My name is Laura Chaparro and I'm a student enrolled in the Master of Human Rights.

In the following, I will present a summary of research on possible human rights holders

in the Inter-American human rights system.

First of all, we want to outline the historical and political circumstances which are campaigning

the emergence of the Inter-American human rights system.

After World War II, there was a global need to re-establish the Jewish National Imperatives,

especially due to the horrible violations of human rights committed by the Nazis.

As a result, the OAS concluded its charter in 1948.

Unfortunately, after the conclusion of the Charter of the Organization of American States,

the enthusiasm towards creating a human rights system stagnated for about 10 years.

Major political unrest accompanied by human rights violations, for example the Cuban Revolution,

or the Bay of Pigs Invasion, led to a re-evaluation in regards of human rights protection in the

Americas.

In this context, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights was first aimed at investigating

the violations of human rights during the Cuban Revolution.

Also, under these circumstances, individuals or certain groups of people, such as indigenous

people, probably seemed more vulnerable and affected by human rights violations than,

for instance, legal persons like companies.

Finally, another decade went by and the American Convention of Human Rights was concluded in

Concerning the concept of human rights holdership under the American Convention, the document

itself offers a quite precise wording.

In its preamble, it speaks of the rights of men and attributes its protection to the human

personality.

Its article 1.2 explicitly states that, for the purpose of this convention, person means

every human being.

When it comes to petitions, however, article 44 prescribes that petitions with the Commission

can be lodged by any person or group of persons or any non-governmental entity legally recognized

in one or more organizations.

It becomes apparent, from the wording of the Convention itself, that there is an distinction

between who can hold human rights and who has standing to initiate proceedings before

the Commission in the Inter-American human rights system.

Considering the approach of the Inter-American Commission first, this distinction continues

to be of crucial importance.

The Commission has pointed out that petitioner and victim are two different concepts in the

Inter-American system.

It thus considered the victim status to be preserved for natural persons, consequently

excluding juridical persons or legal entities.

With regards to article 44, it found private juridical persons to be encompassed with the

notion of non-governmental entity legally recognized.

This means that, while companies cannot claim their own human rights, they do have a standing

to lodge petitions with the Commission.

The Inter-American Court has addressed the question of human rights holdership in a recent

advisory opinion of 2016, which was requested by Panama.

It reiterated, in line with the explicit wording of the Convention, that legal entities generally

do not enjoy the rights of the Convention.

Nevertheless, the Court also found exceptions concerning indigenous as well as tribal communities

on the one hand, and trade unions, federations, and confederations on the other.

The latter had afforded to have the same rights as natural persons under the Protocol of St.

Salvador.