Doctor Legum - LLD / The success of any human rights system at the domestic, regional or international level requires an adequate development of the normative, institutional and jurisprudential frameworks. With regard to the African Commission, its approach on the normative and jurisprudential framework on evidence obtained through human rights violations is critiqued. The study is guided by three research questions on the African Commission’s normative and jurisprudential framework, and interrogates the need for improvement. While other human rights bodies like the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee have developed jurisprudence, their experiences can only be useful to Africa where they are subjected to a framework that speaks to an accused, in Africa in light of his or her peculiar situation. An evaluation of the African Commission’s mode of dealing with evidence obtained through human rights violations, followed by an evaluation of the mode engaged by other human rights bodies offers a platform to selectively, and with necessary adoption recommend a framework that the Africa Commission can use to improve its jurisprudence. In this regard, the study draws on the experiences of other human rights bodies to aid, the development of a framework to improve the jurisprudence of the African Commission. The study situates theoretical underpinnings that inform the decisions of the African Commission, the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee. This is followed by an evaluation of the normative and jurisprudential frameworks of the three human rights bodies. The study proposes a framework based on a victim-centred approach to improve the jurisprudence of the African Commission on evidence obtained through human rights violations.

Zugl.: Utrecht, University, Diss., 1999. / Zugl.: Utrecht, Univ., Diss., 1999.

Pas de résumé<p> / Doctorat en droit / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

La construction empirique du système conventionnel des Nations Unies relatif aux droits de l’homme s’est fondée sur un consensus minimum entre les Etats concernant le développement du dispositif conventionnel. Font partie de ce consensus les procédures de surveillance de l’application des traités onusiens relatifs aux droits de l’homme et les organes auxquels la mise en oeuvre de ces procédures fut confiée. A côté de la procédure de présentation des rapports sur les mesures prises pour la mise en oeuvre de leurs obligations conventionnelles, les Etats parties se sont mis d’accord sur une procédure de présentation de plaintes individuelles, sous l’appellation de procédure de communications individuelles. Le modèle initial de cette procédure, produit de résistances, des polarisations, des hésitations et des espérances démenties concernant la création d’une Cour internationale des droits de l’homme, la nature et l’étendue du contrôle sur plainte et le statut de l’individu, fut reproduit par la suite sans modifications majeures. La procédure d’examen des communications individuelles ainsi que les éléments de l’affaire introduite par les communications individuelles sont établis par les instruments conventionnels dans des termes comparables. Leur mise en oeuvre par les organes de traités ne témoigne pas d’une rupture capable d’empêcher l’unité du système conventionnel des Nations Unies. Les comités conventionnels ont pris conscience de leur fonctionnement au sein d’un seul système et s’efforcent d’harmoniser leurs méthodes de travail tout en assurant la spécificité de leur traité. C’est ainsi que l’on peut parler du régime des procédures de communications individuelles dans le système conventionnel des Nations Unies sur les droits de l’homme. A côté des éléments institutionnels et procéduraux permettant la systématisation des procédures de communications individuelles, les instruments conventionnels les plus récents établissant les procédures de communications individuelles codifient l’évolution de la procédure par les comités conventionnels les plus anciens, notamment le Comité des droits de l’homme. La codification de la pratique du contentieux des comités conventionnels s’inscrit dans un processus continu d’évolution de la protection des droits de l’homme au niveau universel. En s’affirmant garants à la fois de l’objet et du but de traités onusiens relatifs aux droits de l’homme et de l’effectivité du recours individuel, les organes de traités renforcent leur rôle en tant qu’organes de contrôle et poussent pour une judiciarisation implicite de la procédure de communications individuelles. Cependant, à défaut d’outils institutionnels permettant d’imposer aux Etats parties les obligations découlant de la procédure de communications individuelles, les organes de traités sont obligés de chercher le bon dosage entre fermeté et diplomatie sans pour autant être en mesure d’assurer la coopération des Etats parties. La standardisation de la procédure de communications individuelles au sein du système conventionnel des Nations Unies de protection des droits de l’homme renforce la position de l’individu en droit international et met au premier plan des victimes restées longtemps dans l’ombre. Par l’affirmation de leur autorité d’interpréter les traités et d’assurer l’efficacité de la procédure de communications individuelles, les comités conventionnels contribuent à la mise en oeuvre effective et cohérente des principes normatifs au niveau universel. / The empirical construction of the United Nations human rights treaty system was based on a minimum consensus among states. Treaty bodies and monitoring procedures of treaty obligations are part of this consensus. Besides the reporting procedure, States parties have reached consensus on an individual complaints procedure. The procedure emerged after polarization and hesitation among States over the establishment of an international human rights court and the status of the individual in international law and was reproduced in without major modifications. So individual complaints procedures under United Nations human rights treaties have common procedural and institutional features. Furthermore, treaty bodies have engaged in a process of harmonization of their working methods giving us reason to be optimistic about the unity of United Nations human rights treaty system. Besides common institutional and procedural aspects, the latest treaties establishing individual complaints procedures codify the evolutionary practice of older treaty bodies, especially the Human Rights Committee. By affirming their determination to protect the object and purpose of human rights treaties and to guarantee the effectiveness of individual complaints procedures, treaty bodies strengthen implicitly the judicial aspects of the procedure. However, in the absence of judicial authority and other institutional tools for imposing on States parties’ treaty obligations, the treaty bodies are forced to seek the right balance between firmness and diplomacy without being able to ensure States parties’ cooperation. Nonetheless, observance of treaty obligations under the individual complaints procedure is a part of a long and continuous process in which treaty bodies due to their expertise and competences have a predominant role. The standardization of the individual communications procedure in the United Nations human rights treaty system strengthens the position of the individual in international law and foregrounds victims that have long remained in the shadows. By asserting their authority to interpret treaties and to ensure the effectiveness of the individual communications procedures, the treaty bodies contribute to the universalization of normative principles and their effective and coherent implementation.

In the early 1990s the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted that the gravest effects of climate change could be on human migration, as millions would be displaced by coastal erosion, flooding, and drought. Today, this is considered a reality that is coming ever closer. Yet, there are currently no binding international frameworks dedicated to the issue of climate induced migration. In addition, the current regime of international refugee law is woefully inadequate at responding to the issue. Individuals that do not fall under the refugee definition are thus commonly left with the general scope of international human rights law standards, so-called complementary protection.   On these premises, this thesis sets out to examine the circumstances under which the non-refoulement principle in international human rights law could be applied in the context of climate change effects and especially slow onset processes, and how the principle could potentially be developed. Principally through examining jurisprudence concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, this thesis finds that while there is a possibility for non-refoulement obligations to arise due to the effects of climate change, the precise scope of such protection is unclear. Although case law has emerged and continues to do so, the complex nature of climate induced migration and the undeveloped jurisprudence on this issue leaves important questions unanswered. This thesis finds that there seems to be no obvious response to the question whether climate change is a relevant factor in the legal analysis of non-refoulement claims, and whether it should be. Furthermore, there are great challenges in discerning the required intensity of harm for the threshold to be met and protection to be granted. In addition, this thesis finds that applying the non-refoulement principle in the context of slow onset processes entails several difficulties, particularly concerning the timing and prediction of the harm. It is therefore concluded that, as long as there is no framework dedicated to the issue of climate induced migration, clarity will be much needed in case law as to the scope of non-refoulement obligations in the context of, especially, slow onset processes due to climate change.