Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Bridging the Gap: National Human Rights Institutions and the Inter-American Human Rights System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Inter-American Human Rights System

Part of the book series: Studies of the Americas ((STAM))

Abstract

Increasing attention is being paid to how the Inter-American Human Rights System (IAHRS) informs human rights practice. In this task, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) have emerged as potentially important intermediaries, serving as a possible ‘missing link’ in the transmission and implementation of international human rights law. The chapter begins with a discussion of NHRIs as IAHRS compliance intermediaries, with attention paid to their formal aptitude. We then highlight the formal relationship between NHRIs and the IAHRS, before specifying modalities of engagement in greater detail, drawing on the experience of NHRIs throughout Latin America. The chapter closes with a case study of the Peruvian office and an examination of what the analysis means for the future of NHRI-IAHRS relations.

The authors are extremely grateful to all those who gave generously of their time during the course of this research project. We wish to thank in particular Fernando Castañeda for his valuable insights, as well as Par Engstrom, Peter Low and Oscar Parra-Vera for extremely helpful comments. All errors remain ours alone.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The national human rights institution (NHRI) has been (loosely) defined as ‘a body which is established by a Government under the constitution, or by law or decree, the functions of which are specifically designed in terms of the promotion and protection of human rights’ (UN 1995: 4).

  2. 2.

    All NHRIs in Latin America are accredited ‘A status’ by the United Nations (UN)-affiliated International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs with the exceptions of Honduras (‘B status’). A status indicates that the NHRI is in full compliance with the Paris Principles. See http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/Pages/default.aspx

  3. 3.

    Interview with Verónica Gómez, co-director of the International Centre for Political Studies (CIEP), formerly advisor to the Argentina’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and IACHR specialist. Interview with Nataly Herrera, Buenos Aires, 15 August 2014.

  4. 4.

    Remarks by Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) Commissioner Felipe González Morales during the launch of the 2011 Annual Report on Human Rights of Chile’s National Institute of Human Rights.

  5. 5.

    A notable exception is the Colombian NHRI head who is appointed by the legislature from a short list provided by the president.

  6. 6.

    See Pegram (2012) for a detailed breakdown of institutional features among Latin American NHRIs.

  7. 7.

    A number of Latin American NHRIs are formally restricted to those rights enshrined in the national constitution or other restrictions. These include Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Paraguay although, in practice, such formal restrictions have rarely constrained NHRIs.

  8. 8.

    Often, as in Colombia, national laws do not allow these institutions to take action against the state itself (of which they themselves are part) before an international court.

  9. 9.

    Interview with Verónica Gómez.

  10. 10.

    Mendez and Aguilar (1997: 268).

  11. 11.

    OAS GA: Support for International Exchanges Among Defensorías, OAS AG/RES 1505, XXVII-0/97 (June 5, 1997).

  12. 12.

    Organization of American States (OAS) GA, Strengthening of Human Rights Systems Pursuant to the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas, OAS AG/RES 1925, XXXIII-O/03 (June 2003).

  13. 13.

    Strengthening the role of NHRIs for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Organization of American States, AG/RES. 2421 (XXXVIII-O/08), adopted on 3 June 2008).

  14. 14.

    The Chilean National Institute of Human Rights notably lacks the ability to receive complaints and many of the investigative faculties common in the region.

  15. 15.

    Bámaca Velásquez, Judgement, 25 November 2000.

  16. 16.

    Contreras et al. vs. El Salvador, Judgement, 2011.

  17. 17.

    Remarks by IACHR Commissioner Felipe González Morales during the launch of the 2011 Annual Report on Human Rights of Chile’s National Institute of Human Rights.

  18. 18.

    See submission by Santa Clara University’s International Human Rights Clinic, 4 October 2012. The Uruguayan NHRI submission can be viewed here: http://scm.oas.org/IDMS/Redirectpage.aspx?class=CP/INF.&classNum=6542&lang=s

  19. 19.

    For example, shortly after assuming office, the first Colombian Ombudsman, Jaime Cordoba Triviño, travelled to Washington in 1994 to address the IACHR on the domestic human rights situation (Boletín de Prensa 1994).

  20. 20.

    Acuerdo y Sentencia No. 1.306. Available at: http://www.pj.gov.py/contenido/945-informacion-publica/947

  21. 21.

    PRADPI, ‘La Sala IV admite la Acción de Inconstitucionalidad presentada por la Defensoría del Pueblo’, 28 November 2012.

  22. 22.

    Erbol, ‘Defensor del Pueblo presenta recurso contra DS 2298’, 31 August 2015.

  23. 23.

    Servindi, ‘Defensoría del Pueblo presenta demanda de inconstitucionalidad contra DL 1015’, 1 June 2008.

  24. 24.

    José Carlos Trujillo Oroza vs. Bolivia 2000.

  25. 25.

    Masacre Plan de Sánchez vs. Guatemala, 29 April 2004.

  26. 26.

    See, for example, multiple compliance reports produced by the El Salvadorian NHRI into the case of HermanasErnestina y Erlinda Serrano Cruz.

  27. 27.

    Letter to Dr. Tom Pegram from Javier Orlando Tamayo Perdomo, Director of National Attention and Complaints, Colombian Defensoría del Pueblo, 4 February 2014.

  28. 28.

    ‘Defensor del Pueblo plantea creación de organismo similar a la CIDH’, 2 June 2015. Available at: http://www.2001.com.ve/en-la-agenda/99278/defensor-del-pueblo-plantea-creacion-de-organismo-similar-a-la-cidh.html

  29. 29.

    ‘Acuerdo de Cooperación General entre La Secretaria General de La Organización de los Estados Americanos y La Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos’, 18 October 2012.

  30. 30.

    Janet Espinoza Feria Case, Admissibility, No. 12,404 (10 October 2002).

  31. 31.

    Interview Verónica Gómez.

  32. 32.

    Alfredo Díaz Bustos vs. Bolivia 2005; Víctor Hugo Arce Chavez vs. Bolivia 2007; Miguel Ángel Moncado Osorio and James David Rocha Terraza vs. Bolivia 2007.

  33. 33.

    For example, Ticona Estrada y Otros vs. Bolivia, 2008.

  34. 34.

    See Comunicado de Prensa, ‘Defensoría del Pueblo de Colombia firma convenio con Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos’, 2 February 2015.

  35. 35.

    Barrios Altos et al. vs. Peru 2001; ‘Five Pensioners’ vs. Peru 2003; Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. vs. Peru 2006.

  36. 36.

    Gonzales Lluy y otros vs. Ecuador 2015; Baena-Ricardo et al. vs. Panama 2001; Masacres del Mozote vs. El Salvador 2012.

  37. 37.

    García Prieto et al. vs. El Salvador 2007; Masacres del Mozote y lugares aledaños vs. El Salvador 2012; Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras 2003; Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña vs. Bolivia.

  38. 38.

    Ivcher-Bronstein vs. Peru 2001; Lori Berenson-Mejía vs. Peru 2004; Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. vs. Peru 2006.

  39. 39.

    Barrios Altos vs. Peru 2001; Gómez-Palomino vs. Peru 2005.

  40. 40.

    Where there is more than one victim, a ‘common intervener’ must be designated. García Prieto et al. vs. El Salvador 2007.

  41. 41.

    Hermanas Serrano Cruz vs. El Salvador 2014.

  42. 42.

    Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. vs. Peru 2006.

  43. 43.

    García Prieto et al. vs. El Salvador 2007. In Manuel Cepeda Vargas vs. Colombia 2010, the Court makes extensive use of an NHRI report into the murder of members of the Patriotic Union party, referring to the NHRI’s verdict that the scale of the violence amounted to ‘systematised extermination’. See also García Prieto et al. vs. El Salvador 2007.

  44. 44.

    Barrios Altos vs. Peru 2001.

  45. 45.

    In Masacres del Mozote vs. El Salvador 2012, the IACtHR notes that the El Salvadorian NHRI established that the ‘massacres occurred within the framework of military operations, one of the objectives of which was the mass extermination of civilians…’

  46. 46.

    Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras 2003.

  47. 47.

    Bulacio vs. Argentina, 2003.

  48. 48.

    IACtHR, Cuatro Comunidades Indígenas Ngöbe y sus Miembros, 28 May 2010.

  49. 49.

    La Cantuta vs. Peru 2006.

  50. 50.

    Baena-Ricardo et al. vs. Panama 2003.

  51. 51.

    19 Merchants vs. Colombia 2002.

  52. 52.

    Anzualdo Castro vs. Peru 2009.

  53. 53.

    Artavia Murillo y otros (Fecundación In Vitro’) vs. Costa Rica, 3 September 2015.

  54. 54.

    Oscar Parra-Vera, Senior Legal Advisor, IACtHRs, by email to Tom Pegram, 10 October 2015.

  55. 55.

    GfK Perú—Encuesta de opinión pública—July 2014. Available at: www.gfk.pe

  56. 56.

    Article 161: The Ombudsman’s Office is autonomous. State agencies are obliged to cooperate with the Ombudsman’s Office when so required. The Ombudsman may be elected or dismissed by a congressional vote with a two-thirds majority. The institution enjoys the same immunity and prerogatives as Congress. The term of the Ombudsman is five years.

  57. 57.

    http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Peru93sp/anexo.3.htm

  58. 58.

    IACHR. Second Country Report. Peru 2000. http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Peru2000sp/introduccion.htm

  59. 59.

    During the in loco visit to Peru, for example, the Ombudsman’s Office informed the IACHR that it had received 168 petitions regarding forced sterilisations. IACHR. Second Country Report. Peru 2000. Chapter IV, item 23 and throughout http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Peru2000sp/capitulo7.htm

  60. 60.

    Memorandum No. 328-99-JUS / DM, 2 July 1999.

  61. 61.

    Document No DP-99-462, 6 June 1999.

  62. 62.

    Ombudsman’s Report: In Defence of the Inter-American System.

  63. 63.

    The ruling of the IACtHR in Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez (Chavín de Huántar) vs. Peru [2015] has provoked particular backlash among powerful factions in Peru.

  64. 64.

    Organic Law No. 26520, 8 August 1995, Article 9(5).

  65. 65.

    Amparos (emergency writs for the protection of constitutional rights) and habeas corpus (protection from unlawful detention) reflect regional legal traditions for the protection of individual rights. Habeas data refers to freedom of information petitions.

  66. 66.

    Ombudsman’s Office. ‘El amicus curiae: ¿qué es y para qué sirve? Jurisprudencia y labor de la Defensoría del Pueblo’. Ombudsman Document Series - Document No. 8. 2nd edition. Lima, March 2010.

  67. 67.

    IACHR. Second Country Report. Peru 2000. Chapter I, item 46.

    http://www.cidh.org/countryrep/Peru2000sp/capitulo1.htm

  68. 68.

    Interview Fernando Castaneda, 11 September 2015.

  69. 69.

    Interview, Samuel Abad, Constitutional lawyer and former commissioner at the Ombudsman’s Office, Lima, 18 September 2014.

  70. 70.

    Regional and municipal elections of 2002, as well as ballots for regional representatives and the Andean parliament in 2006.

  71. 71.

    Note No. 232-2008 / DP 5 September 2008.

  72. 72.

    See DP Resolution No. 012-97 / DP of 24 March 1997.

  73. 73.

    DP report ‘Lineamientos para la reforma de la justicia militar en el Perú’, 1997.

  74. 74.

    DP report ‘¿Quién juzga qué? Justicia Militar vs. Justicia Ordinaria. El delito de función en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Constitucional y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, 2002.

  75. 75.

    File No 926-97/DP-OP.

  76. 76.

    Ombudsman’s Office. Second Annual Report. Peru.

  77. 77.

    Cesti-Hurtado vs. Peru, 29 September 1999.

  78. 78.

    DP Report, No. 57 of May 2001, Amnesty vs. Human rights: Seeking justice.

  79. 79.

    Rodolfo Robles Espinoza vs. Peru [1999].

  80. 80.

    Baruch Ivcher vs. Peru [2001].

  81. 81.

    DP report Situación de la Libertad de Expresión en el Perú/Septiembre 1996—Septiembre 2000.

  82. 82.

    Defensoría del Pueblo expuso los resultados de la investigación sobre 153 conflictos sociales vinculados a los recursos hídricos, registrados entre el 2011 y el 2014, Nota de Prensa 058/OCII/DP/2015.

  83. 83.

    Ombudsman’s Office. Twelfth Annual Report. Peru, 2009.

  84. 84.

    Defensoría del Pueblo, Ciudadanos Sin Agua: Análisis de un derechos vulnerado, informe No. 94(Lima: DP, 2005): 11.

  85. 85.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda, Deputy Ombudsman for Constitutional Affairs (interim), Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman, interview with Tom Pegram, 11 September 2015.

  86. 86.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda.

  87. 87.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda.

  88. 88.

    Interview, Wilfredo Ardito, Director for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in APRODEH, interview by Tom Pegram, Lima, Peru, 10 June 2008.

  89. 89.

    Defensoría del Pueblo, Oficio No. 395-2010/DP/PAD, 28 September 2010.

  90. 90.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda.

  91. 91.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda.

  92. 92.

    Defensoría del Pueblo, Proceso de inconstitucionalidad, Doc. No. 05-2013-AI.

  93. 93.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda.

  94. 94.

    Ombudsman’s Report No. 128, El Estado frente a las víctimas de la violencia. ¿Hacia dónde vamos en políticas de reparación y justicia?, p. 162.

  95. 95.

    Ombudsman’s Office. Twelfth Annual Report. Peru, 2009.

  96. 96.

    FIO y Defensoría del Pueblo de Perú suscribieron convenios con la Corte IDH, 13 April 2010.

  97. 97.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda.

  98. 98.

    Interview, Fernando Castañeda.

  99. 99.

    Interview, Fernando Castaneda.

References

  • Andina. 2015. Defensoría destaca sentencia de CorteIDH por desaparecidos en gobierno de Fujimori. November 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Organization of American States. San José: CostaRica, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • APRODEH. 2008. Serios Peligros Para Los Derechos Humanos: La Criminalización de la Protesta en el Gobierno de Alan García. Lima: Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boletín de Prensa. 1994. El Defensor del Pueblo habla mañana ante Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la OEA, September 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, Richard. 2000. Performance and Legitimacy: National Human Rights Institutions. Versoix: ICHRP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallaro, James, and Erin Brewer. 2008. Re-evaluating Regional Human Rights Litigation in the Twenty-First Century: The Case of the Inter-American Court. The American Journal of International Law 102 (4): 768–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chipoco, C. 2001. La Defensoría del Pueblo, la defensa de los derechos humanos y la promoción de la democracia en el Sistema Interamericano. In Debate Defensorial, vol. 3. Lima: Defensoría del Pueblo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dulitzky, Ariel. 2011. The Inter-American Human Rights System Fifty Years Later: Time for Changes. Quebec Journal of International Law: 127.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Comercio. 2009. Salomón Lerner denunció que ha sido amenazado de muerte por teléfono, September 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. No le daremos ni un sol a terrucos así lo diga la Corte IDH, June 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Tiempo. 2011. Asesinaron a defensor público en Cali, October 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. El Defensor del Pueblo solicita protección especial para una Defensora Comunitaria víctima de atentado, May 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • El Universal. 2015. ONU le da un año al Defensor para probar que es independiente del Gobierno’, May 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, M. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • FIO. 2011. Amenazas proferidas contra miembros de ONGs líderes sociales y una funcionaria de la Defensoría del Pueblo, June 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gestión. 2013. Ollanta Humala insiste en que el actual servicio militar es “el discriminatorio”, June 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godoy, Jose Alejandro. 2015. El Peru y la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, March 10. Retrieved from: http://www.desdeeltercerpiso.com/2015/03/el-peru-y-la-corte-interamericana-de-derechos-humanos/

  • Inter-American Yearbook on Human Rights 1991: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, January 1, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Nación. 2015. Defensoría pide llamar a cuentas al Estado por incumplir fecundación in vitro, March 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Razón. 2015. Al apoyar terroristas, CIDH comete errores contra Perú, May 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • La República. 2010. Defensoría pide al MTC suspender licitación de Radio La Voz de Bagua, August 18.

    Google Scholar 

  • La República. Jiménez a la jueza: “Si podemos, en este caso, archivar…”, August 5 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven, and Mara Victoria Murillo. 2009. Variation in Institutional Strength. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Méndez, Juan, and Irene Aguilar. La relación entre el Ombudsman y el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos: II Congreso Anual de la Federación Iberoamericana de Defensores del Pueblo. Toledo, April 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noticias RCN. 2015. Defensoría del Pueblo presenta proyecto que busca reformar la acción de tutela’, July 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, Guillermo. 1998. Horizontal Accountability in New Democracies. Journal of Democracy 9 (3): 112–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Open Justice, From Rights to Remedies (Open Society Justice Initiative, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  • Parra-Vera, Oscar Javier. 2009. El Sistema Interamericano y el enfoque de derechos en las estrategias de desarrollo y erradicación de la pobreza. Algunas líneas de trabajo para las Defensorías del Pueblo. Cuadernos Electrónicos De Derechos Humanos y Democracia 5: 83–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pegram, Thomas. 2008. Accountability in Hostile Times: The Case of the Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman 1996–2001. Journal of Latin American Studies 40 (1): 51–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Weak Institutions, Rights Claims and Pathways to Compliance: The Transformative Role of the Peruvian Human Rights Ombudsman. Oxford Development Studies. 39 (2): 229–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. National Human Rights Institutions in Latin America: Politics and Institutionalization. In Human Rights, State Compliance, and Social Change: Assessing National Human Rights Institutions, ed. R. Goodman and T. Pegram. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Global Human Rights Governance and Orchestration: National Human Rights Institutions as Intermediaries. European Journal of International Relations 21 (3): 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perú 21. 2004. Toledo confirma decisión de la Corte en caso Berenson, December 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Merino advierte que pena de muerte no puede someterse a referéndum, January 12.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Restituyen licencia a La Voz de Bagua, August 19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, Adam, Susan Stokes, and Bernard Manin. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reif, L. 2004. The Ombudsman, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Risse, T., K. Sikkink, and S. C. Ropp, ed. 2013. The Persistent Power of Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, R. 2013. Transitional Justice in Peru. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santistevan, Jorge. 2000. “The Ombudsman Institution and Accountability in Societies in Transition.” Presented at the conference “Institutions, Accountability and Democratic Governance in Latin America,” The Helen Kellog Institute for International Studies, Notre Dame University, May 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. El Defensor del Pueblo en Iberoamérica. In Retos actuales de las instituciones nacionales de protección y promoción de los Derechos Humanos, ed. Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, 27–106. Mexico: CNDH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siglo 21. 2013. Pide a CIDH mediar para evitar contaminación minera de Guatemala, January 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, Beth. 2009. Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, Anne-Marie. 2004. A New World Order: Government Networks and the Disaggregated State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Anne. 2006. The Unique Position of National Human Rights Institutions: A Mixed Blessing? Human Rights Quarterly 28: 904–946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Centre for Human Rights. 1995. National Human Rights Institutions: A Handbook on the Establishment and Strengthening of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, (4 UN Document HR/P/PT 4, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngers, Coletta. 2000. Deconstructing Democracy: Peru Under President Alberto Fujimori. Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science/School of Public Policy, University College London, London, UK

    Tom Pegram

  2. Independent Consultant, Lima, Peru

    Nataly Herrera Rodriguez

Authors
  1. Tom Pegram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nataly Herrera Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of the Americas, University College London, London, UK

    Par Engstrom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Pegram, T., Rodriguez, N.H. (2019). Bridging the Gap: National Human Rights Institutions and the Inter-American Human Rights System. In: Engstrom, P. (eds) The Inter-American Human Rights System. Studies of the Americas. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89459-1_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation