Advertisement

Litigation and Remedies for the Victims

  • Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala
  • Paul Nzinga Komba
Chapter

Abstract

The previous chapters has analyzed the international and regional instruments on which FGM victims can rely in order to seek relief before judicial and quasi-judicial regional and international forums. We now turn to some of matters, which must be established when seeking such a relief for the victims. The focus will be on Africa, although it is plain that the jurisprudence emanating from inter-American and European as well as international courts may be used effectively in order to obtain a remedy before African and international bodies.

References

  1. Africa Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child [ACRWC]. Available at https://www.unicef.org/esaro/African_Charter_articles_in_full.pdf, Articles 33(1) and (2) and 45(4).
  2. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Articles 18(3), 60 and 62 http://www.ochchr.org/document/HRBodies/TB/ComplaintForm.doc
  3. African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Art. 56.Google Scholar
  4. Alekperson v Russian Federation. Comm. No 176/2008, para 8.3.Google Scholar
  5. Ambatielos. (1952). Greece v The United Kingdom. 1 CJ1, 23 ILR p. 303.Google Scholar
  6. Banjul Charter relating to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Art. 50.Google Scholar
  7. Case concerning the US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran. Judgment of 24 May 1980. Available http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=334&p1=3&p2=3&case=64&p3=5
  8. CEDAW. Document A/56/38 (SUPP), as amended by A/62/38) (SUPP), Available at http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedawreport-a5638-RulesOfProcedure.htm
  9. CESCR. Comment 14, para 35. Available at http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d0.pdf
  10. CESCR. General Comment 14 para 51.Google Scholar
  11. Commission v Ireland. (1998). ECR I-8565; Case C-353/96 (EU Law). Available at http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=C-392/96
  12. Committee of Experts’ Guideline. Chapter 3, Article 3(3), Chapter 12, Article 2(IV). Available at http://www.ihrda.org/515-2/s
  13. Convention for the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). www.ohchr.org/bodies/CEDAW/rules
  14. Diallo. (2007). International Court of Justice. Guinea v Democratic Republic of Congo Case. ICJ Reports, paras 42 and 44.Google Scholar
  15. Eborah, S. T. (2010). Critical issues in the human rights mandate of ECOWAS Court of Justice. Journal of African Law, 54, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ECHR. (1986). Johnstone v Ireland. Series A no 112.Google Scholar
  17. Finnish Ships (Arbitration). 2 RIAA, p. 1479 (1934); 7AD, p. 231.Google Scholar
  18. General Comment 18 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on Harmful Practices. Available at http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?SymbolNo=CEDAW/C/GC/31/CRC/C/GC/18
  19. H.S. v France [Comm. 184/1].Google Scholar
  20. Henry v Jamaica. Comm. No 230, 1987, para 7.3.Google Scholar
  21. HR Committee. (1978). Shirim Aumeeruddy-Cziffra and other 19 Mauritian Victims v Mauritius. Comm. No 35/1978, para 9.2.Google Scholar
  22. HR Committee. Konye v Hungry. Comm. No 520/92 para 6.4.Google Scholar
  23. HR Committee. Mariategui v Argentina. Comm. No 1371/05 E.Google Scholar
  24. ICCPR. Art. 6.2-6.6.Google Scholar
  25. ICCPR. International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. Article 5, Optional Protocol I.Google Scholar
  26. International Law Commission (ILC) Commentary. (2001). Art. 44, p. 303.Google Scholar
  27. Jawara v The Gambia. AHRLR 107 (ACHPR 2000) para 32.Google Scholar
  28. Lovelace v Canada. Comm. No 24/1977, para 7.3.Google Scholar
  29. Shaw, M. (2008). International law (6th ed., p. 283). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Mkandawire v Malawi. See Application 003/2011 Para 34; full judgment is available at http://www.worldcourts.com/acthpr/eng/decisions/2013.06.21_Mkandawire_v_Malawi.pdf
  31. Musila, G. M. (2006). The right to effective remedy under the African Charter on Human Rights. African Human Rights Law Journal, 6(2), 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Optional Protocol of ICCPR. Art. 5, Para 4, www.ohch.org/EN/HRBodies/CCPR/pages/jurisprudence.aspx
  33. Optional Protocol to ICCPR. Art. 5 (2) (b).Google Scholar
  34. Robert E. Brown case. 6RIAA, p. 20.Google Scholar
  35. Sriga-vaasa v Sri Lanka. Comm. 1033/01, para 6.4.Google Scholar
  36. The Interhandle Case, ICJ Reports, 1959, p. 6; 27 ILR, p. 475.Google Scholar
  37. The Maputo Protocol. Available at http://maputoprotocol.com/about-the-protocol
  38. Trindale, A. C. (1983). The application of the rule of local exhaustion of remedies in international law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Velasquez Rodriguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Inter-Am.Ct.H.R. (Ser. C) No. 4. Available at http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/iachr/b_11_12d.htm
  40. Woulter Vandenhole. (2004). The procedure before the UN human rights treaty bodies: Divergence or convergence? Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ngianga-Bakwin Kandala
    • 1
  • Paul Nzinga Komba
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Mathematics Physics and Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and EnvironmentNorthumbria UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  2. 2.Wolfson CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations