# data[].attributes.body
CRISIS

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfdEkwJXGP629uKpIZK-ZthtjwV02wY0rfLFaSLV_HQ/edit?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.body
CRISIS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Declaration made at the time of signature)

The Delegation of Chile signs this Convention, subject to its subsequent parliamentary approval and ratification,

in accordance with the constitutional rules in force.

(Reservations made at the time of ratification)

Recongnition of Competence:

a) The Government of Chile declares that it recognizes, for an indefinite period of time and on the condition of reciprocity, the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to receive and examine communications in which a State Party alleges that another State Party has committed a violation of the human rights established in the American Convention on Human Rights, as provided for in Article 45 of the Convention.

b) The Government of Chile declares that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, the jurisdiction of the Court on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention in accordance with its Article 62.

In making these declarations, the Government of Chile places on record that its recognitions of the competence of the Commission and the jurisdiction of the Court apply to events subsequent to the date of deposit of this instrument of ratification or, in any case, to events which began subsequent to March 11, 1990. Moreover, in acknowledging the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Government of Chile declares that, when these bodies apply the provisions of Article 21.2 of the Convention, they may not make statements concerning any reasons of public utility or social interest that may have been taken into account in depriving a person of his or her property.

(Declaration made at the time of signature)

The Delegation of Ecuador has the honor of signing the American Convention on Human Rights. It does not believe that it is necessary to make any specific reservation at this time, without prejudice to the general power set forth in the Convention itself that leaves the governments free to ratify it or not.

On August 13, 1984, the OAS General Secretariat received the note informing about the recognition of competence established in Articles 45 and 62 of the Convention, respectively. Ecuador recognized the validity of Articles 45 and 62 of the American Convention on Human Rights, by Decree No. 2768, of July 24, 1984, published in the Official Register No. 795 of July 27, 1984

In addition, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador made the following declaration on July 30, 1984, in conformity with Articles 45(4) and 62(2) of the above-mentioned Convention: In keeping with the provisions of Article 45, paragraph 1, of the American Convention on Human Rights--Pact of San José, Costa Rica-- (ratified by Ecuador on October 21, 1977, and in force since October 27, 1977), the Government of Ecuador recognizes the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights toreceive and examine communications in which a State Party alleges that another State Party has committed a violation of the human rights set forth in the Convention, under the terms provided for in paragraph 2 of that Article.

This recognition of competence is to be valid for an indefinite time and on condition of reciprocity.

As provided in Article 62, paragraph 1, of the Convention in reference, the Government of Ecuador declares that it recognizes as binding, ipso facto, and not requiring special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the Convention.

This recognition of jurisdiction is for an indeterminate period and on condition of reciprocity. The Ecuadorian State reserves the right to withdraw its recognition of this competence and this jurisdiction whenever it may deem it advisable to do so.

(Reservation made at the time of signature)

Article 80.2 of the Constitution of Uruguay provides that a person's citizenship is suspended if the person is "under indictment on a criminal charge which may result in a penitentiary sentence." Such a restriction on the exercise of the rights recognized in Article 23 of the Convention is not envisaged among the circumstances provided for in Article 23, paragraph 2, for which reason the Delegation of Uruguay expresses a reservation on this matter.

(Reservation made at the time of ratification)

With the reservation made at the time of signature. Notification of this reservation was given in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed on May 23, 1969.

Recognition of Competence:

In the instrument of ratification dated March 26, 1985 and deposited with the General Secretariat of the OAS on April 19, 1985, the Government of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay declares that it recognizes the competence of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for an indefinite period and of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention, on the condition of reciprocity, in accordance with Articles 45.3 and 62.2 of the Convention.

(Reservation and interpretative declarations made at the time of ratification)

The instrument of ratification was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS on September 5, 1984, with a reservation and interpretative declarations. The notification procedure of the reservation was taken in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed on May 23, 1969.

Article 5, paragraph 3, shall be interpreted to mean that a punishment shall not be applied to any person other than the criminal, that is, that there shall be no vicarious criminal punishment.

Article 10 shall be interpreted to mean that the "miscarriage of justice" has been established by a national court.

Recognition of Competence:

The instrument of ratification further notes that the obligations undertaken by virtue of the Convention shall only be effective as regards acts that have occurred after the ratification of the above-mentioned instrument.

(Reservations made at the time of ratification)

The instrument of ratification was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS on November 5, 1981, with reservations. Notification of the reservations submitted was given in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed on May 23, 1969. The twelve-month period from the notification of said reservations expired on November 26, 1982, without any objection being raised to the reservations.

The text of the reservations with respect to Articles 4(4), 4(5) and 8(2) (e), is the following:

In respect of 4(4) the criminal code of Barbados provides for death by hanging as a penalty for murder and treason. The Government is at present reviewing the whole matter of the death penalty which is only rarely inflicted but wishes to enter a reservation on this point inasmuch as treason in certain circumstances might be regarded as a political offence and falling within the terms of section 4(4).

2) That Costa Rica declares that it recognizes, without conditions and while the American Convention on Human Rights remains in effect, the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court, as a matter of law and without a specific convention on the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, on all cases relating to the interpretation or application of such multilateral treaty.

The American Convention on Human Rights, known as the "Pact of San José, Costa Rica", signed at San José, Costa Rica, on November 22, 1969, composed of a preamble and eighty-two articles, approved by the Executive Branch in the Field of Foreign Affairs by Agreement 405, dated June 14 of the current year, is hereby ratified, with the reservation that such ratification is understood without prejudice to those provisions of the Convention that might be in conflict with express precepts of the Political Constitution of the Republic.

The instrument of ratification was received at the General Secretariat of the OAS on June 23, 1978, with a reservation and a declaration. The notification procedure of the reservation was taken in conformity with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties signed on May 23, 1969.

The Government of Guatemala, by Government Agreement No. 281-86,
dated May 20 1986, has withdrawn the above-mentioned reservation, which
was included in its instrument of ratification dated April 27, 1978,
considering that it is no longer supported by the Constitution in the
light of the new legal system in force. The withdrawal of the
reservation will become effective as of August 12, 1986, in conformity
with Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of
1969, in application of Article 75 of the American Convention on Human
Rights.

3. Acceptance of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights is of a general nature and shall continue in force for one year after the date on which the United States of Mexico gives notice that it has denounced it.

The texts of the interpretative declarations and the reservation are the following:

Interpretative Declarations:

On July 11, 2014, the General Secretariat acknowledged receipt of a letter by Government of the United States of Mexico notifying the depositary the withdrawal of the reservation to the final wording of the first of three paragraphs submitted with the "Declaration for recognition of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights".

On February 6, 2006, Nicaragua delivered a note to the General Secretariat

in which it reported that the Government of the Republic of Nicaragua

had added a third paragraph to the Declaration No. 49 of January 15, 1991

regarding the American Convention on Human Rights, in which it declares

that it recognizes the competence of the Inter-American Commission

on Human Rights to receive and examine communications in which

a State Party alleges that another State Party has committed a violation

of a human right set forth in the Convention.

Withdrawl of Declaration/Reservation: 07/09/99

Text of the communication: http://www.oas.org/DIL/Nota_República_Bolivariana_Venezuela_to_SG.English.pdf

On July 31, 2019, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela deposited the instrument of ratification to the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights , at the OAS headquarters, in Washington, D.C. United States.

By its decision in Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney General for Jamaica (2.A.C.1,
1994) the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council decided that strict guidelines must be observed
by states in the hearing
and determination of appeals from convicted murderers who have been condemned
to death. In any case
in which execution was to take place more than five years after the sentence
of death there would be
strong grounds for believing that the delay was such as to constitute "inhuman
or degrading punishment
or other treatment". A State that wished to retain capital punishment must
accept the responsibility of
ensuring that execution followed as swiftly as practicable after sentence,
allowing a reasonable time for
appeal and consideration of reprieve. Capital appeals must be expedited. The
aim should be to hear
capital appeals within twelve months of conviction. It should be possible to
complete the entire domestic
appeal process (including an appeal to the Privy Council) within approximately
two years. It should be
possible for the International Human Rights bodies, such as the United Nations
Humans Rights
Committee and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, to dispose of
complaints to them in
death penalty cases at most within eighteen months.

The effect of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
the case of Pratt and Morgan
is that, notwithstanding the fact that the death penalty is the punishment for
the crime of murder in
Trinidad and Tobago, inordinate delay in carrying out the death penalty
constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment and is accordingly a contravention of section 5(2)(b) of the
Constitution of Trinidad and
Tobago. As the Court's ruling represents the constitutional standard for
Trinidad and Tobago, the
Government is mandated to ensure that the appellate process is expedited by
the elimination of delays
within the system in order that capital sentences imposed in accordance with
the laws of Trinidad and
Tobago can be enforced.

In the circumstances, and wishing to uphold its domestic law to subject no one
to inhuman or degrading
punishment or treatment and thereby to observe its obligations under article 5
of the American
Convention on Human Rights, the Attorney General and Minister of Foreign
Affairs, as representatives of
the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, met with the Assistant
Secretary-General of the Organization of
American States and with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The
Attorney General and
the Minister of Foreign Affairs presented to the Commission its case detailing
the problems facing
Trinidad and Tobago in complying with the timeframes laid down by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy
Council for the consideration of petitions by the International Human Rights
Bodies in capital cases. The
Attorney General sought the cooperation of the Commission in implementing the
relevant timeframes for
completion of the consideration of petitions to the Commission in capital
cases so that the mandatory
sentence of death for convicted murderers can be carried into effect. The
Commission indicated that
whilst it was sympathetic to the problem facing Trinidad and Tobago, the
Commission had its own
established procedures for the termination of Petitions. Accordingly for
reasons which the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago respects, the Commission was unable to give any
assurances that capital cases
would be completed within the timeframe sought.

The Government of Trinidad and Tobago is unable to allow the inability of the
Commission to deal with
applications in respect of capital cases expeditiously to frustrate the
implementation of the lawful penalty
for the crime of murder in Trinidad and Tobago. Persons convicted and
sentenced to death after due
process of law can have the constitutionality of their death sentence
determined before the Courts of
Trinidad and Tobago. Sufficient safeguards therefore exist for the protection
of the human and
fundamental rights of condemned prisoners.

"The Government of the Federative Republic of Brazil declares its recognition
as binding,
for an indefinite period of time, ipso jure, of the jurisdiction of the
Inter-American Court of Human
Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the
American Convention on
Human Rights, according to Article 62 of that Convention, on the condition of
reciprocity, and for
matters arising after the time of this declaration."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
:: Multilateral Treaties > Department of International Law > OAS ::

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Declaration made at the time of signature) The Delegation of Chile signs this Convention, subject to its subsequent parliamentary approval and ratification, in accordance with the constitutional rules in force.

# data[].attributes.body
This is resolution 2 (Colombia) from Topic 2 in the Human Rights Council.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the resolution 1 (Pakistan) from Topic 2 in Human Rights Council

# data[].attributes.body
This is the link for the third resolution in Topic 1

# data[].attributes.body
This is the link for the second resolution in Topic 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Copia de Resolution Human Rights Council 

# data[].attributes.body
This is the link for the resolution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
TURKEY resolution caminu topic  1 final sgnatories

# data[].attributes.body
REMEMBER: Position Papers ARE MANDATORY in this CAMINU XXX

# data[].attributes.body
COMITE EMAIL: comite.human.rights@fcaq.k12.ec

Please use this email for any doubts or questions as well as sending FINAL resolutions and POSITION PAPERS

# data[].attributes.body
Delegates,

Great work today!

We understand that there were a few difficulties with the resolutions so we will explain how to make them tomorrow. Now, this DOES NOT mean that you can redo them tomorrow but we do understand that many of you are first time delegates so we will try and manage the resolutions accordingly.

A REMINDER:

POSITION PAPER TODAY 8PM

AI IS NOT PERMITTED: If we catch you using AI, then you will recieve an email to redo your position paper. If you fail to do so, then we will lower your grade and this WILL count as a formal warning (these warnings can affect your candidacy to awards) .

RESOLUTIONS:

TODAY 8PM

Please remember to write the countries that signed onto your resolution, and REMEMBER that you cannot change the resolution at this point (unless instructued to do so by Chair) as delegates have signed onto that version or copy of your plans.

Thank you! Have a good night sleep and we will see you all tomorrow at 8AM.

Lets us know if you have any questions and please send all of this info to the comite email (other post)

-Barbara

# data[].attributes.body
Helloo, I have a question. Is there a requirement that we have to send resolutions, or do we only send position papers?

Thanks,

Delegation of South Sudan

# data[].attributes.body
DELEGATES,

The due date for the position paper is going to be 8PM Today so please remeber that it is obligatory (send it to comite.human.rights@fcaq.k12.ec) AND, resolutions must be printed out for TODAY

# data[].attributes.body
Hello, I have a concern. How do we send you the resolution with all the signatures on thrusday. Thanks

Delegation of Cuba

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, do we have to send the position paper to chair or it is not necessary? Thanks.

-Delegation of Iran

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, for the position paper do we have to write topic overviews and previous attempts to resolve, or are we allowed to use those given to us in the committee presentation handbook?

Ryker Menath,

delegation of Kyrgyzstan.

# data[].attributes.body
Do we have to make 3 resolutions or just one?

Emery Eason

Honduras

# data[].attributes.body
Hi, my name is Emery Eason

I'm 13 years old

I have a concern.

I was not very clear on what format we are supposed to use for the position paper.

Delegation, Honduras