Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:20:43.439Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Finds United States in Violation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Donald T. Fox
Donald T. Fox*
Affiliation:
Of the New York Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 82 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 601 - 603
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Res. 3/87, Case No. 9647, OAS/Ser.L/VII.71, Doc. 9 (1987).

2 Id. at 149.

3 Id. at 150.

4 Res. XXX, 6 Ninth International Conference of American States, ACT AS Y Documentos 297 (1953) [hereinafter Declaration]; see Fox, , The Protection of Human Rights in the Americas, 7 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 222 (1968)Google Scholar.

5 On the evolution of the concept of the binding character of the Declaration, see Buergenthal, , The Revised OAS Charter and the Protection of Human Rights, 69 AJIL 828 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 OAS/Ser.L/V/I.1 (Sept. 26, 1960).

7 Res. XXII of the Second Special Inter-American Conference, OAS/Ser.L/V/II.14, Doc. 33 (1966); see Fox, , Doctrinal Development in the Americas: From Non-intervention to Collective Support for Human Rights, 1 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 44, 55 (1968)Google Scholar.

8 Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976). On June 27, 1988, the Supreme Court decided (5–3) that at least minors under the age of 16 at the date of the crime could not be executed under state laws that did not set a minimum age. Four members of the majority concurred that “evolving standards of decency” would make the execution of such persons unconstitutional. Thompson v. Oklahoma, N.Y. Times, June 30, 1988, at A17, col. 1 (U.S. June 29, 1988) (No. 86–6169). In its October 1988 term, the Court will determine whether capital punishment of minors violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment (High v. Zant, No. 87-5666; Wilkins v. Missouri, No. 87–6026). This Eighth Amendment ban is not as broad as Article XXVI of the American Declaration forbidding cruel, infamous or unusual punishment.

9 Res. VIII, Fifth Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Final Act, OEA/S.C/II.S (1960).

10 See Fox, , The American Convention on Human Rights and Prospects for United States Ratification, 3 Hum. Rts. 243 (1973)Google Scholar.