Part IV The Right to Reparation/Guarantees of Non-Recurrence, B Guarantees of Non-Recurrence of Violations, Principle 38 Reform of Laws and Institutions Contributing to Impunity

Author(s):  
Duthie Roger ◽  
Mayer-Rieckh Alexander

Principle 38 calls for the repeal or abolition of laws and institutions that contribute to impunity for human rights violations. It considers habeas corpus as a fundamental and non-derogable individual right, and calls for the enactment of ‘legislative measures necessary to ensure protection of human rights and to safeguard democratic institutions and processes’, along with a ‘comprehensive review of legislation and administrative regulations’. This chapter first provides a contextual and historical background on Principle 38 before discussing its theoretical framework and practice. It shows how this Principle has evolved from an initial narrower focus only on emergency legislation and courts in preparatory reports and prior versions to a broader focus on legislative and institutional reform to combat impunity. It also cites examples of legislative reform in countries such as Morocco, Guatemala, Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, and Uganda, particularly where truth commission recommendations have addressed the matter.

Author(s):  
Mayer-Rieckh Alexander ◽  
Duthie Roger

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.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović

The paper is dedicated to ne bis in idem principle, which is a fundamental human right safeguarded by Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This principle is sometimes also referred to as double jeopardy.The principle implies that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (internal ne bis in idem principle), and that in some other State or before the International Court (ne bis in idem principle in respect of the relations between the states or the State and the International Court) the procedure may not be conducted if the person has already been sentenced or acquitted. The identity of the indictable act (idem), the other component of this principle, is more complex and more difficult to be determined than the first one (ne bis).The objective of this principle is to secure the legal certainty of citizens who must be liberated of uncertainty or fear that they would be tried again for the same criminal offence that has already been decided by a final and binding decision. This principle is specific for the accusative and modern system of criminal procedure but not for the investigative criminal procedure, where the possibility for the bindingly finalised criminal procedure to be repeated on the basis of same evidence and regarding the same criminal issue existed. In its legal nature, a circumstance that the proceedings are pending on the same criminal offence against the same accused, represents a negative procedural presumption and, therefore, an obstacle for the further course of proceedings, i.e. it represents the procedural obstacle which prevents an initiation of new criminal procedure for the same criminal case in which the final and binding condemning or acquitting judgement has been passed (exceptio rei iudicatae).The right not to be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted is provided for, primarily, by the International Documents (Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). The International framework has also been given to ne bis in idem principle through three Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe and those are the European Convention on Extradition and Additional Protocols thereto, the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, and the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments.Ne bis in idem principle is traditionally associated with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Likewise, no derogation from Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention at the time of war or other state of emergency which is threatening the survival of the nation (Article 4, paragraph 3 of Protocol No. 7). Thereby it is categorised as the irrevocable conventional right together with the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, and the legality principle. Similarly, ne bis in idem principle does not apply in the case of the renewed trials by the International criminal courts where the first trial was conducted in some State, while the principle is applicable in the reversed situation. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia could have conducted a trial even if a person had already been adjudicated in some State, in the cases provided for by its Statute and in the interest of justice.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 371
Author(s):  
Dewi Sukmaningsih

Indonesia is a country of law, and one of the characteristics of a state of law is the guarantee and protection of human rights, one of which is the right to obtain information, including the legal information that is information about the legislation both national and local. The principle of fiction (fictie) law states that any person considered to determine the existence of a legislation after its enactment, the ignorance of the people on the legislation, can not be excused. To that end, legislation information should be easily accessible. Issuance of Presidential Decree No. 33 of 2012 on Information and Documentation Network of National Law (JDIHN) isin order to fulfill the right to obtain legal information, especially information legislation. Management of Legal Documentation and Information Network by utilizing information and communication technology (ICT) makes legal information can be accessed quickly, easily, complete and accurate, thereby supporting the fulfillment of human rights, namely the right to obtain legal information properly.Keywords: Documentation and Legal Information Network, Efforts, Fulfillment, Human Rights


Author(s):  
Rhona K. M. Smith

This introductory chapter introduces the theme of this book, which is modern international human rights law. The book traces the unprecedented expansion in the internationally recognized rights of all people with acceptance of a human rights dimension to the quest for international peace and security following the formation of the United Nations in 1945. It examines the International Bill of Rights and the regional protection of human rights, and describes several human rights organizations including the Organization of American States and the African Union. The book discusses different types of rights, including the right to life, the right of liberty to persons, and the right to work, and also evaluates the monitoring, implementation, and enforcement of human rights laws.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Beatriz Arias ◽  
Terrence G. Wiley

This article addresses the right to an education (including the right of access), and the right to an education in one’s native language, within the broader context of educational human rights, and language minority educational policy in the United States. Included in this discussion is an overview of educational and linguistic human rights as recognized in the US, followed by a review of the legal and historical background prior to the passage of the Lau v Nichols decision in 1974. The implications of demographic changes coupled with federal policy for language minority students forty years after Lau are discussed.


Author(s):  
d’Argent Pierre ◽  
de Ghellinck Isabelle

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.


Author(s):  
Aoláin Fionnuala Ní

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document