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.

302 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 12<br />

Human Rights, 755 the Inter-American Court of Human<br />

Rights 756 and the African Commission on Human and<br />

Peoples’ Rights. 757 The ACHPR has also found a remedy<br />

<strong>to</strong> be inaccessible for a group of Sierra Leonean<br />

refugees expelled by Guinea because they would have<br />

been in “constant danger of reprisals and punishment”,<br />

they constituted an “impractical number of potential<br />

plaintiffs” for the capacity of the judicial system, and the<br />

exhaustion of Guinean remedies would have required<br />

them <strong>to</strong> return <strong>to</strong> a country where they suffered<br />

persecution. 758<br />

Whenever there are doubts as <strong>to</strong> the effectiveness,<br />

adequateness, impartiality or independence of a remedy, “mere<br />

doubts about the effectiveness of local remedies or the<br />

prospect of financial costs involved” 759 do not absolve the<br />

applicant from pursuing them. However, “where an applicant is<br />

advised by counsel that an appeal offers no prospects of<br />

755<br />

Airey v. Ireland, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 1312; Reed v. United Kingdom,<br />

ECommHR, Plenary, Application No. 7630/76, Admissibility Decision, 6<br />

December 1979; Öcalan v. Turkey, ECtHR, GC, op. cit., fn. 47.<br />

756<br />

See, Exceptions <strong>to</strong> the exhaustion of domestic remedies, IACtHR,<br />

Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, 10 August 1990, paras. 30-35. See also,<br />

Article 46 ACHR, and Article 31, IACHR Rules of Procedure.<br />

757<br />

Dr. Curtis Francis Doebbler v. Sudan, ACommHPR, Communication<br />

No. 235/2000, 46 th Ordinary Session, 11-25 November 2009, paras.<br />

116-117.<br />

758<br />

AIHRD v. Republic of Guinea, ACommHPR, op. cit., fn. 578, paras.<br />

32-36.<br />

759<br />

A v. Australia, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 656, para. 6.4; Na v. United<br />

Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, para. 89; see, inter alia, Pellegrini<br />

v. Italy, ECtHR, Application No. 77363/01, Admissibility Decision, 26<br />

May 2005; MPP Golub v. Ukraine, ECtHR, Application No. 6778/05,<br />

Admissibility decision of 18 Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2005; and Milosevic v. the<br />

Netherlands, ECtHR, Application No. 77631/01, Admissibility decision<br />

of 19 March 2002.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!