Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
A case brought by Mexico before the court to determine the rights of undocumented workers; thought to be because of a particular concern about undocumented Mexicans in the US, where in Hoffmann Plastic Compounds v NLRB the Supreme Court had ruled undocumented workers were not entitled to compensation for wrongful termination under a statutory scheme (S Cleveland, Legal Status and Rights of Undocumented Workers (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law 460) (US, Canada do not accept the jurisdiction of the IACtHR to binding adjudication)
*Paragraph numbers restart in each opinion
Human Rights
[70] [81] The relevant provisions in the American Convention on Human Rights are largely the same as Arts 2, 26 ICCPR, and are also reflected in Art 2(1) UDHR [70] [71] The court begins with a strong assertion: Human rights must be respected and guaranteed by all States. All persons have attributes inherent to their human dignity that may not be harmed; these attributes make them possessors of fundamental rights that may not be disregarded and which are, consequently, superior to the power of the State, whatever its political structure. [73] A customary norm of international law is that a State ratifying a human rights treaty must ensure compliance with it in domestic law [77], citing Five Pensioners case in IACtHR; implementing human rights obligations does not involve merely respecting those rights, but also ensuring enjoyment of them [79], citing UN Committee on HR (a sub-committee of the UN Human Rights Council) General Comment 3
Migrants Rights
[111] [127] Citing with approval UN GA, Resolution A/RES/54/166 on Protection of migrants: the need for all States to protect fully the universally recognized human rights of migrants regardless of their legal status, and to provide humane treatment, particularly with regard to assistance and protection [114] Owing to the jus cogens, erga omnes obligation, States can only treat documented migrants, undocumented migrants, and nationals differently provided that this differential treatment is reasonable, objective, proportionate and does not harm human rights. [119] Note: the court also cites seemingly with approval the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights which holds that taking legal action against illegal immigrants and deporting them to their states of origin is legal if done in accordance with law Also, much of the explanation following this is, understandably, in relation to the right to due process etc. but there is no reason to think that this limits the broader range of rights covered by the analysis above; NB: the migratory status of a person can never be a justification for depriving him of the enjoyment and exercise of his human rights, including those related to employment [134]
The IACtHR has previously ruled that protecting detainees from deaths and death treats from others (including other prisoners) is an obligation imposed upon governments by human rights [142] Relevance: This does not speak directly to Alfurnas case against Rutasia, but finding deaths in detention (which happened in Woeroma in Rutasia) to be a human rights violation is logically prior to the state having a human rights obligation to stop others from killing detainees (provided that death itself is a violation, not only killing) Citing the UN Committee on HR with approval, Art 9 ICCPR imposes on states the obligation to take adequate steps to protect an individual threatened with death; an interpretation of this article that authorized States parties to ignore threats against the life of persons subject to their jurisdiction, even though they have not been detained or arrested by State agents, would deprive the guarantees established in the Covenant of any effectiveness. [144] Relevance: It could therefore be argued that the threat of potential violations committed by Saydee requires Rutasia to take steps to protect the migrants so long as they are under Rutasias jurisdiction, and especially because they have been detained When there are multiple instruments governing workers rights, the one most favourable to the individual, whether domestic or international in nature, should prevail [156]
Mexico argued before the court that this could be an element of legal interpretation supporting the migrants; possible to argue that this is a source of general international law itself [29]