Dean Rey International Human Rights Law

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
DR. REY OLIVER S. ALEJANDRINO

AB (XU-ATENEO), LLB (ADMU), LLM (UST), DCL (UST)
Member, Panel of Experts on IHRL and IHL–PHAP,
Geneva, Switzerland
Panel Presenter on IHRL and IHL, PSIL National Conference,
University of the Philippines
Participant, IHRL/IHL Workshops in Harvard University, USA;
Herstmonceux Castle, East Sussex, UK;
Bangkok, Thailand; and University of the Philippines Professorial
Lecturer, University of Santo Tomas Graduate School of Law and
Faculty of Civil Law, and Bulacan State University MCLE Lecturer,
New Era University, IBP Pangasinan and Quezon Dean, Enverga
Law School, Manuel S. Enverga University Former Regional Director,
Commission on Human Rights
2019
“The Latin word for ‘doctor’ means ‘to teach’. What I teach is
inextricably linked to human rights. These rights can’t be given, but
must be claimed. I need to teach so people can claim these rights for
themselves and live self-determined lives.”
– Mehret Mandefro, M. D.
To My Grandchildren:
Jagan Blaire Soleil B. Alejandrino,
Seven Years Old; and
Joseph Jairus Bryce B. Alejandrino,
Five Years Old.
- So that they may live a life of peace. . .

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 1.1 Introduction
1.2 Nature and Scope of International

Human Rights Law
CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL THEORY, ORIGIN AND

DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
2.1 The Greek Philosophy
2.2 The Roman Law
2.3 The Judeo-Christian Tradition
2.4 The English Magna Carta, Petition

of Right, and Bill of Rights
2.5 The American Declaration of

Independence, U. S. Constitution,
and Bill of Rights
2.6 French Declaration of the Rights

of Man and of the Citizen
2.7 The Covenant of the League of

Nations and the United Nations
Charter
CHAPTER 3 INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN

RIGHTS LAW
3.1 Charter of the United Nations
3.2 Universal Declaration of Human

Rights
3.3 International Covenant on Civil

and Political Rights
3.3.1 First Optional Protocol to

the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights
3.3.2 Second Optional Protocol

to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights,
aiming at the abolition of the
death penalty
3.4. International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights
3.4.1 Optional Protocol to the

Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights
CHAPTER 4 SEVEN CORE INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
4.1 International Convention on

the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination
4.2 Convention on the Elimination

of All Forms of Discrimination
Against Women

Convention on the Elimination
of Discrimination Against
Women
4.3 Convention Against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or
Punishment

Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
4.4 Convention on the Rights of

the Child

Convention on the Rights
of the Child on the
involvement of children
in armed conflict

of the Child on the sale
of children, child
prostitution and child
pornography

of the Child on a
communications procedure
4.5 International Convention on the

Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members
of their Families
4.6 International Convention for the
Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance
4.7 Convention on the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities

of Persons with Disabilities
CHAPTER 5 OTHER RELATED INTERNATIONAL

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS
5.1 The Statute of the International

Court of Justice
5.2 The Rome Statute (International

Criminal Court)
CHAPTER 6 REGIONAL TREATIES ON

HUMAN RIGHTS
6.1 European Convention on Human

Rights
6.2 American Declaration on the
Rights and Duties of Man
6.3 American Convention on

Human Rights
6.4 African Charter on Human

and Peoples’ Rights
6.5 Arab Charter on Human Rights
6.6. Cairo Declaration on Human

Rights in Islam
6.7 ASEAN Human Rights
Declaration
CHAPTER 7 PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 7.1
The Philippine Constitutions
7.1.1 The 1897 Biac-na-bato

Constitution
7.1.2 The 1898 Malolos

Constitution
7.1.3 The 1935 Constitution
7.1.4 The 1943 Japanese

Sponsored Constitution
7.1.6 The 1986 Freedom

Constitution

8.2 The Bill of Rights
CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION OF
INTERNATIONAL HUMAN
RIGHTS LAW
7.1 Committee on Economic,

Social, and Cultural Rights
7.2 Committee on the Elimination

of Racial Discrimination
7.3 Committee Against Torture

7.4 Committee on the Rights
of the Child
7.5 Committee on the Protection

of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of
their Families
7.6 Committee on the Rights of

of Persons with Disabilities
7.7 European Court of Human

Rights
7.8 European Committee for

the Prevention of Torture
and Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
7.9 Inter-American Commission

on Human Rights
8.0 Inter-American Court of

Human Rights
8.1 Organisation of American
States
8.2 African Commission on

Human and Peoples’ Rights
8.3 African Court on Human and

Peoples’ Rights
8.4 African Union
8.5 Arab Human Rights

Committee
8.6 League of Arab States
8.7 Organisation of the

Islamic Conference
8.8 ASEAN Charter
8.9 ASEAN Intergovernmental

Commission on Human
Rights
8.3 Philippine Commission on

Human Rights
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The Philippines as a member of the United Nations signed,

ratified1 and acceded2to a number of human rights treaties and
conventions. This body of international law has been incorporated with
the domestic law by virtue of a constitutional provision adopting the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
1
Ratification is an international act whereby a state indicates its consent to be bound to a treaty if
the parties intended to show their consent by such an act. [Arts.2 (1) (b), 14 (1) and 16, Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969].
2
Accession is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a party to a
treaty already negotiated and signed by other states. [Arts.2 (1) (b) and 15, Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties 1969].
the land.3 Thus, international law becomes part of municipal law [only]
if it is incorporated into municipal law.4
This principle that international law is deemed part of the

Philippine law by virtue of both the doctrines of transformation5 and of
incorporation6 has always been affirmed by jurisprudence.7 The
Supreme Court has even stretched its arms in establishing a doctrine
that the principles of international law would apply in the Philippines
automatically even without the Incorporation Clause in the
3
Section 2, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution. The whole provision follows: “The Philippines
renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality,
justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations”.
4
Joaquin G. Bernas, S. J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY. Manila: Rex Book Store, 2003, 61.
5
International law can become part of municipal law [only] if it is transformed into domestic law
through the appropriate constitutional machinery. See Bernas, supra; The manner through which
treaties become part of Philippine law is also known as the doctrine of transformation to
distinguish itself from the principle of incorporation. See Merlin A. Magallona, A Primer in
International Law in Relation to Philippine Law 37 (1997), as cited in Aloysius Llamzon, The
Generally Accepted Principles of International Law as Philippine Law: Towards a Structurally
Consistent Use of Customary International Law in Philippine Courts, J. D. Thesis, 47 Ateneo L.
J. 243 (2002).
6
Every State is, by reason of its membership in the family of nations, bound by the generally
accepted principles of international law, which are considered to be automatically part of its own
laws. See Isagani A. Cruz, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW, Quezon City: Central Lawbook
Publishing Co., Inc., 1993, 53.
7
Kuroda v. Jalandoni, 83 Phil. 171, 178 (1949), where the Supreme Court held that although the
Philippines is not a signatory to the Hague Convention and became a signatory to the Geneva
Convention only in 1947, the Philippine Military Commission had jurisdiction over war crimes
committed in violation of the two conventions prior to 1947; Mejoff vs. Director of Prisons, 90 Phil.
70 (1951), where a detained alien of Russian descent was released on bail pending execution of
the order of deportation citing pertinent provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Raquiza vs. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 (1945), where the doctrine of immunity from suit of a foreign
state as a principle of international law has been established; this was summarized and
reaffirmed in Baer vs. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1, 6-8 (1974) (A long line of cases to the same effect have
followed); Agustin vs. Edu, 88 SCRA 195, 213 (1979), where the use of the early warning
devices (EWD) had been affirmed by the Court as the Philippines had ratified the 1968 Vienna
Convention on Road Signs and Signals; and J. B. L. Reyes vs. Bagatsing, G. R. No. 65366,
October 25, 1983, where the international duty of protecting foreign embassies was recognized;
as cited in Bernas, supra 62-63.
Constitution.8 As Justice Gray in the case of The Paquete Habana9
had said:
International law is part of our law, and must be
ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of
appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right
depending upon it are duly presented for their
determination.
Therefore, international law has been given life by courts without

any need for legislative action as the principles of international law
“are deemed part of the law of the land as a condition and
consequence of our admission in the society of nations.”10 And upon
admission into international society, “the State is automatically
obligated to comply with these principles.”11
The Philippines has entered into several human rights

declarations, treaties and conventions. As an original member of the
United Nations, it affixed its signature to the Charter of the United
Nations12 in 1945. Said document, which contains seven articles on
human rights, declared in its Preamble the determination of the UN
members “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights and the dignity
and worth of human person” and that all human persons have equal
rights.13
It ushered the enactment of what is now known as the International Bill

of Rights which consists of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights;14 International Covenant on Economic, Social and
8
U. S. vs. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 (1990); Louis Henkin, International Law as Law in the United
States, 82 Mich. L. Rev. 1555 (1984), as cited in Llamzon, supra.
9
175 U. S. 667, 700 (1900), as cited in Llamzon, supra.
10
Holy See vs. Rosario, 238 SCRA 524 (1994); U. S. vs. Guinto, supra, as cited in Llamzon,
supra. 11 U. S. vs. Guinto, supra, as cited in Llamzon, supra.
12
The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, California,
U. S. A at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and
came into force on 24 October 1945. The Philippines is an original signatory.
13
Jorge R. Coquia. HUMAN RIGHTS AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE. Quezon City: Central
Professional Books, Inc., 2000, 42.
14
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
Cultural Rights;15 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;16
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights;17 and Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the Death
Penalty.18
Except the Second Optional Protocol to the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of the
Death Penalty, all covenants, including the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, included in the International Bill of Rights have been
signed and ratified19 by the Philippines. Hence, they form part of the
domestic law of the Philippines.
Further, there are nine core international human rights treaties,

including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Some
of the treaties are supplemented by optional protocols dealing with
specific concerns such as the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;20 Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;21
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
15
Adopted on 16 December 1966 by the UN General Assembly. The Philippines signed and
ratified it on 19 December 1966 and 7 June 1974, respectively.
16
ratified it on 19 December 1966 and 23 October 1986, respectively.
17
ratified it on 19 December 1966 and 22 August 1989, respectively.
18
Adopted on 15 December 1989 by the UN General Assembly. The Philippines signed it on 20
September 2006 but has not ratified it yet.
19
Llamzon, supra, footnote 52, stating that “In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify a [treaty] is
vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the legislature. The role of the Senate
is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the ratification.” Section 21
of Article VII of the Philippine Constitution states that “No treaty or international agreement shall
be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.” (Cf. Bayan vs. Zamora, 342 SCRA 449, 492 (2000).
20
The Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in resolution
2106 (XX) 2 of 21 December 1965. The Philippines signed and ratified it on 7 March 1966 and
15 September 1967, respectively.
21
ratified it on 15 July 1980 and 5 August 1981, respectively.
Treatment or Punishment;22 Convention on the Rights of the Child;23
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and Members of their Families;24 International Convention for
the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; 25 and
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.26
The foregoing conventions which were signed, ratified, or

acceded27 to by the Philippines were incorporated into the municipal
law, thus, making the International Bill of Rights and Core International
Human Rights Treaties effective throughout the Philippines.
The pertinent seven (7) provisions on human rights in the UN

Charter, the International Bill of Rights including the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the Core International Human
Rights Treaties are collectively known as the International Human
Rights Law.
International Human Rights Law (IHRL) is a system of laws, both

domestic and international which is intended to promote human
rights.28 It is a set of international rules, established by treaty or
custom, on the basis of which individuals and groups can expect
and/or claim certain behavior or benefits from governments. Human
rights are inherent entitlements which belong to every person as a
consequence of being human. Numerous non-treaty based principles
and guidelines also belong to the body of international human rights
standards.29 It
22
The Convention was adopted by resolution 39/46 2 of 10 December 1984 at the thirty-ninth
session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Philippines acceded to this
Convention on 18 June 1986.
23
The Convention was adopted by resolution 44/25 2 of 20 November 1989 at the Forty-fourth
session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Philippines signed and ratified it on
26 January 1990 and 21 August 1990, respectively.
24
The Convention, was adopted by Resolution 45/158 1 of 18 December 1990 at the forty-fifth
session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Philippines signed and ratified it on
15 November 1993 and 5 July 1995, respectively.
25
Not yet in force.
26
Not yet in force.
27
The Philippines resorted to accession to Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 18 June 1986 for it was not able to sign the said
Instrument. Accession is the act whereby a state accepts the offer or the opportunity to become a
party to a treaty already negotiated and signed by other states.
28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_human_rights_law (Retrieved 29 October 2007). 29 ICRC
Advisory Service at
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57JR8L/$FILE/IHL_and_IHRL.pdf?OpenElemen
t (Retrieved 29 October 2009).
consists of the pertinent provisions on human rights in the UN Charter,
the International Bill of Rights including the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, and the Core International Human Rights Treaties.
International Law is the law which regulates the intercourse of

nations; the law of nations. The customary law which determines the
rights and regulates the intercourse of independent nations in peace
and war.30 It is the body of accepted rules which regulate the conduct
of States and other international persons as they interact in the world
community.31 It may also be understood as the body of rules or
principles of actions which are binding upon civilized States in their
relations with one another.32
CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL THEORY, ORIGIN AND

DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
2.1 The Greek Philosophy
Human rights are as old as human society itself.33 From the

ancient Greeks who were the first to develop a clearly articulated and
coherent body of thought that ultimately affected modern concepts of
human rights34 to the modern apostles of the rights of human beings
who advocate equal rights between and among men and women and
their inalienable right to life, liberty and property, human rights evolved
gradually as a recognition of the rights of man [and of woman].
Greek [Athenian] poet and lawgiver Solon35 conceived the "rule

30
Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 1979, 733.
31
Jorge R. Coquia and Miriam Defensor Santiago, INTERNATIONAL LAW, Third Edition. Quezon
City: Central Professional Books, Inc. 1998, 1.
32
Brierly, THE LAW OF NATIONS, Sixth Edition, 1963, 1., as cited in Coquia and Defensor
Santiago, supra.
33
Jorge R. Coquia, HUMAN RIGHTS: AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE. Quezon City: Central
Professional Books, Inc., 2000, 19.
34
Carol Rae Hansen, A History of Human Rights Theory, published in HUMAN RIGHTS: THE
ESSENTIAL REFERENCE, edited by Hilary Poole. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1999, 3. 35 (638-559
B.C.E.). His name survives as a synonym for “legislator”. He codified the laws and is credited
with erecting the basis for the first democracy in the city-state of Athens.
by law not by men"36 and ended aristocratic control over government
and replaced it with the limited rule of perhaps one thousand wealthier
male citizens. Draco,37 another prominent legislator in Athens who
wrote his own code of laws, underscored the Greek commitment to
developing law and refining government to meet the needs of the
times.38
Greek philosopher Plato39 and Aristotle40 dwelt on the idea of

philosopher-kings ruling the society. Plato advanced the concept of the
common good which contains an unusual defense of equal rights for
women and a universal moral standard for human conduct, in war or
[in] peace. On the other hand, Aristotle evaluated values such as
virtue, justice, and rights and showed that they are best preserved in a
mixed government (not a pure democracy, oligarchy, or tyranny) with
an economically strong body of citizens.41
Stoicism42 followed the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. The

Stoics believed in the existence of a natural law, the jus naturale, born
of the lex aeterna, the cosmos’ law of reason and considered that all
humans shared a spark of divinity and that the earth and cosmos
belonged to one indissoluble process. As such, humans must live
consistent with the laws of nature under the guiding principle of
reason.43
2.2 The Roman Law
Roman law continued Greek Stoicism in the development of its

concept of natural law which inspired the notion of universal rights for
36
Timeline, Our Psycho History Writers in our Past, at
http://supercivilisation.net/superiorintelligence/writers/#Solon. (Retrieved 4 November 2007).
37
(Late 600s B.C.E.). His code punished even trivial crimes with death, thus, his law is
remembered as “draconian”, or exceedingly severe.
38
Hansen, 5.
39
(427-348 B. C. E.). He wrote The Republic (400 B.C.E.) where he argued that justice prevails
when the state reaches ideal forms ordained by its philosophers-kings.
40
(384-322 B.C.E.). In his book Politics (written 350 B.C.E.), he argued that society need not rely
only on philosopher-kings.
41
Hansen, supra.
42
Founded by Zeno of Citium in Cyprus (335-263 B.C.E.), Stoicism held that people must be free
from passion and calmly accept all occurences as the unavoidable result of divine will. 43 Hansen,
6.
all human beings. Two Roman emperors, Octavian44 and Justinian45,
prominently helped develop Roman law. Octavian was an adherent of
precedents which serves as the bulwark of efforts to institutionalize
human rights in law. Justinian who inspired the term “justice” set
standards for judging the legitimacy of laws and traditions, a vital
precursor for effectively implementing human rights today.46
Further, the rift between patricians47 and plebeians48 in 400s

B.C.E. forced the publication of the Twelve Tables49, the ancient
Roman laws, by the plebeians. The new code promoted the
organization of public prosecution of crimes and instituted a system
whereby injured parties could seek just compensation in civil disputes.
The plebeians were protected from the legal abuses of the ruling
patricians, especially in the enforcement of debts. Serious
punishments were levied for theft and the law gave male heads of
families enormous social power. The important basic principle of a
written legal code for Roman law was established, and justice was no
longer based solely on the interpretation of judges. These laws
formed an important part of the foundation of all subsequent Western
civil and criminal law.50
2.3 The Judeo-Christian Tradition
The contributions of Judeo-Christian to our modern conception of

human rights are rooted in the fundamental principle of Judaism – and
subsequently Christianity – that humankind was created in the image
of God, and therefore every person has a divine link to the
44
(63 B.C.E.-14 A.D.). Known as Ceasar Augustus, he was the first emperor of Rome. 45 (A.D.
c.483-565). Known as Justinian I or Justinian The Great, he codified Roman law and published
Corpus Juris Civilis (Body of Civil Law).
46
Hansen, 8.
47
Wealthy aristocrats.
48
Everyone else but slaves, including small landholders, peasants, and wealthy men attempting
to inject themselves into government.
49
The Twelve Tables were written by the Decemviri Consulari Imperio Legibus Scribundis,(the 10
Consuls) who were given unprecedented powers to draft the laws of Roman republic. Originally
ten laws were drafted; two later statutes were added prohibiting marriage between the classes
and affirming the binding nature of customary law. (As cited in The Law of the Twelve Tables, at
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimjon/private/LEX/12tables.html. (Retrieved 4 November 2007).
50
Ancient History Sourcebook, The Twelve Tables, c. 450 B.C.E., at
http://members.aol.com/pilgrimjon/private/LEX/12tables.html. (Retrieved 4 November 2007).
Creator.51 The idea of the brotherhood of mankind gives us the notion
that each person is deserving of respect and dignity because each
person is, at least in a small way, godlike. This reasoning alone
provides a complete defense for human rights.52
Moreover, the teachings of Jesus Christ on behalf of the weak,

lame, sick, widowed, orphaned, poor, and the disenfranchised
continue to serve as a model for many contemporary human rights
activists. This is exemplified in the heart of Christ’s message which is
love. The love of Christians for each other is the essence of Christian
action and was the original meaning of “charity”. Although directed
primarily toward God, love and charity are also owed to our neighbors
and ourselves as the objects of God’s love.53
The conviction that the authority of God is higher than any

secular one is an important antecedent to the development of human
rights theory. In early Christian times, those who witnessed to Christ’s
life and resurrection often faced hardships for their faith, even death.
Those who remained steadfast in their faith against the state,
especially during the persecution, were soon given honors by the
Church as martyrs. And martyrs are venerated as powerful
intercessors for the faithful who lived later. This long-held belief in
God’s sovereignty over the state is so fundamental in both Jewish and
Christian faiths that many religious martyrs throughout the centuries
have given their lives in pursuit of human rights goals.54
2.4 The English Magna Carta,

The Petition of Right, and
The Bill of Rights
The Magna Carta of 1215 or sometimes called the “Great

Charter of Liberties” is often thought of as the corner-stone of liberty
and the chief defense against arbitrary and unjust rule in England. In
fact it contains few sweeping statements of principle, but is a series of
concessions wrung from the unwilling King John by his rebellious
51
Hansen, 11.
52
Supra.
53
Supra, 12.
54
Supra, 13.
barons in 1215. However, Magna Carta established for the first time a
very significant constitutional principle: that the power of the king could
be limited by a written grant.55
Regarded as the first English Constitution, the Magna Carta

guaranteed personal liberties and civil rights.56 It granted all free men
of their kingdom all the liberties written in the Magna Carta. It provided
that no free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights
or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in
any other way, nor will he be proceeded with force against him, or
send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or
by the law of the land57 neither will he be sold, denied or delayed his
right or justice58 nor shall a man be placed on trial upon his own
unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the
truth of it.59
For a trivial offense, a free man in the kingdom shall be fined

only in proportion to the degree of his offense. If he commits a serious
offense, the penalty is not so heavily as to deprive him of his
livelihood.60 In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his
merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if
they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be
imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the
neighborhood.61
The free men in the kingdom have likewise been granted the
right to travel for it is lawful for any man to leave and return to the
kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his
allegiance to the kingdom, except in time of war, for some short
period, for the common benefit of the realm.62
The Magna Carta was originally intended for the protection of

the barons in the kingdom from the avaricious rule of King John.
However,
55
The British Library, Treasures in Full Magna Carta, Want to know the facts about Magna
Carta?, at http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/basics.html. (Retrieved 5 November 2007). 56
Coquia, 20.
57
Paragraph 39, Magna Carta.
58
Paragraph 40, supra.
59
60
61
Supra.
62
later on, this document benefited the common man [and woman] for it
lessened the absolute powers of kings, sovereigns and magistrates
who were eventually placed within the rule of law.63 The use of
“freemen” instead of “barons” all over the provisions of the charter
signified the recognition of all the English in the kingdom.64 And lastly,
since there was a provision in the Magna Carta that no taxes shall be
imposed without permission of a “great council” representing the
barons, King Edward more than seventy years later consulted bishops,
barons, and town officials in an effort to raise money to fund another
war against the French. This was the beginning of a constitutional
government that restricted royal authority.65
Four centuries later in 1628, the Magna Carta was followed by

the Petition of Right which is considered to be of importance to the
history of human rights. It came as a result of major dissatisfaction
over King Charles I’s fiscal policies of demanding forced loan from
landowners without the consent of Parliament. Ultimately, Parliament
agreed to a tax only after King Charles I accepted the Petition of
Right.66
The Petition of Right enumerated four prohibitions: (1) no loans

without the consent of Parliament; (2) no gentlemen who refused such
loans would be arrested, and no imprisonment was to occur without
just cause; (3) no soldiers were to be housed on the citizenry in order
to save the crown money; and (4) no martial law could be imposed in
peacetime.67
Angered by this Petition, King Charles I had the Parliament

dismissed for eleven years which resulted to the English Civil War of
the 1640’s between the Crown and the Parliament which the latter
won. In 1649, King Charles I was executed for treason.68 Supported
by Oliver Cromwell, an Army general and a member of Parliament,
the trial and execution of the King eventually led to the abolition of
63
Hansen, 15.
64
Supra, 16.
65
Supra.
66
Supra.
67
Supra.
68
Supra.
monarchy in England.69
The English Bill of Rights was born right after the coronation of
William III and Mary II when Parliament passed in 1689 “An Act
Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the
Succession of the Crown”. Known as the English Bill of Rights, this act
formally ended the “divine right of kings” for this bill empowered
Parliament to choose its own monarch and enumerated the rights and
liberties of the people in England that effectively broke the absolute
power of the kings.70
Thus, the Englishmen had the right to petition the King,71 right to
bear arms for their defense (if they were Protestants),72 freedom of
speech,73 that they need not face excessive bail, fines, or cruel and
unusual punishments,74 that they enjoy the right to a jury trial in capital
cases,75 as well as the right to seek redress of grievances and
amendment of laws.76
2.5 The American Declaration of

Independence, U. S. Constitution,
and Bill of Rights
The American Declaration of Independence77 was the first piece

of document that met a modern definition of human rights.78 Thus, the
Declaration stated:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for

one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth,
69
Peter Gaunt, OLIVER CROMWELL. Great Britain: Blackwell Publishers with the Historical
Association, 1996, 105.
70
Hansen, 18.
71
Paragraph 5, English Bill of Rights.
72
Paragraph 7, supra.
73
Paragraph 9, supra.
74
75
76
77
This Declaration was made by U. S. Congress on July 4, 1776 through the unanimous
declaration of the thirteen united States of America, to wit: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia.
78
Hansen, 28.
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness.
The Declaration further asserted that the people could limit state
power if their human rights were abridged and if government violated
the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then
the people could rebel against the duly constituted government.79
The U. S. Constitution which was drafted in 1787 by a

Constitutional Convention, signed on September 17 of the same year
and finally ratified on June 21, 1788 clearly stated in its Preamble that
the primary objective of the Union is to “establish Justice, insure
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.”80 This Constitution
contained no Bill of Rights yet but the succeeding amendments had
enumerated a list of the rights and freedoms of the American people.
The first ten (10) amendments in 1791, together with the U. S.

Constitution, remained a living legacy.81 The people are assured that
their freedom of speech, or of the press; or their right to peaceably
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,
shall not be abridged. Further, Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.82
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,

papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the
79
Supra.
80
Preamble, U. S. Constitution, at http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080. (Retrieved 7
November 2007).
81
Hansen, 29.
82
Amendment I, Bill of Rights, at http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080. (Retrieved 7
November 2007).
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.83
The Bill of Rights further provided that no person shall be held to

answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just
84
compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a

speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.85
And lastly, no excessive bail shall be required, neither excessive

fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.86
Subsequent amendments to the U. S. Constitution which are

likewise parts of the Bill of Rights ensured that all Americans enjoyed
full civil or human rights.87 Slavery was abolished,88 the rights of the
citizens were defined,89 black men were allowed to vote,90 and women
were allowed to exercise their right of suffrage.91 These rights which
were the products of the successful American revolution ushered the
French Revolution.
83
Amendment IV, supra.
84
Amendment V, supra.
85
Amendment VI, supra.
86
Amendment VIII, supra.
87
Hansen, 29.
88
Amendment XIII (1865), Bill of Rights.
89
Amendment XIV (1868), supra
90
Amendment XV (1870), supra.
91
Amendment XIX (1920), supra.
2.6 French Declaration of the
Rights of Man and of the Citizen
The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

was born out of the womb of French’s revolutionaries. Approved by the
National Assembly of France on August 26, 1789, and “believing that
the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole
cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments”, the
Declaration recognized and proclaimed, “in the presence and under
the auspices of the Supreme Being”, the rights of man and of the
citizen of the French Republic.
These included the notion that men are born and remain free
and equal in rights;92 that the aim of all political association is the
preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man which are
liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression;93 and that the
free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious
of the rights of man, thus, every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write,
and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this
freedom as shall be defined by law94.
The Declaration also defined what liberty is. While liberty

consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else and
the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits, the
enjoyment of such rights should also be accorded to the other
members of the society.95 However, no one may be forced to do
anything not provided for by law.96
Freedom of expression is given due recognition. The Declaration

assures that no one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions,
including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not
disturb the public order established by law97.
92
Article I, French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, at University of Minnesota
Human Rights Library, at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/education/frdeclaration.html. (Retrieved
7 November 2007).
93
Article II, supra.
94
Article XI, supra.
95
Article IV, supra.
96
Article V, supra.
97
Article X, supra.
The rights of the accused are duly accorded by the Declaration.
It provided that no person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned
except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law;98 no
one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a
law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense;99
and all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared
guilty.100
Taxation is one power of the government that it exercises over

the citizens. Termed as a common contribution and since it is essential
for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of
administration, this should be equitably distributed among all the
citizens in proportion to their means.101 However, all citizens have a
right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the
necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what
uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of
collection and the duration of the taxes.102
The right to property is an inviolable and sacred right, hence, no

one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally
determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the
owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.103
2.7 The Covenant of the League of

Nations and the United Nations
Charter
The League of Nations came into being after the end of World
War I under the Treaty of Versailles. The League of Nation's task was
simple - to ensure that war never broke out again and to maintain
world peace.104 But more than this task of the League of Nations is the
harnessing of claims of national self-determination105 by many
98
Article VII, supra.
99
Article VIII, supra.
100
Article IX, supra.
101
Article XIII, supra.
102
Article XIV, supra.
103
Article XVII, supra.
104
League of Nations, at http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/leagueofnations.htm. (Retrieved 7
November 2007).
105
Determination of by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status.
countries during World War I. These claims began to gain legitimacy
as a human rights criterion.106
Because of the holocaust World War I brought, protection of the

sanctity of human life became the battle cry of nations. Thus, the
Covenant of the League of Nations was etched in 1919 to “enhance
security, peace, individual and group rights, and interstate
cooperation”. The Covenant also showed concern for human rights in
its mandate system and in the discussion of the “traffic in women and
children.”107
The League of Nations ceased its activities after failing to

prevent the Second World War108.
“One death is a tragedy, and a million is a statistic” – said

Russia’s Joseph Stalin. With the utter failure of the League of Nations
to prevent another world war, World War II burst that caused so much
misery among the human race. The Nazi slaughter of Jews and others
in the concentration camps and other acts of sheer barbarism
perpetrated by totalitarian regimes,109 from Europe to the Far East,
galvanized the desire for a United Nations that would prevent the
atrocities and international anarchy that had plagued the planet since
1918.110
Hence, immediately after the end of the World War II,

representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United
Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the
United Nations Charter. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by
the representatives of fifty (50) countries111.
Adherence to real human rights concern is paramount to the

United Nations Charter. In its Preamble, it “reaffirms faith in
106
Hansen, 48.
107
Supra, 51.
108
History of the United Nations, at http://www.un.org/aboutun/unhistory/. (Retrieved 7 November
2007).
109
Authoritarian governments are those that favor absolute obedience to the government’s
authority, with very little individual freedom allowed.
110
Hansen, 52.
111
History of the United Nations, supra.
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human
person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and
small”. Its purpose is clear: “To achieve international cooperation in
solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or
humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for
human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction
as to race, sex, language, or religion.”112
The UN General Assembly in 1948 finally sealed what the

United Nations wanted in the field of human rights. It adopted the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights that provided the context
within which the world came to agree on the formulation, protection,
and promotion of international standards for securing human rights in
wartime or peace.113
2. Nature and Scope
All men, women and children are born free, equal and with
human dignity and rights. The rights they are entitled to are enjoyed
without any distinction as to race, color, sex, language, religion, origin
and social status. History has shown that as they started to live in a
society, their inherent rights began to be violated by his own
fellowmen.114
But every human being is inviolable. And whatever the

circumstances, certain things ought not to be done to human beings,
and certain things ought always to be done for them115. If there are
transgression of their basic rights as human beings such as the right
112
Article I (3), UN Charter.
113
Hansen, 55.
114
Coquia, 1.
115
Michael J. Perry, THE IDEA OF HUMAN RIGHTS: FOUR INQUIRIES. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
to life and the right to liberty, who will protect them? And what will
happen if the violators are the protectors themselves like the State?
There is an imperative need then to organize a just society

where people live in peace and harmony. The relationship between
the government and the individual must be clearly defined. In so
doing, the nature of human beings and their relationship with each
other are the best means of assuring mutual respect and
116
protection.
John Locke, considered to be a natural lawyer, posited that the

state of nature is one of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and
preservation. He stated that the protection of private rights “assures
the protection of the common good because people have the right to
protect themselves and the obligation to respect the same right of
others.”117
However, as the state of nature lacks organization, the people

confer power on the government on the understanding that the
government will retain its justification “only if it protects those natural
rights.”118 At bottom, human rights limit state power.119
As human rights is being claimed as the “first universal ideology,”

one which now has world-wide acceptance,120 free and independent
states comprising the world body called the United Nations sat
together and deliberated on the various treaties and conventions on
human rights.
116
Louise Doswald-Beck and Sylvaine Vite, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
Law, Offprint from International Review of the Red Cross, March-April 1993, 7.
117
Supra.
118
Supra.
119
Richard Pierre Claude and Burns H. Weston, eds., HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE WORLD
COMMUNITY ISSUES AND ACTION, 2nd. Edition. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania,
1990, 17.
120
Anthony J. Langlois, THE POLITICS OF JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS: SOUTHEAST ASIA
AND UNIVERSALIST THEORY. Cambridge University Press, 2003, 74.
Foremost among these international documents is the United
Nations Charter121 which “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,
in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of
men and women and of nations large and small. . .”122 This was
followed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.123
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights124 and its two (2)
Optional Protocols,125 and International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.126 These are known as the International Bill
of Human Rights.
In addition, there are seven (7) Core International Human Rights

Treaties which deal on specific subject matter such as racial
discrimination,127 discrimination against women128 torture,129 rights of
121
The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, California,
USA, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and
came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an
integral part of the Charter.
122
Preamble, Charter of the United Nations.
123
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
124
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution
2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 23 March 1976.
125
2200A (XXI)of 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976, the First Optional
Protocol adds legal force to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by allowing the Human
Rights Commission to investigate and judge complaints of human rights violations from
individuals from signatory countries. The Second Optional Protocol, adopted and proclaimed by
General Assembly resolution 44/128 of 15 December 1989, aimed at the abolition of death
penalty.
126
2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966; entry into force 3 January 1976.
127
International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted and
opened for signature and ratification by General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December
1965; entry into force 4 January 1969.
128
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, adopted in New
York, 18 December 1979 and opened for signature at the United Nations Headquarters on 1
March 1980; entry into force 3 September 1981.
129
Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution
39/46 of 10 December 1984; entry into force 26 June 1987.
the child,130 rights of migrant workers,131protection of all persons from
enforced disappearance132 and rights of persons with disabilities.133
a. Charter of the United Nations
The UN Charter contains at least five (5) articles on human

rights. The General Assembly initiates studies and make
recommendations for the purpose of assisting in the realization of
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as
to race, sex, language, or religion.134 The United Nations and its
Members promote universal respect for, and observance of, human
rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race,
sex, language, or religion.135
Further, the Economic and Social Council may make

recommendations for the purpose of promoting respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.136 The
Trusteeship System is mandated to encourage respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to
race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the
interdependence of the peoples of the world.137
130
Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and
accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989; entry into force 2
September 1990.
131
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families, adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/158 of 18 December 1990.
132
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, not
yet in force.
133
Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, not yet in force.
134
Article 13, UN Charter.
135
Articles 55 (c) and 56, supra.
136
Article 62(2), supra.
137
Article 76, supra.
CHAPTER XIV: THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Article 92
The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ

of the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed
Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of
International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter.
Article 93
1. All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the
Statute of the International Court of Justice.
2. A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become
a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on
conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly
upon the recommendation of the Security Council.
Article 94
1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the

decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it
is a party.
2. If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent
upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party
may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems
necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to
be taken to give effect to the judgment.
Article 95
Nothing in the present Charter shall prevent Members of the United
Nations from entrusting the solution of their differences to other
tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be
concluded in the future.
Article 96
a. The General Assembly or the Security Council may request

the Inte
b. International Bill of Human Rights
i. Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been declared

as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations
and that human rights should be protected by the rule of law138 at all
cost. In view of this, the peoples of the United Nations through the
Declaration have reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in
the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of
men and women and have determined to promote social progress and
better standards of life in larger freedom.139
Thus, this fundamental document sustained the declaration that

all human beings are born free; equal in dignity and rights;140 have the
right to life, liberty and security of person;141 are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law;142 and to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.143
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the
Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
138
Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
139
Supra.
140
Article 1, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
141
Article 3, supra.
142
Article 7, supra
143
Article 10, supra
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.144 Effectively, the declaration prohibited
slavery,145 outlawed torture,146 and prohibited arbitrary arrest and
detention or exile.147
Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence,148 the

right to seek asylum,149 the right to a nationality,150 the right to marry
and to found a family,151 the right to own property,152 the right to
freedom of conscience and religion,153 the right to freedom of opinion
and expression,154 the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association,155 the right to take part in the government,156 the right to
social security,157 the right to work,158 the right to rest and leisure,159 the
right to a standard of living,160 the right to education,161 and the right
144
Article 2, supra.
145
Article 4, supra.
146
Article 5, supra.
147
Article 9, supra.
148
Article 13, supra.
149
Article 14, supra.
150
Article 15, supra.
151
Article 16, supra.
152
Article 17, supra.
153
Article 18, supra.
154
Article 19, supra.
155
Article 20, supra.
156
Article 21, supra.
157
Article 22, supra.
158
Article 23, supra.
159
Article 24, supra.
160
Article 25, supra.
161
Article 26, supra.
freely to participate in the cultural life of the community and to share in
scientific advancement and its benefits,162 the right to be presumed
innocent until proved guilty,163 and the right to the protection of the law
against arbitrary interference with his privacy and family.164
ii. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are

called the First Generation Rights which derive primarily from the
seventeenth- and eighteenth-century reformist theories associated
with the English, American, and French revolutions.165 It conceives of
human rights more in negative than positive terms. It favors the
abstention rather than the intervention of government in the quest for
human dignity.166
Articles 2-21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

belong to this generation of rights. These rights are reiterated in more
detail in this Covenant. This include the freedom from racial and
equivalent forms of discrimination; the right to life, liberty, and the
security of the person; freedom from slavery or involuntary servitude,
freedom from torture and from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment; freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile; the
right to a fair and public trial; freedom from interference in privacy and
correspondence; freedom of movement and residence; the right to
asylum from persecution; freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of assembly and
association; and the right to participate in government, directly or
through free elections; and the right to own property.167
162
Article 27, supra.
163
Article 11, supra.
164
Article 12, supra.
165
Claude and Weston, 18.
166
Supra.
167
Supra.
iii. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights are considered as the Second Generation Rights. These rights
trace their origin from the socialist doctrine which advocates the
equitable sharing of economic resources, services and welfare
benefits to all the people.168
The rights enumerated in Articles 22-27 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights illustrate the second generation rights, to
wit: the right to social security; the right to work and to protection
against unemployment; the right to rest and leisure, including periodic
holidays with pay; the right to a standard of living adequate for the
health and well-being of self and family; the right to education; and the
right to the protection of one’s scientific, literary, and artistic
production.169
There are solidarity rights termed as Third Generation Rights

which find sanctuary in Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, which proclaims that “everyone is entitled to a social
and international order in which the rights set forth in this Declaration
can be fully realized.”170
There are six (6) claimed rights under this Declaration: (1) the
right to political, economic, social, and cultural self-determination; (2)
the right to economic and social development; (3) the right to
participate in and benefit from the common heritage of mankind; (4)
the right to peace; (5) the right to a healthy and balanced environment,
and the right to humanitarian disaster relief.171
168
Coquia, 102.
169
Claude and Weston, 19.
170
Supra.
171
Supra, 19 and 20.
B. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
1. Historical Origin and Development
a. Ancient Customs
Many writers172 believe that the birth of modern International

Humanitarian Law occurred in 1864 with the adoption of the First
Geneva Convention. However, it should be emphasized that the rules
contained in this Convention and in the subsequent treaties were not
completely new but derived from customary rules and uses.173
These ancient rules, promulgated as early as 3000 years ago,

protect certain categories of victims of armed conflicts or regulate the
use of certain means and methods of warfare. But these customs
might not have been adopted for a humanitarian purpose but rather
with a purely tactical or economical objective. Their effect was
however humanitarian. 174
For example, the prohibition to poison wells which was very

common in African traditional law and reaffirmed in modern treaties
was most probably made in order to permit the exploitation of
conquered territories than to spare the lives of the local inhabitants.
Similarly, the prohibition to kill prisoners of war had for main objective
to guarantee the availability of future slaves much rather than to save
the lives of former combatants.175
In addition, warring armies in ancient times likewise observed

the practice of sparing the enemy’s field hospitals from bullets during
hostilities.176 However, this customary practice ended during the
172
Two of such writers are Marco Sassoli and Antoine A. Bouvier.
173
Marco Sassoli and Antoine A. Bouvier, HOW DOES LAW PROTECT IN WAR? (Geneva:
ICRC, 1999), 97; Rey Oliver S. Alejandrino. The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law
of Non international Armed Conflicts in the Mindanao Armed Conflicts: An Analysis, LL. M.
Thesis, University of Santo Tomas Graduate School, 2005
174
Supra, 97.
175
Supra, 98.
176
Alberto T. Muyot and Ana Theresa B. del Rosario, The Humanitarian Law on Non-
Napoleonic wars of 19th century where field hospitals and medical
personnel were subjected to indiscriminate bombardments. And all
those who fell into enemy hands, whether members of the fighting
forces or medical personnel, were captured as prisoners.177
These customary rules, however, were merely of a transient

character, binding only upon the contracting parties thereto, and based
strictly on reciprocity. In reality, they constituted purely military
agreements, usually effective only for the duration of a particular
conflict.178 They do not bind States.
Another factor of importance why there were restrictions on

hostile activities during the olden times is to be found in religious
values.179 These values led to the development of the church’s just war
doctrine180 which greatly influenced the growth of international
humanitarian law in Europe.181
b. The Battle of Solferino
Modern International Humanitarian Law traces its history at a

small village of Solferino in Lombardy, Northern Italy. A young Swiss
businessman named Henry Dunant (1828-1910) while journeying on
a business mission in Italy chanced to witness the pain and suffering
of the casualties and the wounded of a war being fought between
Austrian and Franco-Scandinavian armies at a nearby Solferino. The
horrors witnessed by Dunant after the Battle of Solferino on 24 June
1859 completely changed the course of his life. He then proposed that
International Armed Conflicts: Common Article 3 and Protocol II Additional to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions. (Quezon City: Institute of International Legal Studies, UP Law Center, 1994), 7.
177
Supra, 7.
178
Francoise Bory, Origin and Development of International Humanitarian Law, International
Studies Institute of the Philippines, Law Complex, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon
City.
179
Doswald-Beck and Vite, 95.
180
Supra, 95. For a good summary of these doctrines, see S. Bailey PROHIBITIONS AND
RESTRAINTS IN WAR. Oxford University Press, 1972, Chapter 1.
181
Supra, 95.
societies of trained volunteers be organized in all countries for the
purpose of helping to care for the wounded combatants in time of war.
Thus, the birth of the Red Cross movement.
Dunant later conceptualized the need for an international treaty

among nations to assure more humane care of the wounded. The
result was a ten-article Convention, the aim of which is to protect the
wounded and give them necessary material assistance. Later,
International Humanitarian Law has developed considerably: the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977
contain more than 600 articles providing for the protection of persons
in various circumstances.
The above historical account was embodied in a little book about

the Battle of Solferino.182
c. The Lieber Code
The first document on laws and custom of war which was made
as the substantial basis of the proposed international convention on
the laws of war presented to the Brussels Conference in 1874 and
stimulated the adoption of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions on
land warfare is the Lieber Code.183 Prepared by Francis Lieber, then a
university professor with an extensive knowledge on the customary
law of warfare, the Lieber Code is actually General Order NO. 100
issued by President Abraham Lincoln in the course of the American
Civil War in 1863. The said General Order, entitled “Instructions for
the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field”,
represented the first attempt to codify the laws of war. It provided
detailed rules on the entire range of land warfare, from the conduct of
war proper and the treatment of civilian population to the treatment of
specified categories of persons such as prisoners of war, wounded
and so
forth.184
Doswald-Beck and Vite discussed in detail the Lieber Code.

182
Henry Dunant, A Memory of Solferino (Geneva: ICRC, 1986).
183
Muyot and Del Rosario, supra, 9.
184
Doswald-Beck and Vite, supra 96.
They stated that the relevance of war is a lawful activity at the time.185
Two basic rules of international humanitarian law, namely, the
protection of civilians and the decent treatment of prisoners of war are
upheld.186 Prisoners of war must be respectfully treated.187 Hospitals
protected.188 Abuses of occupying forces are clearly prohibited.189
The Lieber Code was regarded at the time as generally

reflecting customary law although in places it particularly stressed the
importance of respecting humanitarian treatment which, in practice
was not always accorded.190
However, the Code advanced the theory that war is legitimate

only if it is conducted in accordance with certain rules. Under the
Code, the army was entitled to do what it considered as necessary to
effect the immediate surrender of the enemy except that wanton acts
of violence and cruelty to civilians were prohibited.191
d. The De Martens Preamble

The De Martens Preamble provides that “the human person
shall remain to be under the protection of the principles of humanity
and the
185
Article 67, Lieber Code: “The Law of nations allows every sovereign government to make war
upon another sovereign state, and, therefore, admits of no rules or laws different from those of
regular warfare, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the
army of a government which the captor may consider as a wanton and unjust assailant.”
186
Article 22, Lieber Code: “The principle has been more and more acknowledged that the
unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honour as much as the exigencies of
war will admit.”
187
Article 56, Lieber Code: “A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public
enemy, nor is any revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suffering, or
disgrace, by cruel imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death or any other barbarity.”
188
Article 116, Lieber Code: “Honorable belligerents often request that the hospitals within the
territory of the enemy may be designated, so that they may be spared. .”
189
Article 44, Lieber Code: “All wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded
country, all destruction of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all
pillage or sacking, even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing
of such inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment
as may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.”
190
Supra, 98.
191
dictates of public conscience.”192 The full provision follows:
Until a more complete code of the laws can be drawn

up, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to
declare that, in cases not covered by the rules adopted by
them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the
protection and governance of the principles of the law of
nations, derived from the usages established among
civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, from the
dictates of the public conscience. . .
This preamble was authored by a Russian jurist named

Fyodorovich de Martens during the 1907 Second Hague Peace
Conference. The clauses in the De Martens Preamble were
incorporated in various treaties such as the Hague Conventions No. II
(1899) and No. 4 (1907) and in the 1980 UN Convention on
Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional
Weapons, in certain provisions common to the 4 Geneva Conventions,
in Article 1 (2) of Protocol I and in paragraph 4 of Protocol II’s
Preamble.193
Under the Preamble, if a case was not covered by a law then in

force either because of a gap in the law or because the parties did not
consider themselves bound by the law, this would not mean that
parties could employ any means to subject the enemy.194
2. Nature and Scope
a. The Four (4) Geneva Conventions195
The four (4) Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 196 and the
192
Supra, 11.
193
Supra.
194
Supra.
195
The Philippines is a party to the Four Geneva Conventions since 1952, as cited in Muyot
and Del Rosario, supra,59.
196
International Committee of the Red Cross, THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF AUGUST 12,
1949 (Geneva: ICRC, 2001) .
three (3) Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949197 are the seven (7) basic international agreements that
comprised the International Humanitarian Law. The four conventions
are: (1) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, of August 12,
1949; (2) Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea,
of August 12, 1949; (3) Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment
of Prisoners of War, of August 12, 1949; and (4) Geneva Convention
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of August
12, 1949.
These Four Geneva Conventions were conceived, born and

reared because of the “tremendous suffering and devastation during
World War II which gave more impetus to efforts to adopt more treaties
and conventions to regulate the conduct of warfare and to deal with
situations not provided for in the previous laws.” 198
The First Geneva Convention mandated that wounded or sick –

and therefore defenseless – combatants shall be respected and cared
for, whatever their nationality; personnel attending them, the buildings
in which they shelter and the equipment used for their benefit , shall be
protected; a red cross on a white ground shall be the emblem of this
immunity.
The Second Geneva Convention, otherwise known as the

Maritime Convention, is an extension of the first Convention (Wounded
and Sick), the terms of which apply to maritime warfare. It covers the
same field and protects the same categories of persons as the First
Convention.
The Third Convention provides for the humanitarian treatment of

prisoners of war as the civilized world finally accepted the principle that
the prisoner of war is not a criminal, but merely an enemy no longer
able to bear arms, who should be liberated at the close of hostilities,
197
International Committee of the Red Cross, PROTOCOLS ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA
CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 (Geneva: ICRC, 2001).
198
Coquia, Jorge R., and Miriam Defensor-Santiago. INTERNATIONAL LAW. Quezon City:
Central Professional Books, Inc., 1998, 609.
and be respected and humanely treated while in captivity.
The Fourth Convention forms an important contribution to written

International Law in the humanitarian domain. This Convention while
introduces nothing new in a field where the doctrine is sufficiently well
established aims at ensuring that, even in the midst of hostilities, the
dignity of a human person shall be respected. It prohibits in particular:
(1) violence to life and person, in particular torture, mutilations or cruel
treatment; (2) the taking of hostages; (3) deportations; (4) outrages
upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating or degrading treatment,
or adverse treatment founded on differences of race, colour,
nationality, religion, beliefs, sex, birth or social status; and (5) the
passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without
previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court
affording all the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.199
b. Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions
The four (4) Conventions contain a common provision called

Common Article 3. It is the only article especially written for non
international armed conflicts.200 Described either as a “mini convention”
or as a “convention within the conventions”, it provides rules which
parties to an internal armed conflict are bound to apply, as a
minimum.”201 It contains a list of absolute prohibitions, such as
violence to life and person, outrages upon personal dignity, the taking
of hostages and the passing of sentences which have not been
pronounced by regularly constituted courts.202
Armed opposition groups in a State are not parties to the

Conventions. They may use this as an argument to deny any
obligation to apply the article.203 Moreover, government often do not
wish to
199
Supra, 16, 18.
200
Kalshoven and Zegbeld, supra, 69.
201
Supra.
202
203
recognize insurgents as an official “party to the conflict”, or even as a
separate entity. Thus, they avoid making any statement officially
acknowledging that Article 3 is applicable, for fear that insurgents
might use this as an argument that the governments are recognizing
them as an adverse party. However, Article 3 (4) stipulates that
application of its provisions shall not affect the legal status of the
Parties to the conflict. But the insurgents may always claim that under
Common Article 3, their political status might be different as the
governments might have perceived.204
c. Protocol I, Protocol II and Protocol III

The Geneva Conventions were agreed and ratified by nations
purposely to “humanize” the conduct of wars similar with the wars of
World War II. But with the advent of new technological devastating
weapons and “a change in the political face of war, which took on the
ideological complexion of colonialism and racism, leading to the
potentially troublesome concept of ‘wars of national liberation’, there
was a need to update the law pertaining to the victims of armed
conflict, and to make the law relevant to contemporary forms of armed
conflict.”205
Thus, the birth of the Two (2) Protocols Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949. The Protocols have two components:
(1) Protocol I or that Relating to the Protection of the Victims of
International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977; and (2) Protocol II or
that Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts of 8 June 1977.
Protocol I applies in situations of international armed conflicts

which include wars of national liberation defined as armed conflicts in
which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien
occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of
self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations
and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning
Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with
204
Supra.
205
Coquia and Santiago, supra, 610.
the Charter of the United Nations.206
Protocol II constitutes the foundation of respect for the human

person in cases of armed conflict not of an international character. Its
purpose is to ensure a better protection for the victims of internal
armed conflicts. These victims are, in large measure, the civilians not
participating in the hostilities. It applies to all internal armed conflicts
taking place in the territory of state party between its armed forces and
dissident armed forces or other organized groups which, under
responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory
as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military
operations and to implement this Protocol.207
Protocol II does not apply to international armed conflicts

including wars of national liberation. Nor does it apply to situations of
internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and
sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not
being armed conflicts.208
Protocol III is about the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive

Emblem. It appears that this protocol is applicable to both the
International Humanitarian Law of International Armed Conflicts (IHL
IAC) and International Humanitarian Law of Non-International Armed
Conflicts (IHL-NIAC.)
d. Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property

Article 19 of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in
the Event of Armed Conflict 209 provides that:
Section 1. In the event of an armed conflict not of an

international character occurring within the territory of one
of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict
shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the provisions of
206
207
Supra, 132-133.
208
Supra, 132.
209
Done at The Hague, 14 May 1954. A single and original copy was deposited in the archives
of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
the present Convention which relate to respect for cultural
property.
Section 2. The parties to the conflict shall endeavour

to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or
part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
Section 3. The United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization may offer its services to the
parties to the conflict.
Section 4. The application of the preceding

provisions shall not affect the legal status of the parties to
the conflict.
The aforesaid laws – the Geneva Conventions including their

Common Article 3 and its Additional Protocols including Article 19 of
the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property are clearly explained
by way of illustration of cases, documents and teaching materials in a
book210 just recently published by the International Committee of the
Red Cross. Cases which have been decided by the State’s respective
tribunal are comprehensibly clarified in relation to International
Humanitarian Law. From the American and Spanish civil wars, World
War II, Israeli-Arab conflict, conflicts in Central America, gulf wars,
armed conflicts in the Former Yugoslavia, to war in Afghanistan, the
book attempted to interpret International Humanitarian Law.211
3. The Law of International Armed Conflicts
The Law of International Armed Conflicts is based mainly on

Protocol 1. This applies to international armed conflicts between and
among sovereign states.
4. The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts
210
The book is aptly titled HOW DOES LAW PROTECT IN WAR? (Geneva: ICRC, 1999)
authored by Marco Sassoli and Antoine A. Bouvier.
211
Sassoli and Bouvier, supra, 641-1441.
The Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts is codified mainly
in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol
II212 and Article 19 of the 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural
Property.213
Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions states that:
Article 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an

international character occurring in the territory of one of
the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict
shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:
(a) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities,

including members of armed forces who have laid down
their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness,
wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all
circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse
distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex,
birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain

prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with
respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(i) violence to life and person, in particular murder of

all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
the hostilities, including members of the

(ii) taking of hostages;
212
Supra, 202.
213
Supra, 204; Source: Commission of Experts appointed to investigate violation of International
Humanitarian Law in the Former Yugoslavia. UN Doc. S/1994/674, para. 52.
(iii) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular
humiliating and degrading treatment;
(iv) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of

executions without previous judgment pronounced by a
regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by
civilized peoples.
(a) The wounded and sick shall be collected

and cared for.
(b) An impartial humanitarian body,

such as the International Committee of the Red Cross,
may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The parties to the conflict should further endeavor to

bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or
part of the provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not

affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
The above provision appears in all four (4) Conventions.214 In all

the provisions of the Conventions, Article 3, the only article written for
non-international armed conflict, is applicable in all conflicts not of an
international character. These include not only conflicts which see the
government opposed to an armed opposition group but also conflicts
between two armed opposition groups to which the government is not
a party.215
On the other hand, Protocol II216 applies to all armed conflicts

which are not covered by Protocol I, thus:
214
The four (4) Conventions were signed by 57 States and 17 Delegations during the Diplomatic
Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of
War convened by the Swiss Federal Council in Geneva from 21 April to 12 August 1949.
Fourty-four (44) other States had signed when the agreed six-month period expired on 12
February 1950.
215
This Protocol, which develops and supplements
Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949 without modifying its existing conditions or
application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not
covered by Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the
Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to
the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
(Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High
Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident
armed forces or other organized armed groups which,
under responsible command, exercise such control over a
part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained
and concerted military operations and to implement this
Protocol.217
This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal

disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and
sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature,
as not being armed conflicts.218
This Protocol shall be applied without any adverse

distinction founded on race, colour, sex, language, religion
or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria
(hereinafter referred to as adverse distinction) to all
persons affected by an armed conflict as defined in Article
1.219
C. The Human Security Act of 2007
217
Article 1, Section 1, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Conflicts (Protocol II), of 8 June 1977.
218
Article I, Section 2, supra.
219
Article 2, Section 1, supra.
1. Historical Concepts and Practices of Terrorism
Terrorism has existed for at least two millennia in one form or
another.220 It is not unique to our world and is not a new phenomenon.
Rather, historical accounts establish that in 1256 AD, a certain Mongol
leader Haluga Khan declared war on his enemies, the terrorists who
were assassins in fact and in name – the original Hashashins (who
were called as such because they use hashish) and use poison
dagger and garrotte as their terror methods of murder – and with his
overwhelming military force beat them, destroyed their refuge, and
sent them to flight.221
Terrorism originally had religious roots but reinvented itself in the

1800s, marking the rise of modern terrorism as nationalism, anarchism
and other secular political movements emerged – terrorism was
essentially antimonarchical, embraced by rebels and
222
constitutionalists.
During the 1920s and 1930s, terrorism became a tool of states

associated more with the repressive practices employed by totalitarian
states than with the violence of non-state groups. After World War II,
terrorism reverted to its previous revolutionary associations but still
maintained an attraction for ideologically motivated groups. The late
1960s marked the resurgence of ideologically and/or religious driven
international terrorism.223
The word terrorism was first popularized during the French

Revolution. During this time, terrorism had decidedly a positive
connotation in contrast to contemporary usage. In its original context,
terrorism was also closely associated with the ideals of virtue and
220
Jackson Nyamuya Nyamuya Maogoto. Battling Terrorism: Legal Perspectives on the Use of
Force and the War on Terror, Ashgate Publishing, Limited, 2005, (Notes 7), 7-8. 221 Francisco
Noel R. Fernandez. A Critical Analysis of Legal Remedies in the Global War on Terror, LLM
Thesis, University of Santo Tomas, 2007.
222
Maogoto, supra.
223
Supra.
democracy. The revolutionary French leader Maximilien Robespierre
firmly believed that virtue was the mainspring of a popular government
at peace, but during the time of revolution must be allied with terror in
order for democracy to triumph.224
Robespierre later proclaimed: “Terror is nothing but justice,

prompt, severe and inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.”225
This gave impetus to the birth of regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror)
which led to the popularization of the word “terrorism” to describe a
new system of government adopted during the French Revolution
(1789-1799). This marked the beginning of modern terrorism.226 The
characteristics of modern terrorism, which places emphasis on “liberty
and self-determination” dates back to Britain’s Glorious Revolution.227
However, the oppression and violent excesses of the terreur

transformed it into a feared instrument of the state. From that time on,
terrorism has had a decidedly negative connotation.228
After the Second World War, terrorism was recognized by some

to be an effective tool of national liberation movements.229 The 1970s
and 1980s saw a substantial increase in the frequency of terrorist
attacks. Between 1968 and 1991, the U. S. Department of State
recorded 13,572 incidents of international terrorism.230 In 2002 alone,
224
Bruce Hoffman. Inside Terrorism, Columbia University Press, New York, 1998, 15-16.
225
Supra.
226
Maogoto, supra, 13.
355Maria Esperanza Christina Garcia Codilla. State Negotiations with Terrorists: Assessing its
Legality in the Context of the Emergence of the Customary Norm on Non-Negotiatin and the
Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War, J. D. Thesis, 2006, 25.
228
Supra.
229
Paul Wilkinson. Terrorism versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response 21, 2000, as cited
in Codilla, supra, 25.
230
A. J. Jongman. Trends in Terrorism, 1968-1988, Western Responses to Terrorism 34, Alex P.
Schmid and Ronald D. Crelinsten eds. 1993, as cited in Codilla, supra.
199 incidents of international terrorism were recorded, majority of
which, occurred in the Middle East and Asia. 231
Then came the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and
Washington which radically changed the face of international
terrorism. This kind of terrorism takes the form of war between a
major state (and allies) and a group of a few thousand individuals
harboring a perceived right of self-defense that is substituted for
statist authority.232 Thus, the birth of the current conflict between the
United States and Al Qaeda. 233
This current conflict illustrates vividly the evolution of warfare in

three respects. First, in an effort to compensate for the disparity in
logistical military capability, a non-state actor party to an international
conflict has sought to expand the platform of combat, regarding
disparity of forces not as a deterrent but as an opportunity. Second, a
non-state armed group, whose membership transcends borders and
nationality, has declared war on a state and its citizens, regarding war
as retaliation to what can be termed ‘privatized collective
responsibility’. Third, as a political movement with a demonstrated
political ability, Al Qaeda has sought to bypass the state while co
opting strategically the latter’s attributes and channeling tactically its
resources.234
2. Background of Terrorism
In the morning of 11 September 2001, a commercial plane

directly hit the upper floors of the Twin Towers of the World Trade
Center in New York City that caused conflagration and reduced the
two great edifices into rubbles. On about the same date and time in
231
U. S. Department of State, 2002 Patterns of Global Terrorism 1, 2002, as cited in Codilla,
supra.
232
Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou. Non-Linearity of Engagement. Transnational Armed
Groups, International Law, and the Conflict between Al Qaeda and the United States, Program
on HumanitarianPolicy and Conflict Research, Harvard University, 2005, v.
233
Al Qaeda is an industrious, committed, and power-wielding organization waging a political,
limited, and evasive war of attrition – not a religious, open-ended, apocalyptic one.
234
Mohamedou, supra, 2-5.
Washington D. C., another aircraft landed on the wings of the
Pentagon building housing the military might of the United States of
America and one other crashed on the fields of Shanksville,
Pennsylvania.235
This researcher while watching this human episode on local

television was frantically calling his wife who was on vacation in
Virginia, USA to verify whether or not such footage was a real
catastrophe. “It’s the end of the world, Sweetheart!”, the wife crying
profusely told this researcher. Three (3) days after, this researcher
immediately flew to the USA to fetch his wife. And saw the destructive
portrait of what happened on Pentagon.236
The culprits: the terrorists. The means: four hijacked aircrafts.

The victims: 3,000 people of all races. The effect: War on Terror. At
first they called it the Global War on Terrorism. In time, historians
rebranded it the Great War for Democracy.237
Why Great War for Democracy? It was a new-style democratic

war from the very outset because the enemy chose as its targets not
masses of troops or military installations, as in traditional war, but [US]
civilians – ordinary people going about their business on planes, in
tower blocks, in government offices. And it was democratic because
the perpetrators took advantage of the very freedoms inherent in
democracy to lay their murderous plans.238 But in the conduct of such
war, the basic rights and freedoms of the people are being trampled
upon, not only in the United States but in the Philippines as well.
235
N. R. Kleinfield. U. S. Attacked: Hijacked Jets Destroy Twin Towers and Hit Pentagon in Day of
Terror. N. Y. Times, 12 September 2001, A1, cited in Maria Esperanza Christina Garcia Codilla,
State Negotiations With Terrorists: Assessing its Legality in the Context of the Emergence of the
Customary Norm on Non-Negotiation and the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of War. Thesis,
Juris Doctor. Ateneo de Manila University School of Law. Makati City, 2006.
236
This writer and his wife went to US in July 2001 for a much needed vacation. The husband
returned in August of the same year for a professional appointment in Manila and was about to
board an evening flight to US on 12 September 2001 (11 September 2001 in the US) when 9/11
occurred. All flights were cancelled. He eventually was able to leave on the fourth day. Arriving on
the same day at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA), he went to Pentagon and
saw for himself the evidence of 9/11.
237
Niall Ferguson, The Nation That Fell to Earth, Time, September 11, 2006,
21. 238 Supra.
Terrorist attacks abound both in the countryside and urban areas

of the country. In January 2002, Philippine authorities apprehended an
Indonesian suspected of involvement in al-Qaeda plots against
American targets in Singapore. Later in 1995, the Philippine National
Police in Manila, discovered an apartment rented to Ramzi Ahmed
Yousef, a radical Islamist terrorist later convicted in U.S. federal court
of masterminding the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. In the
apartment, the police found bomb-making ingredients, as well as plans
to assassinate Pope John Paul II, crash an airplane into CIA
headquarters, and simultaneously blow up eleven U.S. passenger
jetliners over the Pacific Ocean. In March 2003, the Kuwaiti-born
terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed – Yousef’s uncle and one of his co
conspirators in the Manila plots – was captured in Pakistan and
accused of masterminding the September 11 attacks.239
Since January 2000, radical armed Islamist groups in the

country have carried out over forty (40) major bombings against
civilians and civilian property, mostly in the south of the country.
Attacks on Mindanao, Basilan, Jolo, and other southern islands have
killed nearly 400 civilians and injured well over a thousand more.
Bombs have been set off in urban centers, markets and stores,
airports, on ferry boats and wharfs, and on rural roads and highways.
They have killed Philippine civilians indiscriminately-Christians and
Muslims, men and women, parents and children-and left behind
orphans, widows, and widowers. Hundreds of other victims have
suffered severe wounds, burns, and lost limbs.240
In all, bombings and other attacks against civilians in the

Philippines have caused over 1,700 casualties in the last seven years,
more than the number of people killed and injured in bombing attacks
during the same period in neighboring Indonesia (including the 2002
239
Terrorism Havens: Philippines – Council on Foreign Relations at
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9365/ (Retrieved 22 October 2007)
240
Lives Destroyed: Attacks on Civilians in the Philippines – Human Rights Watch at
http://hrw.org/reports/2007/philippines0707/slideshow.htm (Retrieved 23 October 2007)
Bali bombings), and considerably more than the number of those killed
and injured in bombings in Morocco, Spain, Turkey, or Britain.241
The Philippines was forced, as an ally of the United States, to pursue

its mission: to crush both the home-grown terrorists and the
foreign-trained ones. Following the passage of the USA Patriot Act 242
and the United Kingdom’s Terrorist Act of 2000 243, Philippine Congress
passed its own law on terror, the Human Security Act of 2007.244
3. Terrorist Acts in the Philippines
The major bombings and other attacks on civilians in the

Philippines since 2000 are as follows:
1) Datu Piang, Maguindanao bombing (December 24, 2002 –
16 killed);
2) Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat bombing (December 31, 2002
– 9 killed);
3) Kidapawan City, Cotabato bombing (January 28, 2003 – 1
killed);
4) Kabacan, North Cotabato bombing (February 20, 2003 – 1
killed);
5) Cotabato City Awang Airport bombing (February 20, 2003 – 1
killed);
6) Davao International Airport, Davao City bombing (March 4,
2003 – 22 killed);
241
Supra.
242
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of 2001, at
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html (Retrieved 5 October 2007).
243
United Kingdom Terrorist Act 2000 at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00011--b.htm#1
(Retrieved 5 October 2007).
244
Republic Act No. 9372, passed by the Senate on 8 February 2007 and the House of
Representatives on 19 February 2007 and approved by the President of the Philippines on 6
March 2007 but took effect on 15 July 2007.
7) Tagum City, Davao del Norte bombing (March 4, 2003 – 1
killed);
8) Davao City wharf bombing (April 2, 2003 – 17 killed); 9)
Koronadal City, South Cotabato public market bombing (May 10,
2003 – 10 killed);
10) Koronadal City, South Cotabato second public market
bombing (July 10, 2003 – 3 killed);
11) Parang, Maguindanao stadium bombing (January 4, 2004 –
24 killed);
12) Superferry Bombing outside Manila Bay (February 27, 2004
– 116 killed);
13) General Santos City public market bombing (December 12,
2004 – 15 killed);245 and
14) Valentine’s Day Bombings (February 14, 2005): a) General
Santos City shopping mall bombing (3 killed, 33 injured);
b) Davao City (5 killed);
c) Makati City (3 killed, 41 wounded).246 15) Zamboanga City
multiple bombings (August 10, 2005 – 30 injured);
16) Lamitan, Basilan wharf bombing (August 28, 2005 – 4
killed);
17) Jolo, Sulu videoke bar bombing (February 18, 2006 – 3
killed);
18) Jolo, Sulu Cooperative Store bombing (March 27, 2006 – 5
killed);
19) Digos City bus terminal bombing (March 29, 2006 – 18
injured);
20) Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao bombing (June 23, 2006 – 5
killed);
21) Makilala, North Cotabato bombing (October 10, 2006 – 6
killed);
22) General Santos City public market bombing (January 10,
2007 – 6 killed);
23) Cotabato City bombing (January 10, 2007 – 1 killed);
245
Supra.
246
Valentines Day Bombings Kills 12; Government Officials Condemn Blast: The Filipino Express
Online, February 21-27, 2005, Vol. 19, No. 08 at http://www.filipinoexpress.com/19/08_news.html
(Retrieved 28 October 2007)
24) Jolo, Sulu beheadings of workers (April 20, 2007 – 7 killed);
25) Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat bombing (May 8, 2007 – 8 killed);
and
26) Cotabato City bombing (May 18, 2007 – 3 killed).247
4. Legislative History of Human Security Act of 2007
The foregoing terrorist acts have moved the Philippine

Government, particularly Congress, to put up a brave front against this
new phenomenal conflict. As early as 1995, Rep. Simeon A.
Datumanong during the Tenth Congress filed House Bill No. 206 on
terrorism long before the United States passed is Patriot Act.248 In the
Senate in 1996, during the Tenth Congress, Senator Juan Ponce
Enrile submitted his own draft of Anti-Terrorism Bill (S. B. No. 1353) for
consideration. But these two draft measures failed to pass through the
legislative mill of both houses of Congress.
In 2001, Rep. Imee R. Marcos sponsored another bill on

terrorism, House Bill No. 3802, entitled “An Act Defining Terrorism,
Providing Penalties Therefore And For Other Purposes”. Despite of
the two important scheduled dates of hearings in December 2002 and
January 2003, nothing happened to the said draft bill.
During the Twelfth and Thirteenth Congresses, several

congresspersons filed their respective version of the Anti-Terrorism Bill
under House Bill Nos. 309, 948, 1925, 2222, 2380, 2615, 2621, 2639,
3032, 3103, 3767, and 3800 which were consolidated into House Bill
No. 4839. Senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Manny Villar in 1995
presented their own draft of the said bill on terrorism before the Senate
which became Senate Bill No. 2137.
The President of the Republic of the Philippines, Her Excellency
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, certified both Senate Bill No. 2137 and
House Bill No. 4839 as urgent in October 2005 writing an identical
letter of certification to the President of the Senate, Hon. Franklin M.
Drilon
247
Lives Destroyed, supra.
248
Simeon A. Datumanong. Sponsorship Speech on House Bill No. 4839, Journal of the House of
Representatives, 29 and 30 November 2005, 5.
and Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Jose De Venecia,
to wit:
October 12, 2005

Hon. Franklin M. Drilon
Senate President
Philippine Senate
Pasay City
Dear Senator President Drilon,

Pursuant to the provisions of Art. VI, Sec. 26 (2) of
the 1987 Constitution, I hereby certify to the necessity of
the immediate enactment of Senate Bill No. 2137, under
Committee Report No. 34, entitled:
“An Act to Deter and Punish Acts of Terrorism and
for other Purposes to address the public emergency
heightened by the recent bombing incidents in the region
and other parts of the world consisting of the need to
stamp out terrorism and its attendant activities by putting
in place the necessary legal framework for the speedy
prosecution of perpetrators.”
Best Wishes.
Very truly yours,
GLORIA ARROYO
On 8 February 2007, the bicameral conference committee of

Congress met and agreed and does hereby recommend to the
respective Houses that Senate Bill No. 2137, entitled “An Act to
Secure the State and Protect our People from Terrorism”, be adopted
in toto and approved as the final version.249
On 6 March 2007, the President signed the aforesaid bill into law
and became Republic Act No. 9372 or the Human Security Act of
2007. It took effect on 15 July 2007.
5. Definition of Terrorism
249
Conference Committee Report dated 8 February 2007.
Terrorism is one of the most ruthless and destructive instruments
of any international, internal, ethnic, or religious war in contemporary
history and has risen as one of the most tragic misfortunes of many
nations.250 It knows no metes and bounds, and respects no nation,
age, gender, race or creed; its effect is immeasurable, incalculable,
and incapable of pecuniary estimation and that its perpetrators
observe no rules, feel no mercy, or extend compassion; and it hits
anywhere, and anytime.251
In the crafting of the Human Security Act of 2007, the legislators

found it difficult to define terrorism. Representative Libanan maintained
that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter and this
should not be the case because a terrorist must be tagged as what he
or she really is – a terrorist, and not a freedom fighter.252 Further,
Senator Enrile posited that a terrorist of one group may be the
freedom fighter of another group.253 And Senator Pimentel clarified
that a terrorist today can be a hero tomorrow.254
Legal writers are not in unison in the definition of terrorism. One

writer defines it as a single person or a group of people’s resorting to
force to impose a specific idea or pattern on others, or infringing upon
the rights, freedoms, culture and wealth of a person or a nation.
Another said it is a method of political action that uses violence or
deliberately uses fear against civilians and civilian infrastructure in
order to influence behavior, to inflict punishment or to exact revenge.
It is a coercive mechanism where actions create threats that
something worse is forthcoming if political demands are not met. But it
may also be an expression of despair and desperation for a better
way of life.255
250
Juan Ponce Enrile. Explanatory Note, Senate Bill No. 1353, 12 January 1996, Congressional
Record..
251
Marcelino C. Libanan. Sponsorship Speech, House Bill. No. 4839, Journal of the House of
Representatives, 29 November 2005, 7.
252
Libanan, supra, 8.
253
Juan Ponce Enrile, Deliberations on Senate Bill No. 2137, Journal of the Senate, 22 May
2006, 160.
254
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Deliberations on Senate Bill No. 2137, Journal of the Senate, 22 May
2006, 160.
255
Fernandez, supra, 51 and 52.
Even the United Nations has difficulty defining terrorism, said
Senator Pimentel. He feared that “if we are unable to define terrorism,
then all the statements about declaring war against terrorism is just a
lot air because we cannot declare war on something that is ill
defined.”256
The first attempt to define terrorism was made under the League
of Nations in 1934 when it took the first major step towards outlawing
the scourge by discussing a draft convention for the prevention and
punishment of terrorism. Although the Convention was eventually
adopted in 1937, it never came into force.257 The UN recognized
terrorism as “all criminal acts directed against a State and intended or
calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons
or a group of persons or the general public.258
There is not a single document dealing with the lone subject of

terrorism although the UN body has since 1963 thirteen (13) universal
legal instruments to prevent terrorist acts. Those instruments were
developed under the auspices of the United Nations and its
specialized agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) and are open to participation by all Member States. In 2005,
the international community also introduced substantive changes to
three of these universal instruments to specifically account for the
threat of terrorism; on 8 July of that year States adopted the
Amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear
Material, and on 14 October they agreed to both the Protocol of 2005
to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the
Safety of Maritime Navigation and the Protocol of 2005 to the Protocol
for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Fixed
Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf.259
Currently the United Nations are negotiating a 14th international

treaty, a draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism.
Journal of the Senate, supra, 161.

256
257
UN Action to Counter Terrorism. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/terrorism/instruments.shtml on 24 February 2008
258
Codilla, supra, 28.
259
UN Action to Counter Terrorism, supra.
This convention would complement the existing framework of
international anti-terrorism instruments and would build on key guiding
principles already present in recent anti-terrorist conventions: the
importance of criminalization of terrorist offences, making them
punishable by law and calling for prosecution or extradition of the
perpetrators; the need to eliminate legislation which establishes
exceptions to such criminalization on political, philosophical,
ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or similar grounds; a strong call for
the United Nations to take action to prevent terrorist acts; and
emphasis on the need for Member States to cooperate, exchange
information and provide each other with the greatest measure of
assistance in connection with the prevention, investigation and
prosecution of terrorist acts.260
In the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy which

was adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006, the
United Nations underscored the importance of existing international
counter-terrorism instruments by pledging to consider becoming
parties to them without delay and implementing their provisions. The
13 major conventions and protocols dealing with terrorism are as
follows:
1. 1963 Convention on Offences and Certain Other Acts
Committed On Board Aircraft (Aircraft Convention)
2. 1970 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of
Aircraft (Unlawful Seizure Convention)
3. 1971 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
against the Safety of Civil Aviation(Civil Aviation Convention) 4. 1973
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against
Internationally Protected Persons (Diplomatic agents Convention)
5. 1979 Internaional Convention against the Taking of Hostages
(Hostages Convention)
6. 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear
Material (Nuclear Materials Convention)
7. 1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of
Violence at Airports Serving International Civil Aviation, supplementary
260
Supra.
to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the
Safety of Civil Aviation (Extends and supplements the Montreal
Convention on Air Safety) (Airport Protocol)
8. 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts
against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Maritime Convention) 9.
1988 Protocol for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety
of Fixed Platforms Located on the Continental Shelf (Fixed Platform
Protocol)
10. 1991 Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for
the Purpose of Detection (Plastic Explosives Convention) 11. 1997
International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings
(Terrorist Bombing Convention)
12. 1999 International Convention for the Suppression of the
Financing of Terrorism (Terrorist Financing Convention) 13. 2005
International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear
Terrorism (Nuclear Terrorism Convention).261
Meanwhile, two great powers have bandied together to fight

international terrorism: the United States of America and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain. The United States passed on record time
USA Patriot Act of 2001 which defines terrorism as violent acts or acts
dangerous to human life that . . . appear to be intended (i) to intimidate
or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of
a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.262
The United Kingdom did it a year earlier when the Terrorist Act
of 2000 was enacted by Parliament. The law considers terrorism as
the use or threat of action where the use of threat is designed to
influence the government or to intimidate the public or section of the
public, and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a
political, religious or ideological cause. It include acts such as those
involving serious violence against a person, serious damage to
property, the endangerment of a person’s life other than that of the
261
Supra.
262
Section 802, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intecept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Pariot Act) Act of 2001.
perpetrator, and the creation of a serious risk to public health or public
safety.263
On the other hand, the Republic of the Philippines even prior to

the enactment of the Human Security Act of 2007 has attempted to
define terrorism in one document. In Memorandum Order No. 121264,
terrorism is defined as:
The premeditated use of threatened use of violence

or means of destruction perpetrated against innocent
civilians or non-combatants, or against civilian and
government properties, usually intended to influence an
audience. Its purpose is to create a state of fear that will
aid in extorting, coercing, intimidating, or causing
individuals and groups to alter their behavior. Its methods
are hostage taking, piracy or sabotage, assassination,
threats, hoaxes, and indiscriminate bombings or
shootings.265
6.. The Human Security Act of 2007 (Republic Act No. 9372)
The Human Security Act of 2007 (Republic Act No. 9372) is

known as “An Act to Secure the State and Protect our People from
Terrorism”. It was enacted amidst the turbulent national situation
following the September 11, 2001 catastrophe in the United States of
America and the domestic terrorist acts in the Philippines.
The said act treats terrorism as a crime similar to the crimes

punishable under the Revised Penal Code. Thus, the crime of
terrorism is committed by:
Any person who commits an act punishable under

any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:
263
United Kingdom Terrorist Act of 2000.
264
Memorandum Order No. 121, entitled Updating the Government Policy on Terrorism,
Particularly on Hostage-taking Situations, 2000.
265
Philippine Report to the UN Security Council. Philippine Action and Initiatives Against
Domestic and International Terrorism, S. C. Res. 2001/1290, as cited in Codilla, 28.
1) Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the
High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
2) Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
3) Article 134-a (Coup d‘Etat), including acts
committed by private persons;
4) Article 248 (Murder);
5) Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention);
6) Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction, or
under
7) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on
Arson);
8) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
9) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy
Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
10) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
11) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and
Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and
12) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended
(Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives),
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order
to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand
shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the
penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the
benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.266
There are other three major crimes punishable under this law:
Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism, Accomplice, and Accessory. The
crime of Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism is committed when two or
more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
266
Section 3, Republic Act No. 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007).
the crime of terrorism and decided to commit the same. The penalty is
40 years imprisonment267.
Accomplice is any person who, not being a principal under

Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code or a conspirator as defined in
Section 4 hereof, cooperates in the execution of either the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts shall suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months one day to twenty (20) years of
268
imprisonment .
Accessory is any person who, having knowledge of the

commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism, and without having participated therein, either as principal
or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code,
takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its
discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of
the principal or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten
(10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment269.
In addition to the crimes explained above, there are twenty-five

(25) other offenses defined and punished by the Human Security Act
of 2007 with penalties ranging from six (6) months to twenty (20) years
of imprisonment.
There are provisions in the Human Security Act of 2007 which

directly violate the fundamental rights of the Filipino people. Ordinary
men and women could be placed under surveillance and their
communications intercepted,270 detained for three (3) days without
judicial warrant,271 right to travel limited,272 their bank deposits
267
Section 4, supra.
268
Section 5, supra.
269
Section 6, supra.
270
Section 7, supra.
271
Section 18, supra.
272
Section 26, supra.
examined273, and their organizations proscribed.274
These seeming violations of rights are embedded in the

domestic law on terror despite the enunciated policies of the State “to
protect life, liberty and property from acts of terrorism”275, and in the
implementation of the said policy, “the State shall uphold the basic
rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the
Constitution.”276
But it appears that there are safeguards provided for by the said
law for those who would be accused of the crime of terrorism.
Presumably, they would enjoy the rights of a person under custodial
detention277 and in case of violations thereof, their arresting officers
penalized278; and no torture or coercion during his investigation and
interrogation279 shall be employed. Said accused shall likewise be
entitled to continuous trial280 and any prosecution under this act
against him shall be a bar to another prosecution281, and in case of
acquittal, he shall be entitled to the payment of damages in the
amount of Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) for every day
that he or she has been detained or deprived of liberty or arrested
without a warrant as a result of such an accusation282.
273
Section 27, supra.
274
Section 17, supra.
275
Section 1, supra.
276
Section 2, supra.
277
Section 21, supra.
278
Section 22, ibid.
279
Sections 24 and 25, supra.
280
Section 48, supra.
281
Section 49, supra.
282
Section 50, supra.
The foregoing rights as protection for individuals are apparently
in the minds of the lawmakers when they deliberated upon this
measure. “The proposed measure endeavors to reconcile on the one
hand the need for an adequate legal device to enable law enforcement
authorities to respond effectively to the problem of terrorism, and the
demand for the protection of the political rights and civil liberties of the
people, on the other.”283
Senator Enrile continued:
It is the thesis of this representation – that while we

arm our law enforcement agents with the necessary tools
to perform their job effectively and efficiently to protect
society, we must see to it that even if a person is
suspected to be a terrorist, until he is so pronounced by a
court of law in accordance with our system of due
process, every human consideration must be accorded to
that suspect. So that if he is innocent, then it must be
shown through an active litigation and trial he is innocent.
If he is guilty, then let him be adjudged guilty by a court
after hearing and with all the opportunities to defend
himself, without any fear compelling him to admit guilt, or
to confess guilt even if indeed he was innocent.”284
In the House of Representatives, Representative Antonio

V. Cuenco of Cebu City allayed the fear of human rights
advocates by affirming that House Bill No. 4839 “should not
endanger human rights to the abuses of law enforcers even as
he recognized that the Bill should not be toothless if it really
aims to penalize terrorists.”285
283
Enrile, Explanatory Note, supra, 3.
284
Journal of the Senate, supra, 159.
285
Antonio V. Cuenco, Sponsorship Speech on House Bill No. 4839, Journal of the House of
Representatives, 29 November 2005, 7.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The method of research applied in this study was the historical,
descriptive and analytical method of research, particularly the
documentary analysis technique and content analysis.
The International Human Rights and International Humanitarian

declarations, covenants, protocols, treaties, and agreements
concerning with human rights and humanitarian acts, respectively, and
the various papers and documents written by expert authors on the
subject had been analyzed and synthesized.
Books, periodicals, newspapers, magazines, journals, theses,

dissertations, internet articles and other documents of local and
foreign authors pertinent to the aforestated topics had also been
utilized.
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
“Thank God our human rights do not depend on majority rule in

a mobocracy.”
-Dean Froilan M. Bacungan
A. International Human Rights Law As Protection for the Rights

of Citizens In Times of Peace and in Situations of Armed
Conflicts
Human rights emanate from our being created by God286 and
therefore every person has a divine link to the Creator.287 This
connection to the Supreme Being made all peoples from generation to
286
Fernand J. Tanguay, in his written comment during the dissertation proposal defense of this
researcher at the University of Santo Tomas Graduate School on 14 December 2007.
287
Hansen, 11.
generation to defer to God in their proclamation of adherence to
human rights.
The English Magna Carta of 1215 in its preface sought the

intercession of God when it proclaimed: “John, by the grace of God,
king of England . . .to the archbishops, bishops, abbots . . .greeting:
Know that, having regard to God and for the salvation of our soul, and
those of all our ancestors and heirs, and unto the honour of God. . . to
all free men of our kingdom we have also granted, for us and our heirs
for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them
and their heirs, of us and our heirs. . .”
The American Declaration of Independence, on the other hand,

affirmed “. . . that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

recognized and proclaimed, “in the presence and under the auspices
of the Supreme Being, the rights of man and of the citizen of the
French Republic.”
In all the constitutions of the Philippine Republic, the sovereign

Filipino people implored the aid of Almighty God in building a just and
humane society and establishing a Government that shall embody
their ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and
develop their patrimony, and secure to themselves and their posterity,
the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law
and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.
But these proclamations, “laws, or legislation created by men
can only complement the initial rights”288 enunciated in the foregoing
documents. Legislation has to perfect the basic human rights.289 And
legislation includes the legal guarantees for the protection of the rights
of the people.
288
Tanguay, supra.
289
Supra.
As human rights has a deep root in the past from the time of
Hammurabi who allowed the exercise of certain rights of the people of
his ancient Empire of Babylonia, down through the centuries to the
aforesaid Magna Carta on June 09, 1215 of King John of England and
on our time, to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the
United Nations,290 and to the various constitutions of the Philippines
which consistently guarantee the fundamental rights of the Filipinos,
protection for individual rights has been historically and firmly
established in contemporary times. This protection is sufficiently
covered with specific legal guarantees such as the organized and
unorganized guarantees.291
Organized guarantees exist within the framework of the state in

the form of procedures enabling the individual to obtain either an
annulment of the measures which constitute a violation of human
rights or, in cases where this is impossible, financial compensation.
Among unorganized guarantees of human rights is the right to refuse
to obey an unjust law. When organized procedures are inadequate, it
is resistance to oppression which constitutes the supreme guarantee
of human rights.292 Thus, an individual has, either way, recourse when
his rights are violated.
But beyond these guarantees are the various treaties and

agreements on human rights which the different states have entered
into with other equally sovereign states. These instruments formed
what is now known as the International Human Rights Law. Included
in this law are the Philippine constitutional precepts most notably the
Bill of Rights293 and the provisions on Social Justice and Human
Rights294; the various statutory laws enshrined in the Civil Code of the
Philippines, Revised Penal Code and Rules of Court; and the special
290
Karel Vasak, Human Rights as a Legal Reality. The International Dimensions of Human
Rights, Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1992, pp. 513-526.
291
Supra.
292
Supra.
293
Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
294
Article XIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
laws such as the Child and Youth Welfare Code295 and the Family
Code296, Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act 297, and Women in Development and Nation
Building Act 298 and its supportive laws.299
International Human Rights Law enhances, promotes and

protects the rights necessary for human existence and development. It
upholds the basic rights of man, protects man from abuses of state
authority, and adopts a common standard for human existence.300 As
Claude and Weston postulate, human rights limit state power, partake
of both the legal and moral orders, and extend to every person on
Earth without discriminations.301 Every human being is inviolable and
whatever the circumstances, certain things ought not to be done to
human beings, and certain things ought always to be done for them.302
These human rights laws are applicable at all periods – in

peacetime and during armed conflicts, especially internal armed
conflicts. These serve as protection to individual rights. Dugard has
said that human rights law is different as it is primarily concerned with
relations between States and their nationals in time of peace.303 It is an
295
Presidential Decree No. 603 dated 10 December 1974.
296
Executive Order No. 209 dated 6 July 1987.
297
Republic Act No. 7610 dated 17 June 1992.
298
Republic Act No. 7912 dated 12 February 1992.
299
R.A. 9262 - The Anti-Violence Against Women Act; R.A. 9208 - Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act;
R.A. 8353 - The New Anti-Rape Law; RA 7877 - Anti-Sexual Harassment Law; and R.A. 6955 -
Mail Order Brides.
300
Joseph Sedfrey S. Santiago, Johannes L. Ignacio, and Edgardo R. Abaya. Protocol 2: The
Right to Live in an Armed Conflict, Structural Alternative Legal Assistance for Grassroots
(SALAG), 1990, 7.
301
Claude and Weston, 17, supra.
302
Michael J. Perry. The Idea of Human of Human Rights: Four Inquiries, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1998, 162.
303
John Dugard. Bridging the Gap Between Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: The
Punishment of Offenders, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. No. 324, 1998, 445-453.
internal affair between the government and its citizens.304 There is no
point of argument therefore that human rights law is applicable in
peacetime. But more important than this concept of applicability during
tranquility is the idea that human rights law is likewise applicable in
situations of armed conflicts. International human rights law abhors a
legal black hole. It applies wherever a State exercises its jurisdiction,
not only in peacetime but also during armed conflict, as a compliment
to humanitarian law.305
Heintze proclaimed that today human rights are an integral part

of international law for the common welfare of humanity and represent
common values that no State may revoke, even in times of war. While
international humanitarian law and human rights law vary in terms of
origin and the situations in which they apply, the two bodies of law
share the objective of protecting and safeguarding individuals in all
circumstances.306 In this vein, Bluntschli argued in 1872 that a [the]
declaration of war did not [even] rescind the legal order but “on the
contrary, we recognize that there are natural human rights that are to
be recognized in times of war as in peacetime.”307
Lubell added his voice to this debate when he stated that human
rights can at times be directly applied in situations of armed conflict.
He emphasized that while this notion can hardly be accepted by those
who resist this new idea, the resisters are fighting a losing battle and
should lay down their arms and accept the applicability of human
rights law in times of armed conflict. Meanwhile, many of the views
supporting the applicability of that law are focused primarily upon
explaining why it should and does apply during armed conflict, and on
how in these situations the two bodies of law can work concurrently,
304
Cordula Droege The Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law and International
Human Rights Law in Situations of Armed Conflict, Isl. L. Rev., Vol. 40 No.2, 2007, 313.
305
Alfred de Zayas. Human Rights and Indefinite Detention, International Review of the Red
Cross, Volume 87 Number 857 March 2005.
306
Hans-Joachim Heintze. On the Relationship Between Human Rights Law Protection and
International Humanitarian Law, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 86, Number 856,
2004, 789.
307
Johann Caspar Bluntschli, Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilisierten Staaten, 3rd ed., Beck,
Nördlingen, 1878, para. 529, as cited in Heintze, supra.
complement (or perhaps even converge with) each other in times of
need.308
For instance, the right to life under the human rights law must be
respected at all times – not only during peacetime but as well as
during armed conflicts – since every human being has the inherent
right to life where no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life and
such right shall be protected by law.309 Under the humanitarian law,
particularly the provisions of the Lieber Code, two basic rules of
international humanitarian law, namely, the protection of civilians and
the decent treatment of prisoners of war are upheld.310 Prisoners of
war must be respectfully treated.311
Therefore, the protection of the right to life under the human

rights law and under the humanitarian law is a right of every human
being – may he be an ordinary person during peacetime or a civilian or
a prisoner of war during armed conflicts – which can never be
suspended either in a war or in any form of state of emergency. This
includes the provision under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.312 These rights are
non-derogable rights.313
Other major human rights treaties314, as International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights does, clearly specify that no one may be
arbitrarily deprived of life. However, the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950
308
Noam Lubell. Challenges in Applying Human Rights Law to Armed Conflict, International
Review of the Red Cross, Volume 87, Number 860, December 2005, 738.Volume
309
Section 6, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
310
Article 22, Lieber Code.
311
Article 56, Lieber Code.
312
Section 7, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
313
Lubell, supra.
314
Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 1969 (ACHR); Article 4 of the
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1981 (ACHPR).
(ECHR), gives more guidance as it states that deprivation of life shall
not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of the provision on right to
life when it results from the use of force which is no more than
absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful
violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape
of a person lawfully detained; and (c) in action lawfully taken for the
purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.315
Even the members of the Association of Southeast Asian

Nations316 have recognized the imperative need to promote and
protect human rights and fundamental freedom by establishing an
ASEAN human rights body which was agreed upon by the
member-countries when they signed the ASEAN Charter in Singapore
on 20 November 2007.317 The preamble of the said Charter provides
that the ASEAN adheres to the principles of democracy, the rule of
law and good governance, and respect for and protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms. And in conformity with these
principles, ASEAN shall establish an ASEAN human rights body.318
In practice, the right to life in armed conflict is particularly

covered by International Humanitarian Law’s specific rules relating to
war crimes together with governments’ obligations to respect, and
ensure respect of, International Humanitarian Law. This requires an
obligation effectively to investigate suspected violations, using
impartial and independent procedures, and to prosecute and punish
violations. More generally, he stressed the need for a systematic
supervision and periodic investigation so that institutions, policies and
practices ensure that the right to life is upheld as effectively as
possible by the military.319
315
Article 2(2), European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms.
316
The member-countries are: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei,
Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia.
317
Sun Yunlong, Editor, Chinaview. ASEAN to Establish Human Rights Body, Retrieved from
www.chinaview.cn, 21 February 2008.
318
Article 14, ASEAN Charter.
319
P. Alston, Report to the Human Rights Commission, 8 March 2006, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/53,
1125–26.
Hence, the application of the human rights law in situations of
armed conflicts is crucial to the promotion and protection of human
rights (the right to life) of every human being not only in times of peace
but more importantly in situations of armed conflicts especially during
internal armed conflicts.
A further important development leading to the recognition that

human rights law applies to situations of armed conflict is the vast
body of jurisprudence by universal and regional human rights bodies.
The UN Human Rights Committee has applied the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in non-international armed
conflict as well as international armed conflict, including situations of
occupation, both in its concluding observations on country reports as
well as in its opinions on individual cases. The same is true for the
concluding observations of the UN Committee on Economic and
Social Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination
against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child.320
The European Court of Human Rights has recognized the
application of the European Convention both in situations of non
international armed conflict and in situations of occupation in
international armed conflict. The Inter-American Commission and
Court have done the same with regard to the American Declaration on
the Rights and Duties of Man and the American Convention on Human
Rights. While most of these bodies have refused to apply international
humanitarian law directly, because their mandate only encompassed
the respective applicable human rights treaties, the Inter-American
Court has applied humanitarian law by interpreting the American
Convention on Human Rights in the light of the Geneva Conventions
because of their overlapping content.321
It can be concluded from the above that international
jurisprudence and state practice—through the development of treaties,
resolutions, acceptance of jurisprudence, decisions of national
320
Droege, supra.
321
Supra.
courts—has now accepted the application of human rights in times of
armed conflict, both international and non-international. It also flows
from the very nature of human rights: if they are inherent to the human
being, they cannot be dependent on a situation.322
B. International Humanitarian Law as Protection for the Rights of

Civilians in Situations of Armed Conflicts
In many situations of armed conflict, there are important rules

which are generally observed. These international rules in the midst of
warfare recognize human rights and obligations which prevent armed
conflicts from escalating into a total war. They are inspired by a
respect for human beings and their dignity, and are to a large extent
accepted by most of the nations of the world. They are known as the
laws of war and international humanitarian law.323
The laws of war govern the conduct of hostilities and the choice
and use of weapons used in warfare while international humanitarian
law is concerned with the protection and treatment of victims of war, in
particular, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, prisoners of war and
civilians.324 These two (2) laws, to a large extent, developed
independently of one another but later on were combined and have
come to be known simply as humanitarian law325 or International
Humanitarian Law.
The above law is principally based on the Principle of Humanity

which originates from the De Martens Preamble that provides that the
human person shall remain to be under the protection of the principles
of humanity, usages established among civilized peoples, and the
dictates of public conscience.326 The spirit of International
322
Supra.
323
Gretchen Kewley, EVEN WARS HAVE LIMITS: THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICTS.
Australian Red Cross Victoria, Southbank, Australia, 2000, p. 11.
324
Supra.
325
Supra.
326
This preamble was authored by a Russian jurist named Fyodorovich de Martens during the
1907 Second Hague Peace Conference. The clauses in the De Martens Preamble were
incorporated in various treaties such as the Hague Conventions No. II (1899) and No. 4 (1907)
and
Humanitarian Law is to prevent unnecessary deaths. As Henry Dunant
emphatically stated: “. . . in an age when we hear so much of progress
and civilization, it is not a matter of urgency, since unhappily we
cannot always avoid wars, to press forward in a human and truly
civilized spirit the attempt to prevent, or at least to alleviate, the
horrors of wars.”327
To humanize the conduct of war is the primordial objective of

International Humanitarian Law, that is, to regulate the conduct of
warfare: to limit the methods and means of combat. In addition, ample
protection is given to the civilians328, women, children, hors de
combat,329 prisoners of war, detainees, and medical personnel.
Under customary law, protection of civilians or civilian population

during armed conflicts is essentially based on the rules of the law of
The Hague.330 The general principle underlying it states that the only
legitimate object which States should endeavor to accomplish during
war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy331 and not to attack
or threaten with violence the civilian population, as well as individual
civilians, the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the
civilian population.332
in the 1980 UN Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional

Weapons, in certain provisions common to the 4 Geneva Conventions, in Article 1 (2) of Protocol
I and in paragraph 4 of Protocol II’s Preamble.
327
Dunant, supra, 127.
328
Article 50, Protocol I. Any person not belonging to the armed forces shall be considered a
civilian. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the
definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
329
Article 41, Protocol I. A person is hors de combat if: a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or c) he has been rendered unconscious or is
otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself
provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to
escape.
330
Jean de Preux. International Humanitarian Law: Synopses, Offprint from the International
Review of the Red Cross, 1985-1989, 11.
331
Declaration of St. Petersburg (1868), as cited in de Preux, supra.
332
Article 51, Protocol I.
Women, on the other hand, shall be especially protected against
any attack on their honor, in particular against rape, enforced
prostitution, or any form of indecent assault.333 Children must be the
object of special respect and must be protected against any form of
indecent assault.334 A person who is recognized or who, in the
circumstances, should be recognized to be hors de combat shall not
be made the object of attack.335 A person who takes part in hostilities
and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a
prisoner of war and shall be treated as such even if there is any doubt
as to his status as a combatant or if he is suspected of being a spy or
a mercenary.336 He must at all times be humanely treated.337 Civilian
medical personnel may not be captured.338
The Geneva Conventions and the two (2) Protocols assured the
protection of the rights of the above persons during the wars, may they
be international armed conflicts or non-international or internal armed
conflicts. However, civilians have become the overwhelming majority
of the victims of armed conflicts despite International Humanitarian
Law, which stipulates that attacks should only be directed at
combatants and military objectives and civilians should be
respected.339 But throughout the history of war, civilians have
increasingly become the victims of armed conflict. During the First
World War (1914-1918), there were 50,000 civilians killed; Second
World War (1939-1945), 24,000,000; Korean War (1950-1953),
500,000; and Vietnam War, 3,000,000.340 This occurred despite of the
protection prescribed by International Humanitarian Law.341
333
Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention; Articles 75 and 76, Protocol I.
334
Article 77, Protocol I; Article 4, Protocol II.
335
Article 41, Protocol I; Article 23c, Hague Regulations.
336
Article 45, Protocol I.
337
Article 13, Third Geneva Convention; Article 27, Fourth Geneva Convention.
338
Article 57, Fourth Geneva Convention; Article 14, Protocol I.
339
Sassoli and Bouvier, supra, 145.
340
Supra.
341
Articles 13-26, Geneva Convention IV; Articles 72-79, Protocol I, as cited in Sassoli and
Bouvier, supra.
This protection to civilians was reiterated during the International
Conference on Human Rights in Teheran in 1968 where it was
declared that humanitarian principles must prevail during periods of
armed conflict. Observing that armed conflicts continued to plague
humanity and considering that the widespread violence and brutality of
the times, including massacres, summary executions, tortures,
inhuman treatment of prisoners, killing of civilians in armed conflicts
eroded human rights and engendered counter-brutality, the
Conference expressed the conviction that even during periods of
armed conflict, humanitarian principles must prevail.342
It also endorsed the Conference's recommendation that the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, after consulting with the
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), should bring the
attention of all States members of the United Nations to the existing
rules of international humanitarian law, and urge them, pending the
adoption of new rules, to ensure that civilians and combatants are
protected in accordance with "the principles of the law of nations
derived from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the
laws of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience".343
The UN General Assembly Resolution 2444 further affirmed a

resolution of the Twelfth International Conference of the Red Cross
and Red Crescent (Vienna, 1965) which laid down three basic
principles of action in armed conflict: 1) The right of parties to a conflict
to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited; 2) It is
prohibited to launch attacks on civilian populations; 3) A distinction
must be made at all times between persons taking part in hostilities
and members of the civilian population so that the latter are spared as
much as possible.
The same resolution also marked the acceleration of the
movement to bring the three currents of international humanitarian law
– Geneva, The Hague, and the United Nations – into one main stream.
It recognized the interaction between rules to protect the victims of
war,
342
United Nations Conference on Human Rights Resolution No. XXIII of 12 May 1968.
343
Supra.

Dean Rey International Human Rights Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dean Rey International Human Rights Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

DR. REY OLIVER S. ALEJANDRINO

Jagan Blaire Soleil B. Alejandrino,

Seven Years Old; and

Joseph Jairus Bryce B. Alejandrino,

Five Years Old.

- So that they may live a life of peace. . .

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION PAGE 1.1 Introduction

1.2 Nature and Scope of International

CHAPTER 2 HISTORICAL THEORY, ORIGIN AND

2.1 The Greek Philosophy

2.2 The Roman Law

2.3 The Judeo-Christian Tradition

2.4 The English Magna Carta, Petition

2.5 The American Declaration of

2.6 French Declaration of the Rights

2.7 The Covenant of the League of

CHAPTER 3 INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN

3.2 Universal Declaration of Human

3.3 International Covenant on Civil

3.3.1 First Optional Protocol to

3.3.2 Second Optional Protocol

3.4. International Covenant on Economic,

3.4.1 Optional Protocol to the

4.1 International Convention on

4.2 Convention on the Elimination

4.2.1 Optional Protocol to the

4.3 Convention Against Torture

4.3.1 Optional Protocol to the

4.4 Convention on the Rights of

4.4.1 Optional Protocol to the

4.4.2 Optional Protocol to the

4.4.3 Optional Protocol to the

4.5 International Convention on the

4.7 Convention on the Rights of

4.7.1 Optional Protocol to the

CHAPTER 5 OTHER RELATED INTERNATIONAL

5.1 The Statute of the International

5.2 The Rome Statute (International

CHAPTER 6 REGIONAL TREATIES ON

6.1 European Convention on Human

6.3 American Convention on

6.4 African Charter on Human

6.5 Arab Charter on Human Rights

6.6. Cairo Declaration on Human

CHAPTER 7 PHILIPPINE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 7.1

The Philippine Constitutions

7.1.1 The 1897 Biac-na-bato

7.1.2 The 1898 Malolos

7.1.3 The 1935 Constitution

7.1.4 The 1943 Japanese

7.1.5 The 1973 Constitution

7.1.6 The 1986 Freedom

7.1.7 The 1987 Constitution

7.1 Committee on Economic,

7.2 Committee on the Elimination

7.3 Committee Against Torture

7.5 Committee on the Protection

7.6 Committee on the Rights of

7.7 European Court of Human

7.8 European Committee for

7.9 Inter-American Commission

8.0 Inter-American Court of

8.2 African Commission on