The system of international bodies exercising control of states on the observance of human rights. Human Rights Monitoring Mechanism International Monitoring of Fundamental Human Rights
1. institute international protection rights human-system international bodies and procedures of a universal and regional character, functioning in the direction of developing international standards in the field of human rights and freedoms and exercising control over their observance by states.
Structurally, the institution of international protection of human rights consists of international bodies created within the framework of international organizations (UN, UNESCO, ILO, Council of Europe, OSCE, CIS, OAS, African Union), and convention bodies created on the basis of universal and regional agreements on human rights.
The functions of international protection of human rights include: development of declarations-recommendations; codification activities (development of international human rights standards); control over the observance by states of international human rights standards.
The functions of international and national protection of human rights are delimited as follows: international level international standards (obligations) in the field of human rights are being developed and there are bodies monitoring their observance; at the national level, states bring their legislation in line with international standards and guarantee their implementation.
International control refers to the coordinated activities of states or international organizations to verify compliance by states with their obligations in order to ensure their implementation. Target international control consists not in coercion or application of sanctions against states, but only in verification of compliance with the provisions of international agreements. One of the main tasks of the control bodies is to provide assistance and assistance to states in fulfilling their international obligations by making appropriate decisions and recommendations. International control over the observance of human rights and freedoms is characterized by the presence of special international control mechanisms and procedures for the observance of human rights and freedoms. Control mechanisms represent certain organizational structures (committees, working groups, special rapporteurs, etc.), and procedures - the procedure and methods for examining relevant information and responding to the results of such research.
Control mechanisms have different legal nature:
Conventional, i.e. such international control mechanisms and procedures that are established on the basis of international agreements on human rights;
Non-contractual - are created and function within the framework of a number of international organizations (UN, ILO, UNESCO, etc.). The latter, in turn, are divided into statutory (provided by the constituent acts of organizations) and special.
According to the territorial scope of action, international control mechanisms and procedures are divided into universal and regional. Based on the form of control, all international bodies can be divided into judicial and quasi-judicial. According to the legal force of the decisions (conclusions, resolutions) made, all international control bodies are divided into those whose decisions are binding on the state to which they are addressed (decisions of judicial control bodies), and bodies whose conclusions are advisory in nature (committees, commissions, subsidiary bodies of international organizations).
International control over the observance of human rights and freedoms is carried out in the following forms: consideration of reports of states on the fulfillment of their obligations in this area; consideration of claims of the states to each other concerning violation of such obligations; consideration of individual complaints from individuals, groups of individuals, non-governmental organizations on violations of their rights by the state; study of situations related to alleged or established violations of human rights (special working groups, rapporteurs).
The universal mechanism of international control in the field of human rights, considered within the framework of this topic, is a set of non-treaty and treaty (conventional) bodies of international control.
The control mechanisms are organizational structures(committees, working groups, special rapporteurs, etc.). International control mechanisms and procedures should not be identified. Unlike international control mechanisms, procedures are the procedures and methods for examining relevant information and responding to the results of such research.
Different procedures may be used within the same control body.
The procedures applied by international organizations can be used without any control mechanism, for example by the UN Commission on Human Rights in its plenary meetings.
Persons who are part of a particular control mechanism most often act in their personal capacity, that is, they are not responsible to their governments for their activities and do not receive any instructions from them. They act as part of these mechanisms independently as experts, judges, etc.
International monitoring mechanisms in the field of human rights can be collective bodies - committees, groups, etc. And they can also be individual bodies - special rapporteurs.
Collective bodies make decisions either by consensus or by majority vote. The legal nature of their decisions is different. They are usually non-binding, expressing only the opinion of the relevant body on the issue under consideration (including recommendations, general or specific). Sometimes they cannot even be called decisions (for example, the conclusions of special rapporteurs, although they usually end with recommendations). Less commonly, they are binding on the parties concerned (judgments of the European Court of Human Rights). Ultimately, everything depends on the mandate given to the supervisory body.
International mechanisms in the field of human rights protection do not always cope with their duties. They sometimes duplicate each other, require excessive financial expenses, and lead to the adoption of not always objective decisions. However, their creation and increase in their number is a reflection of the objective trends in international life. Therefore, at this stage, the need for their improvement and rationalization comes to the fore.
Sometimes there is a combination in one body of control mechanisms provided for by human rights treaties and established by international organizations. Thus, according to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the participants' reports on their implementation of its provisions are sent through the UN Secretary General to ECOSOC. Such control became possible only after the consent of ECOSOC to assume control functions, since ECOSOC is a UN body, and not a body created by the Pact.
A similar legal situation arose with the establishment of the Group of Three Control Mechanism for the Implementation of the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid of November 30, 1973. The Group of Three is appointed annually by the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights from among the members of the Commission, who are also representatives of the states parties to the Convention.
Read also:
|
Success in the observance of human rights can be achieved only with effective international control over their actual observance. The UN Secretariat has Center for Human Rights, engaged, in particular, in the collection of information from various sources on the state of human rights in the world. Since 1997, its functions have been transferred to Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Under him and under the auspices of the UN Commission on Human Rights, procedure for dealing with private complaints based on resolution 1503 May 27, 1970 This procedure has a number of features. It is universal, since it does not depend on the consent of states; a citizen of any state can use it.
In 1993 The UN General Assembly established post of High Commissioner for Human Rights.
IN Human Rights Committee and other convention bodies, significant development has been control function related to the consideration of private complaints.
Constantly operate expert bodies, established on the basis of universal human rights treaties. Working on the basis of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Human Rights Committee, which is authorized to consider reports on measures taken and on progress made in the exercise of rights and to consider written complaints from individuals. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ECOSOC was created to consider reports on the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Topic 11. LAW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
THE CONCEPT AND SOURCES OF THE LAW OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Law of international organizations- a set of international legal norms regulating the status of international (intergovernmental) organizations and associations, their subject composition, structure, powers and procedures for the activities of bodies, legal effect their acts. International organizations- an important constituent element in the formation of a new international legal order.
The main body of the law of international organizations is formed by the norms of their constituent acts, as well as treaties related to organizations, for example, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and International Organizations or between International Organizations, 1986.
Growing number and role customary norms in this industry.
A special place among the sources of their law is occupied by internal law of international organizations .
| | | | |
CURRENT ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
A.O. Goltyaev
Department of International Law Peoples' Friendship University of Russia Miklukho-Maklaya, 6, Moscow, Russia, 117198
The article discusses the formation and development of international control mechanisms in ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms. It highlights the conceptual and normative foundations of international control over the provision of human rights by states, enshrined in international instruments adopted within the framework of the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe. The main attention is paid to the activities of the UN human rights mechanisms, such as the Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Reviews (UPR), the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council, the UN human rights treaty bodies.
Keywords Keywords: international control, ensuring human rights, the UN Human Rights Council, the Universal Periodic Review, the Special Procedures of the UN Human Rights Council, the human rights treaty (monitoring) bodies of the UN system.
Respect for human rights and the rule of law is an important factor for security and stability in democratic societies, as well as an incentive for sustainable development and economic progress. Today, the assertion that human rights have become an element of our civilization, part of Everyday life. The standards and principles proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and enshrined in universal international treaties governing the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms are reflected in regional legal systems and in state law.
It is obvious that the creation and improvement at the state level of an effective system for the promotion and protection of human rights, which not only guarantees compliance with obligations under the relevant international treaties, but also prevents violations of human rights, provides victims of them with access to the means of effective restoration of their rights and contributes to the fullest implementation of all categories of rights for everyone, is a rather long and laborious process.
Its participants are required to have a clear understanding of the tasks and priorities, as well as knowledge of intrasystem problems. This, in turn, requires a detailed and continuous assessment of the performance of the system in order to make timely adjustments to it. In other words, control.
The system of international control in the field of human rights took shape gradually. This is due, first of all, to the fact that at the universal and regional level there is no supranational authority that could control the implementation of all the norms and principles of international law, including enforcement of their execution and sanctions for them. No international body can fully ensure and protect human rights. The agreement of states on any external (including international) control over the fulfillment of obligations in the field of human rights is purely voluntary.
Before the Second World War, even statements that human rights were being violated in other states could be regarded as an encroachment on sovereignty and interference in internal affairs. The Statute of the League of Nations did not mention human rights, and in general, the observance of human rights was not at that time an imperative of the domestic and foreign policy of states.
It can be said without exaggeration that a qualitative leap in the process of establishing international control in the field of human rights occurred after the Second World War. From the Charter of the United Nations follows the obligation of all states to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without any distinction based on race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, property status, birth or other status (Art. 1 (3), 55 of the UN Charter). At the same time, the UN Charter does not imply any separate control over the observance of human rights, placing the main responsibility for it on states.
The beginnings of international control in the field of human rights appeared even before the war. Thus, in the Slavery Convention, which entered into force on March 9, 1927, disputes arising between high contracting parties regarding the interpretation or application of the provisions of the Convention "... will be referred to the decision of the Permanent Court of International Justice" (Article 8 of the Convention). The Forced Labor Convention (ILO Convention No. 29), which entered into force in 1932, provides for annual reports of the states that have ratified it on measures to implement its provisions and on specific issues related to the use of forced labor (Article 22 of the Convention). However, these sporadic actions differed both in effect and scale from the steps taken by the international community in the second half of the 20th century - early XXI V.
The progressive development of control mechanisms in the field of human rights at the universal and regional levels took place simultaneously with the development and adoption of international legal acts establishing
obligations of states in the field of observance of fundamental human rights and freedoms. International organizations - the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe - were actively involved in monitoring the observance of human rights. Most of the universal and regional treaties in the field of human rights provide in their text and relevant control procedures.
Of course, it is worth recognizing that at the universal level, the leading role in the field of control in the field of human rights belongs to the UN. To one degree or another, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and its functional commissions, as well as divisions of the Secretariat, primarily the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), are involved in control.
Separately, it is worth noting the control powers of the UN Human Rights Council. Within its framework, the universal periodic review procedure (UPR) of the situation with human rights in the UN member states, the system of special monitoring procedures and the confidential procedure for individual complaints of gross and systematic violations of human rights function.
The rapid development of international control is explained by a number of factors. Globalization, the strengthening of the interdependence of states, the growth in the number and scale of problems of a transboundary nature have led to a trend towards the fact that issues that previously belonged to the purely internal competence of states began to be regulated by international law. The emergence of modern means dissemination of information, and increased activity of non-governmental organizations and institutions civil society, and the development of international organizations.
Consistent monitoring of the work of the human rights system provides accurate information that allows the state - the main guarantor of human rights and fundamental freedoms - to find and eliminate gaps in the provision of human rights, create conditions for their fuller implementation, determine priorities for channeling resources to strengthen existing institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights or the creation of new ones.
The main purpose of human rights monitoring is to ensure that States comply with applicable international human rights norms and standards. Monitoring is a tool that allows you to assess the quality and level of compliance, identify problems, get an idea of the effectiveness of measures taken to solve them, and also suggest additional corrective measures.
Control over the system of promotion and protection of human rights existing in the state implies an integrated approach that takes into account the operation of the entire system as a whole, its individual elements and the relationships between them. So, law enforcement, courts, lawyers, press, national
human rights institutions, civil society structures, various kinds of oversight bodies and mechanisms play an independent role in ensuring human rights, but the effectiveness of their functioning is significantly enhanced by well-established interaction with other institutions in this area. If a single institution fails to cope with its functions, the whole system may fail. It is very important that monitoring takes into account not only the difficulties that exist in individual areas of human rights work, but also their impact on the system as a whole.
In order to determine the extent to which a State complies with international norms and human rights standards, it is necessary first of all to analyze the existing legislation. The independence of the judiciary, freedom of speech, assembly and press, the proper administration of justice, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex, race, social origin and property, mechanisms for redress, the protection of vulnerable groups of the population - all this is the basis of respect for human rights and should be enshrined in law. Monitoring is designed to determine the completeness of domestic laws, the presence of gaps in them that could potentially lead to violations of human rights or their non-compliance, the compliance of national legislation international standards, the possibility of direct application of the latter, etc.
Equally important is the assessment of law enforcement practice. As history shows, the existence of even the most progressive and comprehensive legislation is not a sufficient condition for the observance of human rights, and no country in the world is free from violations. Therefore, control should be aimed at monitoring the real state of affairs with respect for human rights, identifying trends in rights violations and suggesting ways to correct them.
Another important aspect of control is the need to assess the functioning of the system for the promotion and protection of human rights in dynamics. Control should not only provide a comprehensive picture of the strengths and weaknesses work of the human rights protection system, but also to assess its changes, the impact on it of political measures, reforms and other external and internal factors.
The basic criteria according to which monitoring is carried out are universal and regional treaty norms in the field of human rights. In addition, customary international law and non-treaty rules are used. Depending on the status, mandate and practice of work of this or that control procedure, additional criteria are developed.
Thus, in the activities of the convention human rights bodies leading place take notes general order who interpret and develop the provisions of the relevant international treaties. Although these comments are not legally binding, they are taken into account and
In the work of the European Court of Human Rights important role precedent practice plays. In similar cases of violation of the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, “standard” decisions are made.
The competence of the universal periodic review, conducted by the UN Human Rights Council, includes not only the treaty obligations of states, but also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which per se is a body of customary law, and the applicable rules of international humanitarian law, and voluntary commitments. Therefore, the range of recommendations made under the UPR is extremely wide.
The special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council operate within the framework of the mandates established by the resolutions of the Council. Their recommendations are usually of a practical nature and are often based on non-treaty norms approved at the intergovernmental level - various kinds of declarations, guidelines, etc.
If the control is of a periodic nature, an important place in it is the evaluation of the implementation of the recommendations made earlier.
The control process involves several stages - the collection of information, its analysis, making recommendations and monitoring their implementation. It is obvious that the key element in it is the issuance of recommendations, which indicate the ways of real solution of the identified problems in ensuring human rights. Recommendations should be clear, understandable, constructive, objective and result-oriented. At the same time, they should be broad enough not only to take into account all aspects of the problem, but also to leave states with a certain “operational scope” for their implementation.
Recommendations can have both binding (1) and non-binding (2) status. At the same time, it should be noted that the recommendations adopted by the state under control are automatically equated to voluntary obligations and are considered as such during subsequent control.
The format and nature of recommendations varies depending on the authority of the supervisory body and the breadth of the issue under consideration. They may propose bringing domestic legislation into line with international law, introducing additional funds legal protection, change initiatives public policy, creation of additional structures and positions, establishment of mechanisms for ensuring professional ethics and responsibility of employees state structures, administrative support, concrete remedial action, implementation educational programs and mechanisms of legal assistance, conducting propaganda and information campaigns, etc.
associations, non-governmental organizations). Some of the recommendations are joint work government and non-government sectors, sometimes - attracting the potential of international organizations and donor countries (3).
Practice shows that recommendations should be as close as possible to real conditions, take into account the priority needs of the state and, most importantly, the consequences of their implementation. Thus, ensuring a ban on propaganda of racial, national or religious hatred may lead to unjustified restrictions on freedom of speech, and the introduction of strict measures to combat human trafficking - a violation of the right to freedom of movement. The financial implications of their implementation must also be taken into account.
In this context, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of objective and complete information about the situation in a particular state. In the process of control, it is important to take into account not only existing international norms and information from the state on their implementation, but also the real situation. It is no coincidence that the practice of “alternative” reports submitted by non-governmental organizations and civil society institutions has become stronger in the treaty bodies. In the universal periodic review, information from alternative sources is considered on a par with the State's report (4). At the same time, however, it is necessary to take into account that indirect information is less reliable than direct evidence, as well as to make adjustments for the real situation in the state, the social and cultural characteristics of society, the level economic development etc.
The analysis should provide a holistic and accurate picture of the system for the protection and promotion of human rights, with all its shortcomings and advantages. An incident with a human rights violation may indicate an existing systemic problem (for example, the general weakness and inefficiency of the mechanisms for enforcing court decisions), but it may also be the result of unlawful actions of a particular official (judge, investigator, prosecutor). Attempts to present individual, albeit resonant, cases as a system can lead to politicization and undermine confidence in the control body.
It should be noted that most of the universal mechanisms of international control in the field of human rights deal with systemic problems. The authority to consider individual reports of violations is fixed separately - in the text of the relevant treaty (5) or in an optional protocol (6). The United Nations Human Rights Council's complaints procedure deals exclusively with allegations of "systematic and credibly attested gross violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms" .
In general, the measure of the effectiveness of control is both the accuracy and depth of analysis, and the usefulness and practical applicability of the recommendations.
The mandate of the control mechanism plays a key role in the control process. Usually it is established either by an international treaty or by a decision of one of the UN bodies - the General Assembly, the Security Council, ECOSOC, the Human Rights Council. If necessary, it should be confirmed or specified in national legislation or fixed by a memorandum or other agreement with responsible body at the state level. This is especially important in cases where monitors have access to certain institutions (eg places of detention), attendance at court hearings or access to information.
The most important factor is the level of qualification of controllers, their honesty and impartiality. It is no coincidence that the relevant provisions are included in the texts of international treaties (7) and other documents regulating the activities of control procedures (8). Not only the level of trust in this body, but also the overall return on its activities depends on the objectivity and reliability of the conclusions made by the regulatory body.
It is obvious that international control cannot replace the system of ensuring human rights that exists at the state level, especially when it concerns individual violations. Monitoring mechanisms, within their mandate, may influence individual cases and prescribe temporary measures, but these do not always help to strengthen the system for the promotion and protection of human rights as a whole. Often, for example, attempts to change the "unfair" judgment which is contrary to the principle of independence and impartiality of the judiciary and undermines the credibility of the control mechanism.
In general, practice shows that international control has become one of the most important tools for ensuring the observance of human rights by all states of the world. Taking into account the fact that human rights are gaining more and more weight in global politics, it is quite possible to expect that the institutions of international control will develop, and the range of controlled rights and freedoms will expand. Another treaty body, the Committee for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, is expected to emerge at the universal level in the near future (9). In addition, it is possible that in the course of the review of the activities and functioning of the UN Human Rights Council, its control powers will change somewhat.
NOTES
post-conflict recovery, which are characterized by instability and weakness of the institutions of state power.
(4) Paragraph 15 of the HRC Institution Building Document establishes that the UPR “will be conducted on the basis of the following documents: (...) additional credible and reliable information submitted by other stakeholders for the universal periodic review, which the Council should also take into account attention".
(5) Thus, art. 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination states that a State Party “may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee [on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination] within its jurisdiction to receive and consider communications from individuals and groups of individuals, who claim to be victims of a violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Convention.”
(6) For example, the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for the competence of the Human Rights Committee to consider individual communications regarding violations by States parties to the protocol of their obligations under the covenant.
(7) For example, Art. 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights determines that the Human Rights Committee shall be composed of "persons ... of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights."
(8) Thus, art. 41 of the UN Human Rights Council Institution Building Document provides that candidates for Council Special Procedures mandate holders must be “highly qualified individuals with recognized competence, relevant expertise and extensive professional experience in the field of human rights.”
(9) Although the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance has already entered into force, elections for this committee have not yet taken place.
LITERATURE
Doc. UN. A/HRC/RES/5/1. Annex 1.
Convention (No. 29) on forced labor of 1930 // Human Rights: Sat. international treaties. United Nations. - New York and Geneva, 2002. - V. 1. - S. 600-609.
Slavery Convention 1926 // Doc. ST/HR/1/Rev.6.
international convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1965 // Doc. ST/HR/1/Rev.6.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 // Doc. ST/HR/1/Rev.6.
General Theory of Human Rights / Ed. E.A. Lukasheva. - M.: Norma, 1996.
Resolution of the UN General Assembly A/60/251.
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 // Doc. ST/HR/1/Rev.6.
Weissbrodt D. Anti-Slavery International. Abolishing Slavery in Its Contemporary Forms. - Geneva, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2002.
INTERNATIONAL CONTROL AND OBSERVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Department of International Law Peoples" Friendship University of Russia
6, Miklukho-Maklaya st., Moscow, Russia, 117198
The thesis is devoted to analysis of the process of standing and development of the international control in the field of human rights. The conceptional and normative bases of international control on human rights witch set up in the framework of the UN" system, OSCE and CE are analyzed in this work. The special attention is given to analyzes of activities of the existing of the UN"s human rights mechanism, such as HRC, UPR, special proceeding, treaty bodies.
Key words: international control, insuring of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the UN "s Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Special Procedures of the UN" Human Rights Council, Treaty bodies on human rights.
Due to the fact that human rights are a value of the highest order and the fate of peace and security depends on the level of their protection and provision in a particular state, international community developed certain mechanisms for monitoring the observance of human rights. These mechanisms are driven by international bodies and organizations.
United Nations Human Rights Council. The creation of the Council was justified by the fact that the UN Commission on Human Rights, according to UN members and experts, has exhausted itself to a certain extent and has lost the properties of an effective body. In addition, the Commission was accused of excessive politicization. The UN Human Rights Council, in comparison with the Commission, has the highest status - it is a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly. IN new council included 47 states that are elected for a period of three years on a geographical basis by a simple majority of votes at a meeting of the UN General Assembly. Ukraine is a member of the Council. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his speech at the opening of the first session of the Human Rights Council on June 19, 2006, said: “I am pleased to announce that world leaders have decided to integrate the promotion and protection of human rights into national policy and support further revitalization of human rights activities throughout the United Nations system. The Council is established to bring human rights issues to their proper level within the system, the members of the Council are directly elected by the General Assembly to work side by side with the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council."
UN Human Rights Committee Created on the basis of UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 16, 1966 in accordance with Art. 28 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In fact, the Committee is an independent international body, which consists of 18 independent experts serving in a personal capacity. Members of the Committee are elected from among the citizens of the States Parties to the Covenant for a period of 4 years and may be re-elected. The seat of the Committee is Geneva (Switzerland).
The Committee has the right to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by considering:
1) periodic reports of the States Parties on the measures they have taken to implement the provisions of the Covenant;
2) complaints of member states against each other about violations of the provisions of the Covenant;
3) complaints of individuals in case of violation by the state party of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.
An individual's complaint must concern only the fact of a violation of the rights set forth in the Covenant and cannot be anonymous. In addition, the person filing the complaint must exhaust all domestic remedies for the violated right or prove that the consideration of her case is being unreasonably delayed. Declaring the complaint admissible and accepting it for consideration, the Committee requests the State party named in the complaint to provide, within six months, an explanation on the merits of the matter and indicate the measures to be taken at the national level to remedy the situation. The State and the person who filed the complaint are on an equal footing before the Committee.
Committee Against Torture based on the 39th session of the UN General Assembly in accordance with Art. 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984. The Committee consists of 10 experts.
The committee studies the reports; conducts confidential investigations when it believes that the facts are reasonable; carries out certain functions to resolve disputes between Member States-we; appoints a conciliation commission; considers the messages of individuals.
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) established in 1959 as the main element of the control mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950. The Court is headquartered in Strasbourg (France).
At first, three bodies took part in the monitoring mechanism for compliance with the provisions of the 1950 Convention: the European Commission of Human Rights, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights. Given that such a mechanism is quite cumbersome and complex, in 1994 Protocol No. 11 to the 1950 Convention was opened for signing, which provided for significant structural reforms. In November 1998, Protocol No. 11 entered into force, so it is advisable to consider new order operation of this mechanism.
at present, the European Court of Human Rights is the only body to monitor compliance by the states parties with the provisions of the 1950 Convention. The Court works on a permanent basis and consists of judges, the number of which corresponds to the number of states parties to the 1950 Convention. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from each state - participant chooses one judge. Judges sit in the Court in personal capacity.
Each State Party may bring before the Court an application alleging any alleged violation of the provisions of the 1950 Convention or its Protocols by another Party.
The Court may also accept applications from any individual, non-governmental organization or group of individuals alleging a violation by one of the States Parties of the rights enshrined in the Convention or its Protocols. However, applicants must adhere to certain procedural requirements. The participating States undertake not to interfere in any way with the realization of this right.
The Court hears cases before it in committees of three judges, a chamber of seven judges, and a Grand Chamber of 17 judges.
Given the urgent need to amend certain provisions of the Convention in order to improve the effectiveness of its control system in the long term, mainly due to the increased workload on the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Protocol No. 14 was signed, amending the control mechanism of the Convention. This protocol increases the term of office of judges from b to 9 years, in addition, an additional criterion is introduced allowing the European Court to declare the complaint inadmissible, depending on the nature of the harm caused to the applicant. The mechanism for screening manifestly inadmissible complaints is also being improved. The purpose of the protocol is to increase the efficiency of the work of the ECHR in the face of a sharp increase in complaints received here in connection with the entry of new states into the Council of Europe.
Protocol No. 14 to the 1950 Convention also introduces the following major procedural changes: consideration by a single judge of questions regarding manifestly inadmissible complaints; broader competence to deal with complaints, which are already the subject of established European Court case-law, by committees of three judges instead of chambers of seven judges.
The Court, at the request of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, may give advisory opinions on legal matters concerning the interpretation of the 1950 Convention and its Protocols.
According to Art. 19 of the Final and Transitional Provisions, the Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of three months from the date on which all the High Contracting Parties that have signed the Convention express their consent to be bound by Protocol No. 14 and deposit their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval for safekeeping by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. On January 15, 2010, Russia was the last of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe to ratify Protocol No. 14.
The OSCE also has certain monitoring mechanisms for the observance of human rights. Thus, any OSCE member state can ask another member of the organization to provide information on a specific case of human rights violation. A response to such a request must be sent no later than 10 days.
Commissions of OSCE experts may be established at the request of a member state of the organization to consider and possibly assist in solving human rights problems in its territory.
the Board of Governors (formerly the Committee of Senior Officials) of the OSCE, composed of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, participates in the decision contentious issues on the issue of human rights.
In 1992, the post of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities was established. The High Commissioner does not act as an ombudsman, which defends the rights of national minorities and does not investigate individual cases of human rights violations. Its functions include identifying situations of inter-ethnic tension that may pose a threat to peace, security or relations between OSCE participating States, and contributing to their speedy resolution.
On December 20, 1993, at the 48th session, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 48/141 on the establishment of the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights based on the decision world conference on Human Rights (Vienna, 1993). Under this resolution, the High Commissioner for Human Rights is appointed General Secretary UN and is his deputy. He has the status of "UN official" and bears "under the direction and auspices Secretary General primary responsibility for the activities of the United Nations in the field of human rights." In fact, the High Commissioner for Human Rights exercises the overall direction of the activities of the UN Center for Human Rights - structural unit UN Secretariat.
On July 28, 2008, the General Assembly approved without a vote the proposal of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to appoint Navanethem Pillay (South Africa) as the new UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. her four-year term began on September 1, 2008.
From July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2008 Louise Arbour, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (Canada). her predecessor, Sergio Vieira de Mello (Brazil), was killed in the line of duty as head of the UN mission in Iraq in an explosion at the UN office in Baghdad on August 19, 2003.
Search
We may notify you of new articles,