These Commissioners (#1 through #7) of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Executive Secretariat Santiago Canton (#8) apparently do not consider the human right to armed self-defense is a vital element to Article I Right to Life, Liberty and Personal Security to the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man.
If the IACHR is Deeply Concerned about Murders of the Transgender Community in Honduras then the IACHR should equally be as deeply concerned about the murders of captive seafarers held by Somali pirates.
The IACHR should be raising vehement condemnations against the United Nations, the International Maritime Organization and all maritime nations for their avoidance of a new maritime treaty recognizing the sovereign right of nations to arm their merchant vessels for defense against piracy and armed robbery on the high seas and the individual human right of their crew (not talking about armed contract security teams at the exclusion of the crew) to armed self-defence.
THE COMMISSIONERS OF IACHR SHOWN BELOW CAN DISH OUT CONDEMNATIONS OF OTHER COUNTRIES. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE IMMUNE TO CONDEMNATIONS FOR THEIR OWN HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS BY IGNORING THE HUMAN RIGHT TO ARMED SELF-DEFENSE UNDER THE “PERSONAL SECURITY” CLAUSE OF ARTICLE I TO THE AMERICAN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF MAN!
Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:31:49 AM
SUBJECT: DISPUTING SANTIAGO CANTON’S LETTERS JAN 13, 2011 & NOV 11, 2010
From: Don Hamrick <email@example.com>
To: Dinah Shelton – United States – IACHR
Cc: Santiago Canton – IACHR
ATTACHED: Letter to IACHR Feb 2011 Disputing Second Rejection.pdf (1582KB)
TO: DINAH SHELTON – UNITED STATES, INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, DC
TO: SANTIAGO CANTON, Executive Secretary, INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS MY PETITION!
IACHR REJECTION OF MY PETITION REPRESENTS
POLITICAL OPPRESSION OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS
This time I want Commissioner Dinah Shelton (United States) to respond to my attached letter disputing Santiago Canton’s rejection of my Petition P-1490-06.
I sincerely believe Santiago Canton either does not understand the importance of my Petition for the human right to armed self-defense and did not present my Petition to the Commission in accordance with Rule 26.3.
And if Santiago Canton did present my Petition to the Commission in accordance with Rule 26.3 then I suspect the Commission itself does not fully understand the importance of my Petition not only in relation to Jessice Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) Petition 1490-05 but also to the merchant marine industry defending against piracy and armed robbery on the high seas and for ordinary citizens of a nation to defend themselves against the criminal element of society.
THE COMMISSION SHOULD FULLY COMPLY
WITH THEIR OWN RULES
I request my procedural rights under Rule 29.1.b. because I was never afforded the opportunity to know exactly what parts of my Petition did not meet the requirements of Rule 28.a. through Rule 28.i. nor did the Commission invite me to submit additional observations, either in writing or in a hearing, as provided for in Chapter VI of the Rules of Procedure.
I was not given the same opportunities as Jessica Lenahan’s Petition No. 1490-05 even though our Petitions are two sides of the same coin (same subject matter of the human right to life and the right to defend that right to life by force of arms against being murdered).
Because I was unrepresented? Because my Petition was about the human right to armed self-defense?
Signed: Don Hamrick