Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 22 Nature of Restrictive Measures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinzauti Giulia
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Rules And Principles ◽  
The Right ◽  
Restrictive Measures

Principle 22 is an overarching guideline to states on the nature of the safeguards and restrictions that they may need to adopt and enforce in order to counter impunity more effectively. It is an umbrella provision listing certain rules or principles in national legal systems which might impede the criminal prosecution or other scrutiny of human rights violations by domestic courts. These rules and principles include those regulating amnesty, prescription (statutory limitations), extradition, the right to asylum, due obedience, repentance, the jurisdiction of military courts and the irremovability of judges. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 22 before discussing its theoretical framework and how the safeguards or restrictive measures outlined in Principle 22 have been applied in practice.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 29 Restrictions on the Jurisdiction of Military Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aoláin Fionnuala Ní
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Military Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Military

Principle 29 deals with restrictions on the jurisdiction of military courts. Under this Principle, the adjudication of human rights violations by military courts is explicitly excluded, and ordinary domestic courts are mandated as the only appropriate venue of judicial oversight. Nevertheless, military courts remain functionally important for the routine and uncontroversial deployment of military law consistent with international law. The chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 29 before discussing its theoretical framework and how military courts are used in various countries such as Ireland and Turkey. Issues arising when civilians find themselves within the jurisdiction of military courts are also examined, along with the difficulties of ensuring fair trials in military courts. This chapter shows that military courts, while certainly serving important functions within the military forces of states, remain subject to human rights and humanitarian law compliance.

Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, A The Right to Reparation, Principle 32 Reparation Procedures

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
d’Argent Pierre ◽  
de Ghellinck Isabelle
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
International Level ◽  
Human Right ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Aspect

Principle 32 deals with the procedural aspect of the right to reparation, that is, the right for victims of human right violations to access remedial procedures. It addresses three issues: the right to access remedial procedures, procedural requirements of national reparation programmes, and regional and international procedures. While the obligation of states to provide effective remedies is enshrined in most of, if not all, the key international human rights treaties, Principle 32 provides for a right to all victims to access remedies. ‘Reparation’ and ‘remedies’ are both envisioned as victims’ rights, but the distinction between them is vague. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 32, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the reparation procedure, judicial or administrative, dealing with gross violations of human rights at national or international level has been implemented.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 23 Restrictions on Prescription

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinzauti Giulia
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Right

Principle 23 deals with statutory limitations (prescription, in French) aimed at protecting defendants from stale claims that might be difficult to counter. Statutory limitations refer to legal norms that regulate the effects of the passage of time in domestic systems. In criminal law, they provide for a maximum timeframe, or prescription period, within which criminal proceedings can be instituted or sentences enforced. The passage of time makes the gathering of evidence more difficult and may also reduce the effectiveness of criminal prosecution. Significant delays in criminal action may thus impair the accused’s right to a fair trial. Furthermore, criminal proceedings tend to lose legitimacy as time passes. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 23, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the statutory limitations have been applied in practice under multilateral treaties, domestic legislation and case-law. It also examines the practice of United Nations organs.

Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, B Guarantees of Non-Recurrence of Violations, Principle 36 Reform of State Institutions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayer-Rieckh Alexander ◽  
Duthie Roger
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Institutional Reform ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
The Right

Principle 36 deals with institutional reform in the aftermath of human rights violations. It contains measures that focus on state institutions responsible for violations and seek to identify the causes of the violations. The measures aim to reform structures and systems that allowed, facilitated, or promoted violations, and have the potential to act as an enabling condition for other transitional justice mechanisms by weakening or removing institutional sources of opposition. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 36 before discussing its theoretical framework and practice. It also examines the shift in emphasis from purges, to vetting, to broader institutional reform; the influence of historical context in Latin America and Eastern Europe in particular on the articulation of the measures; and the emphasis on the preventive function of the measures.

Part III The Right to Justice, A General Principles, Principle 19 Duties of States with Regard to the Administration of Justice

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ambos Kai
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Justice System ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Right

Principle 19 outlines the duties of States with regard to the administration of justice for victims of serious human rights violations and other international crimes. Under this Principle, States must ensure that those responsible for serious crimes under international law are prosecuted, tried and adequately punished. A state’s (criminal) justice obligations have long been recognized by regional human rights courts and international human rights bodies. While the fight against impunity is the explicit aim of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and a major goal of the United Nations, the duty to prosecute lies primarily with the domestic justice system with regional or international mechanisms being subsidiary or complementary. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 19 before discussing its theoretical framework and how human rights courts and treaty bodies have interpreted the duty of States to investigate and prosecute serious human rights violations.

The Admissibility of Confessions and Real Evidence Obtained in Violation of Human Rights in Criminal Trials in European Countries: Analysing the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-355
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
The State ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
European Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right

The right to a fair trial is guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In an effort to protect this right, the European Court of Human Rights has, inter alia, set criteria to determine whether or not the admission of a confession in domestic courts violated the right to a fair trial. This jurisprudence also shows that the Court has established two broad guidelines that govern the admissibility of confessions obtained through human rights violations. The first guideline is that confessions obtained in violation of absolute rights and in particular in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights must be excluded, because their admission will always render the trial unfair. The second guideline is that a confession obtained in violation of a non-absolute right may be admitted without violating the right to a fair trial if the State had a compelling reason or reasons to restrict the right in question. The Court has also dealt with the issue of the admissibility of real evidence obtained through human rights violations. The purpose of this article is to highlight the Court’s jurisprudence.

Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, A The Right to Reparation, Principle 31 Rights and Duties Arising Out of the Obligation to Make Reparation

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haldemann Frank
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Normative Claim ◽  
Human Rights Abuses ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Violation

Principle 31 deals with rights and duties arising out of the obligation to make reparation. It reflects a significant trend in recent international affairs: the call for ‘reparations’ as a means of ‘correcting’ legacies of serious and widespread human rights abuses. The idea of a general individual right as codified in Principle 31 is consistent with existing international law, but arguably has no strong legal basis. The Principle opens with a strong normative claim: ‘Any human rights violation gives rise to a right to reparation’. This claim is far from self-explanatory and raises a variety of questions about its meaning and foundations, such as the question of what it is to have a right to reparation. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 31, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and highlights some of the legal, and predominantly international practices relevant to the Principle.

Part II The Right to Know, B Commissions of Inquiry, Principle 11 Adequate Resources for Commissions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Varney Howard
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Political Will ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Commissions Of Inquiry ◽  
The Right

Principle 11 guarantees adequate resources in support of a commission of inquiry so that it can comply with its legal mandate without compromising its independence and autonomy. A commission with autonomy means that it has control over its own finances and may make its own decisions in respect of the allocation of its resources. The issue of autonomy is inextricably linked to the independence of a commission. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 11 before discussing its theoretical framework, focusing on international law instruments governing the investigation of human rights violations that oblige state parties to adequately resource the responsible investigative agency. In particular, it considers the role of competent authorities, explicit duty, funding principles, and political will. It also examines how commissions of inquiry have been supported in practice and cautions against proceeding with commissions where adequate support is not guaranteed.

Part II The Right to Know, A General Principles, Principle 5 Guarantees to Give Effect to the Right to Know

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Unger Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Functional Approach ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Privileged Position ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

Principle 5 outlines guarantees that States must take to give effect to the right to know, including judicial and non-judicial mechanisms. This principle focuses on courts, truth commissions and archives, and gives a privileged position to criminal justice. It follows a clear human rights understanding on how guarantees should look like in the fight against impunity. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 5 before discussing its theoretical framework and some practical trends regarding the guarantees designed to give effect to the right to know. It highlights a number of limitations of Principle 5 and proposes a revised version, calling for a more dynamic functional approach that creatively looks at what kind of existing and new interventions could take on the function of guarantees to give effect to the right to know.

scholarly journals Remedies for Human Rights Violations Caused by Climate Change

Climate Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insight Into

The right to a remedy is central to a human rights approach to climate change. However, a range of obstacles inhibit access to justice for victims of human rights violations caused by climate change. This article considers two elements of the right to a remedy: access to justice and substantive redress. In relation to access to justice, it considers the potential of domestic courts, as well as regional and international bodies, to offer redress for human rights violations caused by climate change. In relation to substantive redress, it examines international jurisprudence on remedies and discusses its applicability in the context of climate change. Together, these discussions provide an insight into the obstacles to justice for human rights violations caused by climate change and the ways in which these may be overcome.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document