission also met with the coordinator of the Former Presidential Commission, Father Antoine Adrien; with representatives of nongovernmental organizations--grassroots organizations, human rights groups--and with leaders of several political parties to learn about the human rights situation in the country. It also interviewed representatives of the print and broadcast media from whom they heard testimony about the state of freedom of expression in Haiti.  The IACHR delegation also met with representatives of the industrial sector and the churches.

          Because they were not authorized to do so, the delegation was unable to visit the Penitentiary Center in Port-au-Prince.  They were therefore unable to ascertain directly the condition of the prisons and the situation with regard to judicial process for prisoners.  Nor could the Commission members go into the countryside as they had done nine months earlier, when they had confirmed that the situation was distinctly worse there than in Port-au-Prince.  Even in the capital, the population was terrorized and it was much harder to interview people.  Nonetheless the Commission was able to meet people clandestinely.  The reality they described was harrowing. The major change in Haiti is that things are worse.

          Mr. President, Ministers, Delegates, the Commission has in its possession detailed and reliable information on numerous violations of the right to life, which have taken place in the past four months, specifically executions and disappearances.  The documentation received permits the identification of names and circumstances involving 133 cases of extrajudicial executions between February and May of this year.  More than 210 of these types of crimes were reported.

          The Commission also received information on severely mutilated bodies and had direct confirmation in one such case.  This information also indicates that the purpose of these acts is to terrorize the population.

          Even principles of minimum decency, respect for the dead, are not honored. In the face of the tragic scene of human corpses being eaten by animals.  Prime Minister Malval has tried to enlist the assistance of international organizations in removing corpses, given the inaction of those who are in power.

          The Commission also received numerous reports of arbitrary detention, routinely accompanied by torture and brutal beatings by agents of the armed forces of Haiti and paramilitary groups, especially members of the Revolutionary Front for Advancement and Progress in Haiti (FRAPH), who act in concert with the armed forces and police.  The members of the Commission saw and spoke directly with victims of torture and noted the circumstances under which it had taken place.  The Commission received documentation on 55 cases of political kidnapping and disappearances during February and March of this year.  Since then, 20 people have been released and 11 have been found dead.  To date, no information is available on the fate of the other 24 missing persons.

          The Commission received compelling evidence that in Port-au-Prince, armed paramilitary groups have raided neighborhoods, notably in Cité Soleil, Sarthe, Carrefour, Fonds Tamara, among others, murdering and pillaging residents who, for the most part, support the return of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

          Reports received by the Commission point to an increase in the number and brutality of human rights violations by the army, FRAPH, and other paramilitary groups or attachés working in tandem with the military in country's interior.  The Commission also heard testimony proving conclusively the responsibility of the army in massacres of defenseless groups of the population in Raboteau, Gonaives, Department of Artibonite, on March 22 last.  There, between 15 and 20 residents were executed.  Information the delegation also received leads to the conclusion that the army attacked defenseless groups of the population in the departments of the center (Saut D'Eau) and the north (Borgne).

          The Commission received numerous reports on the on­going campaign of repression in Borgne, where arson has apparently been adopted as a strategy of terror. In April of 1994, the military, in conjunction with the FRAPH, carried out large-scale operations in Petit Borgne, Collete, and Bassin-Caiman allegedly to seek out terrorist groups and illegal weapons.  In the course of these raids, many of the local inhabitants had their belongings stolen, cattle and other farm animals either stolen or slaughtered, and crops destroyed.  Many farmers were forced to pay "Ransoms" to be spared.  There were also separate cases in which certain individuals were sought out and killed.  In addition, a number of women were raped to force them to reveal the hiding places of persons who are being sought after.

          These attacks bear similar traits: they involve actual military campaigns where army units, assisted by FRAPH and other paramilitary groups, surround and burst into certain areas under the pretext of combatting subversive groups, indiscriminately beating residents and committing acts of arson, destruction and theft, followed by arbitrary detentions.

          The Commission further observed that most of the violations reported follow a systematic pattern of repression, indicative of a political plan to intimidate and terrorize the people of Haiti, especially sectors that support President Aristide or that have expressed themselves in favor of democracy in Haiti.  According to information received, victims are kidnapped, forced to get into vehicles and are taken blindfolded to clandestine places of detention where they are interrogated and tortured.  Some victims have been released, others have succumbed as the result of severe beatings.

          Resolution 630 of the Permanent Council requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to give priority to investigating crimes of rape, sexual abuse, and the abduction of children, especially when they are used as methods of political terror.

          In this regard, the Commission received reports of rape and sexual abuse of the wives and relatives of men who are active supporters of President Aristide and a democratic regime; these women are raped by members of the military, the "attachés" and members of FRAPH when they are unable to find the men. Women are also raped not because of their relationship to men who support President Aristide, but because they themselves support President Aristide.  Thus, sexual abuse is used as an instrument of repression and political persecution.  Despite the reluctance of the victims to report these crimes, the Commission received conclusive proof of 21 incidents of violations occurring from January 1994 to the present time.  During its visit, the Commission met directly with 20 victims of this horrible practice.

          The Commission also took the testimony given by relatives of a four-year old boy who was abducted in March 1994.  Allegedly, three armed men were searching for the boy's father, who is a member of a political organization for young people in Cite Soleil.  His wife was raped and the boy abducted when they could not find the man.  The boy was found unharmed four days later at a radio station.

          With respect to the right of assembly, the Commission has concluded that exercise of this right does not exist for those who support a return to democracy. When groups of individuals try to exercise this right, they are arrested and brutally beaten by members of the military and police force.  And accused of organizing meetings in support of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.  In a recent incident, 20 participants were arbitrarily arrested at a meeting for legal training, organized by the Diocese in Hinche, department of the center, on April 29, and accused of being terrorists.

          With regard to exercise of the right to freedom of expression, information received confirms reports of restrictions endured by representatives of the press and radio in Haiti. These have led to self-censorship of the media to the detriment of its functions of keeping the Haitian public informed.  The Commission heard testimony of acts of intimidation and repression of journalists exercising their profession.

          With regard to the problem of displaced persons (Maroons), the Commission confirmed that political activists, community leaders and numerous opponents of the de facto authorities have had to live as fugitives in their own country, forced to abandon home and family. The Commission received convincing information that the number of displaced persons continues to increase at an alarming rate.

          The Commission received claims from Haitian nationals who have returned home that they have been subjected to persecution and violations of their right to physical and moral integrity.  The Commission will open cases concerning these complaints.

          One common feature that emerges from all the reports of these violations is the total ineffectiveness of the judiciary or other mechanisms to prevent or punish human rights violations in Haiti.  The result is complete impunity for the perpetrators of these violations.

          With regard to the right to participate in government provided for in Article 23 of the Convention, the Commission would note that the attempt to install a "Government" without the vote of the people and in breach of the Haitian Constitution is a flagrant violation of the political rights of the people of Haiti.

          The Commission wishes to note for the record the importance, seriousness and objectivity of the work and reports of the OAS/UN International Civilian Mission which it observed throughout its visit.  The Commission expresses deep concern about the acts of intimidation and aggression, on March 23 last, to which members of the Mission were subjected in the Hinche Region (Central Plateau) by a number of demonstrators acting at the bidding of members of FRAPH.  The Commission condemns the passive stance of the military authorities there with regard to these acts which, once again, are indicative of their complicity with the members of FRAPH.

          The Commission feels that given the seriousness of the prevailing situation in Haiti, the number of observers of the OAS/UN International Civilian Mission should be increased to cover the entire country.

          The situation and the prospects are somber and the larger implications for the work we are trying to do cannot be ignored.  The human rights situation in Haiti is, in a word, dreadful.  It is disgraceful.  A military that has usurped power and expelled the President and Government that were elected in internationally supervised free and fair elections rules by a brutal terror that, alas, has analogs elsewhere in the world, but, to my knowledge, none in our hemisphere.  In accord with the Declaration of, Santiago the Foreign Ministers convened and condemned the usurpation of constitutional order.  But, despite the various programs undertaken at the regional and international level, the situation in Haiti worsens.

          In these grim circumstances, flight becomes a most rational survival strategy, so it should be no surprise that large numbers of Haitian men, women and children have fled and many others are, daily, seeking to flee.  It is difficult to understand why anyone would think that people doing this in these circumstances are doing something wrong.  But because the lawfulness of preventing flight and summarily returning Haitians is currently the subject of a petition before the Commission that has been held to be admissible and is sub judice, as it were, the Commission will not comment on it. On the other hand, the plight of the swelling Haitian Diaspora--a direct consequence of the military coup and the repression that has followed--and the implications that it has for the international community must be noted.

          At the invitation of the Government of The Bahamas, the Commission made an on-site visit to examine the condition and problems of the Haitians who had fled to The Bahamas.  The Bahamas is a country with a population of somewhat less than 260,000 people.  Approximately 50,000 Haitians and according to some estimates as many as 60,000 have sought refuge there.  While many of these are described as economic refugees, reliable reports in The Bahamas indicate that in the seven month period after the election of President Aristide, the influx of Haitian migrants to The Bahamas dropped off, only to increase dramatically after the coup.

          As one would expect, certain problems have arisen and some of them are acute.  They are being studied by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and cannot be commented on at the moment.  But one point must be addressed.  The Bahamas has been obliged to make basic social services available to all the Haitians and Haitian children are attending schools on an equal basis with Bahamians. Thus, The Bahamas is taking a proportionately larger part of the Haitian diaspora than any other state in the hemisphere, suffering in the process great stress on its budget and infrastructure.  The Commission believes that The Bahamas is entitled to assistance from the international community.

          The problem in The Bahamas and, should the situation in Haiti continue, quite possibly in other countries, is a symptom and not a problem in its own right.  All the Haitians the Commission interviewed wish to return home and regularly linked that possibility to the reinstatement of President Aristide.

          Mr. President, Ministers, Delegates. On behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, I thank you for your attention.

Belém do Pará, Brazil, June 6, 1994

REPORT OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

TO THE TWENTY-FOURTH REGULAR SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF

THE OAS ON ITS ON-SITE VISIT TO HAITI FROM MAY 16 TO 20, 1994

Mr. President, distinguished Representatives, Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen:

          It is an honor and a privilege Mr. President, in this the thirty-fifth anniversary year of the founding of the Inter-american Commission on Human Rights to address this committee at the twenty-fourth General Assembly meeting in Belem do Pará, Brazil.

          In doing so I am responding to the request of the Permanent Council of the OAS contained in Resolution 630 of May 9 of the present year.  To inform the General Assembly of the result of the Commission's on-site visit to Haiti from May 16 through 20, 1994.

          In view of the worsening situation with regard to human rights in Haiti, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights decided during its 84th session held in February 1994 to conduct an on-site visit to that country, within the scope of its competence as established in the American Convention on Human Rights to which the Republic of Haiti is party.

          The visit to Haiti was carried out by a special delegation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, composed of three members:  Prof. Claudio Grossman, Ambassador John Donaldson, and myself, Patrick Robinson.  We were assisted by Dr. Edith Márquez Rodríguez, Executive Secretary of the IACHR, Dr. Bertha Santoscoy, Principal Specialist on Human Rights, Dr. Relinda Eddie, and Dr. Isabel Ricupero, attorneys at the Commission; Serge Bellegarde, OAS Interpreter, and Mrs. Ana Cecilia Adriazola, secretary of the delegation.

          During its stay in Haiti, the delegation met with Prime Minister Robert Malval and four cabinet ministers; with Ambassador Colin Granderson, Director of the OAS/UN International Civilian Mission; with Papal Nuncio Monsignor Lorenzo Baldisseri; with the President of the Chamber of Deputies, Frantz Robert Mondé, and with the President of the Senate Firmin Jean Louis.  The Delegation also asked to meet with the Chief in Command of the Armed Forces of Haiti, General Raoul Cedras, and members of the Chief of Staff as well as the Chief of Police, Lt. Col. Michel Francois, but received no response to their request.

          The delegation also met with the coordinator of the former Presidential Commission, Father Antoine Adrien; with representatives of nongovernmental organizations--grassroots organizations, human rights groups--and with leaders of several political parties in order to gather as much information as possible about the human rights situation in the country.  It also interviewed representatives of the print and broadcast media from whom it heard testimony about the state of freedom of expression in Haiti.  The IACHR Delegation also met with representatives of the industrial sector and the church.

          Because it was unauthorized to do so, the delegation was unable to visit the penitentiary center in Port-au-­Prince.  It was therefore unable to ascertain directly the condition of the prisons and the situation with regard to judicial process for prisoners.

          Mr. President, as a result of the visit, the Commission was able to confirm the serious deterioration in the human rights situation in Haiti since its last visit in August 1993, which resulted in the presentation of a special report for 1993.  The Commission has in its possession detailed and reliable information of numerous violations of the right to life, executions, and disappearances which have taken place in the past four months.  The documentation received permits the identification of names and circumstances involving 133 cases of extrajudicial executions between February and May this year and more than 210 reports of these types of crimes.

          The Commission also received information of severely mutilated bodies deposited on the streets, and a member of the delegation actually saw one such body. Information received by the Commission indicates that the purpose of these acts is to terrorize the population.

          In light of the information that human corpses are being eaten by animals the Commission endorses Prime Minister Malval's proposal to enlist the assistance of the international organizations in removing corpses given the inaction of those who hold the de facto power.

          The Commission also received numerous reports of arbitrary detention, routinely accompanied by torture and brutal beatings by agents of the armed forces of Haiti and paramilitary groups, especially members of the Revolutionary Front for Advancement and progress in Haiti (FRAPH), who act in concert with the armed forces and police.  The Commission saw and spoke directly with victims of torture and noted the circumstances under which they had taken place.  We also received documentation on 55 cases of political kidnapping and disappearances during February and March.  Since then, 20 people have been released and 11 have been found dead. To date, no information is available on the fate of the other 24 missing persons .

          The Commission received strong evidence that in Port-au-Prince, armed paramilitary groups have raided neighborhoods, notably in cite Soleil, Sarthe, Carrefour, Fonds Tamara, among others, murdering and pillaging residents who, for the most part, support the return of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

          Reports received by the Commission pointed to an increase in the number and brutality of human rights violations by the Army, FRAPH, and other paramilitary groups working in Tandem with the military (attaches) in the country's interior. The Commission also heard testimony proving conclusively the liability of the army in massacres of defenseless groups of the population in Raboteau, Gonaives, department of Artibonite, on March 22 last.  There, between 15 and 20 residents were executed with no justification.  Information the Commission also received leads to the conclusion that the army attacked defenseless groups of the population in the departments of the center (Saut d'eau) and the north (Borgne).

          The Commission received numerous reports of the ongoing campaign of repression in Borgne where arson has apparently been adopted as a strategy of terror. In April of 1994 the military, in conjunction with the FRAPH, carried out large operations in Petit Borgne, Collete, and Bassin-Caiman allegedly to seek out terrorist groups and illegal weapons.  In the course of these raids, many of the local inhabitants have had their belongings stolen, cattle and other farm animals either stolen or slaughtered, and crops destroyed.  Many farmers were forced to pay "ransoms" to be spared.  There were also separate cases in which certain individuals were sought out and killed.  In addition a number of women were raped to force them to reveal the hiding places of persons who are being sought after.

          These attacks bear similar traits: actual military campaigns where army units, assisted by FRAPH and other paramilitary groups, surround and burst into certain areas under the pretext of combatting subversive groups, indiscriminately beating residents and committing acts of arson, destruction and theft, followed by arbitrary detentions.

          The Commission observed that most of the violations reported follow a systematic pattern of repression, indicative of a political plan to intimidate and terrorize the people of Haiti, especially sectors that support President Aristide or that have expressed themselves to be in favor of democracy in Haiti.  According to information received, victims are kidnapped, forced to get into vehicles and are taken blindfolded to clandestine places of detention where they are interrogated and tortured.  Some victims have been released, others have succumbed as the result of severe beatings.

          Resolution 630 of the Permanent Council requested the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to give priority to investigating crimes of rape, sexual abuse, and the abduction of children, especially when they are used as methods of political terror.

          In this regard the Commission received reports of rape and sexual abuse of the wives and relatives of men who are active supporters of President Aristide and a democratic regime; these women are raped by members of the military, the attachés" and members of FRAPH when they are unable to find the men. Women are also raped not only because of their relationship to men who support President Aristide, but also because they themselves support President Aristide.  Thus, sexual abuse is used as an instrument of repression and political persecution.  Despite the reluctance of the victims to report these crimes, the Commission received conclusive proof of 21 incidents of violations occurring from January 1994 to the present time.  During its visit, the Commission met directly with 20 victims of this horrible practice.  The international community has repeatedly recognized the universal character of women's rights as well as the fact that rape is one of the most heinous crimes violating those rights.

          Accordingly, given the seriousness of this crime, the Commission will give special importance to rape and will consider in its next period of sessions (September 1994) what procedure should be followed in these cases given the victims' request that their identities be kept confidential.

          The Commission also took the testimony given by relatives of a four year-old boy who was abducted in march 1994.  Allegedly, three armed men were searching for the boy's father, who is a member of a political organization for young people in Cite Soleil.  His wife was raped and the boy abducted when they could not find the man. The boy was found unharmed four days later at a radio station.

          In fulfillment of the functions assigned to it under the OAS Charter and the American Convention on Human Rights, the Commission observed the status of other rights, in addition to those mentioned above.

          With respect to the right of assembly, the Commission has concluded that exercise of this right does not exist for those who support a return to democracy. When groups of individuals try to exercise this right they are arrested and brutally beaten by members of the military and police force, and accused of organizing meetings in support of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In a recent incident, 20 participants were arbitrarily arrested at a meeting for legal training organized by the Diocese in Hinche, department of the center, on April 29, and accused of being terrorists.

          The Commission wishes to express its concern with regard to exercise of the right to freedom of expression.  Information received would confirm restrictions endured by representatives of the press and radio in Haiti.  These have led to self-censorship of the media to the detriment of its functions of keeping the Haitian public informed.  The Commission heard testimony of acts of intimidation and repression of journalists exercising their profession.

          With regard to the problem of displaced persons (Maroons) the Commission confirmed that political activists, community leaders and numerous opponents of the de facto authorities have had to live as fugitives in their own country, forced to abandon home and family. The Commission received convincing information that the number of displaced persons continues to increase at an alarming rate and it therefore behooves the International community to take a direct interest in this situation.

          The Commission received claims from Haitian nationals who have returned home that they have been subjected to persecution and violations of their right to physical and moral integrity.  The Commission will open cases concerning these complaints.

          One common trait that emerges from these violations reported to the Commission is the total ineffectiveness of the judiciary or other mechanisms to prevent or punish human rights violations in Haiti.  The result is outright impunity for the perpetrators of these violations.

          The Commission wishes to note that as the body responsible for observing respect for human rights embodied in the American Convention on Human Rights, it cannot fail to mention the right to participate in government provided for article 23 of that Convention.  The attempt to install a "government" without the vote of the people and in breach of the Haitian Constitution is a flagrant violation of the political rights of the people of Haiti.

          The Commission wishes to place on record its appreciation of the importance, seriousness and objectivity of the work and reports of the OAS/UN International Civilian Mission which it was able to witness throughout its visit. The Commission expresses deep concern about the acts of intimidation and aggression, on March 23 last, to which members of the Mission were subjected in the Hinche region (Central Plateau) by a number of demonstrators acting at the bidding of members of FRAPH.  The Commission condemns the passive stance of the military authorities there with regard to these acts which once again are indicative of their open complicity with the members of FRAPH.

          The Commission feels that given the seriousness of the prevailing situation in Haiti, the number of observers of the OAS/UN International Civilian Mission must be increased to more adequately cover the entire country.

          In conclusion, the Commission notes that, based on its observations, the overall picture with regard to the human rights situation is one of a very serious deterioration in the most--Elementary Human Rights in Haiti--all part of a plan to intimidate and terrorize a defenseless people.  The Commission holds those in de facto power in Haiti responsible for these violations. They have engaged in conduct that could make them liable to be charged with international crimes, which could give rise to individual liability.

          Mr. President, it is not enough to report on the systematic and intimidatory nature of the violence, repression and terror in Haiti; it is not enough merely to say that of the six on-site visits that I have made to Haiti on behalf of the Commission the situation of human rights observed on this visit is by far the worst.  For Haiti, like any other country in the hemisphere, is not a nation inhabited by things inanimate, but rather is a place in which human beings with ordinary sensory faculties live. The people in Haiti have the same emotions and aspirations as the citizens of any other state in the Organization.  They have within themselves an enormous capacity for warmth and love and friendship and endurance and a great yearning for peace, justice and democracy.  But a people do not endure the hardships, the deprivation, the violence, the victimization and the enormous disappointments that the Haitians have experienced over the past thirty-two months without their faith in humanity and their expectations of decency and justice being challenged in a serious way. Thus, I feel obliged to inform the Committee of the conditions in which the Commission found the Haitian people on this on-site visit.

          Mr. President, the Commission found a people whose basic resilience and spirit was still intact, but who were impatient for action by the Organization that would be effective in returning President Aristide to Haiti and restoring democracy to the country.  They feel they have suffered enough and should not be asked to wait any longer for the kind of life which is the right of every human being--a life in which their fundamental human rights are secured in the terms and circumstances set out in the American Declaration of the rights and duties of man, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights.  We found a people who, while respectful to the Commission, and grateful for its visits, questioned the utility of the Commission coming to Haiti year after year and making reports on the worsening situation of human rights without any concrete action being taken to restore to them their basic human rights.  Mr. President, I must be blunt: we found a people who felt that the Organization had failed them, and that they should not be asked to suffer the disappointment of yet another ineffective and unproductive effort on the part of the Organization.  In short Mr. President, we found a people whose faith in the Organization was being seriously tested, and who looked to the Commission to send this message to the Organization so that it will take the action necessary to make for them a reality of the promise of, and commitment to, freedom and democracy enshrined in the Charter of the Organization and the American Convention on Human Rights.

          Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Belém do Pará, Brazil, June 6, 1994

SPEECH OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION

ON HUMAN RIGHTS TO THE PERMANENT COUNCIL,

        OPENING THE SESSION, SEPTEMBER 19, 1994

          Mr. Chairman of the Permanent Council, Mr. Secretary General, Mr. Assistant Secretary General, Members of the Commission, Distinguished Ambassadors, Madam Executive-Secretary of the Commission, Ladies and Gentlemen:

          I should like to open this brief statement by congratulating the Secretary General, Cesar Gaviria Trujillo, on the assumption of his office and to convey to him, on behalf of the members of the Commission, our best wishes for his term.  The members of the Commission came to know the Secretary General in his former capacity as President of Colombia.  On the Commission's visits, President Gaviria's door was always open to us; he cooperated with us and we, for our part, knew that we could count on him as a friend of the Commission.  During his term of office, important gains for human rights were secured in Colombia.  The members of the Commission had an opportunity to talk to the Secretary General in Santafé de Bogota after his election but before his assumption of office.  We are greatly encouraged by his deep appreciation of the central importance of human rights in the regional system of the Americas and the critical role a vigorous and independent Commission on Human Rights must play in that system.  We wish you every success, Mr. Secretary General.

          The eighty-seventh regular session of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights is taking place on its thirty-fifth anniversary:  This is a moment for looking back at what has been accomplished in the remarkable partnership between the political organs of the Organization of American States, the Commission, the General Secretariat, and the community of non-governmental organizations that have been so active in the development and application of programs for the international protection of human rights in our hemisphere.

          Thirty-five years ago, when the Commission was created, the instrument whose implementation it oversaw was the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man of 1948.  In its first eighteen years, the Commission operated within the framework of that instrument, which it viewed as an authentic interpretation of the human rights commitments of the members of the Organization undertaken in the Charter of the Organization. With the adoption of the American Convention on Human Rights and the installation of the Commission as the principal organ in the human rights area of the Organization of American States, the Commission's mandate and its competences became clearer.  Now, twenty-five states of the thirty-five members of the Organization of American States are parties to the American Convention on Human Rights. With regard to them, the Commission exercises all of the powers that the Convention has established.  For those states that have not yet ratified the American Convention, the Commission continues to exercise a jurisdiction based on the Declaration.  Thus, in the course of its thirty-five year history, the Commission has been transformed into an effective, legally-based oversight mechanism for the implementation of the human rights expressed in the American Convention and the Declaration with regard to every member of the OAS.

          When we talk about human rights at the international level, we are talking about a solemn compact between governments that requires that each refrain from exercising power in certain prohibited ways against the people in its own territory and that, henceforth, denunciations of human rights violations by other governments and individuals will not be deemed to be an infringement of sovereignty or domestic jurisdiction.  Human rights instruments, though voluntarily assumed, represent real limitations on the exercise of governmental power; the limitations can, particularly in periods of crisis, be inconvenient for governments, even troublesome, even problematic.  These limitations become politically meaningful when, as in our hemisphere, an independent Commission and Court are created to oversee and report on compliance and violations of those human rights commitments, for, the legal authority of the American Convention notwithstanding, governments may sometimes find it awkward or politically difficult to criticize other governments; an independent commission and a court do not.  So it is all the more remarkable to consider that the American Convention and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights were created by the very governments that were to be subject to their jurisdiction.

          Why did they undertake this extraordinary act of self-limitation? Because statesmen of our hemisphere and far-sighted government officials at every level, who were committed to constitutional democracy and human rights, appreciated that human rights promises had to be examined and reported on by an external, international mechanism if they were to be meaningful.  It was no more sufficient to have governments, even democratic governments, police their own human rights conduct than it was to have guards, as the Latin proverb puts it, guarding themselves. The governments realized, as well, that a hemisphere of democratic states, in addition to being the most appropriate expression of the fundamental civic values of our civilization, was also a guarantee of peaceful inter-state relations.  A vital, ample and stable democracy in a single state needs a democratic hemisphere in order to survive and flourish. That, in brief, is why the states of the Americas have created the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and have accepted its jurisdiction.

          As the Commission has evolved, so has the nature of human rights and attitudes regarding them within our hemisphere.  In the past, a significant number of states parties to the Convention had been seized and were still governed by military dictatorships.  At the present time, the continental march toward constitutional democracy in accord with the standards in the Convention has advanced to the point where a military dictatorship is immediately recognized as an anomaly and stigmatized as a political pathology and the proper target of concerted international organizational action designed to reinstate a constitutional democratic regime.

          With the splendid sweep of democracy, the nature of the Commission's work and the character of its relations with the states of the hemisphere have changed.  In the period in which there were many military dictatorships, the Commission often found itself in acutely adversarial roles with military regimes. Those regimes often sought to deflect reports of gross violations of human rights prepared by the Commission by attacking the Commission itself, on the old political theory that if you don't like the message, kill the messenger. This was a perilous period for the Commission which might well not have survived, were it not for the extraordinary support provided to it by the democratic governments and by courageous statesmen and diplomats, who never lost sight of the importance of international mechanisms for guaranteeing human rights within all states, including their own.

          Happily, the nature of the relationship of the Commission to the governments of the hemisphere has changed dramatically and no one is more conscious of this than the Commission.  We are now in a period in which democratic governments readily acknowledge that some of their practices may be inconsistent with the international standards expressed in the American Convention.  When petitions by individuals or groups initiate examinations by the Commission, more and more governments are now much more prone to meet with the Commission and to seek friendly settlements, even by making appropriate adjustments in their law as provided by the American Convention.  This is a very healthy development and parallels changes that have taken place in the European Commission. Similarly, governments are increasingly cooperative in the petition process when it requires clarifying aspects of a normative regime which the government itself is uncertain of.  In addition, one government is now trying to prepare legislation which will make the reports of the Commission internally effective.  This would be a major step in the implementation of the human rights of the Convention and will, the Commission hopes, serve as a pilot for many other states which, the Commission also hopes, are following this initiative attentively.

          As the continent returns to stable democratic constitutional regimes, the nature of the Commission's day-to-day work will also change.  Human rights problems do not end when governments become democratic.  On the contrary.  A free citizenry looks to legal processes to clarify and implement its rights and will not hesitate to turn to international mechanisms if it feels it has grievances.  Thus the advent of a democratic hemisphere will mean more work for the Commission.  But the types of claims will certainly change, from a focus on those concerning the most elemental rights to life and physical integrity which took so much of the Commission's time in the first 35 years, to an increasing focus on those concerning rights of political participation and freedoms of speech and association, as prescribed by the Convention, and then to the economic and social rights of the Convention and the Charter of the OAS.

          Other far-reaching social and economic changes will affect the work of the Commission.  Our common civilization is undergoing rapid and far-reaching changes, thanks to the increasing penetration of science and technology in day-to-day life. The nature of law, however, is to change much more slowly.  Legislation which is on the books and which domestic courts are obliged to continue to apply may reflect values and mores of a different age.  Some of those inherited values and mores may be inconsistent with the standards established in the American Convention.  To cite only two examples: we now recognize the extent of the systematic deprivation of many civil and political rights of women.  Yet laws in force in many countries, which derive from the previous century or early in this century, reflect values and role conceptions with regard to women which are no longer current and are inconsistent with contemporary international human rights standards.  Similarly, attitudes towards those who have violated criminal law have undergone substantial changes.  The international human rights movement has established rather detailed codes for the treatment of prisoners.  In many cases, however, national laws and regulations deriving from an earlier period are inconsistent with those standards.  Problems such as these are not unique to a particular state, but are common to almost all the states of the hemisphere, virtually from the North Pole to the South Pole.

          For problems such as these, individual petitions brought to the Commission by a single citizen and focussing on a particular state can provide a remedy for that individual but are insufficient for remedying what constitutes a macro-social transnational legal problem.  While one petition may secure a remedy for one person, the problems are much larger and they will only be solved by some international action. With regard to both women and prisons, the Commission is undertaking studies which it hopes will lead to general recommendations either for conventions or protocols or specific recommendations for adjustments in national legislation.

          Other types of human rights problems are essentially international or inter-state by their nature and cannot be effectively dealt with in the petition procedure, for it is basically an adversarial relation between an individual within a state and the government of that state.  For example, the problem of mass migration of peoples, whether occasioned by political or economic causes and whether taking place between or within states, may put tremendous stress on haven states or political regions within states.

          The Commission concludes the first thirty-five years of its operation with a sense of accomplishment and pride and it believes that the governments and political organs of the OAS that created the Commission should share in it. The Commission and the government officials with whom it has worked over these thirty-five years to improve human rights for the people of our hemisphere have made a difference.  Yet the sense of satisfaction must be balanced by acknowledgement of some major failures.  Cuba continues to be ruled by a dictatorship and to have the longest serving political prisoners in the hemisphere.  Some credible observers believe that a process of change may be near, if it has not already commenced.  The Commission continues to follow the Cuban situation closely.

          Very grave, too, is the situation in Haiti.  We meet while the people of that Republic continue to suffer horribly under an illegitimate and cruel military dictatorship that has ousted a government that was freely and fairly selected in an internationally-supervised election.  The military dictatorship that usurped legitimate power has been criticized in every corner and at virtually every level of the international community.  The economic measures that have been put in place to secure the reinstallation of the legitimate government have not been effective. The Inter-American Commission has visited Haiti 5 times ­in the last three years. In its most recent visit of May of this year, it noted a general worsening of the human rights situation in the country.  In addition to the murder, disappearance, mistreatment of detainees and terrorizing of the population that had become commonplace, the Commission confirmed that politically initiated rape had become a new instrument of terror.  In July, the Commission summarized the abuses as "flagrant and systematic" given "the total ineffectuality of the judiciary or other mechanisms to prevent or punish human rights violations."

          Since the Commission's visit--when it called, most recently, for the immediate restoration of the legitimate government--further reports have been received of more violent treatment of prisoners, more deaths of detainees, more neighborhood attacks, more intimidations of journalists and prohibitions on the press, the murder in broad daylight of Father Jean Marie Vincent, and more internal flights to escape the apparently unquenchable wrath of the de facto apparatus and its supporters.  The Human Rights Watch/National Coalition for Haitian Refugees reported on August 21 that some 300,000 Haitians are internally displaced as a result of flights to avoid terror.  That information is consistent with reports that the Commission received on its recent visits.  Most recently, the New York Times detailed that even orphaned children who are fed in orphanages have become targets of assassination and disappearance for allegedly being supporters of the elected President.

          The Commission has reason to fear that even these dismaying reports may not tell the whole story, for the expulsion of the OAS-UN Civilian Mission from the country by the military dictatorship now deprives our regional community of a flow of information as to what is happening to people within Haiti.  In addition, the expulsion ends the limited restraint that the mere presence of an international observer force had on illicit violence.

          On July 31 of this year, the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 940, expressed its grave concern over "the significant further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Haiti, in particular the continuing escalation by the illegal de facto regime of systematic violations of civil liberties, the desperate plight of Haitian refugees and the recent expulsion of the staff of the International Civilian Mission." The Security Council

         Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, authorizes Member States to form a multinational force under unified command control and, in this framework, to use all necessary means to facilitate the departure from Haiti of the military leadership, consistent with the Governors Island Agreement, the prompt return of the legitimately elected President and the restoration of the legitimate authorities of the Government of Haiti .

          Late last night it is reported that the United States concluded an agreement with the military dictatorship that will provide for a transition back to the democratic government in Haiti with the presence of some form of supervision by an international force, as contemplated in Resolution 940.  The Commission has not yet received all the details and documents of this agreement and thus has not been able to appraise how they will work in terms of the Convention.

          The Commission, charged as it is with oversight of the American Convention, and having visited Haiti five times now, is acutely aware of the agony of the Haitian people.  The Commission will continue to give a special priority to the problems in Haiti now and even more in any process of reconstruction.  The Commission knows that the political organs of the Organization of American States will do the same.

          Mr. Chairman, Mr. Secretary General, Distinguished Ambassadors, I want to assure you, on behalf of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, that the Commission stands ready, in the fulfillment of its mandate, to work with you on these and all other matters that come within the functions assigned to us by the Convention and in ways consistent with that splendid instrument.

          ­We appreciate the support you have given us over these thirty-five years and count on that support in the coming years.

          Thank you.