Guard sovereign freedoms

The following is a slightly edited version of Jamaica's statement at the Special General Assembly Meeting at the Organisation of American States, delivered on March 23, 2013 by Jamaica's ambassador to the US, Stephen Vasciannie.

Jamaica supports the position on human rights set out by the government of Grenada on behalf of CARICOM. We wish, however, to make some additional comments.

Jamaica has followed the deliberations on the reform of the Inter-American Human Rights system carefully and in good faith. Over the past two years or so, the Permanent Council of the OAS - in conjunction with civil society and in consultation with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court - has worked on human rights issues in significant measure.

This is a good thing, but one consequence has been that the Permanent Council has not had much time for other aspects of the overall mandate of the OAS. Thus, more specifically, Jamaica is concerned that not enough attention has been given in recent times to issues of economic development.

Generally, Jamaica supports the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and its work:

• The jurisprudence of the commission plays a positive role in national debate;
• Recommendations of the commission are not always followed - sometimes they are not followed owing to constitutional reasons - but they are influential;
• Jamaica is a party to the American Convention and would encourage other states to join. We note, however, that some countries have difficulties coming on board, even though they respect human rights in practice.

HEADQUARTERS

We do not support penalties for non-ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights or abstention from the jurisdiction of the Court. For example, it has been proposed that, as a penalty for the United States' non-ratification of the American Convention, the headquarters of the commission should be moved from Washington, DC. We do not support this approach for the following reasons:

First, it would set a bad precedent for the future, especially bearing in mind that the relevant instruments setting up the commission have no provision linking the location of the headquarters to ratification of the American Convention.

Second, moving the headquarters would lead to administrative convenience for various countries. Several countries are in a position to participate in the work of the commission in part because they have missions in Washington, DC. These countries may not have missions in the alternative venues that have been mentioned.

Third, even non-parties to the American Convention have cases before the commission. So, non-ratification does not imply distance from, or rejection of, the commission.

And, fourth, it would be contrary to a state's right to remain outside a treaty to punish that state for its sovereign decision. In this regard, I note that if one form of punishment is to remove the headquarters, it is likely that other forms of punishment will also be considered. It would be bad for the system, for example, if non-parties to the convention could not have their nationals serve as members of the commission.

FREE EXPRESSION

As a matter of course, Jamaica supports the autonomy and independence of the commission. When the commission acts in its recommendatory capacity, we believe that principles of separation of powers are relevant. The work of the commission is largely in the nature of a judicial function; we may not like their recommendations in some cases, but this should not prompt any efforts to undermine the system.

We also support efforts to enhance funding and the work of rapporteurships. But we are keen to emphasise that there should be no attempt to undermine any rapporteurship on the ground that this is necessary for the building up of others. On the contrary, the OAS should adopt the successful methods of some rapporteurships, and offer financial backing to those rapporteurships that find fund-raising to be a challenging proposition.

And, here, I pause to encourage this Special General Assembly to do nothing that would weaken the position of the rapporteur on freedom of expression at the Commission on Human Rights. In Jamaican law, freedom of expression is constitutionally enshrined, and subject to rules for the protection of private reputations, free expression is robust and vibrant. Nothing in the concept of the indivisibility of human rights prompts the idea that freedom of expression should be weakened in the Inter-American system.

Jamaica agrees that precautionary measures are now part of the Inter-American system. As a matter of law, these measures have been sanctioned by state practice and acquiescence by states. We also share the view that satisfactory steps have been contemplated by the commission to regulate the application of precautionary measures.

More generally, we attach positive value to the commission's responses to the Permanent Council on the recommendations of the Special Working Group. The commission should be given the opportunity to apply its revised rules of procedure, in keeping with principles of autonomy and independence.

On funding, voluntary donors should be allowed the right to decide on the direction of their contributions. Otherwise, we may undermine the system, at a time when voluntary funding is important to the commission's viability.

Finally, Jamaica is supportive of the draft resolution of the Working Group led by Mexico, Peru and the Secretariat, together with the amendments proposed by Grenada and CARICOM.

CAPTION - Jamaica's permanent representative to the Organization of American
States (OAS), Ambassador Stephen Vasciannie (left), accepts the symbolic
gavel of authority as he assumes the chairmanship of the OAS Permanent
Council, from outgoing chairman, Bolivia's permanent representative,
Ambassador Diego Pary. Applauding are OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel
Insulza (second right) and Assistant Secretary General Albert R. Ramdin.
- File '