Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-7tdvq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-09T21:16:33.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Quasi-judicial powers

from Part II - Commentary principle by principle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2014

Gauthier de Beco
Affiliation:
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Rachel Murray
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Get access

Summary

ADDITIONAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING THE STATUS OF COMMISSIONS WITH QUASI-JURISDICTIONAL COMPETENCE

A national institution may be authorized to hear and consider complaints and petitions concerning individual situations.Casesmay be brought before it by individuals, their representatives, third parties, non-governmental organizations, associations of trade unions or any other representative organizations. In such circumstances, and without prejudice to the principles stated above concerning the other powers of the commissions, the functions entrusted to them may be based on the following principles:

(a) Seeking an amicable settlement through conciliation or, within the limits prescribed by the law, through binding decisions or, where necessary, on the basis of confidentiality;

(b) Informing the party who filed the petition of his rights, in particular the remedies available to him, and promoting his access to them;

(c) Hearing any complaints or petitions or transmitting them to any other competent authority within the limits prescribed by the law;

(d) Making recommendations to the competent authorities, especially by proposing amendments or reforms of the laws, regulations and administrative practices, especially if they have created the difficulties encountered by the persons filing the petitions in order to assert their rights.

There is an inherent contradiction in this provision of the Paris Principles. On the one hand, it provides as an “add-on”, at the end of the Principles, powers which are not obligatory, unlike the other provisions. Indeed, complaints mechanisms are seen as one of the “least effective means of addressing human rights issues”.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carver, R., “National Human Rights Institutions in Central and Eastern Europe: The Ombudsman as Agent of International Law”, in Goodman, R. and Pegram, T., Human Rights, State Compliance and Social Change. Assessing National Human Rights Institutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012) 202.Google Scholar
UNDP, OHCHR, APF, Capacity Assessment for National Human Rights Institutions (UNDP, December 2012) 58
ICHRP and OHCHR, Assessing the Effectiveness of National Human Rights Institutions, 18
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 2, The role of independent national human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, CRC/GC/2002/2 (2002)
Lindholt, L. and Kerrigan, F., “General Aspects of Quasi-Judicial Competence of National Human Rights Institutions”, in Lindsnaes, B., Lindholt, L. and Yigen, K. (eds.), National Human Rights Institutions. Articles and Working Papers (Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Human Rights, 2000) 92–93Google Scholar
OHCHR, Professional Training Series No. 4, National Human Rights Institutions. History, Principles, Roles and Responsibilities (Geneva: UN, 2010) 81Google Scholar
Commonwealth Secretariat, National Human Rights Institutions. Best Practice (London: Commonwealth Secretariat, 2001) 19Google Scholar
International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP), Performance and Legitimacy: National Human Rights Institutions, 2nd edn (Versoix: ICHRP, 2004) 20–21Google Scholar
ICHRP, Performance and Legitimacy, 7
“[T]he mediator can close the case by reaching a kind of reconciliation between the parties (the citizen and the administration)”. Kessing, P.V., “Implementation of the Western Ombudsman Model in Countries in Democratic Transition”, in Lindsnaes, Lindholt and Yigen (eds.), 129
Equitas, , Equality for Women: A Handbook for NHRIs on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Montreal: Equitas International Centre for Human Rights Education 2008)Google Scholar
Pityana, B., “National Institutions at Work: The Case of the South African Human Rights Commission”, in Hossain, K., Besselink, L.F.M., Selassie, H.S.G., Volker, E. (eds.), Human Rights Commissions and Ombudsman Offices: National Experiences Throughout the World (Kluwer Law International, 2000) 632–33Google Scholar
Hatchard, J., The Inter-Relationship between Commonwealth Human Rights Commissions and other National Human Rights Institutions, British Council, July 2003Google Scholar
EU Fundamental Rights Agency, National Human Rights Institutions in the EU Member States (Strengthening the Fundamental Rights Architecture in the EU I) (Vienna: FRA, 2010) 39Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Quasi-judicial powers
  • Gauthier de Beco, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, Rachel Murray, University of Bristol
  • Book: A Commentary on the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions
  • Online publication: 05 November 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565325.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Quasi-judicial powers
  • Gauthier de Beco, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, Rachel Murray, University of Bristol
  • Book: A Commentary on the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions
  • Online publication: 05 November 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565325.011
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Quasi-judicial powers
  • Gauthier de Beco, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, Rachel Murray, University of Bristol
  • Book: A Commentary on the Paris Principles on National Human Rights Institutions
  • Online publication: 05 November 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565325.011
Available formats
×