¹ See Franck, Thomas M., The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance, 86 AJIL 46 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² On the decrease in the number of dictatorships and disappearances, see Grossman, Claudio, Disappearances in Honduras: The Need for Direct Victim Representation in Human Rights Litigation, 15 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 363 (1992)Google Scholar.

³ The system of inter-American protection of human rights consists basically of human rights norms laid out in the OAS Charter (see OAS Charter), the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, OEA/ser.L.V/II.92 doc. 31 rev.3 at 17(1996), and the American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José), OEA/ser.L.V/II.92 doc. 31 rev.3 at 25 (1996), together with corresponding supervisory organs: the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, INTER-AM. C.H.R. OEA/ser. L.V/II.95 doc. 7 rev.(1997), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, OEA/ser.L.V/II.92 doc. 31 rev.3 at 163 (1996), as well as the system’s political organs, consisting of the Permanent Counsel and the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS).

⁴ The disparity between economic and political situations, however, cannot justify denial of the existence of an Inter-American system. Rights are universal, even if the specific challenges to any given society differ. What this disparity calls for is a degree of flexibility that would allow for different approaches to different situations—for example, visits in loco to address mass and gross violations of human rights, and the case system approach to address specific, individual violations.

⁵ The twin goals of avoiding regression and promoting democratic expansion are at a certain level indistinguishable. Their identification in the system as two conceptual categories is intended to provide an operational tool. To illustrate, consider the question: Is ensuring progress in improving prison conditions avoidance of the deterioration of human rights or democratic expansion?

⁶ Meeting with the latter groups is particularly beneficial because of the mutual exchange that takes place—the Commission’s contacts with nongovernmental organizations enhances their legitimacy and, in turn, the meetings are a valuable source of information for the Commission.

⁷ Categories of rights have included issues such as freedom of information, women’s rights, freedom of the press, and issues concerning refugees.

⁸ The signatory states to the American Convention on Human Rights are Argentina, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Uruguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.

⁹ The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man was adopted in 1948 (OEA/ser.L.V/II.92 doc.31 rev.3 at 17, 1996). A member state of the OAS that has not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights has an obligation to promote human rights protected by the American Declaration. Under the Charter of the OAS, the OAS member states of the Convention are Antigua and Barbados, Argentina, The Bahamas (Commonwealth of), Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica (Commonwealth of), the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

¹⁰ Sec. 4, Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/ser.L.V/II.92 doc.31 rev.3 at 42-44 (1996). Articles 48 through 51 (Sec. 4) of the American Convention on Human Rights establish the procedure to be used by the Commission.

¹¹ They are Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.

^l2 Art. 50, Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System, OEA/ser.L.V/H.92 doc.31 rev.3 at 43-44 (1996). Article 50 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes the procedure followed when a state does not follow the Commission’s recommendations.

¹³ Publication might occur in the Annual Report of the Commission to the General Assembly and/or in a separate publication. The General Assembly of the OAS, the political organ to which the reports are sent, has thus far neither agreed to discuss the issue of compliance nor take proper action concerning states’ failure to implement recommendations of the Commission Reports. As a result, the system’s only sanction is the negative publicity attending a report’s publication with a finding of state responsibility by an authoritative organ such as the Commission.

¹⁴ Because the Commission must act in the role of judge and plaintiff, the Court should provide petitioners with full autonomy when a case comes before the court, allowing the petitioners to present their views before the Court without a need for Commission approval. Doing so would also prevent the misguided perception by states that the Commission, as an independent judge, sides with the petitioner at the Court level.

^l5 In the 1990s, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights began to dedicate most of its resources to the case system, revising and streamlining its procedures and strengthening the quality of its decisions.

¹⁶ The Inter-American Human Rights Digest, a publication funded by the Dutch government and issued by the American University, has been instrumental in disseminating information on current developments in international human rights law and closely monitors and reports on activities of the Commission.

¹⁷ While the Court’s decisions have generally been implemented, the OAS General Assembly has repeatedly failed to discuss them, let alone take action. In one case, Manfredo Angel Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, full compliance with the Court’s order did not take place for almost six years.

¹⁸ This and other reform initiatives by the Commission have, however, been successful thanks to reliable group of state friends of the system, whose existence is owed to the process of democratization existing in the hemisphere.

¹⁹ Since mass and gross violations of human rights continue to occur, the Commission cannot focus exclusively on the case system. For purposes of efficiency, the Commission needs to devote part of its resources in dealing with these violations in the most efficient way, namely: visits in loco, country reports, and chapter V reports in the Annual Report to the General Assembly. However, the Commission should continue to make visits in loco and file reports. Because the Commission is the only authoritative organ at the regional level that can undertake these critical functions, and the only organ that has the credibility to carry them out, it would be a serious loss to human rights if it did not continue to perform these functions. Proposals to transfer these functions to other organs, such as a proposal to create a High Commission in Human Rights in the region, are not advisable since another organ competing for very limited resources is unnecessary.