• Why say NO MORE?
• Take Action
• HRF Projects
• Learn More
• News/Videos

Letter No. 1

Summary

08/20/08

On September 11, 2001, every nation in the Americas approved the Inter-American Democratic Charter, a document that recognizes the need to defend democracy not only from unelected dictatorships but also from popularly-elected governments on the continent. The democracy clause found in Article 20 of the charter establishes a formal response mechanism that the OAS secretary general may initiate when de-mocracy in a member state is under threat.

Under Insulza’s watch at the OAS, the governments of Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela have acted in clear violation of the democratic principles set forth in the charter.

Such violations include infringements on fundamental rights ranging from freedom of the press and ex-pression to freedom from torture and tyranny: the shutting down of an independent television station in Venezuela and the recent state take-over of media in Ecuador; the political violence that have resulted in 40 deaths in Bolivia; the obliteration of judicial independence in Venezuela and Bolivia and the dissolution of the congress in Ecuador; and political persecution in all three countries.

Read the letter in full here.

Letter No. 2

10/15/08

Summary

Focused on the elimination of judicial independence in the three countries, HRF’s letter highlights the most flagrant violations of human rights in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, insisting that Insulza activate the charter’s democracy clause. Each country has used different strategies to pave the way toward executive control of the judiciary.

In Bolivia, President Evo Morales passed a measure that effectively reduced salaries of the justices of the country’s highest court by 40%, leading five of the 10 justices to resign. President Morales then brought up formal charges against the remaining five justices for declaring the unconstitutionality of a presidential decree that appointed four new judges to the Supreme Court. As a result, four more justices resigned, and with only one justice remaining, the court is unable to function effectively.

In Ecuador, the Electoral Power essentially undermined the independence of the judiciary. After the Elec-toral Power issued a resolution suspending 57 of the 100 elected parliamentarians, the congress, now controlled by President Correa’s party, voted to remove the nine justices who made up the Constitutional Tribunal. A week later, congress appointed the new Supreme Court justices.

In Venezuela, President Hugo Chávez’s party – with just a simple majority vote in the National Assembly – passed a law that increased the number of Supreme Tribunal justices from 20 to 32 and established that their appointment and dismissal would be determined by a simple majority vote in the National Assembly. This measure directly violates the Venezuelan Constitution, which makes it clear that justices can only be removed by a two-thirds vote of the assembly. President Chávez has since removed all independent jus-tices and appointed justices that support him.

Read the letter in full here.

Letter No. 3

11/18/08

Summary

HRF’s letter denounces Insulza’s inaction with regard to flagrant violations of freedom of the press in the Americas, including the shutdown of television and radio stations and government-encouraged attacks on journalists.

In Bolivia, members of groups supportive of President Morales have physically attacked reporters, jour-nalists and other members of the media each time the president labels them “enemies” or “friends of the empire.”

In Ecuador, President Correa referred to the press in his country as “the lowest of the low,” labeled them as “slanderers,” and accused them of being his main opposition. On July 8, 2008, the Ecuadorean government seized three private television channels and appointed government officials as their directors (TC Televisión, Cable Visión and Gamavisión).

In Nicaragua, President Ortega is the main instigator of harassment aimed at journalists and other mem-bers of the media. The “blue shirts,” a group that forms part of his security forces, routinely employ intim-idation tactics against the media and even assaulted at least two journalists in 2008.

En Nicaragua el presidente Ortega es el principal incitador a las persecuciones y agresiones contra periodistas y medios de comunicación a cargo de los “camisas azules”, grupo que forma parte de las fuerzas de seguridad del Presidente. Desde diciembre de 2007 se han reportado al menos dos casos de periodistas agredidos por los “camisas azules”.

In Venezuela, President Chávez’s constant threats against the press resulted in the 2007 closing of televi-sion channel RCTV. Journalists and stations critical of the government have also fallen victim of harass-ment by government supporters. In the last five years, the remaining independent station, Globovisión, has seen its reporters physically attacked at least 25 times; independent journalists have faced repeated at-tempts on their lives for their work.

Read the letter in full here.

Letter No. 4

2/26/09

Summary

Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter enshrines the separation of powers and the existence of a pluralistic system of political parties in OAS member states.

Entitled “Closing Congress: Submission of the Legislative Power to the Executive in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela,” the letter enumerates attacks that have severely eroded the independence of national legisla-tures and denounces Insulza’s inaction given these assaults on democracy.

In Bolivia, President Morales’s followers have taken to encircling government buildings, thereby creating a physical barricade preventing opposition congressmen from voting on measures championed by the ex-ecutive. In February 2008, for example, these popular movements prevented several congressmen from entering a congressional voting session on the terms of a referendum on the new constitution proposed by the president. Three congresswomen were assaulted in the melee.

In Ecuador, after a national vote decided that the Constituent Assembly, created to write a new constitu-tion, would be comprised of a majority of members from President Correa’s party, the president declared: “It’s very difficult to deal with Congress and I believe that the Ecuadorean people’s statement was re-sounding: Congress must go home.” The Constituent Assembly dissolved the opposition-controlled con-gress in November 2007, and legislative powers have remained, for the most part, in the hands of the president’s party.

In Venezuela, the National Assembly (controlled by the president’s party) granted law-making powers to President Chávez in January 2007. Subsequently, he passed 41 decrees that allowed the executive to con-trol key sectors of the economy and to transform government institutions. In November 2000, he was granted a similar legislative power that allowed him to issue 49 decrees with the force of law.

HRF concludes by requesting that Insulza activate the democracy clause against the countries committing these violations, citing the crucial role that a pluralistic system of political parties, separation of powers, and independent branches of the government play in the maintenance of democracy and respect for hu-man rights.

Read the letter in full here.

Letter No. 5

4/21/09

Summary

HRF’s letter states that Secretary General Insulza’s declarations that he would request that member states of the OAS “eliminate” the “obsolete” 1962 resolution that excluded Cuba from participation in the OAS show not only negligence in the fulfillment of his duties but also a blatant disregard for the democratic commitment of the OAS.

Article 19 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter prohibits the participation of an antidemocratic gov-ernment in the OAS.

Cuba has not complied with a single essential element of democracy as set forth by Article 3 of the Demo-cratic Charter. With respect to the requirement that it “respect rights and fundamental freedoms,” seven reports by the Inter-American Commission for Human Rights state that the current Cuban government has perpetrated a number of grave crimes. These crimes include summary executions, arbitrary detentions, torture, rape, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of men and women who have been persecuted and incarcerated solely for political reasons. With regard to freedom of the press, special reports that show that, after China, Cuba has the highest number of incarcerated journalists in the world and that it ranks as one of the top ten censors of the press, along with North Korea and Libya.

Regarding the requirement that countries hold democratic, free elections, maintain a pluralistic system of political parties, and govern in accordance with the rule of law: the Cuban people have not been able to elect their leaders democratically for more than half a century. In 1948, Fulgencio Batista forced his way to power until his overthrow in 1959, when Fidel Castro forced his own rule, which lasts until today. Moreover, Cuba maintains a single-party regime with all powers concentrated in the Communist Party, which continues to be led by Fidel Castro, as well as in the State Council, which effectively controls the state's legislative and judicial powers, and which was presided by Fidel Castro until 2006.

Read the letter in full here.

HRF’S LEGAL REPORT ON HONDURAS

Recently, Insulza activated the democracy clause during the democratic crisis of Honduras. HRF was one of the first international organizations to condemn the coup d’état and ask for the suspension of Honduras from the OAS. At that time, the HRF committed itself to a careful investigation of the crisis aimed at determining what exactly happened in Honduras and at singling out those responsible. These are some of the conclusions of HRF’s legal report “The Facts and the Law behind the Democratic Crisis of Honduras, 2009:”

• Throughout the democratic crisis in Honduras, the OAS acted as an international agent of the executive power of Honduras, rather than an organization with the duty to promote and protect democracy in its member states. Before reaching this conclusion, the legal report evaluated in detail all actions by the OAS in response to the three anti-democratic events that took place in Honduras throughout the crisis: (1) the erosion of democracy carried out by President Zelaya from March 23 to June 28; (2) the coup d’état carried out by the armed forces in the morning of June 28; and (3) the unconstitutional removal effected by Congress—also referred to as impeachment coup—that took place later that same day.
• Confronted with the erosion of democracy in Honduras at the hands of President Zelaya, the OAS did not act in accordance with international democracy law because, instead of activating the democracy clause against Zelaya, it decided to send an unprecedented “Mission of Accompaniment” that escalated the crisis in Honduras. Secondly, confronted with the coup d’état carried out by the armed forces, the OAS acted in accordance with international democracy law by activating the democracy clause and condemning this action, but did not act accordingly in its diplomatic initiatives when trying to revert the situation. Finally, faced with the president’s unconstitutional removal by Congress, the OAS did not act correctly because it failed both to condemn this action and to take appropriate diplomatic initiatives to revert it. The report also finds that the OAS failed to promote and monitor the elections of November 29 in order to foster the prompt restoration of democracy in that country.
• At no point did the OAS recognize the anti-democratic actions of President Zelaya (not before or after June 28), nor did it perform good offices with the Honduran Congress or the Honduran Supreme Court in order to criminally try President Zelaya in accordance with the constitution. On the contrary, the OAS maintained the “pre-June 28” biased position advocated by the secretary general, and failed to act as a guarantor of democracy.
• If the secretary general and the Permanent Council had acted in adherence to their obligations while the erosion of democracy was occurring, it is reasonable to assume that the OAS intervention would have had a deterrent effect, and that the erosion of democracy, the coup d’état, and impeachment coup of June 28, as well as the Supreme Court validation of these anti-democratic events later, would have been avoided. Sadly, however, throughout the Honduran crisis the OAS acted as an international agent of President Zelaya, rather than an international organization called to promote and protect democracy in its member states.

Read the full report here.