Do we need a “new” international convention that helps to avoid trafficking in organs? Some “criminal (and civil) law aspects” - Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated?

Abstract: § 1 «Do we need a “new” international convention that helps to avoid trafficking in organs? Some criminal (and civil) law aspects”» - «Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated?». § 2 Some important connections: on the one hand, between the 1997 Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine; the 2002 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin; and, on the other hand, the problem of trafficking in organs, tissues and cells and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. Some connections. § 3 The «international undisputed principle». § 4 Trafficking in organs, tissues and cells; and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. Criminal Law and Civil Law. § 5 Promote organ donation. § 6 The necessity to collect reliable data on both trafficking cases. § 7 The necessity for an internationally agreed definition of trafficking in OTC: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated? § 8 The (inter)national and (il)legal organ («tissue and cell») trade: some cases and some conclusions. § 9 Do we need a new international convention to prevent trafficking in organs, tissues and cells (OTC)? § 10 Of course we need a «new» international convention to prevent trafficking in organs, tissues and cells (OTC). § 11 At the present moment, we do not need a «new» international convention to prevent trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. § 12 The Portuguese case. § 13 «Final conclusions.» § Resumo: § 1 «Precisamos de uma "nova" convenção internacional que ajude a evitar o tráfico de órgãos? Alguns aspectos de lei criminal (e civil)» - «Convenção sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina - Actualizada ou desactualizada?». § 2 Algumas conexões importantes: por um lado, entre a Convenção do Conselho da Europa de 1997 sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina; o Protocolo Adicional de 2002 à Convenção sobre os Direitos do Homem e da Biomedicina relativo ao transplante de órgãos e tecidos de origem humana, e, por outro lado, o problema do tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células e tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. § 3 O «indiscutível princípio internacional». § 4 O Tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células; e o tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. Direito Penal e Direito Civil. § 5 Promover a doação de órgãos. § 6 A necessidade de colectar dados fidedignos sobre os dois casos de tráfico. § 7 A necessidade de uma definição internacionalmente acordada de tráfico de OTC: Convenção sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina - actualizada ou desactualizada? § 8 A (inter)nacional e (il)legal comercialização de órgãos («de tecidos e de células»): alguns casos e algumas conclusões. § 9 Será que precisamos de uma nova convenção internacional para prevenir o tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células (OTC)? § 10 É claro que precisamos de uma «nova» convenção internacional para prevenir o tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células (OTC). § 11 No presente momento, não precisamos de uma «nova» convenção internacional para impedir o tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. § 12 O caso Português. § 13 «As conclusões finais.»

Reparation and enforcement of judgments : a comparative analysis of the European and Inter-American human rights systems

The inter-American human rights system has been conceived following the example of the European system under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) before it was modified by Protocol No 11. However, two important differences exist. First, the authority of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to order reparation has been strictly limited by the principle of subsidiarity. Thus, the ECtHR's main function is to determine whether the ECHR has been violated. Beyond the declaratory effect of its judgments, according to Article 41 ECHR, it may only "afford just satisfaction to the injured party". The powers of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) were conceived in a much broader fashion in Article 63 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), giving the Court the authority to order a variety of individual and general measures aimed at obtaining restitutio in integrum. The first main part of this thesis shows how both Courts have developed their reparation practice and examines the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Secondly, the ECtHR's rather limited reparation powers have, interestingly, been combined with an elaborate implementation system that includes several of the Council of Europe's organs, principally the Committee of Ministers. In the Inter-American System, no dedicated mechanism was implemented to oversee compliance with the IACtHR's judgments. The ACHR limits itself to inviting the Court to point out in its annual reports the cases that have not been complied with and to propose measures to be adopted by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. The General Assembly, however, hardly ever took action. The IACtHR has therefore filled this gap by developing a proper procedure to oversee compliance with its judgments. Both the European and the American solutions to ensure compliance are presented and compared in the second main part of this thesis. Finally, based on the results of both main parts, a comparative analysis of the reparation practice and the execution results in both human rights systems is being provided, aimed at developing proposals for the improvement of the functioning of either human rights protection system.

Human rights in Guatemala : hearing before the Subcommittees on Human Rights and International Organizations and on Inter-American Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-seventh Congress, first session, July 30, 1981.

Item 1017-A, 1017-B (microfiche)

The four general principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: the potential value of the approach in other areas of human rights law

At the outset of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Committee on the Rights of the Child identified four of its provisions (non-discrimination; best interests of the child as a primary consideration; life, survival and development; and participation) as ‘general principles’. This approach has shaped implementation of, advocacy for and the scholarship on the Convention. The use of general principles has the potential to make a significant contribution in other areas of human rights law provided that the principles are selected carefully and address the distinct issues at the root of potential rights violations for particular rights-holders.

EU report on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

On 5 June 2014, the European Union published its first report on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD). This document follows the ratification of the Convention by the EU in 2010 and its obligation to prepare and submit a report on its actions to support the implementation of the Convention. Read the report here.

The situation in El Salvador : hearings before the Subcommittees on Human Rights and International Organizations and on Western Hemisphere Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, second session, January 26; February 6, 1984.

Item 1017-A, 1017-B (microfiche)

Children’s access to beneficial information in Arab states: Implementation of Article 17 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Egypt, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates

In theory, the multiple platforms and transnational nature of digital media, along with a related proliferation of diverse forms of content, make it easier for children’s right to access socially and culturally beneficial information and material to be realised, as required by Article 17 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Drawing on data collected during research on children’s screen content in the Arab world, combined with scrutiny of documents collated by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors compliance with the CRC, this paper explores how three Arab countries, Egypt, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates, presented their efforts to implement Article 17 as part of their periodic reporting on their overall performance in putting the CRC into effect. It uncovers tensions over the relationship between provision, participation and protection in relation to media, reveals that Article 17 is liable to get less attention than it deserves in contexts where governments keep a tight grip on media, and that, by appearing to give it a lower priority, all parties neglect the intersection between human rights in relation to media and children’s rights.