Various human Essay Example for Free

Various human EssayGiven the widespread human rights colzas in the macrocosm today, it becomes very important to set up a scheme that would cater to both(prenominal) the general need of the entire world as well as specific needs of a particular region. An ideal human rights clay would be one that would take global ideas and try and implement them locally. It should be both idealistic as well as practical. Various human rights systems across the world consider tried various permutations and combinations to achieve perfection in the theatre of redressing human rights violations. The Inter American system of human rights is one such system which has tried to incorporate as many good aspects of redressal as possible. However, the express system has its faults like all others. The strong point of the system that can be duplicated in any part of the world is the basic conventions on which the system is based, namely, the American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention of kind Rights. Both these documents provide for all kinds of human rights envisaged in the world and also provide for subprogram to redress in case of any infringement.These documents form the basis of the human rights grievance redressal forum that is to be accomplished by the Government. While setting up a new system in a unknown country this is one aspect that can be duplicated. However, care should be taken to pee the new law for that particular region inclusive of the rights that are special to that region. Only then depart the instrument be as effective as these documents. A nonher good aspect of the Inter American System of Human Rights is the existence of the Inter American Human Rights explosive charge and the Inter American Human Rights address.Both these mechanisms are independent and separate and have different powers and functions. While the Commission receives, analyses and investigates into violations and then gives its recommendations, the Court adjudicates on the various issues brought before it. Commission is recommendatory in nature while Court is adjudicatory. These two separate mechanisms are necessary so as to ensure that the dual aspect of promotion of awareness and justification of human rights can be achieved with minimal problems and maximum effectiveness.The third positive and duplicable aspect of the Inter American System of Human Rights is the position that it does not consider the Human Rights Court to be an Appellate Authority over the Domestic Judicial System. This helps maintain integrity of both systems. The Human Rights Court has been established to investigate and adjudicate gross violations of human rights. In case a domestic court has refused to follow due process of law and has caused serious violation of human rights to an individual, then the Human Rights Court can intervene and adjudicate.The order so passed by the Court is binding on the parties who have subjected themselves to the juri sdiction of the Court. The fact that such a mechanism exists can help ensure that the domestic judicial systems do not cause gross violations of human rights. The Human Rights Court performs the role of a watchdog over the functioning of the domestic Courts and law enforcement systems. Like all good things, the Inter American System has its problem areas which, if avoided will create an ideal system.The first problem area in the Inter American Human Rights system is the need for a State to subject itself to the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Court. This means that if a State has ratified and signed a particular accord or convention, and the State chooses to violate the rights enshrined in the said treaty or convention, then in such a case, the Human Rights Court has no right to adjudicate but can only advise the Commission and recommend appropriate action to the State in question. This defeats the entire purpose of protection against infringement of human rights.A State is thus g iven a protective mechanism but without any teeth, which is of no use. Thus in the new system that is to be created, care should be taken to ensure that substantiation of a convention or treaty automatically means accepting the jurisdiction of the Court. This helps enforce the rights enshrined and also ensures adequate redressal in case of violation by the State. Also the Commission in the Inter American System has only investigative and recommendatory powers. This is sufficient in most cases but in some areas it is necessary to let the Commission decide for itself on the proper relief and make it enforceable.The Commission is the first step of the redressal system and after the Commissions recommendations have been ignored, the Court steps in. In some countries, this would mean more expenditure and more delay in attaining justice. Hence where the Commission feels that the problem is of an urgent and heavy(a) nature, then powers should be given to the Commission to pass orders tha t are binding and enforceable. Secondly, the Inter American System does not allow for individuals to approach the Court straightway in person but only through the State or the Commission. In the new system, we can try allowing individuals to approach the Court directly.A dupe can appropriately and more effectively put forth his case and this would result in a more positive and direct approach on the part of the Court. Commission on the other hand is a third party which is not affected and hence cannot put forth the problem with the same intensity. The above discussion sums up some of the positive and negative aspects of the Inter American System of Human Rights. If the legislators were to keep these points in mind then the resulting system of human rights protection would be a good and effective one.References Abi-Mershed, E. (1994, November/December).Thirty-Five Years Defending Human Rights. Americas (English Edition). Retrieved March 2, 2007, from Questia database http//www. que stia. com/PM. qst? a=od=5000289318 Buergenthal, T. (1982).The Inter-American Court of Human Rights. American Journal of International Law, 76(2), 231-245. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from Questia database http//www. questia. com/PM. qst? a=od=85595942 Pasqualucci, J. M. (2003). The Practice and Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from Questia database http//www. questia. com/PM. qst? a=od=107345000.