Introdução ao sistema ONU de solução de controvérsias em direitos humanos
Resumo
O presente artigo tem como objetivo principal apresentar e analisar criticamente os procedimentos de solução de controvérsias individuais do sistema da ONU de direitos humanos. Para tanto, procedeu-se a um levantamento e posterior estudo de e sobre dados primários e secundários relativos à matéria, o que incluiu aproximadamente 119 referências diretas. Como principais resultados, destacam-se a elucidação do funcionamento dos procedimentos de comunicação individual, críticas às regras ´procedimentais, à natureza dos procedimentos e à jurisprudência dos comitês. Por fim, logrou-se realizar um estudo sobre as possibilidades de reforma do sistema da ONU de direitos humanos, e dos comitês em especial, a partir das críticas dos principais atores internacionais e das tensões hodiernas dos direitos humanos internacionais nos escopos jurídico e político-cultural. Como conclusões, destacamos: (i) os trabalhos dos comitês foram essenciais para a expansão dos direitos humanos internacionais nas últimas décadas; (ii) o sistema da ONU de direitos humanos vive uma crise profunda, ainda que relativizada por seus êxitos; (iii) a proposta de uma Corte Mundial de Direitos Humanos pode ser uma alternativa viável rumo à construção de um sistema internacional de direitos humanos menos eurocêntrico, contudo, seu sucesso na arena político-ideológica é extremamente incerto.
Referências
ACCIOLY, Hildebrando; NASCIMENTO E SILVA, G. E. do. Manual de direito internacional público.14. ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2000.
BBENNINGER-BUDEL, Carin; GYORKI, Linda; JOSEPH, Sarah; MITCHELL, Katie. Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Treaty Bodies. OMCT Handbook Series vol.4. Geneva: World Organisation Against Torture, 2006.
BUERGENTHAL, Thomas. Prólogo. In: CANÇADO TRIN- DADE, A Proteção Internacional dos Direitos Humanos. São Paulo: Saraiva, 1991, p. XXXI.
CANÇADO TRINDADE, Antônio Augusto. A Humanização do Direito Internacional. Belo Horizonte: Del Rey, 2006.
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE. Concluding Obser- vations on the U.S., UN doc. CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (2006).
Rules of Procedure, CAT/C/3/Rev.4 (2002).
ATM.ATK v. Sweden, Communication No. 30/1995, CAT/C/15/D/30/1995.
V.N.I.M. v. Canada, CAT/C/29/D/119/1998.
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. C.P and his son M.P v. Denmark, Commu- nication Nº. 5/1994, CERD/C/46/D/5/1994.
Barbaro 1. Australia, Communication N°. 7/1995, CERD/C/51/D/7/1995.
Rules of Procedure of the Committee on the Elimina- tion of Racial Discrimination, CERD/C/35/Rev.3 (1989).
COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF DISCRIMI- NATION AGAINST WOMEN. Draft Rules of Procedure, CEDAW/SP/2/Rev. 1 (1982).
COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF ALL MIGRANT WORKERS AND MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES. Provisional Rules of Procedure, HRI/ GEN/3/Rev.1/Add.1 (2004).
CRAWFORD, James. The UN Human Rights Treaty System: a sys- tem in a crisis? In: ALSTON, Philip; CRAWFORD, James (eds). The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
FURROW, Timothy G. Canada Challenged As A Human Rights Leader: The Human Rights Committee's Decision In Waldman. Trans- national Law and Contemporary Problems, v. 11, Spring, 2001.
GANDHI, P.R. The Human Rights Committee and the Right of In- dividual Comunication - law and procedure. Ashgate: Darthmouth, 1998.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE. Concluding Observations on the U.S. (2006), CCPR/C/USA/CO/3.
Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/3/Rev.8 (2005).
Eduardo Mariategui et al v. Argentina, Communication N°. 1371/2005, CCPR/C/84/D/1371/2005.
General Comment No. 31 on Article 2 of the Covenant: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (2004), CCPR/C/74/CRP.4/Rev.6.
Antonio Hom v. Filipinas, Communication N°. 1169/2003, CCPR/C/78/D/1169/2003. Arenz v. Germany, Communication N°. 1138/2002, CCPR/C/80/D/1138/2002.
Weiss v. Austria, Communication N°. 1086/2002, CCPR/C/77/D/1086/2002 (2003).
Dusan Soltes v. Czech Republic, Communications Nºs. 1034/2001, 1035/2001, CCPR/C/85/D/1034/2001, CCPR/C/85/D/1035/2001.
Singarasa v. Sri Lanka, Communication N°. 1033/2001, CCPR/C/81/D/1033/2001.
Karakurt v. Austria, Communication N°. 965/2000, CCPR/C/74/D/965/2000 (2002).
Kuok Koi v. Portugal, Communication N°. 925/2000, CCPR/C/73/D/925/2000.
Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Communication N°. 950/2000, CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000.
Kurowski v. Polonia, Communication N°. 872/1999, CCPR/C/77/D/872/1999.
Piandong v. Phillipines, Communication N°. 869/1999, CCPR/70/D/869/1999.
Linderholm v. Croatia, Communication N°. 744/1997, CCPR/C/66/C/744/1997 (1999).
CCPR/C/67/D/777/1997 (1999). Sanchéz Lopéz v. Spain, Communication Nº. 777/1997,
Vishwadeo Gobin v. Mauritius, Communication N°. 787/1997, CCPR/C/72/D/787/1997.
/1996, CCPR/C/66/D/717/1996. Acuña Inostroza et al v. Chile, Communication N°
Kaaber v. Iceland, Communication N°. 674/1995, CCPR/C/58/D/674/1995.
Vicente et al v. Colombia, Communication N°. 612/1995, CCPR/C/56/D/612/1995.
Rosa Espinoza de Polay v. Peru, Communication N°. 577/1994, CCPR/C/61/D/577/1994.
Wallen v. Trinidad and Tobago, Communications N°. 576/1994, ССPR/C/53/D/576/1994.
General Comment 15, The position of aliens under the Cov- enant (1986), U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 (1994).
Perera v. Australia, Communication N°. 536/1993, CCPR/C/53/D/536/1993.
Ponsamy Poongavanam v. Ilhas Maurício, Communication N°. 567/1993, CCPR/C/51/D/567/1993.
Robert Faurisson v. France, Communication N°. 550/1993, CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993.
A.S. and LS. v. Australia, Communication Nº. 490/1992, CCPR/C/47/D/490/1992.
Edith Könye and Arpad Könye v. Hungary, Communication N°. 520/1992, CCPR/C/50/D/520/1992.
Griffin v. Spain, Communication N°. 493/1992, CCPR/ C/53/D/493/1992.
J.L. v. Australia, Communication Nº. 491/1992, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/45/D/491/1992.
K.L.B.W. v. Australia, Communication N°. 499/1992, CCPR/C/47/D/499/1992/Rev.1.
Kulomin v. Hungary, Communication N°. 521/1992, CCPR/C/50/D/521/1992.
Toonen v. Australia, Communication N°. 488/1992, CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992.
V.E.M. v. Spain, Communication N°. 467/1991, CCPR/C/48/D/467/1991 (1993).
Wright v. Jamaica, Communication No. 459/1991, CCPR/C/55/D/459/1991.
Aduayom et al v Togo, Communications Nos. 422/1990, 423/1990, 424/1990, CCPR/C/51/D/422/1990, CCPR/ C/51/D/423/1990, CCPR/C/51/D/424/1996.
Casanovas v. France, Communication N°. 441/1990, CCPR/C/51/D/441/1990 (1994).
G.T. v. Canada, Communication N°. 420/1990, CCPR/ C/46/D/420/1990.
O.J. v. Finlândia, Communication N°. 419/1990, CCPR/C/40/D/419/1990.
L.E.S.K. v. Netherlands, Communication N°. 381/1989, CCPR/C/45/D/381/1989.
R.L. et al v. Canada, Communication N°. 358/1989, CCPR/C/43/D/358/1989.
B.d.B v. Netherlands, Communication N°. 273/1988, CCPR/C/35/D/273/1988.
Fillastre and Bizoarn v. Bolivia, Communication N°. 336/1988, ССPR/C/43/D/336/1988.
/1988, CCPR/C/38/D/344/1988. R.A.V.N. et al v. Argentina. Communication N°.
R.W. v. Jamaica (340/88), Communication N°. 340/1988, CCPR/C/45/D/340/1988.
Henry v. Jamaica, Communication N°. 230/1987, CCPR/ C/43/D/230/1987 (1991).
H..d.P v. Netherlands, Communication N°. 217/1986 (24 March 1988), CCPR/C/OP/1 at 70.
Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Communications N°s. 210/1986, 225/1987, U.N. Doc. Supat No. 40 (A/44/40) (1989) at 222.
H.C.M.A. v. Netherlands. Communication N°. 213/1986, CCPR/C/35/D/213/1986.
Blom v. Sweden, Communication N°. 191/1985, U.N.. Doc. Supat No. 40 (A/43/40) (1988) at 211.
H.S. v. France, Communication N°. 184/1984, CCPR/C/OP/1, at 56.
V.ф. v. Norway, Communication N°. 168/1984, CCPR/C/OP/1 (1984), at 48.
Bernard Ominayak et al v. Canada, Communication N°. 167/1984, CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984.
Coordinamento v. Italy, Communication N°. 163/1984, CCPR/C/OP/2, at 47.
Gueye et al v. France, Communication Nº. 196/1983, Su- pat N°. 40 (A/44/40), at 189.
Baboeram et al v. Suriname, Communications N°. 146/1983 e 148 a 154/1983, Supat N°. 40 (A/40/40), at 187.
Mpandanjila et al v. Zaire, Communication N°. 138/1983, Supat N°. 40 (A/41/40), at 121.
J.B. et al v. Canada, Communication N°. 118/1982, U.N. Doc. Supat No. 40 (A/41/40), at 151.
Montero v. Uruguay, Communication Nº. 106/1981, Su- pat N°. 40 (A/38/40), at 186.
J.R.T. and the W.G. Party v. Canada, Communication N°. 104/1981, Supat N°. 40 (A/38/40), at 231.
Duilio Fanali v. Italy, Communication Nº. 75/1980, Su- pat N°. 40 (A/38/40), at 160.
Massiotti and Baristussio v. Uruguai, Communication N°. 25/1978, Supat N°. 40 (A/37/40), at 187.
Sandra Lovelace v. Canada (24/77), Communication N°. 24/1977, CCPR/C/OP/1, at 10.
Daniel Munguya Mbenge v. Zaire, Communication N°. 16/1977, Supat N°. 40 (A/38/40), at 134. at3. Av. S, Communication N°. 1/1976, CCPR/C/OP/1,
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION. Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1.
JOSEPH, Sarah; SCHULTZ, Jenny; CASTAN, Melissa. The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights: Cases, Materi- als, And Commentaries. 2d Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme; ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz (colaborador). Manual do Processo de Conhecimento. 3ª ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2004.
NEW ZELAND. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand. Pauline Eunice Tangiora (Appellant) v. Wellington District Legal Ser- vices Committee (Respondent) - Privy Council Appeal N°. 8 of 1999. Judgement of the Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 4th October 1999.
NOWAK, Manfred. The need for a World Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review - Special Issue: Reform of the UN Human Rights Machinery, v.7, Issue 1, 2007.
U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commen- tary. 2nd ver. ed. Kehl am. Rhein: Engel, 2005.
Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003.
O'FLAHERTY, Michael. The Concluding Observations of United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies. Human Rights Law Re- view, v. 6, 2006.
PASQUALUCCI, Jo M. Interim Measures in International Human Rights: Evolution and Harmonization. 38 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 1 (2005).
POCAR, F. Legal Value of the Human Rights Committee. Cana- dian Human Rights Yearbook, 1991-1992.
REGISTRY OF THE ICJ. The International Court of Justice. 5th ed. The Hague: ICJ, 2004.
SANDS, Phillipe. Lawless World. New York: Viking Penguin, 2005.
SHANY, The competing jurisdictions of international courts and tribu- nals. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 2003.
STEINER, Henry J. Individual claims in a world of massive viola- tions: what role for the Human Rights Committee? In: ALSTON, Phil ip; CRAWFORD, James (eds). The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
TISTOUNET, Eric. The problem of overlapping among different trea- ty bodies. In: ALSTON, Philip; CRAWFORD, James (eds). The Future of UN Human Rights Treaty Monitoring. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
UNITED NATIONS. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810 (1948), pp.71-79.
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, G.A. res. 2106 (XX), Annex, 20 UN GAOR Supp. (N°. 14), p. 47, U.N. Doc. A/6014 (1966), 660 U.N.T.S. 195.
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N.GAOR Supp. (N°. 16), p. 49, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (N°. 16), p. 52, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, G.A. res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (N°. 16), p. 59, U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.S. 302.
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, G.A. res. 34/180, 34 U.N. GAOR Supp. (N°. 46) at 193, U.N. Doc. A/34/46 (1979).
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or De- grading Treatment or Punishment, G.A. res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (N°. 51), p. 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984).
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL. Resolution 1985/17 (28/05/1985). Disponível em: << http://ap.ohchr. org/documents/E/ECOSOC/resolutions/E-RES-1985-17. doc>> (última consulta em 02/03/2008)
Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Supp. (N°. 49), p. 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989).
G.A. res. 45/158, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (N°. 49A), p. 262, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Dis- crimination against Women, G.A. res. 54/4, annex, 54 U.N. GAOR Supp. (N°. 49), p. 5, U.N. Doc. A/54/49 (Vol. I) (2000).
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Federal Rules of Civil Pro- cedure (2007). Disponível em: << http://www.law.cornell.edu/ rules/frcp/>> (última consulta em 02/03/2008).
WALLERSTEIN. O universalismo europeu - a retórica do poder. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2007.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista do Centro Acadêmico Afonso Pena
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
