Abstract
This paper reviews jurisprudence of two regional human rights courts on international crimes until 2015, and how the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, respectively, link these crimes to the transitional justice contexts in which they were dealt with a domestic level. Without pretending to carry out a rigorous comparison, the paper shows common approaches and especially, differences in how the courts frame the trade-offs in transitional justice contexts discussed in literature. While the IACtHR focuses very prominently on the obligation to prosecute past violations, adopting grosso modo the paradigm developed by Orentlicher, the ECtHR is more willing to leave discretion - or margin of appreciation - to States in order to decide which balance between human rights protection and the values of stability and peace is to be struck. But in the European Court itself, this position is not without contest, as dissenting votes constantly show.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: 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.