How would you feel if you are one of the parties in a lawsuit and the judge receives money from the other party? That is what is happening to many Latin American countries with the bodies of the Inter-American Human Rights System.

The Commission and the Court receive money from transnational organizations, multinational companies and countries that are not members of the Organization of American States (OAS) that condition their application to matters and processes related to abortion, sexual orientation and gender identity and restrictions on religious freedom. Thus, the modification of national constitutions and laws based on the action of these bodies can be considered the product of the interference of foreign governments.

This is the complaint made by the Global Center for Human Rights during the 52nd General Assembly of the OAS, which took place in Lima the first week of October. The data is the product of extensive and careful research condensed in the report “Balance of the financing of the IACHR and the Inter-American Court – Opacities and influences on conditional financing.”

We spoke with Sebastián Schuff, president of the Global Center for Human Rights, based in Washington, who explains the results of the study.

What are the main problems they detected in the financing of the Inter-American Human Rights System in the study they just published?

What would you feel if it is one of the parties in a litigation and the judge receives money from the other party? That is what is happening to many Latin American countries with the bodies of the Inter-American Human Rights System. In Global Center for Human Rights we conduct research on who contributes money to these bodies and why they do it. The findings have been surprising.

To begin with, these bodies receive financing, not only from the Member States, that is, those who are part of the OAS, but from extracontinental countries, transnational non-governmental organizations and even multinational companies. These, in general, do not grant the funds for the general maintenance of the functions of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or the Inter-American Court, but to specifically define what matters will be applied, and affecting the content of those decisions. And there are several reasons why this is particularly serious.

Which ones?

First, that countries outside the system, by extraterritoriality or their own will, decide what the contents of the sentences should be, is alarming in any legal system. With these sentences they are condemning other states and, according to the Court, they are mandatory for all States that have recognized their contentious jurisdiction. When someone gives money to condemn Colombia or Ecuador, for example, as happened in 2016, they intend that these precedents be mandatory for all other countries that have not participated in these cases and have not been able to defend themselves.

Second, the international cooperation funds that are destined for these things are not innocent money that was left over from the coffers of the countries. In general, it is part of the foreign policy of the States, so much so that, normally, they are granted through the Ministries of Foreign Affairs or organs dependent on them. That is, the change of our national laws, and even our national constitutions, is part of the foreign policy of some of these countries. We would like to know why.

Third, the costly contents are neither in the American Convention nor in any of the treaties signed by the American States, and even, sometimes, explicitly contravene them. Concepts such as abortion, sexual orientation and gender identity, or restrictions on the practice of the faith, are frontally contrary to what the OAS member states agreed on in human rights treaties.

What countries contribute that money?

Spain, Norway, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and Holland, among others.

And which international entities and companies?

The Arcus Foundation, Freedom House, Ford Foundation, Oxfam and Open Society Foundations, added to companies such as Google, Microsoft, for example.

Can you give us an example of how this financing operates?

Since 2009, the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID) allocated USD 4,737,478 to the Inter-American Court, designated to various projects. In 2016, this state agency contributed funds with the objective of starting a project entitled “Protection of victims and persons belonging to vulnerable groups through provisional measures and resolution of contentious cases on alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation and guarantees of due process.”

Concurrently, that year, the Court issued its first sentence of the year in the Duke vs. Colombia case, one of the most emblematic precedents on the promotion of pension recognition of same-sex couples, in which a breach of non-existent obligations in the treaties on the so-called “sexual orientation and gender identity” was alleged, condemning the Republic of Colombia for all its effects.

You also cited the example of Ecuador before …

Yes. Only six months after the conviction of Colombia, the Court issued the Flor Freire vs. Ecuador ruling, condemning the country for having requested the military leave to a lieutenant who had homosexual relations with a soldier, taking advantage of his drunkenness. Ecuador was convicted of the breach of, again, non-existent obligations based on alleged discrimination based on “sexual orientation” of Freire.

So far, neither the CIDH nor the Court have outlined a plausible explanation of why they received money for the resolution of contentious cases with a specific theme.

What reforms do you propose?

To begin with, the express and absolute prohibition of receiving funds that entail a commitment, express or tacit, to impose any agreement beyond the will of the States themselves.

A larger and more general reform request is seen when we travel through various cities in our countries and representatives and officials wonder what the CIDH and the Court do for our people?

They can not find satisfactory answers for this question.

What performance did the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have at the recent OAS Assembly?

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was present in the negotiations acting as one more lobbyist. That is clearly outside their powers and constitutes an abuse of their mandate, but not all countries are willing to face them.

The Commission has relegated the noble subsidiary task for which it was created, our countries support them with their contributions, but it has become an entity at the service of ideological agendas and lobbies. In addition, it is the laboratory where the language and the terms that will then be imposed in forced consensus in the OAS resolutions are delineated.