User:Smacewen/sandbox

Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons
The Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons was created in 1994, in Belém do Para, Brazil, by the Organization of American States (OAS) General Assembly. Leading up to the establishment of a solidified effort to combat the issues were many declarations and resolutions throughout the late 1970s. The convention, along with several other international instruments, acts as a basis to legitimize and reinforce efforts, in order to combat the issue by making it a prominent concern in marginalized areas and groups.

The ultimate objective of this convention is to eradicate the forced disappearance of persons in the OAS's respective regions, through the independent Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The convention's primary efforts are to target state member's government actors, to refrain from practicing and tolerating forced disappearances as well as establishing it as a crime, by prosecuting the offender, accomplices and, accessories to the crime. The member states affected by forced disappearance are expected to adopt legislative measures to ensure the act of forced disappearances is established as a serious crime and further actions are taken in order to prevent, punish and eradicate it all together.

Organization of American States (OAS)
The convention on the forced disappearance of persons was adopted under the world's oldest regional organization, the Organization of American States. Dating back to the initial establishment of the International Union of American Republics, the Inter-American system began to take shape by 1890 to create a standardized set of norms and institutions. Relations throughout the America's began surfacing and led to the development of institutions that would become recognized as the first international institutional system. The signing of the OAS charter in 1948 would put in place an official document, defining the organization's mandate and outlining its regulations along with the conduct and governance that all 35 independent member states have agreed upon, and those who wish to become a member must acknowledge. Four main pillars characterize the efforts in which the OAS carry out throughout the Western Hemisphere: promoting democracy, protection of human rights, economic and social development as well as regional security cooperation.

Member States: The structure of the OAS is composed of nine levels of governances, the General Assembly is the supreme organ of the OAS, along with the Meeting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the Councils, the Inter-American Judicial Committee, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the General Secretariat, specialized conferences, specialized organizations and other entities created by the General Assembly. This elaborate system allows the organization to fulfill its objectives.
 * Antigua and Barbuda
 * Argentina
 * Barbados
 * Belize
 * Bolivia
 * Brazil
 * Canada
 * Chile
 * Colombia
 * Costa Rica
 * Cuba
 * Dominican Republic
 * Ecuador
 * El Salvador
 * Grenada
 * Guatemala
 * Guyana
 * Haiti
 * Honduras
 * Jamaica
 * Mexico
 * Nicaragua
 * Panama
 * Paraguay
 * Peru
 * Saint Kitts and Nevis
 * Saint Lucia
 * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
 * Suriname
 * The Bahamas
 * Trinidad and Tobago
 * United States of America
 * Uruguay
 * Venezuela

The OAS main objectives fall under the four main pillars of focus, promoting peace and security, consolidating representative democracy and providing for common action, among other things, provide credibility to the issues concerning its 35 member states. The organization is recognized as the main political, judicial and social governmental symposium uniting its members including its 69 members with permanent observer status along with the European Union. Through its efforts to improve all areas of focus, the organization carries out initiatives by "providing guidance and technical assistance to its member states".

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created by the OAS in 1959 as an autonomous organ enabling further efforts to combat issues relevant to human rights throughout the jurisdiction of the organization's member states. The commission emerged as an institution within the Inter-American system, along with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. The two Inter-American organs would be solely responsible for all aspects concerning human rights and "serve as a consultative organ of the Organization in these matters". Together, they would become the primary actor that would oversee the previously established international efforts of addressing violations of human rights as well as systematically developing new and improved ones. International tools which were created by the IACHR with primary focuses on :
 * The American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (1948)

All in which address leading and prevalent issues dealing with marginalized groups allowing the commission to create a group and or issue specific protocol to combat the issue as efficient as possible abiding by the provisions of the OAS charter. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court are characterized as autonomous in the actions they take. This proves to be an advantage for the pair as autonomy grants them the ability to execute their mandate without the general consensus of its member states. Coinciding with its annual reports on human rights violations, the IACHR has been able to bring international attention to repressive regimes and "continues to receive, analyze, and investigate more than 2,500 allegations of human rights violations annually".
 * The American Convention on Human Rights (1969)
 * The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (1985)
 * The Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1988)
 * The Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights to Abolish the Death Penalty (1990)
 * The Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and, Eradication of Violence against Women (1994)
 * The Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (1994)
 * The Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities (1999)
 * The Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001)
 * The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression (2000)
 * Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas (2008)

Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons
The OAS covers a wide range of issues throughout the regions of its member states, to further efforts regarding prevalent and progressive disregard and disrespect of human rights, independent bodies would be established to devote attention and resources towards the issue. The OAS would collectively acknowledge the issue and previous efforts regarding forced disappearances and arrange an agreement among member states to categorize it as a violation of human rights. As a violation of human rights, the IACHR would become the fundamental organizational organ to combat the violations throughout member states with the advantage of nonpartisan internal decision making.

As an independent organizational body focusing on the protection and promotion of human rights, the IACHR conducts reports on member states as to how government actors are abiding by the commission's provisions. Though the IACHR interacts with member states governmental actors and regimes, individuals have the ability to file a petition against one or more member states considered to have violated the rights of a person. Member states are responsible for the violation in three areas: action (act by State or its agents), acquiescence (tacit consent of the State or its agents) and omission (the act of State or agent failing to take action). The IACHR is limited to "determining the international responsibility of a Member State of the OAS" , therefore cannot determine the liability of an individual in the case of human rights violations. Individuals are able to file a petition against its state as a member of the OAS, if the IACHR concludes that a violation of human rights took place in the hands of the State or state agents, it will issue a report with some of the following recommendations : The commission on human rights also has its limitations to its ability to act upon a violation, such as being unable to:
 * 1) Suspend the acts in violation of human rights
 * 2) Investigate and punish the persons responsible
 * 3) Make reparation for the damages caused
 * 4) Make changes to legislation
 * 5) Require that the State adopt other measures or actions
 * 1) Issue a ruling with respect to a State that is not a member of the OAS
 * 2) Provide attorneys to assist in domestic judicial proceedings or to submit a petition or request for precautionary measures to the Commission
 * 3) Provide economic assistance or materials and supplies to persons
 * 4) Undertake immigration procedures, or process the granting of visas or political asylum.

Challenges
Although some of the leading actors in the challenge to combat enforced disappearances of persons acknowledge the progress that has been made throughout the regions, the IACHR face contemporary challenges. The IACHR expresses some of the predominant issues that lie within the governmental regimes throughout the Americas as one of the leading issues they face while trying to eradicate forced disappearances. President of the commission on human rights stated the issue of dictatorships and authoritarian governments and their methods to induce terror upon their targets result in many human rights violations along with forced disappearances.

Case Study: Ayotzinapa, Mexico
On September 24th, 2014, approximately 100 students from the local Ayotzinapa Teacher's College were caught in the midst of an ambush carried out by state and ministerial police officers. The college, known for their activism, carried out the tradition of acquiring several busses in order to transport students to a demonstration located in Mexico City commemorating a student massacre that occurred in 1968. The events that took place in the hands of the state and ministerial police who had pre-meditated the ambush attack carried out road-blocks, shot with the intent to kill along with long-standing persecution. The ambush resulted in the execution of a total of six students, over forty students were wounded and forty remain disappeared. The Mexican government lacks effort to fulfill its responsibility to devote resources in order to advance in the investigation of the Ayotzinapa disappearances, dissatisfies many human rights organizations along with the family of the victims with evidence of collusion throughout the investigation. The year following the ambush carried out by police officers, authorities had been unable to provide any new accusations, and that to this date there has been no one prosecuted for the crime of enforced disappearance.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights throughout the America's created the Interdisciplinary Group of Independent Experts (GIEI), through an agreement between the IACHR, the Mexican State and representatives of the disappeared students in Ayotzinapa. This agreement also put in place the GIEI roles and activities consisting of "searching for the disappeared persons alive; technical analysis of the lines of investigation to determine criminal liabilities; and technical analysis of the Plan for Integral Attention to the Victims".

The report deliberated by the GIEI, analyzes the efforts and investigation of the State Procurator General and the Procurator General of the Republic along with the efforts to "straighten the course of the investigation, the search for the victims and the care for their relatives and other victims ". The report concludes with a set list of recommendations touching on the subjects of :
 * 1) Investigation: to unify the investigation, to consider other human rights violations and crimes, to conduct pending processes and procedures, investigate alternative theories, investigate ill-treatment of torture against suspected perpetrators, perform second autopsies and to reconsider certain elements of the case.
 * 2) Responsibilities: determine if security forces present at the events coincided with the law, investigate other possible perpetrators, carry out new arrests, investigate suspects' assets, investigate possible obstruction of the investigation.
 * 3) Search: to continue the search, examine other places compatible with the cremated remains, update the maps of the graves, incorporate satellite photographs and search technology in the investigation.
 * 4) Care for Victims: implementing the recommendations on care for relatives and victims, consolidate reporting mechanisms and relationships with relatives and other victims, reform and fulfill the collaboration agreements and other State commitments, consider protection and prevention measures.

Comment
I see that you're still working on it - absolutely not a problem at this stage. The lead section is quite good as a first effort. Do be sure that the lead section, when you finish it, focuses more on the Convention than on the OAS - though you may wish to expand on the OAS in the history section. But so far, so good! Dwebsterbu (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 1: Interesting and complex topic. To piggyback on Dr Webster comment, I would suggest to expand info on the OAS in its own section (interesting for reader, gives insight to the Convention, and adds to word count). I would also suggest including what they do specifically, such as cases, campaigns, activities, structures, or funding, etc. You might want to include stories/cases like this one:  http://hrbrief.org/2017/12/santiago-maldonado-recent-victim-dictatorship-era-violations/ Furthermore, I suggest using more in-text citations in order to show where your information is coming from (opening paragraph has little sources). Also, check your sources to make sure they are complete. Overall, well written and discussed with a neutral point of view. Convention’s focuses are also well formatted and linked. I think this article will be a very good addition to Wikipedia. Good job! Sunnysteff (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2: The content is really good and reads very well. My personal opinion would be to break down your information into subheadings if possible. It would make this wiki less of a "block reading" and more of a Wikipedia style page. It would also make it easier for your readers to pinpoint information that they would seek. Case studies would be great to add to the text and would complete your work. Are there any criticisms you could add? How is this funded? Any concerns about this convention? Have other countries backed-up the convention? I would probably give an insight/research on other conventions that operate on the same model and use it in a way to compare it (bad or good). This might reveal some weakness or strengths that your convention has, thus additional content that could be added to your article. Overall, the article gives good information and would only require minor visual edits to make this easier to read. I would agree with the other peer review: putting more intext citation in the opening paragraph would be important. Making sure that you put as much information in the references 3 to 4 (the footnotes) would help make the article look more complete. Good work! LebelPhyl (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)