1 See Thomas Buergenthal, 'The American Human Rights Declaration', in Kay Hailbronner, Georg Ress and Torsten Stein (eds.), Staat und Volkerrechtsordnung. Festscbriftjiir Karl Dooming (Berlin and Heidelberg, 1989),133-42, and Grace Nacimiento, Diellmerikaniscbe Deklaration der Recbte und PJficbten des Menschen. Zum Froze) der Recbtserzeugung durch Resolutionen internationaler Organisationen (Berlin and Heidelberg, 1997). 2 For a comprehensive review of the lnter-American system see , amongst many others, David J. Harris and Stephen Livingstone (eds.), Inter-American System ofHuman Rights (Oxford, 1998),Tomas Buergenthal and Dinah Shelton, Protecting Human Rights in tbellmericas: Cases and Materials (Kehl am Rhein, Strasbourg, Arlington, 4'" ed. 1995), Thomas Buergenthal, 'The Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights', in Theodor Meron (ed.), Human Rigbts and International Law: Legal and Political Issues (Oxford, 1984), Vol. II, 419-93, Juliane Kokott, Das interamerikanische System zum Schutz derMenscbenrecbte (Berlin and Heidelberg, 1986), and Jochen Abr. Frowein, 'The American and European Conventions on Human Rights: A Comparison, HRLJ (1980), 44. 3 See, e.g., D.J. Padilla, 'The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the Organization of Ameri- can States: A Case Study', 9 American University] Int'l Law and Policy (1993), 95. See also Inter-AmCtHR, Certain llttributes oftbe Inter Amaican Commission on Human Rights, advisory opinion OC-13/93 dated 16 July 1993, Series A, No. 13. 4 See, e.g., Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade, 'The Operation of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights', in: Harris and Livingstone (eds.), Inter-American System ofHuman Rights (Oxford, 1998), 133-49, Scott Davidson, The Inter-American Court ofHuman Rights (Aldershot et al., 1997), Thomas Buergenthal, "fhe Inter- American Court of Human Rights', 76 AJIL (1982) 231, and Hector Gros Espiell, 'Contentious Proceedings before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights', 1 Emory J. Int'l Dispute Resolution (1987) 175.
5 See Thomas Buergenthal, 'Implementation in the Inter-American Human Rights System', in: Rudolf Ber- nhardt and John Anthony Jolowicz (eds.), International Enforcement of Human Rights (Berlin and Hei- delberg,1987), 57-75, and id.,'Interim Measures in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights', in Rudolf Bernhardt (ed.), Interim Measures Indicated by International Courts (Berlin and Heidelberg, 1994), 69. 6 Inter-AmCtHR, OtherTreaties Subject to the ConsultativeJurisdiction of the Court (Article 64 American Con- vention on Human Rights), advisory opinion OC-1/82 of 24 September 1982, Series A, No. 1, operative para. 1. 7 Inter-AmCommHR (prepared by the Indian Law Resources Center), Authorities and Precedents in International and Domestic Law for the Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/11.110 dated 1 March 2001, available at http://www.cidh.oas.org/ Indigenas/ Indigenas.en.01/index.htm and http://www.indianlaw.orglbriefin�book.htm. 8 Proposed American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 26 February 1997, at its 1333"' Session, 95th Regular Session. 9 Inter-AmCommHR, The Human Rights Situation of the Indigenous People in the Americas, report of 20 October 2000, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.108 Doc. 62. 10 Inter-AmCommHR, Case No. 7615, The Yanomami Indians (Brazil), resolution no.12/85 of 5 March 1985, recommendations, para. 9. 11 See Inter-AmCommHR, Press Release No. 23/01, dated 28 September 2001. 12 See, for instance, Inter-AmCommHR, Case No. 11.763, Plan de Sanchez Massacre (Guatemala), report no. 31/99 of 11 March 1999 (concerning the killing of 268 members of the Maya-Achi people, which consti-
tuted the entire population of the Plan de Sanchez Village, in the course of a military operation aiming at the suppression of an insurgent movement); Case Not. 11.821, Village ofMoiwana (Suriname), report no.26/ 00 of 7 March 2000 (where some 40 villagers belonging to the Ndjuka maroons were allegedly executed and the village burnt down because most of the supporters of the leader of an armed opposition group belonged to that people) and Case No.11.101, 'Caloto'Massave (Columbia), reports nos.114/99 of 28 September 1999 and 36/00 of 13 April 2000 (concerning the murder of alleged leaders of the Paez indigenous community committed by private landowners with the participation of the police). 13 See also the preliminary working paper submitted to the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Dis- crimination and Protection of Minorities (49`" session) by Erica-Irene Daes on 'Indigenous People and Their Relationship to Land' dated 20 June 1997, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/17. 14 See Inter-AmCommHR, The Human Rights Situation ..., Chapter III, and Partick Thomberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights (Manchester, 2002), 265-89. 15 Judgment of 31 August 2001, Series A, No. 79. 16 the Yanomami Indians case, para. 3 (a) and (d). 17 Ibid., para. 8. 18 Articles I, VIII and XI of the Am. Decl. 19 the Yanomami Indians case, recommendation 3 (b). 20 Inter-AmCommHR, Case No. 11713, Enxet-Lamenxay and Kayleyphapopyet (Riachito) Indigenous Commu- nities (Paraguay), report (friendly settlement) no. 90/99.
21 See ibid , paras.13-16 and 22. 22 See U. O. Umozurike, 'The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights', 77 AJIL (1983) 902-12, at 909. 23 See Richard N. Kiwanuka, 'The Meaning of'People' in the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights', 82 AJIL (1988), 80-101, 82 and Olusola Ojo, 'Understanding Human Rights in Africa', in: Jan Barting et al. (eds.), Human Rigbts in a Pluralist World (Westport, London, 1999) 115-123,119-121. 24 Article 22(1) AfrCh. 25 See Philip Kunig,'�Ihe Protection of Human Rights by International Law in Africa', 25 GYIL (1982),138-68, 143-50, for a discussion of the drafting process. The inclusion of duties, in particular towards the commu- nity, has been said to be 'firmly ingrained in African tradition and ... therefore consistent with historical traditions and values of African civilization' but also motivated by the desire to accommodate the wishes of the socialist states at the time of the adoption of the Charter (Richard Gittleman, "Ihe African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights: A Legal Analysis', 22 Trirginia J Int'1 L. (1982) 667-714, 676-7. But see Kunig, The Protection ...',159, who submits that it would be a'mistake'to attribute the inclusion of duties `primarily'to the preferences of socialist states). For a discussion of political expediency' as one of the factors influencing the scope of human rights in Africa see Ojo,'Understanding Human Rights in Africa',121-3. 26 See Kunig,'�Ihe Protection ...',153 et seq. 27 Ibid , p.156. 28 See Kiwanuka, 'The Meaning of'People' ...', 86. 29 See The Danish Centre for Human Rights, Evaluation. 7he African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rigbts (Copenhagen, 1998).
30 Umozurike, `The African Charter ...', at 909. 31 Since 1988 the Commission has been formally entrusted with receiving and evaluating state reports pursu- ant to Article 62 AfrCh. See AfrCommHPR, State Reporting Procedure (Information Sheet No. 4). 32 See Article 30 AfrCh; AfrCommHRP, Establisbment (Information Sheet No. 1) and Communication Proce- dme (Information Sheet No. 3) and, generally, Evelyn A. Ankumah, 1he African Commission on Human and Peoples'Rigbts (The Hague, 1996). 33 See IRIN-West Africa, 'A Human Rights Court for Africa: Background and Issues', Special Brief 98.6.05, dated 5 June 1998, http://www.sas.upenn.edu/African_Studies/Newsletters/irinw 6498.html, at II. 34 For a comparative table showing the basic features of the African, European and American courts see: Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), 'The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights', Occasional Paper, Geneva, January 2000, Annex 1. 35 See ibid, at LA. 36 For a review of the limited practice so far, see �Ihornberry, Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights, 244-64. 37 AfrCommHPR, resolution of 6 November 2000,28' ordinary session. 38 Ibid., para. 3 (b). 39 Gittleman, 'The African Charter ...', 683.
40 Communication No.155/96, decision on the merits of October 2001. 41 Theodore Macdonald, 'Internationalizing Indigenous Community Land Rights: Nicaragua and the Inter- American Court of Human Rights', at: http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/ponsacs/DOCS/nicaragua. htm. 42 For a full text of the complaint see http://www.indianlaw.org/Complaint English.pdf. 43 Judgment, para. 2, and report no. 27/98 of the Commission, dated 3 March 1998, paras. 141 et seq.
44 Judgment, para. 103. 45 Theodore Macdonald, Internationalizing Indigenous Community Land Rights ...'. 46 Reding defines amparo as 'a uniquely Latin American legal instrument that includes what we know as habeas carpus but extends such `protections' of the court - the literal meaning in Spanish - to all other rights. As such, it is an amplified form of the U.S. concept of `due process' with application to, among other things, political rights, economic rights, and 'every action or omission of any functionary, authority, or agent of the same, that violates or attempts to violate the rights and guarantees consecrated in this constitution." Andrew Reding, 'Nicaragua's New Constitution. A Close Reading', 4(2) World Policy Journal (1987), at http: //www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/nicaragua/1987-spring-WPJ-Nicaragua.html, with reference to Article 188 of the 1985 Nicaraguan Constitution. 47 Judgment, para. 103, q.vi.
48 Ibid., para. 103, p.i. 49 Ibid., para. 103, r.i. 50 See ibid., para. 103, r.iii. 51 Ibid,para.103,t. t.
52 Ibid, paras.116-21.
53 The Court furthermore referred to Decree No.16-96 of 23 August 1996, pertaining to the creation of the National Commission for the Demarcation of the Lands of the Indigenous Communities of the Atlantic Coast, which `... entrusts that national commission, among other functions, with that of identifying the lands which the various indigenous communities have traditionally occupied, to conduct a geographical analysis process to determine the communal areas and those belonging to the State, to prepare a demarca- tion project and to seek funding for this project'; and to Law No. 14 of 13 January 1986 which sets out in Article 31: The State will provide the necessary lands for the Miskito, Sumo, Rama, and other ethnic communities of the Atlantic of Nicaragua, so as to improve their standard of living and contribute to the social and eco- nomic development of the Nation. 54 Judgment, para. 109. 55 Ibid., para. 110.
56 Ibid., paras. 111-3, with further references. 57 Ibid., para. 127. 58 Ibid., para. 115, and also para. 122. 59 Ibid, para. 123 and, for additional evidence, para.125. 60 Ibid, para. 124. 61 Ibid, para. 134, with reference to the Ivcber Bronstein case, judgment of 6 February 2001, Series C, No. 7-1, para. 137, the Case of the Constitutional Court, decision of 31 January 2001, Series C, Not. 71, para. 93; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), advisory opinion No. OC-9/87 dated 6 October 1987, para. 24. 62 Judgment, para. 136, with reference to the Baena Ricardo et al. case, judgment of 2 February 2001, Series C, No. 72, para. 180; and the Cantoral Benavides case, judgment of 18 August 2000, Series C, No. 69, para. 178.
63 Judgment, para. 140. 64 Ibid., para. 141.
65 The government continues by stating that the Awas Tingni Community is claiming an 'area of land [that] is disproportionate to the number of members of the Community' and that it has increased its claims in the course of the various domestic proceedings. Furthermore, in the government's opinion, the Community has claimed land that is considered 'national land'. 66 Judgment, para. 146, with reference to Inter-AmCtHR, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of Guarantees for Due Legal Process, advisory opinion OC-16/99 of 1 October 1999, Series A, No. 16, para. 114.
67 Art. 63(1) ACHR reads as follows: 'If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.' 68 Judgment, para. 158.
69 Ibid,paras.165-6. 70 By seven votes to one.
71 Unanimously. 72 By seven votes to one. 73 Unanimously. 74 Indian Law Resource Center,'The Awas Tigni Case - Fifteen Months Later. The Challenges to the Imple- mentation of the Decision of the Inter-tlmerican Court of Human Rights', press release dated 16 January 2003, at 4. 75 Dated 19 July 2002, in Spanish at http://ww�.indianlaw.org/Fmal n'Iedidas Provisionales- 07192002.pd£
76 In Spanish at http://www.indianlaw.org/PM_Resolucion_de_la_Corte_09062002.pdf. The relevant opera- tive provisions read as follows: 1. Requerir al Estado que adopte, sin dilacion, cuantas medidas sean necesarias para proteger el uso y dis- frute de la propiedad de las tierras pertenecientes a la Comunidad Mayagna Awas Tingni y de los recursos naturales existentes en ellas, especificamente aqu6llas tendientes a evitar danos inmediatos e irreparables resultantes de las actividades de terceros que se han asentado en el territorio de la Comunidad o que explo- ten los recursos naturales existentes en el mismo, hasta tanto no se produzca la dehmitaci6n, demarcaci6n y titulacion definitivas ordenadas por la Corte.... 3. Requerir al Estado que investigue los hechos denunciados que dieron origen a las presentes medidas con la finalidad de descubrir a los responsables y sancionarlos. 77 Indian Law Resource Center, 'Indigenous Community Sues the President of Nicaragua for Failure to Implement Decision of International Tribunaf, press release dated 16 January 2003, at 1. 78 Inter-AmCommHR, Case No. 11.140, Mary and Carrie Dunn (United States), report no. 75/02, dated 27 December 2002.
79 Inter-AmCommHR, Case No. 12.313, Yakye Ilxa Indigenous Community of tbe Enxet-Lengua People (Para- guay), report no. 2/02 dated 27 February 2002. 80 Ibid., para. 1. 81 See ibid., paras. 19 et seq. 82 See ibid., in particular para. 28. 83 See ibid., in particular para. 45.
84 The case was filed shortly after the execution of nine leaders of the 'Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People' (MOSOP) in (November 1995. See Jim Lobe,'People versus Big Oil: Rights of Nigerian Indigenous People Recognized', Foreign PoJiry Focus, 5 July 2002, at httpJ/v,mw-.fpif-org/. For a short description of the histon- and background of the events at issue in the present case see Leghorsi Saro Pyagbara,'The Ogoni of Nigeria: Oil and Exploitation, V1RG/1V10SOP micro study, at http:/h\Ww.minorityrights.org/admin/ Download/pdflNigerialVlicro. pd£ 85 Unlike the previous military regime (until 1999), the new civilian government of Nigeria did cooperate with the Commission. For a discussion of the present case and parallel legal steps taken on behalf of the Ogoni community before US courts see: Dinah Shelton, 'Case Note', 96 AJIL (2002) 937-42, 941-2.
86 The complainants add that the army 'has admitted its role in the ruthless operations which have left thou- sands of villagers homeless. The admission is recorded in several memos exchanged between officials of the SPDC and the Rivers State Internal Security Task Force, which has devoted itself to the suppression of the Ogoni campaign. One such memo calls for 'ruthless military operations' and 'wasting operations coupled with psychological tactics of displacement'.' A video submitted with the communication contains state- ments of an army officer that his unit was involved in various attacks against the Ogoni. Para. 8.
87 Article 16 AfrCh reads: '(1) Every individual shall have the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physi- cal and mental health. (2) States Parties ... shall take the necessary measures to protect the health of their people and to ensure that they receive medical attention when they are sick.' 88 Article 24 AfrCh reads: All peoples shall have the right to a general satisfactory environment favourable to their development.'
89 Reference is made to Article 12 CESCR. 90 Article 21.-lfrCh reads: '(1) All peoples shall freely dispose of their wealth and natural resources.'Ihis right shall be exercised in the exclusive interest of the people. In no case shall a people be deprived of it. (2) In case of spoliation the dispossessed people shall have the right to the lawful recovery of its propem as well as to an adequate compensation. (3) The free disposal of wealth and natural resources shall be exercised with- out prejudice to the obligation of promoting international economic co-operation based on mutual respect, equitable exchange and the principles of international law. (4) States parties ... shall individually and col-
lectively exercise the right to free disposal of their wealth and natural resources with a view to strengthening African unity and solidarity. (5) States Parties ... shall undertake to eliminate all forms of foreign economic exploitation particularly that practised by international monopolies so as to enable their peoples to fully benefit from the advantages derived from their national resources.' 91 Reference is made to Communication 74/92, Union desJeunes Avocats v. Chad 92 Judgment of 19 July,1988, Series C, No. 4. 93 Judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A, No. 91.
94 Article 14 AfrCh reads: 'The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws.' 95 Article 18(1) AfrCh reads:'The family shall be the natural unit and basis of society. It shall be protected by the State ...'.
96 The Commission then adds that Nigeria also violated the right to be protected against forced evictions, which it calls a'right enjoyed by the Ogonis as a collective right'. Para. 63. 97 The Commission conducted a mission to Nigeria from 7 to 14 March 1997 and witnessed first hand the deplorable situation in Ogoni land, including the environmental degradation.
98 Inter-AmCtHR, Press Release CDH-CP-06/02. 99 An initial deadline of 14 February 2003 for written observations by the parties was fixed by the President of the Court (letters of the Registrar to the author dated 16 November 2002, CDH-OC-18/162, and 10 Janu- ary 2003, CDH-OC-18/178) and subsequently extended to 26 March 2003; public hearings in the case were scheduled for 24 February 2003 (Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2003, operative paras. 1 and 3) and 4 June 2003 in Santiago, Chile (Order of the President of the Court of 7 April 2003, operative para. 1). Observations totaling several hundred pages by OAS member states and amici have been filed with the Court and communicated to the parties by the time of writing. 100 The government refers to the appointment of a Special Rapporteur for the human rights of migrants by resolution E/CN.4/1999/44 of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and of a similar Special Rapporteur of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1997: see Verbal Report by Juan E. Mendez, Special Rapporteur on Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, made during the working session of the OAS Committee on Legal and Political Matters, Washington, D.C., 4 April, 2002, quoted in the request.
101 For instance the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights, dated 12 July 1993, LTN Doc. A/CONF.157/23, Part I, para. 24, and, in particular, the Report of the LTN Special Rapporteur dated 6 January 2000, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/82. 102 UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/82, para. 54. 103 Cf. Article 2(1) CCPR and Article 1(1) ACHR.
104 Inter-AmCtHR, Restrictions to tbe Deatb Penalty (Articles 4(2J and 4(4) American Convention on Human Rigbts, advisory opinion OC-3/83 dated 8 September 1983, Series A, No. 3, para.50. 105 'The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.' 'Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by leg- islative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.' 'All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal pro- tection of the law.'
106 Inter-AmCtHR, Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, advisory opinion OC-4/84 of 19 January 1984, Series A, No. 4, para. 55. 107 Inter-AmCtHR, Baena Ricardo et al. case, judgment of 2 February 2001, Series C, No. 72, para. 126.
108 The government refers to Communications Nos. 35/1978, Aumeeruddy-Cz�a et al. v. Mauritius, views of 9 April 1981, CCPR/C/12/D/35/1978, and 172 (oblique) 1984, S. W.M. Broeks v. the Netherlands, views of 9 April 1987, CCPR/C/29/D/172/1984.
109 Inter-AmCtHR, Velasquez Rodriguez case, judgment of 29 July 1988, Series C, No. 4, para. 167, and Godinez Cruz case, judgment of 20 January 1989, Series C, No. 5, para. 176. 110 The government quotes from the separate opinion of Judge Rodolfo E. Piza Escalante in Enforceability of the Right to Reply or Correction (llrticler 14(IJ, 1(IJ and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), advisory opinion OC-7/86 of 29 August 1986, Series A, No. 7, para. 25, who states, inter alia: `... The very notion of protection on the international plane, although only as complementary or subsidiary to that of domestic law, requires that the States immediately commit themselves to respect and ensure those rights as an international obligation over and above the vicissitudes of their domestic legal system.' 111 The government bases this question on Articles 2(1) and (2) and 5(2) CCPR. 112 In particular Inter-AmCtHR, Compulsory Membership in an Association Prescribed by Law for the Practice of journalism (Articles 13 and 29 American Convention on Human Rights), advisory opinion OC-5/85 of 13 November 1985, Series A, No. 5, para. 67, where the Court stressed 'that public order' or 'general welfare' may under no circumstances be invoked as a means of denying a right guaranteed ... or to impair it or deprive it of its true content.'
113 'There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Convention pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.' 114 The government also relies on 'translating into international human rights law, toutes proportionsgardees, the so-called Martens clause.'
115 Inter-AmCtH R, judicial Guarantees in States ofemergency (Articles 27(2), 25 and 8 of tbe American Conven- tion on Human Rigbts, advisory opinion OC-9/87 of 6 October 1987, Series A, No. 9, para. 16; see also The Right to Information on Consular Assistance within the Framework of tbe Guarantees of Due Legal Process, advisory opinion OC-16/99 of 1 October 1999, Series A, \0.16, para. 49. 116 Inter-AmCtHR, Restrictions to the Deatb Penalty ..., advisory opinion OC-3/83, para. 43. 117 A..S. Cancado Trindade, El Derecbo Internacional de los Derechos Humanos en el Siglo XXI, Editorial Juridica de Chile (Santiago, 2001) 38 (emphasis added).
118 LJN General Assembly resolution 45/158, dated 18 December 1990.
119 Communication No. 247/2002, jean Simbarakiye v. the Democratic Republic of Cango, submitted on 3 April 2002. 120 Communication No. 249/2002, African Institute for Human Rights and Development (on behalf of Sierra Leonean Refugees in Guinea v. Republic of Guinea, submitted on 17 April 2002. 121 See Ibid, paras. 2-7. 122 Communication No. 236/2000, Dr. Curt Francis Doebbler v. Sudan, submitted on 17 March 2000. 123 Ibid, para. 3. 124 Communication No. 246/2002, Mouvement kairien des Droits Humains (MWHJ v. Ivory Coast, submitted on 8 February 2002.
125 Communication No. 245/2002, Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v. Zimbabwe, submitted on 3 January 2002. 126 Decision, para. 3. 127 Decision, para 4.1. 128 Decision, para. 4.2. The applicant state has submitted detailed reports of acts of rape.
129 Decision, para. -1.4. 130 Decision, para. 5. D. R. Congo also refers to the CCPR and to norms of international humanitarian law in its complaint. 131 Inter-llmCommHR, Case \o. 12-388, Yabti Tasba Masraka Nanih Asia Takanka (Y4TAIL4) (Nicaragua), declared admissihle on 3 December 2001 in report 125/01. 132 The name 'YATAMA'means 'organization of the children of mother earth' in Miskito. 133 Inter-AmCommHR, Case No. 11.856, Aucan Huilcaman Paillama et al. (Chile), report no. 9/02 dated 27 i February 2002.
134 Inter-AmCommHR, Case No. 12.001, Simone Andre Diniz (Brazil), report no. 37/02 dated 9 October 2002. 135 For an interesting case, which cannot be addressed in the given context, concerning gender discrimination and the implementation of quotas in the election process, see Inter-AmCommHR, Case No.12.404,,�anet Espinoza Feria et al. (Peru), report no. 51/02 dated 10 October 2002.