Efforts to reduce the budget and influence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur for Freedom Expression may be in abeyance for the moment, but the controversial efforts may resurface, according to persons familiar with the situation.
Recommendations seen as potentially damaging to human rights in the region, approved by the Plenary Council of the Organization of American States, will be considered in mid-March by the Commission, which faces a delicate balancing act.
Although the recommendations are officially nonbinding, the Commission sits in an uncomfortable political spot, observers say, since the constraints could be made binding when the leaders of the Organization for American States meet in June for a General Assembly.
Among other things, the recommendations of the “Ad Hoc Working Group of Reflection for the operations of the Commission to strengthen the ISHR,” if implemented, would drastically reduce the budget of the Special Rapporteur or Freedom Expression. This would inhibit investigations, which have been growing in the face of increasing numbers of complaints.
Also, an influential annual report on human rights would be decimated by the recommendation that it to be reduced in size and lumped in with reports of other special rapporteurs, critics object
The call for more “promotion” of human rights, reads to Commission supporters as a suggestion for the reduction in resources on the “protection” of human rights in specific cases. The recommendation for the Commission to consult member states before issuing precautionary measures – issued in extreme circumstances when victims face imminent danger – would build damaging delays into the process and place victims at greater risk. And the suggestion to establish a code of conduct for rapporteurs is seen as unnecessary and objectionable.
The encouragement of so-called friendly settlements is considered acceptable by civil society observers providing they are not used as a pretext for delay.
The attacks were initiated early in 2011 by the governments of Brazil, strongly supported by Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela and Colombia, according to those who have followed the saga. The governments argued that the Commission was overstepping its bounds, resulting in the creation of the working group.
Many civil society groups wrote protest letters about the working group’s conclusions, which helped raise the profile of the issue when the OAS Permanent Council met Jan. 25. The tone of the council meeting was muted, however, observers said. As the government representatives approved the report they stressed that they wanted to improve the Commission’s operations and pointed out that the recommendations are not mandatory, according to several persons who attended the meeting.
Members from Costa Rica, Uruguay and Panama and other countries opposed the proposed constraints that would weaken the Special Rapporteur. Representatives from Canada, Chile and Argentina, said the recommendations should be followed only if they strengthen human rights protections and the Special Rapporteur
Interpreting the Working Group recommendations is now left to the Human Rights Commission.
Recently, comments (in Spanish) were submitted by the Regional Alliance for Freedom of Expression and Information and partners, who said the recommendations would “weaken” the Special Rapporteur. Earlier comments (in Spanish) were voiced by more than 90 organizations, including the Center for Justice and International Law (CEJIL)
Commission Chairwoman Dinah Shelton, according to an OAS press release, thanked the delegates of the countries and especially the Working Group for the report, calling it “very valuable.” “We welcome the recommendations, especially those that support the independence and autonomy of the Commission,” she said.
The full text of the approved report is available here.
Filed under: What's New