Disparaging Language (ex curia) as a Barrier in Individual Complaints before the European Court of Human Rights (Zhdanov v Russia)—Lessons for the African System?

On 16 July 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected an application by Russian human rights activist, Nikolay Alekseyev, on the basis that he had published personally offensive and threatening material online, directed towards the ECtHR. This was in the matter of Zhdanov and Others v Russia Applications Nos 12200/08, 35949/11 and 58282/12. Even though the published material fell afoul of the European Convention in that it amounted to an abuse of the court process, nothing offensive was contained in the applicant’s own submissions before the court. In like fashion to the ECtHR’s admissibility requirements, the African Charter contains a much more pointed exclusionary clause which renders inadmissible any communication that contains disparaging or insulting language. The difference between the two systems is that the European system relies on an open-ended concept of ‘abuse of the right of individual petition’, whilst the African system specifically proscribes insulting language. In this article, I analyse the approach of the ECtHR in the Zhdanov matter, and contrast it with the approach of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission) under Article 56(3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. I further interrogate whether there were any instances where, in similar fashion to the Zhdanov matter, the African Commission declared a communication inadmissible on account of insulting language occurring externally, and not contained within the submission itself. Alive to the fact that the concept of ‘abuse’ in the European system is wide, the article is limited to cases in which the abuse of the right of individual petition under the European Convention manifests in disparaging or insulting language.

Popular Memories and Popular History, Indispensable Tools for Understanding Contemporary Chinese History

This chapter examines an example of how minjian memories and minjian historiography transform our knowledge of the history of the Cultural Revolution. In the case of the end of the Rustication movement, many unofficial sources contradict the official version, represented by the press of the time or by the recent TV series Deng Xiaoping. In February 1979, while the People’s Daily published a speech criticizing the Yunnan educated youth who had come to Beijing to demand the right to return to their native cities, on the ground in Yunnan, the educated youths were in fact packing up and going back home by the thousands, after a victorious petitioning movement. This movement of historical importance was never officially acknowledged. In the TV series, the sudden end of the rustication movement is attributed to the wisdom of Deng Xiaoping and the petitioning movement (including strikes, hunger strikes and the sending of delegations) is replaced by the individual petition of a female educated youth wanting to go back home to take care of her gravely ill father who succeeds in touching the heart of a good cadre. The contribution of unofficial sources is thus particularly obvious in this case.

The Institutional Future of the Covenants

Longstanding proposals to strengthen implementation of the international human rights treaties have often focused on procedural reforms such as harmonizing methods of work or consolidating ten treaty monitoring bodies into one. This article reviews past reform efforts and then considers proposals to create stronger individual petition mechanisms—including a ‘world court’—as a way of strengthening human rights implementation. After discussing these proposals, the author offers additional ways to make the system more effective and efficient. She rejects the oft-suggested proposal to create a ‘world court’ for human rights, noting legal, organizational, logistical, and financial obstacles. Rather than rushing to tear down the current treaty body system, the author offers a proposal for determining how consolidation of petition proceedings might affect normative standards.

Le misure provvisorie della Corte europea dei diritti umani nell'ambito della procedura di ricorso interstatale Georgia c. Russia

- In the case Georgia v. Russia, the European Court has adopted provisional meas- ures requesting both States parties to ensure compliance with their engagements under the ECHR, particularly in respect of the right to life (Article 2) and the prohibition of tor- ture and inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3). It is the first time in the Court's history that Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure is applied in the framework of an inter- state complaint procedure. Being themselves aimed at safeguarding pendente lite the rights of individuals exposed to the imminent risk of an irreparable damages rather than to protect States' own rights, inter-state provisional measures are subject to a legal re- gime largely correspondent to that of provisional measures adopted on request of an in- dividual applicant. Notwithstanding the despicable absence of any reasoning, the in- terim protection accorded by the Court in the case Georgia v. Russia seems to fall squarely within the previous practice in individual cases as to procedural and substantial requirements, certain peculiarities being in fact a mere consequence of the rules appli- cable to inter-state litigation and of the specific object of the complaint filed by Georgia in relation to an ongoing armed conflict. The most controversial issue remains that of the binding nature of provisional measures, given that the solution embraced by the re- cent Court's case-law relies on the obligation not to hinder the effective exercise of the right of individual petition and cannot be extended to inter-state complaints. A proposal for a different approach is therefore offered, which links the binding nature of provi- sional measures to the substantive obligations they seek to ensure respect for against possible violations having irreparable consequences.

Dynamics of International Human Rights in Japan

Starting with a preliminary evaluation of Canadian human rights practices, the author critically traces the development of international human rights ih Japan. While the country has been aflfcted favourably by the newly-emerging international human rights regime, judicial reluctance to acknowledge the relevance of human dignity leads the author to conclude that there is still a long way to go in achieving the desired situation. The article ends with a calI for the acceptance of treaty-based individual petition procedures, which in his view may effectively induce the judiciary to open up to the universal norms for the protection of human rights.

Jamaica Withdraws the Right of Individual Petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

In October 1997, a little-noticed event took place at the United Nations that may roll back the international legal protection of human rights. Jamaica became the first country to denounce the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and thus withdrew the right of individual petition to the UN Human Rights Committee (Committee). Although it is provided for under the Protocol’s Article 12, no state has previously made such a denunciation.