Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights

The international human rights system is traditionally based on State organs implementing the obligations set out in the treaties to which the State is party. Over recent years, however, some new actors, for example, national human rights institutions are starting to appear and be recognised on the international plane that do not fit easily into the State/non-State actor dichotomy. This article explores the innovative contribution of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) to these developments with its requirement that States set up National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs), independent bodies to carry out visits to places of detention, but which will also have some relationship with the international committee established under the Protocol, the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture (SPT). OPCAT sets up a triangular relationship between the State, the SPT and the NPM. Many issues remain undeveloped and many are already looking to the international committee, the SPT, to provide some more guidance to States and NPMs themselves on how these bodies should function and the role they should play. This article examines various models of NPMs, how States decide who to designate, what independence means, what is the role of an NPM and how should their effectiveness be measured, as well as to whom the NPM should be accountable, if anyone, and to whom it should report.

Blasphemy is a serious wrongdoing in all monotheistic world religions. Blasphemy prohibitions have been brought into being and enforced so as to protect the dominant religion specifically. Religions as such, however, are not protected by international human rights law. Human rights law protects and empowers people: every person has the right to freedom of religion or belief. Human rights law does not recognise a right to have one's religion or belief at all times exempted from criticism, ridicule or insult, or a right, in other words, to respect for one's religious feelings. The right to freedom of expression is not an absolute right as it carries with it special duties and responsibilities. This right can be restricted on the basis of certain grounds for limitation; however, the interest of ‘religion as such is not among those grounds. In this article it is argued that contrary to popular belief the two rights, though very much interdependent, do not in abstracto ‘clash’. Moreover, with a view toward optimally guaranteeing human rights law in actual practice, the two rights do as a rule not need to be balanced – for it is precisely when the two rights are balanced without a legal necessity to do so that human rights law is undermined. The broader intent of this article is to present a human rights-based assessment of blasphemy prohibitions and counter-defamation (of religions) initiatives. Rather than focussing on strategies to counter defamation of religions, we should concentrate on and deal with practices that actually threaten individual human rights; that is to say, we should more effectively tackle the issue of advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

This article examines the history of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) in general including their establishment in Africa. Using examples from three countries – Malawi, Nigeria and South Africa – it critically analyses the promotional and protective mandates of these institutions in Africa and then argues that their experience over the years in promoting human rights in their domains can similarly be useful in advancing adolescents' sexual and reproductive rights. In doing this, NHRIs may face some challenges including poor funding, undue interference from the executive, shortage of personnel and so on. Therefore some of these challenges are discussed and subsequently some suggestions for the way forward.