Personal Blog of Zuzeeko Abeng

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Significant Human Rights Instruments

On Friday April 23, 2010, I received a question from Migrant Tales: besides the UN Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), what are the other significant human rights instruments? Before I answer the question, permit me to shed some light on the UDHR.

Following the Second World War and outrageous human rights violations that shocked mankind, such as the state-sponsored extermination of Jews by Nazi-Germany (holocaust), the United Nations General Assembly adopted the UDHR on December 1948. The Declaration was adopted partly in a bid to limit states violations of the inalienable rights of individuals. It is worth noting that the UDHR is merely a declaration, hence it is not legally binding on states. In a bid to make the rights laid down in the UDHR binding, other significant human rights instruments (conventions), which are legally binding on all states that ratify them, were adopted. The question at this point is - what are the other significant human rights instruments?

Besides the UDHR, other significant human rights instruments include the following:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 1966. The ICCPR is monitored the Human Rights Committee. Individuals within the borders of member states of the ICCPR can submit complaints of human rights violations to the Committee.
International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) - adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 1966. It is monitored by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) - adopted in December 1979. It is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), adopted on December 1984. It is monitored by the Committee against Torture.
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), adopted in December 1965. The Convention is monitored by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 1989. It is monitored by the Committee on the Rights of the Child.
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families.* It was adopted in 1990 and came into force on July 2003. The Convention is monitored by the Committee on Migrant Workers.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has also adopted a couple of significant human rights instruments, including:

Forced Labour Convention, adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization, in June 1930.
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.
Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949.
Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, adopted in June 1957.
Discrimination (Employment and Occupation Convention ), 1958
Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999.

Significant regional human rights instruments include.

African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. It is overseen by the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.
European Convention on Human Rights, drafted in November 1950 in Rome.
American Convention on Human Rights, adopted by adopted by countries in the Americas in 1969.

No doubt - the 1949 Geneva Conventions are also significant human rights instruments.

While it is true that the above list of human rights instruments is far from being exhaustive - it is also true that the list contains the significant human rights instruments that are often invoked.

* I hope my [cyberspace] friend - columnist and blogger at Migrant Tales can "push" Finland to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. Follow his blog - Migrant Tales.

Men jailed for Rabbit Torture in Sweden

On Friday 23 April 2010, a court in Sweden was at work - four men were on trial for torturing two rabbits a year ago in Södertörn - a peninsula in southern Stockholm. Three of the four men were jailed for animal cruelty and one of them was slammed with a fine.

During the trial, the Södertörn district court was packed with animal rights activists and protesters. According to The Local, the trial was interrupted - as the police were ordered to eject the angry animal rights activists from the courtroom.

What happened to the rabbits?

One of the rabbits was burnt alive while the other was kicked to death. It is worth mentioning that the incident was caught on video - the men fastened both hind legs of one of the rabbits with tape, poured inflammable liquid on the rabbit and set it ablaze. As if this was not enough, the men laughed as the animal struggled to death.

No doubt, the men involved demonstrated unspeakable cruelty against the defenseless animals and the decision of the Södertörn district court - to serve three of the men involved with three to four months in prison, and to fine the fourth man - is justified.

However, this decision comes only a month after Amnesty International took Sweden to task for impunity for sex offenders in the Scandinavian country. Amnesty International criticized Sweden for failing to protect women from rape and other forms of violence.

Are animals more protected from violence than women in Sweden?

It is interesting to note that the Swedish media frenzy and anger that followed the rabbit torture case was enormous. Many people called for the men to be identified and made threats against them, while men who violate women go unnoticed and sometimes hailed like "champions" by their communities - as was the case in Bjästa, a small town in northern Sweden.

Last month in Bjästa, a girl was raped at her school. Unfortunately, she was unable to win unprecedented support and courtroom demonstrations like the rabbits! When she reported the rape incident to the authorities, what she got was rejection - the 14-year-old girl was rejected by the small Swedish community in which she lived.

Drawing from the analysis - are animal rights organizations stronger and more organized than women's rights organizations in Sweden? Better still, are animal rights more important than women's rights in Sweden?

If both rights are equally important - why was the little girl at Bjästa let down by her community? Assuming the rabbits were tortured in Bjästa - what would have been the response from the same community?

I would like to hear from you!

Last month, I wrote about the alarming rate of maternal deaths in the U.S. and I'm thrilled to note that a video by Human Rights Watch, which brings to light the dangers of maternal deaths in India, has been nominated for the 14th Annual Webby Award - Best Documentary: Individual Episode. The video - "In Silence: Maternal Mortality in India", tells the story of an Indian woman, Kiran Yadav, who died in childbirth.

What is the Webby Award?

The Webby Award celebrates excellence, innovation and creativity on the internet and it has been dubbed the "internet's highest honor" by New York Times. It is worth mentioning that thousands of videos and websites are submitted to win the award and it is an honor to have a video, which highlights a fundamental human right, nominated for "Web Supremacy".

Below is the video that was nominated for the Webby Award:

Are you passionate about human rights? Should women die from preventable causes?

Make your voice heard by helping Human Rights Watch win the Webby Award - this will go a long way to raise awareness about maternal deaths in India - where, according to Human Rights Watch, more than 60,000 pregnancies end up in death.

You can help Human Rights Watch by doing two things:

1) Register HERE
2) Vote for "In Silence: Maternal Mortality in India."

Make a difference, by following the two simple steps above.

Cast your vote before 29 April, 2010.