Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:43:02.717Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The right to the truth in international law: The significance of Strasbourg's contributions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Alice M. Panepinto
Alice M. Panepinto*
Affiliation:
Warwick Law School
*
Alice M. Panepinto, Research Fellow, Centre for Human Rights in Practice, School of Law, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of a right to the truth is increasingly utilised in different settings to empower victims and societies to find out about past abuses linked to conflict or authoritarianism. Since the last comprehensive study of this topic in 2006, there has been little attempt to draw together the advancements of fragmented practices. Recent developments in European human rights call for a fresh analysis of the right to the truth as a freestanding principle linked to, but separate from, the state duty to investigate. This paper takes stock of the more recent evolutions of the right to the truth and contributes to its independent conceptualisation. The first part investigates whether there is growing consistency between the Inter-American and European human rights systems around the contours of the right to the truth, as linked to survivors’ right to know the past and to access justice (make claims) as an individual and collective matter. The second part broadens the discussion to the status of the right to the truth under international law in light of the ECHR jurisprudence, and considers whether the available legal categories are suited to its formalisation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 739 - 764
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The author would like to thank J.A. Sweeney, A. O'Donoghue and colleagues at Warwick for feedback on earlier drafts. I am grateful for comments received at the “The European Court of Human Rights: Promoter or Predator of Democratic Transitions?” workshop co-hosted by PluriCourts (University of Oslo) and the Center for Global Public Law, Koç University in Istanbul in September 2015, and for the helpful feedback of the anonymous reviewers. All errors remain my own.

References

1. Inter alia, JE Méndez ‘Accountability for past abuses’ (1997) 19 HRQ 255; Hayner, PB Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions (London: Routledge, 2nd edn, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Inter alia, M Popkin and N Roht Arriaza ‘Truth as justice: investigatory commissions in Latin America’ (1995) 20(1) Law & Social Inquiry 79; JM Pasqualucci ‘The whole truth and nothing but the truth: truth commissions, impunity and the inter-American human rights system’ (1994) 12 BU Int'l LJ 321; JE Méndez and J Mariezcurrena ‘Accountability for past human rights violations: contributions of the inter-American organs of protection’ (1999) 26 Social Justice 84.

3. UNGA Res 65/196 ‘Proclamation of 24 March as the International Day for the Right to the Truth concerning Gross Human Rights Violations and for the Dignity of Victims’ (21 December 2010) UN Doc A/RES/65/196.

4. Human Rights Council Resolutions A/HRC/RES/18/7 of 29 September 2011 and A/HRC/ RES/27/3 of 25 September 2014 setting out the mandate of the (first) Special Rapporteur, appointed 1 May 2012.

5. Aslakhanova and others v Russia, Apps Nos 2944/06 and 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08, 42509/10 (ECHR, 18 December 2012).

6. Association 21 Décembre 1989 v Romania, App Nos 33810/07 and 18817/08 (ECHR, 24 May 2011).

7. Mocanu and others v Romania, App Nos 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08 (ECHR, 17 September 2014).

8. El-Masri v FYRM [GC], App No 39630/09 (ECHR, 13 December 2012).

9. F Fabbrini ‘The European Court of Human Rights, extraordinary renditions and the right to the truth: ensuring accountability for gross human rights violations committed in the fight against terrorism’ (2014) 14(1) HRLR 85.

10. Y Naqvi ‘The right to truth in international law, fact or fiction?’ (2006) 88 IRRC 245. See also the earlier TM Antkowiak ‘Truth as right and remedy in international human rights experience’ (2001-2) 23 Mich JIL 977.

11. The concept of the ‘legal truth’ is complex and cannot be discussed exhaustively in this article. Here, it is used to describe information about past harm elicited as part of formal (legal) proceedings. On this topic, see inter alia JM Balkin ‘The proliferation of legal truth’ (2003) 26 Harv J of L & Pub Pol 5; MS Moore ‘The plain truth about legal truth’ (2003) 26 Harv J of L & Pub Pol 23; RS Summers ‘Formal legal truth and substantive truth in judicial fact-finding - their justified divergence in some particular cases’ (1999) 18 Law & Philosophy 497.

12. C Campbell and C Turner ‘Utopia and the doubters: truth, transition and the law’ (2008) 28 Legal Studies 374, 376-377.

13. Naqvi, above n 10, 248.

14. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977) 1125UNTS3.

15. H Davis and M Klinkner A victim's right to truth and the ICC (2013), available at http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/victims-right-truth-and-icc (accessed 3 January 2016), 10; Klinkner, M and Smith, E ‘The right to truth, appropriate forum and the International Criminal Court’ in Szablewska, N and Bachmann, SD (eds), Current Issues in Transitional Justice: Towards a More Holistic Approach (New York: Springer, 2015)Google Scholar.

16. Ibid, citing C Van den Wyngaert ‘Victims before international criminal courts: some views and concerns of an ICC trial judge’ (2012) 44 Case Western Reserve J of Int'l L 475.

17. Naqvi, above n 10, 267.

18. Eg Human Rights Committee decisions Dermit Barbato v Uruguay, Comm No. 84/1981 (1983); Muteba v Zaire, Comm No. 124/1982 (1984); Laureano v Peru Comm No. 540/1993 (1996); Zelaya Blanco v Nicaragua, Comm No. 328/1988 (1994).

19. UNHRC, Twenty-fourth session Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff (28 August 2013) UN Doc A/HRC/24/42. These are: (1) International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (adopted 20 December 2006, entered into force 23 December 2010), 2715 UNTS (CED), Art 24(2) (in September 2013, 93 signatories and 40 ratifications); (2) Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (‘Van Boven/Bassiouni Principles’), UNGA Res 60/147 (16 December 2005) UN Doc A/RES/60/147; (3) Human Rights Council Resolutions 9/11 on the Right to the Truth, UNHRC Res 9/11 (24 September 2008) ‘Right to the truth’, UN Doc A/HRC/9/L.12 para 1, and 12/12, UNHRC Res 12/12 (12 October 2009) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/12/12; (4) UN ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights ‘Study by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to truth’ (8 February 2006) UN Doc E/CN.4/2006/91; (5) UN Committee against Torture ‘Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Concluding observations: Colombia’ (4 May 2010), UN Doc CAT/C/COL/CO/4, para 27; (6) UNHRC ‘Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances’ (26 Jan 2011) UN Doc A/HRC/ 16/48: ‘The existence of the right to the truth as an autonomous right was acknowledged by the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) in its very first report (E/CN.4/1435, 22 Jan 1981, para 187)’; (7) UNHRC ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism’ (1 March 2013) UN Doc A/HRC/22/52, para 23; (8) UNHRC ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, Mission to Paraguay’ (1 October 2007) UN Doc A/HRC/7/3/Add.3, para 82; (9) UNHRC ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression’ (20 April 2010) UN Doc A/HRC/14/23, para 34.

20. Ibid, para 20.

21. Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law (‘Van Boven/Bassiouni Principles’), Principle X. General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005.

22. See UNCHR Res 2005/66 ‘Right to the truth’ (20 April 2005) UN Doc E/CN.4/RES/2005/ 66; UNHRC decision 2/105 (27 November 2006); UNHRC Res 9/11 and UNHRC Res 12/12.

23. ECOSOC, Commission on Human Rights, Promotion and Protection of Human Rights ‘Report of the independent expert to update the set of principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher’ (8 February 2005) UN Doc E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, Principle 2.

24. OHCHR ‘Study on the right to truth’, above n 19.

25. Orentlicher, above n 23, Principles 1 and 4.

26. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (2013), above n 19, paras 23 and 27.

27. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth (2013), above n 19, para 19.

28. AA Cançado Trindade ‘Enforced disappearances of persons as a violation of jus cogens: the contribution of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2012) 81 Nordic J of Int'lL 507.

29. Mendez, JE ‘An emerging “right to truth”: Latin-American contributions’, in Karstedt, S (ed) Legal Institutions and Collective Memories (Oxford: Hart, 2009) pp 54–55 Google Scholar. See also E González and H Varney (eds) Truth Seeking: Elements of Creating an Effective Truth Commission (Brasilia, Amnesty Commission of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil; New York, International Center for Transitional Justice 2013) pp 5-6. Notably, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Organisation of American States (OAS) has placed the right to truth firmly on her agenda; see for instance the section on the right to the truth on the OAS website: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=156&lID=1 (accessed 3 January 2016).

30. Bolaños v Ecuador, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (12 September 1995) Case 10.580, Report No 10/95, as discussed by OAS, Right to the Truth, fn [1].

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Art 13(1): ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice’ (emphasis added).

34. O AS, Right to the Truth, fn [2]. A violation of Art 13 was found for the first time in Ignacio Ellacuría v El Salvador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (December 22, 1999) Case 10.488, Report No 136/99.

35. Alfonso René Chanfeau Orayce v Chile, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (7 April 1998) Cases 11.505 et al, Report No 25/98; in relation to an amnesty law nullifying the recommendations of a truth commission, Lucio Parada Cea, Héctor Joaquín Miranda Marroquín, et al v El Salvador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (27 January 1999) Case 10.480, Report No 1/99.

36. Lucio Parada Cea et al v El Salvador.

37. Villagran-Morales et al. v Guatemala (Merits) (street children case), Inter-American Court of Human Rights (19 November 1999) Series C No. 63, para 190.

38. Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez v El Salvador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (13 April 2000) Case 11.481, Report No 37/00.

39. Ibid para 80.

40. Ibid at para 79, quoting Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (29 July 1988) Series C No 4, para 177.

41. On the significance of the state obligations set out in Velásquez Rodríguez, see inter alia N Roht Arriaza ‘State responsibility to investigate and prosecute grave human rights violations in international law’, (1990) 78 California L R 449, 467-68.

42. Contreras et al v El Salvador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights (31 August 2011) Nos 12.494, 12.517 and 12.518, paras 5 and 166.

43. Ibid, 170 and 173, linking the right to the truth to Arts 1(1), 8(1), 25 and, under certain circumstances, Art 13.

44. JA Sweeney The European Court of Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era: Universality in Transition (London: Routledge, 2012) 72. See also Antkowiak, above n 10, 982.

45. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) ‘Resolution 1463 on Enforced Disappearances’ (2005).

46. El-Masri v FYRM, para 191.

47. Fabbrini, above n 9, 102.

48. El-Masri v FYRM, para 191.

49. On separate opinions, see inter alia R White and I Boussiakou ‘Separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights’ (2009) 9 HRLR 37. See also FJ Bruinsma and M de Blots ‘Rules of law from Westport to Wladiwostok: separate opinions in the European Court of Human Rights’ (1997) 15 Neth Q HR 175; FJ Bruinsma ‘The room at the top: separate opinions in the grand chambers of the ECHR (1998-2006)’ (2007) 2 Recht der Werkelijkheid 7.

50. El-Masri v FYRM, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Tulkens et al.

51. Specifically ‘Convention on Enforced Disappearances’, Art 24, para 2; ‘Updated set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights’; UNHRC Res 9/11 and UNHRC Res 12/12.

52. Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras and Contreras v El Salvador.

53. European Union ‘Council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings’ (15 March 2001) 2001/220/JHA.

54. Council of Europe ‘Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Eradicating Impunity for Serious Human Rights Violations', adopted by the Committee of Ministers (30 March 2011) 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.

55. Including UNHCHR, Redress, Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists; see El-Masri v FYRM, paras 175-179.

56. El-Masri v FYRM, Joint concurring opinion of Judges Casadevall and Lopez Guerra.

57. Ibid.

58. El-Masri v FYRM, para 191.

59. Notably McCann and others v UK, App No 18984/91 (ECHR, 27 September 1995). With reference to confirmed killings, see in J Chevalier-Watts ‘Effective investigations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: securing the right to life or an onerous burden on a state?’ (2010) 21(3) EJIL 701.

60. El-Masri v FYRM, para 191.

61. The context of this case is described as ‘dans le cas de l'usage massif de la force meurtrière à l'encontre de la population civile lors de manifestations antigouvernementales précédant la transition d'un régime totalitaire vers un régime plus démocratique’, Association 21 Décembre 1989 v Romania, para 144 concerning ‘la mort ou les blessures par balles et les mauvais traitements et privations de liberté infligés à plusieurs milliers de personnes, dans plusieurs villes du pays’, para 9.

62. Association 21 Décembre 1989 v Romania, paras 133-145.

63. Aslakhanova v Russia, paras 60-61, quoting ‘PACE Resolution 1463’ above n 45; ‘Convention on Enforced Disappearances’ (CED); also noting that Art 5 CED and Art 7 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (17 July 1998, entered into force on 1 July 2002) A/CONF. 183/9 both describe widespread or systematic practice of enforced disappearance as a crime against humanity.

64. Ibid, para 121.

65. Ibid, paras 144-145.

66. Mocanu v Romania, paras 332-351; upheld in Bouyid v Belgium [GC], App No 23380/09 (ECHR, 28 September 2015), para 114; and Jeronovičs v Latvia [GC], App No 44898/10 (ECHR, 5 July 2016), para 103.

67. Ibid 334.

68. Ibid 338 and 288.

69. El-Masri v FYRM, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Tulkens et al, paras 10-11.

70. Ibid, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Casadevall and Lopez Guerra.

71. Al Nashiri v Poland, App No 28761/11 (ECHR, 24 July 2014), paras 482-83.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.

74. El-Masri v FYRM, para 191.

75. Ibid.

76. Eg Cyprus v Turkey, App No 25781/94 (ECHR, 10 May 2001); see also D Groome ‘Identifying Synergies between the Right to the Truth and International/Domestic Criminal Law in Combating Impunity’ (2011) 29 BerkJIL 175, 179-180. However, in older cases, eg Çakici v Turkey, App No 23657/94 (ECHR, 8 July 1999), paras 98-99, the Court refused to recognise an automatic ‘general principle that a family member of a “disappeared person” is thereby a victim of treatment contrary to Article 3’, suggesting that affording victim status to relatives depends on ‘special factors’ which give ‘the suffering of the applicant a dimension and character distinct from the emotional distress’, based on the proximity of familial ties, the circumstances of the relationship and whether the harm was directly witnessed.

77. Association 21 Décembre also discussed in Sweeney The European Court of Human Rights in the Post-Cold War Era 74-75. Also, J Sweeney ‘Restorative Justice and Transitional Justice at the ECHR’ (2012) 12 ICLR 313, 322.

78. Ibid, paras 142-145; In particular para 143: Or, “l'obligation procédurale découlant de l'article 2 de la Convention peut difficilement être considérée comme accomplie lorsque les familles des victimes ou leurs héritiers n’ ont pas pu avoir accès à une procédure devant un tribunal indépendant appelé à connaître des faits”.

79. Aslakhanovav Russia, para 131.

80. Ibid 122.

81. Ibid 121.

82. Association 21 Décembre, para 133.

83. El-Masri v FYRM, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Tulkens et al, para 4.

84. The emerging right to access information of public interest by members of the general public supports the existence of a collective dimension and social relevance of the right to the truth in relation to the state duty to investigate. The ECtHR has begun to outline its understanding of this in relation to Art 10, most recently in cases involving NGOs seeking information of public interest, like Youth Initiative for Human Rights v Serbia, App No 48135/06 (ECHR, 25 June 2013) and very recently in the Grand Chamber decision of Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary [GC], App No 18030/11 (ECHR, 8 November 2016).

85. Also in finding a violation of the procedural limb of Art 3, in Al Nashiri v Poland, App No 28761/11 (ECHR, 24 July 2014), para 495, and (verbatim) in Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v Poland, App No 7511/13 (ECHR, 24 July 2014), para 489.

86. El-Masri v FYRM, para 192, restated in the Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Tulkens et al, para 6: ‘The desire to ascertain the truth plays a part in strengthening confidence in public institutions and hence the rule of law’. And previously, Association 21 Décembre, paras 134, 144 and 194 with reference to the importance of society to know what happened to victims of violent transition in the context of structural and widespread harm.

87. In particular, Al Nashiri v Poland, para 495; Aslakhanova v Russia, para 231, noting that addressing ‘conditions of guaranteed impunity’ for abuses committed by state agents is especially important in establishing of the rule of law and building public confidence.

88. Contreras v El Salvador 173; 170. This echoes the Court's own understanding of the ECHR as ‘an instrument designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society’, as discussed inter alia in Soering v UK.

89. ‘Where there is a personal and specific link between the direct victim and the applicant’, Council of Europe/ECHR ‘Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria’ (2014), para 30.

90. McCann and Others v UK, App No 18984/91 (ECHR, 27 September 1995).

91. Kurt v Turkey, App No 15/1997/799/1002 (ECHR, 25 May 1998), paras 130-134.

92. Yaşa v Turkey, App No 63/1997/847/1054 (ECHR, 2 September 1998), para 66.

93. Çakici v Turkey, App No 23657/94 (ECHR, 8 July 1999), paras 98-99.

94. El-Masri v FYRM, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Casadevall and Lopez Gue.

95. Eg J Doak ‘The therapeutic dimension of transitional justice: emotional repair and victim satisfaction in international trials and truth commissions’ (2011) 11 ICLR 263.

96. Antkowiak, above n 10, 101.

97. El-Masri v FYRM, Joint Concurring Opinion of Judges Tulkens et al, para 6.

98. Janowiec and others v Russia, App Nos 55508/07 and 29520/09 (ECHR, 21 October 2013), para 214.

99. Ibid, joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Ziemele, De Gaetano, Laffranque and Keller, paras 9 and 24.

100. Ibid.

101. Vasiliauskas v Lithuania [GC], App No 35343/05 (ECHR, 20 October 2015), dissenting opinion of Judge Ziemele, para 27.

102. Ibid.

103. Perinçek v Switzerland [GC], App No 27510/08 (ECHR, 15 October 2015), paras 213 et seq.

104. Perinçek v Switzerland, joint dissenting opinion of Judges Spielmann, Casadevall, Berro, De Gaetano, Sicilianos, Silvis and Kuris, para 2.

105. To borrow from the language used in Vasiliauskas v Lithuania [GC], App No 35343/05 (ECHR, 20 October 2015), dissenting opinion of Judge Ziemele, para 27.

106. Ibid.

107. Naqvi, above n 10, 267 and 273.

108. Ibid, 267.

109. Ibid, 10, 254, discussing Meron, T, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd edn, 1989)Google Scholar, and in particular the description of the ‘dynamic relationship between custom and treaty’, in which the latter may generate ‘new rules of customary law and may eventually acquire probative value for establishing the customary character of the new rules’, 89-90.

110. The ‘Identification of customary international law’ is currently being studied by the International Law Commission, which provisionally adopted draft conclusions in summer 2016: International Law Commission, Identification of customary international law, text of the draft conclusions provisionally adopted by the Drafting Committee, Sixty-eighth session Geneva, 2 May-10 June and 4 July-12 August 2016 (UN Doc A/CN.4/L.872) (2016 ILC Draft Conclusions). And inter alia: JL Kunz ‘The nature of customary international law’ (1953) 47 AJIL 662; A D'Amato ‘Trashing customary international law’ (1987) 81 AJIL 101; JP Kelly ‘The twilight of customary international law’ (1999-2000)40 VaJIL 449; A Roberts ‘Traditional and modern approaches to customary international law: a reconciliation’ (2001) 95 AJIL 757; N Arajarvi ‘Between lex lata and lex ferenda? Customary international (criminal) law and the principle of legality’ (2011) 15 Tilburg L R: J of Int'l & Eur L 163.

111. International Law Commission, above n 110.

112. ILC ‘Second report on identification of customary international law’ (66th session, 5th May-6th June 2014), UN Doc A/CN.4/672, para 41.

113. Ibid. para 68.

114. Roht Arriaza, above n 41, 489.

115. Ibid, 492.

116. Ibid, 493.

117. Merrills, JG, The Development of International Law by the European Court of Human Rights (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2nd edn, 1993)Google Scholar discussing Soering v UK, and Cruz Varas and others v Sweden, App No 15576/89 (ECHR, 20 March 1991).

118. Notably, the ‘Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances’, above n 19, 13.

119. Tyrer v UK, App No 5856/72 (ECHR, 25 April 1978), para 31. This should ensure rights that are ‘practical and effective’, not just ‘theoretical or illusory’, as notably stated in Airey v Ireland, App No 6289/73 (ECHR, 9 October 1979) para 24; Tyrer v UK, Klass v Germany and Goodwin v UK, App No 28957/95 (ECHR, 11 July 2002) discussed in L Wildhaber ‘The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law’ (2007) 56 ICLQ 217, 221-223. See also A Mowbray ‘The creativity of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2005) 5 HRLR 57, 60 and I Ziemele ‘Customary international law in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights - the method’ (2013) 12 Law & Prac Int'l Cts & Tribunals 243.

120. In light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (23 May 1969), Art 31(3)(b) on taking into account ‘any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty’.

121. Wildhaber, above n 119, 223. For a discussion of evolutive interpretation see also Letsas, G A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 74 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122. Eg extraterritorially, see Al-Skeini v UK, App No 55721/07 (ECHR, 7 July 2011).

123. Merrills, above n 117, pp 252 and 17.

124. Wildhaber, above n 119, 230.

125. Thus, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties applies to its interpretation, as confirmed in Loizidou v Turkey, App No 15318/89 (ECHR, 18 December 1996), para 43, discussing, inter alia, Golder v the United Kingdom, para 29.

126. Merrills, above n 117, pp 203-205. The ECHR explicitly mentions international law in Art 7, Art 15, Art 35 and Art 1 Protocol I, and the Court's case law has clarified that ‘the Convention should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it forms part’, as noted in Al-Adsani v UK [GC], App No 35763/97 (ECHR, 21 November 2001) para 55, discussed in Wildhaber, above n 117, 220. The same phrase is repeated elsewhere, eg Mand Others v Italy and Bulgaria, App No 40020/03 (ECHR, 31 July 2012); Catan and Others v Moldova and Russia, App Nos 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06 (ECHR, 19 October 2012). The Court routinely considers PIL within the applicable legal framework in deciding cases, under the heading ‘Relevant international law’ (eg Sørensen and Rasmussen v Denmark, App Nos 52562/99 and 52620/99 (ECHR, 11 January 2006)), or jointly under the heading of ‘Relevant comparative and international law’ (eg Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK, App No 8139/09 (ECHR, 17 January 2012)) and references ICJ jurisprudence (eg Cyprus v Turkey, 85-86). The ECtHR has also considered customary law provisions as part of applicable PIL eg Cudak v Lithuania, App No 15869/02 (ECHR, 23 March 2010) para 66.

127. Merrills, above n 117, pp 203 and 218-226.

128. Wildhaber, above n 119, 220 and 231. See also, broadly, Forowicz, M, The Reception of International Law in the European Court of Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, discussed in S McInerney-Lankford ‘Fragmentation of International Law Redux: The Case of Strasbourg’ (2012) 32(3) OJLS 609.

129. Al-Adsani v UK in Wildhaber, above n 119, 225.

130. Ireland v UK, App No 5310/71 (ECHR, 18 January 1978), para 239.

131. Evidenced in case-law, eg Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey [GC], App Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99 (ECHR, 4 February 2005) para 100; Loizidou v Turkey; Al-Adsani v UK, para 55; Fogarty v UK; Cudak v Lithuania; Sabeh El Leyl v France, App No 34869/05 (ECHR, 29 June 2011). The Court has questioned ‘the fact that at the heart of any treaty-based agreement there could only be an agreement’, as ‘the integrity and unity of the Convention system’ go ‘beyond the consent-and sovereignty-oriented rules of general international law’, as noted in Wildhaber, above n 119, 229, discussing Belilos v Switzerland, App No 10328/83 (ECHR, 29 April 1988) and Loizidou v Turkey.

132. Previous case law has indicated that interpretations must be consistent with ‘the general spirit of the Convention, an instrument designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a democratic society’. See eg Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey para 101, citing Soering v UK, para 87, and, mutatis mutandis, Klass v Germany, para 34.

133. In general on CIL and human rights through the UN, see inter alia RB Lillich ‘The growing importance of customary international human rights law’ (1995) 25 GaJICL 1; IR Gunning ‘Modernizing customary international law: the challenge of human rights’ (1990) 31 VaJIL 211.

134. B Simma and P Alston ‘The sources of human rights: custom, jus cogens and general principles’ (1988-1989) 12 Aus Y BIL 82, 100.

135. Notably, Meron, above n 109, 87, expresses scepticism towards the ‘attempt to endow customary law status instantly upon norms approved by consensus or near-consensus at international law conferences’ (such as UN human rights conferences); and more recently, warnings against ‘a vague and easily manipulable consensus criterion’ have been highlighted by JL Goldsmith and EA Posner ‘A theory of customary international law’ (1998) The Chicago Working Paper Series in Law and Economics (Second Series), available at: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/workingpapers.html (accessed 3 January 2016), 73; And also Goldsmith, JL and Posner, EA, The Limits of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

136. Meron, above n 109, 93.

137. Arajarvi, above n 110, 182.

138. Meron, above n 109, 80, 89.

139. Ibid, 100.

140. See Art 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute, and inter alia Schlesinger, RB ‘Research on the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations’ (1957) 51 AJIL 734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; FTF Jalet ‘The quest for the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations - a study’ (1962) 10 UCLA L Rev 1041; W Friedmann ‘The uses of “general principles” in the development of international law’ (1963) 57 AJIL 279; Cheng, B, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

141. Naqvi, above n 10, 268.

142. Credited to Belgian law professor and colonial apologist Descamps at the 1899 Hague Peace Conference, reported in Koskenniemi, M, The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

143. Discussed inter alia in van Hoof, GJH, Rethinking the Sources of International Law (Deventer, Kluwer Law, 1983), pp 131–151 Google Scholar.

144. MC Bassiouni ‘A functional approach to “general principles of international law”’ (1990) 11 Mich. JInt'lL 768, 769.

145. Simma and Alston, above n 134, 102.

146. Ibid, 104, 100-102.

147. Bassiouni, above n 144, 772-773.

148. Ibid, 811, 813-814.

149. Art 7(2) and in Art 1, Protocol I.

150. Merrills, above n 117, p 177.

151. Ibid, p 200.

152. Koskenniemi, M ‘General principles: reflexions on constructivist thinking in international law’ in Koskenniemi, M (ed) Sources of international law (Dartmouth, Ashgate, 2000), p 398 Google Scholar.

153. Joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges Ziemele, De Gaetano, Laffranque and Keller, Janowiec and others v Russia [GC] App Nos 55508/07 and 29520/09 (ECHR, 21 October 2013), para 9; Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v Poland, App No 7511/13 (ECHR, 24 July 2014 - application to the Grand Chamber pending), para 489.

154. Reportofthe Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth (2013), above n 19, at 19 andfn [16]. In relation to the African Commission, the right to the truth is an aspect of the right to an effective remedy to a violation of the African Charter.

155. Ibid 18, citing as a sample: UNGA ‘Report of the Human Rights Committee’, 34th session (1979) Doc A/33/40, paras 246, 345. On the IACHR references to the ECHR jurisprudence: Velásquez Rodríguez v Honduras, para 28; Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion (19 January 1984) OC-4/84 (Ser A) No 4, para 56. See also GL Neuman ‘Import, Export, and Regional Consent in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ (2008) 19(1) EJIL 101, 106-107. Also, Merrills, above n117, p20.

156. See Austin, JL How to do things with words (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962)Google Scholar

157. Ibid, p 12