INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS – MIDSEM NOTES

1. Religious beliefs and IHL

At the outset, universality of Humans Rights is very difficult as religion
influences IHL and HR law.
IHL and HR impose a sense of responsibility on the state and
international community
Each religion influences them in a different way:

 Hinduism: moral sanctity

Vedas, Agamas, Upanishads address the necessity for moral behaviour,
the importance of duty (dharma) and good conduct toward others
suffering in need. Practice charity and compassion for the hungry, the
sick, the homeless, and the unfortunate. All life is sacred, to be loved and
respected. "Noninjury (ahimsa) is not causing pain to any living being at
any time through the actions of one's mind, speech or body." (Veda)

 Islam: equity and equality in a set context

Charity or lifting the burdens of those less fortunate is one of the pillars
of belief. The Qur-an speaks to justice, the sanctity of life, freedom,
mercy, compassion and respect for all human beings. All races are equal
and religious toleration should be guaranteed. The first declaration of
religious freedom in the world proclaimed that Jews and Christians shall
be protected from all insults and vexations; they shall have equal rights
and shall practice their religion as freely as the Muslims.

 Buddhism: respect for all, equality, charity.

Respect for all life and duties of compassion and charity; urged
renunciation of differences of caste and rank in favor of universal
brotherhood and equality.

 Christianity: equality
 Ultimately culture and background differs. Different jurists like
Rousseau also have opinions which have received recognition. This
diversity has often been a hurdle to the universality of IHL.
2. Intervention of International Humanitarian Law
Example: Libya – UN envoy asks other nations to leave Libya.
Cultural and Philosophical Roots

 Hsün-tzu, Chinese philosopher at 400 B.C opined that every

individual must be relieved from anxiety. Verbatim - "In order to
relieve anxiety and eradicate strife, nothing is as effective as the
 institution of corporate life based on a clear recognition of
individual rights."
 Greek philosophy (400 BC): developed the idea of natural law
including equal respect for all citizens, equality before the law,
equality in political power and suffrage, and equality of civil rights.
The development of natural law theory happened in this stage
(correlation between Human Rights and Natural Law)
Eg: Article 21 of Constitution is a classic example of natural law. No
person shall be deprived of life and liberty (natural law) except by
procedure established by law (positive law).

 Earliest code of HR – Babylon in 1795 – 1750 BC. It was through

development of customs. It aimed to destroy the evil doers.
It represented a codification and development of the customary law of
the region. While many aspects of it today are incompatible with human
rights (in particular the punishments imposed), other portions
established basic human rights principles such as equal protection of the
law and remedies for mistreatment of prisoners. In the Preamble
Hammurabi expresses the fundamental purposes of government: "to
bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked
and the evil-doers, so that the strong should not harm the weak . . . and
enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.”

 Ashoka in India (300 BC): He developed a law of armed conflict.

Eg: civilian life and property to be protected, battle only from sunrise to
sunset
Rights – Theories and Law
1. John Locke
Every individual person in the state of nature possesses certain natural
rights prior to the existence of any organized government. People are
born in a state of perfect equality and enjoy all rights equally. Societies
and governments are formed to preserve these rights, not to surrender
them.
2. Jean Jacques Rousseau
Every man if born free
3. Thomas Maine
Unity of mankind and equality. He ascribed inspiration to the religious
traditions that all observed the unity of humankind and the equality of all
individuals.
Notable events around the world which have conferred rights
upon people

 1188 AD – Kingdome of Lyon: right to assembly, fair trial, life

and dignity, home and property.
 1215 – Magna Carta; 1628 – Petition of Rights; 1679 –
Habeas Corpus Act (Civil Rights)
 1776 – Declaration of independence (HR are independent)
 1789 – Declaration of Rights of Men and Citizens
 1791 – Bill of Rights
 1865 and 1874 – Telegraph and Postal Union
Birth of IHL can be traced to the Battle of Solforino led by Henry
Dunant – the idea of armed conflict on humanitarian grounds.
3. Modern History of IHL and Human rights
The development of IHL only started after the World War II. IHL is the
law of armed conflict when one state is unable to protect its citizens.
Birth of HR – The progression of Human Rights is in this order:
No law – Natural Law – Natural Rights – Human Rights
Theories form the foundation of this law and was eventually led to
codification. The main theories were propounded by Salmond, Austin and
Bentham. However, what we find today as Human Rights is highly
influenced by Religion. In the codification of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, all religions participated and contributed. The first
semblance of Human Rights – codification of the International Labour
Organisation.
In India – Vishakha judgment: Basis is quality
Responsibility and obligations of States in HR law
The 3 duties of a state are:
 To respect individuals rights
 To protect individuals rights
 To fulfil rights given to individuals

 International human rights law lays down certain duties that a state
has to fulfil and is bound to respect
 By ratifying certain treaties the states are bound to respect human
rights obligations
 These obligations include the non-interference and non- curtailment of
a person enjoying his human rights
 Further a duty is imposed on the state to ensure that human rights are
not violated
 This essentially means that states must take positive action in order to
protect individuals from the violation of HRs
 Through the ratification of said treaties mentioned above states
essentially agree to have domestic legislation which is compatible with
treaty obligations
 When states fail to address issues regarding HR domestically then
there are international mechanisms available for the redressal of the
same
Typology of Obligations: What does the obligation to respect mean

 This essentially means that the state is refrained from interfering and
curtailing in the enjoyment of human rights
 It means that states are prevented from taking any action which may
undermine such enjoyment
 For instance, taking the case of right to education, the state must
respect the parent’s right to establish private schools for their
children and receive religious and moral education of their own choice

What does obligation to protect mean

 This means the duty of the state to protect the HRs of its own
individuals from non-state actors foreign agents etc
 This includes both a preventive and remedial dimension
 Thus an obligation is imposed on the state to protect the human rights
violations of its citizens when it knows or could have known that such
violations might take place
 It can do so by enacting national legislation
 For instance taking the right of education again children must be
prevented from indoctrination by religious fanatics clans etc
 Further the right of personal integrity requires the state to take
positive action to protect instances like domestic violence against
women and children etc
 The obligation to protect especially extends to the protection of the
rights of women who have been subjected to immense human rights
violations with the justification that the same comes under the sphere
of private
 The male bias in HR law essentially has to be dealt with by the states
What does obligation to fulfil mean

 The state is required to ensure that human rights are realised

 The extent of the obligation of the state to fulfil human rights depends
upon its resources
 For instance in the case of right to education the state must ensure
that it provides compulsory education vocational training to its people
etc
Human Rights as per UN: Rights inherent to all human beings,
whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic
origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally
entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights
are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.
Instance: Syrian Conflict – the laws of war and the Convention of rights
of child were violated. States have a well-defined obligation to protect
children even from statelessness. Although IHL finds application in such
a situation, the responsibilities under HR law cannot be discarded.
States may also have regional mechanisms to supplement this and
promote HRs.
CIL becomes important because of the diversity in the customs in
each country which are based on the religion of the respective
country.
Sources of Customary International Law
1. North Sea Continental Shelf Case: The Court held that to
decide whether a past practice is a custom, these two factors are
important.
 Consistency of the practice (Article 38(1) of ICJ Statute)
 Evidence that the practice is rendered obligatory by
existence of rule of law requiring it (principle of erga omnes)
The obligation concerned is the case was for equal public space for all.
Court held that Rule of Law means that the practice would be equally
applicable to all sections of public. Any restriction/ reservation by
positive law on basis of religion, race, etc, would be a violation.
Germany v. Denmark and Germany v. Netherlands on this: An
equal consideration is good faith and it imposes an obligation on
individuals as well.
Separate: Applicability of obligations under HR treaties is sketchy
because they are reciprocal like other International Treaties.
General International Law on this: Article 55 of the UN Charter:
provides for the protection of human rights. Thus the ICJ needs to
consider it a binding obligation of every state to protect HR irrespective
of whether they are a part of any specific treaty or not.
Hierarchy of Human Rights Treaties – the three principles
involved
1. Opinio Juris
It means opinion of law or opinion of necessity of state. It is the practice
of the Government. There is no written customary law. If this opinion of
law is without practice, it would not be considered customary law. It
must not just be the practice of the Governments, it must be practised by
the courts and the Parliament. Eg: India’s reservation on CEDAW.
2. Jus Cogens
Refers to the international law which obligates the international
community. They are peremptory principles or norms from which no
derogation is permittes.
A controversial question is whether there is a hierarchy of norms in
international law. Article 38 makes no reference to such a hierarchy but
it is possible to discern elements of a hierarchy in certain respects. It is
now generally acknowledged that a few rules of international law are of
such fundamental importance that they have the status of jus cogens that
is peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted. Whereas
States can always agree to depart (as between themselves) from ordinary
rules of customary international law, they are not free to depart from or
vary a rule of jus cogens. Thus, a treaty which conflicts with a jus cogens
rule is void (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 53)
and such a rule will prevail over inconsistent rules of customary
international law.
However, it is important to bear in mind that (a) there are very few rules
which possess the status of jus cogens (e.g. the prohibitions of
aggression, genocide, torture and slavery) and the criteria for achieving
such status are strict – near universal acceptance not merely as a rule
but as a rule from which no derogation is permitted; (b) cases of conflict
are very rare and the suggestion that such a conflict exists should be
carefully scrutinised (see, e.g. the rejection both by the ICJ – Arrest
Warrant case (2002) – and the English courts – Jones v. Saudi Arabia
(2006) – of the suggestion that the law on sovereign immunity conflicted
with the prohibition of torture).
A treaty prevails over customary law as between the parties to the treaty
but a treaty will not affect the rights of States not party to that treaty.
There is, therefore, no strict sense of hierarchy between treaty and
customary law, contrary to what is sometimes alleged.
Application: Article 53 of VCLT - Treaties conflicting with a peremptory
norm of general international law (jus cogens) A treaty is void if, at the
time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general
international law.
Article 64 - Emergence of a new peremptory norm of general
international law (jus cogens) If a new peremptory norm of general
international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with
that norm becomes void and terminates.
These two provisions have to be read together while deciding whether a
non-party state is bound by the core HR Treaties. It is found that any
reservation made by states have to be read with UDHR and cannot be
allowed to violate if in derogation of it. Apart from this, states would also
have to practise CIL along with Bilateral Investment Treaties.
Note: Tehran Hostage Case: Wrongfully restraining men – status of CIL
has to be given and they have to released. Corfu Channel Case:
Obligations based on general and well-recognised principles is labelled
as elementary principles of humanity. Nicaragua v. US: Fundamental
general principles of IHL as a source of obligation on defendant state in
the name of protection of Human Rights. East Timor Case: Principle of
self determination is one of the essential principle in CIL.
3. Erga Omnes
It is established by the international community. It is the obligation of the
state to give effect to the international law it has consented to. States
have responsibility to international community.
Article 55 and 56 of UN Charter.
Exceptions: Necessity and Self Defence
Eg: Optional Protocol to ICCPR – abolition of death penalty. Under Article
38(1)(b) – international custom is used as evidence of general practice
accepted by law.
Now, more focus is on the behaviour of the state because of custom
rather than practice. Universal application is required to not leave out
any states from obligations under ICCPR.
Who decides what is a custom? Argument: General Assembly to decide
what is a custom. Consideration to be given to rapporteurs, state, NGOs,
etc. instead of letting the tribunals deicide it at the time of conflict –
“behaviour has never been observed in international forum while giving
label”. The “why” of behaviour needs to be ascertained.
Custom should not exclusively rely on Art. 38(1). There is a need to look
at the behaviour of the state rather than just practice. Generally, States
are least bothered by other States’ practice unless that practice affects
their citizens. International community disagree with this because it
discriminates against their own citizens.
How does the international community accept the practice of a
state as custom?
The Court will look at the consistency of the practice followed by the
State as rule of law requires it. The duration of the practice is
immaterial. Under Art. 38(1)(b), a custom or practice may be recognised
by the international community. It should not violate HR even if it has not
signed the UDHR (North and the German cases).
Universal Nature of Human Rights
1. Legal Framework: binding on only signatories in bilateral treaties
but HR Convention is binding on all states.
2. Responsibility towards all the people of your territory, not
just your own citizens.
Hierarchy – VCLT maintains it. refer to jus cogens
Article 64 nullifies the effect of Art. 4 which prohibits retrospective effect
of the convention.
READ UDHR – All 30 Articles (First 21 are civil and political
rights; next 7 are economic, social and cultural rights; 1 is duty of
individual and last is interpretation not to destroy the object of
UDHR).
Extraterritoriality of Human Rights
How do international tribunals consider these matters: Jurisdiction is
distinguished from territory read with sovereignty. The treat is used as a
source of IL and while being read with sovereignty, it prevents atrocities
against nationals of other state and also nationals of the same state.
Extra-territoriality issues arise only when there is a non-declared armed
conflict.
Eg: 2011, when right to self-determination movements arose, they were
declared as armed conflict and it was considered that an obligation on
the international community was incumbent to address this situation.
The UN Charter, African Declaration and the UDHR collectively create
obligations under UN Human Rights Law.
Attribution: If the states have control over the actions that caused the
exploitation. However, the UDHR or the core 9 Treaties only consider
jurisdiction without attribution. Under ICCPR and Geneva Convention,
they protect against human degrading treatment.
States do not want their HR obligations to be considered as jurisdiction
along with attribution as they want these matters to be tried in their
courts. So, the states do not wish to take responsibility for violations
which occur areas under military occupation or out of its direct control.
This means that violations would occur but there would be no
responsibility on that state. This is however, during peace time.
In times of armed conflict, obligations are imposed on the military. If they
not within the state territory, state is not responsible. Even if is within
state territory, but state does not have full and effective control over
the violent groups causing these violations, they are not responsible.
For convenience, during armed conflicts, states do not apply the
standard under IHL, rather they apply Geneva convention. This is
because the obligations under the latter are less stringent than HR
obligations. Under HR obligations, they can be made directly responsible
for not taking actions whereas under IHL, they cannot be.
Article 2(1) of ICCPR: Creating obligation
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to
ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction
the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any
kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
“Cruel and degrading treatment” is considered as jus cogens as it is an
international criminal responsibility.
Convention against torture
Any territory within its jurisdiction. There is a difference between
domestic courts and international courts and their interpretation.
Who declares armed conflict?
States do and it is considered as a declaration. When there is an armed
conflict, IHL shall come into picture. Since state’s obligation cannot be
questioned there is a burden on the international community. However,
in cases of HR violations, the matters would not go before the
international tribunals.
Individual Criminal Responsibility (ICR)
3 regional mechanisms
1. Inter-American (discussed below)
2. European
 European Union (Court of Justice)
 Council of Europe (ECHR) known as supra-national mechanism
because every state has their own interpretation. Otherwise, it is
easily seen that states interpretation influence each other.
 In undefined peacetime, violations of HR would incriminate states.
3. African Mechanism – African Union and Charter
Language creates obligation regionally. If armed conflict, responsibility
according to the ICR on States but states where independent in such
situations cannot be made liable.
Theory of HR – If violation of HR occurs in X territory, then:
1. Responsibility is on the state when agents of another state
operating outside the national borders. In the peacetime, if any
violations occur, then it would go to the state under whose territory
the violation occurred.
2. Responsibility of the state when it fails to protect HR beyond the
national territory.
3. Obligation at time of international assistance by developed state to
developing state.
4. If a violation occurs, a joint action/commission is setup to take
action.
ECHR – Occupied Foreign Territory: it is required that state agents have
effective control of the armed groups. There is not need to have full
control.
De Facto – effective control. De Jure – Legal control – territory
1. Liozidou v. Turkey
National territory (read with jurisdiction, even if a state has its
sovereignty, may not be enjoying due to armed groups) should not
necessarily be construed as limited to the territory which falls under
sovereignty. Effective control of the state agents also creates an
obligation irrespective of whether this control is legitimate or not.
If there is occupation, state agents are responsible. If the state has
legitimate control and it has sought assistance from these agents, they
cannot shy from liability. If it is illegitimate control, then in cases where
there is lack of de facto and jure control, the state of the state agents
would need to take responsibility for their actions.
Eg: Gaaza Border Conflict
2. LLascu and Ors. v. Moldova and Russia (2004) (ECHR)
When the Government power is associated with the forces who have
effective control of the military force and the territorial govt., it is the
jurisdiction of the State. In such cases, states have territorial jurisdiction
and they may try the independent state agents.
Dissent by J. Nicholas: In such circumstances, states are not responsible.
The state can be held liable only when they enjoy sovereignty, if not,
there is no liability.
ECHR does not differentiate between full and effective control. It
considers that whenever state is considered, it is considered sovereign
and so has jurisdiction and responsibility.
3. Cyprus v. Turkey (2001) – concurred with previous judgment
If the states has control over its territory (de jure) but de facto lies with
illegitimate occupation by independent neighbouring state, then such
state would be considered to have control and cannot be left off
responsibility. Held that the matters have to go to the Cyprian Courts.
4. Assanidze v. Georgia (2001)
Observation to decide state responsibility and jurisdiction. The applicant
had been held in custody in the Ajarian Autonomous Republic which
comes within the State of Georgia. The people in that region did not wish
to be governed by Georgian Law that was in 1993. Assanidze was
acquitted by the Supreme Court however, the Republic did not follow
this.
Go through the internet for the rest. Points for that – Article 2(1), 5(1) of
ECHR

Whether the State is under any obligation to comply with HR

outside its national territory?
There are 3 situations
1. State exercises extensive powers outside its borders by
sending State agents abroad (with or without the assent of
the other state)
Lopez Burzos v. State of Uruguay
Ratione loci – restricted to territory. Refers to the application of HR only
in own state. In this case, Lopez deported to Argentina. He got status as
refugee as per the Refugee Convention, 1951. The state followed the
principle of non-reforment which prevents a state from sending back a
person unless the person wants to leave. He cited fear of persecution as
a ground for this refugee status. Uruguay kidnapped him through
intelligence forces. They asked for help from Argentina which detained
him for 2 weeks in inhumane conditions with degrading treatment. He
was then illegally transported back along with other people.
A HR Committee was constituted to discuss this matter. They opined that
it was Argentina’s responsibility since he was given refugee status by
them.
Note: Non-reforment theory says there is no extra-territoriality.
However, Article 33 of Refugee Convention read with Art. 5, 14 of UDHR
makes it clear that even a non-member to this convention have such an
obligation. Once a convention is signed, a state guarantees that there will
be no violation of HR in their territory.
2. Supreme Court of USA overruled by Court of Inter-American
HR
Haiti v. USA
A few Haitians were persecuted in Haiti. Due to this, they fled by boat
and were on the high seas. The US intelligence caught wind of this and
attempted to prevent their entry into their territory but they entered
anyway.
The question was whether the act of denying entry a violation of
obligation?
Supreme Court held that USA has not violated any law. No US law
applies outside the territory – rights preserved to deny entry by US Navy.
Refugee law applicability only when they enter US territory, not outside.
The Inter-American Court held that its has extra-territorial effect and US
was responsible to fulfil that obligation.
3. Assistance/ improving the situation of a state by
international community where there is a lack of resources
By resolution of UNGA, not the Eco and Social Council as this is not a
debt. It is financial assistance by international community. HR protection
is still afforded.
Reservations in Human Rights
Article 19 of the VCLT allows a state to make reservations while
ratifying or signing a treaty. For example, Germany withdrew her
reservation to the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 2011. The
reservation excluded children without German citizenship or legal
residency status from protection by the CRC.
Article 19
Every state is allowed to make a reservation unless:
1. Such reservation is prohibited by the treaty
Eh: CCW, Anti-personal mines Treaty, Kyoto Protocol, Stockholm
Declaration
RUD – Reservations, Understandings and declarations is not a
reservation. If a state says that they will interpret a provision in a
particular way, it is allowed.
2. Treaty provides only specified reservations (normally not provided
in HR treaties).
3. Incompatible with object and purpose
There are many problems which arise in this regard as there is no
definition of the same and there exists no international authority or test
available to determine the same. The states themselves have to decide
the procedure. However, states are not allowed to make vague and
general reservations.
Reservation of Kuwait in ICCPR
The right exercise as mentioned in ICCPR must be within the ambit of
Kuwait Law. This reservation was rejected (the objection was taken by
Finland, Sweden, Norway and Germany).
The procedure for passing reservation is that no state should object to
the same.
Article 20 – Acceptance of and objection to reservations
The acceptance has to be in writing and there must not have been an
objection to the reservation made within twelve months of the same.
US reservation on ICCPR
Capital punishment for even persons below 18 years of age and
reasonable restriction on speech.
Note: When it appears from the limited number of the negotiating States
and the object and purpose of a treaty that the application of the treaty in
its entirety between all the parties is an essential condition of the
consent of each one to be bound by the treaty, a reservation requires
acceptance by all the parties.
“it appears from the limited number of the negotiating States” – three
categories of states are envisaged in this discussion
1. Those states who are party to the convention with no objection
2. Those states who are party to the convention with objections
3. Those states who are non-party to the convention
Article 21 – Legal effect of reservation
Do not apply as between 2 states to the extent of the reservation.
Article 22 - Withdrawal of reservations
“may be done at any time”
“consent of state which had accepted the reservation not required”
Automatically applied on those states which had objected the reservation.
On withdrawal, automatic application of treaty between those two states.
Example: Convention against torture. Questioning India for not singing.
RUD – differs based on different democracies legal effect only with
reservations. No recognition for understanding on declaration – as a
reservation. However, there is no recognition. But states use
understanding and declaration to clarify – no legal effect as “non-
binding”. Not a denial of the duty under a Convention. Only reservation
has legal effect.
Theories applicable on democratic countries
First Distinction
1. Monoist – acceptance of international instruments
On ratification, such instruments will be considered a part of domestic
law.
2. Dualist – on acceptance, require separate national
legislation.
As per UN Data, monoist countries do not usually have a lot of
reservations in compassion to dualist countries. Note: How can they
make reservations? By drawing compassion to their custom, conflict with
national law is less.
Second Distinction – Liberal States (Parliamentary democracy)
and Other States
Reasons, ground and consequences of reservations
 1. When the state demands RUDs, that itself does not defeat the
object and purpose of the convention. It is an entitlement of the
state.
2. RUDs are not binding between the objecting and reserving state.
3. More democratic state enters into the RUD so that the existing
behaviour of the state can be characterised as compliance (to show
international community that the State has strong domestic law).
International Human Rights Mechanism
Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights – Observer and the
Highest Body. It was established in 1993. It regularly comments on
Human Rights situations in the world and has the authority to investigate
situations and issue reports on them.

 The HR Council gets the mandate to appoint experts who are

working groups.
 HR Treaty bodies – 10 in number along with optional protocols
 Special procedures – independent experts working on voluntary
basis. UNGA passes the resolution for this.
 UNDG – HRM: UN Development group’s human rights
mainstreaming – mechanism:
 Special advisors on the prevention of genocide and Responsibility
to Protect (R2P). They act as signal provider. Also act as catalyst to
raise awareness of the causes of genocide.
 UNSC – deals with HR violations often in conflict areas.
2002 and 2012 resolution on arms embargo, restrictions on travel etc. by
SC.

 Third Committee of the UNGA focuses on social, humanitarian and

cultural examines a range of issues and addresses important
development questions.
 Secretary General – appoints special representatives.
Eg: Special Representative of Secretary General for Children and Armed
Conflict. Optional Protocol to Convention of Rights of Child.

 UN Peace Operation – this body sends UN representatives to the

field – first hand information
 Commission on Status of Women – UN women serves as its
secretariat.
Eg: Libya – UNOHCHR sends people to obtain first hand information to
see if action is required. HRC gets the information and evaluates. If
action is needed, appointment of experts is done. Then, UNGA and UNSC
get involved.
UN Office of HCHR
I. Charter Based Bodies
Human Rights Council
Universal Periodic Review
Special Procedure
II. Treaty Based Bodies – These committees are established on
the basis of conventions.
CAT
CRC
CMW
CERD
CEDAW – These are committees
Human Rights Committee under ICCPR
India is a party to 6 Conventions and I Optional Protocol: UDHR, CEDR,
ICESCR, CRC – OP, CRPD, CAT, PMW
Note: UNHRC was created in 2006 replacing the UN Commission on
Human Rights. USA withdrew from UNHRC.
Election – 47 States. India is a member till 2021. It is an
intergovernmental body.
Membership – equitable geographic distance. Not eligible for immediate
re-election after 2 consecutive terms. Term is 3 years.
Switzerland discussion – status, military and membership.
Mechanism – there are 2 working groups (they are independent) – one
on communications and one on situations (investigative). They are
confidential to ensure state co-operation. They adopt a victim oriented
approach.
2017 – Universal Periodic Review on India’s situation
What is UPR?
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a new human rights mechanism
of the Human Rights Council (HRC) created on March 15, 2006 by the
UN General Assembly resolution 60/251.1 The UPR reviews the
fulfillment by all 192 UN member States (or countries) on their human
rights obligations and commitments, as well as their progress,
challenges, and needs for improvement. Countries are reviewed every
four years
The UPR was created in response to criticism that previous UN
mechanisms focused too much on certain regions. The UPR is designed
to be applied more universally and uniformly.
How does UPR work?
Unlike the review process of the treaty bodies such as the Committee on
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), which is conducted by
independent experts, the UPR is a peer review – based on the model used
by the African Union. This is an innovative and cooperative mechanism
based on an interactive dialogue between the country that is reviewed
and any other UN country. During this interactive dialogue, the country
under review presents its report, answers questions, and receives
recommendations from other countries. The interactive dialogue is
followed by the informal adoption of an ―outcome document‖ that
includes all the recommendations made to the country under review. The
outcome document is officially adopted at the next Human Rights Council
regular session.
Regional Mechanisms - Statute of the Inter-American Court on
Human Rights
Regional Documents
1. American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man
2. American Convention on Human Rights
3. Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture
4. Protocol of San Salvador": Additional Protocol to the American
Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights "
5. Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish
the Death Penalty
6. "Convention of Belem do Pará": Inter-American Convention on the
Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against
Women
7. Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons
8. Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Person with Disabilities
9. Inter-American Convention Against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
and Related Forms of Intolerance
 10. Inter-American Convention Against All Forms of
Discrimination and Intolerance
11. Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights
of Older Persons
12. Charter of the Organization of American States
13. Inter-American Democratic Charter
14. Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
15. Statute of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights
Introduction – Inter-American Convention on Human Rights
• The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (the Court) and its
sister institution, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
(the Commission, or IACHR) are charged with protecting human
rights.
• The Commission was established in 1959 and began to operate in
1960.
• In 1969, the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted the
American Convention on Human Rights (the American Convention),
which called for the creation of the Court.
• The Court began to actually operate in 1979, after the eleventh
state ratification brought the American Convention into force.
• Within the Inter-American Human Rights System, the Court and
the Commission play distinct yet complementary roles. The Court
resolves contentious disputes and issues advisory opinions on
specific questions of law. The Commission has a much broader role.
It acts as the first step in the admissibility process for contentious
cases, promotes friendly settlements between parties, and
investigates and presents reports on human rights conditions in
American States, even where no legal claim has been filed.
• The official languages of the OAS, the Court, and the Commission
are English, Spanish, Portuguese, and French. Most work,
however, is conducted in Spanish and English.
• Both the Court and the Commission are composed of seven
members. Judges on the Court serve six-year terms and may be re-
elected once. Members of the Commission serve four-year terms
and may also be re-elected once.
 • Candidates are proposed by Member States of the OAS, and voted
upon by the General Assembly [OAS-GA]—including those States
which have not recognized the jurisdiction of the Court.
• Judges and Commission Members serve in their personal capacity,
and may be nominated by any Member State, not just their country
of citizenship.
• The American Convention on Human Rights specifies that members
of the Court should be ―jurists of the highest moral authority and
of recognized competence in the field of human rights.
• Nominations have occasionally been marred by politics, cronyism,
and perhaps intentional attempts to undermine the effectiveness of
the Court.
• Article 55 of the Convention provides that a country called to
appear before the Court may appoint a national to be involved in
the hearing of that case only, if there is not already one member of
the bench from that country. [now the system has changed]
• This provision was meant to ensure that at least one member of the
deliberating panel understands the domestic legal system, which is
often relevant for the exhaustion of remedies analysis.
• Unfortunately, the procedure was frequently abused. Peru and
Guatemala in particular have had a practice of appointing ad hoc
judges who dissent from an otherwise unanimous bench to
recommend a holding more favourable to their State.
• The Court closed the door to such abuse in 2009, issuing an
advisory opinion interpreting Article 55 to apply only in cases
brought by one State against another.
• The Court subsequently revised its rules of procedure to prohibit
even regular judges from sitting in any case brought by alleged
human rights victims against their own State.
Functions
• The Court operates as a forum of last resort for complaints of
human rights abuses that are not adequately addressed by
domestic remedies.
• The Commission assists the Court in identifying and handling these
cases, and also develops separate activities of human rights
monitoring and promotion in order to prevent future abuses.
• The Commission fulfils this mandate through a variety of activities.
First, the Commission monitors the situation of human rights in all
countries of the hemisphere, publishing reports on subjects and countries
of special concern.he Commission may also establish special
rapporteurships to bring attention to topics and themes of concern in the
Americas and propose amendments and additional protocols to the
Convention, to be voted upon by the General Assembly of the OAS.
Second, the Commission receives and processes complaints of specific
human rights abuses. If the claim is admissible and has merit, the
Commission will seek to negotiate a friendly settlement between the
offending State and the injured party, or make a finding of fault and
recommendations as to how the State should resolve the matter. In one
recent year, the Commission received over 1376 individual petitions,
declaring forty-nine to be admissible, reaching four friendly settlements,
and producing seven reports on the merits.
• If the State does not comply with the recommendations and has
accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, the Commission
may submit the matter to the Court, which has the power to issue
legally binding orders to the State.
• A State may also refer a case to the Court if it wishes to challenge
the Commission‘s finding of responsibility.
• The Court determines whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case,
entertains preliminary objections, and rules on whether a State has
committed a violation of human rights as set forth in the American
Convention on Human Rights and the American Declaration of the
Rights and Duties of Man.
• If the Court finds that a violation has occurred, it may award
injunctive relief and compensatory damages.
• The Court has two additional tools available to protect and promote
human rights in the hemisphere.
First, it has the power to order ‘provisional measures’ also referred to as
‘precautionary measures’—to prevent irreparable harm in cases of
extreme gravity and urgency. Procedurally, this is similar to the use of a
preliminary injunction in U.S. courts. These may be issued, at the request
of the Commission, even where no case is before the Court. In practice,
provisional measures are most frequently used to order State Parties to
delay an imminent execution or provide protection to other persons who
have been threatened with other bodily harm.
Second, the Court may issue advisory opinions interpreting the human
rights obligations of States under the American Convention or other
treaties protecting human rights in the hemisphere, upon the request of
a State Party or any OAS organ including the Commission. States may
also request the Court to issue an advisory opinion regarding the
compatibility of their laws with applicable human rights instruments.
Jurisdiction
• The jurisdiction of the Commission and Court is bounded both
geographically and by subject matter. Both institutions have
supreme competence to interpret and apply the human rights
treaties of the OAS.
• In resolving petitions and cases, the Inter-American human rights
bodies may also consider other international human rights treaties
ratified by a particular State, which may impose additional
obligations or aid in the interpretation of regional treaties.
• The Commission may investigate and report on the human rights
situation in any country in the hemisphere. The Commission may
receive individual petitions alleging a violation of the American
Convention or other OAS convention or protocol by any State Party
to the Convention. It may also receive petitions alleging a violation
of the American Declaration by States which have not ratified the
Convention.
• The Court‘s contentious jurisdiction may be exercised only over
States which recognize the Court‘s jurisdiction. In order to do so, a
State must both ratify the Convention and issue a separate
statement acceding to the jurisdiction of the Court.
• A State that has declined to grant full jurisdiction may permit the
Court to consider a particular case by recognizing its jurisdiction
on an ad hoc basis.
• A State that has previously recognized the Court‘s jurisdiction may
later renounce it. The State remains responsible to the Court for
any human rights violations committed before the date of
renunciation.
• States over which the Court currently has jurisdiction include:
Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama,
Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
• Members of the OAS that have not submitted to the jurisdiction of
the Court include: Antigua & Barbuda, Bahamas, Belize, Canada,
 Guyana, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines,
Trinidad & Tobago (withdrawn).
• The Court‘s jurisdiction is also limited by subject matter. The Court
is specifically empowered to hear allegations of state violations of
the American Convention and other binding human rights
instruments of the OAS.
• Several categories of human rights violations that may be
considered by the Commission may not be considered by the Court.
• Petitions arising from the Declaration against a State that is not a
party to the Convention may not proceed to the Court. Thus,
alleged violations of economic, social, and cultural rights may be
heard by the Court only if the State involved has ratified the San
Salvador Protocol.
• The Court‘s contentious jurisdiction is limited by two additional
procedural requirements. The Court must be satisfied that the
petitioner alleging the human rights violation has exhausted
available domestic remedies.
• Also, the case must be referred to the Court by the State involved
or by the Commission, after the latter has duly followed its
procedures for seeking a resolution to the case outside of the
Court.
• The Court‘s advisory jurisprudence is also limited by principles of
personal and subject matter jurisdiction. A request for an advisory
opinion may be initiated only by an OAS Member State or by an
OAS organ within its field of competence.
• Thus, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights may
request an advisory opinion on any matter relating to the American
Convention.
Procedure
• All individual petitions originate in the Commission, and are subject
to the requirement of domestic exhaustion.
• Once a petition has made its way through the Commission, if no
settlement has been reached, it may be forwarded to the Court for
adjudication.
• An individual petition may be initiated with the Commission by any
person, groups of persons, or non-governmental organization.
Petitions may allege a violation of the petitioner‘s own rights or
those of another person.
 • The Executive Secretariat of the Commission first performs an
initial review to ensure that the petition is complete and properly
submitted.
• It then forwards the relevant portions of the petition to the State
involved for comment on the petition‘s admissibility.
• The identity of the individual or organization lodging the petition
will be withheld from the State unless the petitioner expressly
authorizes its disclosure.
• In general, the State has two months to file its observations on
admissibility, although extended or expedited schedules are
possible depending on the merits of the case.
• Once the Commission receives the State‘s observations, or if the
State fails to reply within the allotted time, the Commission will
proceed to make a determination of admissibility.
• The Working Group on Admissibility studies each petition to make
an initial recommendation on admissibility. The Commission
Members make the final decision. To be admissible, three
conditions must hold:
First, the petition must allege facts which establish a violation of the
recognized human rights.
Second, the petitioner must have reasonably exhausted remedies
available in the domestic legal system, and must have lodged the petition
within six months of notification of the final domestic decision.
Third, the petition must not duplicate proceedings in another
international body.
• When the Commission deems a petition admissible, a case is
opened and proceedings on the merits are initiated.
• Petitioners must file observations on the merits within three
months, after which the State has three months to prepare its
reply.
• If a State refuses to cooperate with the Commission and files no
reply, the facts alleged in the petition may be presumed true.
• The Commission may also request that the parties appear at a
hearing or that an on-site investigation be permitted to establish
facts in dispute.
• If both parties are willing, the Commission will attempt to negotiate
a friendly settlement of the claim.
• When the Commission concludes that a violation of human rights
has taken place, it prepares a preliminary report including its
recommendations for how the State should redress the violation,
and transmits it to the State.
• The preliminary report also includes a deadline by which the State
is expected to report what measures it has adopted to comply with
the recommendations.
• If any part of the Commission‘s report on the merits does not
represent the unanimous conclusion of the members, they may file
a separate opinion.
• Although the Commission may issue a final report with a finding of
responsibility and recommendations, such a report is not legally
binding.
• If a State chooses not to comply with the recommendations, the
Commission may refer the case to the Court, which does have the
power to issue legally binding findings and awards.
• Technically, this decision to bring the case to the Court rests solely
with the Commission, not the individual petitioner.
• The Procedures of the Commission instruct, however, that the
desires of the petitioner should be given weight in the decision to
refer a case to the Court.
• A State may also choose to refer the case to the Court, if it wishes
to challenge the Commission‘s finding of responsibility. Cases
retain the name of Petitioner v. State by which they were known
during proceedings in the Commission.
• The 2009 reforms, however, give the alleged victims greater
control of the legal proceedings, while relegating the Commission
to a supporting role.
• Concretely, the Commission no longer files briefs or leads
questioning of witnesses; these responsibilities are assumed by the
alleged victims, through their counsel.
• A key difference is that the Court will appoint, at its own expense,
legal representation for alleged victims who cannot afford to retain
private counsel.
• The Court has justified the reforms as providing greater agency to
victims and preserving the neutrality of the Commission.
• Pragmatically, the shift also reduces the workload of the under-
resourced Commission.
Enforcement
• The American Convention and the OAS Charter are vague on the
subject of how the Court‘s judgments should be enforced.
• The Convention does, however, direct the Commission and the
Court to submit annual reports to the General Assembly of the
OAS, which provides some enforcement oversight.
• The General Assembly regularly discusses human rights issues at
its sessions. Occasionally, it issues resolutions urging action on
issues of special concern identified by the Commission and Court.
• The General Assembly of the OAS also has the discretionary
authority to pass sanctions against States that have not complied
with the recommendations of the Commission or orders of the
Court.
• For example, the General Assembly instituted broad-based
economic sanctions against Haiti in the 1990s after a military junta
took over the government and ousted the elected president.
CASE LAW
1. Ms. I.V. v. Bolivia
• I.V. v Bolivia [30th November, 2016] is the first case the Inter-
American Court of Human Rights has heard on informed consent to
medical treatment and the first case alleging forced sterilization. It
is only the second reproductive rights case considered by this
Court.
• On October 22, 2008, the Commission received a communication
from the State with its observations on the exhaustion of domestic
remedies and on the merits of the case. The State's observations
were transmitted by the Commission to the petitioner on October
31, 2008, with a request for a reply within one month.
Facts
• Ms. I.V. was born in Peru. While living in Peru she was detained by
the Counter-Terrorist Directorate, a branch of the National Police
of Peru in two separate occasions.
• While in custody, she was physically, psychologically, and sexually
assaulted. She had two daughters in Peru, and in 1993 she fled to
La Paz, Bolivia, where she  and her family were granted refuge.
 • On July, 2000, I.V. went to the emergency room of the Women’s
Hospital in La Paz after her water broke, and she received a
caesarean section.
• During the procedure, complications arose due to multiple
adhesions in the lower segment of her uterus.
• The following morning, the doctor informed I.V. that her Fallopian
tubes had been tied and that she would not be able to have children
again. According to I.V. the tubal ligation was performed without
her prior and informed consent. 
• Later that year, I.V. submitted a series of complaints before the
relevant medical regulatory bodies, where the doctor argued that
he obtained I.V.’s verbal consent during the trans-operative period,
while I.V. was under epidural anesthesia.
Decision – Provisions of Convention read by Commission and
Court
• Access to information and founding a family, recognized in Articles
5.1 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7.1 (Right to Personal Liberty),
11.1 and 11.2 (Right to Privacy), 13.1 (Freedom of Expression) and
17.2 (Rights of the Family) of the American Convention, to the
detriment of Ms. I.V.
• I.V. learned that she had been sterilized she felt devastated, and
has been seeking justice ever since.
• The right to health requires respect for the will of the individual
person with respect to his or her own well-being. To that effect,
informed consent should be regarded as an essential aspect of the
right to health.
• The Commission concluded that the surgical intervention
constituted a violation of Mrs. I.V.’s physical and psychological
integrity, as well as of her right to live free of violence and
discrimination and her right to access to information and to a
private and family life, understanding that reproductive autonomy
is part of such rights. The Commission also concluded that the
State did not provide the victim with an effective judicial response
to these violations.
In its Merits Report on the case, the Commission recommended
that:
 The State of Bolivia provide full reparation to the victim for the
human rights violations that were established, taking into
 consideration her perspective and needs, including compensation
for the material and moral damages she suffered;
 Provide I.V. with high-quality medical treatment, tailored to her
needs and appropriate to treat the conditions she suffers from;
 Investigate the facts related to the sterilization of I.V. without her
consent and establish the appropriate responsibility and
punishment; and
 Adopt the non-repetition measures necessary so that similar
incidents do not happen in the future, and
 In particular, review the policies and practices applied at all
hospitals with respect to obtaining patients’ informed consent.
The Commission also recommended that:
1. the State adopt legislation, public policies, programs, and
directives to ensure respect for every person’s right to be informed
and guided on health matters and not to be submitted to
interventions or treatments without his or her informed consent,
when applicable;
2. investigate the flawed practices of the judiciary and related
agencies that allow extended delays in judicial proceedings; and
3. adopt any measures that may be necessary to guarantee effective
access to justice through due process and a prompt and efficient
administration of justice.

 The Inter-American Commission submitted Case 12.655 to the

Inter-American Court’s jurisdiction on April 23, 2015, because it
deemed that the State of Bolivia had not complied with the
recommendations contained in the Commission’s Merits Report.
The Commission submitted to the Court the entirety of the facts in
Merits Report 72/14.
 Recognizing the importance of personal autonomy as a constitutive
element of the personality, the Court held that “the informed
consent of the patient is a sine qua non condition for the medical
intervention, which is based on the respect for the personal
autonomy and freedom to choose her life plans without
interference.”
 In other words, the Court acknowledged that informed consent
ensures the effectiveness of the rule that recognizes autonomy as
an inalienable element of the dignity of the person.
 The Court held that the State violated the woman’s rights to
personal integrity, personal freedom, private and family life, access
to information and rights to found a family, and to be free from
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to the dignity of
 a human being, all contained in the American Convention on
Human Rights. The State had also violated its duties to condemn all
forms of violence against women under the Convention of Belem do
Pará.  In finding these violations, the Court recognized that
sterilization without consent annulled the right to freely make
decisions regarding one’s body and reproductive capacity, resulting
in loss of control over one’s most personal and intimate decisions,
with lasting implications.
2. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988): analyzing mass and
gross violations of human rights involving forced disappearances in
the context of authoritarianism and dictatorships
Facts
• Angel Manfredo Velásquez Rodríguez disappeared on September
12, 1981, in downtown of Honduras. His friends and family never
saw him again, the Honduran government denied any knowledge or
involvement in his disappearance, and the Honduran courts would
not hear the family’s case.
• The petition in the Velásquez Rodriguez case was filed with the
Commission in October 1981, alleging that the Honduran
government was responsible for Manfredo Velásquez’s
disappearance.
• Disappearances constitute one of the most egregious violations of
human rights because they are perpetrated by State authorities
who later deny any knowledge or involvement in the situation.
• For Manfredo Velásquez’s family, along with the families of many
other victims, disappearances were a grim political and legal
reality in Latin America during the 1970s and 1980s
• The government of Honduras failed to provide the Commission with
evidence and information about the disappearance.
• Honduras’s lack of cooperation left the Commission with no option
but to presume the validity of the facts as alleged by the petitioner,
a presumption provided for at that time in Article 42 of the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure.
• The Commission’s report on the merits indicated that Manfredo
Velásquez had been detained and most likely disappeared because
of state agents in Honduras, and that his disappearance violated
the right to life (Article 4) and the right to personal liberty (Article
7) of the American Convention.
 • The Commission recommended investigation and punishment of
those guilty as well as reparations.
• In 1985, after General Alvarez, the military strongman of
Honduras, was ousted from power, the new government of
Honduras requested additional time to conduct an internal
investigation.
• However, the investigation concluded with a four-sentence report
stating that there was no evidence connecting anyone in the
military to the disappearance.
• Consequently, in April 1986, the Commission affirmed its earlier
recommendation in its entirety and referred the case to Court.
Decision
• The American Convention does not explicitly criminalize
disappearances. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that forced
disappearances constitute multiple and continuous violations of the
rights enshrined in the Convention.
• The Court concluded that the practice of disappearances violated
four articles of the American Convention, specifically Articles 1
(duty to guarantee), 4 (right to life), 5 (right to personal integrity),
and 7 (right to personal liberty). “The kidnapping of a person is an
arbitrary deprivation of liberty, an infringement of a detainee’s
right to be taken without delay before a judge and to invoke the
appropriate procedures to review the legality of the arrest, all in
violation of Article 7 of the Convention which recognizes the right
to personal liberty.
• The Court interpreted Article 5’s provisions regarding cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment, concluding that they prohibit
incommunicado detention. It also found that prolonged and isolated
imprisonment harms the “psychological and moral integrity of the
person.
• Finally, the Court acknowledged that disappearances involving
clandestine executions without trials and clandestine burials
violated the right to life under Article 4.
• The Court characterized the practice of disappearances as violating
even more than the specific articles of the Convention, stating that
“[t]he practice of disappearances … shows a crass abandonment of
the values which emanate from the concept of human dignity and
of the most basic principals of the Inter-American system and the
Convention.”
 3. Barrios Altos v. Peru (2001), addressing the legacy of
dictatorships, particularly with regard to impunity
The case of Barrios Altos involves extrajudicial killings in the context of
Peru’s fight against terrorism. The analysis of the case is particularly
significant because it addresses amnesty laws enacted by the Peruvian
government for the purposes of preventing investigation of crimes and
protecting human rights violators. The facts that led to this case occurred
on November 3, 1991, when six armed members of the military entered a
building in the Barrios Altos neighbourhood in Lima, Peru, while the
victims were having a fundraising party. The armed group ordered
everyone to drop to the floor and opened fire indiscriminately.
• As a result, fifteen people were killed and another four were
injured. The incident was linked to the “Grupo Colina,” a division
within the Peruvian army that acted as a death squad in the fight
against terrorism.
• Information gathered later from different sources suggested that
prior to this incident there were a series of terrorist attacks
attributed to Sendero Luminoso (the Shining Path) that could have
triggered the military attack.
• The validity of these claims, however, was never proven before the
Inter-American Court.
• Although the events occurred in 1991, the first judicial
investigation into the incident did not occur until 1995. This
investigation was suspended after the Peruvian Congress issued
law No. 26479, which “exonerated members of the army, police
forces and also civilians who had violated human rights or taken
part in such violations from 1980 to 1995 from responsibility.
• After several attacks on the constitutionality of the amnesty laws,
fearing that a judicial decision striking down the laws was
forthcoming, the Peruvian Congress passed law No. 26492,
“directed at interfering with legal action in the Barrios Altos case,”
adding that the amnesty law could not be reviewed by any judicial
authority. Consequently, judicial actions challenging the
constitutionality of the amnesty laws in question were abandoned
and any pending investigations were closed.
• The case was brought before the Inter-American system in 1995.
Peru’s first response to the case was to defend the amnesty laws,
claiming that they were exceptional measures adopted based on
the urgent need to fight terrorism in the country. The Commission
rejected this argument, and on June 8, 2000, the Commission filed
 a petition with the Court in light of Peru’s refusal to investigate the
claims and compensate the victims.
• In the proceedings before the Court, the Peruvian government,
after unsuccessfully trying to withdraw its recognition of the
Court’s contentious jurisdiction, recognized its international
responsibility in the case for the violations of Articles 4 (right to
life), Article 5 (right to personal integrity), Article 8 (right to due
process), and Article 25 (access to justice) of the American
Convention. The Court additionally declared that Articles 1 and 2 of
the Convention had been violated.
• The Court expanded on the incompatibility of amnesty laws with
the Convention, stating that [t]his Court considers that all amnesty
provisions, provisions on prescription and establishment of
measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible,
because they are intended to prevent the investigation and
punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations
such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and
forced disappearances, all of them prohibited because they violate
non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.
• Furthermore, the Court added that “self-amnesty laws lead to the
defencelessness of victims and perpetuate impunity; therefore, they
are manifestly incompatible with the aims and spirit of the
Convention.”