Provisional Release in International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 707-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Doran
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Human

AbstractThis article is a review of the jurisprudence on provisional release and an analysis of how such a mechanism operates under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. It examines how pretrial release is dealt with in international human rights law while focusing on the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. It goes on to evaluate the position of the ad hoc tribunals regarding the issue of pre-trial release and seeks to articulate how and why the ad hoc tribunals have moved away from customary international law. It also seeks to evaluate the actual reach of the presumption of innocence in provisional release cases at the European Court of Human Rights and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Formen Yugoslavia. Finally, the article considers the recent jurisprudence of the ICC regarding interim release.

International Human Rights Law and Blockade

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip Drew
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Power And Control ◽  
International Human ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction ◽  
And Control

The years since the beginning of the twenty-first century have seen a significant incursion of international human rights law into the domain that had previously been the within the exclusive purview of international humanitarian law. The expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, particularly by the European Court of Human Rights, means that for many states, the exercise of physical power and control over an individual outside their territory may engage the jurisdiction of human rights obligations. Understanding the expansive tendencies of certain human rights tribunals, and the apparent disdain they have for any ambiguity respecting human rights, it is offered that the uncertain nature of the law surrounding humanitarian relief during blockades could leave blockading forces vulnerable to legal challenge under human rights legislation, particularly in cases in which starvation occurs as a result of a blockade.

scholarly journals Ending Impunity: The Case for War Crimes Trials in Liberia

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 53-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alhagi Marong ◽  
Chernor Jalloh
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Charles Taylor ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Sierra Leonean ◽  
Post Conflict

AbstractThis article argues that Liberia owes a duty under both international humanitarian and human rights law to investigate and prosecute the heinous crimes, including torture, rape and extra-judicial killings of innocent civilians, committed in that country by the warring parties in the course of fourteen years of brutal conflict. Assuming that Liberia owes a duty to punish the grave crimes committed on its territory, the article then evaluates the options for prosecution, starting with the possible use of Liberian courts. The authors argue that Liberian courts are unable, even if willing, to render credible justice that protects the due process rights of the accused given the collapse of legal institutions and the paucity of financial, human and material resources in post-conflict Liberia. The authors then examine the possibility of using international accountability mechanisms, including the International Criminal Court, an ad hoc international criminal tribunal as well as a hybrid court for Liberia. For various legal and political reasons, the authors conclude that all of these options are not viable. As an alternative, they suggest that because the Special Court for Sierra Leone has already started the accountability process for Liberia with the indictment of Charles Taylor in 2003, and given the close links between the Liberian and Sierra Leonean conflicts, the Special Court would be a more appropriate forum for international prosecutions of those who perpetrated gross humanitarian and human rights law violations in Liberia.

scholarly journals The European Court of Human Rights’ Engagement with International Human Rights Instruments: Looking at the Cases of Domestic Violence

2021 ◽  
pp. 79-96
Author(s):  
Ebru Demir
Keyword(s):  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Human ◽  
Scope Of Protection

In its recent jurisprudence on domestic violence, the European Court of Human Rights started to examine the domestic violence cases in the light of relevant international human rights law developed in this specific area. This article examines the engagement of the European Court of Human Rights with other international and regional human rights instruments in domestic violence cases. Upon examination, the article concludes that by integrating its case law into international human rights law the European Court of Human Rights broadens the scope of protection for domestic violence victims and maintains the unity of international law.

Good Governance and Property Rights of the State: The Dubovets Case before the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-304
Author(s):  
Grigory Vaypan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Good Governance ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Government

This contribution discusses the recent Dubovets case before both the European Court of Human Rights and the Russian Constitutional Court, and its implications for the changing design of Russian property law as increasingly shaped by international human rights law and good governance principles. Communicated in December 2016, the application in Dubovets v. Russia continues the line of the European Court’s cases against Russia on the protection of good faith private owners of real estate against property claims by the government. Prompted by this case law, the Russian Constitutional Court in its Judgment of 22 June 2017 No 16-P struck down Article 302 of the Russian Civil Code as unconstitutional insofar as it entitled the government to reclaim possession of state property that had been previously alienated due to the government’s own negligence. This judgment manifests the increasing interdependence between private and public law – of classical property law, on the one hand, and international human rights law and good governance principles, on the other hand. It also contributes to ongoing evolution in the understanding of the state’s property rights in Russia: from the superior status of public property in Soviet times – to formal equality between public and private property rights in the landmark legal instruments of the 1990s – and now to the growing need for special protection of individual property rights vis-à-vis the state, in light of the latter’s double role as both the largest owner and the (quite unrestrained) regulator.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document