8
C.
Legal framework
27.
International human rights treaties enshrine rights that the States must
guarantee to all persons under their jurisdiction. Accordingly, international human rights
treaties are inspired by common higher values focused on the protection of the human
being; they are applied in keeping with the notion of collective guarantee; they enshrine
essentially objective obligations; and they have specific supervisory mechanisms. 12 In
addition, besides ratifying human rights treaties the States undertake the task to interpret
and apply their provisions such that the guarantees that the treaties establish are truly
practical and effective 13 ; in other words, they must be carried out in good faith so that they
have a useful effect and serve the purpose for which they were adopted.
28.
In the Inter‐American human rights system the rights of persons deprived
of liberty are protected fundamentally in the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter “the Convention” or “the American Convention”), which entered into force in
July 1978 and which at the present is binding for 24 member States of the OAS. 14 In the
case of the other States, the fundamental instrument is the American Declaration of the
Rights and Duties of Man (hereinafter “the American Declaration”) 15 , adopted in 1948 and
incorporated into the Charter of the Organization of American States through the Protocol
of Buenos Aires, adopted in February 1967. In addition, all the other treaties that are part
of the Inter‐American legal regime for protection of human rights contain provisions
applicable to the protection of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, mainly the Inter‐
American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which entered into force in February
1987, and which as of this writing has been ratified by 18 member States of the OAS. 16
29.
In addition to these international obligations acquired by the States of
the region in the context of the Organization of American States, most of these States are
12
I/A Court H. R., Control of Legality in the Excercice of the Atributions of the Inter‐American Comisión
on Human Rights (Arts. 41 y 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC‐19/05 of
November 28, 2005. Series A No. 19, para. 21.
13
I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003.
Series C No. 104, para.66; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24,
1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court V. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of
September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 36.
14
These are: 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.
15
Its application to persons deprived of liberty has been consistently reaffirmed by the member States
of the OAS in the context of its General Assembly. See, OAS, General Assembly Resolution AG/RES. 2668 (XLI‐
O/11), adopted June 7, 2011; OAS, General Assembly Resolution AG/RES. 2592 (XL‐O/10), adopted on June 8,
2010; OAS, General Assembly Resolution AG/RES. 2510 (XXXIX‐O/09), adopted on June 4, 2009; OAS, General
Assembly Resolution, AG/RES. 2403 (XXXVIII‐O/08), adopted on June 13, 2008; OAS, General Assembly Resolution,
AG/RES. 2283 (XXXVII‐O/07), adopted on June 5, 2007; and OAS, General Assembly Resolution, AG/RES. 2233
(XXXVI‐O/06), adopted on June 6, 2006; and OAS, General Assembly Resolution, AG/RES. 2125 (XXXV‐O/05),
adopted on June 7, 2005.
16
These are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents