Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century pp 157–177Cite as

Interim Measures Before the Inter-American and African Human Rights Commissions: Strengths and Weaknesses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1563 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 30))

Abstract

Interim measures in international human rights law may be defined as a tool, the purpose of which is to prevent irreparable harm to persons who are in a situation of extreme gravity and urgency. Interim measures result in an immediate protection offered by the member State to the beneficiaries in compliance with the order issued by an international body. This article aims to illustrate that although interim measures in the African and the Inter-American system have been a useful legal tool to avoid (further) human rights violations in difficult situations, there are still some obstacles that may lead to the interim measures not functioning as one would wish. We begin by mentioning three aspects of interim measures that lend themselves to a comparison between the two regional systems: the admissibility requirements; the frequency of their use; and the rights and beneficiaries protected through these interim measures. Taking into account the aforementioned comparison, the merits and deficiencies of interim measures in regional human rights systems will be highlighted, and recommendations will be advanced for improving their functioning and impact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Under the African system, the measures adopted by the African Commission and the African Court are called ‘provisional measures’.

  2. 2.

    Under the Inter-American system, the measures adopted by the Inter-American Commission are called ‘precautionary measures’ and the measures adopted by the Inter-American Court are called ‘provisional measures’.

  3. 3.

    In this article we will refer to them as ‘interim measures’.

  4. 4.

    See C. Burbano-Herrera and F. Viljoen, “Provisional Measures Issued by the African Commission and African Court on Human and People’s Rights”, in Y. Haeck and C. Burbano-Herrera (eds.) Interim Measures in International Human Rights Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming 2013).

  5. 5.

    The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (also called the ‘Banjul Charter’) was adopted in Nairobi, Kenya, by the Organisation of African Unity on 27 June 1981 and entered into force on 21 October 1986. The substance of the Charter has been extended by the adoption of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa in 2003, over which the African Commission and Court also have jurisdiction, including the competence to issue provisional measures. In the African system, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (African Children’s Charter) was also adopted in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 11 July 1990, and it entered into force on 29 November 1999. The African Children’s Committee is the supervisory bodies. By ratifying the African Children’s Charter, states automatically accept the competence of the African Children’s Committee to ‘receive’ individual and inter-state communications. This body held its first meeting in 2002. See, African Children’s Charter, arts. 32, 43 and 44. However, this body does not have an explicit competence to adopt provisional measures.

  6. 6.

    The American Declaration was adopted in 1948 in Bogota, Colombia, by the OAS General Assembly. The American Declaration and other Inter-American human rights documents can be viewed on the website of the OAS, http://www.oas.org

  7. 7.

    The American Convention on Human Rights was adopted in San José, Costa Rica, by the Organization of American States on 22 November 1969, and entered into force on 18 July 1978. As of 2012, only 23 of the 35 States have ratified the American Convention.

  8. 8.

    See F. Viljoen, International Human Rights Law in Africa, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 306.

  9. 9.

    See e.g., Human Rights Committee, Rules of Procedure, r. 92; the Committee Against Torture, Rules of Procedure r. 114(1); African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Rules of Procedure, r. 98; the extinct European Commission of Human Rights, Rules of Procedure, r. 36; the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Rules of Procedure, r. 94 (3) and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against women, Rules of Procedure, r. 63 (1).

  10. 10.

    The Rules of Procedure were adopted by the African Commission during its 2nd ordinary session held in Dakar (Senegal), from 2 to 13 February 1988 and were revised by the Commission during its 18th ordinary session held in Praia (Cabo-Verde), from 2 to 11 October 1995. The Rules were also revised during its 47th ordinary session held in Banjul (The Gambia), from 12 to 26 May 2010 and entered into force 18 August 2010.

  11. 11.

    Rule 98 also provides that: “2. If the Commission is not in session at the time that a request for Provisional Measures is received, the Chairperson, or in his or her absence, the Vice-Chairperson, shall take the decision on the Commission’s behalf and shall so inform members of the Commission; 3. After the request for Provisional Measures has been transmitted to the State Party, the Commission shall send a copy of the letter requesting Provisional Measures to the victim, the Assembly, the Peace and Security Council, and the African Union Commission. 4. The Commission shall request the State Party concerned to report back on the implementation of the Provisional Measures requested. Such information shall be submitted within fifteen (15) days of the receipt of the request for Provisional Measures; 5. The granting of such measures and their adoption by the State Party concerned shall not constitute a prejudgment on the merits of a Communication.”

  12. 12.

    During its existence, the Commission has in total drafted four sets of Rules of Procedure: in 1966, 1980, 2001 (amended in 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2008) and 2009 (amended in 2011 and 2013). The 1980 Commission’s Rules of Procedure, approved by the Commission at its 49th period of sessions, held on 8 April (r. 26); 2000 Commission’s Rules of Procedure, approved by the Commission at its 109th period of sessions, held from 4 to 8 December 2000, and modified at its 116th period of sessions, held from the 7 to 25 October 2002, at its 118th period of sessions, held from 6 to 24 October 2003, at its 126th period of sessions, held from 16 to 27 October 2006 and at its 132th period of sessions, held from 17 to 25 July 2008 (r. 25) 2009; Commission’s Rules of Procedure, approved by the Commission at its 137th regular period of sessions, held from 28 October to 13 November 2009, entered into force on 31 December 2009 (r. 25), and amended on 2 September 2011 and by Resolution 1-2013. It will enter into force on 1 August 2013.

  13. 13.

    See Article 25.

  14. 14.

    The Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons was adopted in Belem Do Para, Brazil, by the Organisation of American States on 6 September 1994, and entered into force on 28 March 1996. This Convention has been ratified by 14 States.

  15. 15.

    2010 Rules of Procedure, r. 98 (1).

  16. 16.

    Rules of Procedure, art. 25 (2).

  17. 17.

    See, U.S. Additional Response to the request for precautionary measures detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, IACHR (15 July 2002), available at: http://www.state.gov/s/l/38642.htm. The United States has not ratified the Inter-American Convention on forced Disappearance of Persons.

  18. 18.

    In March 2013, in a meeting of States, the President of Ecuador, Rafael Correa indicated that ‘[…] the Commission does not have competence to adopt precautionary measures […]’. See http://www.elcomercio.com/politica/Polemico-debate-medidas-cautelares-Guayaquil-CIDH-Derechos_Humanos_0_881311902.html. (Accessed on 12 March 2013). The Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons has been ratified by Ecuador.

  19. 19.

    See e.g. H. Faúndez Ledesma, The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, 2nd ed., (San José: Inter-American Institute for Human Rights, 2007) 361–362; and F. Gonzales, “Urgent Measures in the Inter-American Human Rights System” 7 Revista Sur (2010) 13, 52–53.

  20. 20.

    Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, supra, note 14.

  21. 21.

    Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-558 of 2003.

  22. 22.

    Colombian Constitutional Court, Judgment T-786 of 2003; T-327 of 2004, T-385 of 2005; T-524 of 2005; T435 of 2009 and T-367 of 2010.

  23. 23.

    It is the highest court of appeal (or court of last resort) for several independent Commonwealth countries. It is one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom.

  24. 24.

    B. Tittemore, “The Mandatory Death Penalty in the Commonwealth Caribbean and the Inter-American Human Rights System: An Evolution in the Development and Implementation of International Human Rights Protections” (2004) 13 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 445. See also Case 11.816, Haniff Hilaire v. Trinidad and Tobago, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 16 October 1997 (1997 Annual Report) (‘Haniff Hilaire case’).

  25. 25.

    Thomas & Hilarie v. Baptiste, [1999] 3 W. L. R. 249, 2 A.C.1. p 12 and 19. The judgment is available at: http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/pdfs/Hilaire.pdf. (Accessed on 21 March 2013). See also Tittemore, supra, note 24, 467.

  26. 26.

    James et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, Provisional Measure, Inter-Am.Ct.HR, Order of 26 November 2001, para. 10.

  27. 27.

    Gonzales, supra, note 19, 53.

  28. 28.

    Burbano-Herrera and Viljoen, supra, note 4.

  29. 29.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969, art. 27.

  30. 30.

    In the African system, the following rights could be limited by the ‘claw-back’ clauses: the right to liberty and security (Article 6); the freedom of conscience (Article 8); the freedom of expression (Article 9); the freedom of association (Article 10); and the freedom of movement (Article 12). However, the Commission has established that in case of limitations, it should be conformed to international human rights standards. See Communication 101/93, Civil Liberties Organization (in respect of Bar Association) v. Nigeria (2000) AHRLR 186 (ACHPR 1995) para. 15. In the Inter-American system, Article 27 (2) of the American Convention indicates explicitly which provision does not authorize any suspension: Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 6 (Freedom from Slavery), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion), Article 17 (Rights of the Family), Article 18 (Right to a Name), Article 19 (Rights of the Child), Article 20 (Right to Nationality), and Article 23 (Right to Participate in Government), or of the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights. With regard to the rights which could be limited, the Court has indicated that it is not a question of a suspension of guarantees in an absolute sense, nor of a suspension of rights. See I/A Court H.R. Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7 (6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of 30 January 1987.

  31. 31.

    Inter-American Commission, Rules of Procedure, art 25(2). “In serious and urgent situations, the Commission may, on its own initiative or at the request of a party, request that a State adopt precautionary measures to prevent irreparable harm to persons under the jurisdiction of the State concerned, independently of any pending petition or case.”

  32. 32.

    The Annual Reports have been published since 1970 and precautionary measures have been adopted since 1980. However, it is only since 1996 that the Commission includes in its Report a specific section with information about precautionary measures. Official information on the Commission’s early use of precautionary measures is not available.

  33. 33.

    In the Annual Reports of 1996 and 1997, there are references of precautionary measures adopted in 1994 and 1995. See e.g. Hernando Valencia Villa v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 28 September 1994 (1997 Annual Report) (‘Hernando Valencia Villa matter’); and Case 11.458, Jorge Vásquez Durand v. Ecuador, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 1 June 1995 (1996 Annual Report) (‘Jorge Vásquez Durand case’).

  34. 34.

    In 2012, 25 PM have been examined.

  35. 35.

    A manual count of the precautionary measures adopted by the Commission shows that measures were granted as follows: 1994 (1 PM); 1995(6 PM); 1996 (26 PM); 1997(48 PM); 1998 (47 PM); 1999 (50 PM); 2000 (44 PM); 2001 (61 PM); 2002 (81 PM); 2003 (60 PM); 2004 (45 PM); 2005 (61 PM); 2006 (24 PM); 2007 (34 PM); 2008 (27 PM); 2009 (35 PM); 2010 (53 PM); 2011 (57 PM). These numbers, in some occasions, are different from the statistics included by the Commission in its Annual Reports.

  36. 36.

    There is no official information on the precautionary measures that were rejected and not responded to. With respect to this, the Commission only provided statistics.

  37. 37.

    The website of the OAS is: http:/www.oas.org

  38. 38.

    In 2005, (265 PM); 2006 (314 PM); 2007 (250 PM); 2008 (301 PM); 2009 (324 PM); 2010 (375 PM) and 2011 (422 PM). There is no official information on the interim measures requested in 2002, 2003 and 2004. See 2011 Commission Annual Report, p 64. The Inter-American Commission publishes the decisions on interim measures and Annual Reports on its website. It may be accessed on: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/consultation/2_measures.asp

  39. 39.

    The African Union (AU) is an international organization, since South Sudan joined it last year, consisting of 54 African states. Today, 54 of the 55 states on the African continent are a member of the African Union. The exception is Morocco, which has withdrawn from the Organization of Africa Unity (OAU) in 1984, after the African Union recognised the Western Sahara as a sovereign state.

  40. 40.

    Although the African Commission has the competence to adopt interim measures since 1988, the first time that the Commission adopted an interim measure was in 1993.

  41. 41.

    The Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa (IHRDA), an NGO based in Banjul, publishes the decisions of interim measures of the African Commission and the African Court. It may be accessed on its website: http://caselaw.ihrda.org. The Centre for Human Rights of the University of Pretoria also publishes the decisions of provisional measures on its website: http://www.chr.up.ac.za/index.php/browse-by-subject/538-interimprovisional-measures.html, and it also publishes the African Human Rights Law Reports (AHRLR), see: www.chr.up.ac.za/index.php/publications/ahrlr.html. See also the Commission’s website: www.achpr.org.

  42. 42.

    In total, 26 cases were examined. In the communications 137/94, 139/94, 154/96 and 161/97, International Pen, Constitutional Rights Project, Interights (in respect of Ken Saro-Wiwa Jr and Civil Liberties Organisation) v. Nigeria (‘Saro-Wiwa case’) and in the application 6/12, African Commission v. Kenya (concerning the Ogiek of Mau Forest Area) (‘Ogiek of Mau Forest Area case’), two different decisions of interim measures were adopted in each case.

  43. 43.

    According to Article 59(1), all measures taken within the provisions of Chapter III ‘Procedure of the Commission’ of the African Charter shall remain confidential until such a time as the Assembly of Heads of State and Government shall otherwise decide.

  44. 44.

    African Charter, art. 22.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., art. 17.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., art. 16.

  47. 47.

    The African Commission case in Nigerian Newspapers Proscription required the state to ensure that the health of the victims was not endangered. See Communication 140/94, 141/94 and 145/95, Constitutional Rights Project, Civil Liberties Organisation and Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria (‘Nigerian Newspapers Proscription case’).

  48. 48.

    The approximately 254 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are included in this category. These detainees were transported by the United States following their capture in Afghanistan on 12 January 2002.The United States refused to consider the detainees to be prisoners of war, until a competent tribunal determined otherwise, which means that the detainees were held arbitrarily and incommunicado for a prolonged period of time, and they had been interrogated without legal counsel. Detainees being held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba v. United States of America, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 12 March 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘Detainees being held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba matter’).

  49. 49.

    See e.g. PM 395/09, Maho Indigenous Community v. Suriname, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 27 October 2010 (2010 Annual Report) (‘Maho Indigenous Community matter’) and PM 382/10, Indigenous Communities of the Xingu River Basin, Pará v. Brazil. Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 1 April, 2011 (2011 Annual Report) (‘Indigenous Communities of the Xingu River Basin, Pará matter’).

  50. 50.

    See e.g. PM 319/09, League of Displaced Women v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 18 November 2009 (2009 Annual Report) (‘League of Displaced Women matter’) and PM 13/12, Members of the Human Rights Lawyers Group v. Guatemala, Precautionary measures Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 2 May, 2012 (‘Members of the Human Rights Lawyers Group matter’).

  51. 51.

    Communication 133/94, Association pour la Défense des Droits de l’Homme et des Libertés v. Djibouti (2000) AHRLR 80 (ACHPR 2000) (‘Afar case’) and Application 6/2012, African Commission (in respect of the Ogiek Community of the May Forest) v. Kenya (‘Ogiek Community of the May Forest case’).

  52. 52.

    The Commission requested the United States, 2 months after the United States began transferring persons captured in connection with the US-led military operation against terrorism to its Guantanamo naval base, to take ‘urgent measures necessary to determine the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay’. There quest concerned 254 male prisoners of 25 different nationalities. See Detainees being held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba matter, supra, note 48.

  53. 53.

    PM 196/09, (Patricia Rodas and others v. Honduras) Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 28 June 2009 (2009 Annual Report) (‘Patricia Rodas and others matter’).

  54. 54.

    According to information presented by the inter-American Commission, the precarious conditions and lack of security in the camps for internally displaced persons (IDP camps) was generating a situation of extreme danger for the women and girls who lived there. Apparently, there was an increasing number of acts of sexual violence committed in the camps: the raping of girls as young as 5 years old has been reported. See PM 340/10, Women and girls residing in 22 Camps for internally displaced persons in Port-au-Prince v. Haiti, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 22 December 2010 (2010 Annual Report) (‘Women and girls residing in 22 Camps for internally displaced persons in Port-au-Prince matter’)and Inter-American Commission, Press Release N° 114/10, ‘IACHR expresses concern over situation in camps for displaced persons in Haiti’ 18 November 2010, available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/Comunicados/English/2010/115-10eng.htm.

  55. 55.

    Saro-Wiwa case, supra, note, supra, note 42; Communication 256/2002, Woods and Another v. Liberia, (2003) AHRLR 125 (ACHPR 2003) (‘Woods and Another case’); Communication 250/2002, Zegveld and Another v. Eritrea, (2003) AHRLR 84 (ACHPR 2003) (‘Eritrean Detention case’); Communication 258/2002, Miss A v. Cameroon, (2004), AHRLR 39 (ACHPR 2004) (‘Miss A case’); Communication 269/03, Interights (in respect of Safia Yakubu Husaini et al.) v. Nigeria (‘Safia Yakubu Husaini case’); Communication 322/06, Tsatsu Tsikata v. Ghana (‘Tsatsu Tsikata case’); Communication 334/06, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights and Interights v. Arab Republic of Egypt (‘Egypt Death Penalty case’) and Application 2/2013, African Commission (in respect of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi) v. Libya (‘Gaddafi’s son case’).

  56. 56.

    See e.g., Petition P607/04, Troy Albert Kunkle v. United States of America, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 7 July 2004 (2004 Annual Report) (‘Troy Albert Kunkle matter’).

  57. 57.

    See e.g., Case 12.073, Gangadeen Tahaloo v. Trinidad and Tobago, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 21 December 1998 (1998 Annual Report) (‘Gangadeen Tahaloo case’).

  58. 58.

    See e.g., Case 12.347, Dave Sewell v. Jamaica, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 4 December 2000 (2000 Annual Report) (‘Dave Sewell case’).

  59. 59.

    See e.g., Case 11.643, Trevor Fisher v. Bahamas, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 1 April 1998 (1998 Annual Report) (‘Trevor Fisher case’).

  60. 60.

    See e.g., PM 50/09, Alejandro Jiménez Blanco v. Cuba, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 18 March 2009 (2009 Annual Report) (‘Alejandro Jiménez Blanco matter’); and PM 484/11, José Daniel Ferrer García v. Cuba, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 5 November 2012 (‘José Daniel Ferrer García matter’).

  61. 61.

    See e.g., Wilson García Asto v. Peru, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 4 April 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘Wilson García Asto matter’).

  62. 62.

    See e.g., Convicted and tried inmates committed to the Penitentiary of Mendoza and its offices v. Argentina, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 3 August 2004 (2004 Annual Report) (‘Convicted and tried inmates committed to the Penitentiary of Mendoza and its offices matter’).

  63. 63.

    See Men deprived of freedom in the cells located in the basement of POLINTER Police District in Rio de Janeiro v. Brazil, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 11 November 2005 (2005 Annual Report) (‘Men deprived of freedom in the cells located in the basement of POLINTER Police District in Rio de Janeiro matter’).

  64. 64.

    See e.g., 108 inmates in the Maximum Security Prison at Kilometer 14 v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 18 March 2004 (2004 Annual Report) (‘108 inmates in the Maximum Security Prison at Kilometer 14 matter’).

  65. 65.

    See e.g., PM 144/07, Detainees at Toussaint Louverture Police Station in Gonaïves v. Haiti, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 16 June 2008 (2008 Annual Report) (‘Detainees at Toussaint Louverture Police Station in Gonaïves matter’).

  66. 66.

    See e.g., PM 364/09, Carlos Amilcar Orellana Donis v. Guatemala, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 19 January 2010 (2010 Annual Report) (‘Carlos Amilcar Orellana Donis matter’).

  67. 67.

    See e.g., 108 inmates in the Maximum Security Prison at Kilometer 14 v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 18 March 2004 (2004 Annual Report) (‘108 inmates in the Maximum Security Prison at Kilometer 14 matter’).

  68. 68.

    In Political prisoners in buildings 1 and 2 of the National Model Prison in Bogotá matter it was mentioned that: “On April 27, 2000, prisoners belonging to paramilitary groups detained in cellblock 5 launched a violent attack on prisoners in cellblock 4, killing 47 inmates and injuring 17 others. The petitioners alleged that several prisoners from cellblocks 3 and 5, with Auto defensas Unidas de Colombia bracelets, carried long-range weapons when patrolling the facilities, making threats against political prisoners”. See Political prisoners in buildings 1 and 2 of the National Model Prison in Bogotá v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 11 May 2000 (2000 Annual Report) (‘Political prisoners in buildings 1 and 2 of the National Model Prison in Bogotá matter’).

  69. 69.

    See e.g., Adolescents in the Public Prison of Guarujá v. Brazil, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 26 October 2007 (2007 Annual Report) (‘Adolescents in the Public Prison of Guarujá matter’).

  70. 70.

    See e.g., PM 104/12, Penitenciary Services Buenos Aires Province v. Argentina, Precautionary measures Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 13 April, 2012 (‘Penitenciary Services Buenos Aires Province matter’).

  71. 71.

    Communication 83/92, Jean Yakovi Degli v. Togo (‘Togo Detention case’).

  72. 72.

    Saro-Wiwa case, supra, note 42 and Nigerian Newspapers Proscription case, supra, note, 47.

  73. 73.

    Gaddafi’s son case, supra, note 55, para. 15.

  74. 74.

    Saro-Wiwa case, supra, note 42 and Egypt Death Penalty case, supra, note 55.

  75. 75.

    Egypt Death Penalty case, supra, note 55.

  76. 76.

    Saro-Wiwa case, supra, note 42; Nigerian Newspapers Proscription case, supra, note 47; and Gaddafi’s son case, supra, note 55.

  77. 77.

    Nigerian Newspapers Proscription case, supra, note 47 paras. 2 and 49; and Gaddafi’s son case, supra, note 55.

  78. 78.

    Gaddafi’s son case, supra, note 55, ordered on 15 March 2013.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., para. 15.

  80. 80.

    See e.g., Case 11.324, Virgilio Almanzar and others v. Dominican Republic, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 8 November 1996 (1996 Annual Report) (‘Virgilio Almanzar and others case’).

  81. 81.

    See e.g., PM 388/12, Edgar Ismael Solorio Solís and others v. Mexico, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 6 November 2012 (‘Edgar Ismael Solorio Solís and others matter’).

  82. 82.

    With 47 precautionary measures, Colombia has the highest number of requests. It is followed by Guatemala with 27 requests and Mexico with 26 requests. See e.g., Anselmo Roldán Aguilar v. Guatemala, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 31 July 2001 (2001 Annual Report) (‘Anselmo Roldán Aguilar matter’).

  83. 83.

    See e.g., Carlos A. Singares Campbell v. Panama, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 7 July 2000 (2000 Annual Report) (‘Carlos A. Singares Campbell matter’) and Journalists working at the newspaper El Nacional v. Venezuela, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 11 January 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘Journalists working at the newspaper El Nacional matter’).

  84. 84.

    See Burbano-Herrera and D. Rodríguez-Pinzón, “Provisional Measures Issued by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights”, in supra, note 4.

  85. 85.

    See e.g., Odir Miranda and others v. El Salvador, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 29 February 2000 (1999 Annual Report) (‘Odir Miranda and others matter’).

  86. 86.

    See e.g., Wilson García Asto matter, supra, note 61.

  87. 87.

    See e.g., Petition P0353.2001, Gerardo Valdez Maltos v. United States of America, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 14 June 2001 (2001 Annual Report) (‘Gerardo Valdez Maltos matter’).

  88. 88.

    See e.g., 15 carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus v. Peru, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 23 September 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘15 carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus matter’).

  89. 89.

    PM 43/10, Amelia v. Nicaragua, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 26 February 2010 (2010 Annual Report) (‘Amelia matter’).

  90. 90.

    See e.g., Petition 12.381, Robert Bacon Jr. v. United States of America, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 25 April 2001 (2001 Annual Report) (‘Robert Bacon Jr. matter’).

  91. 91.

    See e.g., COFAVIC v. Venezuela, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 19 April 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘COFAVIC matter’).

  92. 92.

    Case 11.791, Gustavo Gorriti Ellenbogen v. Panama, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 18 August 1997 (1997 Annual Report) (‘Gustavo Gorriti Ellenbogen case’).

  93. 93.

    See e.g., Women and girls residing in 22 Camps for internally displaced persons in Port-au-Prince matter, supra, note 54.

  94. 94.

    See e.g., 40 Embera Chamí indigenous persons v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 15 March 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘40 Embera Chamí indigenous persons matter’).

  95. 95.

    See e.g., Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hillerman and others v. El Salvator, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 20 June 1997 (1997 Annual Report) and Order of 20 November 2001 (2001 Annual Report) (‘Mauricio Garcia Prieto Hillerman and others matter’).

  96. 96.

    Agustín Jarquín Anaya and others v. Nicaragua, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 12 February 1999 (1999 Annual Report) (‘Agustín Jarquín Anaya and others matter’).

  97. 97.

    Togo Detention case, supra, note 71.

  98. 98.

    Egypt Death Penalty case, supra, note 55.

  99. 99.

    Communication 290/2004, Open Society Justice Initiative (in respect of Njawe Noumeni) v. Cameroon (2006) AHRLR 75 (ACHPR 2006) (‘Radio Freedom FM case’) para. 12.

  100. 100.

    Afar case, supra, note 51.

  101. 101.

    Communication 231/99, Avocats Sans Frontières (in respect of Bwampamye) v. Burundi, (2000) AHRLR 48 (ACHPR 2000) (‘Bwampamye case’) paras. 15 and 17.

  102. 102.

    Egypt Death Penalty case, supra, note 55.

  103. 103.

    Safia Yakubu Husaini case, supra, note 55.

  104. 104.

    Safia Yakubu Husaini case, supra, note 55 paras. 2 and 14–16.

  105. 105.

    Ibid, paras. 2 and 3.

  106. 106.

    Ibid, paras. 14, 15, 20 and 22. The communication ended with a request of the complainants to withdraw the case. They could not obtain the information to prepare their written submissions on admissibility. The Commission decided to close the file.

  107. 107.

    Rule 110(3).

  108. 108.

    Burbano-Herrera and Viljoen, supra, note 4.

  109. 109.

    Saro-Wiwa case, supra, note 42 in regard to Nigeria; Communication 212/98, Amnesty International v. Zambia (2000) AHRLR 325 (ACHPR 1999) (‘Banda case’), in regard to Zambia and Communication 284/03, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights & Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe v. Republic of Zimbabwe (‘Zimbabwean Daily News case’) in regard to Zimbabwe.

  110. 110.

    Burbano-Herrera and Viljoen, supra, note 4.

  111. 111.

    Four carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus v. Honduras, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 16 August 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘Four carriers of the HIV/AIDS virus matter’).

  112. 112.

    Fourteen social leaders from the department of Arauca v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 29 July 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘14 social leaders from the department of Arauca matter’).

  113. 113.

    Thirty four workers of the Empresa Comunitaria de Acueducto y Alcantarillado de Saravena v. Colombia, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 22 September 2003 (2003 Annual Report) (‘34 workers of the Empresa Comunitaria de Acueducto y Alcantarillado de Saravena matter’), two beneficiaries were killed.

  114. 114.

    Eloisa Barrios and others v. Venezuela, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 22 June 2004 (2004 Annual Report) (‘Eloisa Barrios and others matter’).

  115. 115.

    Manoel Bezerra and others v. Brazil, Precautionary measures, Inter-Am. Comm. HR, Order of 23 September 2002 (2002 Annual Report) (‘Manoel Bezerra and others matter’).

  116. 116.

    Saro-Wiwa case, supra, note 42 paras. 29, 103, 114 and 115.

  117. 117.

    Eritrean Detention case, supra, note 55 para 2.

  118. 118.

    Ibid.

  119. 119.

    Rule 98(4).

  120. 120.

    Rule 118(2).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Human Rights Centre of Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Clara Burbano-Herrera (Co-Lecturer)

  2. Research Foundation Flanders, Brussels, Belgium

    Clara Burbano-Herrera (Postdoctoral Research Fellow)

  3. Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa

    Frans Viljoen (Director)

Authors
  1. Clara Burbano-Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Clara Burbano-Herrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frans Viljoen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Clara Burbano-Herrera .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Yves Haeck

  2. Human Rights Centre, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Eva Brems

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Burbano-Herrera, C., Burbano-Herrera, C., Viljoen, F. (2014). Interim Measures Before the Inter-American and African Human Rights Commissions: Strengths and Weaknesses. In: Haeck, Y., Brems, E. (eds) Human Rights and Civil Liberties in the 21st Century. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 30. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7599-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation