2. Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection
Legal basis: treaties and declarations
Relevant institutions
Novel characteristics

3. OAS Charter and the American Declaration
Establish HR standards for all OAS members.
Declaration is a first.
But…Declaration is not legally binding, and
Charter is not very specific.

4. American Convention
A binding treaty, addresses civil and political rights in detail.
Of the 35 OAS States, 23 have ratified the Convention. (2 states have recently denounced)

5. Member States of the OAS and their Treaty Obligations
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, United States, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, St. Kitts y Nevis, Santa Lucia, San Vicente and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago(*), Uruguay, and Venezuela (*).
States that have ratified the Convention (23):
Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Suriname, Uruguay.
States that have accepted the Court’s Jurisdiction (20):
Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic, Suriname, Uruguay.
Suspended:
2009: Cuba back in, Honduras out!
(*) Trinidad-Tobago and Venezuela denounced the Convention.
Source: Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights

6. Inter-American Commission
Jurisdiction over all OAS member states
Gitmo
Country visits and reports
Individual petitions
Precautionary measures
Independent of a petition; Laparra, Nestora
Hearings: themes or indiv cases
Peruvian Amazon

7. Petition process Flexible procedures
Prolonged silence from gov leads to the presumption of truth
Once admissible, Commission must attempt friendly settlement (unlike HRC).
Laparra: a first
If it finds violations, it prepares a confidential report with recs.
If case not submitted to Court, final report may be published.

9. Inter-American Commission Novel points and recent developments
Many roles weaken position relative to state?
Cases are getting larger
Cases now more diversified
Time of transition

10. Inter-American Court: getting there
State must make special declaration.
Only States and Commission can refer case.
State given two months to comply with Commission’s report.
Majority decision to prevent submission to Court.

11. Inter-American Court: procedures
Once at Court, petitioners are autonomous
Public hearings: often consolidate prelim objections, merits and reparations.
Provisional measures: on motion by Comm and Ct. Once at Ct, by victims as well.
Carpio, Barbados cases
All rulings by Court are binding.

12. Inter-American Court Advisory opinions
Interpret American Convention or “other treaties concerning human rights in American states”
Authoritative interpretations of law.
Rights of migrant workers, children…
Clinic: hearing advisory opinion

13. Inter-American Court Novel points and recent developments
Jura novit curia: ambitious application
“court has the power and the duty to apply the relevant legal provisions”
Not as much burden on petitioner
New fund (2010): costs before Ct Extensive remedies and assertive compliance mechanism
Vida digna

14. SARAYAKU
natural resources found on and within indigenous and tribal people’s territories that are protected under Article 21 are those natural resources traditionally used and necessary for the very survival, development and continuation of such people’s way of life

15. SARAYAKU three safeguards: a) effective participation
B) reasonable benefit from any such plan within their territory
C) no concession unless and until independent and technically capable entities, with the State’s supervision, perform a prior environmental and social impact assessment