Unit III — Regional Human Rights Systems

“The Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions.” — European Court of Human Rights in Tyrer v. UK (1978)

Overview — The Three Regional Systems

flowchart TD
    G["Global — UDHR, ICCPR, ICESCR"]:::global
    G --> E["European System — ECHR 1950 — Council of Europe"]:::eu
    G --> A["Inter-American System — ACHR 1969 — OAS"]:::am
    G --> AF["African System — Banjul Charter 1981 — AU"]:::af
    G --> AS["Asia-Pacific — No binding treaty — gap"]:::asia

    classDef global fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef eu fill:#ADD8E6,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef am fill:#FFD700,stroke:#8B6914,color:#000;
    classDef af fill:#90EE90,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#000;
    classDef asia fill:#FFB6C1,stroke:#8B0000,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

European System — ECHR 1950

European Convention on Human Rights — signed 4 November 1950; entered into force 3 September 1953. Managed by the Council of Europe (not the EU).

flowchart TD
    EC["European Convention on Human Rights 1950"]:::root
    EC --> RTS["Rights Protected — Arts. 2–14"]:::section
    EC --> P1["Protocol 1 — Property, Education, Free Elections"]:::section
    EC --> ECtHR["European Court of Human Rights — Strasbourg"]:::court
    ECtHR --> IND["Individual Application — Art. 34 — any person, NGO, group"]:::mech
    ECtHR --> INTER["Inter-State Application — Art. 33"]:::mech
    ECtHR --> ADM["Admissibility — exhaust domestic remedies — Art. 35"]:::mech
    ECtHR --> JUST["Just Satisfaction — Art. 41 — damages to applicant"]:::mech
    ECtHR --> GC["Grand Chamber — 17 judges — for major cases"]:::mech

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef section fill:#ADD8E6,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef court fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef mech fill:#F0F8FF,stroke:#4682B4,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Key ECHR Rights

European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Art. 15 — Derogation in Emergencies

Any ECHR member may derogate in time of war or other public emergency — but:

• Art. 3 (no torture), Art. 4(1) (no slavery), Art. 7 (no retroactive law) — absolutely non-derogable
• Derogation must be strictly necessary and notified to Secretary-General

Inter-American System — ACHR 1969

American Convention on Human Rights (Pact of San José) — adopted 22 November 1969; entered into force 18 July 1978. Framework of the Organization of American States (OAS).

flowchart TD
    OAS["OAS — Organization of American States"]:::root
    OAS --> IACHR["Inter-American Commission on Human Rights — Washington DC"]:::body
    OAS --> IACtHR["Inter-American Court of Human Rights — San José, Costa Rica"]:::court
    IACHR --> F1["Receives petitions from individuals and groups"]:::fn
    IACHR --> F2["Conducts country visits and thematic reports"]:::fn
    IACHR --> F3["Refers cases to the Court"]:::fn
    IACtHR --> C1["Contentious jurisdiction — binding judgments"]:::fn
    IACtHR --> C2["Advisory jurisdiction — non-binding opinions"]:::fn
    IACtHR --> C3["Provisional measures — urgent protection"]:::fn

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef body fill:#FFD700,stroke:#8B6914,color:#000;
    classDef court fill:#FFF0C0,stroke:#8B6914,color:#000;
    classDef fn fill:#FFFACD,stroke:#8B6914,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Key ACHR Features

Landmark Inter-American Cases

African System — Banjul Charter 1981

African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) — adopted 27 June 1981; entered into force 21 October 1986. Framework of the African Union (AU).

flowchart TD
    AU["African Union"]:::root
    AU --> ACHPR["African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights — Banjul, Gambia"]:::body
    AU --> ACtHPR["African Court on Human and Peoples Rights — Arusha, Tanzania"]:::court
    ACHPR --> A1["Promote and protect human rights"]:::fn
    ACHPR --> A2["Examine State reports"]:::fn
    ACHPR --> A3["Receive individual and inter-State communications"]:::fn
    ACtHPR --> B1["Contentious and advisory jurisdiction"]:::fn
    ACtHPR --> B2["Only 8 States allow direct individual access"]:::fn

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef body fill:#90EE90,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#000;
    classDef court fill:#D8F0D8,stroke:#1B5E20,color:#000;
    classDef fn fill:#F0FFF0,stroke:#2E7D32,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Unique Features of the Banjul Charter

ECHR vs ACHR vs Banjul Charter — Comparison

The Asian Gap

Asia-Pacific has no regional human rights treaty. There is no binding Asian equivalent of the ECHR, ACHR, or Banjul Charter.

flowchart TD
    ASIA["Asia-Pacific Region"]:::root
    ASIA --> WHY["Why No Treaty?"]:::question
    WHY --> R1["Diversity — 4.5 billion people, 50+ States, many religions and political systems"]:::reason
    WHY --> R2["Sovereignty emphasis — non-interference principle dominant"]:::reason
    WHY --> R3["Economic development prioritised over civil rights"]:::reason
    WHY --> R4["Lack of single regional organisation with human rights mandate"]:::reason
    ASIA --> EXIST["What Exists"]:::exist
    EXIST --> E1["ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on HR — AICHR — 2009 — advisory only"]:::item
    EXIST --> E2["ASEAN Human Rights Declaration 2012 — not binding"]:::item
    EXIST --> E3["Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions"]:::item

    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef question fill:#FFE4E1,stroke:#8B0000,color:#000;
    classDef reason fill:#FFB6C1,stroke:#8B0000,color:#000;
    classDef exist fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef item fill:#F0F8FF,stroke:#4682B4,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (2012): Adopted in Phnom Penh — first ASEAN human rights document. Criticised for the “Clawback Clause” — allowing rights to be limited by national laws — which is contrary to universal human rights principles.

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: State X is a member of the Council of Europe. It detains a suspected terrorist for 5 years without trial citing a national emergency, and the detainee claims treatment amounting to torture during interrogation. He applies to the ECtHR. Examine the admissibility and merits.

I — Issue

Whether the ECtHR can hear the application and whether State X has violated Arts. 3 and 5 ECHR; and whether the derogation under Art. 15 is valid.

R — Rule

• ECHR Art. 3 — Prohibition of torture — absolute — no exceptions and no derogation
• ECHR Art. 5 — Right to liberty — can be restricted but requires prompt judicial review — Art. 5(3) — brought before a judge “promptly”
• ECHR Art. 15 — Derogation in emergencies — permitted for Art. 5 but not Art. 3
• Art. 35 — Admissibility — domestic remedies must be exhausted; application within 4 months
• Ireland v. UK (1978): ECtHR held “five techniques” of interrogation constituted inhuman treatment; absolute bar under Art. 3 confirmed
• A and Others v. UK (2009): Indefinite detention under Anti-Terrorism Act derogation violated Art. 5 — derogation not strictly required

A — Analysis

Admissibility: The applicant must have exhausted domestic remedies (applied to domestic courts) and filed within 4 months. Assuming done, the case is admissible under Art. 34 (individual petition).

Art. 3 — Torture: Art. 3 is absolute and permits no derogation — Art. 15(2) expressly excludes Art. 3. Even during a declared war, torture is prohibited. The treatment during interrogation — if it reaches the threshold of “inhuman or degrading treatment” — is a per se violation.

Art. 5 — Detention: While Art. 5 rights can be derogated in a public emergency, Art. 15 requires the derogation to be “strictly required.” Five years without trial far exceeds what is strictly required — following A and Others v. UK, indefinite detention without charge is disproportionate even under an emergency.

C — Conclusion

The application is admissible. State X has violated Art. 3 ECHR — torture prohibition is absolute and not derogable. The 5-year detention violates Art. 5 ECHR — even if derogation was declared, it is disproportionate and not strictly required. The ECtHR will likely award just satisfaction (damages) under Art. 41.

📄 The full PDF bundle has 6 more problems for Unit III — including Banjul Charter peoples’ rights, ASEAN Declaration gap problem, ACHR Velásquez Rodríguez scenario, margin of appreciation doctrine application, and derogation comparison problem. Get the Notes + Question Bank bundle — ₹199