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.

312 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 12<br />

Human Rights Committee 796 and the Committee against<br />

Torture. 797 Given the uniformity of the jurisprudence on this<br />

issue, other bodies such as the CESCR, CERD and CEDAW,<br />

which have the power <strong>to</strong> issue interim measures, are also likely<br />

<strong>to</strong> uphold their binding nature.<br />

The European Court has stated that, “whilst the formulation of<br />

the interim measure is one of the elements <strong>to</strong> be taken in<strong>to</strong><br />

account in the Court’s analysis of whether a State has complied<br />

with its obligations <strong>to</strong> follow interim measures, the Court must<br />

have regard not only <strong>to</strong> the letter but also <strong>to</strong> the spirit of the<br />

interim measure indicated … and, indeed, <strong>to</strong> its very<br />

purpose”. 798 In particular, the Court “cannot conceive … of<br />

allowing the authorities <strong>to</strong> circumvent an interim measure such<br />

as the one indicated in the present case by using another<br />

domestic procedure for the applicant’s removal <strong>to</strong> the country<br />

of destination or, even more alarmingly, by allowing him <strong>to</strong> be<br />

arbitrarily removed <strong>to</strong> that country in a manifestly unlawful<br />

manner.” 799<br />

Interim measures can be issued by the human rights body<br />

invested by the case from the moment of the communication of<br />

796<br />

Piandiong v. the Philippines, CCPR, Communication No. 869/1999,<br />

Views of 19 Oc<strong>to</strong>ber 2000, para. 5.1; Khalilov v. Tajikistan, CCPR,<br />

Communication No. 973/2001, Views of 13 April 2005, para. 4.1;<br />

Mansaraj and others v. Sierra Leone, CCPR, Communications nos.<br />

839/98, 840/98 and 841/98, Views of 16 July 2001, para. 5.1; Ashby<br />

v. Trinidad and Tobago, CCPR, Communication No. 580/1994, Views of<br />

19 April 2002, para. 4.11.<br />

797<br />

Brada v. France, CAT, op. cit., fn. 1355; Pelit v. Azerbaijan, CAT,<br />

op. cit., fn. 339; Dar v. Norway, CAT, op. cit., fn. 1309; Nuñez<br />

Chipana v. Venezuela, CAT, Communication no.110/1998, Views of 16<br />

December 1998, para. 8; T.P.S. v. Canada, CAT, Communication No.<br />

999/1997, Views of 4 September 2000, para. 15.6.<br />

798<br />

Savriddin Dzhurayev v. Russia, ECtHR, op. cit., fn 1359,para. 216.<br />

799<br />

Ibid., para. 217

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!