Today, on
Human Rights Day, as we mark the
64th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the inter-American human rights system – guardian of the world’s first international human rights agreement – faces an unprecedented threat to its independence and authority.
The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights – which oversees implementation of the
American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted in April, 1948, eight months prior to the Universal Declaration – is undergoing a state-initiated “reform” process that may lead to controversial changes in the Commission's practices and procedures, without the consent of the Commission.
As IntLawGrrl Alexandra Harrington
posted in February, since it came into existence in 1960, the Inter-American Commission has promoted and protected human rights in the 35 member states of the
Organization of American States. It does so through reporting, country visits, precautionary measures, and the individual complaints mechanism. The
Commission's exercise of its functions has motivated criticism and objections in recent years from some states that disagreed with specific decisions – as have
Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru – or accused it of bias – as has
Venezuela.

In June of 2011, the OAS Permanent Council created a
Special Working Group with a mandate to study the Commission’s work and propose any reforms deemed necessary. The Special Working Group’s
proposals, which the OAS Permanent Council
approved this past January, focused on both the Commission’s institutional practices and its substantive mandate.
Among the
most controversial proposed reforms were those that would:
► Restrict the Commission’s discretion in deciding requests for precautionary measures,
► Significantly alter Chapter IV of the Commission’s Annual Report, in which it highlights countries with particularly troublesome human rights practices,
► Reduce the autonomy of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and
► Impose additional restrictions on the processing of individual complaints in ways that could favor states at the expense of victims.
Civil society has criticized the proposed reforms, and the reform process itself, as lacking in transparency and input from advocates and victims.
A joint
statement coordinated by CEJIL, the Center for Justice and International Law, and signed by over 90 organizations, called on the OAS and its individual member states to ensure that the process is truly aimed at strengthening the inter-American system and includes the input of advocates and victims. Representatives of nongovernmental organizations, academia, and the judiciary have also
signed on to the “
Bogota Declaration,” which echoes this call.
A politically motivated, state-imposed reform of the Commission’s authority and procedures is a unique and pressing cause for concern to all those invested in the protection of human rights in the Americas.
In the
words of the Commission's chair, José de Jesús Orozco: