PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH THE

U.N. SPECIALIZED AGENCIES

THE INTERNATIONAL LABOR ORGANIZATION

In testimony before the subcommittee it was noted that:

ILO procedures for inquiring into alleged breaches of their conventions are probably the most sophisticated and most effective in the international sphere. This reflects the great advantage they have in not being a purely governmental organization. The tripartite structure enables pressures to be brought, particularly by the trade unions, in a way which other NGO's (nongovernmental organizations) cannot do in the United Nations.1

The ILO is unique among the U.N. agencies in that it is composed not only of government delegations, but also representatives of workers and employers. At its annual conference each national delegation is composed of one employer delegate, one worker delegate, and two government delegates. Each delegate votes individually rather than having each national delegation vote as a unit. This procedure permits delegates to vote on the basis of common interests rather than national allegiance.

The ILO promotes economic and social rights through several activities: the formulation of international labor standards, the collection and analysis of information about labor throughout the world, and the sponsorship of programs to help countries which are developing industries to establish the necessary institutions for vocational training, collective bargaining, employment policy, and social security.

The ILO has adopted more than 240 international instruments delineating labor standards. Member states are required to report on their implementation of these standards. These reports are critically reviewed by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. In its 1973 report, the Committee of Experts mentioned some 70 cases where changes in national law or practice had been made as a result of this procedure.

Several ILO conventions are before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Conventions on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize, Abolition of Forced Labor, and Employment Policy. The subcommittee recommends that the Senate ratify these conventions.2

The ILO has established special programs with respect to freedom of association, forced labor and discrimination. In 1951 the ILO Governing Body established the Committee on Freedom of Association. Since 1951 the committee has examined more than 700 complaints. The committee presents its findings and recommendations to the Governing Body-the principal executive organ of the ILO.

1 Niall MacDermot, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists, Hearings Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Aug. 1, 1973. 2 See pp. 23-24.

The organization also has a more formalized procedure for complaints concerning freedom of association. The Factfinding and Conciliation Commission on Freedom of Association, established in 1950, may investigate complaints but only with the consent of the state concerned. Consequently, it has been used infrequently.

In 1950, at the request of the American Federation of Labor, the ILO established an ad hoc committee on forced labor. The committee's work resulted in the adoption of the abolition of forced labor convention in 1957. Since then the ILO has maintained a close watch on the observance of this convention and investigated complaints of violations.

Equality of rights, particularly with respect to economic and social rights, is a fundamental principle for all ILO activities. In 1958, the ILO adopted a discrimination (employment and occupation) convention and recommendation. In 1963 and 1971 the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations conducted special surveys on the application of the convention. In 1971 the committee received reports from 107 member states and 23 nonmetropolitan territories.

In summary, the ILO methods of protecting human rights should be emulated by other international organizations. The development of international labor law through adopting conventions and recommendations, and the implementation of these standards through effective complaint and reporting procedures are the ILO's principal achievements in human rights. The subcommittee commends the ILO for this record.

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION (UNESCO)

In 1960 UNESCO's General Conference adopted a convention and recommendation against discrimination in education. More than 70 member states of UNESCO have submitted reports on their implementation of these instruments. A special committee has reviewed these reports.

In addition, UNESCO conducts valuable educational programs in the human rights field.

PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH REGIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Regional organizations have a distinct advantage over worldwide organizations in that they unite countries which have common characteristics such as language, culture, law, and political and economic systems. This factor is particularly important in the human rights field since states have traditionally considered it a domestic matter. States are more willing to relinquish some sovereignty to an international agency which reflects their own cultural and legal traditions. For this reason regional protection of human rights has made considerable progress in recent years, principally in Europe and Latin America. Regional organizations in Africa and Asia or Eastern Europe have not been established. Recently, the League of Arab States established a human rights organization.

THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

In 1950 the Council of Europe adopted the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The convention went into force in 1953. The convention elaborates the rights which states parties are obliged to respect and establishes a European Commission on Human Rights and a European Court of Human Rights.1

The members of the European Commission serve in their "individual capacity." They are elected by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe from a list of names prepared by the Bureau of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. The number of members equals the number of contracting parties.

The Commission has jurisdiction to deal with two types of cases. charging violations of the convention: Interstate applications and individual applications. By ratifying the convention a state party recognizes the Commission's jurisdiction to hear state complaints. The Commission may consider individual complaints only with respect to states which have recognized the Commission's competence to hear such complaints. The following states have recognized the Commission's competence to hear private complaints: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Federal Republic of Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and United Kingdom. The states parties which have not recognized the Commission's competence are Cyprus, Malta, and Turkey.

If the complaint is considered admissible, the Commission will seek to obtain a friendly settlement of the dispute through adjudication, investigation, conciliation, and reporting. If a friendly settlement is not achieved, the Commission issues a confidential report to the Com

1 For a thorough discussion of the European and Inter-American systems for the protection of human rights see Louis B. Sohn and Thomas Buergenthal, "International Protction of Human Rights" (casebook and basic documents). The Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.: New York, 1973. (46)

mittee of Ministers and the states concerned indicating whether the convention has been violated. It may also recommend measures for resolving the dispute.

The Committee of Ministers is the executive organ of the Council. of Europe. It is composed of the foreign minister or another governmental representative of each of the member states of the Council. A complaint which has not been settled by the Commission and which has not been referred to the court must be decided upon by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee's decisions have thus far always supported the Commission's conclusions.

The judges of the court are elected by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe from a list of persons nominated by the member states of the Council of Europe. The number of judges is equal to the number of members of the Council. Acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction is optional. To date the following 12 states have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Federal Republic of Gemany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Malta, Turkey, and Cyprus have not accepted the court's jurisdiction.

Individuals may not refer cases to the court. Cases may be referred either by the Commission or by a state (1) whose national is the alleged victim of a violation; (2) which referred the case to the Commission; or (3) against which the complaint was lodged.

The European Commission and Court have developed a significant body of case law, and their decisions have been executed by the states parties to the convention. The situation with respect to Greece is an important exception. The Commission found that the government had committed certain human rights violations, including torture. In 1969, Greece denounced the convention.

THE INTER-AMERICAN SYSTEM FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN
RIGHTS

In 1948 the Inter-American States adopted the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man which sets out the essential human rights of man. To implement the declaration, the Organization of American States (OAS) established in 1960 the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission is composed of seven members who are elected by the Council of the OAS to serve in their personal capacity. Since 1965 the Commission has had the authority to examine complaints from individuals charging violations of the American Declaration. The Commission in examining these complaints may request information from the governments concerned and, if appropriate, make recommendations. In addition to the Commission's review of complaints, it has also prepared studies of particular human rights questions, conducted significant field investigations and performed valuable humanitarian missions, notably in the Dominican Republic.

În his testimony before the subcommittee, Prof. Thomas Buergenthal made several suggestions for strengthening the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. He noted that the Commission's effectiveness with respect to complaints depends on the threat or use of publicity. The Commission cannot require a state to respond to in

quiries concerning violations, to agree to on-the-spot investigations or to accept the Commission's recommendations.

The Commission does report annually to the General Assembly of the OAS. The report includes information concerning its work on communications. The Assembly, however, does not discuss the substance of the report. Professor Buergenthal believes that a public discussion of the Commission's report-including violations in specific countries would persuade governments to be more responsive to the Commission's activities. The United States should press for this proposal; it could, in fact, decide unilaterally that it will henceforth discuss the substance of the Commission's report during the Assembly's consideration of the report.

The United States should demonstrate its concern for human rights in the Western Hemisphere by, at the very least, insisting upon a public discussion of human rights issues during the annual meetings of the OAS General Assembly. This can readily be done particularly in the context of the Assembly's consideration of the annual report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Because the Commission's reports and recommendations are seldom discussed, the Commission's only real weapon-publicity-cannot be used effectively.

As a result, many a government that might be responsive to pressure of negative public opinion knows that it can ignore with impunity the Commission's recommendations since they will not be aired in the General Assembly. An imaginative handling of this problem by the United States could, I am convinced, have extremely beneficial consequences.2

Professor Buergenthal also proposes that the Secretariat of the OAS in the human rights field be strengthened. He notes that the professional staff of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights consists of one executive secretary and four professional staff members. Besides more staffing, he says the Commission does not enjoy a significant status within the OAS bureaucracy. He proposes that the OAS should create a Division of Human Rights comparable to the Directorate of Human Rights of the Council of Europe. Creation of the division, he asserts, would help to give human rights issues "an exposure and hearing in that body (OAS) which they have thus far not received." 3

Recommendation 4

28. The Department of State should propose that the OAS strengthen the role of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights through the adoption of the following measures:

(a) A public discussion by the OAS General Assembly of the substantive issues contained in the Commission's report, including allegations of human rights violations in particular countries;

(b) An increase in the staff of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and

(c) The creation within the OAS Secretariat of a Human Rights Division comparable to the Directorate of Human Rights of the Council of Europe.

2 Hearings, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Oct. 3, 1973. 3 Hearings, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Oct. 3, 1973. 4 This report has already asked the Department to consider sending to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification the American Convention on Human Rights. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights would be responsible for overseeing the observance of this convention. See pp. 23-24.