governments and obtained payments of compensation for wronged individuals. More important in the long run is the fact that the Commission has been quite successful in getting governments to revise domestic laws that conflicted with the Convention. This has been done by Austria, Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, Norway and the United Kingdom.

The provisions of the Convention are treated as directly applicable rules of law in many national courts of the Contracting States. As a matter of fact, in some countries, among them the Netherlands, Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg, the Convention enjoys a higher normative rank than most laws, which means that if there is a conflict between these laws and the Convention, the courts have to enforce the Convention.

8

The most dramatic setback suffered by the European Convention system was the 1967 Greek military coup which resulted in massive human rights violations in that country. Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden immediately instituted proceedings before the Commission seeking to compel the new Greek regime to live up to that nation's obligation under the Convention. For a while Greece participated in the proceedings and cooperated with the Commission, which was actually allowed to visit the country and examine witnesses. But once it became clear that the Commission would find the military regime in violation of Greece's obligation under the Convention, all cooperation ceased. When in 1969 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided to suspend Greece from membership in the Council of Europe, that country formally withdrew from the Council of Europe and from the European Convention. The new Greek government, which took office after the military regime was overthrown, rejoined the Council of Europe in 1975 and reratified the Convention.

All in all, however, the European Convention of Human Rights is a highly promising experiment that could serve as a model for other regions of the world. But it would be a mistake not to recognize that it has worked primarily because it applies to countries having a long libertarian tradition, democratic regimes and substantial economic, social and political stability. Few regions of the world approximate Western Europe in this regard. It may consequently take quite a long time for a similar system to be duplicated elsewhere.

III. HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM

The inter-American system for the protection of human rights is by no means as advanced or effective as that established under the European Convention of Human Rights. This should not surprise anyone familiar with the political realities of the Western Hemisphere and the fact that Latin America in particular seems to be a very fertile breeding ground for left wing and right wing dictatorships. That an inter-American system for the protection of human rights actually exists within the framework of the Organization of American States and that it can point to some achievements is consequently a significant accomplishment. 9

A. Human Rights and the OAS

The Organization of American States is a regional intergovernmental organization whose membership comprises most nations in the Western Hemisphere, including the U.S. but not Canada. The OAS Charter, its constitution, was drawn up in 1948 and extensively revised in 1967. The present OAS Charter declares in Article 3(j) that "the American States proclaim the fundamental rights of the individual without distinction as to race, nationality, creed or sex." The Charter lists the "Inter-American Commission on Human Rights" as one of the organs of the OAS and declares that its “principal function shall be to promote the observance and protection of human rights and to serve as a consultative organ of the organization in these matters. (OAS Charter, Arts. 112 and 51). The Charter further provides that the "present" Inter-American Commission on Human Rights shall discharge these functions "until the inter-American convention on human rights enters into force." (OAS Charter, Art. 112). Such a treaty was in fact drawn up in 1969. It has not as yet entered into force because only two countries - Costa Rica and Columbia have thus far been willing to ratify it. 10

The "present" Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was established in 1960 as an "autonomous entity" of the OAS. Its structure and powers were set out in its "Statute" or constitution which was adopted by the OAS Council. The Statute established a seven-member Commission, consisting of "persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights." (Statute, Art. 3). The function of the Commission was "to promote respect for human rights." (Statute, Art. 1). These were defined as the rights "set forth in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man." (Statute, Art. 2).

The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man was proclaimed in 1948 by the Ninth Inter-American Conference of American States. That conference also adopted the OAS Charter. But unlike the OAS Charter, which was drawn up as a treaty to be ratified by the nations of the Western Hemisphere, the American Declaration was embodied in a non-binding conference recommendation. But when the OAS established the InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights in 1960 and charged it with the task of promoting the human rights that the American Declaration proclaims, it ushered in a process whereby that instrument gradually acquired a legal status within the OAS framework comparable to that enjoyed within the UN system by the Universal Declaration. 11 Today the American Declaration is deemed to define the rights that the American States proclaim in Article 3(j) of the OAS Charter as the "fundamental rights of the individual.'

,, 12

The rights proclaimed in the American Declaration do not differ significantly from those found in the Universal Declaration. However, unlike the latter instrument, the American Declaration also contains a catalog of duties that each individual is under an obligation to discharge.

B. Activities of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Since its establishment in 1960, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has been gradually transformed from an organ ostensibly charged only with the task of preparing studies and promotional materials to an institution that has successfully asserted the power to investigate charges of human rights violations by various American republics. In some instances, the Commission has been quite effective in deterring or putting an end to such violations. Not surprisingly, it has also failed in other cases.

The Commission discharges its functions through country studies, on-thespot visiting missions, and by acting on individual complaints.

1. Country Studies and Visiting Missions

The Commission undertakes so-called country studies whenever it concludes, as a result of reports received by it, that large-scale violations of human rights may be occurring in an American republic. In these cases, the Commission embarks upon an investigation of the facts, it hears witnesses, receives depositions and seeks explanations and remedial measures from the government involved. Brazil, Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, among others, have been the subject of such country studies.

In conjunction with its country studies, the Commission often attempts to obtain permission from the state involved to visit the country. Some states, notably Brazil, Cuba and Haiti, have not allowed the Commission to enter; others Chile, the Dominican Republic, Honduras and El Salvador, for example - have admitted the Commission to investigate charges of violation of human rights.

The Commission can also be invited by a government or the OAS to dispatch visiting missions to certain countries to carry out on-the-spot investigations. Some of these missions have proved to be extremely effective. For example, during the 1965 civil war in the Dominican Republic, the Commission, at the invitation of both sides to the conflict, dispatched a visiting mission to that country. While in the Dominican Republic, the Commission was able to save many lives, it obtained the release of hundreds of prisoners being held by both sides, and in numerous other ways provided valuable humanitarian assistance. As a result of its impressive performance the Commission was subsequently invited to supervise the elections in the Dominican Republic. 13 During the 1969-70 hostilities between Honduras and El Salvador the Commission carried out on-the-spot investigations in the war zone. Here too it was able to discharge important humanitarian functions and contributed to a reduction in the overall level of violence. 14

When the Allende government was overthrown in Chile in the fall of 1973, the Commission began to receive numerous communications charging the new military regime with large-scale violations of human rights. The Commission thereupon began an investigation of these charges and requested Chile's permission to send a visiting mission to that country. The Commission was

eventually allowed to enter Chile in the summer of 1974. Based on its investigation of conditions in Chile, the Commission concluded that the military regime was guilty of massive violations of human rights and published an extensive report documenting these charges. 15 The findings of the Commission and Chile's failure to take the remedial measures that the Commission proposed were subsequently cited by the U.S. Congress to justify cutting off military aid to Chile. 16

2. Individual Complaints

Until 1965 the Commission lacked a legal mandate to act on petitions by individuals charging violations of human rights. In that year, after persistent lobbying by the Commission, it was authorized to deal with individual communications alleging violations of Articles I-IV, XVIII, XXV, and XXVI of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. These provisions guarantee the rights to life, liberty, and personal security (Art. I); equality before the law (Art. II); freedom of religion (Art. III); freedom of expression (Art. IV); a fair trial (Art. XVIII); freedom from arbitrary arrest (Art. XXV); and due process of law (Art. XXVI).

17

Since it was first empowered to deal with private communications, the Commission has received approximately 50 to 100 petitions annually that alleged large-scale denials of human rights as well as individual violations. In dealing with these petitions, the Commission attempts to ascertain the facts in the case by calling on the governments and individuals involved to provide whatever evidence the Commission requests. Under its rules of procedure, the Commission has the power to presume the truth of an individual's allegations whenever the accused government fails within a period of 180 days to supply the information that the Commission has requested from it. If the Commission determines that a government has in fact committed a violation of human rights, it addresses its findings to that government together with its recommendations regarding appropriate remedial measures.

3. Implementation and Effectiveness of Commission Decisions

The Commission has at its disposal only two methods to obtain governmental compliance with its decisions: it may transmit its findings to the principal political organs of the OAS (the OAS Council and General Assembly) and it may publish its reports and findings. Although the political organs of the OAS have the power to impose various sanctions against non-complying Member States, they have thus far failed to make a serious effort to support the Commission. It remains to be seen whether the recent U.S. decision to press these bodies for a formal discussion of the Commission's reports, which is an important step forward, will result in a change of policy on the part of these OAS organs.

18

As far as the publication of the Commission's findings are concerned, it is difficult to say what effect the threat of this action has on various governments.

Governments often go to great lengths to prevent the publication of these reports; once they are published, expensive press campaigns are sometimes mounted to refute the charges. This would suggest that at least some governments view the publication of an adverse Commission report as a serious matter. The threat of publication may in certain cases therefore deter future violations or improve over-all conditions in a country. One possible explaantion may be that the Commission's status immunizes it against the charge that its findings are propaganda, which facilitates efforts to mobilize domestic and international public opinion against a government's activities. It is quite clear, however, that the Commission needs the strong support of the political organs of the OAS in order to have a significant and lasting impact on conditions in the Western Hemisphere.

IV. THE UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

A. The UN Human Rights System

It is often not realized that the UN Charter itself provides the legal foundation upon which a universal system for the protection of human rights can be built. That it is still in a primitive stage is not due to the absence of an adequate legal basis or institutional framework needed for the establishment of such a system. What has been lacking is the willingness of UN Member States to permit this system to exist and grow.

The needed law, as we have seen in the preceding chapter, is to be found in the human rights provisions of the UN Charter and the human rights instruments that have been adopted under the Charter. The basis for an institutional framework is provided by Article 68 of the UN Charter, which mandates the establishment of a commission "for the promotion of human rights."

The UN Commission of Human Rights has in the past few years developed a rudimentary system for dealing with human rights violations. Although only these developments will be analyzed in the pages that follow, it should be remembered that all UN organs, including in particular the General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council, Commission on the Status of Women, Trusteeship Council and Secretariat, deal with human rights matters. They may be viewed as components of a single UN system for the protection of human rights. This system also embraces the institutions established under various UN human rights instruments, notably under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Racial Convention.

B. The UN Commission on Human Rights: The First Twenty Years

The UN Commission on Human Rights was established in 1946 as a subsidiary organ of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). 19 Its membership has been periodically increased to keep up with the expansion of the UN and it now consists of 32 representatives. Although it had been originally hoped that the Commission members would serve in their individual