Brazil wants to resume with body criticized the Belo Monte dam



Brazil wants to resume with body criticized the Belo Monte dam


If Brazil get elected today Paulo Vannuchi, 63, for one of three open positions of the Presiding Board of the IACHR (inter-American Commission on human rights) of the OAS (Organization of American States), will be the first big move to resume the strained relations between the country and the regional body.

To Vannuchi, Minister of the Secretariat of Human Rights of Lula–and one of the current Directors of the Institute of the former President–said that his candidacy is already a “clear proof” that the Brazilian Government wants to “strengthen” and “inside” of the OAS system.

The Brazil is no Ambassador to the OAS from April 2011, in retaliation for the issuance, by the IACHR, of a restraining order to force the country to suspend the construction of the Belo Monte hydroelectric plant, in Pará, for possible impacts to the local indigenous community.

Vannuchi will dispute, in the election that occurs today during the OAS Summit in Guatemala, three of the seven vacancies with representatives from Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, USA.

Foil-the Brazil withdrew his candidacy in 2011 in retaliation for the decision of the IACHR on Belo Monte. What has changed in the Committee that the country would launch it candidate?

Paulo Vannuchi-there was an unprecedented and extremely rich discussion over the past two years over its human rights system. At the end of this discussion, in March, produced a very important consensus on renewals and the introduction of new concerns: for more balance between the actions of the defense and promotion of human rights, and between the different rapporteur.

His candidacy demonstrates the intention of Brazil to OAS reunite?

Total. The presentation of candidacy is clear evidence that the Government wants to strengthen the system, wants to be in [OAS]. And it is not the first step: the suspension of our annual contribution [in 2011] has already been regularised and there was also the nomination of Roberto Caldas to the Court [inter American human rights, which integrates with the IACHR, the Inter-American system of Human Rights Protection].

And I feel that there is an interest of the [OAS] system in having Brazil within, because no other country has the same intermediation capacity. The Brazil sits with the United States, with the with the Argentina-Venezuela-up with Cuba, which is outside the system.

Mr. has insisted on the need to balance within the IACHR. What’s the difference?

Often appeared in which themes the IACHR had a concern and had no policies, particularly budget and human resources, to work with them. The budget is still very faint–and almost impossible the functioning of a genuine Commission. Then the balance involves a US decision to fund the system [the IACHR lives of external donations made directly to the rapporteur].

In addition, some not rapporteur could travel to discuss, for example, the prison system. So when it comes to balance is to realize that there were situations in which some rapporteur have more resources than others–as if, in human rights, it was possible to have a hierarchy of priority themes.

Mr. believes that was given much use of press freedom report?

No, it was given little to others. All should have the same level of resources of the freedom of the press. What can not is a child’s rights rapporteur or prison system not having money to make trips.

After the decision of Belo Monte, Brazil criticized the criteria used in the application of precautionary measures. Still need more transparency?

Before, there was a great disparity between precautionary measures that were very well-founded, with clarity, and others that do not. These two years have allowed the States to submit their complaints [about measures implemented]–and commissioned [Board members] heard.

Those who come in this election, will knowing this–and when to take precautionary measures, will take care of ensuring transparency and criteria.

Despite the reform approved in March, the Ecuador insists on discussion of issues such as the withdrawal of the IACHR of Washington. Following must be debating?

The Ecuador proposes is not to give as terminated the process of reflection on the system. That is a good thing. What can not is the discussion proceed as if they had not occurred in these two years of discussion with results.

Antonio Lacerda/Reuters

Paulo Vannuchi tells reporters in Rio de Janeiro in may



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: