CYIL 2015

VICTIMS’ RIGHT TO REPARATION UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW… as belonging to that group of entities to which the obligation of reparation under the responsibility regimen of international organisations is owed. In principle nothing speaks against relying on the conclusion made in the first part of this contribution in this regard. Taking into consideration the object and purpose of human rights norms and their character, as well as the general trend of strengthening the victims’ position in current international law, the question has to be answered in the affirmative. Support for this argument provides a view into the Commentary to the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organisations (DARIO). Article 31 para. 1 DARIO reiterates the Chorzów Factory principle by stating that “The responsible international organization is under an obligation to make full reparation for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act.” Article 33 DARIO, following the wording of Article 33 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States , limits the personal scope of entities towards which the responsibility consequences regulated in Part III DARIO are owed to States, other international organisations and the international community as a whole. Important is the second paragraph of Article 33, which states that this limitation does not mean that obligations entailed by an internationally wrongful act do not arise towards persons or entities other than States and/or international organisations. It simply means that DARIO does not regulate this issue. The ILC explained this in the Commentary to DARIO by giving specific examples: “one significant area in which rights accrue to persons other than States or organizations is that of breaches by international organizations of their obligations under international law concerning employment. Another area is that of breaches committed by peacekeeping forces and affecting individuals. The consequences of these breaches with regard to individuals, as stated in paragraph (1), are not covered by the present draft articles. ” 82 The view that international organisations are under the obligation to provide reparation and that individuals enjoy the corresponding right has been recognized also by the ILA in the context of reparation for victims of armed conflicts. Article 5 of the ILA Resolution 2/2010 includes international organisations explicitly as a “responsible party”, and Article 6 (Right to Reparation) stipulates that “ Victims of armed conflict have a right to reparation from the responsible parties. ” 83 Of course, the resolution concerns rights of victims of armed conflict; nevertheless, taking into account the protection of individuals as a basic common denominator of international human rights and international humanitarian law, there is no reason why international organisations should not be regarded as an international entity with the duty to provide reparation also in the context of human rights. Moreover, in the area of human rights the possibility for an individual to obtain reparation in 82 ILC, Commentary to Article 33, Draft articles on the responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries, adopted by the International Law Commission at its sixty-third session, in 2011, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission’s report covering the work of that session (A/66/10), para. 5. 83 International Law Association, Resolution No. 2/2010, Reparation for Victims of Armed Conflict.

181