This post is a summary of the chapter 15 with the incomplete title above, of the book with the title of, "Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers." Published at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training9chapter15en.pdf
It is important to bear in mind throughout this chapter that to some extent victims of crime and human rights violations have many interests and needs in common, such as a possible need for medical attention, including help for emotional problems, compensation for financial loss and various forms of special protection and assistance. International rules governing the legal duties of States to provide effective protection and redress to victims of human rights violations. In this regard, clear rules exist in international human rights law, which have been further clarified in the law of the international monitoring bodies. States' legal duty to ensure the effective protection of human rights and their specific duties to prevent violations, to provide effective domestic remedies for alleged violations of a person's human rights, and to investigate, prosecute and punish such violations and provide redress to the victim concerned. According to paragraph 18 of the U.N.D., "Victims' means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that do not yet constitute violations of laws but of internationallly recognized norms relating to human rights." A much simpler definition of victim of human rights violations is: "A victim is a person whose nationally or internationally recognized human rights have been violated as a consequence of governmental acts or omissions." A particularly serious aspect of abuse of power such as human rights violations is that they are committed by, or at least with the knowledge of, persons that are expected to protect the individuals and their rights. In others words, the sense of trust that should have existed has been seriously betrayed. As a general rule it must be emphasized that, notwithstanding the fact that the legal obligation to respect and to ensure human rights are not included expressis verbis in the treaty concerned, states in any event have a legal duty to perform their treaty obligations. By failing, for instance, to prevent or to investigate alleged human rights violations and, where need to be, to follow up the investigations with a prosecution, a state undermines its treaty obligations and hence also incurs internationally for being in breach of the law. The legal duty to provide domestic remedies for alleged victims is inherent in the general duty to provide effective human rights protection. Practice has consistently shown that, unless an individual has an effective right to have recourse to independent and impartial courts and authorities for the purpose of remedying a violation, the true enjoyment of human rights will remain illusory. From the point of view of states, the domestic remedies has the advantage of allowing them to remedy a wrong, thus avoiding international responsibility and a possible rebuke from an international monitoring body. The clear terms of this provision that the remedies available must be effective and that their enforcement must be ensured by the competent authorities. The remedies may be, for instance, judicial or administrative, although athe drafters of the Covenant had a preference for judicial remedies. Although remedies must be available for all alleged violation of the rights guaranteed by the Covenant, the need fo0r available, independent and impartial remedies is particularly urgent for people deprived of their liberty. The right to a domestic remdy is, of course, also guaranteed by the regional human rights treaties. The absence of an effective remedy to violation of the rights recognized by the convention is itself a violation in which the remedy is lacking. A remedy which provides illusory because of the general conditions prevailing, or even in the particular circunstance of a given case, can not be considered effective. As previously noted, the duty to investigate, prosecute and punish human rights violations is also inherent in states' responsibility to ensure effective human rights protection and it is a duty that has been consistently emphasized by the international monitoring bodies. In certain circumstances, it may be difficult to investigate acts that violate an individual's rights. The duty to investigate must be undertake in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the state as its own legal duty, not as a step that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government. Article 14 of the Convention specifies that states have a duty to ensure that victims obtain redress and that they have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for a full rehabilitation as possible. In many cases, there may be a need, in addition to financial compensation, for rehabilitative measures of both a physical and psychological nature. The Committee also recommended that measures should be taken to regulate and institutionalize the right of victims of torture to fair and adequate compensation payable by the state. Impunity for human rights violations is one of the most serious threats to the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of the individual, and constitutes a violation of a state's legal duty to ensure the effective protection of these rights and freedoms. Non-prosecution of criminal acts have a devastating impact on the victims as well as on society as a whole. A culture of impunity also widens a gap between those close to the power and others, who are vulnerable to human rights abuses. The international monitoring bodies have consistently denounced impunity for human rights violations. As noted above very complex issues of guilt, admission of guilt, chastisement, reparation, rehabilitation and reconciliation arises in such situations. It may, however, be said that amnesties and pardons can not in any circunstances be granted for violations of the right to life and the right to liberty. The principle of justice for everyone demands that victims' rights and suffering be recognized and remedied and that the states act effectively to prevent similar acts from occurring in the future. A society is unlikely to be able to heal its wounds and raise itself from the ruins of opression in a constructive way unless these minimum legal requirements that derive from human dignity are effectively met. In others words, although, some form of reconciliation will ultimately have to be reached through negociations between the parties concerned, a lasting reconciliation must, out of respect for the victims, be based on elementary justice.
