CASE RESOLUTION No.18/83
URUGUAY
2711 June 30, 1983
BACKGROUND:
1. On January 12, 1978 was received by the Executive Secretariat of the Commission a memorandum dated the 7th of the month, which complaint, following the arraignment of Juan Raúl Ferreira before the Commission to report on the human rights situation in their homeland, the Eastern Republic of Uruguay, received that country's consulate in Washington for an official communication dated 6 December 1977, informing him that the Uruguayan authorities do not authorize the renewal of his passport, which had been issued on 5 September 1972 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay with the number 169 651
2. On 7 April following the receipt of the complaint, the Commission gave it the corresponding procedure under Articles 42 and 54 of Regulation then in force, bringing to the attention of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay relevant parts of that and requested that, in addition to providing "the information it deems appropriate, provide him with" any facts that would ... allow the case to determine whether ... have been exhausted or not domestic remedies. "
3. On March 6, 1981, in compliance with the stipulations of Article 39 of the new regulation, applicable to this case pursuant to Article 49, and in view of the Government of Uruguay had not given the information requested in the note of April 7, 1978, adopted resolution 22/81 which states that in this case "the Uruguay's government violated Article VIII (right to residence and movement) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man "was also recommends that Government: a) to renew Mr. John R. Ferreira your passport and be allowed entry to their homeland, and b) to report to the Commission within 60 days on measures to implement this recommendation, and states that the resolution be included in the Annual Report of the Commission "without prejudice to the Commission to reconsider the case in light of the measures the Government has taken.
4. Resolution 22/81 was transmitted to the Government of Uruguay by note to the Ministry of Relaciones Exteriores y al Embajador ante la Organización de los Estados Americanos, así como del denunciante en comunicación dirigida a la dirección señalada por él, todas ellas de fecha 19 de marzo de 1981.
5. Poco antes de cumplirse el aludido plazo de 60 días, esto es, el 13 de mayo de 1981, la Comisión recibió informe suministrado por el denunciante de que la situación del señor Ferreira "permanece incambiada". pues en tres oportunidades le ha informado el Cónsul de Uruguay en Washington que no tiene instrucciones de su Gobierno para renovarle su pasaporte, motivo por lo cual las autoridades de inmigración de los Estados Unidos le han extendido un permiso de "residencia permanente" en stateless (stateless).
6. In turn, the very day he was the deadline of 60 days referred to in Resolution 22/81, the Commission received a Note 554/81-16.B.18 (b) of the Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the Organization of American States dated May 14, 1981, which is transcribed a long communication from his Government in which, "according to the provisions of Article 50, paragraph 3 of the Rules of the Commission wishes to make some remarks in order to proceed with the reconsideration of Resolution 22/81 of 6 March 1981 on the 2711 case. "
7. the Government of Uruguay based its request that the resolution be reconsidered in that "the conclusion contained in it arises from the erroneous decision of the legal basis on which it is" then states that "the confrontation of the facts set out in statute that the Commission declared to have been violated, there obviously (sic) that never have been affected petitioner's rights protected by the provisions of that Article VIII, which, as described in the aforementioned communication is established by having this article 37, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of Uruguay declared "free entry of all persons in the territory of the Republic, his stay in it and output property, observing the laws and without harming others ", and the circumstances that Mr. Ferreira left Uruguay on its own accord and" nothing prevents you from returning to it, since the fact that his passport has not been renewed without prejudice to its re-entry, since there is no legal provision requiring that a Uruguayan national should carry a current passport to exercise that right. "
8. Transmitted to the complainant the relevant parts of the related communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay, in a note dated June 19, 1981 refuted the contents thereof, and expanded the charges against his government, which held him responsible for eight times since June 1973 without any charges being made against him, more than have raided his house found missing from her reasons that forced him to leave the country, in a way that can not be defined "voluntary departure." He also adds that he has made it known that in the 7980/81 record of the Court of Military Training Third Shift of Uruguay has ordered his arrest and therefore could not "live in freedom in the homeland" if returned to Uruguay as intended us to believe their government. He ends by asking to have "dismissed the government's response." be asked to "report whether or not an arrest warrant in the record referred" and the ratification of Resolution 22/81 to be said response by "confession of the Government of Uruguay that has been denied the right to own a Uruguayan passport."
9. The protruding parts of the complainant's communication were transmitted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Uruguay in a note appended to the 3 of September, which prompted "take steps it deems appropriate to enable the Commission to have all reports this case within 30 days, request that was reiterated in a note dated 15 November following, in which he made known that "such information is not received within a reasonable time, the Commission would consider the possible application of Rule 39.
10. Following December 16, in communication number 1481/81-16.B.18 (b) dated two days earlier, the Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the Organization of American States to the Commission transcribed official notice that his government " reiterates in its entirety the proposals made at the time of requesting reconsideration of Resolution 22/81 (which in essence ... challenges the statement made by Resolution 22/81 of the Government of Uruguay has violated Article VIII American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man) (because) nothing prevents (Mr. Ferreira) back to it (the State of nationality) as the fact that his passport was not renewed does not preclude his return to the country .. "The Government adds the transcribed note that" further consideration by the claimant tend to shift the matter under discussion to a different plane from that of Uruguay Government bases its claims "and ends by asking the Commission" reconsider Resolution 22/81 accordance with strict sense of justice, the factual and legal elements that truly affect the issue. "
11. That has complied with all regulatory procedures in the handling of this complaint, giving to each of the parties, complainant and defendant, the opportunity to express as widely as their respective allegations and offer and act upon the Commission the evidence as were considered relevant, having been exhausted prior research pipeline.
WHEREAS
1. The Government of Uruguay has not denied at any time, and implicitly taken for granted and accepted, the fact that he refused in 1977, and apparently continue to deny to date, the permit required for its administrative rules for the Consular Service of the nation - particularly the Consulate in Washington - Mr. John Ferreira renew Sienra, a Uruguayan citizen 1,247,167 Identity Card, passport 169,651 that had been extended September 5, 1972 and apparently had a term of 5 years.
2. The Government of Uruguay, maintains that the refusal to provide a valid passport to a citizen or national of the State, constitutes a violation of the law of residence and movement enshrined in the Declaration of Bogotá, as the aforementioned citizen, says you can return to your country, transit through their territory or to establish his residence, and not leave it except by his will, adding, yes, "which can only legitimately claim the enjoyment of that freedom who is exempt from responsibility in the commission of criminal activities or anti-national. "
3. That does not give importance apparently, the Government of Uruguay, the implicit interpretation given by the Commission to the related Article VIII to declare that it violated the detriment of Mr. John R. Ferreira Article by refusing the Government to renew his passport, and is silent on this aspect of concentrating all their arguments on the fact that, according to the arguments of the official notes, the Oriental Republic of Uruguay - away from the current widespread practice almost all nations - no passport required to enter their territory and stay there.
4. Having for some that claim the government of Uruguay, the answer is always attentive to the issue fundamental problem involved in dealing with Resolution 22/81, that is, the doctrinal point, valid for this and similar cases that may arise today or tomorrow or at any other time, whether it complies with the obligation to respect the right the human being to leave the territory of his country to go to any other State whose doors are not closed, the Government refuses to grant passports valid for persons entitled to order, or impose on them conditions so severe that in fact do desist from exercising that right. That does not respect the Article VIII of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, the Government refuses to extend, renew or extend passports applies to its nationals when requested to travel except a sentence or court order preventing it, or to put such conditions or obstacles that actually occur in the mind of the person's determination to abandon the exercise of their right for the cost excessive moral or monetary, that would impose the fact through legitimate means to procure a passport required to travel from one country to another. That in the modern age, the passport is the ultimate proof of identity when traveling to countries other than the State in a national, and in most of the cases also when returning to it, since according to the Dictionary English Language "is the license or office in writing given to pass freely and safely in a town or country to another ", a definition consistent with that of the Legal Encyclopedia OMEBA offered by Dr. Martha Oliveros whereby passport" ... It is the document issued by the competent authority of a State, at his request, in order to prove his identity before foreign authorities.
that besides the passport meets yet another function, which is to allow the holder to acquire tickets required for transport to another country for any of the routes by land, sea or air, as no firm international passenger travel tickets sold to people without valid passport, business and legal reasons that require no explanation.
That is so indispensable in modern times the passport as identification, the League of Nations in 1919, and the United Nations recently agreed to provide replacement identification documents - the Nansen Passport that first Stateless Passports and Refugiagos in times closer - to all those people that under politicians OTHER EVENTS exile or forced to leave their homeland, so that these documents up for the lack of a passport under normal circumstances is the classic identification for those caught in foreign lands to their place of origin.
That denial of a passport in an unjustified and illegal a person is in some way to impose a diminutio capitis, dispossess the document notes his nationality prevented from traveling outside their country, to force him, by force of this circumstances, remain within the country and submitted to the authorities to constrain it, and is therefore violating the law that recognize the human person Article VIII of the American Declaration of Bogotá and Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Paris , although in neither document specifically mentions the right to a passport as a logical consequence of the right to leave your homeland and return to it. The reason is obvious: do not exhaust the rights that human beings by reason of their status as human beings with an interpretation strictly in accordance with the grammatical meaning of the words used in both Declarations on Human Rights. No such rights are respected, obeying the written rule, refuse natural or logical consequences from them arise: does not respect the right to freedom of opinion and expression and dissemination of ideas, if the authorities refuse to grant administrative authorizations required by law to establish new bodies of information, written, oral or visual, is not respected right of individuals or organizations that capacity to establish and direct educational institutions, if he refuses to certificates or diplomas issued by them on equal footing with those from official institutions and the recognition and treatment as they are for. One could almost say that the "implementation" of each of the rights included in both statements requires a particular attitude, positive, the state and its authorities, in granting a permit or a document, absent from the text but the logical derivation of its contents doctrinaire.
AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS;
RESOLVED:
1. That the Government of Uruguay in its submissions of 14 May and 14 December 1981, implicitly admits, not deny the fact reported that Mr. Juan Raúl Ferreira has been unknown and was still unaware of their right to possess a Uruguayan passport;
2. Implicit admission that the Government of Uruguay confirmed that in the case in question violated Article VIII (right to residence and movement) of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man;
3. That result should be confirmed and confirmed in all parts of Resolution 22/81, dated March 6, 1981 regarding the 2711 case and the Government of Uruguay reiterates the recommendations contained in it to provide Mr. Juan R. Ferreira Uruguayan passport and report to the Commission within 90 days on measures taken to implement this recommendation.
4. Communicate this resolution to the Government of Uruguay and the complainant.
5. To include this resolution in the next Annual Report of the Commission to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in accordance with Article 50, paragraph 5, of the Rules of the Commission, without prejudice to the Commission at its next session session, reconsider the case in light of the measures the Government has taken on the matter.
Lord
0 comments:
Post a Comment