University of Minnesota




Inter-Am. C.H.R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.43, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Paraguay, Doc. 13 corr. 1 (1978).


 

 

CHAPTER I

THE SYSTEM OF LEGAL NORMS RELATING TO HUMAN RIGHTS

1. The Constitution that is in force in Paraguay today was drafted on August 25, 1967 by a National Constitutional Assembly and was promulgated that same day by the Government presided over by General Alfredo Stroessner. The 1967 Constitution repealed the Constitution that had been in force since July 10, 1940[1]. It begins with a preamble, of which the following passage is worth quoting.

The Representatives of the Paraguayan Nation, meeting in a National Constitutional Assembly, endorsing the unalterable republican principles of representatives democracy,… aware of the duty to uphold Human Rights and to ensure freedom, equality, justice and order… as an intangible heritage guaranteeing the dignity and welfare of generations of Paraguayans and all men of the world who come to join them in their effort to carve out a greater destiny in the concert of free nations… do hereby ratify this Constitution for the Republic of Paraguay.

2. Chapter V of the new Constitution, entitled “Rights, Guarantees and Duties,” recognizes the individual, social, economic, political and cultural rights of the individual established in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and includes provisions to ensure effective enjoyment and full exercise of those rights.

Article 50 declares that “each individual is entitled to protection by the State of his life, physical integrity, freedom, safety, property, honor and reputation.”

Article 56 provides that “all inhabitants may move freely throughout the national territory, change domicile or residence, leave the Republic and return to t, and bring their goods into the country or remove them from it –the only restrictions on the latter being those provided for under the law.”

Article 68 and 69 recognize the inviolability of the home, and of correspondence, respectively. The right to religious freedom and freedom of worship is upheld in Article 70, while Articles 71, 72 and 73 guarantee freedom of opinion, expression and dissemination of ideas. Article 76 recognizes the right of assembly, the right of association and the right of petition.

The legal remedies of habeas corpus and amparo are provided for under Articles 77 and 78.

The right to private and family life, the right to protection of motherhood and infancy and the right to social security are recognized in Articles 81 through 88. The rights to education, culture and health are upheld in Articles 89 through 93.

3. As can be seen by the examples cited, the Paraguayan Constitution is sufficiently categorical and comprehensive in terms of recognition of essential human rights, as well as safeguards for proper protection of those rights.

The author of that document demonstrated commendable foresight and concern for the protection of the individual in the face of possible misconduct on the authorities by providing that:

The enumeration of rights and guarantees contained in this Constitution shall not be construed as denying others, not specifically mentioned herein, that are inherent to the individual. (Article 80).

This provision concludes with another precautionary note also worthy of mention, that is, that “the lack of regulatory law shall not be invoked to deny nor to impair any right or guarantee.”

4. In Paraguay, as in many other countries, the constitutional or legal norms that recognize and protect individual rights and guarantees are subject to certain restrictions or limitations when the system of special legal provisions commonly referred to as “state of siege” enters into force.

Chapter V of the Paraguayan Constitution, devoted almost in its entirety to recognition of the rights and guarantees of the citizen, as it happens, closes with the provision that establishes the “state of siege.” That provision read as follows:

Article 79. In order to defend this Constitution and the authorities created in conformity therewith, the state of siege is hereby established, to be imposed only in cases of international conflict or war, foreign invasion, domestic disturbance, or serious threat of any one of the foregoing. A state of siege may be either total or partial, depending upon whether it affects all or only part of the territory of the republic, and while it is in effect persons suspected of participating in any of those events my be detained or they may be transferred from one point in the republic to another, and public meetings and demonstrations may be prohibited. Those detained by virtue of a state of siege shall be held in sanitary and clean quarters not intended for common criminals, and transfers shall always be made to localities that are populated and not detrimental to the health. The declaration of state of siege shall be for a limited time and shall in all cases serve the purpose for which it was established. The fact that a state of siege is in effect shall not interrupt the functioning of the powers of the state nor affect the exercise of its prerogatives. The exercise of the state of siege shall be regulated by law.[2]

5. The above provision is supplemented by that contained by Article 181, which provides the following:

Article 181. In the cases enumerated in Article 79 of this Constitution, the Executive Power may decree a state of siege, in which case it must set forth the reason therefor, the guarantees that are being suspended or restricted and whether it is in force for all or part of the national territory; and it may adopt the measures authorized under Article 79. The Executive Power shall inform the Congress of the corresponding decree within five days following its publications

6. Article 79, quoted above, provides that legislation shall regulate application of the state of siege. Knowledge of this legislation was indispensable to the Commission in order to be able to understand properly the scope and effects on human rights of the state of siege. Therefore, the Commission sent a special communication (March 29, 1977) to the Government of Paraguay, requesting that it kindly provide the text of the law in question. This request, together with many others, was never acknowledged. After consulting different sources on various occasions, the Commission has concluded that the regulatory law in question has never been enacted. Therefore, the Commission must base its interpretation of the institution of state of siege solely on the text of the two constitutional articles cited above, and the context in which they occur.

7. In accordance with those precepts, the state of siege is an exceptional measure, which is established for a LIMITED period of time, and only in four specifically defined cases, for the sole purpose of DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION and the authorities established in accordance with it. It is a measure that must strictly correspond to the purposes for which it was established.

8. In accordance with these precepts, a state of siege may be declared only in the four following cases: 1) international conflict or war; 2) foreign invasion; 3) domestic disturbance and 4) serious of one of the foregoing.

By Virtue of the state of siege and while it is in effect, individuals suspected of participating in any of the cases cited above may be detained and transferred from one point in the Republic to another, and public meetings and demonstrations may be prohibited. Individuals detained by virtue of the state of siege, the Constitutional norm specifies, will be housed in sanitary and clean quarters not used for common criminals, and those persons transferred are to be relocated in areas that are populated and not detrimental to the health.

9. In accordance with the terms of the constitutional provisions, the guarantees against arbitrary arrest and detention, the right of residence, movement or transit and the right of assembly can only be affected or limited by the existence of a state of siege under the terms and the conditions established by the same provisions. The decree that establishes the state of siege must list those guarantees that are suspended or limited as well as the grounds for the action, and must be brought to the attention of the Congress within five days of its publication.

10. These are the characteristics of the institution of special powers, which in Paraguay is called the “state of siege.” Examining it in the light of the information available to the Commission, it becomes obvious that this institution has two basic gaps. One of the gaps is caused by the fact that although the Constitution provides that the state of siege must be limited in duration, it does not establish any guideline whatsoever as to the extent of that limitation. This makes it possible for such an emergency measure to be extended more or less indefinitely, even to the point of becoming permanent. The other gap is that the actions that the Executive may take under the special powers granted by the state of siege are not in any way subject to supervision by the other branches of the Government. It has already been pointed out that the decree establishing the state of siege must be brought to the attention of the Congress within a specific period of time. But the supervision does not give the Congress any authority whatsoever to oversee or in any way limit the manner in which the Executive exercises this measure. The Judiciary, for its part, not only does not enjoy any prerogative or authority to control such measures, but rather, as stated in another part of this report, has even declared itself incompetent to take up the petitions of habeas corpus that are presented while the state of siege is in force. Such circumstances have led to a continuous use of the extraordinary institution of sate of siege, thereby turning into a dead letter the other articles of the Constitution and those laws in which human rights are recognized and the means to guarantees them established.

11. The inescapable fact that the people of Paraguay live under a system of emergency powers, if such a label can be given to a situation wherein the rights of a citizen have no guarantee or protection other than that which an almost absolute authority may voluntarily wish to grant them.

12. The Commission does not possess exact information as to the date on which Paraguay first came under the state of siege. According to reliable information, that institution was in continual effect between 1929 and 1946. After an interruption of more or less six months in 1946, it was again put into effect in 1947 and has continued in force, without interruption, since that time. (It is known that the state of siege is lifted for national elections, but this occurs only on the day when the actual elections take place).

13. The terminology used in the decrees establishing this measure attest to the fact that their issuance has become a routine custom. Almost all of them invariably begin with the expression “Decree number… whereby the state of siege is EXTENTED.” The justification also tends to be vague and routine, expressed in a style such as the following: “Whereas: The National Constitution provides for the state of siege as a security measure; international organizations exist whose principal objectives are subversion of the legal order as well as the use of violent means in order to destroy the basic foundations upon which our society rests; clandestine activities in our hemisphere by members of such organizations have been proven authoritatively by events that are public knowledge… etc. DECREES: that the period of effect of the state of siege is hereby extended...”


Some Decrees extending the state of siege

14. So that these characteristics of the decrees on the state of siege can be viewed and judged directly, the Commission felt it useful to present some of them below. We present, as example, the decrees bearing the numbers 8,318 and 10,579 of December 31, 1959, and May 27, 1960, respectively.[3]

Ministry of the Interior


Ministry of the Interior

DECREE Nº 8,318.- Whereby the period of effect of the state of siege is extended for (60 days) sixty days throughout the territory of the Republic.


DECREE Nº 10.579.- Whereby the period of effect of the state of siege is extended for a period of (90) ninety days throughout the entire territory of the Republic.

Asunción, 31 December 1959


Asunción, 27 May 1960

HAVING SEEN: Decree Nº 7,491 of 31 October 1959 whereby the state of siege is extended throughout the entire territory of the Republic until December 31, 1959 and


HAVING SEEN: Decree Nº 9,078 of 28 February 1960, whereby the state of siege is extended for a period of (90) ninety days throughout the entire territory of the Republic; and

CONSIDERING: That the National Constitution establishes the State of Siege as a preventive and restrictive measure to guarantee public peace;

That the public peace was altered during the early morning hours of the twelfth of this month by a invasion of armed groups from Argentine territory which attempted to take over a number of border settlements as part of a vast plan to overthrow the Government through the use of violence;

That the rebel transmitters operating from foreign territory, aided by extensive information from the Rioplatense press, continue to announce future aggressive actions within the national territory;

Therefore,

The President of the Republic of Paraguay


CONSIDERING: That factions opposing the Government of the Republic still persist in their efforts at subversion from abroad and that as a consequence the causes that prompted establishment of the State of Siege as a preventive measure to guarantee the welfare of the Nation still exist;

Therefore,

The President of the Republic of Paraguay

DECREES

Article 1. That the period of effect of the State of Siege be extended for a period (90) ninety days throughout the entire territory of the Republic.

Article 2. That it so be communicated published and placed in the Official Record.

Signed: A. STROESSNER

Edgar L. Ynsfran

DECREES:

Article 1. That the period of effect of the State of Siege be extended for a period of (60) sixty days throughout the entire territory of the Republic.

Article 2. That is so be communicated, published and placed in the Official Record.

Signed: A. STROESSNER

Edgar L. Ynsfran


15. Under the 1967 Constitution the state of siege has been continued by virtue of the powers established in the previously cited Articles 79 and 181. Decrees 30, 177 and 13, 177 and 13, 408, of January 3, 1973, and March 13, 1975, respectively, provide the following:

Ministry of the Interior


Ministry of the Interior

DECREE Nº 30, 177.- Whereby the state of siege is extended in the Capital City and in Central, Itapúa and Alto Paraná Departments, for a period of (90) ninety days.

Asunción, 3 January 1973


DECREE Nº 13,408.- Whereby the state if siege is extended in the Capital and Central City, Itapúa and Alto Paraná Departments for a period of (90) days.

Asunción, 13 March 1975

Whereas: The National Constitution provides for the state of siege as security measure,

International organizations exist whose principal objectives are subversion of the legal order and the use of violent means in order to destroy the basic foundations upon which our society rests,

Clandestine activities in our hemisphere conducted by members of such organizations have been proven authoritatively through events that are public knowledge and in our country there is clear evidence of the activities of these individuals, bent upon destroying institutions established by the general election held in February 1968 and aimed solely at seizing power by force,

It is the duty of the National Government to continue the measures necessary to guarantee order and peace, invaluable conquests that have made the well-being and progress of the Nation possible,

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 89 and 181 of the National Constitution.

The President of the Republic of Paraguay



Whereas: The National Constitution provides for the state of siege as a security measure,

International organizations exist whose principal objectives are subversion of the legal order and the use of violent means in order to destroy the basic foundations upon which our society rests,

Clandestine activities in our hemisphere conducted by members of such organizations have been proven authoritatively through events that are public knowledge, an in our country is clear evidence of the activities of these individuals, bent upon destroying institutions established by the general elections held in February 1973 and aimed solely at seizing power by force,

It is the duty of the National Government to continue the measures necessary to guarantee order and peace, invaluable conquest that have made the well-being and progress of the Nation possible,

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 89 and 181 of the National Constitution,

The President of the Republic of Paraguay

DECREES:

Article 1. That the period of effect of the state be extended in the Capital City and in Central, Itapúa and Alto Paraná Departments, for a period of (90) ninety days.


DECREES:

Article 1. That the period of effect of the state of siege be extended in the Capital City and Central, Itapúa and Alto Paraná Departments, for a period of (90) days.

Article 2. That the guarantees of personal freedom of individuals suspected of the events described in this Decree be suspended while the state of siege is in effect.


Article 2. That the guarantee of personal freedom of individuals suspected of the events described in this Decree be suspended while the state of siege is in effect.

Article 3. That the national Congress be informed.


Article 3. That the National Congress be informed.

Article 4. That it so be communicated published and placed in the Official Record.


Article 4. That it so be communicated, published and placed in the Official Record.

Signed: A. STROESSNER

Sabino A. Montanaro



Signed: A. STROESSNER

Sabino A. Montanaro

16. It is worthwhile pointing out that the Government of Paraguay extended the state of siege in December 1959, claiming an invasion of Paraguayan territory. A few months later, the Decree issued in May 1960 was based solely on the threat of subversion posed by “factions opposing the Government,” which at that time were outside Paraguayan territory.

Comparing Decrees 30,177 and 13,408, of January 1973 and March 1975, we note that, except for the dates, the texts are, word by word, identical. The most recent decree extending the state of siege is number 36,982, issued on February 2, 1978.

17. Having set forth in the preceding paragraphs the specific situation of human rights vis-a-vis the constitutional and legal institutions of Paraguay—a situation where recognition of proclamation of these rights is broad and conclusive in principles and precept, but where their legal effect is somewhat precarious and in the final analysis is dependent upon the goodwill of the authorities—the Commission feels compelled to restate the criterion that has guided it almost since the outset of its work with regard to this delicate question involving the undeniable legitimacy of the institution of special powers on the one had, and the necessary permanent legal protection of basic human rights, on the other.

18. It is common for constitutions, especially in the countries of Latin America, to establish or authorize special powers in the event of serious danger or an irregular political or economic situation. Such institution, which is essentially transitory in nature, is called in some countries “state of siege” and in others “state of emergency” or “disturbance of public order”, or “prompt security measures,” (medidas prontas de seguridad). This extraordinary measure stems fundamentally from the need to endow the government with all the special faculties and powers it needs to confront and overcome, effectively and swiftly, situations involving danger or irregularity.

19. It goes without saying that the institution in itself is perfectly legitimate, and it continues to exist in spite of the fact that it has been the object of severe criticism due to its deficiencies, anomalies or structural defects; and in spite of the fact that it has lent itself to abuses which have deformed and discredited it.

20. In any event, what the Commission contends is that it cannot be admitted, for any reason, that during disturbances of the public order while one of those exceptional measures is in effect, the rights of the individual can be left without legal protection, in the face of the omnipotence of the authorities. On the contrary, it believes that under properly structured institution of state of siege –one that does not alter to any appreciable degree the independence of the various branches of Government, human rights can remain basically preserved, at least insofar as those regarded as fundamental are concerned. In other words, while according full recognition to precautionary and security measures imposed for the sake of defense or public welfare, any measures that involve abuses or neglect and that can justly be characterized as excessive continue to be inadmissible.

21. Thus, in its Annual Report for 1974, the Commission took the following stand on the matter:[4]

The Commission is not unaware of the reasons in favor of the attribution of special powers to the Executive Branch in exceptional situations, such as those which arise from internal commotion or external attack, but it takes into consideration fact that the most admitted doctrine internationally, because it is that which inspires the American Convention of San José de Costa Rica (Article 27) as well as the United Nations International Treaty on Civil and Political Rights (Article 4) and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights (Article 15), places precise limits on the use of those special powers for the purpose of protecting human rights; and considers it necessary to harmonize the needs of a defense of a regularly established institutional order with the protection of the fundamental attributes of man.

22. In that same report, the Commission formulated one of its first recommendations to the governments of the member state of the OAS, as follows:

That all the States issue precise rules –in accordance with the constitutional provisions in force –aimed at preventing the deprivations of liberty ordered in the exercise of the powers that the Constitutions usually grant for exceptional cases from being extended beyond what is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the regularly established institutional order.

23. Article 27 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to which the Commission makes reference in the above-cited passage from its report, is conclusive in this regard. Despite the fact that the Convention has not yet entered into force, Article 27 is quoted below because its content is a reflection of convictions and beliefs that are firmly rooted in the minds of our peoples:

Article 27. Suspension of Guarantees

1. In time of war, public danger, or other emergency that threatens the independence or security of a State Party, it may take measures derogation from its obligations under the present Convention to the extent and for the period of time strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination on the ground of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. The foregoing provision does not authorize any suspension of the following articles: Article 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 6 (Freedom from Slavery), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion), Article 17 (Rights of the Family), Article 18 (Right to a Name), Article 19 (Rights of the Child), Article 20 Right to Nationality), and Article 23 (Right to Participate in Government), or of the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of such rights.

Law Nº 294, of October 17, 1955, and Law Nº 209, of September 18, 1970

24. In a note dated March 29, 1977, we requested that the Government provide us the following laws:

1. Law 294 of 1955, on Defense of Democracy;

2. Law 209 of 1970, on Defense of the Public Peace and the Physical Liberty of the Individual.

Here, again, we received no response to our request.

Fortunately, we have obtained copies of these important legal provisions.

25. Law 294 is officially entitled “Defense of Democracy.[5]”

i. Article 1 provides that “those who make an armed attempt against the established powers in order to replace either totally or partially the republican democratic structure of the Nation with a Communist system or any other totalitarian regime shall be punished by five to ten years imprisonment.” It also adds that “intent, conspiracy and formal instigation to commit this crime shall be punishable by half that period of imprisonment, when accompanied by preparatory activities.”

ii. For its part, Article 2 provides for a penalty of six months to five years imprisonment for the following:

a. Individuals who spread “the Communist doctrine or any doctrine or system whose purpose is to destroy or alter through acts of violence the republican democratic structure of the Nation;” and

b. Individuals who “organize, form or lead associations or entities whose visible or concealed purpose is to commit the crime described in the preceding paragraph.”

iii. Article 3 establishes a penalty of three months to two years for the following:

a. Association or affiliation, with any of the entities proscribed in the preceding article;

b. Providing pecuniary or material aid to carry out the activities provided for under Article 2;

c. Leasing or providing, with knowledge of the facts, “premises to be used to hold meetings and conduct activities referred to in said article;”

d. Having relations with or receiving instructions, gifts or assistance from foreign governments, organizations of foreign individuals, or from persons residing outside the country, as well as delivering, distributing or circulating these instructions or assistance, and

e. Introducing, printing, storing, distributing, selling or circulating pamphlets, magazine, illustrations, newspaper, films, or any other printed matter or propaganda “of the doctrines or systems referred to in Article 2.”

iv. The most salient aspects of the remaining articles of Law 294 are the following:

a. Article 4 establishes a penalty of two months to one year imprisonment for those attending political rallies or secret meetings of the entities mentioned under Article 2;

b. A penalty of one to six months imprisonment is established for those who subscribe to the publications prohibited under Article 3, paragraph 5 (Article 5);

c. Imprisonment of one to six months, in accordance with Article 6, for those individuals who display emblems, banners or symbols of the proscribed organizations;

d. Suspension of one to six months, and closing in the event or repeated offense or reoccurrence, of the publication, radio station or news or information agency that commits any of the offenses provided for under this law (Article 8);

e. Article 10 prohibits public institutions, state or municipal services, or companies that provide public services, from employing individuals “who are openly or secretly affiliates with the Communist Party or the other organizations referred to in this law, or who have committed any of the crimes named herein;”

f. Article 11 authorizes the Executive Power to close “any private teaching establishment that does not bar from its directing, teaching or administrative staff those who are openly or secretly affiliated with the illegal organizations referred to in this law or who have committed any of the offenses punishable by it;”

g. Article 12 provides that the penalty be as much as doubled when the crimes punishable this law is committed “in time of war or domestic disturbance or, in a period when there is imminent danger of any one of these;”

h. Public officials – according to Article 14 –who commit “any of these offenses shall be dismissed and, in addition to the corresponding penalties shall be totally deprived of their right to hold public positions for a period that is double the duration of the sentence;”

i. Article 16 provides that for the crimes punishable under this law there shall be no provisional release under bond nor commutation of the penalty, except by means of deportation ordered by the Executive Power.

26. Law 294 made mere dissemination of a particular political ideology a criminal offense. With regard to this type of crime, the Commission stated the following in its Annual Report for 1973:

In fact, some legal provisions have been issued establishing ‘crimes of opinion’, that is, crimes stemming from a person’s beliefs, without those beliefs necessarily taking the form of overt harmful acts. We consider that such forms of persecution for ideological reasons not only stand in the way of achieving the goals of political and social stability being sought, but are entirely incompatible with the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man and with the democratic-representative system of government supported by the Charter of the Organization.

Such measures are usually followed by others and eventually become a tacit, veiled form of censorship of the communication media, which out of fear or harsh punishment, feel compelled to stop serving as vehicles of political thought.[6]

27. Law 209, entitled “Defense of the Public Peace and Physical Liberty of the Individual,” derogated, or noted above, Article 2 and 3 of Law 294.

Article 4 of Law 209 established a penalty of from one to six years imprisonment for those who “by any means publicly preach hatred among Paraguayans or the destruction of social classes.”

For its part, Article 5 sanctions “those who are members of an illegal association, composed of three or more individuals, the purpose of which is to commit criminal offenses… solely by virtue of their being members of the same, with three to six years imprisonment.”

Article 8, which has incorporated the second and third Articles of Law 294, which had been derogated, provides for penalties of from one to five years imprisonment for individuals who:

i. Are “associated or affiliated with any Communist party or an organization the purpose of which is to use violent means to destroy the republic democratic system of the Nation;”

ii. Provide “economic or material assistance to conduct the activities mentioned in the first paragraph of this article;”

iii. Lease or provide “premises to be used to hold meetings and conduct activities referred to in the first paragraph;”

iv. For the same purpose have relations or receive “instructions, gifts or assistance of any kind from foreign governments, organizations or foreign individuals,” and deliver or distribute instructions through any means;

v. “For the same purpose introduce, print, store, distribute or sell pamphlets, magazines, illustrations, newspapers, cinematographic or television films of the doctrine or system referred to in paragraph one of this article.”

The remaining articles of the law establish penalties for the following: slanderous or defamatory remarks against the President or other high public officials; kidnapping and extortion; inciting disturbances; deprivation of freedom without a legitimate order, and others.

 

Notes__________________

[1] Except for Articles 234, 235 and 236 thereof, which were in effect provisionally.

[2] The 1940 Constitution made provision for emergency powers in Article 52, which provided the following:

Article 52. If any serious threat of domestic disturbance or external conflict occurs that may jeopardize the exercise of this Constitution and the authorities created by it, the President of the Republic shall declare a part or all of the territory of the Republic to be in a state of siege, for which he is accountable to the House of Representatives. During the state of siege, the President of the Republic may order the detentions of suspicious individuals. He may also transfer them from one point in the Republic to another, except when they prefer to leave the country. A law shall regulate application of the state for the protection of the order and safety of the Republic”

[3] These decrees were enacted by the authority conferred under Article 52 of the Constitution of 1940, in force at that time.

[4] Annual Report for 1974 of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to the General Assembly. OEA/Ser.P/AG/doc.520/75, 31 March 1975, p. 36.

[5] Articles 2 and 3 this law were derogated by Law 209, which we discuss further on. However, we considered it appropriate to quote these two Articles since they were in force for 15 years (from 1955 to 1970) and in order to facilitate understanding of the remaining articles of the Law that continues to be in force.

[6] Annual Report for 1973 of the IACHR, OEA/Ser.P/AG/doc.409/74, 5 March 1974, pp.34/35.

 



Home || Treaties || Search || Links