Abstract

The dissertation explores the role of national human rights institutions in promoting and protecting human rights in  Cameroon. It begins with a comprehensive introduction to the concept of human rights, underlining their universal nature and the obligation of states to safeguard them. The study employs qualitative research methodology, including content analysis of primary and secondary sources like conventions, statutes, academic articles, and case studies, supplemented by fieldwork.Key findings reveal the effectiveness of institutions in both countries, highlighting the challenges they face, such as governmental influence and limited autonomy. In Cameroon, despite ratified international treaties, the dualist approach hinders the direct application of these treaties, leading to significant human rights violations. The study recommends strengthening legal frameworks and ensuring effective implementation of human rights protections. It emphasizes the need for complete autonomy in human rights institutions and advocates for increased international cooperation. The conclusion stresses the urgency of enhancing protection mechanisms to uphold human rights standards, asserting that effective implementation of the recommendations can demonstrate a strong commitment to human rights in both countries

Chapter One: General Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study

Human rights are inherent to every individual, irrespective of their country of origin, residence, gender, race, complexion, religious belief, language, or any other distinguishing trait. Despite the various theoretical foundations behind them, these rights encompass a broad range of values or capabilities that are believed to empower individuals or safeguard their interests, and are recognized as universally applicable. These rights are rooted in the principle of respecting each individual. The core belief is that every individual is a moral and rational entity who warrants dignified treatment. While specific nations or distinct groups may have particular rights exclusive to them, human rights are universally applicable to all.

Since its inception in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights have become a cornerstone of international law’s moral framework.[1] These rights aim to establish universal standards that must be adhered to by all national legal systems that accept and ratify these international agreements. For the effective implementation of international human rights, these rights need to be incorporated into the constitutional and domestic legal frameworks of countries.[2] This integration has led to a heightened global focus on human rights, with most nations prioritizing international human rights instruments (IHRIs). Increasingly, these instruments are being embedded within national legal structures, particularly within state constitutions, in the context of rights realization.[3] The enforcement of these rights operates through various levels: international, regional, and national. Of these, local mechanisms are often seen as the most critical, due to their direct proximity and relevance to the individuals who are the primary beneficiaries of these rights.[4]Top of Form
The majority of human rights instruments take the form of treaties, thereby falling under the purview of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)..[5]

The implementation of international human rights treaties, which is the central issue of our discussion, is encapsulated in Part III of the VCLT (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).[6][7]  The direct incorporation of international treaties significantly enhances adherence to international law at the national level. In fact, it’s only when a human rights instrument and its provisions are fully integrated into the domestic legal system that national courts are equipped to apply these provisions in cases presented to them by private individuals or organizations.

Traditionally, scholars have proposed two distinct approaches regarding the incorporation of international law into national legal systems, categorizing nations as either ‘monist’ or ‘dualist’. ^[8].

In the monist system, international law and national law are viewed as components of a unified legal framework within a domestic legal system. This perspective upholds the supremacy of international law over national law ^[9]. In the monist approach, international law is directly applicable within national legal systems without the need for specific domestic implementing legislation. For monists, international law holds precedence over national law, and this view is directly integrated into the legal framework of the country. This approach is prevalent in countries like France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the USA, numerous Latin American countries, and some Francophone African nations. Notably, Cameroon, through Article 45 of its Constitution, has embraced the monist approach, highlighting its commitment to the immediate applicability and superiority of international law within its national legal system.

RATIONALE

The research focuses on examining the international conventions ratified by Cameroon and South Africa, their national laws, and the implementation of these instruments in protecting human rights. Cameroon has ratified a significant number of international conventions that safeguard human rights. For example, by ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) in 1984, Cameroon committed to respecting and protecting rights such as freedom of association, expression, and assembly. These rights are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Additionally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, ratified by Cameroon in 1989, imposes obligations on State Parties to uphold freedoms of association, expression, and assembly. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights further reinforces these commitments.

Despite Cameroon’s ratification of various human rights treaties, its approach to the application of these treaties is dualist. This means that ratified treaties only become effective through specific domestic legal measures of incorporation. The research aims to investigate whether the laws established by Cameroon for the protection of human rights encounter any issues. A critical aspect of this examination is the concerning rate of human rights violations in Cameroon, especially in light of the international standards set forth in the various conventions that Cameroon has ratified. This juxtaposition seeks to understand the efficacy and enforcement of these international human rights standards within the Cameroonian context.

1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Several works have been reviewed based on the specific objectives of this study.

Chinda Lugarde Aimee[10] research delves into the interplay between international human rights law and domestic judicial systems, an area that has garnered significant scholarly attention. His examination focuses on the International Human Rights Instruments (IHRIs) ratified by Cameroon, and the extent to which these instruments are applied. His study investigates the process through which IHRIs are received into Cameroon’s domestic legal order and their application in Cameroonian courts.

The methodology of Aimee’s research is rooted in both primary and secondary data sources. This involves a thorough analysis of various materials including textbooks, laws, case studies, theses, articles, reports, and declarations related to human rights protection. Additionally, interviews are conducted to gather insights on specific issues.

Aimee’s research culminates in identifying the challenges associated with the application of international human rights instruments in Cameroon. This review is pertinent to the current study as it touches upon the concept of human rights, which is central to the subject matter at hand. However, Aimee’s focus is predominantly on the legal frameworks regulating human rights in Cameroon and does not extensively explore the institutions involved, which is the primary focus of the present study.

Top of Form

Ayuk Nkwah Pascal[11] asserts that human rights are the moral entitlements individuals claim in the societies they inhabit, rooted in the inherent values and attributes of their humanity. In Cameroon, the protection of human rights is nationally enshrined in the Preamble of the country’s Constitution, dated January 18th, 1996. To fulfill its human rights obligations, the State of Cameroon has established various institutions dedicated to promoting and safeguarding human rights. These National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) are state-sanctioned entities with broad constitutional or legal mandates to protect and promote human rights at the national level.

Key human rights institutions in Cameroon include the Cameroon Human Rights Commission (CHRC), the judiciary, various government ministries such as those overseeing Education (encompassing Basic, Secondary, and Higher Education), and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Pascal’s paper specifically examines the role of the CHRC, an independent body with legal status and financial autonomy based in Yaoundé, Cameroon’s capital. The CHRC is tasked with consultation, monitoring, evaluation, dialogue, conciliation, and deliberation in the promotion and protection of human rights. It also functions as the Cameroon National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture (NMPT).

However, Pascal critiques the CHRC’s lack of actual independence, noting that the executive branch of the government exerts control over the Commission. This influence undermines the CHRC’s effectiveness in its human rights mandate. Pascal advocates for the complete autonomy of the Commission, proposing that its members should be elected either by Parliamentarians or directly by the public through national elections, to enhance its effectiveness in promoting and protecting human rights in Cameroon.

This review of Ayuk Nkwah Pascal’s work is highly relevant to the current study as it offers a critical examination of the institutions tasked with the protection and promotion of human rights in Cameroon. Pascal’s focus on the operational dynamics, challenges, and recommendations for institutions like the Cameroon Human Rights Commission (CHRC) provides valuable insights into the practical aspects of human rights enforcement at the national level.

However, a notable limitation of Pascal’s analysis is its exclusive focus on Cameroon, without addressing similar institutions or mechanisms in South Africa. This gap is significant because the comparison between the human rights frameworks of different countries, especially those within the same continent but with diverse historical and socio-political backgrounds, can yield important insights.

Expanding the study to include South Africa will allow for a broader understanding of how different African nations approach the protection and promotion of human rights. South Africa, with its unique history of apartheid and its transition to a democratic regime, presents a distinctive case study in terms of human rights legislation and institutional development. By examining South African institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission, the Constitutional Court, and various non-governmental organizations, the study can explore how these bodies operate, the challenges they face, and their effectiveness in protecting human rights.

Furthermore, comparing and contrasting the human rights institutions of Cameroon and South Africa can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the various models of human rights governance in Africa. This comparative approach can also highlight best practices, areas needing improvement, and the impact of different historical and cultural contexts on the protection of human rights. This broader perspective is essential for a more nuanced understanding of the complex landscape of human rights protection in different African countries.

John C. Mubangizi’s study examines the vital role national human rights institutions play in promoting and safeguarding human rights, as recognized by several United Nations resolutions, notably Resolution 48/134 of December 20, 1993, and further affirmed by Resolution 2003/76 of April 25, 2003, by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Mubangizi’s research comes in the wake of significant political and constitutional transformations across Africa, where many states have adopted new constitutions to transition into democratic societies. A key feature of these constitutions is the inclusion of bills of rights and the establishment of national institutions dedicated to human rights protection. The study specifically focuses on comparing the human rights institutions in Uganda and South Africa. In Uganda, these include the Uganda Human Rights Commission and the Inspectorate of Government. In South Africa, the focus is on Chapter 9 institutions such as the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission, the Commission for the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Cultural, Religious, and Linguistic Communities, and the Commission for Gender Equality. Mubangizi assesses the roles, powers, functions, achievements, and effectiveness of these institutions, as well as the challenges they encounter and their strategies for addressing them.

This study’s relevance to my research on the role of national institutions in the protection and promotion of human rights in Cameroon and South Africa is significant. Mubangizi’s work provides a comparative framework for understanding how different African nations approach human rights protection through institutional mechanisms. This comparison is beneficial for identifying best practices, challenges, and strategies that might be applicable or adaptable in the context of Cameroon and South Africa.

Mubangizi’s research is centered on Uganda and South Africa, offering insights through a comparative analysis of these two countries. In contrast, my study is focused on Cameroon and South Africa, bringing a different geographic and cultural context into the discussion. This shift in focus could reveal unique aspects of human rights protection pertinent to Cameroon that are not addressed in Mubangizi’s work.Regarding the scope of institutions analyzed, Mubangizi includes a wide range, encompassing those with both direct and indirect roles in human rights protection. My research, meanwhile, concentrates more specifically on the main institutions in Cameroon and South Africa, or it could similarly opt to explore a broader spectrum of organizations involved in human rights. In terms of approach, while Mubangizi adopts a comparative analysis between Uganda and South Africa, my study extend beyond mere comparison between Cameroon and South Africa. It could also delve into the distinct challenges and successes each country faces in the realm of human rights, offering a more nuanced understanding of the situation in each country.

• To discuss the concept of Human Rights.
• To examine the institutions for the protection and promotion of Human Rights by national Human rights institutions in Cameroon and South Africa.
• To examine the effectiveness of the protection and promotion of Human Rights by national Human rights institutions in Cameroon and South Africa.
• To propose policy recommendations to help strengthen the effectiveness in implementing the protection mechanisms.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS   

The study is divided in to main and specific research questions

1.5.1 Main Research question

How effective is the protection and promotion of Human Rights by national Human rights institutions in Cameroon ?

Specific Research questions

• What is the concept of Human Rights?
• What are the institutional frameworks for the protection of Human Right in Cameroon ?
• How effective are the mechanisms for the protection and promotion of Human Rights by national Human rights institutions in Cameroon ?
• What policy recommendations can be provided to strengthen the protection of Human Right in Cameroon ?