of the Philippines the criminal justice system is - Article 2

The meaning of article 2: Implementation of human rights
All over the world extensive programmes are now taking place to educate people on
human rights. As a result today there exists a vast number of persons and organisations
firmly committed to human rights; more than at any other time in the history of humankind.
Yet human rights continue to be monstrously violated.
It is time for the global human rights movement to examine why it may not yet be
achieving real improvement in the global human rights situation. One factor hindering
honest examination is the belief that improvement of knowledge about human rights will
by itself end human rights violations. This is a myth based on the corresponding belief
that education is itself capable of improving things.
In reality human rights can only be implemented through a system of justice. If this
system is fundamentally flawed, no amount of knowledge—no amount of repetition of
human rights concepts—will by itself correct its defects. Rather, these need to be studied
and corrected by practical actions. Hence research and intimate knowledge of local issues
must become an integral part of human rights education and related work.
article 2 aims to do this by drawing attention to article 2 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, and make it a key concern of all partners in the global human
rights community. This integral article deals with provision of adequate remedies for human
rights violations by legislative, administrative and judicial means. It reads in part:
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an
effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by
competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided
for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Sadly, article 2 is much neglected. One reason for this is that in the ‘developed world’
the existence of basically functioning judicial systems is taken for granted. Persons from
those countries may be unable to grasp what it means to live in a society where ‘institutions
of justice’ are in fact instruments to deny justice. And as these persons guide the global
human rights movement, vital problems do not receive necessary attention. For people in
many countries, international human rights discourse then loses relevance.
Other difficulties also arise with article 2. One is the fear to meddle in the ‘internal
affairs’ of sovereign countries. Governments are creating more and more many obstacles for
those trying to go deep down to learn about the roots of problems. Thus, inadequate
knowledge of actual situations may follow. A further and quite recent disturbance is the
portrayal of national human rights institutions and their equivalents as surrogate agencies
for dealing with article 2 related issues. Some state parties may agree to new national
human rights institutions taking on this role because they know that by doing so they
may avoid criticisms of a more fundamental nature.
Thus after many years of work, the Asian Legal Resource Centre began publishing
article 2 to draw attention to this vital provision in international law, and to raise awareness
of the need to implement human rights standards and provide effective remedies at the
local level in Asia.
Relevant submissions by interested persons and organizations are welcome.