Appendix III: Report on Three Cases against Mexico (CASES 9768, 9780 AND 9828)
| Published date | 01 March 1991 |
| Author | Cecilia Medina |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419100900113 |
| Date | 01 March 1991 |
| Subject Matter | Part D: Appendices |
Appendix
III/Report
on three cases against Mexico
APPENDIX
III
REPORT ON THREE CASES AGAINST MEXICO (CASES 9768, 9780
AND 9828)
Cecilia Medina
Three communications against Mexico were lodged with the Commission
containing allegations of irregularities in certain elections which had taken
place in Chihuahua and Durango and of lack of a domestic remedy to
complain thereof. The complainants in the three cases alleged a violation
of Articles 23 (political rights) and 8 (fair trial). The complainant in case
9828 also alleged a violation of Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 11
(right to privacy), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 15 (freedom of
assembly), 16 (freedom of association), 24 (right to equal protection) and
25 (right to judicial protection) (sections 1-3 of the report).
The Commission has various powers to handle human rights problems.
As an organ of the OAS, it can prepare country reports on the general
situation of human rights in any OAS member State; it can also request
information from the governments of those States with a view to making
recommendations for improvement. As an organ of the Charter and of the
American Convention, it can also examine a complaint of a human right
violation allegedly committed by a State party or not party to the Conven-
tion. Nowhere are there written rules to direct the Commission when and
how to use these powers.
The
provisions regulating the individual commu-
nication, however, appear to place upon the Commission the duty of
examining individual complaints according to the procedure established for
them, since they give individuals the right to complain. This notwithstan-
ding, on this particular occasion the Commissiondecided that it was more
adequate to examine the communications exercising its competence under
Article 41(b) of the American Convention, which grants the Commission
the power to formulate recommendations to the OAS member States for
the adoption of measures to improve human rights observance.
For
this
decision, the Commission did not invoke any legal provision (sections 5-6
of the report). Thus one can only speculate as to the legal basis ot the
action.
Although the Commission processed the communications in the fashion
of individual cases (there was some sort of an adversarial stage and
107
To continue reading
Request your trial