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

298 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 12
The domestic remedy must also be “effective”, i.e. able to
ascertain and redress the potential violation once this is
established. It must have the power to give binding orders that
reverse the situation of violation of the person’s rights or, if
that is impossible, provide adequate reparations. Reparation
includes, as appropriate, restitution, compensation,
rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. 740
Remedies whose decisions do not have binding force or whose
decisions or the implementation of them are at the discretion of
a political body are not deemed to be effective. 741 Furthermore,
particularly in cases of expulsions, the remedy must have the
power to suspend the situation of potential violation when the
lack of suspension would lead to irreparable harm/irreversible
effects for the applicant while the case is being considered. 742
740
Articles 19-23, UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a
Remedy and Reparation. See also, ICJ, Practitioners Guide No. 2, op.
cit., fn. 480, Chapters VI and VII.
741
See, Madafferi and Madafferi v. Australia, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 460,
para. 8.4; C. v. Australia, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 350, para. 7.3; L. Z. B. v.
Canada, CAT, Communication No. 304/2006, Views of 15 November
2007, para. 6.4; L. M. V. R. G. and M. A. B. C. v. Sweden, CAT,
Communication No. 64/1997, Views of 19 November 1997, para. 4.2;
Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 434,
para. 446. However, there must be evidence in practice that the
discretion of the political power does not lead to a predictable decision
according to legal standards. It must be evident that the discretion is
absolute. Otherwise, the applicant has a duty to try to exhaust also
that remedy. See, Danyal Shafiq v. Australia, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 687,
para. 6.5. See also, Article 22.5(b) CAT; Article 4.1 OP-CEDAW; Article
77.3(b) ICRMW.
742
See, Dar v. Norway, CAT, Communication No. 249/2004, Views of
16 May 2007, paras. 6.4-6.5; Tebourski v. France, CAT, op. cit., fn.
353, paras. 7.3-7.4; Na v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309,
para. 90; Jabari v. Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 40035/98,
Admissibility Decision, 28 October 1999; Bahaddar v. the Netherlands,
ECtHR, Application No. 25894/94, Judgment of 19 February 1998,
paras. 47 and 48; Soldatenko v. Ukraine, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 361,