Abstract
In theory, remedies ordered by regional human rights courts aim at the full reparation of the consequences of a human rights violation (restitutio in integrum). In spite of this premise, both the European and the Inter-American Courts of Human Rights have traditionally focused on the provision of pecuniary and non-pecuniary remedies for repairing actual damage directly caused by said violations. On the few occasions where the courts have been asked to grant remedies beyond a compensatory aim, they have refused to do so, declaring that these types of remedies do not fall within their competence. This article takes issue with these declarations and, through an analysis of selected case law, demonstrates that the practice of both regional courts has changed. They, each in their own way, have started to use remedial measures as an instrument that is not solely directed at compensation, but also at cessation, deterrence, and policy-making.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
