The International Bill of Human Rights

In the post Cold War world nearly all states, in all regions of the world, at all levels of development, proclaim their commitment to human rights. And with the continuing spread of political liberalization and democratization, an ever-growing number of governments are being pressured at home and from abroad to live up to these commitments. In today's world, a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations is widely perceived to undermine a regime's national and international legitimacy.

This situation, however, is historically unprecedented. Human rights has been an established subject of international relations for only about half a century. Prior to World War II, even genocidal massacres were met with little more than polite statements of disapproval. Less egregious violations were not even considered a fit subject for diplomatic conversation. How a government treated its own citizens in its own territory was considered a matter of sovereign domestic jurisdiction.

The Holocaust, in which German Nazis systematically attempted to eliminate European Jewry, brought human rights into the mainstream of international relations.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Trials (1945-1946) introduced the new charge of crimes against humanity. For the first time, officials were recognized legally accountable to the international community for offences against individual citizens. It was in the United Nations, however, that human rights really emerged as a subject of international relations. Human rights have a prominent place in the UN Charter adopted in 1945. And the new organization moved rapidly to elaborate authoritative international human rights norms. On December 10, 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While not legally binding, the Declaration urged member nations to promote a number of human, civil, economic and social rights, asserting that these rights are part of the "foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world". The declaration limited the rights of the states, which imposed ‘duties’ to their citizens.

Efforts to create a legally based form of the charter led to disagreements between various countries. Thus, two different covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( entered into force March 23, 1976 ) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entered into force January 3, 1976) were created. Together these three documents constitute the International Bill of Human Rights.

European Protection of Human Rights

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drawn up within the Council of Europe. It was opened for signature in Rome on 4 November 1950 and entered into force in September 1953. The object of its authors was to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain rights stated in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.

In addition to laying down a catalogue of civil and political rights and freedoms, the Convention set up a system of enforcement of the obligations entered into by Contracting States. Three institutions were entrusted with this responsibility: the European Commission of Human Rights (set up in 1954), the European Court of Human Rights (set up in 1959) and the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the latter being composed of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the member States or their representatives.

Under the 1950 Convention Contracting States and, where the Contracting States are known to have accepted the right of Individual petition, individual applicants (individuals, groups of individuals or non-governmental organizations) could lodge complaints against Contracting States for alleged violations of Convention rights.

The complaints were first the subject of a preliminary examinations by the Commission which determined their admissibility. Where applications had been declared admissible and no friendly settlement had been reached, the Commission drew up a report establishing the facts and expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. The report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers.

Where the respondent State had accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the Commission and/or any Contracting State concerned had a period of three months following the transmission of the report to the Committee of Ministers within which to bring the case before the Court for a final, binding adjudication. Individuals were not entitled to bring their cases before the Court.

If a case was not referred to the Court, the Committee of Ministers decided whether there had been a violation of the Convention and, if appropriate, awarded just satisfaction to the victim. The Committee of Ministers also had responsibility for supervising the execution of the Court's judgments.

However, this two-tier system aroused dissatisfaction. It was taking too long to deal with individual cases. In some cases it took about five and even seven years for a case to be decided by the Commission and then subsequently by the Court. This was considered to be inadmissible. Urgent steps had to be taken to remedy the situation. Moreover, there was a steady growth in the number of High Contracting Parties. The combination of a desire to reduce the length of time that it took to examine cases and a radical increase in the number of High Contracting Parties, which could be expected to result in the increase of the number of cases being brought to the Court, caused the decision to attack the root of the problem of delay. It was necessary to replace the existing system that involved a time wasting duplication of procedures before both the Commission and the old Court.

Therefore, the 11th Protocol to the Convention was drafted which aimed to establish a permanent court that would carry out the functions of both the Commission and the Court thereby avoiding the old system of dual examination, and to examine cases within a reasonable time. The new Court is supposed to succeed the old Court with the objective of retaining the confidence of the Convention community in the Convention system.