A reflection on the potholes that bedevil the post-1994 South Africa’s social transformation trajectory

Economic Sanctions Against Human Rights Violations

The Nuremberg tribunal was the expression and the beginning of states' recognition of their duty to prosecute genocide and other gross human rights violations. It was a first step towards fulfillin...

Background: COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts were abrupt and challenging for most countries with the protracted lockdown straining socioeconomic activities. Marginalized groups and individuals are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects of the pandemic such as human rights abuses and violations which can lead to psychological distress. In this review, we focus on mental distress and disturbances that have emanated due to human rights restrictions and violations amidst the pandemic. We underscore how mental health is both directly impacted by the force of pandemic and by prevention and mitigation structures put in place to combat the disease.Methods: We conducted a review of relevant studies examining human rights violations in COVID-19 response, with a focus on vulnerable populations, and its association with mental health and psychological well-being. We searched PubMed and Embase databases for studies between December 2019 to July 2020. Three reviewers evaluated the eligibility criteria and extracted data.Results: Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic inquiry reporting on distress due to human rights violations. Unanimously, the studies found vulnerable populations to be at a high risk for mental distress. Limited mobility rights disproportionately harmed psychiatric patients, low-income individuals, and minorities who were at higher risk for self-harm and worsening mental health. Healthcare workers suffered negative mental health consequences due to stigma and lack of personal protective equipment and stigma. Other vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, and refugees also experienced negative consequences.Conclusions: This review emphasizes the need to uphold human rights and address long term mental health needs of populations that have suffered disproportionately during the pandemic. Countries can embed a proactive psychosocial response to medical management as well as in existing prevention strategies. International human rights guidelines are useful in this direction but an emphasis should be placed on strengthening rights informed psychosocial response with specific strategies to enhance mental health in the long-term. We underscore that various fundamental human rights are interdependent and therefore undermining one leads to a poor impact on the others. We strongly recommend global efforts toward focusing both on minimizing fatalities, protecting human rights, and promoting long term mental well-being.

The Right to Claim for State Compensation and the Extinctive Prescription

The primary purpose of international criminal law is to address the most serious violations of fundamental human rights, those which 'shock the conscience of mankind'. The Statutes and the rules of the international criminal courts and tribunals are in general conformity with the body of international human rights law, though with certain qualifications. Statutes of the international courts and tribunals guarantee almost all due process rights found in most adversarial, as well as inquisitorial systems. International criminal courts are under no regime of external judicial control and review as to their respect for human rights of participants in proceedings. The main purpose of international criminal justice being to redress the most grievous violations of human rights, these same human rights must be respected in the course of international criminal proceed. Keywords: fundamental human rights; International criminal court; International criminal law; statutes; tribunal

Effective protection of fundamental human rights is one of the main features of a modern democratic state governed by the rule of law. Non-governmental human rights institutions are an important component of the international human rights protection mechanism, as they operate at the local, regional, national and international levels. The relevance of the study is due to several factors, including: increased attention to human rights in the international legal system, increasing cases of human rights violations in the world, and the lack of effectiveness of national human rights mechanisms. Among other things, the Russian-Ukrainian war is of particular relevance, as the level of human rights violations in the conflict zone is extremely high. In view of this, a comprehensive study of the role of international non-governmental organisations in international human rights mechanisms is clearly relevant. The aim of the work is defining the role of non-governmental organisations in the international human rights protection mechanism and determining the forms of participation of international non-governmental organisations in the protection of human rights at the international level. The methodological basis of the study. In order to achieve this goal, an integrated approach is applied, which determines the use of general and special scientific research methods. In particular, the functional method was used to determine the functions of international non-governmental organisations in the field of human rights protection. The formal legal method was used to analyse the provisions of international legal acts. The systemic-structural method was used to identify the main features of the participation of international non-governmental organisations in the mechanism of human rights protection at the international level. The methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, and analogy were also used to formulate conclusions and proposals. Results. The article examines the role of international non-governmental organisations in the international human rights mechanism. The study covers the results of the activities of international non-governmental organisations Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, International Federation for Human Rights, Human Rights First, Interights and other non- governmental organisations that draw the attention of citizens and governments around the world to human rights violations. It is noted that the activities of non-governmental organisations in addressing the issue of human rights protection are effective and have an important impact on the resolution of human rights violations. It is emphasised that the role of international non- governmental organisations is growing in the current context, as their activities have an impact on addressing human rights violations in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian war.

Applying Dignity, Respect, Honor and Human Rights to a Pluralistic, Multicultural Universe

The relationship between violations of fundamental human rights and serious international crimes is obvious because at the very core, both can be persecutory. Those who are victims of serious breaches to their most fundamental human rights, that may constitute a serious international crime, and who flee to seek asylum abroad can claim refugee protection on the basis of a well-founded fear of being persecuted on one or more of the five grounds of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Those who perpetrate such serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to others' most fundamental human rights; that is, those who are responsible for creating refugees – through the persecution of others – are excluded from receiving refugee protection. Indeed, given the nature of their offence or contribution to serious breaches in other peoples' most fundamental human rights, or for their liability in the commission of serious international crimes, they can be subject to prosecution. This chapter will look at a number of cases where individuals have been excluded from refugee protection and then prosecuted for their serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to other people's most fundamental human rights and/or human dignity. As an instrument of justice, both the 1951 Convention and its system of refugee protection, together with the international criminal justice system, with the International Criminal Court (ICC) now at its head, must work together to ensure that those who are excluded from refugee protection for serious breaches to our most fundamental human rights and/or for the commission of serious international crimes must be brought to justice through their criminal prosecution. This can be done under the principles of territorial jurisdiction, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or international criminal institutions, primarily, the ICC. Hence, there is a direct relationship between those who are responsible for creating refugees, the perpetrators of serious international crimes and for the breaches to fundamental human rights and human dignity, and their victims, those who are forced to flee their States and who seek asylum abroad. But those who are responsible for perpetrating serious international crimes and are responsible for generating forced displacement also attempt to seek asylum abroad. Those are the asylum seekers who ought to be excluded from refugee protection. Those who are responsible for the commission of serious international crimes and, hence, causing the forced displacement, should not only be excluded from refugee protection but also prosecuted for their serious criminality when warranted.

Human rights protection in every society is a fundamental tool in the preservation and conservation of a demo- cratic society. It therefore becomes the responsibility of every state in ensuring that those constitutional values protecting its citizens should be respected without any instances of violations. This issue of protection has be- come more of a nightmare and frustrated as we always experience violations of fundamental human rights of people, in which the case of Ukraine is not an exception with the presence of martial law. This article articulates that it becomes the place of the state of Ukraine in ensuring that those constitutional bases of human rights freedoms should be respected without any aspect of violation and restriction. For the situation is complex and questionable when there is continuous violation of human rights and freedoms with the constitutional bases restricting violations. In answering the various worries and controversies surrounding the protection of human rights in Ukraine under the martial law system, it will be proper for us in adopting a philosophical method so as in determining the rationale and the reasons behind aspect of restricting human rights and freedoms under the martial law in Ukraine. From the above explanation, the rule remains that the present of the martial law in Ukraine is more a curse than a blessing as human rights violations continue to be on the increase defeating the original intention of the law being that of the conservation and preservation of all human rights values and dignities in the country. This is really frustrating and embarrassing as human values are rather degrading and pathetic instead of the expectations and standards stipulated by the law of the country. It is really an aspect of disappointment.

En este artículo de reflexión sobre operaciones militares y Derechos Humanos, que tiene como referencia las recomendaciones de la Comisión (en adelante Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos o C.I.D.H.) de los años 2008 a 2010, se hace un análisis de la incidencia que tienen los Derechos Humanos sobre las operaciones militares. Las recomendaciones de la Comisión hechas a Colombia y que provienen de un organismo protector de Derechos Humanos, a través de un informe objetivo, surgen de situaciones coyunturales, donde se presume la posible vulneración de derechos fundamentales por parte de agentes estatales en contra de la población civil, y que han sido denunciados ante la misma Comisión. Hay que mencionar, además, que a pesar de que las recomendaciones no son de obligatorio cumplimiento para el Estado colombiano, se han tomado medidas legales y políticas para implementar al interior de las instituciones estatales. También cabe señalar que las recomendaciones de estos años, refieren a los métodos empleados por las Fuerzas Militares en el desarrollo de las operaciones militares, los cuales generan una vulneración de los derechos fundamentales de las personas protegidas por el Derecho Internacional Humanitario, como lo son las personas que han dejado sus armas y se han reintegrado a la sociedad, niños, niñas, adolescentes y la población civil. En conclusión a lo anterior, se deriva que del cumplimiento de las recomendaciones se genera una acción positiva para el Estado, como es evitar que un caso pueda pasar de la Comisión (C.I.D.H.) a la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Co.I.D.H), la cual genera una responsabilidad internacional para Colombia como Estado infractor; la legitimidad institucional de las Fuerzas Militares; generar conciencia a la institución militar en el cumplimiento de los objetivos estratégicos del Estado y de su misión constitucional a pesar de afrontar una situación excepcional, como es un conflicto armado no internacional, siempre teniendo presente el respeto, protección y garantía de los Derechos Humanos.

In the article, significant issues related to the protection of cultural heritage such as the development of the human rights factor, the interplay between of cultural heritage and human rights and new international legal trends in this direction are analyzed based on a diverse array of opinions in the legal literature, international documents and court practice. At this time, as the first direction, the mutual relations of cultural heritage and cultural rights, and as the second direction, the issues of determining the international legal bases of cultural heritage protection in international documents are defined. In the first direction, it is emphasized that the protection of cultural heritage in the modern era is assessed through the lens of cultural rights. This establishes a direct connection between the protection of cultural heritage and the provision of cultural rights. Strengthening the links between human rights and cultural heritage is crucial, particularly for safeguarding cultural heritage objects from real threats arising during armed conflicts. Damage or destruction of cultural heritage is a fundamental violation of human rights. Furthermore, the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage should be recognized as a violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms, particularly cultural rights. In the second direction, it is noted that the inseparable relationship between cultural heritage and cultural rights has broadened the normative framework for ensuring the legal protection of cultural heritage. The basics of ensuring the legal protection of cultural heritage, including international obligations in this field, are determined in general international normative documents on human rights. In those international documents, the provision of legal protection of cultural heritage is evaluated in the context of human rights. Then, by referring to specific international documents in this field, including the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the development trends of these relations are determined.

Relevance of the research. The close substantive and functional connection between human rights and a crime forms a complex research subject, though its study is not given sufficient attention in the domestic literature. On the one hand, the concept of human rights violations includes acts that are not always criminalized, on the other hand, not all crimes can be regarded as violations of human rights. Meanwhile, the criminal law is recognized as a universal instrument of protecting human rights, and therefore it must take into account these features of offenses in the mechanism of its functioning. Purpose of the research. The relevant task of this publication is to define a differentiated analysis of the mechanism for the formation of a criminal-legal prohibition on committing dangerous acts, depending on whether they infringe or not infringe on the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. Research results. Acts that infringe on fundamental human rights and freedoms are subject to mandatory criminalization. The unlawfulness of such acts is determined precisely by the fact that they violate the general constitutional provisions on the inadmissibility of encroachments on fundamental rights and freedoms. Acts that do not infringe on fundamental human rights and freedoms can be criminalized in accordance with the discretion of the legislator. The establishment of a criminal law prohibition in this case is preliminarily mediated by the construction of sectoral legal restrictions for the relations protected by the criminal law. Such sectoral legal restrictions are subject to the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and can be expressed in two of their main forms: either as a complete prohibition of a certain right (freedom), or as a decrease in the options for possible, permissible behavior by establishing various limits of such behavior by state authorities. A differentiated analysis of the mechanism of criminalization of acts, depending on their correlation with violation of human rights, proves that the criminal law itself, formally confirming in the dispositional part, the restriction of the rights of law-abiding citizens, in reality does not restrict them, since the grounds for such a restriction lie outside the criminal law.

The military actions unleashed by Azerbaijan on September 27, 2020 were completely accompanied by violations of the basic norms and principles of international law and international humanitarian law. These violations led to contraventions and infringements of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The purpose of the article is to investigate and identify violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms in the Third Artsakh War. To this end, relevant international and domestic legal acts, theoretical literature, various authoritative reports, as well as specific cases of violations of human rights and freedoms were studied. In particular, such rights as the right to life, the right to physical and mental integrity, the right to education, the right to health protection and medical care, etc. were violated. As a result of the study, we came to the conclusion that during the military actions unleashed by Azerbaijan, the fundamental rights of the Armenians of Artsakh were grossly violated, and Azerbaijan should be held accountable for the war crimes committed by it in accordance with the norms of international criminal law.

Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea: Green Light for Humanitarian Intervention?

This paper focused on the analysis of enforcement of state responsibility for breaches of some international obligations of an essential nature. These obligations relate to non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the fight against international terrorism, and the protection of fundamental human rights. Ali such obligations are considered to be essential and relate to new security challenges; there are, however, certain differences among them when considering the structure of primary obligations and legal consequences of their breach. Treaties on disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons, by their nature, encompass obligations erga omnes partes which are interlinked. A breach by one state changes the position of the other State Parties (all-or-nothing obligations). Although classic legal responsibility consequences of unlawful conduct may, due to their erga omnes partes nature, apply only with limitations, the respective regimes established by the treaties rely on special control mechanisms. Erga omnes partes obligations of an integral nature apply primarily in the area of human rights. Such obligations were adopted to protect collective interests. Unlike obligations resulting from disarmament treaties, they represent a different type of obligation. A state may not stop observing human rights due to another state’s violation (i.e. not use symmetric countermeasures). Other parties to such an obligation may, on the other hand, require the responsible state to cease unlawful conduct. This mostly applies only within control mechanisms of a judicial or other nature established by treaties. Obligations arising out of responsibility can be of an erga omnes nature only in the case of violation of human rights obligations created by peremptory norms of general international law. Where multilateral treaties on terrorism are at issue, obligations have a partly bilateral, partly integral obligation character (resembling human rights treaties in this respect). Should a breach occur this gives rise primarily to responsibility of a state inter partes. However, the respective treaties do not provide for a special institutionalised control regime, and in this they differ from the two above-mentioned groups. The gap has recently been filled by resolutions of the UN Security Council establishing obligations erga omnes the breach of which may give rise to responsibility under general international law of a similar nature. Enforcement of obligations relating to the prohibition and non-proliferation of WMD and the fight against terrorism does not require new individual coercive means. First, states may use countermeasures without the use of farce. Second, collective coercive measures may be sometimes used instead of individual means upon the recommendation or decision of a body of the respective international organisation. Third, the use of farce may serve as an extreme means of coercion if it has been so decided by the UN Security Council according to Chapter VII of the Charter. Fourth, should a serious and imminent threat occur states may not be deprived of the right to individua] or collective self-defence. The situation seems to be much more complicated in the case of extremely serious violations of erga omnes obligations to protect human rights. However, individual or collective countermeasures free from force may not be excluded although their efficiency is usually disputable. The Security Council has proven that such cases can be designated as a threat to peace under Chapter VII of the Charter. Its permission is required for states to intervene using force. However, the right to self-defence may not be invoked due to the substance of the issue. If force were used for humanitarian reasons to stop genocide or mass violation of basic human rights, or to enforce responsibility erga omnes, the existing international law does not permit the use of individua) armed countermeasures. Considering the issue from the point of view of international legal rules de lege lata, humanitarian intervention cannot yet be regarded as legal no matter what criteria for its legitimacy may exist. Instead, it is necessary to seek a strengthening of collective coercive mechanisms. Therefore the latest proposals of institutional reform of the UN, which result, among other things, from a newly defined responsibility to protect, could be very important.