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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

V<br />

WOMEN’S ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE 301<br />

situation of conflict or impunity. 752 The European Court<br />

has held that remedies where the granting of relief is<br />

purely discretionary need not be exhausted. 753<br />

<br />

<br />

If the process <strong>to</strong> obtain or access <strong>to</strong> the remedy is<br />

unreasonably prolonged. 754<br />

If the victim does not have access <strong>to</strong> the remedy due<br />

<strong>to</strong> a lack of legal representation, whether because of the<br />

unavailability of legal aid, threat of reprisals, or<br />

restrictions on access <strong>to</strong> lawyers in detention. This<br />

doctrine has been developed by the European Court of<br />

752<br />

See, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 937, paras.<br />

69-77; Isayeva, Vusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, Applications nos.<br />

57947/00-57948/00-57949/00, Judgment of 24 February 2005, paras.<br />

143-153; A.B. v. the Netherlands, ECtHR, Application No. 37328/97,<br />

Judgment of 29 January 2002, paras. 63-74; Velasquez Rodriguez v.<br />

Honduras, IACtHR, op. cit., fn. 799, para. 68; and, IHRDA v. Republic<br />

of Angola, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, para. 39, where the swift<br />

execution of the expulsion which did not even allow the applicant <strong>to</strong><br />

gather their belonging was enough evidence of the impossibility <strong>to</strong><br />

seize and exhaust domestic remedies. See also, ZLHR and IHRD v.<br />

Zimbabwe, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 395, para. 56. See also, Article 46<br />

ACHR, and Article 31, IACHR Rules of Procedure.<br />

753<br />

Buckley v. United Kingdom, ECommHR, Application No. 20348/92,<br />

Admissibility decision, 3 March 1994.<br />

754<br />

See, Zundel v. Canada, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 503, para. 6.3; Z.U.B.S.<br />

v. Australia, CERD, Communication No. 6/1995, Views of 25 January<br />

2000, para. 6.4; Vélez Loor v. Panama, IACHR, op. cit., fn. 1304,<br />

para. 36; Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, IACtHR, op. cit., fn. 799,<br />

para. 93; Tanli v. Turkey, ECommHR, Plenary, Application No.<br />

26129/95, Admissibility Decision, 5 March 1996. See also, Articles 2<br />

and 5.2(b) OP-ICCPR; Article 3.1 OP-ICESCR; Article 22.5(b) CAT;<br />

Rule 113(e), CAT Rules of Procedure; Article 14.7(a) ICERD; Rule<br />

91(e), CERD Rules of Procedure; Article 4.1 OP-CEDAW; Article<br />

77.3(b) ICRMW; Article 7(e) OP-CRC-CP; Rule 16, CRC Rules of<br />

Procedure; Article 2(d) OP-CRPD; Article 31.2(d) CED; Article 46<br />

ACHR; Article 31, IACHR Rules of Procedure; and Article 56.5 ACHPR.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!