Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Table of cases
- Table of Legal Instruments
- List of Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Human rights in armed conflict: history of an idea
- Part II Human rights and humanitarian law: theory
- Part III Human rights and humanitarian law: challenges and commonalities
- Part IV The dynamics of war and law
- Part V Enforcement: practice and potential
- 17 United Nations Human Rights Council: monitoring armed conflicts
- 18 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
- 19 United Nations human rights treaty bodies
- 20 The Inter-American human rights system
- 21 The European Court of Human Rights
- 22 The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
- 23 Monitoring and litigating humanitarian rights: prospects
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
20 - The Inter-American human rights system
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 March 2015
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Table of cases
- Table of Legal Instruments
- List of Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Human rights in armed conflict: history of an idea
- Part II Human rights and humanitarian law: theory
- Part III Human rights and humanitarian law: challenges and commonalities
- Part IV The dynamics of war and law
- Part V Enforcement: practice and potential
- 17 United Nations Human Rights Council: monitoring armed conflicts
- 18 United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
- 19 United Nations human rights treaty bodies
- 20 The Inter-American human rights system
- 21 The European Court of Human Rights
- 22 The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
- 23 Monitoring and litigating humanitarian rights: prospects
- Conclusion
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
Applying humanitarian law
The Inter-American Commission was faced with situations of armed conflict in the southern hemisphere of the Inter-American human rights system soon after it had become operational in 1960. To date, no other human rights monitoring body has gone further than the Commission in speaking out on violations of human rights and humanitarian law in situations of armed conflict. Unlike other human rights bodies, it has deliberately sought to accommodate international humanitarian law alongside human rights law when considering such situations.
In the first decade of its existence, from 1959 to 1973, however, the Commission made no reference to international humanitarian law in its jurisprudence, despite the occurrence of armed conflicts in the region, e.g., in Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Chile. Only with the armed conflict in Nicaragua and its on-site visit to the country in 1978 did the Commission take an interest in this matter. The Commission considered this situation as an internal armed conflict under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and held that the use of heavy artillery and bombardments by the Nicaraguan National Guard against the Sandinista Front for National Liberation amounted to violations of “a basic humanitarian norm.” The precise meaning of this term was not clarified and in the report on Argentina two years later, in 1980, the Commission held that it had no other competence than to investigate human rights violations and would not examine violations of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts. The reason for this restraint may be found in the repeated requests by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) to the Commission to investigate not only human rights abuses by governmental authorities but also by non-state armed groups and terrorist organizations. The Commission seemingly did not want to be drawn into examining their conduct even though it began to do so later when it considered the human rights situation in Peru in 1993.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Human Rights in Armed ConflictLaw, Practice, Policy, pp. 271 - 294Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2015
References
, “Parallel Application of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law: An Examination of the Debate” (2007) 40(2) Israel Yearbook of Human Rights650Google Scholar
, “The History of the Inter-American System’s Jurisprudence as Regards Situations of Armed Conflict” (2011) 2(1) Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies10–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Nicaragua, OAS Doc. OEA/SEr.L/V/II/45 Doc. 18 rev. 1 (17 November 1978)
Disabled Peoples’ International v. United States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 9213, Decision as to the Admissibility of 22 September 1997, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.71 Doc. 9 rev. 1
, “The Right to Life in Armed Conflict: Disabled Peoples’ International v. United States” (1988) 29(1) Harvard International Law Journal65Google Scholar
Arturo Ribón Avilán and ten others (“The Milk”) v. Colombia, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 11.142 of 30 September 1997, Report No. 26/97 of 13 April 1998, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98, Doc. 6 rev
Hugo Bustios Saavedra v. Peru, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 10.548 of 16 October 1997, Report No. 38/97 of 13 April 1998, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98 Doc. 6 rev
Juan Carlos Abella v. Argentina, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 11.137 of 18 November 1997, Report No. 55/97 of 14 April 1998, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98 Doc. 6 rev. at 161
Other Treaties Subject to the Consultative Jurisdiction of the Court (Art. 64 American Convention on Human Rights), Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion of 24 September 1982, OC-1/82, Ser. A, No. 1, para. 8. ACHR, Art. 64
Hugo Bustíos Saavedra v. Peru, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 10.548 of 13 April 1998, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.98 Doc. 6, paras. 4–13
, “The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law: A Comment on the Tablada Case” (1998) 38(324) International Review of the Red Cross509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Decommissioned? International Humanitarian Law and the Inter-American Human Rights System” (2003) 25(1) Human Rights Quarterly196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “The Advisory Practice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court” (1985) 79(1) American Journal of International Law6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, “Human Rights and the Laws of War under the American Convention on Human Rights” (2008) 6 European Human Rights Law Review772Google Scholar
, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd edn., Kehl: Engel, 2005), p. 118Google Scholar
, “Die Verantwortlichkeit Deutschlands nach der EMRK für seine Streitkräfte im Auslandseinsatz” (2002) 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht695Google Scholar
Lucio Parada Cea, Héctor Jaoquín Miranda Marroquín, Fausto García Funes, Andrés Hernández Carpio, Jose Catalino Meléndez and Carlos Antonio Martiínez v. El Salvador, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 10.480, Report No. 1/99 of 27 January 1999, OAS Doc. OEA Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 6 rev., para. 160
, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (13 April 2006)
, “General Rule of Interpretation” in and (eds.), The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: A Commentary (Heidelberg: Springer, 2012), p. 562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“[a]n international instrument has to be interpreted and applied within the framework of the entire legal system prevailing at the time of the interpretation”, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, International Court of Justice [1970] ECJ Reports 16, para 53
, “The Implementation of International Humanitarian Law by Human Rights Courts: The Example of the Inter-American Human Rights System” in and (eds.), International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Towards a Merger in International Law (Leiden: Nijhoff, 2008), pp. 282–83 and 290Google Scholar
Jose Alexis Fuentes Guerrero and others v. Colombia, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 11.519, Report No. 61/99 of 13 April 1999, OAS Doc. OEA Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 7 rev., para. 43
Ignacio Ellacuria, SJ, Segundo Montes, SJ, Armando López, SJ, Ignacio Martin-Baró, SJ, Joaquin López y López, SJ, Juan Ramón Moreno, SJ, Julia Elba Ramos and Celina Mariceth Ramos v. El Salvador, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 10.488, Report No. 136/99 of 22 December 1999, OAS Doc. OEA Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 3 rev., para. 37
Monsignor Oscar Amulfo Romero y Galdámez v. El Salvador, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 10.481, Report No. 37/00 of 13 April 2000, OAS Doc. OEA Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 3 rev., para. 72
Riofrió Massacre – Colombia, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 11.654, Report No. 62/01 of 6 April 2001, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111 Doc. 20 rev. at 758, paras. 14 and 54
Carlos Manuel Prada Gonzalez and Evelio Antonio Bolaño Castro v. Colombia, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 11.710, Report 63/01 of 6 April 2001, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111 Doc. 20 rev. at 781, para. 32
Marino Lopez and others v. Colombia, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 12.573, Report 64/11 of 31 March 2011, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.127 Doc. 4 rev. 1
Bernard Coard and others v. United States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case No. 10.951, Report No. 109/99 of 29 September 1999, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 3 rev
Franklin Guillermo Aisalle Molina (Ecuador v. Colombia), Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 112/10 of 21 October 2010 on Admissibility, Inter-State Petition IP-02, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.140 Doc. 10
Detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Precautionary Measure of 12 March 2002 (footnotes omitted)
, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, OAS Doc. EA/Ser.L/V/II.116 Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr. (22 October 2002), para. 61
, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.102 Doc. 9 rev. 1 (26 February 1999), ch. IV, para. 1
, Report on the Status of Human Rights in Chile, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.34 Doc. 21 corr. 1 (25 October 1974), ch. IV, paras. 2–3
, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in El Salvador, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.46 Doc. 23 rev. 1 (17 November 1978), ch. I.G
, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Republic of Colombia, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.53 Doc. 22 (30 June 1981), ch. VII
, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in El Salvador, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/II.85 Doc. 28 rev. (11 February 1994), ch. I.1 (entitled “El Salvador: from conflict to the quest for peace. The position of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights during the armed conflict”)
, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1999), ch. IV.2
Las Palmeras v. Colombia, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Preliminary Objections) of 4 February 2000, Ser. C, No. 67
, “Remedies for Victims of Violations of International Humanitarian Law” (2003) 85(851) International Review of the Red Cross516Google Scholar
, “Application du droit international humanitaire par la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l’hommes” (2001) 83(844) Revue international de la Croix-Rouge1064Google Scholar
Villagrán-Morales and others v. Guatemala (Case of the Street Children), Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Merits) of 19 November 1999, Series C, No. 63, paras. 193–94
Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Merits) of 25 November 2000, Series C, No. 70
, “On the Relationship between Human Rights Law Protection and International Humanitarian Law” (2004) 86(856) International Review of the Red Cross805Google Scholar
Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs) of 1 March 2005, Ser. C, No. 118, para. 116. ACHR, Art. 17
Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs) of 15 September 2005, Ser. C, No. 134, para. 115
Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs) 31 January 2006, Ser. C, No. 140
Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judgment (Merits) of 29 April 2004, Ser. C, No. 105, para. 42
, “The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law from the Perspective of a Human Rights Treaty Body” (2008) 90(871) International Review of the Red Cross572CrossRefGoogle Scholar