OAS IACHR embraces abortionist cause and omits on STF abuses

On March 8, a group of Brazilian NGOs met in Los Angeles, California, to discuss ways to expand access to abortion in Brazil, in a panel called “Reproductive Rights and Violence against Women and Girls in Brazil”. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Brazilian government and six pro-abortion organizations. The meeting took place under the auspices of the IACHR (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights), a body linked to the OAS (Organization of American States).

“In recent years, processes of inequity in sexual and reproductive health have increased, based on normative cis-hetero patriarchal racism and LGBTQIAP+phobia,” said Laíse da Silva, from the NGO Criola.

Adriana Martins, adviser to the Department of Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, read a statement by the Minister for Women, Cida Gonçalves, in which she promises “increased investment in improving public facilities for caring for victims of sexual violence and interruption of pregnancy in the cases provided for by law.” The minister also mentioned as a positive point the revocation of technical notes that represented “setbacks” in this area because they made abortion difficult.

Marcos Pedrosa, from the Ministry of Health, explained how the Brazilian government facilitated abortion in cases where the pregnant woman claims to have been raped. “We revoked an ordinance that made it mandatory to notify the police authority to authorize the interruption of pregnancy in the cases provided for in Brazilian law, which brought insecurity to women and health workers, and also violated human, sexual and reproductive rights” In fact, the overturned ordinance specifically referred to cases of rape — which, as a crime, needed to be reported to the police.

Two days later, Pedro Vaca, rapporteur on freedom of expression for the IACHR, got together with Paula Guimarães, from the pro-abortion NGO Projeto Catarinas. “I am concerned about your complaints about the lack of guarantees for work, including the secrecy of sources”, he said. Far from being an independent and defenseless initiative, the Catarinas portal — which aims to promote abortion — is financed by the Federal Government European Union and UN Women.

The same rapporteur who expressed concern about the freedom of expression of the Catarinas did not proceed with the petitions presented by the defense of the Terça Livre portal, which was taken off the air and had the accounts blocked by determination of the Federal Supreme Court.

These and other episodes show how the IACHR has distanced itself from the most urgent demands and embraced an ideological agenda. On paper, the role of the IACHR is “to promote respect for and defense of human rights and to serve as an advisory body to the Organization of American States in this matter”. However, the Commission has shown signs that it is deviating from its most urgent responsibilities and focusing on ideological agendas.

When Mexico decriminalized abortion, the IACHR celebrated. More recently, the IACHR took El Salvador to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights over the Beatriz case, in which a woman with lupus was denied the right to abort her baby who had anencephaly. The IACHR claimed that the abortion was necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life — but the abortion was denied and the mother survived. The young woman died in a motorcycle accident four years later. Even so, the IACHR has advocated that the government of El Salvador, where the case took place, be warned.

Omission in relation to STF abuses

In the case of Brazil, nothing prevents the issue of abortion from being addressed by Congress, which has the responsibility of discussing and deciding on changes in legislation. In other words: the action of the IACHR is not necessary.

On the other hand, the claim of potential victims of abuse before the Federal Supreme Court has already exhausted all available resources in the Brazilian courts. There is no one to turn to within national institutions. For that very reason, these cases would warrant a more in-depth analysis by the IACHR. But that is not what has happened.

“It is inexplicable that the Commission is not sensitive to the gravity and urgency of the violations presented in our complaint. A regularly constituted media company was closed by an authority at the top of the judiciary, in clear affront to the jurisprudence of the inter-American system”, says lawyer Renor Oliver Filho, who represents the Terça Livre portal. In December 2021, he filed a complaint with the IACHR. Since then, the agency has remained silent on the case.

Lawyer Géssica Almeida, from the Lawyers of Law movement in Brazil, agrees that the IACHR has been unreceptive, but believes that the CPMI (Mixed Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry) that will investigate the acts of January 8 can help in one aspect: the production of material evidence. “If the denunciations do not evolve because they collide with the requirements for knowing the petition, we believe that with the opening of the CPMI on January 8 that we will be able to produce the necessary evidence required for the petition in the IACHR”, she says. She further asserts that the IACHR has always had an ideological leaning to the left. “The disadvantage of this is that it prioritizes the political issue more than the human condition”, she criticizes.

Until now, the commission has refused to investigate requests presented by Renor and other lawyers of people investigated by the STF for “anti-democratic acts” or “fake news”.

The commission, created in 1959, acts in a complementary way to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, also linked to the OAS. The IACHR works as a gateway: the commission analyzes the complaints and produces reports with recommendations. If they are not complied with and the commission considers that there are systematic abuses, the case is forwarded to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has the power to impose sanctions.

Most cases are resolved in the commission and do not reach the court. At the IACHR itself, a minority of complaints are accepted.

In 2021, the commission received 168 petitions from Brazil Of these, six were admitted. Tania Reneaum Panszi, executive secretary of the IACHR, has great power to decide which topics will be dealt with by the body. She participated in the panel on abortion in Brazil, and stated that “reproductive rights are fundamental human rights and must be respected, protected and guaranteed by all OAS member states, including Brazil”.

One of the cases that progressed involves the inmates of the PEM (Evaristo de Moraes Penitentiary), in Rio de Janeiro. Last year, the commission defended that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights intercede in their favor due to overcrowding and lack of adequate health conditions. “Persons deprived of their liberty in the PEM are in a situation of extreme and urgent risk of suffering irreparable harm,” the IACHR text read.