A/HRC/15/39 in 1959) held four meetings a year, each one to two weeks in duration. Article 9 of the Commission’s Statute was referred to, which provided the Commission with the mandate to develop awareness, make recommendations to Governments, prepare studies or reports, request Governments to supply information regarding measures adopted pertaining to human rights, and serve as an advisory body to the Organization of American States. 27. The speaker took note of the evolutionary nature of the Commission, referring to the first on-site visit of the Commission in 1961 (to the Dominican Republic) and the expansion of its mandate in 1965 allowing it to receive, analyse, investigate and make recommendations on individual petitions. She looked in more detail at the important areas of work that had been conducted by the Commission over the years, such as the writing of country reports, the processing of individual petitions, the hearings held by the Commission, the issuance of precautionary measures, and the role it played following the establishment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in 1979. In its role of referring cases to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Commission rejected approximately 90 per cent of complaints, as they failed to meet the minimum criteria for admissibility, which were the exhaustion of domestic remedies, a six-month statute of limitations, the requirement that a petition cannot be pending in another international proceeding, and that the facts refer to a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights or the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man. If a case reached a friendly settlement, the terms of settlement were published in an annual report. The speaker emphasized that people more often go to the regional court rather than United Nations bodies, as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was more responsive in terms of making reparations for requesting parties. Ms. Cerna also referred to other instruments and mechanisms that made up the Inter-American human rights system, including a system of special rapporteurs established to address thematic human rights issues, including freedom of expression, the rights of indigenous peoples, the rights of women, the rights of children, the rights of persons of African descent and against racial discrimination, the situation of migrant workers and their families, and persons deprived of liberty. 28. The last presentation, by Mr. Christof Heyns, compared the regional human rights systems in Africa, the Americas and Europe. His presentation highlighted the four common features of credible regional human rights systems: (a) each are part of a comprehensive intergovernmental organization and pursue the human rights objectives of those organizations; (b) all have a strong legal basis, (c) all engage in monitoring work; and (d) and all have a mandate for human rights promotion and protection, with individuals able to lodge complaints. 29. The speaker outlined the substantive norms covered in the different regional human rights instruments, emphasizing that the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was the only instrument to refer to peoples’ rights. He compared the ratification of United Nations human rights instruments in the different regions, observing that Asia and Oceania lagged behind the other regions. He highlighted the human rights elements of the constitutive instruments of the parent bodies in the different regions, namely the African Union, the Organization of American States and the Council of Europe. He described the criteria for the appointment of members for the different regional human rights mechanisms, and the requirement for independence and impartiality. For instance, in the African Commission the Interim Rules of Procedure specified that the position of a member of the Commission was incompatible with any activity that might interfere with his or her independence or impartiality, such as serving as a member of Government or a diplomatic representative. The speaker also compared the complaints procedures of the three regional systems, highlighting that all required the exhaustion of local remedies and that the same complaint was not being considered by another body. The speaker outlined the reporting requirements of the three systems, both for reporting by States and reporting on States, and gave an overview of the special procedures mechanisms that had been established. He also 10