The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court for Human and Peoples' Rights

Résumé du document

The Inter American Court of Human Rights and the African Court of Human and Peoples' Rights are two international courts that were inspired by the European Court of Human Rights.
They are very recent courts, and are part of a whole system devoted to the protection of Human Rights. They work with a Commission which was created under a political body, namely the Organization of American States and the Organization of the African Unity.
Unlike the European Court, which was created in a democratic environment, the American court of human rights and the African court of human and peoples' rights were both created in countries were democracy was not the rule. Latin America was concerned with a long history of dictatorship, which is also currently the case in Africa.
The task of the two courts is even harder than the European's. How do the courts cope with this hard environment? Do they manage to enforce the protection of HR?
In this presentation we will present the American and African system of protection of human rights and the process of creation of the two courts were created, the way they work and the challenges they have to face.

Extraits

[...] And the Court may request the Commission's opinion in order to decide on the admissibility of a case brought before it; the Commission must render its opinion as soon as possible. The Court has competence to either hear a case of transfer it to the commission for further examination. - Contentious jurisdiction The contentious jurisdiction applies only to the countries that have filed a document recognizing the Court's decisions as binding or that have consented to a jurisdiction in a particular case. The court may interpret not only the convention but also any other treaty concerning the protection of human rights. [...]

[...] This is why the United States of America did not ratified very early because they had major issues with death penalty and racial discrimination. Yet they are some exception to the general situation: Venezuela for example was “allergic” to the International Court of Justice, but was one of the first to recognize the obligatory jurisdiction of the Inter American Court of Human Rights. Now its caseload has increased a lot; even at the beginning when there were not a lot of contentious cases, it was still important compared to the first ten years of the European Court of Human Rights during its own beginning. [...]

[...] Instead of using tribunals, jurisdiction and rules, they traditionally prefer dialog. This is why there is a problem with the acceptation of the Court, which is basically copied from the European model in a completely different environment and with a totally different background. The African States were not at the origin of the creation of the Court, since it was created under pressure of non governmental organizations. But they did not want to oppose directly a system to protect human rights in front of the international community, so they tried to oppose it in a different way. [...]

[...] Despite these talks, the first Judges were elected on January at the Eighth Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of the African Union, held in Khartoum, Sudan. The eleven Judges took the oath of office on the 2nd of July 2006. The President of the Court is Judge Gerard Niyungeko (Burundi), while Judge Modibo Tounty Guindo (Mali) is the Court's Vice-President. They began discussion related to the main challenges facing the Court, including funding for the Court, gender mainstreaming, and access to the Court by individuals and non-governmental organizations. [...]

[...] For examination a quorum of five judges in the American Court is required, while they must be seven in the African Court. The judgment is read in open court. If the courts find that they have been violations it may find appropriate orders to remedy such violations including the payment of fair compensation or reparation. They may also adopt provisional measures when it deems necessary. - Advisory jurisdiction The advisory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court is unique, since it was extended to all OAS member states and organizations, not just the signatories to the Convention. [...]