International Human Rights Program
International Monitoring Project
:: International Human Rights: monitoring of the UN
recommendations to Brazil::
1st edition
direitoshumanosinternacionais*gajo
p*direitoshumanosinternacionais*gaj
op*direitoshumanosinternacionais*g
ajop*direitoshumanosinternacionais*
gajop*direitoshumanosinternacionai
s*gajop*direitoshumanosinternacion
ais*gajop*direitoshumanosinternacio
nais*gajop*direitoshumanosinternaci
onais*gajop*direitoshumanosinterna
cionais*gajop*direitoshumanosintern
acionais*gajop*direitoshumanosinter
nacionais*gajop*direitoshumanosint
ernacionais*gajop*direitoshumanosi
nternacionais*gajop*direitoshumano
sinternacionais*gajop*direitoshuman
osinternacionais*gajop*direitoshuma
nosinternacionais*gajop*direitoshum
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
D598 International Human Rights: monitoring of the UN
recommendations to Brazil.
Recife: dhINTERNACIONAL – GAJOP, 2010. (International
Human Rights Program)
40p.; 21cm
1. Human Rights 2. Monitoring 3. Recommendations I. Title
CDU 342.7
CDD 341.181
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Expedient
GAJOP –Legal Advisory Office for Popular Organizations
International Human Rights Program (DHI)
Staff
Luis Emmanuel Cunha Barbosa, attorney
Ingrid Leão, consultor
Marina Maranhão, graduated in Law
Lucas Camarotti, intern
Clara Couto, International Relations intern
Collaborator
Sébastien Conan, lawyer
Alexandre Nápoles, volunteer advicer
Rodrigo Deodato, volunteer advicer
Agustina Calafell, Law student
GAJOP Coordination
Célia Rique, social scientist
Jayme Benvenuto Lima, attorney
Contact
International Human Rights Program (DHI) of GAJOP – Legal Advisory Office for Popular
Organizations - NGO with special consultative status in UN’s ECOSOC. Rua do Sossego, 432, Boa Vista,
CEP 50.050-080 – Recife – Pernambuco – Brasil
Fone/Fax: 55 (81) 3421-1149 / 55 (81) 3092-5252
E-mail: [email protected]
Skype: gajopdhi
Site: www.gajop.org.br
Monitoring website: www.monitoramentodhi.org
Support
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
SUMMARY
Presentation:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::05
Methodological Notes::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::08
Universe of recommendations::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::12
Partial Results of Systematization::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 16
Types of Suggested Actions:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::16
Recipients:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::20
Presentation by Sources::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::28
Themes and Subthemes:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::28
Conclusions and Final Commentaries:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::37
Annex::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::40
Annex A:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::40
Annex B:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::49
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
::Presentation::
In August 2008, the DHI (Programa Direitos Humanos Internacionais- International
Human Rights Program) began a project of international Human Rights Monitoring, seeking
to put into effect a new phase of international mechanisms for the promotion and protection
of those rights.
Within its first eight years of existence (1997-2007), the DHI emerged as a point of
reference after setting in motion the international systems of human rights protection. The
work of the DHI made it so that entities and social groups, particularly in Brazil’s northern
regions, could have easier access to the OAS and UN systems.
In this fashion, the initial actions of this program were concentrated on international
litigations, national and international mobilizations, and formation activities. The objective
was to change the Brazilian State’s human rights policies in favor of more effective ones. The
project consisted of evaluating international recommendations and employing activities
under the use of international systems, which allowed for the civil society, human rights
defenders, and lawyers of human rights organizations to effectively update within the
international systems.
Based on the results, we can identify the real capacity of the DHI to contribute in the
legislative field (law creation and modification - EC35/2001- about parliamentary immunity),
in the field of public policies (program for protection for human rights defenders), in the field
of protection of life and physical integrity (provisional measures before the Inter-American
Commission of Human Rights -IACHR), and in the field of investigations, procedural and
criminal, beginning with cases of violations taken before the OAS and the UN, with the
establishment of inquiries and advancement of criminal trials subject to impunity due to
negligence by local authorities.
Since 2008, the DHI launched a project of international human rights monitoring, to be
implemented within 2008-2010. The project is the result of an institutional process, reflexive
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
and evaluative, realized in 2007. This evaluation showed the need of new actions, along with
an international system of promotion and protection of human rights.
The monitoring of the international human rights recommendations directed at the
Brazilian State, are privileged means of international actions. The cases of violations that are
considered emblematic continue to be made known to the OAS and the UN. The
recommendations direct at Brazil, starting with those of the United Nations, came to
implicate a monitoring proposal in order to assert the degree of implementation achieved by
the Brazilian State. Therefore, the first step is the systematization of the recommendations
made to Brazil, which enables a better evaluation of the content. Subsequently, we chose
human rights indicators in order to effectively initiate the monitoring process with
diagnostics and analyses.
This need to understand and take ownership of these recommendations appeared
during meetings, conferences, and seminars with human rights organizations. This occurred
specially in the Conference on Indicators for the International Monitoring of Human Rights
(Seminário sobre Indicadores para o Monitoramento Internacional de Direitos Humanos),
promoted by GAJOP, which took place in Recife, in November 2008.
Within the same meeting, several entities made themselves available to perform an
urgent and punctual exercise for the 11th National Human Rights Conference, scheduled for
the following December. This assignment was to form a compilation of the UN’s
recommendations, relating those chosen to the main themes of the Conference. Since this
initiative, it has been possible to edit a specific agenda with the international
recommendations, called UN Axis1. The members of the Conference allowed Brazil to carry
out the UN recommendations within directives. This reflects the importance of this
international instrument in subsiding relevant debates, while simultaneously showing how
little it has been managed, and even little spread nationally.
Subsequently, the final document of the 11th National Human Rights Conference (11th
NHRC), which took place in Brasília, from the 15th to the 18th of December, 2008, led to
apprehension regarding the implementation of the international human rights acts.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Resolution 108, section 31, recognizes the obligations of the three powers, of the Public
Ministry, and of the Public Defense in making the international commitments assumed by the
Brazilian States, especially in regards to the international recommendations, be met2.
Within the approved motions, sections 13 and 3 pointed out, respectively, the need to
follow through with the international recommendations directed at the Brazilian State, which
are highlighted in the UN’s documents on the 11th NHRC; and the need to internationally
monitor the systematic of recognition, incorporation and effectiveness of the Human Rights
agenda on three powers, of the Public Ministry and of the Public Defense4, which integrated
the NHRP III- National Human Rights Plan- Plano Nacional de Direitos Humanos.
In synthesis, the UN's recommendations are introduced as a base of actions of human
rights in the country, as is proposed in the NHRP III, which is still in discussion in Brazil.
1
“Pacto Federativo e a responsabilidade dos três Poderes, do Ministério Público e da Defensoria Pública.”
For other observations on the results of the activity, see material on the 11th National Human Rights
Conference. Available at:
≤http://www.11conferenciadh.com.br/documentos/eixo_onu.pdf≥ Accessed on 23/03/2009.
3
“Universalizar Direitos em um Contexto de Desigualdades.”
4
See footnote #4.
2
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: Methodological Notes ::
The present work corresponds to the first step in monitoring- getting to know the
content of the UN’s recommendations to Brazil. It is in this manner that the partial results of
the systematization present themselves. The results were achieved by a methodological
study of the recommendations, which can be applied to the universe of observations, and
were sent to Brazil by The Committee of the Treated and the Special Mechanisms of the UN
(Special Rapporteurs and the UPR).
The DHI assembled directives for the systematization of the recommendations based
on the recommendations of the UN's conventional and extra-conventional branches over the
last few years. Then, based on the availability of resources and institutional activities, they
elected for a smaller period and a smaller number of documents.
We consider the starting point to be the re-democratization period of the Brazilian
State in 1988, but, more specifically, the first analysis of the Brazilian State by the Human
Rights Committee in 1996. This year stayed marked by the presentation of the first
recommendations in the period of activity of the Constitution of 19885.
A methodology of one by one was instituted in accounting for the recommendations.
This means that each paragraph inserted in the recommendation section of the Special
Reporters and the Committee of the Treated was considered as being one recommendation.
This methodology is important because the mechanisms of the global system do not reflect a
unified methodology of the production of the recommendations. However, in specific
reports, such as the Right to Food report, whose recommendations are clustered in a single
paragraph yet subdivided into diverse paragraphs, we count the recommendations as subitems of the paragraph (though keeping the intent to take into consideration the content of
5
In 1996, the UN presented Brazil with recommendations from three different sources: Human Rights
Committee (CCPR/C/79/Add.66), Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD/C/304/Add.11),
and Special Rapporteur on Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (E/CN.4/1996/72/Add.1).
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
the form). It is important to mention that a recommendation does not simply represent an
action to be implemented by the Brazilian State.
There were 467 recommendations6 addressed to Brazil between 1996 and January
2010, and 817 of the recommendations formulated in reports between 2005 and 2009 were
evaluated. This means a more minute and detailed understanding of the following UN
branches: Human Rights Committee -HRC (2005), Special Rapporteur on the Independence
of Judges and Lawyers -RIJ (2005), Representative on the Situation of Human Rights
Defenders -REDDH (2006), Special Rapporteur on the Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary
Executions -SRESAE (2008), and the Universal Periodic Review -UPR (2008)8.
The DHI’s systematization, carried out from 2009-2010, concentrated on those five
specific documents and UN agencies, as they related to GAJOP's main institutional subjects:
security and justice, and the work of the DHI/GAJOP to contribute to the elaboration of these
recommendations –sending information to and accompanying the mission of the Reporters,
as well as participating in the collaboration with others partners for the Universal Periodic
Review (UPR)9.
Of the 206 recommendations addressed to Brazil by the conventional and extraconventional mechanisms (between 2005 and 2009), 81 were evaluated, a number that
represents the sum of the five informants afore mentioned. These 81 recommendations
correspond to merely 39.3% of the total recommendations addressed to Brazil from 20052009, showing that there is still information to be systematized. The 206 recommendations
represent 44.1% of the total recommendations addressed to Brazil from 1996-2010,
6
Total recommendations identified up till March 2010.
Of these 81 recommendations, 3 were not systemized (Even if they were counted as belonging to the
universe of the chosen recommendations), as they were labeled "endnotes", presented at the end of the
Human Rights Committee’s chapter on recommendations. These recommendations were not systemized
because, they function much more as an orientation for channels in the Committee than as a prescription for
social change in the country. These recommendations indicate the report delivery date and correlating
questions.
8
The year indicated refers to the year of publication of the UN recommendations, generally the visit was
carried out in the previous year. More information about the visits are in the annexed chart-summary.
9
For more information on this process of communication with the UN about the UPR, see
≤http://www.ccr.org.br/uploads/noticias/RPU_perspectivas%20sociedade%20civil.pdf≥
Accessed
on
25/03/2010.
7
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
indicating the study of 17.3% of the UN’s recommendations. From these numbers, one can
see the importance of the continuity of the systematization.
The systematization implies the de-fragmentation of the recommendations with
regards to classification by the following articles: types of suggested action, recipients, and
theme and subtheme. These articles will be explained within the presentation of the results.
Two groups emerge from the systematization: a first group characterized as quantitative and
objective (types of suggested action, express recipients, and recipients perceived), and a
second group of given valor, which is open to new classifications (theme and subtheme) and
is conditioned to the context of the studied information.
To clarify, this division shows that during the systematization, some elements could be
extracted right away, but others could only be perceived by an interpretive eye, a
supplementation restricted to the latent facts of the recommendations. In other words, the
given valor does not signify the insertion of a foreign body in the content of the
recommendations, but rather the extraction of implied and latent elements. Without these
elements, it would be impossible to clarify the objective of a recommendation.
The presentation of the systematization exposes the facts based on the classification of
the recommendations, which enables a general comparison that perceives convergences and
notable divergences, without need for a deeper understanding. This emphasizes the first
phase
of
systematization,
of
getting
a
better
understanding
of
international
recommendations. The second classification group is based on the evaluation of the studied
agencies in order to arrive at the real content of the recommendations (theme and
subtheme). This allows for a deeper understanding of the work and an approach of evaluated
mechanisms, in spite of being restricted to comparing contents (though no common model
exists) and evaluating recommendations according to a specific context.
Throughout this document, the recommendations will have the number of the
paragraph from the official UN document as a reference, not the number of the
recommendations expressed by the researched mechanisms. And an acronym will be
presented, attributed to the name of the mechanism that expressed the recommendations –
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
HRC, RIJ, REDDH, SRESAE and UPR10 –, as will the year of publication of the UN’s documents.
The recommendations, in its entirety, can be consulted in the enclosed document.
10
Of the five analyzed mechanisms, the abbreviations HRC e UPR are the only ones currently in use by the UN.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: Universe of Recommendations::
The recommendations are extremely relevant to the creation of public policies and
the development of favorable actions for the prevention and effectiveness of their practice.
They are used by international organizations to emit suggestion or propose measures of
different natures to a determined state, aiming at perfecting the effectiveness of human
rights.
In the scope of the UN, two mechanisms exist with the intent of formulating
recommendations to the states. They are the conventional (Committee of the Treated) and
the extra-conventional (Special Rapporteurs and UPR) mechanisms.
These committees are established by international human rights treaties with the
purpose of overseeing their fulfillment on behalf of the states that ratified them. The
recommendations presented by the Committees -a.k.a final observations- seek to guarantee
respect for, and monitor the commitments established by a specific treaty.
From 1996-2009, six committees, under the analysis of periodic reports, presented a
total of 235 recommendations to Brazil. These committees built their recommendations by
evaluating information presented by the States, which are generally required every four
years. During the meetings, aside from relaying the situation of the implementation of their
agreed conventions, the States also answer a list of inquiries made by the committees.
Through this process, the civil society can present an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
international commitments.
In regards to the extra-conventional mechanisms, the recommendations directed at
the State are the result of in loco missions. These are performed by Special Reporters,
experts whose objective is to observe human rights situations in specific countries. Through
interactions with local authorities and human rights violations victims, these Reporters
generate recommendations aiming to fight human rights violations. Each recommendation
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
reflects the human rights configuration of each nation, taking into account the varying
specificities and idiosyncrasies. From 1996 to 2010, eleven Special Reporters and
representatives of the old Human Rights Commission, the current Human Rights Council,
visited Brazil and presented a total of 217 recommendations.
In 2008, Brazil passed, through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a more recent
procedure of the UN’s Human Rights Council. In this special mechanism, the
recommendations are submitted to the States by representatives of other States,
guaranteeing a reciprocal stimulus to the effectiveness of human rights. There were 15
recommendations addressed to Brazil.
There are a total of 467 recommendations directed at Brazil from the United Nations.
Although they have similar content, their approach to human rights questions differs in
form and depth. This is accounted for by the fact that the recommendations come from
different agencies, all of which have distinct methodologies and approaches.
CESCR: Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
CAT: Committee against Torture
CERD: Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
CRC: Convention on the Rights of a Child
HRC: Human Rights Committee
CEDAW: Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
SRVAW: Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, its Causes and Consequences
CAT: Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
SRRF: Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food
SRESAE: Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions
CRC-SC: Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography
SRRAH: Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing as a Component of the Right to an
Adequate Standard of Living, and on the Right to Non-discrimination in this Context
RIJ: Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
RERAC: Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related
Intolerance
REDDH: Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders
RPI: Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of
Indigenous Peoples
UPR: Universal Periodic Review
The Committees and Rapporteurs differ in the methodology of the construction of the
recommendations, for they differ in their basic procedures. It is important to mention that in
the reading of the recommendations, it become clear that the Rapporteurs do not follow the
same pattern of construction as the recommendations, whereas the Committees are more
meticulous in the methodologies used in composing the final recommendations. The
tendency is that the Reports should try to implement a bigger standardization, especially
regarding the SMART method11. This method is in agreement with the document released in
11
SMART Method is applied to offer a better level of effectiveness to the recommendations. It means: “S” –
Specific; “M” – Measurable; “A” – Achievable; “R” – Results-Oriented; “T” – Time-Bond.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
the annual Special Reporters meeting in 2008 (Manual of Operation of the Special
Procedures of the Human Rights Council12).
The annexed chart-summary lists the occasions in which the Committee of the Treated
and the Special Mechanisms presented recommendations to Brazil. The chart is organized to
show the dates of visits and publication of reports with recommendations, the number of
recommendations by document, and the links to the documents in their original languages
and their available translations.
The translation of documents is one of the problems in monitoring the
recommendations addressed to Brazil. This shows how little access the State has to their
own recommendations, especially when seeking documents by source or chronological
order. The internal disclosure of recommendations is a common observation of the UN.
Thus, there are very few documents in Portuguese with official translations. Some of the
translations were performed by GAJOP’s DHI, but the majority was translated by properly
cited entities, guaranteeing the credit of the translator and integrity of the translation,
without alterations.
The annexed chart-summary will collaborate with other researches, systematizations,
and monitoring of documents that have yet to be studied.
12
See ≤http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/docs/Manual_August_FINAL_2008.doc.≥ Accessed
on 08/04/2010.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: Partial Results of Systematization::
:: Types of Suggested Actions::
The type of suggested action is the category of the action or conduct recommended by
the UN to the State, and even other international bodies. Because of this, a recommendation
cannot be restricted to an action and must, therefore, be classified by categories.
After a general reading of all the UN recommendation directed at Brazil, there appear
to be nine categories of suggested conduct.
78 Recommendation from five UN documents were evaluated. They suggest 98 actions to
Brazil, considering that some recommendations propose 2 or 3 actions. Through the
perceived categories, called SA (Suggested Actions), it becomes clear that:
HRC: Human Rights Committee
RIJ: Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers
REDDH: Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders
RESAE: Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions
RPU: Universal Periodic Review
SA1. Develop and implement public policies or plans/ Adopt new public policies:
When the recommendation is the adoption of new public policies13, it is meant to direct
13
Originating from the following concept: Public policy is "the assembly of collective actions returned in order
to guarantee social rights, configure a public commitment which will take care of the determined requirements
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
public officials in decision making or in implementing measures in order to achieve a
common good. Critical observance of public commitments. There were three actions
classified as SA1: HRC [Recommendation 19] and REDDH [Recommendations 103 and 104].
SA2. Intensify pre-existing public policies or programs: The recommendations also
refer to actions already underway in Brazil. Therefore, SA2 serves to evaluate and improve
these policies and programs. There were eight actions classified as AS2: HRC
[Recommendations 14 and 15], UPR [Recommendations 83.1, 83.4, 83.8, 83.11 e 83.12], and
SRESAE [Recommendation 94].
SA3. Adopt or modify the legal framework: This recommendation aims to institute
new legislations or cause legislative change. Ten actions were classified as SA3: HRC
[Recommendations 9, 11, and 14], RIJ [Recommendations 103 and 105], REDDH
[Recommendation 101], SRESAE [Recommendations 80, 95, and 96], and UPR
[Recommendation 83.10].
SA4. Implementing legislation: The recommendations indicate situations that not
directly related to new legislations or public policy. They require actions predetermined by
current Brazilian law. There are six actions classified as SA4: HRC [Recommendations 6 and
13], RIJ [Recommendations 104 and 113], SRESAE [Recommendation 98], and UPR
[Recommendation 83.9].
SA5. Adopt administrative or managerial measures: Measures (which do not adopt
public policy or law) which aim to prevent or solve problems indicated in the
recommendations. Positive measures for preventing and solving specific problems design a
set of concrete actions to be taken by public agents in order to surpass the difficulties of the
full achievements of human rights. The recommendation suggests an improvement of the
interpretation of the law or specific means of modifying the operation of an agency, for
example. There are forty-eight actions classified as SA5: HRC [Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8,
10, 11, 12, 16 and 17], RIJ [Recommendations 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114 and
in diverse areas. Expresses the transformation of that which is of a private scope in the collective actions of the
public space"(Guareschi, Comunello, Nardini & Hoenisch, 2004, p. 180).
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
115,; REDDH [Recommendations 101, 102, 105, 107 and 108], SRESAE [Recommendations
78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98 and 99], and UPR
[Recommendations 83.2, 83.3, 83.5, 83.6, 83.7, 83.8, 83.13 and 83.14].
SA6. Investigate cases of human rights violations, prosecute those responsible, and
provide aid to the victims: Assures the proactive actions of authorities responsible for the
civil and criminal processing of human rights offenders. The results of previous human rights
violations compose a set of repair measures to be adopted by the State. These measures use
more efficient and available means to return the state to its previous condition, before the
violations. Therefore, it draws on appropriate and proportionate means through symbolic
compensation, material or moral. There are seven actions classified as SA6: HRC
[Recommendations 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18], REDDH [Recommendation 106], and SRESAE
[Recommendation 82].
SA7. Disseminate, disclose, and raise awareness of human rights: Education of human
rights, through the presentation of recommendations, for both those who operate the law
and for numerous social activists. The education is a relaying of the recommendations’
contents, as well as a support base for its use as an instrument in the establishment of
rights. There were six actions identified as SA7: HRC [Recommendations 7, 11, and 19], RIJ
[Recommendation 108], REDDH [Recommendation 103], and SRESAE [Recommendation
100].
SA8. The State’s public position: Collection of the State’s formal statement regarding
some specific fact or theme. The State may acknowledge responsibility for a specific act,
historical fact, or position by changing the paradigm of its actions. This is only indicated by
the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions [Recommendation
77]; this classification may be applied to other recommendations pending evaluations.
SA9. Cooperate with agencies and international mechanisms in order to promote
and protect human rights: The recommendations reinforce reports and observations of
other UN mechanisms. They may even indicate the visit of another expert if the UN
correspondent sees the situation in a country as integrating the mandate of another
Rapporteur. There were nine actions identified as SA9: HRC [Recommendations 5, 12 and
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
20]; RIJ [Recommendations 106, 107 and 116], SRESAE [Recommendation 100], and UPR
[Recommendations 83.6 and 83.15].
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: Recipients::
The recipients are the entities or public agencies legally responsible for the
materialization of the recommendations. Upon evaluating the recommendations, one finds
that some observations are directed at a specific agency while others are directed at the
federal or state governments, with no mention of a specific agency to execute the actions.
Some are even directed at the Brazilian State in a very generic way. This third kind of
recommendation happens because, on the international level, the internal divisions of
competence do not interfere with the State’s responsibilities regarding the violation of
human rights. The works of the Committee of the Treated and the Universal Periodic
Review show many generic recommendations regarding the recipients. When compared to
the UN’s Special Rapporteurs, these mechanisms illustrate different procedures and work
methodologies, as was previously mentioned in this document.
For example, the Human Right’s Committee’s recommendations (HRC 2005) do not
identify their recipients. This is because the Committee itself monitors all of their final
observations, as they are all directed at the States’ part of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. Of the total 19 (nineteen) recommendations presented in 2005,
every single one indicated, in general terms, the Brazilian State as the one responsible for
their implementation. The same applies to the UPR’s recommendations. Of the 15
recommendations directed to Brazil, only two explicitly mention the civilian and military
police14 [Recomendação 4] and the national congress [Recommendation 100].
Considering the Brazilian federalist structure’s divisions of competence, it remains up
to the State and to the civil society to deepen the relations of competence and raise the
responsibility of the national institutions.
The systematization proposes classifying the recipients of the recommendations as
express recipients and perceived recipients. The express recipient is the explicitly identified
entity in a recommendation which is responsible for its implementation or fulfillment; this
14
The Translation indicates polícias estaduais e militares, which means the state and military police force. In
Brazil, this represents the civilian and military police forces.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
may be an entity of the Federation, an agent of the Powers of the State, or an international
or social institution. The perceived recipients are the entities and public agencies legally
responsible for the materialization of the recommendations. These depend on the models of
the federal pact, launched by the Federal Constitution of ’88, which were not cited explicitly
by the UN. It is clear that a recommendation needs a recipient. The objective of the
systematization is to gain a better understanding of the recommendation, even when all the
documents are directed at the Brazilian State. Having a perceived recipient is a way of giving
that fullness to the recommendation.
However, it is possible for a recommendation to receive both classifications (express
and perceived recipients). This occurs on Recommendation #78 from the SRESAE (2008),
which states that "The Government of the State of the Rio de Janeiro must abstain from
using "mega" or large-scale operations that favor a systematic progress aiming to re-establish
police presence and government power in gang controlled areas. Current policies entail
killing a large number of people, many of whose support is needed to achieve success. These
policies waste precious resources while failing to achieve its objectives. Establishing policing
strategies with only the final objective in mind, not the means, is a disservice to not only the
police force, but society as a whole”. This recommendation explicitly mentions the
Government of the state of Rio de Janeiro, thus is it an express recipient. However, it is also
redirected towards the Office of Public Security (as a perceived recipient), since, according to
the Executive Power, the responsibility of implementing this recommendation falls under its
jurisdiction.
After evaluating recommendations from the HRC (2005), RIJ (2005), REDDH (2006) and
SRESAE (2008) and UPR (2008), we have reached the following partial-conclusions about the
express and perceived recipients- they can be found in the graph below with the name of
the recipient and a specific color based on the responsibility of implementation(Executive,
Judicial, Legislative, Public Ministry, and Other):
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
We have, by surveying the fields of expertise (without identifying specific recipients
in the federal and state governments), 13 recommendations for the Federal Executive
branch, 15 for the State Executive branch, 2 for the judicial branch, 3 for the Public Ministry,
and 5 spread around in miscellaneous categories.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
After state or federal jurisdiction and the verdicts of the Public Ministry and other
institutional powers, the responsibility of the domestic recommendations may be divided
amongst the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.
Identifying a specific recipient is quite difficult. Philip Alston’s groundbreaking report
for the SRESAE (2008) was a major contribution to solving problem. The SRESAE report is
responsible for directing 13 (twenty-two) of the total recipients to specific institutions and
agents. Colors were assigned to the mentioned institutions, identifying which ones are
responsible for implementing each action. These colors also bind the express recipients and
perceived recipients, as they are both responsible institutions. In other words, the express
and perceived recipients complement each other, always looking for a specific institution
responsible for implementing the recommendation.
It is worth noting that the RIJ aims to protect those in charge of implementing the law.
It explicitly mentions some professional classes, referred to as other agents, even when
mentioning a public office (judge, prosecutor, public defender, etc…)
Federal Executive Power
The Federal Government received 8 (eight) recommendations: from the RIJ
[Recommendations 115, 116], REDDH [Recommendations 102, 103 and 104], and SRESAE
[Recommendations 81, 94 and 100]. The classification Federal Government is given to a
recommendation that goes to the State party in order to empower federal enforcement for
the suggested action. However, it does not specify which federal agency is responsible for it.
The same applies to the State Government classification.
It is noted that SRESAE recommendation #99 mentions a government without
specifying if it is the state or federal government. The majority of SRESAE recommendations
have express recipients. The lack of one in recommendation #99 means that one can exclude
the said government from being an express recipient, and can thus classify the state
government as a perceived recipient.
SEDH/PR - Special Secretariat for Human Rights: this agency, which has ties to the
Presidency of the Republic, focuses on human rights actions. It received 4 (four)
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
recommendations from the systemized documents: REDDH [Recommendations 101 and 106]
and SRESAE [Recommendations 86 and 100].
NCCHRD- National Coordinating Council for Human Rights Defenders: [REDDH,
Recommendation 107]. We do not recognize this recipient but recorded it according to the
SEDH/PR’s translation. We understand this recommendation refers to the National Program
for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, which indicates the federal government as a
perceived recipient.
State government
State Government: REDDH [Recommendation 103] and SRESAE [Recomendations 77,
78, 94 and 95]. It is important to mention that out of these 5 (five) recommendations to the
state government, one was specifically recommended to the state of Rio de Janeiro [SRESAE
Recommendation 78].
SSP- Office of Public Security (Secretaria de Segurança Pública): [Recommendations 77
and 82].
Civilian and military police forces: UPR [Recommendation 83.4], SRESAE
[Recommendations 77 and 95]; as previously mentioned, Philip Alston, in the SRESAE report,
took the lead in identifying the recommendations’ domestic agents. Allocating the
recommendation to the police’s command could mean allocating to either the civilian or
military police. This could incite another recommendation to both police forces
[Recommendation 77].
Internal affairs of the police force: SRESAE [Recommendations 87 and 88], Police
arbiters:
SRESAE
[Recommendation
90],
LMI-
Legal
medical
institute:
SRESAE
[Recommendation 93].
Judicial Power: Judicial: SRESAE [Recommendation 98]; NJC – National Justice Council:
SRESAE [Recommendation 98].
Legislative: National congress: UPR [Recommendation 83.10].
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Public Ministry: The public ministry received 3 (three) recommendations regarding the
state SRESAE [Recommendations 91 and 95] and the federal REDDH [Recommendation 101].
Other agents:
UN Mechanisms: RIJ [Recommendations 106 and 107]. The UN mechanisms may also
be directed at other UN mechanisms or even agents (conventional or extra-conventional)
within the same organism. When expressed in the Committee or Rapporteur, we began to
consider the express recipient a UN mechanism. It is also common for a Special Rapporteur
to suggest a visit from another Rapporteur branch. This occurred in the RIJ’s
Recommendations 106 and 107.
Public and private hospital networks: SRESAE [Recommendation 92]; Legal
professionals: RIJ [Recommenadtion 113]- the recommendation’s actions are directed at
judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and public defenders; public defense: RIJ [Recommendation
104].
The express recipients also interact with those recipients responsible for
implementing international recommendations. Os destinatários expressos também se
relacionam com destinatários responsáveis por implementar a Recommendation
internacional, mas mencionados pelo documento da ONU, ou ainda situações em que um
Recommendation genérica ao Estado possuem um responsável para execução, necessário de
ser identificado para o acompanhamento interno da efetividade das Recommendations.
These possibilities justify the need for perceived recipients: the federal government does not
point out the ministry or institution responsible for implementing the suggested actions.
As for the perceived recipients, we have the following recommendations and
recipients:
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Executive Power
Municipal Government: UPR Recommendation 83.1].
Federal Government: HRC [Recommendations 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20]; RIJ
[Recommendations 103, 106, 107, 108, 114 and 116]; SRESAE [Recommendations 77, 79, 80,
92 and 99]; UPR [Recommendations 83.1, 83.2, 83.3, 83.4, 83.5, 83.6, 83.7, 83.8, 83.10,
83.11, 83.12, 83.13, 83.14 and 83.15]; REDDH [Recommendations 104, 105, 107 and 108].
State Government: HRC [Recommendations 5, 10, 12, 16, 17 e 19]; RIJ [Recommendations
101, 103, 108, 110 and 115]; SRESAE [Recommendations 79, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 99
and 100]; UPR [Recommendations 83.1, 83.2, 83.3, 83.4, 83.5, 83.6, 83.7 and 83.8]; REDDH
[Recommendations 101, 102, 105, 106 and 108].
SPD – Secretariat of Public Defense: SRESAE [Recommendation 78].
Military and Civilian Police: SRESAE [Recommendation 91]; and REDDH [Recommendation
103].
Internal Affairs: SRESAE [Recommendation 84].
Judicial Power: HRC [Recommendations 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18]; RIJ
[Recommendations 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113]; SRESAE [Recommendation 97];
UPR [Recommendations 83.3, 83.8 and 83.9]. UPR’s Recommendation 83.9 is directed at the
STJ so that crimes against humanity, which are counted as judicial crimes, may be counted as
federal offenses.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Legislative Power: HRC [Recommendations 9, 10, 11 and 14]; RIJ [Recommendations 103,
105 and 112]; SRESAE [Recommendations 80, 92, 95, 96 and 97]; UPR [Recommendation
83.14].
Federal or State Public Ministry: HRC [Recommendations 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19];
RIJ [Recommendations 104, 113 and 114]; SRESAE [Recommendations 85 and 98]; REDDH
[Recommendation 101]; and RPU [Recommendations 83.3, 83.5, 83.6 and 83.9].
Others
OAB: RIJ [Recommendation 113].
Public Defense: RIJ [Recommendation 113].
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: Presentation by Sources ::
:: Themes and Subthemes ::
In the second section of the data presentation, it was necessary to highlight the
analyzed sources. This is attributed to the theme and subtheme criterion being assigned to
recommendations based on UN reports, not on preceding classification studies. This
represents an evaluation interconnected with the document’s context. However, depending
on the source, the assessment of the document may change or even restrict the
comparative analyses between UN mechanisms.
The theme and subtheme classifications allow for an understanding of the UN reports
in accordance with the Committee and Special Rapporteurs; these are referred to as sources.
The theme corresponds to the main subject of the recommendation, which is treated
as an object of public interest, relating to the promotion and prevention of human rights.
This element of systematization, associated with the context of the analyzed document, was
supported by the reading of all the recommendations sent to Brazil by the UN. Because it
does not deal with a list of pre-determined classifications, the theme is subject to change if
the recommendations are updated or if the sources change.
The subtheme is the complementing subject to the theme and context of the
recommendation. It is also of public interest and related to the promotion and protection of
human rights. The subtheme represents the approach to be taken in order to emphasize the
previously mentioned theme.
>> Human Rights Committee (2005)
There were 17 themes and 7 subthemes present in the 16 Recommendations
responsible for implementing the Convention on Civil and Political Rights presented to Brazil
by the Human Rights Committee in 2005. The following were identified: Domestic violence
[Recommendations 5 and 11]; police brutality [Recommendations 5 and 12]; penitentiary
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
system [Recommendation 5]; land delimitation [Recommendation 6]; Judiciary performance
[Recommendation 7]; institutional Strengthening/SEDH [Recommendation 8]; military
competence [Recommendation 9]; participation in the public sphere [Recommendation 10];
discrimination against women [Recommendation 13]; federalization of crimes against
humanity [Recommendation 13]; slave work [Recommendation 14]; human trafficking
[Recommendation 15]; rights of inmates [Recommendation 16]; judicial independence
[Recommendation 17]; military dictatorship [Recommendation 18]; child and adolescent
exploitation [Recommendation 19]; gipsy community [Recommendation 20].
The subthemes relate to the following recommendations: Recommendations 5 and 7
[monitoring]; Recommendation 6 [indigenous people]; Recommendation 8 [resource
allocation]; Recommendation 9 [police brutality]; Recommendation 10 [social inclusion];
Recommendations 12 and 13 [independent investigation]; Recommendation 17 [access to
justice].
The HRC (2005) presented recommendations centering mainly on vulnerable social
groups, monitoring, crimes against humanity, and judicial actions. This way, the subthemes
can identify women’s rights and generic violence. It is clear that indigenous people’s rights,
judicial actions, crimes against humanity, prison systems, domestic violence, and police
brutality appear either as the main subject of a recommendation or as being connected to
the theme of another recommendation.
>> Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions (2008)
There are 14 themes and 9 subthemes present in the 25 recommendations regarding
Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions presented to Brazil in 2008. The following
were identified: excessive use of force [Recommendation 77]; execution of suspects
[Recommendation 77]; policing strategies [Recommendation 78]; control of police action
[Recommendations 79, 84 and 85]; police unification [Recommendation 80]; allocation of
public resources [Recommendation 81]; independent investigation [Recommendations 82,
87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93 and 95]; off-duty policemen [Recommendation 83]; monitoring
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
[Recommendation 86 e 100]; institutional strengthening (ombudsmen) [Recommendation
90];
protection
of
people
[Recommendation
94];
willful
crimes
agaisnt
life
[Recommendation 96]; judiciary performance [Recommendations 97 and 98]; protection of
inmates [Recommendation 99];
The subthemes relate to the following recommendations: Recommendation 79
[monitoring]; Recommendation 83 [improvement of work conditions]; Recommendation 84
[gun control]; Recommendation 86 [police brutality]; Recommendations 87 and 93
[institutional
strengthening
(internal
Institute)]; Recommendations 90 and 91
affairs
and
Legal
Medical
[foreign control]; Recommendation 95
[performance of the Public Ministry]; Recommendations 98 and 99 [penitentiary
establishment]; Recommendation 94 [protection programs].
The Special Rapporteur’s mandate is directly linked to institutional violence, and the
report (2008) specifically mentions the violence committed by both on and off-duty police
officers. Thus, police brutality as a theme does not appear to be the central object of its own
Special Rapporteur. The same applies to the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights Defenders (2006). Human rights defenders are not viewed as a theme because all the
suggested actions correspond to the central theme of this mechanism- the protection of
human rights defenders.
The 2008 SRESAE report helped built this classification by dividing the presentation of
their observations into thematic sections. The central questions surrounding the
recommendations were investigation and responsibility. This way, the actions could focus on
strengthening institutions by means of reform (such as that of resource allocation), and the
indication of guidelines for institutions directly involved with summary, arbitrary, or
extrajudicial executions.
>> Special Representative on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders (2006)
7 Themes and 3 subthemes were indentified in the 8 recommendations sent to Brazil
in 2006 by the Special Representative on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders. The
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
following were identified: Criminalization of human rights defenders [Recommendation
agri-environmental
101];
conflicts
[Recommendation
102];
protection
programs
[Recommendation 103]; protection policies [Recommendation 104]; independent
investigations [Recommendation 105 and 106]; monitoring [Recommendation 107]; and
allocation of resources [Recommendation 108].
The subthemes relate to the following: Recommendation 102 [agricultural reform],
Recommendation 105 [monitoring], and Recommendation 106 [public manifestation].
As in the SRESAE (2008) report, many questions focus on public safety. This is one of
the direct implications of the mechanism’s central topic, thus it was not included as a theme.
>> Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (2005)
There were 12 themes and 5 subthemes in the 14 recommendations regarding the
independence of judges and lawyers, which were presented to Brazil in 2005. The following
were identified: Institutional strengthening (public defense) [Recommendation 103], crimes
against children and adolescentss [Recommendation 104], military competence
[Recommendation 105]; the protection of human rights defenders [Recommendation 106];
racial discrimination [Recommendation 107]; judiciary career [Recommendation 108];
judicial
and
communal
relationship
[Recommendation
109];
adjudication
[Recommendations 110, 112 and 116]; judicial secrecy [Recommendation 111]; decision
reasoning [Recommendation 113]; organized crime [Recommendation 114]; dissemination
of good practices [Recommendation 115].
The subthemes relate to the following recommendations: Recommendations 110 and
116 [monitoring]; Recommendations 103 and 112 [judicial reform]; Recommendation 106
[agri-environmental conflicts]; Recommendation 108 [social inclusion and participation in
the public sphere].
Depending on the subject of the Special Rapporteur, the actions are centered on the
operations and activities of the judicial power in order to ensure both professional
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
independence and careers involved in the judiciary processes. Thus, the judicial power does
not appear as a theme, but rather a recipient.
>> Universal Periodic Review (2008)
The Universal Periodic Review, created by the UN’s Human Rights Council, indicated
20 themes within their 15 Recommendations: poverty [Recommendation 83.1]; social
inequity [Recommendation 83.1]; police brutality [Recommendation 83.2]; establishment of
internment for adolescents [Recommendation 83.2]; torture [Recommendation 83.2];
protection for human rights defenders [Recommendations 83.3 and 83.4]; violence against
women [Recommendation 83.2]; rights of indigenous peoples [Recommendations 83.3 and
83.5]; slave work [Recommendation 83.3]; human trafficking [Recommendation 83.3]; agrienvironmental conflicts [Recommendation 83.3]; public security [Recommendation 83.5];
penitentiary system [Recommendation 83.3, 83.5, 83.6 and 83.7]; adjudication
[Recommendation 83.8]; federalization of crimes against humanity [Recommendation 83.9];
access to information [Recommendation 83.10]; agricultural reform [Recommendation
83.11 and 83.12]; right to adequate food [Recommendation 83.13]; human rights
institutions [Recommendation 83.14]; e gender [Recommendation 83.15].
The 6 subthemes correspond to the following Recommendations: Recommendation
83.1 [power abuse]; Recommendation 83.1 [excessive force] Recommendation 83.3
[monitoring]
Recommendation
83.6
[torture];
Recommendation
83.3
[prison
establishments] and Recommendation 83.12 [social inclusion].
The 2008 UPR recommendations deviate too much from the SMART method,
addressing key issues in Brazil within a single recommendation [Recommendation 83.2]. In
general, they are much debated issues in the nation: police brutality, rights of indigenous
peoples, human rights defenders, penitentiary system, violence against women, and land
reform.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
In summary, after evaluating the 78 recommendations from the five UN reports, one
can make an index according to theme and subtheme:
Abuse of power: Recommendation 83.2, UPR
Access to Justice: Recommendation 17, HRC.
Access to information: Recommendation 83.10, UPR.
Resource
allocation:
Recommendation
8,
HRC;
Recommendation
108,
REDDH;
Recommendation 81, SRESAE.
Performance of internal affairs: Recommendation 88, SRESAE.
Judiciary performance: Recommendation 7, HRC; Recommendation 97, SRESAE;
Recommendation 98, SRESAE.
Public Ministry performance: Recommendation 95, SRESAE.
Evaluation and planning: Recommendation 83.3, UPR.
Judiciary career: Recommendation 108, RIJ.
Military competence: Recommendation 9, HRC; Recommendation 105, RIJ.
Gipsy community: Recommendation 20, HRC.
Agri-environmental conflicts: Recommendation 106, RIJ; Recommendation 102, REDDH;
Recommendation 83.3, UPR.
Police action control: Recommendation 79, SRESAE; Recommendation 84, SRESAE;
Recommendation 85, SRESAE.
Gun control: Recommendation 84, SRESAE
External control over police: Recommendation 90, SRESAE; Recommendation 91, SRESAE.
Crimes of military dictatorship: Recommendation 18, HRC.
Organized crime: Recommendation 114, RIJ.
Crimes against children and adolescents: Recommendation 104, RIJ.
Crimes against humanity: Recommendation 96, SRESAE.
Criminalization of human rights defenders: Recommendation 101, RDDH.
Land delimitation: Recommendation 6, HRC.
Social inequity: Recommendation 83.1, UPR.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Dissemination of good practices: Recommendation 109, RIJ; Recommendation 115, RIJ.
Right to adequate food: Recommendation 83.13, UPR.
Rights of inmates: Recommendation 16, HRC.
Discrimination against women: Recommendation 11, HRC.
Racial Discrimination: Recommendation 107, RIJ.
Establishment of internment for adolescent: Recommendation 83.2, UPR.
Penitentiary establishment: Recommendation 98, SRESAE; Recommendation 99, SRESAE,
Recommendation 83.7, UPR.
Policing strategies: Recommendation 78, SRESAE.
Suspect executions: Recommendation 77, SRESAE.
Child and adolescent exploitation: Recommendation 19, HRC.
Federalization of crimes against humanity: Recommendation 13, HRC; Recommendation
83.9, UPR.
Institutional Strengthening: Recommendation 8, HRC; Recommendation 103, RIJ;
Recommendation 87, SRESAE; Recommendation 90, SRESAE; Recommendation 93, SRESAE.
Decision reasoning: Recommendation 113, RIJ.
Gender: Recommendation 83.15, UPR.
Social Inclusion: Recommendation 10, HRC; Recommendation 108, RIJ; Recommendation
83.12, UPR.
Judicial Independence: Recommendation 17, HRC.
Human rights institutions: Recommendation 83.14, UPR.
Independent investigation: Recommendation 12, HRC; Recommendation 13, HRC;
Recommendation 105, REDDH; Recommendation 106, REDDH; Recommendations 82, 87, 88,
89, 91, 92, 93 and 95, SRESAE.
Public manifestation: Recommendation 106, REDDH.
Improvement of work conditions: Recommendation 83, SRESAE.
Monitoring: Recommendation 5, HRC; Recommendation 7, HRC; Recommendation 107,
REDDH, Recommendation 105, REDDH Recommendation 110, RIJ; Recommendation 116,
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
RIJ; Recommendation 79, SRESAE; Recommendation 86, SRESAE; Recommendation 100,
SRESAE; Recommendation 83. 3, UPR.
Participation in the public sphere: Recommendation 10, HRC; Recommendation 108, RIJ.
Poverty: Recommendation 83.1, UPR.
Off-duty police force: Recommendation 83, SRESAE.
Protection policies: Recommendation 104, REDDH.
Indigenous peoples: Recommendation 6, HRC; Recommendation 106, RIJ; Recommendation
83.3.
Adjudication: Recommendations 110, 112 and 116, RIJ; Recommendation 83.8, UPR.
Protection programs: Recommendation 103, REDDH; Recommendation 94, SRESAE.
Protection of human rights defenders: Recommendation 106, RIJ; Recommendation, 83.3,
UPR; Recommendation 83.4, UPR;
Protection of Peoples: Recommendation 94, SRESAE.
Protection of Inmates: Recommendation 99, SRESAE.
UPR; Recommendation 83.5, UPR.
Agricultural reforms: Recommendation 102, REDDH; Recommendation 83.11, UPR;
Recommendation 83.12, UPR.
Judicial Reforms: Recommendation 103, RIJ; Recommendation 112, RIJ.
Judicial and communal relationship: Recommendation 109, RIJ.
Judicial secrecy: Recommendation 111, RIJ.
Public security: Recommendation 83.5, UPR.
Penitentiary
system:
Recommendation
5,
HRC;
Recommendation
83.5,
Recommendation 83.6, UPR; Recommendation 83.7, UPR.
Slave work: Recommendation 14, HRC; Recommendation 83.3, UPR.
Human trafficking: Recommendation 15, HRC; Recommendation 83.3, UPR.
Torture: Recommendation 83.2, UPR; Recommendation 83.6, UPR.
Police unification: Recommendation 80, SRESAE.
Excessive force: Recommendation 77, SRESAE; Recommendation 83.2, UPR.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
UPR;
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Violence against women/Domestic violence: Recommendation 5, HRC; Recommendation 11,
HRC; Recommendation 83.2, UPR.
Police brutality: Recommendation 5, HRC; Recommendation 9, HRC; Recommendation 12,
HRC; Recommendation 86, SRESAE; Recommendation 83.2, UPR.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: Conclusions and Final Commentaries::
(a) Early systematization encountered two major difficulties: the need of a Portuguese
translation, and varying degrees of coverage for the recommendations. The internal
dissemination of recommendations is a common observation of the UN mechanisms.
However, there are very few documents officially translated into Portuguese, contradicting
the stance of the Brazilian state in declared international commitments. The election of
Brazil as a member of the Human Rights Council in May 2006 gave special attention to the
recommendations as a way to cooperate with the newly created council’s mechanisms;
(b) The difference in the recommendations from the Committees and the Rapporteurs are
justified by different ways of dealing with procedures and methods. Their ways do not
always follow the SMART method, which always requires a contextualized reading of the
recommendations and a report on Brazil;
(c) The systematization of the theme and subtheme, presented by a source in the previous
section, is the classification most tied to the context of the document, and it is often
supplemented by other themes. Relevant information on further comparisons of all
recommendations directed at Brazil;
(d) A recommendation is not restricted to a suggested action to Brazil. In order to be
implemented, the recommendations unfold and multiply into further actions in other
organizations and areas of responsibilities;
(e) As for the content repetition within the five analyzed documents, we exemplify the
situation with Recommendation 9, HRC and Recommendation 105, RIJ. Both deal with the
Military Justice’s responsibility to deal with crimes committed by the Military Police force.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
They are addressed in two different thematic mechanisms, yet complement each other in
the mandate of the Rapporteur;
(f) Upon evaluating the 81 recommendation from the five UN reports, we can conclude the
following key observations:
f.1. The recommendations reinforce around the independent investigation theme, which
involves responsible investigations, and generally requires procedural reform or institutional
Strengthening (Recommendation 8, HRC). This is also justified by the documents that take
the Public Security approach. There are suggestions of reform and institutional
strengthening [Recommendation 8, HRC, Recommendation 103, RIJ, Recommendation 87,
SRESAE; Recommendation 90, SRESAE; Recommendation 93, SRESAE], and of resource
allocation [Recommendation 8, HRC, Recommendation 108, REDDH , Recommendation 81,
SRESAE] for the following institutions: the Special Secretariat for Human Rights, Internal
Affairs, Ombudsman and Public Defense, and specific considerations on the judiciary,
prosecution, IML and ombudsman performances;
f.2. Some situations explicitly mention several social groups in order to emphasize their
entitlement to certain rights or their need for protection. In the presentation, this can be
read as either social inclusion or discrimination. Keeping these groups in mind, there are the
following UN recommendations: Indigenous peoples [Recommendation 6:10, HRC,
Recommendation
108,
RIJ;
Recommendations
83.3
and
83.5
SPS],
Women
[Recommendation 5:10, HRC, Recommendation 108, RIJ; Recommendations 83.3 and 83.15,
SPS], African Descendants [Recommendation 10, HRC, Recommendation 108, RIJ;
Recommendation
83.12],
Child
and
Adolescent
[Recommendation
19,
HRC,
Recommendation 104, RIJ; Recommendation 83.3, SPS], and Gypsies [Recommendation 20,
HRC];
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
f.3. International obligations to cooperate are usually mentioned among the UN
mechanisms, and are also key for UN strength. Situations that guide Brazil regarding the next
UN reports; use of the human rights Conventions, or reinforcement of the recommendations
of other UN mechanisms;
f.4. At the end of the classification based on the suggested action, there is a need for
monitoring the public policies and the performance of programs and plans. However, it is
not clear whether the suggested action is classified as theme or subtheme. Future
monitoring may be added as a suggested action to be adopted by the state. The following
recommendations regarding monitoring were identified: Recommendation 5, HRC,
Recommendation 7, HRC, Recommendation 107, REDDH; Recommendation 105,
Recommendation 110 REDDH, RIJ; Recommendation 116, RIJ, Recommendation 79, REESAE;
Recommendation 86, SRESAE; Recommendation 100, SRESAE; Recommendation 83. 3, SPS.
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: ANNEX::
:: ANNEX A::
Presentation by Source
The presentation of the report on the partial systematization of the UN’s recommendations
was divided by recipient classification, suggested action, and the source which assessed the
themes and subthemes of each recommendation. To reach the final result, each UN
mechanism was studied individually. This phase of systematization was also divided by
recipients and suggested actions, and can be found below.
>> Human Rights Committee (2005)
>> As for the perceived recipients, 16 (sixteen) recommendations presented to Brazil in
2005 by the Human Rights Committee were evaluated. These indicate 38 (thirty-eight)
recipients, divided into 5 (five) bodies of the state; these are the perceived recipients. The
express recipients were not identified, as all the HRC recommendations are directed at the
Brazilian State. The following perceived recipients have been identified: federal government
[Recommendations 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20], state governments
[Recommendations 5, 10, 12, 16, 17 and 19], judicial branch [Recommendations 5, 7, 10, 11,
12, 13, 16, 17 and 18], legislative branch [Recommendations 9, 10, 11 and 14], and the
prosecutors [Recommendations 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19]. Recommendation 12 also
mentions other UN reports, indicating other recipients which are not included in this
evaluation.
>> As for the suggested actions, 28 (twenty-eight) actions were identified in the 16 (sixteen)
HRC recommendations. These were divided into 9 (nine) shares, classified as (SA) suggested
action. Only the actions regarding the public position of the State (SA8) were not mentioned
by the Committee. As for the other types of suggested actions: (SA1) Develop and
implement public policies/adopt new public policies [Recommendation 19], (SA2) Strengthen
public policies and programs [Recommendations 14:15], (SA3) Adopt and amend the legal
framework [Recommendations 9, 11 and 14], (SA4) Implement the existing legislation
[Recommendations 6:13], (SA5) Adopt appropriate administrative and managerial measures
[Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 16:17], (SA6) Investigate cases and situations of
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
human rights violations, prosecute the alleged perpetrators, and provide aid to the victims
[Recommendations 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18], (SA7) Disseminate, publicize and raise awareness
of human rights [Recommendations 7, 11, and 19], and (AS9) Cooperate with international
bodies and mechanisms in order to promote and protect human rights [Recommendations 5,
12 and 20].
>> Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (2005)
>> As for the express recipients, the 14 (fourteen) recommendations made to Brazil in 2005
by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, indicated 5 (five)
recipients. These were divided among 4 (four) groups responsible for their execution,
named express recipients. Amongst them, the following were identified: the federal
government [Recommendation 115], UN mechanisms [Recommendations 106 and 107],
public defense [Recommendation 104], and ombudsmen - judges, prosecutors, lawyers,
public defenders [Recommendation 113].
>> As for the perceived recipients, 14 (fourteen) recommendations were presented to Brazil
in 2005 by the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers (RIJ). They
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
indicated 25 (twenty-five) recipients, divided into 9 (nine) groups responsible for their
implementation; these are referred to as perceived recipients. Amongst them, the following
were identified: the federal government [Recommendations 103, 106, 107, 108, 114 and
116], state governments [Recommendation 103, 108, 110 and 115], judicial branch
[Recommendations 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112 and 113], legislative branch
[Recommendations 103, 105 and 112], prosecutor [Recommendations 104, 113 and 114],
OAB -Brazilian Lawyer’s Association (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil)- [Recommendation
113], and the public defense [Recommendation 113].
The distinction between the express and perceived recipients of the RIJ’s recommendations
lies in its implementation. It is a question of whether the suggested action should be
implemented by the professional, or by the institution to which he is bound. Considering
that the actions are directed at the general class of judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and the
public defense, and the impersonal work relations of the profession, the chosen recipient is
the institution [Recommendation 113].
>> As for the suggested actions, within the 14 (fourteen) RIJ recommendations, 17 (seventeen)
suggested actions were identified. They were divided into 9 (nine) shares, called (SA) suggested
actions. There were no suggested actions resembling (SA1), Develop and implement public
policy/adopt new public policies, (SA2) Strengthen public policies and programs, (SA6) Investigate
cases and situations of human rights violations, and prosecute those allegedly responsible for aiding
victims, and (SA8) public position of the state. As for other types of suggested action: (SA3) Adopt or
amend the legal framework [Recommendations 103 and 105], (SA4) Implement existing legislation
[Recommendations 104 and 113], (SA5) Adopt appropriate administrative and management
measures [Recommendations 103, 104 , 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114 and 115], (SA7) Disseminate,
publicize and raise awareness of human rights [Recommendation 108], and (SA9) Cooperate with
international bodies and mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights
[Recommendations 106, 107 and 116].
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
>> Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders (2006)
>> As for the express recipients, within the 8 (eight) recommendations presented to Brazil in
2006 by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders, 7 (seven)
recipients were found. These were divided into 5 (five) groups of express recipients. The
following were identified: Special Secretariat for Human Rights of the Presidency of the
Republic of Brazil (SEDH/PR) [Recommendations 101 and 106], Federal public ministry
[Recommendation 101], federal government [Recommendations 102, 103 and 104], state
governments [Recommendation 103], and the National Council of Human Rights DefendersCNDDH [Recommendation 107].
>> As for the perceived recipients, an evaluation of the 8 (eight) recommendations
presented to Brazil in 2006 by the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights
Defenders showed 11 (eleven) recipients. They were divided into 4 (four) perceived recipient
categories. The following were identified: Public Ministry [Recommendation 101], police
forces [Recommendation 103], federal government [Recommendations 104, 105, 107 and
108], and state governments [Recommendations 101, 102, 105, 106 and 108].
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
>> As for the suggested action, of the 8 (eight) REDDH Recommendation, 10 (ten) suggested
actions were identified. They were divided into 5 (five) shares, classified as suggested
actions. There were no suggested actions resembling (SA2) Emphasize existing public
policies; apply current legislation (SA4); Public positioning (SA8); Cooperate with
international institution in order to promote and protect human rights (SA9). As for the
types of suggested actions: (SA1) Elaborate on and implement public policies/adopt new
public policies [Recommendations 103 and 104]; (SA3) Adopt or amend legal framework
[Recommendation 101]; (SA5) Adopt appropriate administrative and management measures
[Recommendations 101, 102, 105, 107 and 108]; (SA6) Investigate cases and situations of
human rights violations, and prosecute those allegedly responsible for aiding victims
[Recommendation 106]; (SA7) Disseminate, publicize and raise awareness of human rights
[Recommendation 103].
>> Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions (2008)
>> As for the express recipient, of the 25 (twenty-five) recommendations presented to Brazil
in 2008 by the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, there
were 22 (twenty-two) indicated recipients. They were divided into 12 (twelve) express
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
recipient categories: Federal government [Recommendations 81, 94, and 100], state
governments [Recommendations 77, 78, 94 and 95], Office of public security
[Recommendations 77 and 82], special secretariat for human rights [Recommendations 86
and 100]; police ombudsmen [Recommendation 90], Public Ministry [Recommendations 91
and 95], public and private hospital networks [Recommendation 92], legal medical institute
[Recommendation 93], military and civilian police forces [Recommendations 77 and 95],
internal affairs [Recommendations 87 and 88], National Justice Council -NJC
[Recommendation 98], and the Judicial branch [Recommendation 98].
The Special Reporter’s work needs praising, as it directed the recommendations in
accordance to Brazil’s constitution, its division of expertise, and its administrative districts.
Thus, there are a greater number of express recipients within these systemized
recommendations.
>> As for the perceived recipients, 27 were identified within the recommendations directed
to Brazil in 2008 by the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary
Executions. The following perceived recipients were identified: Federal government
[Recommendations 77, 79, 80, 92 and 99], state governments [Recommendations 79, 83, 84,
85, 87, 89, 90, 92, 93, 99 and 100], office of public security [Recommendation 78], federal
legislative power [Recommendations 80, 92, 95, 96 and 97], public ministry
[Recommendations 85 and 98], national congress [Recommendations 80, 92, 95 and 96],
civilian and military police forces [Recommendation 91], and the judicial branch
[Recommendation 97].
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
>> As for the suggested actions, in 25 (twenty-five) SRESAE recommendations, there were
26 (twenty-six) suggested actions identified. They were divided into 9 (nine) groups,
classified as suggested actions (SA): There were no suggested actions resembling (SA1)
Emphasize existing public policies; apply current legislation. As for the other types of
suggested actions: (AS2) Emphasize existing public policies [Recommendation 94], (SA3)
adopt new public policies [Recommendations 80, 95 and 96], (SA4) apply current legislation
[Recommendation 98], (SA5) Adopt appropriate administrative and management measures
[Recommendations 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 97, 98 and 99], (SA6)
Investigate cases and situations of human rights violations, and prosecute those allegedly
responsible and provide aid for victims [Recommendations 82], (SA7) Disseminate, publicize
and raise awareness of human rights [Recommendation 100], (SA8) Public positioning
[Recommendations 77], (SA9) Cooperate with international institution in order to promote
and protect human rights [Recommendation 100].
>> Universal Periodic Review (2008)
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
>> As for the express recipients, the 25 (fifteen) recommendations presented to Brazil in
2008 by the Universal Periodic Review indicate only 2 (two) express recipients. As previously
mentioned the HRC and UPR mainly present general recommendations to the Brazilian state.
The following express recipients were identified: civilian and military police forces
[Recommendation 83.4], and the national congress [Recommendation 83.10].
>> As for the perceived recipients, the 15 (fifteen) recommendations presented to Brazil in
2005 by the UPR show 31 (thirty-one) recipients, split into 6 categories: federal government
[Recommendations 83.1, 83.2, 83.3, 83.4, 83.5, 83.6, 83.7, 83.8, 83.10, 83.11, 83.12, 83.13,
83.14 and 83.15], state government [Recommendations 83.1, 83.2, 83.3, 83.4, 83.5, 83.6,
83.7 and 83.8], municipal government [Recommendation 83.1], federal public ministry
[Recommendations 83.3, 83.5, 83.6 and 83.9]; Judicial branch [Recommendations 83.3, 83.8
and 83.9], and legislative branch [Recommendation 83.14].
>> As for the suggested actions, of the 15 (fifteen) UPR recommendations, there were 17
(seventeen) suggested actions, split into 5 (five) categories classified as (SA) suggested
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
actions: There were no suggested actions resembling (SA1) Elaborate on and implement
existing public policies, (SA6) Investigate cases and situations of human rights violations, and
prosecute those allegedly responsible and provide aid for victims, (SA7) Disseminate,
publicize and raise awareness of human rights, and (SA8) Public positioning. As for the other
types of suggested actions: (AS2) Emphasize existing public policies [Recommendations 83.1,
83.4, 83.8, 83.11 and 83.12], (SA3) adopt or alter legal framework [Recommendation 83.10],
(SA4) apply current legislation [Recommendation 83.9], (SA5) Adopt appropriate
administrative and management measures [Recommendations 83.2, 83.3, 83.5, 83.6, 83.7,
83.8, 83.13 and 83.14], and (SA9) Cooperate with international institution in order to
promote and protect human rights [Recommendations 83.6 and 83.15].
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
:: ANNEX B::
:: Table-Summary of Recommendations addressed to Brazil by the UN::
Session
**
Number of
Recommen
Convention Date
dations
al
**
Links to Original Version Portuguese Translation
of Report
Mechanism
s
Document
Reference
26th
session
A/56/44
9
(May
16,
2001)
http://www.unhchr.ch/tb
s/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/A.56. Justiça Global
44,paras.115-
(Recommendations only)
120.En?Opendocument
CAT
Committee Special
Against
Rapporteu
Torture
r on visit
Brazil 29
July 13-19,
Portal Monitoramento DHI
(Recommendations only)
to
2005
http://www2.ohchr.org/e
nglish/bodies/cat/docs/C
AT-C-39-2.pdf
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
CAT/C/39/
2
(March 3,
2009)
30th
session
Plataforma DhESCA Brasil
E/C.12/1/
Add.87
(May
http://www.unhchr.ch/tb
27
23,
s/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/E.C.1
(Recommendations only)
2.1.Add.87.En?Opendocu
2003)
ment
CESCR
Committee
on
Economic,
Social, and
Cultural
Rights
42nd
http://www2.ohchr.org/e
session
nglish/bodies/cescr/docs/
AdvanceVersions/E-C12-
E/C.12/BR
BRA-CO-2.doc
A/CO/2
(May
SEDH
33
(Full report)
22,
2009)
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
64ª
Plataforma
session
DhESCA
Brasil
(Recommendations only)
CERD/C/6
16
CERD
4/CO/2
s/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CERD.
Committee (April 28,
on
the 2004)
C.64.CO.2.En?Opendocu
ment
Elimination
of
Racial
Discriminati
on
http://www.unhchr.ch/tb
49th
session
http://documents-dds-
CERD/C/3
10
04/Add.11
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G
11th Conferencia DH
EN/G96/183/37/pdf/G96
(Septembe
18337.pdf?OpenElement (Recommendations only)
r 27, 1996)
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
37th
CRC
session
Convention
on
the
Add.241
Rights of a
Child
http://www.unhchr.ch/tb
CRC/C/15/
s/doc.nsf/898586b1dc7b
35
4043c1256a450044f331/
Ministro Publico de São Paulo
(Novembe
2f7a0e477d8c8cf8c1256f (Full report)
r 03, 2004)
630037cde4/$FILE/G0444
278.pdf
85th
session
HRC
http://www.unhchr.ch/tb
CCPR/C/B
RA/CO/2
Human
19
(Decembe
Rights
Committee
Observatório de Violências
s/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR. Policiais– SP
C.BRA.CO.2.En?Opendocu
(Full Report)
ment
r 1, 2005)
57th
session
http://daccessdds.un.org Portal Monitoramento DHI
/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G96/1 (Recommendations only)
CCPR/C/79
18
/Add.66
74/21/IMG/G9617421.pd
f?OpenElement
(July
24,
1996)
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
39th
session
CEDAW/C/
CEDAW
http://daccessdds.un.org
BRA/CO/6
Committee
on
the
Elimination
CLADEM
/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/4 (Full report)
19
(August
60/25/PDF/N0746025.pdf
10, 2007)
?OpenElement
and
Secretaria Especial de Políticas
of
para as Mulheres
Discriminati
on against
Women
29th
AGENDE
session
(Recommendations only)
A/58/38
20
http://www2.ohchr.org/e
nglish/bodies/cedaw/doc
(July
18,
s/co/BrazilCO29.pdf
Secretaria Especial de Políticas
para as Mulheres
2003)
Total Committees
e
235
Visit
Date
Special
**
Mechanism Documen
s
t
Number
of
Recomme
Original Links
Links
to
Translation
ndations
Referenc
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Portuguese
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
e
Special
June 15-
Rapporteur 26 1996
on Violence
E/CN.4/1
http://daccessdds.un.org/d
against
997/47/A
16
Women
dd.2
6/PDF/G9710246.pdf?Open
(Mrs.
Portal Monitoramento DHI
(Recommendations only)
Element
(January
Radhika
oc/UNDOC/GEN/G97/102/4
Coomarasw 21, 1997)
amy)
Special
Rapporteur
on
the
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huri
adverse
docda/Huridoca.nsf/TestFra
effects
of
me/9650501ea153f617802
the
5673700375a43?Opendocu
movement
June 20-
and
28 1998
dumping of
[Note 01]
toxic
and
ment
0
Recomendações
contabilizadas [Note 01]
dangerous
products
(Mrs.
FatmaZohra
Ksentini)
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
não
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
(August
20th and
Special
Rapporteur
on Torture
and Other
Septemb
er
12,
2000)
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huri
docda/Huridoca.nsf/0/b573
Cruel,
Inhuman or
30
E/CN.4/2
b69cf6c3da28c1256a2b004
Câmara dos Deputados
(Full Report)
98ded/$FILE/g0112323.pdf
Degrading
001/66/A
Treatment
dd.2
or
(March
Punishmen
30, 2001)
t (Mr. Nigel
Rodley)
[Note 02]
Independe
August
nt
Expert 11-16,
Group
http://www.unhchr.ch/huri
2003
Working
on
docda/huridoca.nsf/2848af
E/CN.4/2
408d01ec0ac1256609004e7
the Right to
004/WG. 0
Developme
18/3
nt
January
Não há recomendações para
tradução
70b/4da116e87f934d05c12
56e360034320c/$FILE/G04
[Note 03]
10515.pdf
23, 2004
[Note 03]
March 1st
-
18th,
13
11ª Conferência DH
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Special
2002
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huri (Recommendations only)
Rapporteur
on
the
Right
to
Food
(Mr.
docda/Huridoca.nsf/0/b7a1
09d9387bc99dc1256cc6004
E/CN.4/2
d0c57/$FILE/G0310067.pdf
003/54/A
dd.1
Jean
(January
Ziegler)
3, 2003)
Special
October
Rapporteur 11th -17th
on
Right
the 2009
to
http://documents-dds-
Food
A/HRC/1
(Mr. Olivier
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN
Tradução oficial da ONU via
relatoria
13
3/33/Add
de Schuter)
.6
/G10/111/28/pdf/G101112
8.pdf?OpenElement
(February
19th
2010)
Special
Septemb
11ª Conferência DH
Rapporteur er 18th – 20
(Recommendations only)
on
October
Extrajudicia 8th , 2003
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
l, Summary, E/CN.4/2
chr60/7add3AV.pdf
or Arbitrary 004/7/Ad
Executions
d.3
(Mrs. Asma
Jahangir)
(January
28th,
2004)
[Note 04]
Novembe
r 4th -14th
Special
Rapporteur
2007
de
Execuções
http://daccessdds.un.org/d Projeto
oc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/126/2 Extrajudiciais do Centro de
on
Extrajudicia
A/HRC/1
l, Summary,
25
1/2/Add.
2/PDF/G0912622.pdf?Open Direitos Humanos, Justiça
Global, Faculdade de Direito
Element
or Arbitrary
da Universidade de Nova York
2
Executions
(relatório inteiro)
(Mr. Philip (March
23rd
Alston)
2009)
Special
Novembe
Rapporteur r 3rd -14th
Câmara dos Deputados
on the Sale , 2003
of Children,
(Full report)
E/CN.4/2 17
Child
004/9/Ad
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/
d.2
chr60/9add2AV.pdf
Prostitution
, and Child
Pornograph (February
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
y (Mr. Juan 3rd
Miguel
,
2004)
Petit)
May 30th
-June 13th
Special
Rapporteur
, 2004
http://daccessdds.un.org/d
on
oc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/111/4 11ª Conferência DH
Adequate
Housing
E/CN.4/2
5/PDF/G0511145.pdf?Open
005/48/A 12
Element
(Recommendations only)
(Mr.
dd.3
Miloon
(February
Kothari)
18th
,
2004)
[Note 05]
October
13th
Special
Rapporteur
on
the
–
22nd,
2004
(Recommendations only)
Independe
nce
14
of
Judges and
Lawyers
11ª Conferência DH
http://daccessdds.un.org/d
oc/UNDOC/GEN/G05/111/6
E/CN.4/2
005/60/A
7/PDF/G0511167.pdf?Open
Element
dd.3
(Mr.
Leandro
(February
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
22nd,
Despouy)
2005)
Special
October
Rapporteur 13th - 20th
on Racism, 2005
Racial
E/CN.4/2
Discriminati
11ª Conferência DH
006/16/A
on,
http://daccessdds.un.org/d (Recommendations only)
dd.3
Xenophobi
a,
21
and
oc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/113/2
1/PDF/G0611321.pdf?Open
(February
Related
28th
Element
Intolorance
2006)
(Mr.
Doudou
Diène)
June 6th -
Special
Rapporteur 17th
on Racism, 1995
Racial
E/CN.4/1 5
Discriminati
996/72/A
on,
dd.1
Xenophobi
http://daccessdds.un.org/d
oc/UNDOC/GEN/G96/103/3
4/PDF/G9610334.pdf?Open
Portal Monitoramento DHI
(Recommendations only)
Element
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
a,
and (Janruary
23rd
Related
Intolorance
1996)
(Sr.
Maurice
GlèlèAhanhanzo
)
Decembe
r
Special
Rapporteur
on Human
5th-
21st,
11ª Conferência DH
http://daccessdds.un.org/d
2005
oc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/106/2 (Recommendations only)
Rights
A/HRC/4/ 8
Defenders
37/Add.2
(Mrs. Hina
Jilani)
1/PDF/G0710621.pdf?Open
Element
(Decemb
er
19th
2006)
August
14th -25th
Special
Rapporteur
on
lish/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/ Instituto Socioambiental – ISA
the A/HRC/1
23
Situation of 2/34/Add
Human
http://www2.ohchr.org/eng
, 2008
12session/A.HRC.12.34.Add (Recommendations only)
.2AUV.pdf
.2
Rights and
(August
Fundament
14th
,
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o
monitoramento das recomendações da ONU ao Brasil
al
2009)
Freedoms
of
Indigenous
Peoples
(Mr. James
Anaya)
April 11th
UPR
Universal
Periodic
Review
2008
http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodi
es/UPR/Documents/Session
A/HRC/8/
27
15
1/BR/A_HRC_8_27_Brazil_E
Portal Monitoramento DHI
(Recommendations only)
.pdf
(May
22nd
2008)
TOTAL Rapporteurs +
232
UPR
***
***
***
***
TOTAL
Recommendations
Addressed to Brazil
467
Direitos Humanos Internacionais: construção de bases para o monitoramento das
recomendações da ONU ao Brasil