|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
| Prevention consists not only of anticipating the risk of torture, but also of limiting the spread of the risk of torture and avoiding the risk of repetition where it has already taken place. | Every global and regional human rights instrument, adopted in the second half of the 20th century, imposes a duty on States to provide access to justice and remedies for victims of human rights violations. The right to remedy has been given content in the practice of international human rights institutions, drawing upon national and international principles of law, and is considered to provide compensatory justice to victims and to deter the wrongdoer and others who might be tempted to repeat or commit similar acts. |
|
The object of this position paper is to describe the inherent relationship between the right of victims of grave violations of human rights to obtain reparation and the prevention or non-repetition of further violations, more specifically the prevention of torture. Three reports have established the link between the right to reparation and the prevention of human rights violations. One instance is the final report of Mr Louis Joinet (1997) on the Question of the Impunity of Perpetrators of Human Rights Violations (E/CN.4/SUB.2/1997/20). The second is the study submitted by Mr Theo van Boven (1993), Independent Expert to the UN Commission on Human Rights, concerning the Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (E/CN.4/SUB.2/1993/8), as well as by Independent Expert Cherif Bassiouni in his concluding report to the Commission of Human Rights (E/CN.4/2000/62). In the report of Mr Joinet, the general principle in relation
to the right to reparation, implies that any human right's violation
gives rise to a right to reparation on the part of the victim
or her beneficiaries, implying a duty on the part of the State
to provide reparation and to create the possibility of seeking
redress from the perpetrator (Principle 36). The right to reparation
shall cover all injuries suffered by the victim; it shall include
individual measures concerning the right to restitution, compensation
and rehabilitation, and general reparation measures such as measures
of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition (Principle 39).
In Mr van Boven,s report, the review of case law of the Human Rights Committee concerning the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, involving violations of, particularly, articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, underlines a definite link between effective remedies to which the victim is entitled and remedies aimed at the prevention of the recurrence of similar violations. He also quotes the Velasquez Rodriguez case where the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights gave special attention to important aspects
such as the In the third report, the UN Independent Expert Mr C. Bassiouni,
states in his concluding report to the Commission of Human Rights
(E/CN.4/2000/62), On the basis of these different reports, it can be said that reparation, beyond the fact of rendering justice and compensating the victims of violations, is an integral part of prevention. It is, therefore, essential to develop strategies with the purpose of preventing human rights violations, for example by creating appropriate mechanisms of reparation (e.g. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions).
Jean-Michel Diez
PS: this article is a summary of a more detailed article (3
pages). If you |
