08.03.2016 Views

Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

Universal-Womens-accesss-to-justice-Publications-Practitioners-Guide-Series-2016-ENG

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

V<br />

WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 279<br />

The basic principle of international law is that an international<br />

mechanism has jurisdiction <strong>to</strong> adjudicate on alleged violations<br />

of international law that occurred after the obligation <strong>to</strong> respect<br />

the obligation entered in<strong>to</strong> force for the State concerned. 683<br />

This principle applies equally <strong>to</strong> international human rights<br />

mechanisms, so that they have jurisdiction only over facts or<br />

acts that arose only after the entry in<strong>to</strong> force of the relevant<br />

treaty for the State Party. 684<br />

However, the principle applies differently <strong>to</strong> different situations:<br />

<br />

Instantaneous fact/act: the simplest situation occurs<br />

when the fact or act <strong>to</strong> be contested is an instantaneous<br />

one. In this case, it suffices <strong>to</strong> check whether the act<br />

occurred before or after the entry in<strong>to</strong> force of the<br />

relevant treaty; 685<br />

Continuous fact/act: when the breach of the<br />

obligation has a continuing character, then the wrongful<br />

fact or act continues until the situation of violation is<br />

ended. Examples include enforced disappearances or<br />

arbitrary detentions, when the person continues <strong>to</strong> be<br />

disappeared (his whereabouts continue <strong>to</strong> be unknown)<br />

or detained even after the entry in<strong>to</strong> force of the treaty,<br />

683<br />

See, Article 13, ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility. See, inter<br />

alia, Island of Palmas (Netherlands/USA), UNRIAA, vol. II (Sales No.<br />

1949.V.1), p. 829, at p. 845 (1928); Affaire des navires Cape Horn<br />

Pigeon, James Hamil<strong>to</strong>n Lewis, C.H. White et Kate and Anna, UNRIAA,<br />

vol. IX (Sales No. 59.V.5), p. 66, at p. 69 (1902). See also, Northern<br />

Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), ICJ, Preliminary<br />

Objections, 2 December 1963, ICJ Reports 1963, p. 15, at p. 35;<br />

Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), ICJ,<br />

Preliminary Objections, 26 June 1992, ICJ Reports 1992, p. 240, at<br />

pp. 253-255, paras. 31-36.<br />

684<br />

See, X v. Germany, ECommHR, Application No. 1151/61, Recuil<br />

des decisions, p. 119 (1961).<br />

685<br />

See, Article 14.1, ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!