Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-28T19:57:19.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Anna P. Schreiber  and
Philippe S. E. Schreiber
Get access

Extract

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was present in the Dominican Republic continuously from June 1, 1965, to July 7, 1966. During this period the Commission worked diligently and effectively to protect basic human rights which were being threatened and abused daily. The Commission had visited the Dominican Republic twice in the past for short periods of several days. During these visits, which occurred at times of relative tranquillity, it received claims from private citizens concerning human rights violations, reported its observations, and made recommendations to the government. The Commission's role in 1965–1966 was of a different nature. It was called upon by two rival governments to come to a country in the midst of a civil strife in which human rights were being violated on a massive scale. In these circumstances the Commission proved willing to act vigorously to defend these rights. It succeeded in improving prison conditions for political prisoners, played a key role in securing the release of many detainees who had been held without charge, assisted persecuted individuals in finding asylum, tried to locate missing persons, and worked to bring the perpetrators of crimes against human rights to justice. Although by means of interpretation and practice the Commission had to some extent laid the groundwork for the role it was to assume in the Dominican Republic, its performance as an “action body” operating in an American state continuously for more than one year was unprecedented.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , Spring 1968 , pp. 508 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This term is gaining currency as a description of an international body which itself takes concrete steps to achieve specific goals instead of confining its activities to holding discussions, drafting reports, and making recommendations.

2 For a more detailed description of the gradual steps toward instituting international protection of human rights since 1945 see Sandifer, Durward V., Human Rights in the Inter-American System (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.11 [Doc. 3]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 03 1965)Google Scholar; Human Rights in the American States (preliminary edition; Washington: Pan American Union, 1960), pp. 115–120Google Scholar; Schreiber, Anna P., “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1968)Google Scholar; and Vasak, Karel, La protection Internationale des droits de l'homme sur le continent américain: La Commission Interamtéricaine des Droits de l'Homme (Paris: Librairie Générate de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1968), pp. 29–51Google Scholar. A research project on international procedures to protect private rights is being undertaken by the Procedural Aspects of International Law Institute at Syracuse University. The first results of this project can be found in “International Procedures to Protect Human Rights: A Symposium,” Iowa Law Review, 10 1968 (Vol. 53, No. 2), pp. 268–365Google Scholar. Consideration of the draft human rights convention was delayed until November 1965 when the Second Special Inter-American Conference instructed the OAS Council to make amendments to this draft on the basis of opinions submitted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and other OAS organs. The Commission has transmitted its views to the Council. When a final draft is produced, it must be accepted by the American states at a special inter-American conference convoked for that purpose. It will then be open for signature and ratification.

3 Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.14 [Doc. 33]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1966)Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Statute), Article 1. The Commission's autonomy is limited by the OAS Council's power to approve its budget and select its members. In February 1967 the Third Special Inter-American Conference agreed to amendments to the OAS Charter which will make the Commission a Charter organ whose structures and functions will be defined in the projected human rights convention. Until this convention comes into force the existing Commission will continue to “keep vigilance over the observance of human rights.” See Protocol of Amendment to the Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS Document OEA/Ser.A/2, Add.2) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1968), Articles 112 and 150Google Scholar.

4 Statute, Article 3(b).

5 Ibid., Article 11(c).

6 See Sandifer, pp. 11–14; and Scheman, L. Ronald, “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,” American Journal of International Law, 04 1965 (Vol. 59, No. 2), pp. 335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 OAS Council, Ada de la Sesión Ordinaria celebrada el 25 de mayo de 1960 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.G/II [C-a-371]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1960), pp. 39–68Google Scholar.

8 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on Work Accomplished During its First Session: October 3 to 28, 1960 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.1 [Doc. 32]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 03 14, 1961) (hereinafter cited as First Report), p. 13Google Scholar.

9 The Commission's procedure differs from those of both the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which forwards all claims to states and the European Commission of Human Rights which subjects claims to a far more rigorous screening procedure prior to transmitting them to governments.

10 Fewer than five claims have been transmitted to the United States and none have been related to problems of the civil rights of Negro citizens.

11 Inter-Amcrican Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Republic of Cuba (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.4 [Doc. 30]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 05 1962)Google Scholar; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Political Prisoners and their Relatives in Cuba (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.7 [Doc. 4]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 05 17, 1963)Google Scholar; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report Regarding the Situation of Human Rights in Cuba (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.17 [Doc. 4 Rev.]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 06 13, 1968)Google Scholar.

12 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Dominican Republic (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.4 [Doc. 32]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 05 1962)Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Dominican Report 1962).

13 Inter-Amcrican Commission on Human Rights, Solicitudes de Informatión Transmitidas al Gobierno de Guatemala (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.15 [Doc. 5]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 08 3, 1966)Google Scholar.

14 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation Regarding Human Rights in Haiti (OAS Document OEA/Ser./L/V/II.8 [Doc. 5]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 11 19, 1963)Google Scholar; and “Requests for Information Transmitted to the Government of Haiti on the Case of the Haitian Citizens Returned to their Country from the Dominican Republic and the Case of the Beauvoir-Florez Family” (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.16 [Doc. 2 Rev.]), March 28, 1967.

15 First Report, pp. 9–10. One member, who in 1960 expressed the opinion that recommendations should not be made to individual states, has since come to accept the view held by the majority.

16 For the Commission's relations with other states see Sandifer; see also Scheman, , American Journal of International Law, Vol. 59, No. 2Google Scholar, as well as the reports cited in footnotes 11–14 above.

17 Professional organizations opposed to Balaguer expressed this view in a statement to the Commission. (Dominican Report 1962, p. 35.)

18 Ibid., p. 28.

19 Ibid., p. 33.

20 Martin, John Bartlow, Overtaken by Events: The Dominican Crisis from the Fall of Trujillo to the Civil War (New York: Doubleday, 1966), pp. 398–402Google Scholar.

21 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Sixth Session: April 16 to May 8, 1963 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/11.7 [Doc. 28]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 08 21, 1963), p. 18Google Scholar.

22 See the following works for background on Dominican politics: On the Trujillo era see Crassweller, Robert Doel, Trujillo: The Life and Times of a Caribbean Dictator (New York: Macmillan, 1966)Google Scholar; for the period between the death of Trujillo in May 1961 and the April 1965 crisis see Martin; and Bosch, Juan, The Unfinished Experiment: Democracy in the Dominican Republic (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965)Google Scholar; for the period after April 1965 see Szule, Tad, Dominican Diary (New York: Delacortc, 1965)Google Scholar; and Kurzman, Dan, Santo Domingo: Revolt of the Damned (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1965)Google Scholar.

23 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Situation Regarding Human Rights in the Dominican Republic: Preliminary Report Presented by the Chairman (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.12 [Doc. 2 Rev.]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 06 23, 1965) (hereinafter cited as Preliminary Report), p. 1Google Scholar.

24 Preliminary Report, p. 5.

25 Ibid., pp. 5–6.

26 See generally ibid.

27 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work. Accomplished During its Eleventh (Special) Session: July 21–23, 1965 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.12 [Doc. 10]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 09 20, 1965) (hereinafter cited as Eleventh Report), p. 10Google Scholar.

28 The Commission's work in the Dominican Republic during this period is described in three basic reports: Preliminary Report, cited above; Report on the Activities of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Republic: June 1 to August 31, 1965 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.13 [Doc. 14 Rev.]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 10 15, 1965)Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Report on Activities, June 1 to August 31, 1965); Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on its Activities in the Dominican Republic (September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966) (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.15 [Doc. 6 Rev.]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 10 28, 1966)Google Scholar (hereinafter cited as Report on Activities, September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966).

29 Report on Activities, June 1 to August 31, 1965, p. 16.

30 Report on Activities, September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966, p. 32.

31 Sandifer, Durward V., “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, June 1965 to June 1966,” in Carey, John (ed.), The Dominican Republic Crisis, 1965 (Background Paper and Proceedings of the Ninth Hammarskjöld Forum) (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y: Oceana Publications [for the Association of the Bar of the City of New York], 1968), p. 132Google Scholar.

32 The New York Times, June 10, 1965, p. 12; June 11, 1965, p. 11; and June 23, 1965, p. 11.

33 Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Report on Atrocities Committed in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (OAS Document OEA/Ser.F/II.10 [Doc. 231]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 07 11, 1965), p. 8Google Scholar.

34 lbid., pp. 17–18.

35 Report on Activities, June 1 to August 31, 1965, pp. 22–23.

36 UN Document S/6625, August 20, 1965, p. 3.

37 Ibid., p. 4.

38 UN Document S/6598, August 6, 1965.

39 UN Document S/6615, August 17, 1965.

40 Report on Activities, June 1 to August 31, 1965, pp. 25–26.

41 Preliminary Report, p. 19.

42 Eleventh Report, p. 10.

43 Report on Activities, September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966, p. 27.

44 For the Institutional Act see OAS Document OEA/Ser.F/II.10 (Doc. 363), September 9, 1965.

45 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Twelfth Session: October 4 to 15, 1965 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/11.13 [Doc. 26]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 03 2, 1966), p. 13Google Scholar.

46 Sandifer in Carey, p. 133.

47 Report on Activities, September 1, 1965, to July 6,1966, p. 9.

48 This body was established on June 2, 1965, by the Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs and was charged with securing a political settlement.

49 Ibid., pp. 15 and 23–24.

50 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Work Accomplished During its Thirteenth Session: April 18 to 28, 1966 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.14 [Doc. 35]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 06 1966), pp. 15–16Google Scholar.

51 Report on Activities, September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966, p. 30.

52 Report on Activities, September 1, 1965, to July 6, 1966, p. 20.

53 See Dupuy, René-Jean, “Les Etats-Unis, L'OEA, et L'ONU a Saint-Domingue,” Annuaire François de Droit International, 1965 (Vol. 11), pp. 71–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 This body was created on May 1, 1965, and continued to operate until May 20, 1965.

55 See Second Report of the Special Committee of the Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs (OAS Document OEA/Ser.F/II.10 [Doc. 81 Rev.]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 06 2, 1965), p. 11Google Scholar.

56 Security Council Resolution 203 (1965), May 14, 1965.

57 For the UN role in human rights in the Dominican Republic see UN Documents S/6530, July 15, 1965; S/6615, August 17, 1965; and S/7032 and Add.1–34, December 20, 1965–May 31, 1966. U Thant expressed the view that specific authorization was required before individual human rights cases could be investigated, noting that the mandate of the representative was probably insufficient as it stood. See Security Council Official Records (20th year), 1223rd meeting, 06 11, 1965, p. 2Google Scholar.

58 Report on Activities, June 1 to August 31, 1965, p. 15.

59 UN Document E/259, p. 7.

60 Since 1966 this has been liberalized to permit the Commission to “deal with” communications. The exact effect of this change is not yet clear.

61 Sandifer in Carey, p. 123.

62 Article 11(c) of the Commission's Statute.

63 Eleventh Report, p. 10.

64 Tenth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, “Acta de la Decimoquinta Sesión Plenaria” (OAS Document OEA/Ser.F/II.10 [Doc. 176 Provisional]), June 16, 1965, pp. 48–51.

65 Article 9(bis).

66 For the positions taken by the United States on this question see Council of the Organization of American States, Acta de la Scsión Ordinaria celebrada el 29 de octubre, 1960 (OAS Document OEA/-Ser.G/II C-a-348) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1960) (hereinafter cited as Acta 348), pp. 36–37Google Scholar; Acta de la Sesión Ordinaria celebrada el 6 de abril, 1960 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.G/II C-a-366) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1960) (hereinafter cited as Acta 366), p. 49Google Scholar; and Acta de la Sesión Ordinaria celebrada el 11 de mayo, 1960 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.G/II C-a-370) (Washington: Pan American Union, 1960) (hereinafter cited as Acta 370), pp. 32–35Google Scholar.

67 Acta 348, pp. 44–47; Acta 366, pp. 52–55; and Acta 370, pp. 18–19.

68 See generally Actas y Documentos of the Second Special Inter-American Conference held at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 11 17–30, 1965 (OAS Document OEA/Ser.E/XIII.3) (Preliminary version; Washington: Pan American Union), Vols. I and IV.Google Scholar

69 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OAS Document OEA/Ser.L/V/II.17 [Doc. 26]) (Washington: Pan American Union, 05 2, 1968), Articles 49–53Google Scholar.

70 Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Articles 37–58.