Abstract
Supranational human rights bodies are generally moving away from a practice of issuing declaratory orders and deferring to the state on the means to comply with their decisions to the issuance of more specific reparation orders, including requiring guarantees of non-repetition such as law reform at the national level. Notwithstanding this general evolution, in this article I suggest that they have not had as significant an impact on strengthening the national remedial framework where torture is alleged. Focusing on the practice and jurisprudence of the European Court, I identify key factors that support this finding and suggest ways in which they can do more to accommodate the objective of strengthening the national remedial framework for torture while continuing to prioritise their role as forums for individual access to justice.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
