Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Department of Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Ph.D. candidate in the Faculty of Law, University of Paris 1 (Panthéon-Sorbonne), France.

Abstract

The reparation of damages and access to an effective remedy is one the most important method of international law for protection of human rights. On December 16, 2005, the United Nation General Assembly has adopted the resolution on “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, which is a comprehensive document on the right of remedy and reparation of damages for violation of human rights. In Iran’s legal system, the reparation of damage is in the framework of civil liability and so this question arise in what extent the Iranian mechanism for reparation of damage is consistent with the international norms, recognized in the resolution of basic principles and what is its role for providing an effective remedy and reparation. Addressing such issue can be beneficial either for better understanding of international mechanism and also for enrichment of national legal system. Regarding the fact that international norms in reparation have roots in national laws, finding the similarities between national and international mechanism is predictable.
 

Keywords

A) Books & Articles

Roberts, Anthea, Stephan, Paul B., Verdier, Pierre-Hugues & VERSTEEG, Mila (dirs.) (2018). Comparative international law, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Association Henri Capitant (2016). Vocabulaire juridique, 11th ed., Paris : Presses universitaires de France.
Bailliet Cecilia M. and Larsen Kjetil Mujezinović (2015). Promoting peace through international law, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Bouchet-Saulnier, Françoise (2006). Dictionnaire pratique du droit humanitaire, 3rd ed., Paris : La Découverte.
Buchanan Ruth, Zumbansen Peer (2014). Law in transition: human rights, development and transitional justice, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Buckley-Zistel Susanne, Koloma Beck Teresa, Braun Christian and Mieth Friederike (2014). Transitional justice theories, Abingdon, GB New York, N.Y: Routledge.
De Feyter Koen (ed.) (2005). Out of the ashes: reparation for victims of gross and systematic human rights violations, Antwerpen: Intersentia.
Martin E. A. and Law Jonathan (eds.) (2006). A dictionary of law, 6th ed, New York: Oxford University Press.
Palmer Nicola Frances, Clark Philip and Granville Danielle (2012). Critical perspectives in transitional justice, Cambridge Antwerp Portland (Or.): Intersentia.
Roht-Arriaza Naomi (2004). Reparations in the Aftermath of Repression and Mass Violence, in My Neighbor, My Enemy: Justice and Community in the Aftermath of Mass Atrocity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salmon Jean and Guillaume Gilbert (2001). Dictionnaire de droit international public, Bruxelles: Bruylant.
Shelton Dinah (2015). Remedies in international human rights law, Third edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Echeverria Gabriela (2003). Reparation: A Sourcebook for Victims of Torture and Other Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, London: Redress Trust.
Haasdijk, S. (1992). “The lack of uniformity in the terminology of the international law of remedies”, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 245-263.
McCarthy, Conor (2009). “Reparations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Reparative Justice Theory”, International Journal of Transitional Justice, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 250-271.
McCracken, K. (2005). “Commentary on the basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation for victims of gross violations of international human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law”. Revue internationale de droit pénal, Vol. 76, No. 1-2, pp. 77–79.
Delmas-Marty, Mireille (2006). “Comparative Law and International Law: Methods for Ordering Pluralism”, University of Tokyo Journal of Law and Politics, Vol. 3, pp. 44-59.
Schleker, Carolin (2009). Reparations, in Forsythe, David P. (ed.), Encyclopedia of human rights, 2e ed., Oxford New York Auckland: Oxford university press.
Shelton Dinah (2013). Reparation, in Rüdiger Wolfrum (ed.), The Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
Boven, Theo van (2010) “The United Nation Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law”, United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law, pp. 1-6.

B) Documents

C.D.I. (1993). Commentaire de l’art. 7 du projet d’articles sur la responsabilité des états (dans son état en 1993), [s.l.] : A.C.D.I.
Nations Unies (1998). Statut de Rome de la Cour pénale internationale.
UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) (2012). General comment No. 3 : Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment : implementation of article 14 by States parties.
UN General Assembly (1985). Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power.
UN General Assembly (2005). Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.
United Nations General Assembly (1948). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

C)Judicial Decisions

African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (2001). The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria, Communication 155/96.
African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (2009) Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al v Cameroon, 266/2003.
CPJI (1928). Usine de Chorzów (arrêt). Series A. No. 9.
European Court of Human Rights (1985). X and Y v the Netherlands, Series A91, 26 March.
European Court of Human Rights (2012). De Souza Ribeiro v France, App. No. 22689/07.
Human Rights Committee (1982). Communication No. 45/1979: Colombia, 31/03/82, CCPR/C/15/D/45/1979.
Human Rights Committee (1990). Almeida de Quinteros et al v Uruguay, Communication 107/1981, UN Doc CCPR/C/OP/2 at 138.
ICJ (2012). Ahmadou Sadio Diallo v Democratic Republic of the Congo (Compensation).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (1996). Case 10.559, Report No. 1/96, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.91 Doc. 7 at 136.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2000). “Caloto Massacre” (Colombia), Report No. 36/00, Case 11.10.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1989). Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras (Compensatory damages), Series C No. 7.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1996). Loayza Tamayo Case, Judgement on the Preliminary Objections.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (1996). Suarez Rosero Case, Provisional Measures in the Matter of Ecuador, Order of the President.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2002). Advisory Opinion OC-17/02, Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Series A No. 17.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2005). The Yakye Axa Indigenous Community Case, Series C No. 125.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2010). Rosendo Cantú et al v Mexico, Series C No. 216.
Mixed Claims Commission (1923). Lusitania Cases (United States and Germany), Recueil de sentences arbitrales, Vol VII.
CAPTCHA Image