Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:24:57.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Protocol to the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Inter-American System: A Study of Co-Existing Petition Procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

M. E. Tardu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to examine the main legal questions that arise from the co-existence of two sets of international procedures for handling individual petitions: the system established by the Optional Protocol to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the one hand, and two regional procedures within the framework of the Organization of American States, on the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 778 - 800
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1976

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 The UN Convenant received the required 35th ratification on December 23, 1975 and came into force, in conformity with its Article 49, three months thereafter, on March 23, 1976. The Protocol came into force at the same time, having been ratified, as required, by at least ten states parties (actually twelve) to the Covenant. The states parties to the Protocol, against which individual communications may be submitted to the Human Plights Committee, were, as of July 1, 1976: Barbados, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Jamaica, Madagascar, Mauritius, Norway, Sweden, and Uruguay.

2 R. Cassin, avant-propos to K. Vasak, La Commission Interam?Ricaine Des Droits De L'Homme iv, (1968). The legal literature on competing international procedures is still rather thin. One may refer in particular to the following studies: Capotorti, F., Interf?rences dans l'ordre juridique interne entre la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et d'autres accords internationaux, in Les Droits De L'Homme En Droit Interne Et En Droit Interntional (1968)Google Scholar; J. De Meyer, La Convention Européenne Des Droits De L'Homme ET Le Pacte International Relatif Aux Droits Civils Et Politiques (1969); Eissen, M. A., La Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et le pacte des Nations Unies relatif aux droits civils et politiques: Probl?mes de “coexistence,” 30 Zeitschrift Für Ausländisches Offentliches Recht Und Völker Recht 237 (1970)Google Scholar; Golsong, H., Interferences entre les obligations incombant ? un Etat en vertu de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme et d'autres accords internationaux, Comptes Rendus Du Colloque Sur La Protection Internationale Des Droits De L'Homme, Strasbourg, 1960 at 254-59 (1961)Google Scholar; Jenks, , Co-ordination in International Organization: An Introductory Survey, 28 Byil 33-35 and 76-78 (1952)Google Scholar; Marcus-Helmons, S., Protection universelle ou r?gionale des droits de l'homrne?’ Revue Générals Belge 1 (1968)Google Scholar; Pinto, , Régionalisme et universalisme dans la protection des droits de l'homme, International Protection of Human Rights, Proceedings Of The Seventh Nobel Symposium 177-93 (1968)Google Scholar; Robertson, (ed.) Human Rights in National and International Law 193 (1968); Tardu, M., Quelques questions relatives d la coexistence des proc?dures universelles et r?gionales de plainte individuelle dans le domaine des droits de l'homme, 4 Human Rights Journal 589 (1971)Google Scholar.

3 See the draft resolution by Denmark, Italy, and Czechoslovakia, in the annexes to the Final Act of the Conference, UN Doc. A/CONF.32/41. This proposal was not voted upon due to lack of time.

4 See text of communication by the Inter-American Commission in UN Doc. E/CN.4/ L.1042/Add.l, Feb. 26, 1969.

5 See in particular the summary records of the Commission's 1064-65th meetings, UN Docs. E/CN.4/SR.1064 and 1065, concerning the question of establishing UN regional organs on human rights.

6 See in particular communications of the Council of Europe in UN Docs. E/CN.4/ L.1057/Add.l, Dec. 23, 1970 and E/CN.4/1120, Jan. 24, 1973

7 UN Doc. E/5488.

8 See texts of the Covenant and Protocol in, Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments of the United NATIONS, UN Publication Sales No. E.73.XIV.2, (1973), and in 61 AJIL 861 (1967).

9 Compare in this regard the initial draft which contained the word “suggestions” (UN Doc. A/C.3/L.1402/Rev.2) with the revised text (UN Doc. A/C.3/L.1411/Rev.2), and see the summary records of the Third Committee in UN Docs. A/C3/SR.1440, para. 9, and A/C.3/SR.1441, para. 40.

10 In support of this interpretation, see, for instance; Schwelb, E., Civil and Political Rights: The International Measures of Implementation, 62 AJIL 868 (1968)Google Scholar. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, one of the meanings of the word “view” is “manner of considering a subject, opinion.“

11 See in particular the summary records of the Third Committee in UN Docs. A/C.3/ SR.1440, paras. 8 and 24, and A/C.3/SR.1441, paras. 13-27 and 39, and proposals in UN Docs. A/C.3/L.1441 and Rev.l.

12 See UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1435, para. 17, and compare the text as adopted with the initial draft article in A/C.3/L.1402/Rev.2, which contained the words “a summary of the Committee's suggestions.“

13 See UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1440, para. 8.

14 Opinion of Egon Schwelb in International Protection of Human Rights, supra note 2, at 290.

15 See UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1440, para. 16.

16 See on this point and on the recent jurisprudence of the Commission in particular, Buergenthal, T., The Revised OAS Charter and the Protection of Human Rights, 69 AJIL (1975)Google Scholar. Professor Buergenthal tends to feel that not only the existence of the Commission, but its statute as well, has acquired a treaty basis through revision of the OAS Charter.

17 See the revised texts of the Commission's statute and regulations in Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Handbook of Existing Rules Pertaining to Human Rights, Appendices II and III, (1975), OAS Doc. OEA/SER.L/V/II, Doc. 21/Rev.2.

18 In addition to the above-mentioned article by T. Buergenthal, (supra no. 16), see Schreiber, A., The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Dominican Crisis, 22 International Organization 508 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and K. Vasak, supra note 2, at 112. However, the Inter-American Commission has considered itself authorized, under its terms of reference, to publish reports concerning “general” developments in individual countries which summarize, without conclusions, complaints, often in rather specific terms. The Commission has thus published reports, inter alia, on the Dominican Republic (1962, 1965, 1966), Haiti (1964, 1967), Cube (1963, 1967), and Guatemala (1966). See in particular T. Buergenthal, supra note 16, at 831, and K. VASAK, supra 124-38.

19 See Vasak, supra note 2, at 139-55.

20 Account is taken not only of instances where the same “complaints” or “communications,” identical as to signatories and form, are submitted to both organs, but, more comprehensively, of all cases where the same “matters” are, in substance, complained of. This substantive concept has been adopted by most of the instruments which contain coordination clauses, including the UN Protocol.

Although the legal vocabulary in this field is not very precise, it may be said that the term “petition,” strictly speaking, should be confined to procedures which treat the individual's submission essentially as information, as was the case, for instance, at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 and at the Congress of Berlin in 1898. The word “complaint” evokes a more formal procedure leading to individual pronouncements on each case, whether they are recommendations or judicial decisions.

21 See in this regard, notably, E. Schwelb, supra note 14, at 866

22 See UN Doc. A/C.3/L.1399. This proposal related to draft Article 44 of the Covenant at a stage of the debates where it was still proposed to include an optional clause concerning individual petition in the Covenant itself.

23 See in particular summary records of the 1432nd and 1433rd meetings of the Third Committee, UN Docs. A/C.3/SR.1432, paras. 16, 18, and 37 and A/C.3/SR.1433, para. 2.

24 See UN Docs. A/C.3/L.1355, para. 2 and A/C.3/L.1402/Rev. 2. This formula (“has already been submitted“) was taken from the coordination clause of Article 27 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

25 See UN Doc. A/C.3/L.1411/Rev. 2.

26 See summary record of the 1446th meeting of the Third Committee, UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1446.

27 See summary records of the 1441st and 1446th meetings of the Third Committee, UN Docs. A/C.3/SR.1441, para. 20 and A/C.3/SR.1446, para. 10. In the original English version of the Protocol, the sentence “this shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged” clearly refers to both domestic and international remedies. This is not the case, however, in the equally authentic French version.

28 Vasak, supra note 2, at 172.

29 Id. 173.

30 Ibid.

31 4 5 ILO Off. Bull., No. 2, Supp. II (April 1962).

32 International Labour Conference, 50th sess., 1966, Report III (Part IV); id., 54th sess., 1970. Report III (Part IV); id., 56th sess., 1971 Report III (Part IV A), appendix: Report of the Representative of the Director-General of the ILO on direct contacts with the Government of Portugal concerning implementation of ILO Convention no. 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour.

33 ECOSOC Res. 1509 (XLVIII), 1599 (L), and 1796 (LIV); See also reports of the UN Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts concerning the system of recruitment of African workers in Angola and Mozambique in UN Docs. E/4953 and E/5245, especially conclusion (22) of the latter report.

34 ECOSOC Res. 1412 (LIVI). The Report of the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association concerning Rhodesia was brought to the attention of the United Nations in UN Doc. E/4610.

35 The UN Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts reported to the Council on trade union rights in Rhodesia, with some references to the ILO report, in UN Doc. E/4646 (1969).

36 See Report of the ILO Commission of Inquiry on Freedom of Association in Greece in 54 Ilo Off. Bull., No. 2, Special Supp. (1971).

37 See in particular the Report of the 24th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights in 44 ECOSOC Supp. No. 4, UN Doc. E/4475, paras, 140-210 (1968) and U.S. draft resolution in UN Doc. E/CN.4/L.1004 and Rev. 1.

38 The report of the Inter-American Commission on Chile, dated October 24, 1974, was transmitted to the United Nations in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1166/Add.3 and 14.

39 The situation in Chile regarding trade union rights and the application of various ILO Conventions was investigated in 1974 within the ILO framework by a Commission of Inquiry set up under Article 26 of the ILO Constitution and by the ILO Fact-Finding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association. Their reports, and recommendations thereon by the Governing Body and the General Conference, were brought to the attention of the United Nations in UN Docs. E/CN.4/1166/Add.l.

40 G.A. Res. 3219 (XXIX), Nov. 6, 1974, and Res. 8(XXI) of the UN Commission on Human Rights, Feb. 25, 1975 which established an Ad Hoc Group of Experts to investigate the situation of human rights in Chile. The Group submitted a Progress Report to the 1975 session of the General Assembly (UN Doc. A/10285) and a final report to the 1976 session of the Commission on Human Rights (UN Doc. E/CN.4/ 1188).

41 See a similar, though not identical, view in Schwakzenbehger, Manual of International Law 255 (1967). Some of the Conventions which expressly prohibit the consideration of matters already submitted to other international bodies include the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 27), and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights (Art. 47). Article 44 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights safeguards the possibility of recourse to the procedures of the United Nations and its specialized agencies, but does not refer to the regional petition systems.

42 Some of the issues considered in this article were raised at the 1965 Vienna Conference on the Law of Treaties, notably by Professor Louis B. Sohn. See in particular Robertson, supra note 2, at 93.

43 See, for instance, some views expressed during the debates on the Covenant at the 1966 session of the General Assembly. UN Doc. A/6546, para. 510.

44 Eissen, supra note 2, at 254.

45 See in particular UN Docs. E/4322, paras. 320-21, E/CN.4/966 and Add. 1, E/ CN.4/L.907/Rev. 1, and ST/TAO/HR.38. The Commission dealt with the question of establishing regional human rights agencies in its Resolutions 6 (XXIII) and 6 (XXVI).

46 UN Doc. E/CN.4/L.1004, para. 3.

47 ECOSOC Supp. No. 4, UN Doc. E/4475, paras. 151-54 (1968).

48 Studies of this general approach have been made, for instance, in Falk and Mendlovitz, (eds.), 3 the Strategy of World Order: The United Nations 37- 122 and 227-48 (1966); Falk, “On the Quasi-Legislative Competence of the General Assembly,” in The Status of Law in International Society 174-85 (1970); R. Higgins, the Development of International Law Through The Political Organs of the United Nations 1-10, 120-23, and 126-27 (1963); Mcdougal and Burke, The Public Order of the Oceans (1962); Schachter, O., The Role of International Law in the United Nations 3 New York Law Forum 26 (1957)Google Scholar; Sloan, B., The Binding Force of a “Recommendation” of the General Assembly of the UN, 25 Byil 1 (1948)Google Scholar; Sohn, L. B., The Development of the Charter of the United Nations: the Present State, in M. Boas The Present State of International Law: Essays for the Centenary Celebration of the International Law Association 56-58 (1973)Google Scholar.

49 9 UNCIO 316 (1945).

50 UN Docs. A/C.3/SR.1440, para. 9 and A/C.3/SR.1441, para. 40.

51 Report of the Inter-American Juridical Committee to the Inter-American Council of Jurists, Sept. 26, 1949.

52 For the United Nations, see, for instance Falk, supra note 48, at 177-78; R. Higgins, supra note 48, at 128; Sohn, supra note 48, at 55-59. For the OAS, see, for instance, Vasak, supra note 2, at 148-50.

53 Reference has often been made in this regard, for instance, to General Assembly resolutions condemning apartheid and practices of racial discrimination and to some resolutions relating to the (then) Portuguese African territories. For example, G.A. Res. 2714 (XXV) Dec. 15, 1970, after endorsing several specific findings of a UN investigatory committee, requested Portugal to observe the 1949 Geneva Conventions in its colonial wars. See on such matters, in particular, FALK, supra note 48, at 183, and R. Higgins, supra note 48, at 122.

54 See in particular Buergenthal, supra note 16, at 833; M. Ball, The Oas in Transition 119-20 (1969); C. G. Fenwick, the Organization of American States 155-57 (1963).

55 [1966] 2 Y. B. Int. L. Comm. 198-99.

56 See for instance: R Higgins, supra note 48, at 5 and 120-21; Louis B. Sohn supra note 48, at 56-57, and the authorities cited.

57 See, for instance, R. Higgins, supra note 48, at 121.

58 Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht in the South-West Africa-Voting Procedure Case, [1955] ICJ Rep. 118-20.

59 L. Goodrich, E. Hambro, and A. P. Simons, Charter of the United Nations: Commentary and Documents, 381 (3rd rev. ed. 1969).

60 UN Doc. A/10235, paras. 120-21.

61 J. De Meyer, supra note 2, at 91.

62 M. A. Eissen, supra note 2, at 245.

63 Res. 17(70) of the Committee of Ministers. See text in UN Doc. E/CN.4/1057/ Add.l.

64 See UN Doc. A/6546, para. 510, and Vasak, oral statement at the 1968 Buenos Aires Annual Conference of the International Law Association, in Proceedings of the Conference, 409 (1969). Mr. Vasak mentioned such a view, without necessarily subscribing to it.

65 See for instance Eissen, supra note 2, at 245; The Un and Human Rights, 18Th Report of the Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, 27, and 177 (1968); and opinion of Scheuner in International Protection of Human Rights, supra note 2, at 295.

Such views were expressed, along with many others, during the debates at the UN Commission on Human Rights on the question of establishing regional organs on human rights. See UN Docs. E/4816 paras. 109-24, E/CN.4/966 and Add. 1, and E/CN.4/975 and Add. 1 and 2.

66 UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1432, para. 38. See also J. De Meyer, supra note 2, at 91. The author mentions this view, without necessarily endorsing it.

67 UN Doc. A/C.3/SR.1432, para. 21.

68 Cox v. Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cases 506, and Eleko v. Governor-General of Nigeria (1928) App. Cases 459. See SirDawson, Oscar, The Writ of Habeas Corpus, UN Y.B. on Human Rights, 233 (1949)Google Scholar.

69 See for instance Jenks, Human Rights, Social Justice, and Peace in International Protection of Human Rights supra note 2, 254-55 (1968); Vasak, supra note 2, at 172-73.

70 See the debates of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of establishing regional organs on human rights, UN Docs. E/4816, paras. 109-24, E/CN.4/966 and Add. 1, E/CN.4/975 and Add. 1, at 2, and Commission Resolutions 6 (XXIII) and 6(XXVI). See also G.A. Res. 3151 D(XXVIII), Dec. 14, 1973, asking the Assembly's Special Committee Against Apartheid to intensify its cooperation with other international bodies dealing with this matter, especially as regards the investigation of complaints.

71 UN Doc. E/5488, para. 204.

72 W. Jenks, supra note 69, at 254.

73 Vasak, supra note 2, at 173.

74 Schwelb, E., Civil and Political Rights, The International Measures of Implementation, 62 AJIL 867 (1968)Google Scholar.

75 These observers were Mr. Ren? Cassin, one of the main framers of the Covenant, and Mr. Robertson of the Council of Europe. See OAS Docs. OEA/SER.K/XVI/I.1, Doc. 46, and Doc. 47/Corr. 1.

76 ECOSOC Resolution 1503(XLVIII), May 27, 1970 provides that the UN Commission on Human Rights may at an advanced stage of procedure set up an ad hoc committee of enquiry on condition inter alia that the situation should “not relate to a matter which is being dealt with under other procedures prescribed in the constituent instruments of, or conventions adopted by, the United Nations and the specialized agencies, or in regional conventions, or which the State concerned wishes to submit to other procedures in accordance with general or special international agreements to which it is a party.” At earlier stages of consideration by a working group of the Subcommission itself and by the Commission, no such requirement is imposed.

77 For instance, no coordination clause was included in the Rules of Procedure of the 1969 ILO Commission of Inquiry concerning Trade Union Rights in Greece, 54 ILO Off. Bull., No. 2, Special Supp. paras 47-57 (1971). The “Model Rules of Procedures for UN Bodies Dealing with Violations of Human Rights” (UN Doc. E / CN.4/1134), prepared by a working group of the Human Rights Commission in 1974, which the Economic and Social Council brought to the attention of all UN bodies competent in matters of human rights, do not contain any provision for coordination.