The hybrid court – an appropriate solution for the protection of human rights within the territory of the Self-proclaimed Dniester Republic

Abstract

Although the practice of hybrid courts was aimed at repressing international crimes, it also represents a reliable and effective model for examining cases on violation of fundamental human rights and freedoms within the territories with contested jurisdiction, not in the light of territorial dispute settlement but from the perspective of remediation, prevention and infringements ending rational within territories where there is no fair, constitutional and independent justice system. Such courts would represent the optimal solution for assessing any cases on human rights violations on the territory of self-proclaimed Dniester Republic in line with the lawfulness exercise, until the final settlement of the Transdniestrian conflict. The jurisdiction could include a panel composed of 7 judges, of which 3 would be appointed by the constitutional authorities of the Republic of Moldova, pursuant to different formulas, 2 – appointed by the UN and 2 – appointed by the OSCE. At least 3 judges shall be preferably from among the former judges of an international jurisdiction (e.g. the International Criminal Court, the European Court of Human Rights etc.). The European Convention on Human Rights could serve as the applicable substantive law, and the legislation of the Republic of Moldova – as the procedural law. The impact of creating such a court would be pivotal for the establishment of a human rights „coverage area” on the left bank of the Dniester. It is recommended however, for the proper functioning of this jurisdiction, especially endowed with confidence in the act of justice under the guarantee of international judges, that the origin of this jurisdiction shall be an external one, preferably a UN based one.