SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANT POPULATIONS INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

1. SEMINAR-WORKSHOP ON HUMAN RIGHTS OF MIGRANT POPULATIONS INTER-AMERICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

2. Inter-American Human Rights System • American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948) • American Convention on Human Rights (1969) • Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (1994) • Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (1985) • Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women (1994) • San Salvador Protocol on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights

3. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights • Receives, analyzes, and investigates individual petitions alleging human rights violations. • Makes recommendations to Member States and requires that they implement specific “preventive measures” to avoid serious and irreparable human rights violations in urgent cases. • Submits cases to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court and acts before the Court in these lawsuits.

4. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Its roles include the following: • In loco visits to Member States of OAS • Holding hearings • Issuing reports on individual human rights cases and on the situation in Member States • Reporting

5. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights • Has two types of competences: advisory and litigious • Issues advisory opinions about the right interpretation of the obligations acquired under agreements

6. Inter-American Human Rights System • Special Rapporteur for Migrant Workers and Members of their Families • To raise awareness regarding the duty of States to respect the human rights of migrant workers and their families; • To make specific recommendations to Member States of OAS relating to the protection and promotion of the human rights of these persons, in order for relevant actions to be implemented in this matter; • To prepare reports and carry out specialized studies about the situation of migrant workers and about topics relating to migration in general (Costa Rica, USA, Guatemala, Mexico); • To act promptly on petitions or communications reporting that the human rights of migrant workers and their families have been violated in a Member State of OAS.

7. Inter-American Commission • MC 385/09 –31 Undocumented Immigrants Living in Atlanta, Georgia, USA (access to medical treatment) On January 29, 2010, IAHRC issued preventive measures in favour of them. The decision of the Grady Memorial Hospital to end dialysis treatment had a disproportionate impact on the beneficiaries since, unlike affected US citizens, they are not able to receive assistance through programmes such as Medicare or Medicaid. In addition, the petitioners state that the beneficiaries were not informed about alternatives to receive the treatment they needed and that they were encouraged to leave the State of Georgia and return to their country of origin.

8. Inter-American Commission • MC 5/11 – Gary Resil, Harry Mocombe, Roland Joseph, Evel Camelien, and Pierre Louis, USA The Inter-American Commission requested that the USA suspend the deportation process of the five beneficiaries until: (1) Haiti is able to ensure that the detention conditions and access to medical treatment for detained persons comply with applicable minimum standards, and (2) the procedures to decide and review deportations of the five beneficiaries appropriately consider their right to family life and their family bonds in the USA.

 

9. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 IAHRC • That the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination forms part of general international law, inasmuch as it applies to all States, whether or not they are party to a specific international treaty. At the existing stage of the development of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the realm of jus cogens. • That States may not subordinate or condition observance of the principle of equality before the law and non-discrimination to achieving their public policy goals, whatever these may be, including those of a migratory character.

10. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 The State may treat documented migrants differently than undocumented migrants, or treat migrants differently than national citizens, as long as this different treatment is reasonable, objective, proportionate, and does not violate human rights.

11. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 That the migratory status of a person can never be a justification for depriving him of the enjoyment and exercise of his human rights, including those related to employment. On assuming an employment relationship, the migrant acquires rights as a worker, which must be recognized and guaranteed, irrespective of his regular or irregular status in the State of employment.

12. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 Employment relationships between migrant workers and third party employers may give rise to the international responsibility of the State in different ways. States are obliged to ensure that, within their territory, all the labour rights stipulated in their laws – rights deriving from international instruments or domestic legislation – are recognized and applied. States are internationally responsible when they tolerate actions and practices of third parties that harm migrant workers.

13. The Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico • The State (Civil Registry), refused to issue the birth certificates of Yean and Bosico, even though they were born in State territory and though the Constitution of the Dominican Republic establishes the principle of ius soli to determine who is a Dominican citizen. • Violating the right of access to social services (DESC) The case of the girls Yean and Bosico vs. the Dominican Republic – Sentence of Sept. 8, 2005

14. The Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico • The Court considered that violation of the right to nationality and the rights of the child also gave rise to violation of the rights to recognition of the legal status, a name, and equality before the law.

15. The Vélez Loor Case • Detention in Panama of Mr. Jesús Tranquilino Vélez Loor, Ecuadorian national, and prosecution for crimes relating to his migration status, without due guarantees and without the possibility of being heard and exercising his right to defence; lack of investigation of the denouncements for torture made by Mr. Vélez Loor before Panamanian authorities, as well as inhuman detention conditions to which he was submitted at various penitentiary centres in Panama since his detention on November 11, 2002, until his deportation to the Republic of Ecuador on September 10, 2003. The case of Vélez Loor vs. Panama, Sentence of November 23, 2010

16. The Vélez Loor Case • The State is responsible for violating the right to judicial guarantees, the right to personal integrity, and for incompliance with the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, as well as incompliance with the obligation to guarantee, without discrimination, the right to access to justice and due process.