A comparative analysis of the right to a fair trial and due process under international human rights law and Saudi Arabian domestic law

2006 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mashood A. Baderin
2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-347 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Poels

Although safeguards for the individual human right guarantees for protection against double jeopardy are strongly entrenched in international and domestic law as well as widely reflected in State practice, such protection is generally limited in scope and applicability to surrender or extradition procedures. Where criminal offenders face courts of a State after having been prosecuted and punished or acquitted by a court of another State, the absence of transnational non bis in idem protection constitutes a serious lacuna in international human rights law. Although legislative and judicial initiatives are being undertaken – notably under the aegis of the European Union – to remedy this lacuna, the international community must incontestably act upon this need for individuals' protection against abuses of power and breaches of due process through the amendment or complementing of the classical international human rights conventions.


Author(s):  
Clooney Amal ◽  
Webb Philippa

This chapter examines the right to be tried without undue delay. The speed of a trial is integral to its overall fairness. The longer a trial takes, the longer that the defendant, still presumed innocent, is in legal jeopardy; the longer that they may be kept in pre-trial detention; and the greater the risk that witnesses may forget details or evidence may disappear. However, despite the importance of efficiency in criminal justice, chronic delays in trials in domestic jurisdictions have been widely reported. In fact, the right to be tried without undue delay is one of the most litigated aspects of the right to a fair trial. Unlike some violations, delayed proceedings are relatively easy to prove; the question is what constitutes a delay that is ‘undue’ under international human rights law. There is no global time limit for a criminal proceeding and each case must be assessed on its facts, taking into account its complexity; the conduct of the defendant, the prosecution, and other state authorities; and—for most international bodies—the prejudice caused to the defendant by the delay.


Author(s):  
Sangeeta Shah

This chapter discusses the protections afforded by international human rights law to the right to liberty and security of the person and the right to a fair trial. The right to liberty regulates powers of detention and provides safeguards against ill-treatment of detainees. An extreme form of arbitrary detention is enforced disappearance. The right to a fair trial sets out how court proceedings should be conducted and court systems organized. In addition, there are specific protections for those who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence.


Author(s):  
Samantha Besson

As a companion to the five regional reports in this volume, this chapter’s aim is a double one: first, to bring the comparison up to the regional level, and second, to analyse the international and domestic institutions, procedures, and mechanisms that affect how international human rights instruments influence domestic law. The chapter is therefore both a study in comparative international human rights law and a contribution to its methodology. Its structure is four-pronged. The first section clarifies the aim, object, and method of the comparison. The second section presents a comparative assessment of the Covenants’ domestic influence across regions and develops a grid of comparative analysis. The third section addresses the authority of the Committees’ interpretations of the Covenants, relying on a bottom-up comparative law argument. The fourth section discusses the role of human rights comparison and of regional human rights law in enhancing the legitimacy of the Committees’ future interpretations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-286
Author(s):  
Ignatius Yordan Nugraha

Abstract The goal of this article is to explore the clash between international human rights law and a legal pluralist framework in the case of the noken system and also to investigate potential solutions to the clash. Elections in Indonesia are generally founded on the principle of direct, universal, free, secret, honest and fair voting. There is a notable exception in the Province of Papua, where tribes in the Central Mountains area are following the noken system. Under this system, votes are allocated to the candidate(s) based on the decision of the big man or the consensus of the tribe. The Indonesian Constitutional Court has accepted this practice as reflecting the customs of the local population. However, this form of voting seems to be contrary to the right to vote under international human rights law, since article 25(b) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates that elections shall be held genuinely by universal suffrage and secret ballot to guarantee the free will of the electors. Consequently, the case of the noken system in Papua reflects an uneasy clash between a legal pluralist approach and universal human rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document