Guarantees of Non-Repetition in the Inter-American and European Contexts

• In Event: Human Rights Around the World

Abstract

Reparations for human rights abuses can take many forms in international law. Courts can order a monetary reparation to the victim(s), for example, which is often the easiest and fastest method of satisfaction. But one of the most difficult forms of reparation is the “guarantee of non-repetition,” in which the courts essentially attempt to force a change of laws and norms to ensure that an abuse does not or cannot happen in the future. This is a risky avenue for courts to take: the fulfillment of such guarantees are placed in the hands of other actors, and not the court itself, and thus the risk of non-compliance is high. Given the risks, under what circumstances do courts choose this form of reparation, when it is clearly the most difficult? We investigate this question through the European Court of Human Rights—which has been reluctant to use this type of reparation—and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, which has been much bolder and has used the guarantee of non-repetition with some frequency since the early 2000s. We explore the ways in which the Inter-American and European human rights courts have influenced each other on reparations, and how regional courts serve as a locus for the the refinement and evolution of human rights norms and practices.

Authors

• Tracy H. Slagter, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh

• Druscilla L. Scribner, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh