Will the decisions of the WCHR be enforced in the countries to which action is directed, and if not, what’s the point?

In accordance with general principles of public international law, it is fundamental that a treaty, when adopted in accordance the signatory nation’s treaty accession process, becomes the “law of the land,” fully enforceable by that nation’s domestic courts.  An additional insight into this question was offered by Chief Justice Carl Ashok Singh, of Guyana, at the 2013 Chief Justice conference in Lucknow.  His observation was roughly as follows: “Just because a decision of a court is not 100% enforceable, does notmean that it is worthless.”  This point is echoed by officials of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other human rights NGOs.  Even though the world is still comprised of nation-states, and probably always will and should be, their national laws are constantly becoming more informed and inhabited by the growing body of public international law.  This is, in part, a byproduct of nation-states’ ever-increasing accession to treaties, and is in part a byproduct of the growing body of case law that emanates from the related judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, as they apply treaty-derived law to the cases before them.  In addition, in an increasingly interconnected world, where news travels faster and (for the most part) more freely all the time, “public shaming,” is a powerful force in educating the public and impacting the political process.