The right to reparations in the contentious process before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights: A comparative analysis on account of the revised Rules of Court

Kevin Toro Sánchez
{"title":"The right to reparations in the contentious process before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights: A comparative analysis on account of the revised Rules of Court","authors":"Kevin Toro Sánchez","doi":"10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n2a32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to examine the possible repercussions that the revised Rules of the Court adopted in September 2020 may have on the right to reparations. In particular, the article focuses on the two procedures to issue a judgment on reparations, specific procedures and third party interventions. The information therein has been assembled by reviewing relevant regional legal instruments such as the African Charter, the African Court Protocol and the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission and the Court with their counterparts in the European and Inter-American systems, as well as through an appraisal of pertinent case law. The revision of the Rules of Court demonstrates a constructive attempt by the African Court to clarify previously imprecise rules, expand the scope of specific procedures and reiterate its competencies. These additions are evident in the new arrangement of the contents of an application, and the inclusion of the pilot-judgment procedure or the revised Rule 72 which reaffirms the binding nature of all Court decisions. The article highlights relevant changes to the Rules of Court while arguing that additional rules need to be amended or expanded to more effectively guarantee the right to reparations. To that end, it provides recommendations for the African Court to consider.","PeriodicalId":36136,"journal":{"name":"African Human Rights Law Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Human Rights Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n2a32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to examine the possible repercussions that the revised Rules of the Court adopted in September 2020 may have on the right to reparations. In particular, the article focuses on the two procedures to issue a judgment on reparations, specific procedures and third party interventions. The information therein has been assembled by reviewing relevant regional legal instruments such as the African Charter, the African Court Protocol and the Rules of Procedure of the African Commission and the Court with their counterparts in the European and Inter-American systems, as well as through an appraisal of pertinent case law. The revision of the Rules of Court demonstrates a constructive attempt by the African Court to clarify previously imprecise rules, expand the scope of specific procedures and reiterate its competencies. These additions are evident in the new arrangement of the contents of an application, and the inclusion of the pilot-judgment procedure or the revised Rule 72 which reaffirms the binding nature of all Court decisions. The article highlights relevant changes to the Rules of Court while arguing that additional rules need to be amended or expanded to more effectively guarantee the right to reparations. To that end, it provides recommendations for the African Court to consider.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非洲人权和人民权利法院诉讼程序中的赔偿权:根据修订后的《法院规则》进行的比较分析
本条的目的是审查2020年9月通过的修订后的《法院规则》可能对赔偿权产生的影响。特别是,该条侧重于对赔偿作出判决的两个程序、具体程序和第三方干预。其中的信息是通过与欧洲和美洲系统的同行审查《非洲宪章》、《非洲法院议定书》和《非洲委员会和法院议事规则》等相关区域法律文书以及通过评估相关判例法收集的。《法院规则》的修订表明,非洲法院作出了建设性的努力,澄清以前不精确的规则,扩大具体程序的范围,并重申其职权范围。这些补充体现在对申请内容的新安排中,以及纳入试点判决程序或修订后的第72条规则中,该规则重申了法院所有裁决的约束力。这篇文章强调了对《法院规则》的相关修改,同时认为需要修改或扩大其他规则,以更有效地保障获得赔偿的权利。为此,它提出了建议,供非洲法院审议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
African Human Rights Law Journal
African Human Rights Law Journal Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Public participation as an essential requirement of the environmental rule of law: Reflections on South Africa's approach in policy and practice The right to development in Francophone Africa: Post-colonial agreements, sovereign authority and control over natural resources The prospects of litigation to secure maternal health in Nigeria: Does SERAP v Attorney-General Lagos have any value? Traditional leadership in South Africa: From blood and might usurpation to constitutional accountability The Mariana Trench of transphobia in South Africa: The legislative lacunae in KOS v Minister of Home Affairs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1