The Catalogue of Rights Afforded to Victims by International Norms

de Casadevante Romani, Carlos Fernández

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28140-2_6

Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani²

1096 Accesses

Abstract

In difference to other rights content in international norms related to the different categories of victims, which are as said rights yet in force in international law of human rights, both the right of emergency assistance and the right of continuing assistance (which I will analyzed later) are rights closely linked with the condition of victim. This is why they are not present in international treaties on human rights. This is why, too, they are present in international norms on victims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
And paragraph Nr. 17 adds: “17. In providing services and assistance to victims, attention should be given to those who have special needs because of the nature of the harm inflicted or because of factors such as those mentioned in paragraph 3 above.” Paragraph 3 is related to non-discrimination: “3. The provisions contained herein shall be applicable to all, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, nationality, political or other opinion, cultural beliefs or practices, property, birth or family status, ethnic or social origin, and disability”.
2.
This Recommendation completes both the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, of 24 November 1983, and Recommendation No. R (85) 11 On the Position of the Victim in the Framework of Criminal Law and Procedure (see both in Conseil de l’Europe, Soutien et aide aux victimes, 2006, 9 et seq., 181 et seq. and 185 et seq.). In Spanish in FernÃndez de Casadevante Romani C, Mayordomo Rodrigo V (2011) Código de normas internacionales relativas a las vÚctimas, Tecnos, Madrid.
3.
The aim of this Recommendation is to update Recommendation No. R (87) 21 On Assistance to victims and the Prevention of victimisation in the line of the “significant developments have occurred in the field of assistance to victims including developments in national legislation and practice, a better understanding of the victims’ needs and new research”. Also, to aid Member States to prevent repeat victimization in particular for victims belonging to vulnerable groups. At least, to guide Member States in their internal legislation and practice by the principles set out in the appendix to this recommendation.
4.
On point II.
5.
ECHR, Judgement of 10 May 2001, par. 219. This jurisprudence of Article 2 is repeated in the case Berktay v. Turkey, Judgement of the 1st March 2001 (on par. 154) as well as in the decision on admissibility in the case Nitecki v. Poland, Judgement of 21 March 2002 (application No. 65653/01). The existence of a positive obligation deriving from Article 3 had been recognized earlier by the European Commission of Human Rights. According to it, States have under certain particular circumstances the obligation to give immediate medical treatment.
6.
This case did not arrive at the ECHR because of the friendly settlement concluded between the Government of Switzerland and the applicant. Consequently, the Court decided to strike the case out of the list by Judgement of 28 January 1994.
Another example is the case McGlinchey v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 29 April 2003. This case is related to the conditions of imprisonment of an individual. According to the interpretation of the ECHR, under Article 3 the State “must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for her human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject her to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, her health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing her with the requisite medical assistance (see, mutatis mutandis, Aerts v. Belgium, judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, p. 1966, §§ 64 et seq., and Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI)” (para. 46).
7.
Cf. Sanz Hermida, op. cit., 69 et seq.
8.
Without relationship with victims, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 16 December 1966 recognizes the more general right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. According to it: “1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. 2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for: (a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child; (b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene; (c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases; (d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.”
9.
Without relationship with victims, the European Social Charter envisages the right to social and medical assistance (on Article 11) as well as the right to benefit from social welfare services (on Article 14). Despite its general character, the Committee of Ministers quote it in its Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts to support on it the right of victims to continuing assistance.
10.
On Part III, entitled “Continuing assistance”.
11.
Because such an insufficiency constitutes an inhuman or degrading treatment. However, on the basis of the material in its possession, the Court finds no indication that the amount of the applicant’s pension and the additional social benefits has caused such damage to her physical or mental health capable of attaining the minimum level of severity falling within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention.
12.
Cf. Sanz Hermida, op. cit., 142–147.
13.
About this question cf. Seibert-Fohr (2009), 189–227.
14.
In International Law on human rights some treaties contain such an obligation, for example, UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment of 10 December 1984. Also, the Convention for the Protection of All Person from Enforced Disappearance of 6 February 2007. In the field of institutional norms, the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance adopted by A/RES/47/133 of 18 December 1992 and the General Assembly Resolution 60/147 adopted on 16 December 2005 through which the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 April 2005 by Resolution 2005/35 were adopted.
15.
Tomuschat (2002), 325. In the opinion of this author, the acceptance of a general duty to prosecute authors of grave crimes involved in human rights violations does not solve all the problems “because such a duty to punish is limited to acts and events that have occured under the territorial jurisdiction of the State concerned” (ibid., 326). “That is, where it enjoys the monopoly of employing force. With regard to crimes committed outside their borders, no customary rules involving a duty to act exist” (ibid., 343).
16.
Point Nr. III.4 states: “4. In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him. Moreover, in these cases, States should, in accordance with international law, cooperate with one another and assist international judicial organs competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations.”
17.
Cf. Article 53. Part V of the Statute concerns investigation and prosecution. With regard to the first, see also Articles 54–57 of the Statute.
18.
Cf. Article 15, paragraph 3.
19.
Rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the ICC.
20.
Rule 50.4.
21.
Rule 50.5.
22.
It has been underlined so by the Human Rights Committee in the interpretation it has given of Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966 concretely in its General Comment No. 20 on Article 7 (forty-fourth session, 1992) where it stated that complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially by competent authorities so as to make the remedy effective. In the opinion of Ch. Tomuschat, the first case where the Committee went beyond its standard formula is that of Dermit Barbato, who died while being imprisoned (cf. Tomuschat (2002), 320 et seq.). In this case, the Committee states Uruguay’s obligation not only to take effective steps to establish the facts of Hugo Dermit’s death but, too, “to bring to justice any persons found to be responsible for his death and to pay appropriate compensation to his familiy”(cf. Selected Decisions II, 116, para. 11. In the same line, the pronouncements of the Committee in its Views of 24 July 1984 (case Muteba v. Zaire, Selected Decisions II, 160, para. 13) and of 4 April 1985 (case Surinam, ibid., 176, para. 16).
23.
In the opinion of Tomuschat, it is a firmly settled jurisprudence but related to grave violations of human rights. In the same line, the Committee Against Torture created by the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment of 10 December 1984 has declared that national amnesties cannot avoid the duty to prosecute. In this Convention, the duty to prosecute is envisaged in Articles 4–6 (cf. Tomuschat, “The duty to…”, op. cit., 323).
24.
In the opinion of Tomuschat, “since the competent international tribunals (ECHR and I/ACHR have also embraced the view that in instances of grave attacks against the life, physical integrity and freedom of the victims the duty to protect entails a duty to punish the responsible perpetrator, that proposition seems by now to have acquired sufficiently broad foundations to stand as a rule of applicable positive law” (ibid., 325).
25.
The African Charter of Human and People’s Rights was approved on 27 July 1981. Into force: the 21 October 1986. I say “general” because it contains a general catalogue of rights and freedoms.
26.
It entered into force on 20 January 2004. It is actually ratified by 26 States. About the African regional system vid. Heins and Killander (2009), 858–898; Mutua (2009), 899–924, respectively. Also my Chapter “El sistema regional africano”, in Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, op. cit., 277 et seq.
27.
According to it, States shall: “(b) Investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate, take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law”.
28.
Point Nr. III.4 states: “4. In cases of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law constituting crimes under international law, States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish her or him. Moreover, in these cases, States should, in accordance with international law, cooperate with one another and assist international judicial organs competent in the investigation and prosecution of these violations.”
29.
Article 13 states: “1. Each State shall ensure that any person having knowledge or a legitimate interest who alleges that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance has the right to complain to a competent and independent State authority and to have that complaint promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigated by that authority. Whenever there are reasonable grounds to believe that an enforced disappearance has been committed, the State shall promptly refer the matter to that authority for such an investigation, even if there has been no formal complaint. No measure shall be taken to curtail or impede the investigation. 2. Each State shall ensure that the competent authority shall have the necessary powers and resources to conduct the investigation effectively, including powers to compel attendance of witnesses and production of relevant documents and to make immediate on-site visits. 3. Steps shall be taken to ensure that all involved in the investigation, including the complainant, counsel, witnesses and those conducting the investigation, are protected against ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisal. 4. The findings of such an investigation shall be made available upon request to all persons concerned, unless doing so would jeopardize an ongoing criminal investigation. 5. Steps shall be taken to ensure that any ill-treatment, intimidation or reprisal or any other form of interference on the occasion of the lodging of a complaint or during the investigation procedure is appropriately punished. 6. An investigation, in accordance with the procedures described above, should be able to be conducted for as long as the fate of the victim of enforced disappearance remains un-clarified.”
30.
And Article 24, paragraph 6 adds: “6. Without prejudice to the obligation to continue the investigation until the fate of the disappeared person has been clarified, each State Party shall take appropriate steps with regard to the legal situation of disappeared persons whose fate has not been clarified and that of their relatives, in fields such as social welfare, financial matters, family law and property rights”.
31.
Which states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
32.
Cf. ONU, HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 7, 161, para. 14.
33.
Cf. Comm. No. 322/1988, CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988, paras 12.3 and 12.4 (1994).
34.
Comm. No. 328/1988, CCPR/C/51/D/328/1988.
35.
Cf. Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, Comm. No. 563/1993, U.N. GAOR, Hum. Rts. Comm., U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, para. 10.
36.
General Comment No. 20 (forty-fourth session, 1992), ONU, HRI/GEN/1/Rev. 7, 161, para. 15.
37.
Cf. Articles 4 and 5.
38.
Which say: “1. Where there have been victims of terrorist acts, states must launch an effective official investigation into those acts.”
39.
ECHR, Judgement of 16 July 2002, para. 144.
40.
ECHR, Judgement of 9 May 2003, para. 195. The original is in French. The translation to English is mine. When no effective criminal investigation can be considered to have been carried out in accordance with Article 13 the ECHR finds that any other remedies, including a claim for damages, “are theoretical and illusory, and not capable of affording redress to the applicant” (Case Carabulea v. Romania, Judgement of 13 July 2010, para. 166).
41.
Case Yasa v. Turkey, Judgement of 2 September 1998, para. 98.
42.
ECHR, Judgement of the 1st July 2003, para. 70. Cf. also Case Association 21 December 1989 and Others v. Romania (GC), Judgement of 24 May 2011, para. 133; Case McKerr v. United Kingdom, Judgement of 4 May 2001, para. 121 and Case Yasa v. Turkey, Judgement of 2 September 1998, para. 74.
43.
The original text of this Judgement is in French. The translation to English is mine.
44.
Cf., for example, Case Yasa v. Turkey, Judgement of 2 September 1998, para. 103; Case Issayeva and Others v. Russia, Judgement of 24 February 205, para. 219.
45.
I/ACHR, Case Velasquez Rodriguez, Judgement of 29 July 1988, para. 176. Moreover, “the State has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.” (ibid., para. 174).
46.
Ibid., párr. 177. Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 139; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 163, para. 199; and Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 100, para. 97.
47.
I/ACHR, Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, Judgment of 29 November 2006, para. 228. Cf. also Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 97, para. 139; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 163, para. 199; and Case of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 100, para. 97.
48.
I/ACHR, Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, Judgment of 29 November 2006, para. 149. In this Judgement, the I/ACHR quoted its jurisprudence on the following cases: Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 216; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 98, para. 66, and Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 110, para. 188.
49.
I/ACHR, Case Velasquez Rodriguez, Judgement of 29 July 1988, para. 174. Cf. also the Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) vs. Guatemala, Judgement of 19 November 1999, Merits, para. 226 (Series C, No. 63). In this judgement, the I/ACHR quotes its Judgements on the following cases: Case Godínez Cruz, para. 188 and Case Velásquez Rodríguez, para. 177.
50.
I/ACHR, Case Barrios Altos vs. Perú (Merits), Judgement of 14 March 2001, para. 41.
51.
Ibid.
52.
Which contain the same obligation on Article 13, paragraph 1.
53.
OJEC L 164, of 22 June 2002.
54.
ECHR, Judgement of 27 July 2004, para. 47.
55.
ECHR, Judgement of 4 May 2011.
56.
ECHR, Judgement of the 1st July 2003, para. 71.
57.
European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment Accompanying the document “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European economic and social Committee and the Committee of Regions”, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, SEC(2011) 580 final, Brussels, 18.5.2011), 12 et seq.
58.
Art. 15.6 in fine.
59.
Sanz Hermida, op. cit., 58 et seq. It is a problem which has different profiles depending on the fact that the access concerns civil or criminal jurisdictional organs. The first to claim for restitution or compensation of the prejudices suffered. The second to actively participate in the criminal proceedings or to have only a knowledge of the development of the indictment and the result of it or to participate in it as witnesses.
60.
Article 7 says: “No circumstances whatsoever, whether a threat of war, a state of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked to justify enforced disappearances.”
61.
Together with the following duties: “(a) Take appropriate legislative and administrative and other appropriate measures to prevent violations; (b) Investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate, take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law; provide those who claim to be victims of a human rights or humanitarian law violation with equal and effective access to justice, as described below, irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation”.
62.
Principle VIII, point 14. Related to it, point 13 makes reference to the development of “procedures to allow groups of victims to present claims for reparation and to receive reparation, as appropriate.”
63.
Ibid., point 12. Due to the content of the resolution, one can suppose that the equal access from which this point speaks shall be understood as related to all victims. Point 12 adds: “Other remedies available to the victim include access to administrative and other bodies, as well as mechanisms, modalities and proceedings conducted in accordance with domestic law. Obligations arising under international law to secure the right to access justice and fair and impartial proceedings shall be reflected in domestic laws.”
64.
Into force on 23 December 2010.
65.
This provision is contradictory to Article 5 that states that the widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity, because crimes against humanity do not have limitation of time to be prosecuted. Article 5 says: “The widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance constitutes a crime against humanity as defined in applicable international law and shall attract the consequences provided for under such applicable international law”.
66.
Cf. Rule 89, paragraphs 1 and 3.
67.
Cf. Rule 90.
68.
Cf. Rule 91.3.
69.
Cf. Rule 92.2.
70.
Jorda, “L’accès des victimes à la justice pénale internationale”, in Terrorisme, victimes et…, op. cit., 363. Cf. also C. Tournaye, “L’apport des Tribunaux as hoc pour la repression du terrorisme”, ibid., 416–430.
71.
Cf. ibid., 362–365.
72.
Recommendations that are used by the ECHR in its jurisprudence. So, for example, in the Case Pérez v. France (GC), judgement of 12 February 2004. See page 156 of the present work.
73.
This Recommendation declares that States “should take all necessary steps to inform the public on the means open to an individual to assert his rights before courts and to make judicial proceedings, relating to civil, commercial, administrative, social or fiscal matters simple, speedy and inexpensive.” To this end, this Recommendation asserts that States should have particular regard to the following principles: “1. Appropriate measures should be taken to inform the public of the location and competence of the courts and the way in which proceedings are commenced or defended before those courts. 2. General information should be available from the court or a competent body or service on the following items:—procedural requirements provided that this information does not involve giving legal advice concerning the substance of the case;—the way in which, and the time within which, a decision can be challenged, the rules of procedure and any required documents to this effect;—methods by which a decision might be enforced, and if possible, the costs involved.”
74.
Paragraph 29 of which (inside point “D. A crime policy taking account of the victims’ interests”) refers to “Establishing an efficient system of legal aid for victims so that they may have access to justice in all circumstances.”
75.
Point 9 of it (entitled “D. Court proceedings”) states: “The victim should be informed of: the date and place of a hearing concerning an offence which caused him suffering; his opportunities of obtaining restitution and compensation within the criminal justice process, legal assistance and advice; how he can find out the outcome of the case;”
76.
Paragraph 4 of it specifies that the States shall take measures to ensure that victims and their families, especially those who are most vulnerable, receive in particular “assistance during the criminal process, with due respect to the defence;”
77.
In the following terms: “1. States should, in accordance with their national legislation, strive to bring individuals suspected of terrorist acts to justice and obtain a decision from a competent tribunal within a reasonable time. 2. States should ensure that the position of victims of terrorist acts is adequately recognised in criminal proceedings.”
78.
In the following terms: “States should provide effective access to the law and to justice for victims of terrorist acts by providing: (i) the right of access to competent courts in order to bring a civil action in support of their rights, and (ii) legal aid in appropriate cases”.
79.
The reality is different. So, only in a few Member States do victims have easy access to a range of information regarding available support, legal advice and aid and essential issues concerning the criminal proceedings, including the decision to prosecute, the court date and positive or negative court decisions (cf. European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment Accompanying the document “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European economic and social Committee and the Committee of Regions”, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, SEC(2011) 580 final, Brussels, 18.5.2011).
80.
See Article 3. In the European Union, victims are not always able to attend trial “because the availability of reimbursement of victims’ expenses to get there is in most Member States inadequate or victims are not informed about such a right” (European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment Accompanying the document “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European economic and social Committee and the Committee of Regions”, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, SEC(2011) 580 final, Brussels, 18.5.2011), 12.
81.
Article 4.1.f). It concerns a very wide information that shall include at least: “(a) the type of services or organisations to which they can turn for support; (b) the type of support which they can obtain; (c) where and how they can report an offence; (d) procedures following such a report and their role in connection with such procedures; (e) how and under what conditions they can obtain protection; (f) to what extent and on what terms they have access to: (i) legal advice or (ii) legal aid, or (iii) any other sort of advice, if, in the cases envisaged in point (i) and (ii), they are entitled to receive it; (g) requirements for them to be entitled to compensation; (h) if they are resident in another State, any special arrangements available to them in order to protect their interests.” Member States, too, shall ensure “that victims who have expressed a wish to this effect are kept informed of: (a) the outcome of their complaint; (b) relevant factors enabling them, in the event of prosecution, to know the conduct of the criminal proceedings regarding the person prosecuted for offences concerning them, except in exceptional cases where the proper handling of the case may be adversely affected; (c) the court’s sentence.” (Article 4 paragraphs 1 and 2). Cf. also Articles 6 and 8.
82.
According to it: “Each Member State shall ensure that victims have access to advice as referred to in Article 4(1)(f) (iii), provided free of charge where warranted, concerning their role in the proceedings and, where appropriate, legal aid as referred to in Article 4(1)(f) (ii), when it is possible for them to have the status of parties to criminal proceedings”.
83.
Article 3 of this Framework Decision only contains some general provisions charging Member States with the obligation to safeguard the possibility for victims to be heard during proceedings and to supply evidence as well as to take appropriate measures to ensure that its authorities question victims only insofar as necessary for the purpose of criminal proceedings. About this questions, cf. Sanz Hermida, op. cit., 60–62.
In this regard, “from studies and surveys throughout Europe, it appears that victims are often ignored or are not sufficiently provided with information about the judicial process. For this basic need to be met, the prerequisite is that a victim's needs are clearly identified and catered for.” (European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment Accompanying the document “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European economic and social Committee and the Committee of Regions”, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, SEC(2011) 580 final, Brussels, 18.5.2011), 9.
84.
Adding Article XIV: “Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding article, when the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights receives a petition or communication regarding an alleged forced disappearance, its Executive Secretariat shall urgently and confidentially address the respective government, and shall request that government to provide as soon as possible information as to the whereabouts of the allegedly disappeared person together with any other information it considers pertinent, and such request shall be without prejudice as to the admissibility of the petition.”
85.
Cf. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966; Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950; Article 25 of the American Convention of Human Rights of 22 November 1969 and Article 7 of the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights of 27 June 1981. Since 1948, it is envisaged in Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December. According to Article 8: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law”.
86.
Actually 167 State Parties.
87.
UN. CCPR General Comment No. 13. (General Comments), 13/04/1984. It adds that the provisions of Article 14 apply to all courts and tribunals within the scope of that article whether ordinary or specialized (ibid., para. 4).
88.
Article 2, paragraph 3 states: “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”
89.
Interpretation contained in General Comment No. 31 (80): “The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on State parties”, adopted on 29 March 2004 (2187th meeting), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004.
90.
Ibid., para. 15. This express quotation does not exclude other categories of special vulnerability persons like, for example, victims of gross violations of international human rights law, victims of serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, victims of violations of International Criminal Law or victims of terrorism.
91.
Ibid.
92.
UN CCPR, General Comment No.20 44, Replaces general comment 7concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7), forty-fourth session 1992, 10/03/1992, para. 14.
93.
Ibid.
94.
UN CCPR, CCPR General Comment No. 31 (80). “The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on State parties”, adopted on 29 March 2004 (2187th meeting), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004, para. 18.
95.
Ibid.
96.
UN CCPR, General Comment No.20 44, Replaces general comment 7concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment (Art. 7), forty-fourth session 1992, 10/03/1992, para. 15.
97.
UN CCPR, CCPR General Comment No. 31 (80). “The nature of the general legal obligation imposed on State parties”, adopted on 29 March 2004 (2187th meeting), CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, 26 May 2004, para. 16. Article 2, paragraph 3 of the Convenant states: “3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes: (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity; (b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”
98.
According to Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Lisbon the Charter of fundamental Rights of the European Union “the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adapted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties”. Cf. López Escudero (2008), 740.
99.
Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ C 303, 14 December 2007).
100.
Ibid.
101.
Ibid., 743.
102.
ECEC, Judgement of 15 May 1986, Johnston, 222/84, [1986] ECR 1651, paras. 18 and 19. Cf. also Judgement of 15 October 1987, Heylens and others, 222/86, [1987] ECR 4097, para. 14; Judgement of 27 November 2001, Commission/Austria, C-424/99, [2001] ECR I-9285, para. 45; Judgement of 25 July de 2002, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores/Council, Case C-50/00, [2002] ECR I-6677, para. 39; Judgement of 19 June 2003, Eribrand, Case C-467/01, [2003] ECR I-6471, para. 61.
103.
Cf. ECEC, Judgement of 13 May 2007, Unibet (London) Ltd. And Unibet (International) v. Justitiekanslern, Case C-432/05, para. 37.
104.
Cf. ibid., paras. 38 and 39.
105.
Article 47, paragraph 2 says: “Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.”
106.
Just quoted. It adds: “That is one of the consequences of the fact that the Community is a community based on the rule of law as stated by the Court in Case 294/83, “Les Verts” v. European Parliament (judgment of 23 April 1986, [1988] ECR 1339). Nevertheless, in all respects other than their scope, the guarantees afforded by the ECHR apply in a similar way to the Union.”
107.
Article 51 states: “1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers. 2. This Charter does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties.”
108.
Cf. López Escudero, “Artículo 47…”, op. cit., 750.
109.
Ibid.
110.
According to this jurisprudence: “The general principle of Community law that everyone is entitled to fair legal process, which is inspired by those fundamental rights (see in particular Opinion 2/94 [1996] ECR I-1759, paragraph 33, and judgement in Case C-299/95 Kremzow [1997] ECR I-2629, paragraph 14), and in particular the right to legal process within a reasonable period, is applicable in the context of proceedings brought against a Commission decision imposing fines on an undertaking for infringement of competition law.” (Judgement of 17 December 1998, Baustahlgewebe/Comisión, C-185/95, P, (1998) ECR I-8417, para. 21). Cf. also, Judgement of 11 January 2000, Netherlands and Van der Wal/Commission, C-174/98 P and C-189/98 P, Rec., p. I-1, para. 17 and Judgement of 2 May 2006, Eurofood IFSC Ltd., C-341/04, (2004) ECRI-3813, para. 65.
111.
ECEC, Judgement of 2 May 2006, Eurofood IFSC Ltd.. Cf. also Judgement of 25 January 2007, Salzgitter Mannesmann/Commission, C-411/04 P, para. 41.
112.
Cf. in this sense the Judgement of 27 June 2007, Ordre des barreaux francophines et germanophone, C-305/05, para 29. Also, M. López Escudero, “Artículo 47. Derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva y a un juez imparcial”, op. cit, 751.
113.
Cf., between others the following cases: case Golder v.United Kingdom, Judgement of 21 February 1975, Serie A núm. 18, paras. 26–40; case Campbell y Fell v.United Kingdom, Judgement of 28 June 1984, Serie A, núm. 80, paras. 97–113; and case Borgers v. Belgium, Judgement of 30 October 1991, Serie A, No.. 214-B, para. 24.
114.
Cf. López Escudero, “Artículo 47. Derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva y a un juez imparcial”, op. cit., 751.
115.
In this case, violation of Article 13 occurs because of the inadequacy of the official investigation concerning the death of the applicant’s brother. As stated in paragraph 106: “The scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint under the Convention. Nevertheless, the remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective” in practice as well as in law, in particular in the sense that its exercise must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or the omissions of the authorities of the respondent State (see the above-mentioned Aksoy judgment, p. 2286, § 95; the above-mentioned Aydın judgment, pp. 1895–96, § 103; and the above-mentioned Menteş judgment, pp. 2715–16, § 89).” (ECHR, Case Kaya v. Turkey, Judgement of 19 February 1998). “Consequently, the Court finds that the applicant has been denied an effective remedy in respect of the death of his brother and has thereby been denied access to any other available remedies at his disposal, including a claim for compensation and concludes violation of Article 13 of the Convention” (Case Carabulea v. Romania, judgement of 13 July 2010, para. 167).
116.
ECHR, Judgement of 26 March 1987, Series A nº 116, 29 et seq. para. 77.
117.
ECHR, Judgement of 26 October 2000, paras. 146–149, 152 and 156.
118.
Paragraph 6.e).
119.
See 154–155 of the present work.
120.
The jurisprudence of the ECHR is built by the following judgements: case Wemhift, Judgement of 27 June 1968; case Neumeister v. Austria, Judgement of 27 June 1968; case Ringeisen v. Austria, Judgement of 16 July 1971; case König v. Germany, Judgement of 28 June 1978; case Buchholz v. Germany, Judgement of 6 May 1981; case Foti and Others v. Italy, Judgement of 10 December 1982; case Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, Judgement of 13 July 1983; case Lechner and Hess v. Austria, Judgement of 23 April 1987; case Capuano v. Italy, Judgement of 25 June 1987.
121.
The official version of this judgement of the ECHR is in French. The translation to English is mine.
122.
In Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 16 December 1966; in Article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950; in Article 25 of the American Convention of Human Rights and in Article 7 of the African Charter of Human and People’s Rights of 27 June 1981.
123.
UN CCPR, CCPR General Comment No. 13, Equality before the courts and the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent court established by law (Art. 14), !3/04/1984, (twenty-first session, 1984), para. 1. Article 14 declares the right to an effective remedy.
124.
Ibid., para. 10.
125.
About this question cf. the developments of the I/ACHI in the following cases: Case Almonacid Arellano and others vs. Chile, Judgement of 26 September de 2006, par. 135; Case Montero Aranguren and others v., Judgement of 5 July 2006, Series C No. 150, par. 115; Case Ximenes Lopes v., Judgement of 4 de July 2006, Series C No. 149, par. 345.
In the opinion of Tomuschat, the analysis of the practice reveals that a strict rule in accordance with which any violation of human rights would give rise to an obligation to compensate is not acceptable. On these lines, he argues that the simple application by analogy of the regime of the international responsibility of the State should be ruled out (cf. “La protection internationale des droits des victimes”, in FLAUSS, J.-F., La protection internationale des droits de l’homme et les droits des victimes, 2009, 11).
126.
Due to the wealth of the I/ACHR developments in this matter, I will refer extensively to its jurisprudence in this area. It is a jurisprudence which synthesizes and expresses the existing International law in the field of international redress.
127.
I/ACHR, Case of Almonacid Arellano and others vs. Chile, op. cit., para. 136.
128.
Cf. ibid., para. 137.
129.
This is the case of crimes of terrorism, crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, forced desappearances, extrajudicial executions and torture.
130.
Cf. Jeangène Vilmer (2009).
131.
Ibid., 7.
132.
Cf. ibid., párr.158. On the same lines cf. Case Ximenes Lopes vs. Brasil, op. cit., para. 220; Case Baldeón García vs. Perú, para. 183; Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay, Judgement of 29 March 2006, Series C No. 146, párr. 216 y Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, Judgement of 29 November 2006, para. 213; Case Goiburú et alt. v. Paraguay, (Merits, Reparation and Costs) Judgement of 22 September 2006, Series C No. 153, para. 150; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. vs. Venezuela (Detention Center of Catia), op. cit., para. 126, y. Case Ximenes Lopes vs. Brasil, op. cit., para. 220.
133.
I/ACHR, Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, op. cit., para. 216. About this issue and in the same case and paragraph, quoting its judgement on the Case Goiburú et al.vs. Paraguay, the I/ACHR adds: “Since accurately quantifying non-pecuniary damage is impossible, such damage can only be compensated, for the purpose of providing comprehensive reparation to the victim, through the payment of such sum of money or the provision of such goods or services of monetary worth as may be determined by the Court, in fairness and at its reasonable judicial discretion, and through public action or works aimed at giving recognition to the victim’s human dignity and preventing any further human rights violations.” (ibid.).
On the same lines cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano and others v. Chile, op. cit., para. 158. Cf. also Case of Montero Aranguren et al. vs. Venezuela (Detention Center of Catia), op. cit., para. 130; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs), Judgement of July 1, 2006, para. 383; Case Baldeón García vs. Perú, para. 188; Case Goiburú et alt. v. Paraguay, (Merits, Reparation and Costs), op. cit., para. 156; Caso Montero Aranguren y otros (Retén de Catia), op. cit., para. 130, and Case Ximenes Lopes vs. Brasil, op. cit., para. 227.
134.
About this issue, the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 April 2005, by Resolution 2005/35, and adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 2005 through Resolution 60/147 makes the following enumeration: physical or mental damage; the loss of opportunities, in particular employment, education and social benefits; material damage and loss of earnings, including loss of profits; moral damages; the costs of legal assistance or experts, medicines and medical services and psychological and social services. As stated by Fernández Sola, in the American regional frame the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has presumed the intangible damage that suffering or death of a person brings to their children, spouse or companion, fathers and brothers, so it is not necessary to prove it (cf. op. cit., 411 et seq.).
135.
These forms of reparation are present in the General Assembly Resolution 60/147 adopted on 16 December 2005 through which the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 April 2005, by Resolution 2005/35, are adopted. In the opinion of Fernández Sola, the varieties of reparation through satisfaction can be grouped into two categories: the right to justice and the right to the truth. The right to justice and its corollary of punishment to the culprits translates into non-impunity (cf. ibid., 415).
136.
A recent example of it with regard to the ECHR is the Judgement of 2 MRCH 2010 (Section IV), Case Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom– 61498/08. In it, the ECHR concluded that the finding of violation of Articles 3, 13 and 34 with the measure indicated by virtue of Article 46 is possible enough by way of moral damage just satisfaction (cf. ECHR, Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour, No. 128, March, 2010, 14).
With regard to the I/ACHR, for example, the Case La Cantuta vs. Peru, where it states: “International courts have repeatedly held that a judgment is, in and of itself, a form of redress. The Court does, however, consider it necessary to order, in fairness, payment of the following sums as compensation for non-pecuniary damage on account of the suffering of the next of kin of the ten victims that were caused to disappear or executed, such next of kin being in turn victims of the breach of the right to humane treatment” (op.cit., para. 219). On the same lines vid. the jurisprudence of ht I/ACHR in the following cases: Case Goiburú et alt. v. Paraguay, (Merits, Reparation and Costs), op. cit.,, para. 160; Case of Almonacid Arellano and others v. Chile, op. cit., para. 161; Case Vargas Areco vs. Paraguay, para. 150; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, op.cit., para. 390, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia Judgment of January 31, 2006 Merits, Reparations and Costs, para. 258; Case of the Massacre of La Rochela v. Colombia, Judgement of 11 May 2007, para. 264.
137.
This division into two groups is contained in the Final report of Joinet to the Sub-Commission for the promotion and protection of human rights (of the UN Human Rights Commission) on the question of the impunity of the perpetrators of violations of human rights entitled: “The Administration of Justice and the Human Rights of Detainees, Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations (Civil and Political)”, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20, de 26 de junio de 1997. Cf. the revised Final report of 2nd October 1997, in UN Doc. E/CN.4(/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1.
From another perspective, these five forms of reparation may also be classified into forms of material reparation (restitution, compensation, rehabilitation), which have a physical existence and forms of symbolic or moral reparation (satisfaction, guarantees of non-repetition), because they are more abstract (cf. Jeangène Vilmer (2009), 58–86).
138.
Cited by Garapon in the preface to the work of J-B Jeangène Vilmer, op. cit., p. VIII.
139.
This last concept is present in the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, of 29 November 1985, in the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, of 18 December 1992, in the General Assembly Resolution 60/147 adopted on 16 December 2005 through which the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 April 2005, by Resolution 2005/35, are adopted and in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, of 20 December 2006.
140.
Bottigliero, op. cit., p. 111. Cf. in this regard I/ACHR, Case of the Massacre of La Rochela v. Colombia, Judgement of 11 May 2007, para. 235.
141.
That has led to an abundant jurisprudence of the I/ACHR with regard to compensation and reparations which I note in this section.
142.
Which makes the ECHR limited exclusively to financial compensation.
143.
Cf. ut supra, note 133. However, in view of some “just satisfaction” of Article 41 of the Convention it does not prevent the ECHR from seeking reparation measures other than compensation. It would only be possible with a broader interpretation of Article 41 by the Court. Especially for cases of serious violations of human rights (cf. SHELTON, D., Remedies in International Human Rights Law, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 148–151). Cf. also Fernández Sola, “El derecho a la reparación de las víctimas…”, op. cit., 413 et seq.
144.
Cf. on this issue Bottigliero, op. cit., 152–159.
145.
Cf. Bottigliero, op. cit., 123.
146.
So, the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, refers to compensation as a form of reparation for any economically assessable damage.
147.
The international norms on victims that gives more information on reparation is General Assembly Resolution 60/147 adopted on 16 December 2005 through which the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 April 2005, by Resolution 2005/35, are adopted. In section IX, entitled “Reparation for harm suffered”, it concerns both the characteristics and the forms of reparation. Concerning the first, it states that reparation for harm suffered shall be adequate, effective and prompt, the intention being to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law. It shall also be proportional to the gravity of the violations and the harm suffered.
148.
It is the international norm I use but without forgetting the specifics it contains (as usual) with regard to the category of victims envisaged.
149.
Cf. Tomuschat, “Reparation in Favour of Individual Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law”, op. cit., 579. In consequence, he states that in matters of reparation these principles and guidelines are not more than guidelines that must be developed by the States (cf. ibid., 576).
150.
The language used in this regard is clear and is not subject to any kind of condition: “States shall provide”.
151.
On paragraph 19. In the opinion of J-B. Jeangène Vilmer the first place in which restitution is listed within the different forms of reparation envisaged by General Assembly Resolution 60/147 adopted on 16 December 2005 through which the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 April 2005, by Resolution 2005/35, are adopted is not casual. According to him, this fact would show the priority of restitution and that, only when this last is not possible, it could be substituted through compensation (cf. Réparer l’irréparable, op. cit., 58 y s.).
152.
As emphasized by Jeangène Vilmer, rehabilitation and compensation are interrelated since one can be obtained through the other (cf. ibid., 66).
153.
In the Case of Almonacid Arellano and others vs. Chile, “As a measure of satisfaction, the State must publish at least once in the Official Gazette and in another nationwide daily newspaper, the chapter on Proven Facts of this Judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and the related operative paragraphs.” All this, within a period of 6 months following the notification of the judgement (op. cit, para. 162).
154.
So, in Perú (cf. Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, op.cit., para. 223).
155.
Cf., I/ACHR, Case of the Massacre of La Rochela vs. Colombia, op. cit., para. 277.
156.
Cf., I/ACHR, Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, op.cit., para. 238; Case of the Massacre of La Rochela vs. Colombia, op. cit., paras. 298–302; Case of Durand and Ugarte vs. Peru (Reparations and Costs), Judgement of 3 December 2001, para. 36 et seq.
157.
So in the American regional frame in the following cases: Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, op.cit., para. 231; Case of Durand and Ugarte vs. Peru (Reparations and Costs), op.cit., para. 39.
158.
Cf. I/ACHR, Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, op.cit., para. 231; Case Goiburú et alt. v. Paraguay, (Merits, Reparation and Costs), op. cit., para. 171; Case of the 19 Tradesmen vs. Colombia, op. cit., para. 265, and Case Juan Humberto Sánchez vs. Honduras, op. cit., para. 187.
159.
Cf. I/ACHR, Case La Cantuta vs. Perú, op.cit., para. 240; Case of the Massacre of La Rochela vs. Colombia, op. cit., para. 303.
160.
Jenagène Vilmer, Réparer l’irréparable, op. cit., 69.
161.
To Tomuschat, both satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition have little to do with reparation (cf. “Reparation in Favour of Individual Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law”, op. cit., p. 590). In my opinion, it is a strict repair concept because this one is not limited to the material content of the financial compensation.
162.
Cf. point No. 12 of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, of 29 November 1985; point No. 20 of the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, of 19 April 2005; Article 24.4 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 20 December 2006; and the Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 2 March 2005.
163.
So, for example, the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, of 24 November 1983, the exclusive object of which is compensation of victims of violent crimes. The general principle of this convention is the payment of compensation (in this case on the charge of the State on whose territory the crime was committed. According to Article 3 of it: “Compensation shall be paid by the State on whose territory the crime was committed: (a) to nationals of the States party to this Convention; (b) to nationals of all member States of the Council of Europe who are permanent residents in the State on whose territory the crime was committed”. On the same lines, Article 2 of Directive 2004/80/EC, of 29 April 2004, relating to compensation to crime victims states: “Compensation shall be paid by the competent authority of the Member State on whose territory the crime was committed”.
164.
Article 12 of the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, of 24 November 1983 provides: “Subject to the application of bilateral or multilateral agreements on mutual assistance concluded between Contracting States, the competent authorities of each Party shall, at the request of the appropriate authorities of any other Party, give the maximum possible assistance in connection with the matters covered by this Convention. To this end, each Contracting State shall designate a central authority to receive, and to take action on, requests for such assistance, and shall inform thereof the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.”
Also, Article 12.2 of Directive 2004/80/EC, of 29 April 2004, relating to compensation to crime victims, states: “All Member States shall ensure that their national rules provide for the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories, which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims.”
Article 1 of this same Directive states: “Member States shall ensure that where a violent intentional crime has been committed in a Member State other than the Member State where the applicant for compensation is habitually resident, the applicant shall have the right to submit the application to an authority or any other body in the alter Member State.” On the same lines, also Article 11 of Council Framework Decisión 2002/220/JHA, of 15 March 2001, also provides that Member States shall ensure that its competent authorities “can take appropriate measures to minimize the difficulties faced where the victim is a resident of a State other than the one where the offence has occurred, particularly with regard to the organization of the proceedings.”
On this matter, the judgement of the EUCJ (Second Chamber) of 5 June 2008 declared that “Community law precludes legislation of a Member State which excludes nationals of other Member States who live and work in its territory from the grant of compensation intended to make good losses resulting from offences against the person where the crime in question was not committed in the territory of that State, on the sole ground of their nationality” (Cf. http//:curia.europa.eu., case C-164/07). This judgement is the result of a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 12 EC. The reference was made in the course of proceedings brought by Mr Wood, a British national, against the “Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d’autres infractions” (Guarantee Fund for the Victims of Acts of Terrorism and Other Crimes ‘Guarantee Fund’) concerning the latter’s refusal to grant him compensation, on the ground of his nationality, to make good damage caused by a crime committed outside French territory.
165.
Point No. 13 of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, of 29 November 1985; Article 8.4 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999; Resolution 2002/35 of the Commission on Human Rights of 22 April 2002 entitled “Human Rights and Terrorism”; Resolution 2003/37, of 23 April 2003, of the Commission on Human Rights itself; Point No. 10 of Security Council Resolution 1566 (2004) adopted on 8 October 2004; Article 79 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court; the Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 2 March 2005.
166.
For example, the Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 2 March 2005, which referring to compensation assert: “4. Apart from the payment of pecuniary compensation, states are encouraged to consider, depending on the circumstances, taking other measures to mitigate the negative effects of the terrorist act suffered by the victims.”
167.
The most relevant are the following: UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, of 29 November 1985; the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, of 19 April 2005; the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 20 December 2006; the Guidelines on the Protection of Victims of Terrorist Acts adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 2 March 2005. In this same regional frame of the Council of Europe, we also have Recommendation (2006) 8 of the Committee of Ministers of 14 June 2006 concerning the assistance to crime victims which, under the heading entitled “State compensation” includes the following aspects: points out that States should adopt a compensation scheme for the victims of crimes committed on their territory, irrespective of the victim’s nationality (8.2.); specifies that compensation should be granted without undue delay, at a fair and appropriate level (8.4.); encourages the States to co-operate to enable victims to claim compensation from the State in which the crime occurred by applying to a competent agency in their own country (8.5.); and establishes subsidiary State compensation (but the State compensation should be awarded only to the extent that the damage is not covered by other sources such as the offender, insurance or state funded health and social provisions (8.9.).
168.
So it is noted by the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of 16 December 1966, in its general comment No. 31, 80 ° session (2004), concerning the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on the States Parties to the Covenant, adopted at the 2187ª meeting, on 29 March 2004. In accordance with the same “Without reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated, the obligation to provide an effective remedy, which is central to the efficacy of article 2, paragraph 3, is not discharged” (paragraph 16).
169.
So, for example, in the case Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgement of 18 December 1996.
170.
Cf. ibid., para. 98.
171.
Ibid. Cf. also, ECHR, Mentes v. Turkey, Judgement of 27 November 1997.
172.
In the case Aydin v. Turkey, Judgement of 25 September 1997. In the case Salman v. Turkey, Judgement of 27 July 2000, the investigation and criminal proceedings were declared not effective as a result of the not effective nature of forensic investigations (cf. paragraph 73).
173.
That is with the broad scope of General Assembly Resolution 60/147, of 16 December 2005, adopting the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law, adopted before by the UN Commission on Human Rights by Resolution 2005/35, of 19 April 2005. Both the Convention and Resolution 60/147 belong to the most recent international norms on victims. This is why it takes into account the broad content of reparation.
174.
About this issue vid. in extenso, Jeangène Vilmer (2009). Article 75 of the Statute of the ICC, dedicated to the reparation of victims, states: “1. The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and will state the principles on which it is acting. 2. The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. Where appropriate, the Court may order that the award for reparations be made through the Trust Fund provided for in Article 79. 3. Before making an order under this article, the Court may invite and shall take account of representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims, other interested persons or interested States. 4. In exercising its power under this article, the Court may, after a person is convicted of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court, determine whether, in order to give effect to an order which it may make under this article, it is necessary to set up measures under Article 93, paragraph 1. 5. A State Party shall give effect to a decision under this article as if the provisions of Article 109 were applicable to this Article. 6. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of victims under national or international law.”
175.
Concerning reparation in the frame of the ICC vid. in extenso J.-P. Jeangène Vilmer, op. cit. Specially, 58–87.
176.
About these questions vid. ibid., 21–43.
177.
GAT has been critized by J.-P- Jeangène Vilmer (cf. ibid., 70–75).
178.
Article 75.2 adds that where appropriate, the Court may order that the award for reparations be made through the Trust Fund provided for in Article 79.
179.
The request for reparations can be made both upon a motion of the victims (article 75 of the Statute) and when the Court acts ex officio. It is for the Registrar to take all the necessary measures to give adequate publicity of the reparation proceedings before the Court, “to the extent possible”, to other victims, interested persons and interested States (cf. Rule 96.1).
180.
In all these cases, the Court shall respect the rights of victims and the convicted person (cf. Rule 97.3).
181.
According to Article 79: “1. A Trust Fund shall be established by decision of the Assembly of States Parties for the benefit of victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court, and of the families of such victims. 2. The Court may order money and other property collected through fines or forfeiture to be transferred, by order of the Court, to the Trust Fund. 3. The Trust Fund shall be managed according to criteria to be determined by the Assembly of States Parties.”
182.
On this question, Rule 98.2 provides that the award for reparations thus deposited in the Trust Fund shall be separated from other resources of the Trust Fund and shall be forwarded to each victim as soon as possible.
183.
Cf. Rules 98.3 and 98.4.
184.
Cf. Ascensio (2009), p. 77 et seq. In particular, 101–103.
185.
Vid. 151–154 of the present work.
186.
This is the case of resolutions 49/185 of 23 December 1994; 50/186 of 22 December 1995; 52/133 of 12 December 1997; 54/164 of 17 December 1999; 56/160 of 19 December 2001; 58/174 of 22 December 2003. As I have already criticized in this work, I think that the action of the United Nations as a whole in relation to the victims of terrorism is impoverished. Vid. 61 et seq. of this work.
187.
Well, as it can be seen, the effectiveness of this obligation of conventional nature is left in Article 8.4 at the discretion of States Parties. This Treaty currently has 179 States Parties.
188.
Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 2.1 state: “1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person by any means, directly or indirectly, unlawfully and wilfully, provides or collects funds with the intention that they should be used or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in full or in part, in order to carry out: (a) An act which constitutes an offence within the scope of and as defined in one of the treaties listed in the annex; or (b) Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”
189.
Which invites the Secretary-General of the United Nations to continue to seek the views of Member States on the implications of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations on the full enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and on possible ways to address the needs and problems of the victims of terrorism, including the possible establishment of a voluntary fund for victims of terrorism, as well as the means to rehabilitate the victims of terrorism and to reintegrate them into society.
190.
Vid. about this issue 20 et seq. of the present work.
191.
Articles 2.1 and 2.2.
192.
Cf. Article 2.1 a) and b).
193.
On point 30.
194.
On point 31.
195.
“Victims of an intentional offence with violence, including victims of sexual offences”.
196.
“To the immediate family and dependants of victims who died as a result of such crime”.
197.
This question is partially covered by the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, of 24 November 1983.
198.
Recent studies underline evidence of a lack of effective victim access to compensation and restoration: “Divergent national policies mean that restorative justice services are not equally accessible, and are not available at all to victims of crime in six Member States. (…). Although basic standards and principles have been established by the UN in 2002 (…) and by the Council of Europe in 2006 (…), there is widely expressed concern that such principles are not fully adhered to and that restorative justice processes are prone to losing an appropriate focus on the victim. Commentators are concerned that restorative justice services are becoming too identified with one particular party, whether victims, offenders or communities” (European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment Accompanying the document “Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European economic and social Committee and the Committee of Regions”, Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, SEC(2011) 580 final, Brussels, 18.5.2011), 14.
199.
Situation envisaged in Article 12.2 of Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating for compensation for crime victims, which states: “All Member States shall ensure that their national rules provide for the existence of a scheme on compensation to victims of violent intentional crimes committed in their respective territories, which guarantees fair and appropriate compensation to victims.” Article 1 of this same Directive provides: “Member States shall ensure that where a violent intentional crime has been committed in a Member State other than the Member State where the applicant for compensation is habitually resident, the applicant shall have the right to submit the application to an authority or any other body in the alter Member State.” On the same lines, Article 11 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA, of 15 March 2001, provides that Member States shall ensure that its competent authorities “can take appropriate measures to minimize the difficulties faced where the victim is a resident of a State other than the one where the offence has occurred, particularly with regard to the organization of the proceedings.”
200.
Cf. http//:curia.europa.eu., case C-164/07. This judgement is the result of a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 12 EC. The reference was made in the course of proceedings brought by Mr Wood, a British national, against the “Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d’autres infractions” (Guarantee Fund for the Victims of Acts of Terrorism and Other Crimes ‘Guarantee Fund’) concerning the latter’s refusal to grant him compensation, on the ground of his nationality, to make good damage caused by a crime committed outside French territory.
201.
Obviously, it is also opened the way of individual communications in the framework of other international treaties of human rights, but this option depends on the previous acceptation of the competence of the international concerned treaty-body by the State Party in question.
202.
Cf. Bottigliero, Redress for Victims…, op. cit., 113.
203.
Cf. Bottigliero, Redress for Victims…, op. cit., 115.
204.
I put in quotation marks for the term “jurisprudence” because although the Committee is not a judicial body, it is the interpreter of the Covenant.
205.
Cf. Bottigliero, Redress for Victims…, op. cit., 116.
206.
Comm. No. 322/1988, CCPR/C/51/D/322/1988, of 9 August 1994.
207.
Comm. No. 328/1988, CCPR/C/51/D/328/1988, of 14 August 1994.
208.
Comm. No. 540/1993, CCPR/C/56/D/540/1993, of 16 April 1996.
209.
The Human Rights Committee has pronounced on the same line in the following cases: Irene Bleier Lewenhoff and Rosa Valiño de Bleier v. Uruguay, Communication No. 30/1978; Guillermo Ignacio Dermit Barbato and Hugo Haroldo Dermig Barbato v. Uruguay, Communication No. 84/1981; John Khemraadi Baboeram et al. V. Suriname, Comm. No. 146/1983 y 148-154/1983.
210.
Ruled, respectively, in Articles 13 and 25.
211.
Fernández Sola, “El derecho a la reparación de las víctimas de desaparición forzada: hacia la justicia a través del Derecho internacional”, op. cit., 413. From the perspective of the victims of enforced disappearance that she examines, she considers that Article 41 is insufficient because although sometimes victims need an economic compensation for the losses generated by the disappearance, “major damages are not of an economic nature”. Indeed, “the deprivation to minors to know or to grow with one of their parents, distress and psychological problems generated by the uncertainty, marginalization or social stigma on occasions, the threat latent on the rest of the family if they denounce what has happened or insist to inquire about their authors, the right to know those guilty of such an outrage and other collateral damage are not covered by compensation. It is necessary a satisfaction, in the broad sense, to repair, the aforementioned damage” (ibid., 409).
212.
Ibid.
213.
This Convention is considered by Bottigliero as one of the pillars in the codification of the fundamental principle concerning the right of victims to reparation for violations of human rights (Redress for Victims…, op. cit., 123).
214.
In Article 17.
215.
In Article 8, which states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. In the opinion of Saura Estapa, this Article 8.1 contains only the elements that constitute the right to privacy, relegating the reputation to a secondary place (cf. Saura Estapa 1998, p. 228).
216.
Respectively in Articles 17 and y 18.
217.
Paragraph 8 of which states: “At all stages of the procedure, the victim should be questioned in a manner which gives due consideration to his personal situation, his rights and his dignity. Whenever possible and appropriate, children and the mentally ill or handicapped should be questioned in the presence of their parents or guardians or other persons qualified to assist them;”.
218.
Paragraph 9 of which says that States “take steps to prevent victim assistance services from disclosing personal information regarding victims, without their consent, to third parties;”.
219.
As we shall see later, points 2 and 3 of the Guideline regarding this right include aspects relating to the same such as self-regulation measures to be taken by journalists and the media for communication in relation to the victims of terrorism, as well as the right of these victims to an effective remedy for violation of his right to private and family life.
220.
Completing the appointment, to strengthen it, with the reference to the following recommendations of the Committee of Ministers: Recommendation No. (97) 19 On the Suppression of violence in the electronic media, and Recommendation No. (99) 5. On the protection of privacy on the Internet.
221.
Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article 8 provided for the right of the victim to protection in the context of the proceedings taking into account, too, the dimension of the privacy of the victim. Vid. 205 et seq. of the present work.
222.
That states: “1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” As pointed out by Saura Estapà, article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights reproduces almost literally article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In his opinion, the only substantive alteration is to add ‘illegal’ as modulator trait of the interference or attacks not permitted against privacy or honour. It is a change which has “the potentiality to highlight the possibility of attacks ‘legal’ against honour and reputation of the people;” “attacks that can come under the freedom of information” (J. Saura Estapà, “Artículo 12”, op. cit., 228).
223.
That states: “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
224.
That states : “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” This article 12 is based upon article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Men that states: “Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, reputation, and his private and family life.”
225.
As, for example, recordings, mechanisms for listening or other technical means, etc. Unlike the honour, which is protected from “attacks” (cf. J. Saura Estapà, op. cit., 232).
226.
Newmann and Vasak (1984), 230.
227.
Martin y Pérez de Nanclares (2008), 213.
228.
Within the private sphere is also the physical and psychological integrity of the individual in his private sphere and the right of everyone to freely conduct their lives.
229.
Cf. ECHR, Judgement of 13 June 1979, Marckx v. Belgium, para. 56.
230.
Saura Estapà, op. cit., 232.
231.
Which states: “Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.” In the opinion of J. Martin y Pérez de Nanclares, this right contains, in fact, four different guarantees: the right to respect for private life, the right to respect for family life, the right to respect for the home and the right to respect for communications (cf. op. cit., p. 213).
232.
In this regard, J. Martin y Pérez de Nanclares emphasizes that ECHR jurisprudence on the matter has remained constant since the well-known Belgian affair on languages (judgment of 23 July 1967) until now (judgement of 24 June 2004, Carolina v.Germany) (cf. op. cit., 211).
233.
Cf., in this respect, ECHR, judgement of 9 September 1979 Airey v. Ireland, para. 32; judgement of 26 March 1985 X and Y v. Netherlands, Series A 91, para. 23; judgement of, 24 June 2004, Carolina v.Germany, just quoted, para. 57. Ibid., p. 212.
234.
Cf. ECHR, decisión of 11 July 2000, Ciliz v. Netherlands, Reports of Judgements and Decisions, VIII.
235.
Cf. Martin y Pérez de Nanclares, “Artículo 7…”, op. cit., 215.
236.
Article 52.3 states: “3. In so far as this Charter contains rights which correspond to rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the meaning and scope of those rights shall be the same as those laid down by the said Convention. This provision shall not prevent Union law providing more extensive protection.”
237.
Cf. the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ C 303, 14 December 2007).
238.
According to Rule 86: “A Chamber in making any direction or order, and other organs of the Court in performing their functions under the Statute or the Rules, shall take into account the needs of all victims and witnesses in accordance with Article 68, in particular, children, elderly persons, persons with disabilities and victims of sexual or gender violence.”
239.
According to Rule 87.1: “1. Upon the motion of the Prosecutor or the defence or upon the request of a witness or a victim or his or her legal representative, if any, or on its own motion, and after having consulted with the Victims and Witnesses Unit, as appropriate, a Chamber may order measures to protect a victim, a witness or another person at risk on account of testimony given by a witness pursuant to Article 68, paragraphs 1 and 2. The Chamber shall seek to obtain, whenever possible, the consent of the person in respect of whom the protective measure is sought prior to ordering the protective measure.”
240.
Rule 87.3 states: “3. A Chamber may, on a motion or request under sub-rule 1, hold a hearing, which shall be conducted in camera, to determine whether to order measures to prevent the release to the public or press and information agencies, of the identity or the location of a victim, a witness or other person at risk on account of testimony given by a witness by ordering, inter alia: (a) That the name of the victim, witness or other person at risk on account of testimony given by a witness or any information which could lead to his or her identification, be expunged from the public records of the Chamber; (b) That the Prosecutor, the defence or any other participant in the proceedings be prohibited from disclosing such information to a third party; (c) That testimony be presented by electronic or other special means, including the use of technical means enabling the alteration of pictures or voice, the use of audio-visual technology, in particular videoconferencing and closed-circuit television, and the exclusive use of the sound media; (d) That a pseudonym be used for a victim, a witness or other person at risk on account of testimony given by a witness; or (e) That a Chamber conduct part of its proceedings in camera.”
241.
C. Jorda, “L’accès des victimes à la justice pénale internationale”, in Terrorisme, victimes et…, op. cit., 363. Cf. also C. Tournaye, “L’apport des Tribunaux ad hoc pour la repression du terrorisme”, ibid., pp 416 et seq.
242.
Article 21 of the Convention.
243.
In line with what has been stated previously by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, but from another perspective, in Recommendation (97) 13, of 10 September 1997, On the intimidation of witnesses and the rights of the defence. In particular, in paragraph 25: “25. Vulnerable witnesses should, whenever possible, be examined at the earliest stage of the criminal proceedings, as soon as possible after the facts have been reported. Such examinations should be carried out in a particularly careful, respectful and thorough manner”.
244.
European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the European economic and social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions—Strengthening victim's rights in the EU {COM(2011) 274 final}and {SEC(2011) 580 final}, Brussels, 18.5.2011, SEC(2011) 581 final, 2.
245.
Paragraph 4 of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 29 November 1985, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations: “4. Victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity. They are entitled to access to the mechanisms of justice and to prompt redress, as provided for by national legislation, for the harm that they have suffered”. Also, paragraph 10 of General Assembly Resolution 60/147 adopted on 16 December 2005 through which the Basic principles and guidelines of the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of International Humanitarian Law adopted by the UN Commission on Human Rights on 19 April 2005, by Resolution 2005/35, are adopted: “10. Victims should be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity and human rights, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure their safety, physical and psychological well-being and privacy, as well as those of their families. The State should ensure that its domestic laws, to the extent possible, provide that a victim who has suffered violence or trauma should benefit from special consideration and care to avoid his or her re-traumatization in the course of legal and administrative procedures designed to provide justice and reparation.”
246.
In Article 19.
247.
In Article 10.
248.
In Article 11.
249.
In Article 9.
250.
In this regard, cf. Martín y Pérez de Nanclares (2008), 277.
251.
In Article 19.
252.
In this regard, cf. Articles 17 y 18 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, of 20 December 2006. For its part, article XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons obliges States Parties to establish and maintain official up-to-date registries of their detainees and, in accordance with their domestic law, shall make them available to relatives, judges, attorneys, any other person having a legitimate interest, and other authorities.
253.
Sanz Hermida, op. cit., 64.
254.
Cf. Rule 92.2.
255.
In Principle X, entitled “Access to relevant information concerning violations and reparation mechanisms”.
256.
Cf. ibid.
257.
Whose content is specified by the article 18.1 itself: “1. Subject to articles 19 and 20, each State Party shall guarantee to any person with a legitimate interest in this information, such as relatives of the person deprived of liberty, their representatives or their counsel, access to at least the following information: (a) The authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty; (b) The date, time and place where the person was deprived of liberty and admitted to the place of deprivation of liberty; (c) The authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty; (d) The whereabouts of the person deprived of liberty, including, in the event of a transfer to another place of deprivation of liberty, the destination and the authority responsible for the transfer; (e) The date, time and place of release; (f) Elements relating to the state of health of the person deprived of liberty; (g) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the circumstances and cause of death and the destination of the remains.”
Only where a person is under the protection of the law and the deprivation of liberty is subject to judicial control may the right to information referred to in Article 18 be restricted, on an exceptional basis, where strictly necessary “and where provided for by law, and if the transmission of the information would adversely affect the privacy or safety of the person, hinder a criminal investigation, or for other equivalent reasons in accordance with the law, and in conformity with applicable international law and with the objectives” of this Convention (cf. article 20).
258.
It is the mínimum information envisaged in Article 17.3: (a) The identity of the person deprived of liberty; (b) The date, time and place where the person was deprived of liberty and the identity of the authority that deprived the person of liberty; (c) The authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty and the grounds for the deprivation of liberty; (d) The authority responsible for supervising the deprivation of liberty; (e) The place of deprivation of liberty, the date and time of admission to the place of deprivation of liberty and the authority responsible for the place of deprivation of liberty; (f) Elements relating to the state of health of the person deprived of liberty; (g) In the event of death during the deprivation of liberty, the circumstances and cause of death and the destination of the remains; (h) The date and time of release or transfer to another place of detention, the destination and the authority responsible for the transfer.
259.
It is the case of information quoted in Article 19: “1. Personal information, including medical and genetic data, which is collected and/or transmitted within the framework of the search for a disappeared person shall not be used or made available for purposes other than the search for the disappeared person. This is without prejudice to the use of such information in criminal proceedings relating to an offence of enforced disappearance or the exercise of the right to obtain reparation. 2. The collection, processing, use and storage of personal information, including medical and genetic data, shall not infringe or have the effect of infringing the human rights, fundamental freedoms or human dignity of an individual.”
260.
Paragraph 6.5 of Recommendation (2006), placed inside the heading entitled: “Information on legal proceedings”.
261.
Questions treated in paragraphs 6.1 y 6.2 of this Recommendation.
262.
Basically, two large blocks of issues. On the one hand, the services or organizations which can provide support and the type and, where relevant, the costs of the support (all this, in paragraph 6.3). On the other hand, when an offence has been reported to law enforcement or criminal justice agencies, the information provided to the victim should also include as a minimum: the procedures which will follow and the victims’ role in these procedures; how and in what circumstances the victim can obtain protection; how and in what circumstances the victim can obtain compensation from the offender; the availability and, where relevant, the cost of legal advice, legal aid, or any other sort of advice; how to apply for state compensation, if eligible; and if the victim is resident in another state, any existing arrangements which will help to protect his or her interests (all of it in paragraph 6.4).
263.
In Article 4.1.
264.
In Article 4.2. Nevertheless, this Framework Decision “has not been effective in meeting, or moving towards the desired outcomes of addressing the needs of victims and achieving minimum standards for victims across the EU. No Member State can claim to have fully implemented the Framework Decision. The ineffectiveness of this legislation is due to ambiguous drafting, a lack of concrete obligations and a lack of infringement possibilities against Member States.” (European Commission, Commission Staff Working Paper, Executive summary of the Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the European economic and social Committee and to the Committee of the Regions—Strengthening victim's rights in the EU {COM(2011) 274 final}and {SEC(2011) 580 final}, Brussels, 18.5.2011, SEC(2011) 581 final, 2.
265.
That is, information concerning the course of the complaint, to the elements, in the event of prosecution, to continue the development of the criminal process, the information concerning the judgement of the Court and information relating to the release of the specified indicted or convicted of the offence.
266.
All this with the aim to: “(a) Prevent the involvement of such officials in enforced disappearances; (b) Emphasize the importance of prevention and investigations in relation to enforced disappearances; (c) Ensure that the urgent need to resolve cases of enforced disappearance is recognized.”
267.
It is striking that the norms adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe are the only ones that use this language. Those of the EU, for example, use a clearly mandatory language. The explanation may lie in the different nature (of cooperation, in the first case, of integration, in the second) of these international organizations.
268.
On the same lines, Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, of 9 December 1985, states: “Criminal prosecution for the forced disappearance of persons and the penalty judicially imposed on its perpetrator shall not be subject to statutes of limitations. However, if there should be a norm of a fundamental character preventing application of the stipulation contained in the previous paragraph, the period of limitation shall be equal to that which applies to the gravest crime in the domestic laws of the corresponding State Party.”
269.
Cf. Article10.2.
270.
UN, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, Item 17 of the provisional agenda, PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Study on the right to the truth, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 9 January 2006, (E/CN.4/2006/91, 8 February 2006), para. 59. For the construction of this section, I will abundantly use this study as the most complete one to date in relation to this right. Also, because it has been open to the participation of the States and these have had the possibility to demonstrate their opinions on the matter.
271.
Ibid.
272.
Principle 4 of the Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1) 7), recommended by Commission resolution 2005/81.
273.
Ibid., para. 57.
274.
Ibid., para. 56.
275.
Cf. UN, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sixty-second session, Item 17 of the provisional agenda, PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Study on the right to the truth, op. cit., para. 12.
276.
As I have pointed out, it has been doing it since 1974. The proof of this lies in resolutions 55/118, 57/105 and 57/161. Also, in its resolution 33/173, of 20 December 1978, on which it stated: “Deeply concerned by report of various parts of the world relating to enforced or involuntary disappearances of persons as a result of excesses on the part of law enforcement or security authorities or similar organizations, often while such persons are subject to detention or imprisonment, as well as of unlawful actions or widespread violence” (on third para.).
277.
Is the case of the resolutions of the Security Council 1468 (2003) of 20 March 2003, concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/RES/1468 (2003), 1470 (2003) of 28 March 2003, concerning Sierra Leone (S/RES/1470 (2003), and 1606 (2005) of 20 June 2005, on Burundi (S/RES/1606 (2005).
278.
Cited on paragraph 18 by Study on the right to the truth, op. cit.
279.
Vid. ibid.
280.
UNO, E/CN.4/2005/102/Add. 1.
281.
Para. 1.
282.
Regarding the human rights situation in Colombia, April 22, 2005. Vid. UN, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Study on the right to the truth, op. cit., para. 16.
283.
Both the Human Rights Committee (cf. CCPR/C/79/Add.63 and CCPR/C/19/D/107/1981) and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (cf. E/CN.4/1999–1962) on several occasions have acknowledged the right of victims of gross violations of human rights and their families to know the truth about the events, including the identity of the perpetrators of the events that led to violations.
284.
With regard to The High Commissioner for Human Rights, the best example is his report cited in the preceding pages of this work.
285.
For example, the following resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council: 1056 (1987), 1414 (2004), paragraph 3, and 1463 (2005), paragraph 10 (2).
286.
For example, the European Parliament resolution related to the missing in Cyprus, January 11, 1983, or the conclusions of the European Council of the European Union, October 3, 2005, on Colombia, paragraph 4.
287.
In this respect, see UN, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Study on the right to the truth, op. cit., paras. 20 y 21.
288.
It is the case of the three followings: Geneva Convention (IV), of 12 August 1949, on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Articles 16 and 17); Geneva Convention (I), of 12 August 1949, for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (articles 136 et seq.); Geneva Convention (II), of 12 August 1949, for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (articles 122 et seq.).In this respect cf. ICC, Pre-Trial Chamber (PTC I), Decision ICC-01-04-01/07, 13 May 2008. In this Decisión, the Chamber states that the right of victims to the truth can be deduced from Articles 32 and 33 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
289.
Vid. UN, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Study on the right to the truth, op. cit., para. 8.
290.
It has done so the Special Rapporteur on the question of human rights and states of emergency, in its 1991 report (UN, E/CN:4/Sub.2/1993/6, paragraph 16).
291.
This treaty is invoked in that the suffering of the relatives of the missing victim is equated to torture and to cruel and inhuman treatment.
292.
Cf. ECHR, judgements 14 November, Tas v. Turkey, request No. 24396/94, and of 10 May 2001, Cyprus v. Turkey, request No. 25781/94.
293.
Cf. ECHR, judgement of 18 December 1996, Aksoy v. Turkey, request No. 21987/93.
294.
Cf. UN, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Study on the right to the truth, op. cit., para. 28.
295.
Cf. ibid., para. 29.
296.
In fact, such laws and measures violate the right to the truth, as it has highlighted international jurisprudence in the field of human rights. In the words of the Inter-American Court, the obligation to investigate shall be undertaken “in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government” (cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgement of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 226; Case of Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgement of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 188; and Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgement of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177.
297.
Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para 287. This why the State must, “within a reasonable time, effectively conduct the criminal proceedings currently underway and those that have yet to begin, and must adopt all measures necessary that reveal the facts of the present case in order to determine the responsibility of those who participated in the mentioned violations… The results of these proceedings shall be released to the public by the State, so that the Colombian people may know the truth of the events of the present case.” (para. 9 of the Jugdement).
298.
I/ACHR, Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgement of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 201. Also in Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, Judgement of 26 September 2006, para.148. In this judgement, the I/ACHR repeats its jurisprudence established in the Case Barrios Altos, Judgement of 14 March 2001, para. 48 and in the Case of Bámaca Vélasquez, Judgement of 25 November 2000, Series C No. 70, para. 201.
299.
I/ACHR, Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 150.
300.
Ibid., para. 151. Identical conclusion was reached in the UN. The UN Secretary General in his report on the establishment of a Tribunal for Sierra Leone, stated that the amnesty granted in Sierra Leone, “given its illegality in accordance with international law” is not recognized as legal effects. Similarly the peace agreements approved by the United Nations can never promise amnesties for crimes against humanity.
301.
UN, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Study on the right to the truth, op. cit., para. 59.
302.
Ibid., para. 38.
303.
The following: the right to an effective remedy; the right to legal and judicial protection; the right to the family life; the right to an effective investigation; the right to a hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal; and the right to obtain reparation (cf. ibid., para. 42). With regard to this last issue, the Human Rights Committee, the ECHR, the IACHR and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights have all considered that the failure to give information about the fate and whereabouts of disappeared persons or of the circumstances of an execution and the exact place of burial of the executed persons can amount to torture or ill-treatment (cf. ibid., para. 42).
304.
Ibid., para. 58.
305.
Cf., between others, Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru (Meritsf), Judgement of March 14, where—for the first time—an international court states that amnesty laws are incompatible with International law and, consequently, lack legal effect (para. 4 of the decision); case of Barrios Altos (Interpretation), Judgement of 3 September 2001, para. 17; Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú, Sentencia de 29 de noviembre de 2006.
In the opinion of Tomushat, however, that nullity is not so clear. He agrees with those authors who are of the view that such amnesties, “if they have been responsibly enacted by people wishing to make a fresh start after having lived through a period of national cataclysm, should also be respected by other States and by the institutions of the international community”. And he adds: “To decide on methods suited to reckon with the wrongs inflicted by a dictatorial regime is an act of national self-determination”, but he excludes from this reflexion the crime of genocide. (“The Duty to Prosecute International Crimes…”, op. cit., 347).
306.
Carrillo Salcedo (1999), 16.
307.
In paragraphs second and third of the Preamble.
308.
The Preamble of which states that: “that discrimination against women violates the principles of equality of rights and respect for human dignity, is an obstacle to the participation of women, on equal terms with men, in the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries, hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of their countries and of humanity”. On the same lines, and in relation to Article 6 of the Convention which requires the States to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has noted that “poverty and unemployment increase opportunities for trafficking in women. In addition to established forms of trafficking there are new forms of sexual exploitation, such as sex tourism, the recruitment of domestic labour from developing countries to work in developed countries and organized marriages between women from developing countries and foreign nationals. These practices are incompatible with the equal enjoyment of rights by women and with respect for their rights and dignity. They put women at special risk of violence and abuse.” (Vid. para. 14 of General Recommendation No. 19 (IIth session, 1992). General recommendation can be consulted on: http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm-sp.htm#recom24.
About this Convention vid. V. Mayordomo Rodrigo, “La lucha contra la discriminación de la mujer”, in C. Fernández de Casadevante Romani (dir.), Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, op. cit., 370 et seq.
309.
Article 17 of which states that migrant workers and members of their families who are deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person and for their cultural identity. On the other hand, Article 70 affirms that the States Parties shall take measures not less favourable than those applied to nationals to ensure that working and living conditions of migrant workers and members of their families in a regular situation are in keeping with the standards of fitness, safety, health and principles of human dignity. Cf. http://www.unhchr.ch/spanish/html/menu3/b/m_mwctoc_sp.htm.
310.
Whose Article 1, paragraph 1, affirms that any act of enforced disappearance is an offence to human dignity, while paragraph 2 of the same article states that “2. Any act of enforced disappearance places the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law and inflicts severe suffering on them and their families. It constitutes a violation of the rules of international law guaranteeing, inter alia, the right to recognition as a person before the law, the right to liberty and security of the person and the right not to be subjected to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life.”
311.
The Preamble of which, for example, states that discrimination against any person on the basis of disability is a violation of the inherent dignity and worth of the human person. Article 16.4—related to freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse—obliges the States to take all appropriate measures to promote the physical, cognitive and psychological recovery, rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons with disabilities who become victims of any form of exploitation, violence or abuse, including through the provision of protection services. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment that fosters the health, welfare, self-respect, dignity and autonomy of the person and takes into account gender- and age-specific needs.
312.
International Federation of Leagues of Human Rights v. France, Claim No. 14/2003, Decision of 7 September 2004, para. 31 et seq.
313.
The three declared as one of its objectives the protection of the dignity and identity of all human beings.
314.
Second paragraph of thePreamble.
315.
“Idea anchored, in the Judeo-Christian tradition common to the Member States, according to which man has been created in the image of God” Sobrino Heredia (2008), p. 108. Cf. also MATHIEU, (de Mathieu 2005, 35 et seq).
316.
For Sobrino Heredia, such a clear statement explains the reason that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union, “after the relevant preamble starts, precisely, with the first title dedicated to the dignity” and with his article concerning human dignity (op. cit., 108).
317.
Cf. 25 of the commentary deaft by W. Heyde. See the text in http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/rights/charter/docs/network_commentary_final%20_180706.pdf.
318.
Thus, for example, in the case C-377/98, in which the ECJ confirmed that the fundamental right to human dignity is part of Union law (cf. judgement of 9 October 2001, case C-377/98, Netherlands v. European Parliament and Council, Rec. 2001, I-7079, para. 70–77).
319.
But as far as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is concerned, it does not specify what is meant by dignity as an autonomous right. Sobrino Heredia stresses that there are specific applications. In other words, “cases in which the legislative institutions or, ultimately, the Court of Justice claim that a certain conduct violates it” (cf. op. cit., 124). In any case, it is—according to this same author—human dignity and not the dignity “of the human person”.
320.
Title that bears the statement “The dignity” and includes the following articles: Article 1 Human dignity; Article 2 Right to life; Article 3 Right to the integrity of the person; Article 4 Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and Article 5 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour.
321.
Apart from the Charter, in the Law of the EU there are also a number of provisions which could serve as a legal basis for the protection of human dignity: provisions that enable the protection of individual rights; provisions relating to cooperation for development; provisions relating to the other relations of cooperation with third countries; more general provisions relating to the approximation of laws; provisions relating to the subsidiary powers; as well as certain provisions of the third pillar. In this framework acts affecting human dignity are adopted. Thus, as we have already seen, in the framework of the third pillar was adopted the status of the victim in the criminal proceedings, which emphasizes the need to treat victims with due respect for their personal dignity (cf. art. 2 of the Council Framework Decision 2001/JHA/JHA, with regard to the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ L 82, March 22, 2001). Also, in the framework of this same pillar terrorism is presented as a serious violation of human dignity (cf. paragraph 8 of the preamble of the Council Framework Decision of 15 March 2001, concerning the standing of victims in the criminal proceedings). Cf. also the recitals 1 and 2 of Council Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism (OJ L 164, 22 June 2002).
322.
Thus, for example, in case C-377/98, in which the ECJ confirmed that the fundamental right to human dignity is part of Union law (cf. judgment of October 9, 2001, case C-377/98, The Netherlands v. European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, Rec., 2001, I-7079, paras. 70–77).
323.
As an autonomous right, and on the same lines of what is happening at the national level, at the international level dignity is often presented as a basis for fundamental rights, but not as an independent fundamental right. It is reflected, for example, in the preambles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in the case law of the ECHR (cf. Sobrino Heredia “Dignidad…”, op. cit., 123). But, unlike the two aforementioned International Covenants and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union takes a step further to configure the human dignity as an autonomous right.
324.
See the text in http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/index_es.htm
325.
Cf. case Connolly/Comisión, C-274/99 related to the Staff Regulations of officials and the dignity of the role of officer of the Commission (European Court reports 2001, I-01611; (cf. http://curia.europa.eu).
326.
ECJ, Judgement of 9 October 2001, case C-377/98, Kingdom of the Netherlands v.European Parliament and Council of the European Union, para. 70. It was an issue related to biotechnology (cf. European Court reports 2001, I-07079).
327.
Cf. case C-36/02, Omega, Judgement of 14 October 2004. Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH (‘Omega’) is a German company which operated a facility in Bonn under the name ‘Laserdrome’. That facility was normally used to run a leisure occupation known as ‘Lasersport’, inspired by the film Star Wars and using modern laser technology. The equipment provided for the players consisted of sub-machine-gun-type laser targeting devices and fabric jackets to which one sensory tag was affixed in the chest area and one at the back. In order to portray the ‘shots’ optically, a laser beam was simultaneously projected with an infrared beam. Hits were indicated by an acoustic and optical signal. The aim of the contest was to obtain as many points as possible within a playing time of 15 min. Players were awarded points for each hit on a fixed sensory tag. Players who were hit had points deducted. Players who received five hits had to get their targeting devices recharged at a recharging point.
The ECJ was of the opinion that an individual national public order notice banning a commercial activity found by the national courts to be incompatible with basic principles of constitutional law is compatible with the provisions of the Treaty establishing the European Community relating to freedom to provide services if that order is genuinely justified for public policy purposes relating to the public interest and it is ensured that that purpose cannot be achieved by measures that are less restrictive of the freedom to provide services. (cf. para. 34).
Later, in case C-341/05 Laval a Partneri Ltd v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet and Others, judgement of December 18, 2007, the Grand Chamber of the ECJ reiterated that as the Court of Justice stated in the Omega ruling the exercise of the fundamental right, which was the subject of that issue, namely, respect for human dignity, is not excluded from the scope of the provisions of the Treaty. The judgement of Chamber 1 of the ECJ in case C-36/02 Omega is of 14 October 2004.
328.
To determine if the patentability of products where some element of the human body forms part of it violates human dignity or not (judgment of 9 October 2001, case C-377/98, Netherlands/Parliament and Council, paragraphs 69–77)
329.
Cf. Sobrino Heredia, “Dignidad”, op. cit., 121.
330.
Opinión of the Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 31 January 2008, Case C-303/06, S. Coleman v. Attridge Law and Steve Law, para. 9.
331.
Cf. Serna (2004), 221.
332.
It is the case, for example, in Article 10.1 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978: “1.The dignity of the person, the inviolable rights inherent, the free development of personality, the respect for the law and the rights of others are foundation of political order and social peace.”
The dignity of the person is also present in the Constitutions of the States members of the European Union. It is the case, for example, in the following: Germany (art. 1), Ireland (in the preamble), Italy (art. 41), Sweden (art. 2), Greece (art. 2) Poland (art. 30), Finland (art. 1), Lithuania (art. 21), Latvia (95), Hungary (art. 54), Slovenia (arts. 21 and 34), or Spain (in the preamble and in article 10 cited above).
333.
Cf., respectively, para. 8 and 5 of the Preamble of Council Framework Decision 2001/JHA/JHA, of 15 March 2001, just quoted. Cf. also point No. 5 of UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power of 29 November 1985.
334.
On paragraph 22.g).
335.
Cristina (2000), p. 219 et seq. About victims of terrorism, from the perspective of victims of the Basque nationalist terrorist organization ETA vid. the excellent work of Domínguez et al. (2010).
336.
Ibid., 221.
337.
Respectively in Articles 23 and 41. Article 23 states : “Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions that are more conducive to the achievement of equality between men and women which may be contained: (a) In the legislation of a State Party; or (b) In any other international convention, treaty or agreement in force for that State.” Article 41 states : “Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child and which may be contained in: (a) The law of a State party; or (b) International law in force for that State.”

References

Ascensio H (2009) Les droits de victimes devant les juridictions pénales internationales In: Flauss J-F (ed) La protection internationale des droits de l’homme et les droits des victimes, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 77–110
Google Scholar
Carrillo Salcedo JA (1999) Dignidad frente a Barbarie. La Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos Cincuenta Años Después, Tecnos, Madrid
Google Scholar
Cristina C (2000) Contra el olvido, ed. Temas de Hoy, Madrid
Google Scholar
de Mathieu B (2005) Article II-61 In: Burgorgue-Larsen A, Levade A, Picod F (2005) Traité Établissant une Constitution pour l’Europe. Partie II, La Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union, Tome 2. Bruylant, Bruxelles, 35–41
Google Scholar
Domínguez F, Alonso R, García Rey M (2010) Vidas rotas, Espasa-Calpe, Madrid
Google Scholar
Fernández de Casadevante Romani C, Mayordomo Rodrigo V (2011) Código de normas internacionales relativas a las vÚctimas, Tecnos, Madrid
Google Scholar
Heins Ch, Killander M (2009) The african regional human rights system In: Gómez Isa F, De Feyter K (eds) (2009) International human rights law in a global context. Humanitarian Net, Bilbao
Google Scholar
Jeangène Vilmer J-B (2009) Réparer l’irréparable. Les réparations aux victimes devant la Cour Pénale Internationale. PUF, Paris
Google Scholar
López Escudero M (2008) Artículo 47. Derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva y a un juez imparcial In: Mangas Martin A (ed) Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Comentario artículo por artículo, Fundación BBVA, Bilbao, 739–758
Google Scholar
Martin y Pérez de Nanclares J (2008) Artículo 7. Respeto de la vida privada y familiar In: Mangas Martin A (ed) Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Comentario artículo por artículo
Google Scholar
Martín y Pérez de Nanclares J (2008) Artículo 11. Libertad de expresión y de información In: Mangas Martin A (ed) Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Comentario artículo por artículo, Fundación BBVA, Bilbao, 209–222
Google Scholar
Mutua M (2009) The transformation of Africa. A critique of the rights discourse In: Gómez Isa F, De Feyter K (eds) (2009) International human rights law in a global context. Humanitarian Net, Fundación BBVA, Bilbao, 899–924
Google Scholar
Newmann F, Vasak K (1984) Derechos civiles y políticos. In: Vasak K (ed) Las dimensiones internacionales de los derechos humanos, vol. I. Unesco, Serbal, Barcelona, 227–240
Google Scholar
Saura Estapa J (1998) Artículo 12 In: Pons Rafols X (coord.) La Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos. Comentario artículo por artículo, Icaria edn, Barcelona, 226–236
Google Scholar
Serna P (2004) La dignidad humana en la Constitución Europea. In: Alvarez Conde E, Garrido Mayol V (dir.) Comentarios a la Constitución Europea, Libro II, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 191–239
Google Scholar
Sobrino Heredia JM (2008) Dignidad. In: Mangas Martin A (ed) Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Comentario artículo por artículo, Fundación BBVA, Bilbao, 107–145
Google Scholar
Tomuschat C (2002) The duty to prosecute international crimes committed by individuals In: Tradition und Weltoffenheit des Rechts. Festschrift für Helmut Steinberger. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffenlichen Recht und Völkerrecht, Band 152. Springer, Berlin, 315–349
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Facultad Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales Derecho Público II, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani

Authors

Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

de Casadevante Romani, C.F. (2012). The Catalogue of Rights Afforded to Victims by International Norms. In: International Law of Victims. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28140-2_6

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-28140-2_6
Published: 12 March 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-28139-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-28140-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics