Regional Human Rights Treaties
established by the European Convention on Human
Regional treaties most relevant to economic, social and
cultural rights
- American Convention on Human Rights (1969)
- Additional Protocol to the American Convention on
Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) (1988)
- African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981)
- African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child
(1990)
- Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (2003)
- European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950)
- European Social Charter (1961)
- Revised European Social Charter (1996)
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms
The "European Convention on Human Rights" sets forth a
number of fundamental rights and freedoms (right to life,
prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery and forced
labour, right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, no
punishment without law, right to respect for private and
family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion,
freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and
association, right to marry, right to an effective remedy,
prohibition of discrimination). More rights are granted by
additional protocols to the Convention (Protocols 1 (ETS
No. 009), 4 (ETS No. 046), 6 (ETS No. 114), 7 (ETS No.
117), 12 (ETS No. 177), 13 (ETS No. 187), 14 (CETS
No. 194), 15 (CETS No. 213) and 16 (CETS No. 214)).
Parties undertake to secure these rights and freedoms to
everyone within their jurisdiction.The Convention also
establishes an international enforcement machinery. To
ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken
by the Parties, the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg has been set up. It deals with individual and
inter-State petitions. At the request of the Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe, the Court may also
give advisory opinions concerning the interpretation of the
Conventions and the protocols thereto. The Committee of
Ministers has also a power to ask the Court for an
interpretation of a judgment.
The parties to a case must abide by the judgments of the
Court and take all necessary measures to comply with
them. The Committee of Ministers supervises the
execution of judgments. The Secretary General may
request Parties to provide explanations on the manner in
which their domestic law ensures the effective
implementation of the Convention.
European Court of Human Rights
Not to be confused with the European Court of Justice,
the highest court of the European Union.
The European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR or ECtHR; French: Cour européenne des droits
de l’homme) is a supranational or international court
Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a
contracting state has breached one or more of the human
rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set
out in the Convention and its protocols.
An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of
individuals, or one or more of the other contracting states.
Aside from judgments, the Court can also issue advisory
opinions. The Convention was adopted within the context
of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member
states are contracting parties to the Convention. The
Court is based in Strasbourg, France.
Judges
Main article: List of judges of the European Court of
Human Rights
Judges are elected for a non-renewable nine-year term.
[4]
The number of full-time judges sitting in the Court is
equal to the number of contracting states to the European
Convention on Human Rights, currently 47. The
Convention requires that judges are of "high moral
character" and have qualifications suitable for high judicial
office, or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.
Each judge is elected by majority vote in
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from
among three candidates nominated by each contracting
state.[2] Judges are elected whenever a sitting judge's
term has expired or when a new state accedes to the
Convention. The retiring age of judges is 70, but they may
continue to serve as judges until a new judge is elected or
until the cases in which they sit have come to an end.
Judges perform their duties in an individual capacity and
are prohibited from having any institutional or other type
of ties with the contracting state in respect of whom they
were elected. To ensure the independence of the Court,
judges are not allowed to participate in activity that may
compromise the Court's independence. Judges cannot
hear or decide a case if they have a family or professional
relationship with a party. A judge can be dismissed from
office only if the other judges decide, by a two-thirds
majority, that the judge has ceased to fulfil the required
conditions. Judges enjoy, during their term as judges, the
privileges and immunities provided for in Article 40 of
the Statute of the Council of Europe.[2]
Plenary court and administration[edit]
The plenary court is an assembly of all of the Court's
judges. It has no judicial functions. It elects the court's
president, vice-president, registrar and deputy registrar. It
also deals with administrative matters, discipline, working
methods, reforms, the establishment of Chambers and
the adoption of the Rules of Court.[2]
Jurisdiction[edit]
The jurisdiction of the court is generally divided into inter-
state cases, applications by individuals against
contracting states, and advisory opinions in accordance
with Protocol No.2. Applications by individuals constitute
the majority of cases heard by the Court.[2] A Committee is
constituted by three judges, Chambers by seven judges
and a Grand Chamber by 17 judges.[2]
Applications by individuals[edit]
Applications by individuals against contracting states,
alleging that the state violates their rights under
the European Convention on Human Rights, can be made
by any person, non-governmental organisation or group of
individuals. Although the official languages of the Court
are English and French, applications may be submitted in
Page 1 of 12
any one of the official languages of the contracting states.
An application has to be made in writing and signed by
the applicant or by the applicant's representative.[6]
Once registered with the Court, the case is assigned to a
judge rapporteur, who can make a final decision that the
case is inadmissible. A case may be inadmissible when it
is incompatible with the requirements of ratione
materiae, ratione temporis or ratione personae, or if the
case cannot be proceeded with on formal grounds, such
as non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lapse of the six
months from the last internal decision complained of,
anonymity, substantial identity with a matter already
submitted to the Court, or with another procedure of
international investigation.
If the rapporteur judge decides that the case can proceed,
the case is referred to a Chamber of the Court which,
unless it decides that the application is inadmissible,
communicates the case to the government of the state
against which the application is made, asking the
government to present its observations on the case.
The Chamber of the Court then deliberates and judges
the case on its admissibility and its merits. Cases that
raise serious questions of interpretation and application of
the European Convention on Human Rights, a serious
issue of general importance, or which may depart from
previous case law can be heard in the Grand Chamber if
all parties to the case agree to the Chamber of the Court
relinquishing jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber. A panel of
five judges decides whether the Grand Chamber accepts
the referral.[2][4]
European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
and Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CPT)
A central guarantee of the European Convention on
Human Rights is enshrined in its Article 3:
«No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.» To implement this
prohibition, the Council of Europe created the European
Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment which calls for a
preventive monitoring system in all prisons and
establishments, in which people are held against their will.
Monitoring visits are conducted by the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhumane or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT).
Composition of the Committee
The Committee is composed of 45 members and has its
headquarters in Strasbourg. Each contracting state is
represented by one member that remains independent
and impartial and must be at the disposal of the
Committee for effective cooperation and participation. The
origin of members is diverse: they are lawyers, medical
doctors as well as police specialists and prison experts.
They are elected by the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe.
Mandate
The Committee «[...] shall, by means of visits, examine
the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty with a
view to strengthening, if necessary, the protection of such
persons from torture and from inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment.» (Article 1 of the Convention). It
visits detention centres (prisons, attendance centres,
police stations, psychiatric wards, deportation prisons,
etc.) and inspects the treatment of arrested persons. If
necessary, it recommends improvements to the states.
Modus Operandi
The visits are carried out by a delegation of two or more
members. They are accompanied by individuals from the
secretariat as well as from experts and translators. The
CPT visits member states periodically. However, it can
conduct additional ad hoc visits if deemed necessary. A
delegation's visit must be announced but the exact time
and place must not be specified. Under certain
extraordinary conditions, a visit may directly follow the
announcement. The state in question may refuse a visit
only under extraordinary circumstances (for example, for
reasons of national security or public security or a
disturbance of order in the detention centres).
Unrestricted Access
The Committee has unrestricted access to the detention
centres as well as the right to look around unrestrictedly. It
may speak to persons in detention without witnesses.
Based on these audits, the CPT formulates suggestions
on the improvement of the detainees' situation. The report
is delivered to the state in question together with the
request that it comment on the report. The report is rated
confidential unless the states agrees to its publication and
the state's comment thereon. If a states does not comply
and the CPT has a two-thirds majority, it may release a
public statement.
The Council of Europe
(CoE; French: Conseil de l'Europe, CdE) is
an international organisation whose stated aim[3] is to
uphold human rights, democracy and the rule of
law in Europe.[4] Founded in 1949, it has 47 member
states, covers approximately 820 million people and
operates with an annual budget of approximately half a
billion euros.[5]
The organisation is distinct from the 28-nation European
Union (EU), although it is sometimes confused with it,
partly because the EU has adopted the original European
Flag which was created by the Council of Europe in 1955,
[6]
as well as the European Anthem.[7] No country has ever
joined the EU without first belonging to the Council of
Europe.[8] The Council of Europe is an official United
Nations Observer.[9]
Unlike the EU, the Council of Europe cannot make
binding laws, but it does have the power to enforce select
international agreements reached by European states on
various topics. The best known body of the Council of
Europe is the European Court of Human Rights, which
enforces the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Council's two statutory bodies are the Committee of
Ministers, comprising the foreign ministers of each
member state, and the Parliamentary Assembly,
composed of members of the national parliaments of each
member state. The Commissioner for Human Rights is an
independent institution within the Council of Europe,
mandated to promote awareness of and respect for
human rights in the member states. The Secretary
General heads the secretariat of the organisation. Other
major CoE bodies include the European Directorate for
the Quality of Medicines and the European Audiovisual
Observatory.
The headquarters of the Council of Europe are
in Strasbourg, France. English and French are its
two official languages. The Committee of Ministers, the
Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress also
use German, Italian, Russian, and Turkish for some of
their work.
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
All men are born free and equal, in dignity and in rights,
and, being endowed by nature with reason and
Page 2 of 12
conscience, they should conduct themselves as brothers
one to another.
— Preamble, American Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of Man
The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of
Man, also known as the Bogota Declaration,[1] was the
world's first international human rights instrument of a
general nature, predating the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights by less than a year.
The Declaration was adopted by the nations of
the Americas at the Ninth International Conference of
American States in Bogotá, Colombia, in April 1948,
[2]
where we can find most of its travaux préparatoires.
[3]
The same meeting that adopted the Charter of the
Organization of American States and thereby created
the OAS.
Chapter One of the Declaration sets forth a catalogue
of civil and political rights to be enjoyed by the citizens of
the signatory nations, together with additional economic,
social, and cultural rights due to them. As a corollary, its
second chapter contains a list of corresponding duties. As
explained in the preamble:
"The fulfillment of duty by each individual is a
prerequisite to the rights of all. Rights and duties
are interrelated in every social and political
activity of man. While rights exalt individual
liberty, duties express the dignity of that liberty."
Although strictly speaking a declaration is not
a legally binding treaty, the jurisprudence of both
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and
the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights holds it to be a source of binding international
obligations for the OAS's member states. While
largely superseded in the current practice of the inter-
American human rights system by the more elaborate
provisions of the American Convention on Human
Rights (in force since 18 July 1978), the terms of the
Declaration are still enforced with respect to those
states that have not ratified the Convention, such
as Cuba, United States, and Canada.[4]
American Convention on Human Rights
The American Convention on Human Rights, also
known as the Pact of San José, is an international
human rights instrument. It was adopted by many
countries in the Western Hemisphere in San José, Costa
Rica, on 22 November 1969. It came into force after the
eleventh instrument of ratification (that of Grenada) was
deposited on 18 July 1978.
The bodies responsible for overseeing compliance with
the Convention are the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, both of which are organs of the Organization of
American States (OAS).
INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
What is the Inter-American Commission?
The Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights (IACHR, or the Commission) is one of two bodies
in the Inter-American system for the promotion and
protection of human rights. The Commission has its
headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The other human rights body is the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights, which is located in San José, Costa
Rica.
The IACHR is an autonomous organ of the Organization
of American States (OAS). Its mandate is found in
the Charter of the Organization of American States and
the American Convention on Human Rights.
The IACHR represents all Member States of the OAS. It is
composed of seven experts who act independently,
without representing any particular country. The members
of the IACHR are elected by the General Assembly of the
OAS.
What does the Commission do?
The Commission's main function is to monitor compliance
with and defence of human rights in the Americas. The
Commission's powers are derived from the Charter, but
other Inter-American human rights conventions and
protocols have authorised the Commission to monitor
States' compliance with their obligations regarding these
conventions, such as the Inter-American Convention to
Prevent and Punish Torture.
When does the Commission meet?
The IACHR meets in ordinary and special sessions
several times a year. The ordinary sessions usually last
for about two weeks and take place three times a year.
During these sessions, the Commission dedicates one
week to the hearings and working meetings on various
cases, and also analyses specific topics or the situation of
human rights in a country. For information on when these
IACHR sessions take place, visit the IACHR
website or CRIN’s calendar.
These sessions are important for human rights
organisations and advocates because they can provide
the Commission with information about a topic and
request its intervention in resolving an issue, or appeal for
the investigation of a particular situation.
Rights violations - how does the Commission work?
The Commission can consider petitions from
individuals who claim their rights have been violated by
the State and they have been unable to find justice in their
own country. The Commission brings together the
petitioner and the State to 'explore a friendly settlement'. If
such an outcome is not possible, the Commission may
recommend specific measures, or may report the case to
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as long as the
State has accepted the Court's authority (see Article 64).
Under certain circumstances, the people who believe they
are at particular risk may make an urgent appeal to the
Commission, which can call on a State to take
'precautionary measures' to prevent irreparable harm.
The Commission may also undertake on-site visits for
assessing and reporting on the human rights situation of a
State. It would then issue recommendations.
Page 3 of 12
The Commission may also give priority to certain issues
by creating rapporteurships to focus on these areas.
Current rapporteurships exist on the rights of children,
women, indigenous peoples, Afro-descendants, migrant
workers, prisoners and displaced persons, and on
freedom of expression, and more.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
The Inter-American Court of Human Rights is an
autonomous judicial institution based in the city of San
José, Costa Rica. Together with the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights, it makes up the human
rights protection system of the Organization of American
States (OAS), which serves to uphold and promote basic
rights and freedoms in the Americas.
Purpose and functions
The Organization of American States established the
Court in 1979 to enforce and interpret the provisions of
the American Convention on Human Rights. Its two main
functions are thus adjudicatory and advisory. Under the
former, it hears and rules on the specific cases of human
rights violations referred to it. Under the latter, it issues
opinions on matters of legal interpretation brought to its
attention by other OAS bodies or member states.
Adjudicatory function[edit]
The adjudicatory function requires the Court to rule on
cases brought before it in which a state party to the
Convention, and thus has accepted its jurisdiction, is
accused of a human rights violation.
In addition to ratifying the Convention, a state party must
voluntarily submit to the Court's jurisdiction for it to be
competent to hear a case involving that state. Acceptance
of contentious jurisdiction can be given on a blanket basis
– to date, Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad
and Tobago, Venezuela and Uruguay have done
so[1] (though Trinidad and Tobago and Venezuela have
subsequently withdrawn) – or, alternatively, a state can
agree to abide by the Court's jurisdiction in a specific,
individual case.
Trinidad and Tobago originally signed the Convention on
28 May 1991 but suspended its ratification on 26 May
1998 (effective 26 May 1999) over the death
penalty issue. In 1999, under President Alberto Fujimori,
Peru announced it was withdrawing its acceptance of the
Court's jurisdiction. This decision was reversed by the
transitional government of Valentín Paniagua in 2001.
The United States signed but never ratified the
Convention.
Under the Convention, cases can be referred to the Court
by either the Inter-American Commission on Human
Rights or a state party. In contrast to the European human
rights system, individual citizens of the OAS member
states are not allowed to take cases directly to the Court.
The following conditions must be met:
 Individuals who believe that their rights have
been violated must first lodge a complaint with the
Commission and have that body rule on the
admissibility of the claim.
 If the case is ruled admissible and the state
deemed at fault, the Commission will generally serve
the state with a list of recommendations to make
amends for the violation.
 Only if the state fails to abide by these
recommendations, or if the Commission decides that
the case is of particular importance or legal interest,
will the case be referred to the Court.
 The presentation of a case before the Court can
therefore be considered a measure of last resort,
taken only after the Commission has failed to resolve
the matter in a noncontentious fashion.
Proceedings before the Court are divided into written and
oral phases.
Written phase[edit]
In the written phase, the case application is filed,
indicating the facts of the case, the plaintiffs, the evidence
and witnesses the applicant plans to present at trial, and
the claims for redress and costs. If the application is ruled
admissible by the Court's secretary, notice thereof is
served on the judges, the state or the Commission
(depending on who lodged the application), the victims or
their next-of-kin, the other member states, and OAS
headquarters.
For 30 days following notification, any of the parties in the
case may submit a brief containing preliminary objections
to the application. If it deems necessary, the Court can
convene a hearing to deal with the preliminary objections.
Otherwise, in the interests of procedural economy, it can
deal with the parties' preliminary objections and the merits
of the case at the same hearing.
Within 60 days following notification, the respondent must
supply a written answer to the application, stating whether
it accepts or disputes the facts and claims it contains.
Once this answer has been submitted, any of the parties
in the case may request the Court president's permission
to lodge additional pleadings prior to the commencement
of the oral phase.
Oral phase[edit]
The president sets the date for the start of oral
proceedings, for which the Court is considered quorate
with the presence of five judges.
During the oral phase, the judges may ask any question
they see fit of any of the persons appearing before them.
Witnesses, expert witnesses, and other persons admitted
to the proceedings may, at the president's discretion, be
questioned by the representatives of the Commission or
the state, or by the victims, their next-of-kin, or their
agents, as applicable. The president is permitted to rule
on the relevance of questions asked and to excuse the
person asked the question from replying, unless overruled
by the Court.
Ruling[edit]
After hearing the witnesses and experts and analyzing the
evidence presented, the Court issues its judgment. Its
deliberations are conducted in private and, once the
judgment has been adopted, it is notified to all the parties
involved. If the merits judgment does not cover the
applicable reparations for the case, they must be
determined at a separate hearing or through some other
procedure as decided on by the Court.
The reparations the Court orders can be both monetary
and nonmonetary in nature. The most direct form of
redress are cash compensation payments extended to the
victims or their next-of-kin. However, the state can also be
required to grant benefits in kind, to offer public
recognition of its responsibility, to take steps to prevent
similar violations occurring in the future, and other forms
of nonmonetary compensation.
Page 4 of 12
For example, in its November 2001 judgment[2] in
the Barrios Altos case – dealing with the massacre
in Lima, Peru, of 15 people at the hands of the state-
sponsored Colina Groupdeath squad in November 1991 –
the Court ordered payments of US$175,000 for the four
survivors and for the next-of-kin of the murdered victims
and a payment of $250,000 for the family of one of the
victims. It also required Peru:
 to grant the victims' families free health care and
various forms of educational support, including
scholarships and supplies of school uniforms,
equipment, and books;
 to repeal two controversial amnesty laws;
 to establish the crime of extrajudicial killing in its
domestic law;
 to ratify the International Convention on the
Nonapplicability of Statutory Limitations to War
Crimes and Crimes against Humanity;
 to publish the Court's judgment in the national
media;
 to publicly apologize for the incident and to
undertake to prevent similar events from recurring in
the future;
 and to erect a memorial monument to the victims
of the massacre.
While the Court's decisions admit no appeal, parties can
lodge requests for interpretation with the Court secretary
within 90 days of judgment being issued. When possible,
requests for interpretation are heard by the same panel of
judges that ruled on the merits.
Advisory function
The Court's advisory function enables it to respond to
consultations submitted by OAS agencies and member
states regarding the interpretation of the Convention or
other instruments governing human rights in the
Americas; it also empowers it to give advice on domestic
laws and proposed legislation, and to clarify whether or
not they are compatible with the Convention's provisions.
This advisory jurisdiction is available to all OAS member
states, not only those that have ratified the Convention
and accepted the Court's adjudicatory function. The
Court's replies to these consultations are published
separately from its contentious judgments, as advisory
opinions.
Criticisms
The Court's behaviour has also been criticized. Among
other issues, some authors have criticized the politization
of the Court.[7] Some of the latest criticisms come from
Peru [8] and Venezuela.[9] Venezuela subsequently
withdrew from the system. Up to then, Trinidad and
Tobago had been the only state to withdraw.[10] Peru tried
to do so, but did not follow the appropriate procedure.
[11]
The last of these criticisms is directed against the
Court's decision in the case of the Mapiripán
Massacre declaring that some people were murdered with
the consent of the Colombian state, a few of whom were
subsequently found alive.[12]
Composition
As stipulated by Chapter VIII of the Convention, the Court
consists of seven judges from the Organization's member
states. These judges are elected to six-year terms by
the OAS General Assembly; each judge may be reelected
for an additional six-year term.
Unlike the commissioners of the Inter-American
Commission, judges are not required to recuse
themselves from hearing cases involving their home
countries; however no member state may have more than
one representative judge serving on the Court at any time.
In the event a member state is party to a case as a
defendant does not have a representative judge sitting on
the Court, the member state is entitled to appoint a judge
to the court ad hoc for the case.
After the Convention came into force on 18 July 1978, the
first election of judges took place on 22 May 1979. The
new Court first convened on 29 June 1979 at the
Organization of American States Headquarters
in Washington, D.C., United States.
Organization of American States. Organization of
American States (OAS),
organization formed to promote economic, military, and
cultural cooperation among its members, which include
almost all of the independent statesof the Western
Hemisphere
Organization of American States (OAS), organization
formed to promote economic, military, and cultural
cooperation among its members, which include almost all
of the independent states of the Western Hemisphere.
The OAS’s main goals are to prevent any outside state’s
intervention in the Western Hemisphere and to maintain
peace between the various states within the hemisphere.
History
The founding of the OAS was based on the general
acceptance of the principles of the U.S. Monroe
Doctrine (Dec. 2, 1823) by the countries of the Western
Hemisphere, especially the principle that an attack upon
one American state would be considered as an attack
upon all. The OAS attempted to “continentalize” the
Monroe Doctrine, creating obligations for the other states
without restricting the right of the United States to take
immediate action in self-defense.
The OAS grew out of an earlier U.S.-
sponsored international organizationfor the Western
Hemisphere, the Pan-American Union, which held a
series of nine Pan-American conferences from 1889–90
to 1948 to reach agreement on various commercial and
juridical problems common to the United States and Latin
America. (See Pan-American conferences.) In World War
II most Latin American nations sided with the United
States and declared war against the Axis powers. After
this global conflict, all 21 independent nations of the
Western Hemisphere agreed in 1947 on a formal mutual-
defense pact called the Inter-American Treaty of
Reciprocal Assistance.
By 1948, with the start of the Cold War, it had become
apparent that a stronger security system was needed in
the Western Hemisphere to meet the perceived threat of
international communism.
At the urging of the United States, the OAS Charter was
signed on April 30, 1948, at the conclusion of the Ninth
Pan-American Conference, held in Bogotá, Colom. The
aims of the organization were to strengthen the peace
and security of the Western Hemisphere, to promote the
peaceful settlement of disputes between member states,
to provide for collective security, and to encourage
cooperation in economic, social, and cultural matters.
Most of the newly independent nations of the Caribbean
joined the OAS in the 1960s, and the last major
holdout, Canada, joined in 1990.
After the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the OAS
became more active in encouraging democratic
Page 5 of 12
government in member states, and it became a leader in
observing and monitoring elections to safeguard against
fraud and irregularities. In the economic and social field,
its most notable achievement was its adoption of
the Charter of Punta del Este(1961), establishing
the Alliance for Progress. The Inter-American Court of
Human Rights was established at San José, C.Rica, in
1979.
Structure
The General Secretariat is the administrative backbone of
the OAS and is headed by a secretary-general elected to
a five-year term. The chief policy-making body of the OAS
is the General Assembly, which holds annual meetings at
which member states are represented by their foreign
ministers or chiefs of state. The General Assembly
controls the OAS’s budget and supervises various
specialized organizations. In case of attack or an act of
aggression within or between member states,
the Permanent Council, composed of an ambassador
from each member state, acts as the provisional organ of
consultation until all the member states’ ministers of
foreign affairs can assemble. At this consultation meeting
of foreign ministers, collective action cannot be
undertaken without the approval of two-thirds of the
foreign ministers present. The General Secretariat and
the Permanent Council are based in Washington, D.C.
Relations With Member Countries
The OAS has settled border conflicts between various
member countries since the late 1940s. For example, it
provided the framework for a truce and subsequent
resolution of the Soccer War (1969)
between Hondurasand El Salvador. The OAS also
supported the United States’ unilateral military
intervention in the Dominican Republic in 1965 to prevent
a left-wing government from coming to power. In the wake
of the U.S. invasion, the OAS created an inter-American
military force that kept the peace in the Dominican
Republic until new elections were held there in 1966.
The left-wing Sandinista movement that held power
in Nicaraguabetween 1979 and 1990 was not opposed by
the OAS, however, because the organization believed that
the Sandinista government did not offer any potential for
Soviet intervention in the Western Hemisphere, despite
the United States’ claims to the contrary.
Because the OAS was strongly anticommunist in its
orientation, it suspended Cuba’s membership in the group
in 1962; that country had declared itself Marxist-Leninist
in 1961. The OAS then supported U.S. Pres. John F.
Kennedy in the quarantine against the shipment of Soviet
missiles to Cuba. In the face of Cuban attempts to subvert
neighbouring countries, the OAS ordered trade sanctions
and the breaking of diplomatic ties with that nation from
1964 to 1975. By the early 21st century, however, the
OAS looked toward Cuba’s reentry into the group. In June
2009 OAS’s foreign ministers voted to lift the suspension
of Cuba’s membership, but Cuba declined to rejoin the
organization.
In July 2009, following a coup that ousted Pres. Manuel
Zelaya from the Honduran presidency,
the interim government of Honduras announced its
departure from the OAS. Because the OAS did not
recognize the government as a legitimate one, it refused
to accept the withdrawal. In a show of support for Zelaya,
the OAS then unanimously voted to suspend Honduras
from the group.
African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights
The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (also
known as the Banjul Charter) is an international human
rights instrument that is intended to promote and protect
human rights and basic freedoms in the African continent.
Oversight and interpretation of the Charter is the task of
the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights,
which was set up in 1987 and is now headquartered in
Banjul, Gambia. A protocol to the Charter was
subsequently adopted in 1998 whereby an African Court
on Human and Peoples' Rights was to be created. The
protocol came into effect on 25 January 2005.
African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
The African Charter established the African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Commission was
inaugurated on 2 November 1987 in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. The Commission’s Secretariat has subsequently
been located in Banjul, The Gambia.
In addition to performing any other tasks which may be
entrusted to it by the Assembly of Heads of State and
Government, the Commission is officially charged with
three major functions:
o the protection of human and peoples' rights
o the promotion of human and peoples' rights
o the interpretation of the African Charter on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Current Commissioners
The Commission consists of 11 members elected by the
AU Assembly from experts nominated by the State Parties
to the Charter. Their mandates are for six years,
renewable.
Arab Charter on Human Rights
The Arab Charter on Human Rights (ACHR), adopted
by the Council of the League of Arab States on 22 May
2004, affirms the principles contained in the UN Charter,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the International Covenants on Human Rights and
the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. It
provides for a number of traditional human rights,
including the right to liberty and security of persons,
equality of persons before the law, protection of persons
from torture, the right to own private property, freedom to
practice religious observance and freedom of peaceful
assembly and association. The Charter also provides for
the election of a seven-person Committee of Experts on
Human Rights to consider states' reports.
A first version of the Charter was created on 15
September 1994, but no state ratified it. The updated
(2004) version of the Charter came into force in 2008 after
seven of the members of the League of Arab States had
ratified it.
On 24 January 2008, then UN High Commissioner for
Human Rights Louise Arbour said the Arab charter was
incompatible with the UN's understanding of universal
human rights, including with respect to women's rights
and capital punishment for children, in addition to other
provisions in the Charter.[1] The charter is listed on the
website of her office, among texts adopted by
international groups aimed at promoting and consolidating
democracy.[2]
As of November 2013 the Charter had been ratified
by Algeria, Bahrain, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya,
Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria,
the UAE and Yemen.[3][4]
Page 6 of 12
In 2014 Arab League states elaborated an additional
treaty - the Statute of the Arab Court of Human Rights,[5] -
to allow inter-state litigation concerning violations of the
Charter. The statute will enter into force after 7
ratifications. The first country to ratify it was Saudi Arabia
in 2016.[6]
League of Arab States
The Arab League (Arabic: ‫ الجامعة العربية‬al-Jāmiʻah al-
ʻArabīyah), formally the League of Arab
States (Arabic: ‫ جامعة الدول العربية‬Jāmiʻat ad-Duwal al-
ʻArabīyah), is a regional organization of Arab states in and
around North Africa, the Horn of Africa and Arabia. It was
formed in Cairo on 22 March 1945 with six
members: Kingdom of Egypt, Kingdom of
Iraq, Transjordan (renamed Jordan in
1949), Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.[3] Yemen joined
as a member on 5 May 1945. Currently, the League
has 22 members, but Syria's participation has been
suspended since November 2011, as a consequence of
government repression during the Syrian Civil War.[4]
The League's main goal is to "draw closer the relations
between member States and co-ordinate collaboration
between them, to safeguard their independence and
sovereignty, and to consider in a general way the affairs
and interests of the Arab countries".[5]
Through institutions, such as the Arab League
Educational, Cultural and Scientific
Organization (ALECSO) and the Economic and Social
Council of the Arab League's Council of Arab Economic
Unity (CAEU), the Arab League facilitates political,
economic, cultural, scientific, and social programmes
designed to promote the interests of the Arab world.[6][7] It
has served as a forum for the member states to
coordinate their policy positions, to deliberate on matters
of common concern, to settle some Arab disputes and to
limit conflicts such as the 1958 Lebanon crisis. The
League has served as a platform for the drafting and
conclusion of many landmark documents promoting
economic integration. One example is the Joint Arab
Economic Action Charter, which outlines the principles for
economic activities in the region.
Arab League of states establishment memorial stamp.
Showing flags of the 8 establishing countries: Kingdom of
Egypt, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Mutawakkilite
Kingdom (North Yemen), Syrian Republic, Hashemite
Kingdom of Iraq, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan,
Lebanese Republic
Each member state has one vote in the League Council,
and decisions are binding only for those states that have
voted for them. The aims of the league in 1945 were to
strengthen and coordinate the political, cultural, economic
and social programs of its members and to mediate
disputes among them or between them and third parties.
Furthermore, the signing of an agreement on Joint
Defence and Economic Cooperation on 13 April 1950
committed the signatories to coordination of military
defence measures. In March 2015, the Arab League
General Secretary announced the establishment of a
Joint Arab Force with the aim of counteracting extremism
and other threats to the Arab States. The decision was
reached while Operation Decisive Storm was intensifying
in Yemen. Participation in the project is voluntary, and the
army intervenes only at the request of one of the member
states. The growing militarization of the region and the
increase in violent civil wars as well as terrorist
movements are the reason behind the creation of the JAF,
financed by the rich Gulf countries.[8]
In the early 1970s, the Economic Council of the League of
Arab States put forward a proposal to create the Joint
Arab Chambers of Commerce across the European
states. That led, under the decree of the League of Arab
States no. K1175/D52/G, to the decision by the Arab
governments to set up the Arab British Chamber of
Commerce which was mandated to "promote, encourage
and facilitate bilateral trade" between the Arab world and
its major trading partner, the United Kingdom.
Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in
Islam (CDHRI) is a declaration of the member states of
the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation adopted in Cairo,
Egypt, on 5 August 1990,[1] (Conference of Foreign
Ministers, 9–14 Muharram 1411H in the Islamic
calendar[2]) which provides an overview on the Islamic
perspective on human rights, and
affirms Islamic sharia as its sole source. CDHRI declares
its purpose to be "general guidance for Member States [of
the OIC] in the field of human rights".
This declaration is widely acknowledged as an Islamic
response to the United Nations's Universal Declaration of
Human Rights(UDHR), adopted in 1948. It guarantees
many of the same rights as the UDHR and serves as a
living document of human rights guidelines prescribed for
all members of the OIC (Organization of Islamic
Cooperation) to follow, but restricts them explicitly to the
limits set by the sharia. This greatly restricts rights with
respect to the Universal Declaration, since for example,
women and members of other religions do not have the
same rights as men under sharia, and that freedom of
expression can be severely limited for religious reasons:
for example, blasphemy can even now be punishable by
death, in clear opposition to the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
History
Various Muslim countries had criticized the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights for its failure to
take into account the cultural and religious context of non-
Western countries.[3] In 1981, Said Rajaie-Khorassani—
the post-revolutionary Iranian representative to the UN—
articulated the position of his country regarding the
UDHR, by saying that it was
a relativistic "secular understanding of the Judeo-
Christian tradition", which could not be implemented by
Muslims without trespassing Islamic law.[4]
The CDHRI was adopted in 1990 by members of
the Organisation of the Islamic Conference. It has been
signed by 45 states so far.[5]In 1992, the CDHRI was
presented to the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights, where it was strongly condemned by
the International Commission of Jurists.
Contents[edit]
The Declaration starts[citation needed] by saying "All human
beings form one family whose members are united by
their subordination to Allah and descent from Adam." and
it forbids "discrimination on the basis
of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political
affiliation, social status or other considerations". It goes on
to proclaim the sanctity of life, and declares the
"preservation of human life" to be "a duty prescribed by
the Shariah". The CDHRI also guarantees non-
belligerents—such as old men, women and children, the
wounded and sick, and prisoners of war—the right to
food, shelter, and access to safety and medical treatment
in times of war.
Page 7 of 12
The CDHRI affords women "equal human dignity", "own
rights to enjoy", "duties to perform", "own civil entity",
"financial independence", and the "right to retain her
name and lineage". Both men and women are given the
"right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour, or
nationality. The Declaration makes it incumbent upon both
parents to protect the child, both before and after birth,
while stressing that the husband is responsible for the
social and financial protection of his family, including any
children and wives.
The Declaration recognises the rights to
property and privacy for the individuals.[6][7] The Article 18
(b) says that "Everyone shall have the right to privacy in
the conduct of his private affairs, in his home, among his
family, with regard to his property and his relationships. It
is not permitted to spy on him, to place him under
surveillance or to besmirch his good name. The State
shall protect him from arbitrary interference". [8] It forbids
the demolition and confiscation of any family's residence
and the eviction of the family.[7] Furthermore, should the
family get separated in times of war, it is the responsibility
of the state to "arrange visits or reunions of families".
Article 10 of the Declaration states: "Islam is the religion
of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form
of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or
ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or
to atheism." Since in Islamic society all reasons for
conversion away from Islam are considered to be
essentially[by whom?] either compulsion or ignorance, this
effectively forbids conversion away from Islam.
The Declaration protects each individual from arbitrary
arrest, torture, maltreatment, or indignity. Furthermore, no
individual is to be used for medical or scientific
experiments without his consent or at the risk of his health
or of his life. It also prohibits the taking of hostages of any
individual "for any purpose whatsoever". Moreover, the
CDHRI guarantees the presumption of innocence; guilt is
only to be proven through a trial in "which he [the
defendant] shall be given all the guarantees of defence".
The Declaration also forbids the promulgation of
"emergency laws that would provide executive authority
for such actions". Article 19 stipulates that there are no
other crimes or punishments than those mentioned in the
sharia. Sharia allows corporal punishment (whipping,
amputation) and capital
punishment by stoning or decapitation.[9] The right to hold
public office can only be exercised in accordance with the
sharia.[10]
The Declaration also emphasizes the "full right to freedom
and self-determination", and its opposition
to enslavement, oppression, exploitation, and colonialism.
The CDHRI declares the rule of law, establishing "equality
and justice for all", with the limitations provided under
Islamic law. The CDHRI also guarantees all individuals
the "right to participate, directly or indirectly in the
administration of his country's public affairs". The CDHRI
also forbids any abuse of authority "subject to the Islamic
Shariah."
Article 22(a) of the Declaration states that "Everyone shall
have the right to express his opinion freely in such
manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the
Shariah." Article 22(b) states that "Everyone shall have
the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is
good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according
to the norms of Islamic Shariah." Article 22(c) states:
"Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be
exploited or misused in such a way as may violate
sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral
and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society,
or weaken its faith." This is an explicit restriction on the
freedom to make any statement which might be
considered blasphemous, the penalty for the making of
which might be death and as such the wording of this
clause allows the death penalty for blasphemy in clear
contravention of the UDHR. Article 22(d) states that "It is
not permitted to arouse nationalistic or doctrinal hatred or
to do anything that may be an incitement to any form of
racial discrimination."
Religious features[edit]
Further information: Human rights in the Quran
Although the CDHRI uses a universalist language akin to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "quite a
number of [its] features express an Islamic
particularity."[1] The preamble is mostly religious rhetoric,
and the particulars of the CDHRI contain numerous
references to the Quran, sharia, and aspects of the
Islamic faith that appear on no other similar international
list.[1] The CDHRI concludes in Articles 24 and 25 that all
rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic
sharia, which is the declaration's sole source. [11] The
CDHRI declares true religion to be the "guarantee for
enhancing such dignity along the path to human integrity".
It also places the responsibility for defending those rights
upon the entire Ummah.
Criticism
See also: Criticism of Sharia law, Human rights in Islamic
countries, Application of sharia law by country, and Islam
and violence
The CDHRI has been criticized for being implemented by
a set of states with widely disparate religious policies and
practices who had "a shared interest in disarming
international criticism of their domestic human rights
record."[1]
Article 24 of the declaration states: "All the rights and
freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the
Islamic Sharia." Article 19 also says: "There shall be no
crime or punishment except as provided for in the
Sharia."[12]
The CDHRI has been criticised for failing to
guarantee freedom of religion, in particular the right of
each and every individual to change their religion, as a
"fundamental and non-derogable right".[12] In a joint written
statement submitted by the International Humanist and
Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in
special consultative status, the Association for World
Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens
(AWC), a number of concerns were raised that the CDHRI
limits human rights, religious freedom, and freedom of
expression. The statement concludes that "The Cairo
Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt
to limit the rights enshrined in the UDHR and the
International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as
complementary to the Universal Declaration."[13] In
September 2008, in an article to the United Nations,
the Center for Inquirywrites that the CDHRI "undermines
equality of persons and freedom of expression and
religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human
right based on Islamic Sharia law."[14]
Rhona Smith writes that, because of the CDHRI's
reference to Shariah, it implies an inherent degree of
superiority of men.[15]
Adama Dieng—a member of the International
Commission of Jurists—has also criticised the CDHRI. He
argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-
cultural consensus on which the international human
rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable
discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He
further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately
restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental
rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential
provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a
Page 8 of 12
number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the
"Islamic sharia (Law)" to justify the legitimacy of practices,
such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity
and dignity of the human being.[4][16]
In 2009, the journal Free Inquiry summarized the criticism
of the Cairo Declaration in an editorial: "We are deeply
concerned with the changes to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights by a coalition of Islamic states within
the United Nations that wishes to prohibit any criticism of
religion and would thus protect Islam's limited view of
human rights. In view of the conditions inside the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the
Sudan, Bangdalesh, Iraq, and Afghanistan, we should
expect that at the top of their human rights agenda would
be to rectify the legal inequality of women, the
suppression of political dissent, the curtailment of free
expression, the persecution of ethnic minorities and
religious dissenters—in short, protecting their citizens
from egregious human rights violations. Instead, they are
worrying about protecting Islam." [17]
The Organization of the Islamic Conference
Comprised of fifty-seven nations spread over four
continents, the forty-year-old Organization of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest
international body after the UN, and is aimed at
protecting Muslim interests worldwide. Some experts
say the organization has been ineffectual, but they
also note its tremendous potential for addressing the
issues facing Muslims. Advocates of reaching out to
Muslims see the OIC as an important venue for the
United States, but critics question whether
engagement with the group is appropriate considering
some of the positions it has taken on issues such as
Islamic radical movements, Israel/Palestine, and the
human rights records of its members.
ASEAN Human Rights Declaration
In 2009, the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) established the ASEAN
Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights to
promote human rights in the ten ASEAN countries. By
mid-2012, the Commission had drafted the ASEAN
Human Rights Declaration. The Declaration was
adopted unanimously by ASEAN members at its 18
November 2012 meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The
Declaration details ASEAN nations' commitment to human
rights for its 600 million people. The Declaration includes
40 paragraphs under 6 headings.[1]
The first five Articles affirm that human rights belong to
"Every person," specifically emphasizing that they belong
to "women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities,
migrant workers, and vulnerable and marginalised groups
(Art 5). Article 10 directly affirms "all the civil and political
rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," and
these are detailed in Articles 11- 25. Article 26 next affirms
"all the economic, social and cultural rights in the
Universal Declaration...," with these described in Articles
27 to 34. The ASEAN Human Rights Declaration goes
beyond the Universal Declaration by making explicit "the
right to safe drinking water and sanitation" (Art. 28. e.),
"the right to a safe, clean and sustainable environment"
(Art 28.f.), protection from discrimination in treatment for
"people suffering from communicable diseases, including
HIV/AIDS" (Art. 29), the "right to development ... aimed at
poverty alleviation, the creation of conditions including the
protection and sustainability of the environment...(Art. 36),
and the right to peace (Art. 30).[1]
However, the Commission has been widely criticized for
the lack of transparency and failure to consult with
ASEAN civil society during drafting process.[2][3] The
Declaration itself has been criticized by ASEAN civil
society, international human rights organizations such
as Amnesty International[4] and Human Rights Watch,
[5]
the U.S. Department of State,[6] and the UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights.[3] Human Rights Watch
described it as a "declaration of government powers
disguised as a declaration of human rights".[5] ASEAN civil
societies have noted that "The Declaration fails to include
several key basic rights and fundamental freedoms,
including the right to freedom of association and the right
to be free from enforced disappearance."[5] Further, the
Declaration contains clauses that many fear could be
used to undermine human rights, such as “the realization
of human rights must be considered in the regional and
national context” (Art. 7),[7] or that human rights might be
limited to preserve "national security" or a narrowly
defined “public morality” (Art. 8).[4]
The U.S. Department of State and the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights welcomed the
Declaration, but with substantive reservations. The U.S.
State Department issued a statement of support, "in
principle," for "ASEAN's efforts to develop a regional
human rights declaration," but expressing concern for "the
use of the concept of 'cultural relativism' ..., stipulating
that domestic laws can trump universal human rights,
incomplete descriptions that are mentioned elsewhere,
introducing novel limits to rights, and language that could
be read to suggest that individual rights are subject to
group veto."[6] The U.N. High Commissioner for Human
Rights "welcomed the renewed commitment by leaders of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations to universal
human rights norms" noting that "Other regions have
shown how regional human rights systems can evolve
and improve over time" and that "it is essential that
ASEAN ensures that any language inconsistent with
international human rights standards does not become a
part of any binding regional human rights convention.” [3]
ASEAN Charter
The ASEAN Charter[1] is a constituent instrument of
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It
was adopted at the 13th ASEAN Summit in November
2007.[2]
The intention to draft the Charter had been formally
proposed at the 11th ASEAN Summit held in December
2005 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Ten ASEAN leaders,
one from each member state, called the ASEAN Eminent
Persons Group (EPG) were assigned to produce
recommendations for the drafting of the charter.
At the 12th ASEAN Summit held in January 2007 in Cebu,
the Philippines, several basic proposals were made
public. ASEAN leaders agreed during the summit to set
up a "high level task force on the drafting of the ASEAN
Charter" composed of ten high level government officials
from the ten member countries. The task force then held
13 meetings during 2007.
The Charter[edit]
Principles set out in the charter include:
 Emphasis on the centrality of ASEAN in regional
co-operation.
 Respect for the principles of territorial
integrity, sovereignty, non-interference and national
identities of ASEAN members.
Page 9 of 12
 Promoting regional peace and identity, peaceful
settlements of disputes through dialogue and
consultation, and the renunciation of aggression.
 Upholding international law with respect
to human rights, social justice and multilateral trade.
 Encouraging regional integration of trade.
 Appointment of a secretary-
general and permanent representatives of ASEAN.
 Establishment of a human rights body and an
unresolved dispute mechanism, to be formalized
at ASEAN Summits.
 Development of friendly external relations and a
position with the UN (like the EU)
 Increasing the number of ASEAN summits to
twice a year and the ability to convene for emergency
situations.
 Reiterating the use of the ASEAN flag, anthem,
emblem, and national ASEAN day on 8 August.
Enactment
The charter came into force in December 2008, thirty
days after Thailand's delivery of the final instrument of
ratification. Thailand's permanent representative to the
United Nations, Ambassador Don Pramudwinai deposited
the document with ASEAN Secretary-General, Surin
Pitsuwan, at the Thai mission in New York on 14
November. He issued a statement saying, "This is
certainly an occasion to celebrate for the 570 million
people of ASEAN. This means that when the ASEAN
leaders gather at their annual summit in mid December,
the ASEAN Charter will have come into force." He was
referring to the charter coming into force after the 14th
Summit in Chiang Mai, Thailand, from 13–18 December.
In doing so he added that celebrations would follow not
only for the full ratification of the charter but also the
entering into force of the new basic law of ASEAN, "It will
be a rules-based and people-oriented organisation with its
own legal personality".[6]
Launch
On 15 December 2008, the members of ASEAN met in
the Indonesian capital of Jakarta to launch the charter,
signed in November 2007, with the aim of moving closer
to "an EU-style community".[9][10] The charter turned
ASEAN into a legal entity and aimed to create a single
free-trade area for the region encompassing 600 million
people. Indonesian President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono stated: "This is a momentous
development...ASEAN is...transforming itself into a
community. It is achieved while ASEAN seeks a more
vigorous role in Asian and global affairs at a time when
the international system is experiencing a seismic shift",
he added, referring to climate change and economic
upheaval. Southeast Asia is no longer the bitterly divided,
war-torn region it was in the 1960s and 1970s".
The ongoing global financial crisis was identified as a
threat to the goals envisioned by the charter. [11] The most
controversial part of the charter was the proposed human
rights body, details of which were to be hammered out at
the summit in February 2009. The body would not have
the power to impose sanctions or punish countries that
violate citizens' rights and would therefore be limited in
effectiveness.[12]
ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human
Rights
The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on
Human Rights (AICHR) was inaugurated in October
2009 as a consultative body of the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN). The human rights
commission exists to promote and protect human rights,
and regional co-operation on human rights in the member
states of (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao
PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailan
d and Viet Nam).[1] The AICHR meets at least twice per
year.[1]
Human rights are referenced in the ASEAN
Charter (Articles 1.7, 2.2.i and 14) and other key ASEAN
documents. The commission operates through
consultation and consensus—each of the 10 member
states has veto power. The commission makes no
provision for independent observers.[2]
The AICHR is directed by a body of representatives, one
per member state, each nominated by and answerable to
their government and serving a three-year term,
renewable once. The commission has 14 mandates,
mainly around the promotion and protection of human
rights, capacity building, advice and technical assistance,
information gathering and engagement with national,
regional, and international bodies.[1][3] One of its mandates
was "to develop an ASEAN Human Rights Declaration",
but when this was adopted, in November 2012, [4] it came
under criticism from human rights groups for including
wording that suggested that access to human rights was
contingent on "the performance of corresponding duties
as every person has responsibilities to all other
individuals, the community and the society where one
lives".[5] NGOs in the region presented cases of alleged
violations to it at its inaugural meeting in Jakarta.[6]
The commission has been described as "toothless" by
observers including the Wall Street Journal.[2] The ASEAN
chair at the time of AICHR's founding, Abhisit Vejjajiva,
said that "...the commission's 'teeth' would be
strengthened down the road",[7] but six years after
AICHR's founding, critics charge that "...since it was
launched,...[AICHR] has yet to take any action to
safeguard the most basic freedoms of citizens it
supposedly represents."[7]
Arab Human Rights Committee
Page 10 of 12
Note: The Arab Human Rights Committee is a different
body than the Arab Permanent Committee on
Human Rights.
The Arab Human Rights Committee (the
“Committee) was established in 2009 to oversee
member states’ implementation of the Arab Charter
on Human Rights. The Committee does not have any
enforcement mechanisms or special procedures, which
limits its ability to hold member states accountable.
The Committee consists of seven independent human
rights experts who serve in their personal capacity (as
opposed to representing their government as a political
representative) and are nationals of member states
that have ratified the Arab Charter on Human Rights.
Candidates for the Committee are nominated by
member states and then elected by a secret ballot.
Only one expert from each country may sit on the
Committee at any given time. Once elected,
Committee members serve for four years and are able
to stand for reelection once.
The Committee has an administrative and technical
secretariat that operates under the General
Secretariat. This body prepares studies to assist the
Committee’s work and its sessions.
The Arab Human Rights Committee is responsible
for:
 Monitoring states human rights performance
 Interpreting the Arab Charter on Human Rights
 Submitting annual reports to the League
Council
 Requesting information from Arab League
bodies and Arab institutions
 Reviewing states reports: member states
who have ratified the Arab Charter on Human
Rights are required to submit a report on their
compliance with the Charter within one year of
ratification, and then every three years
following the initial report. The Committee
reviews each report and issues conclusions
and recommendations to the member state.
The Committee may also request additional
information from the member state with regard
to the content of the report
How does it help tackle violence against women?
Nothing in this Charter may be construed or
interpreted as impairing the rights and freedoms
protected by the domestic laws of the States parties or
those set forth in the international and regional
human rights instruments which the States parties
have adopted or ratified, including the rights
of women, the rights of the child and the rights of
persons belonging to minorities.
Preamble to the Arab Charter on Human Rights
(emphasis added)
Violence against women is a discriminatory violation of
women’s human rights and fundamental freedoms. The
establishment of the Arab Human Rights
Committee is an opportunity for civil society to bring
attention to the ways in which violence occurs and the
specific articles within the Arab Charter on Human
Rights that are violated through these acts.
By submitting parallel reports, attending meetings
and disseminating conclusions, civil society
organisations can influence the LAS and member
states in decision-making that would impact violence
against women – positively or negatively.
It should be noted there has been some difficulties for
CSOs engaging with the states reporting procedure, as
acknowledged by groups like the Open Society
Foundation. Although the Committee does not require
CSOs have observer status to take part in the reporting
procedure, CSOs must have NGO status in their
country of origin. Due to strict guidelines at the national
level, this recognition has been a challenge for many
organisations and subsequently has prevented them
from accessing the LAS.
The Arab Human Rights Committee also makes
reference to international standards in its work. In
addition to the Committee Secretariat’s normal
functions, it also keeps track of relevant regional and
international agreements, and interpretations of human
rights concepts and agreements issued by the United
Nations.
Civil Society Engagement: States Reporting
Procedure
The reporting guidelines outlined in the Arab Charter
on Human Rights and Rules of Procedure are the
Committee’s primary mechanism for ensuring member
states comply with their human rights obligations. By
making the Committee’s recommendations public and
providing opportunities for civil society engagement,
the reporting procedure may be helpful in holding
states accountable and tackling violence against
women in the region.
In broad terms, the states reporting procedure takes
place in 6 steps:
1. Member states prepare reports in accordance
with the guidelines (and, in some cases, a list
of questions) provided by the Committee
2. Completed reports are submitted to the
Secretary General, who then passes them to
the Committee
1. Civil society organisations are
invited to prepare parallel (also
known as “shadow”) reports to to
the Committee, alongside the state
reports
3. Committee announces receipt of reports and
dates for consideration of reports
4. Committee review reports and meets with state
representatives to discuss
1. Civil society organisations are
invited to obsere these discussions
Page 11 of 12
 – those that have submitted parallel
reports may be invited to attend a
closed meeting with the Committee
5. Conclusions, recommendations and remarks
on reports are adopted by absolute majority
6. Conclusions and recommendations are made
public
1. Civil society organisations assist in
disseminating the conclusions and
recommendations, as well as
initiating follow up with member
states

As indicated above, there are several entry points for

CSOs to engage with the states reporting procedure
and Committee. Additionally, CSOs may also work
directly with states to raise awareness of violence
against women throughout the region and the
necessary steps that need to be taken to end it.

In preparing parallel reports to be submitted to the

Committee, CSOs are encouraged to follow the same
reporting guidelines provided to member states. There
are specific guidelines for the content and format
of reports that must be followed when preparing a
parallel report, and CSOs interested in doing so are
encouraged to access the LAS website for more
information.

Page 12 of 12