NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

case derived from Communication No. 1186/2003, submitted by Dorothy Kakem Titiahonjo, the Human Rights Committee held that “…In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including compensation and institution of criminal proceedings…”. 1313 This decision was given on the basis of the general customary law because the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not contain any specific provision on compensation. 1314 When any of the aforementioned committees decides that the facts before it disclose that a state party violated the complainant’s rights under the relevant treaty, it invites the state to supply information, within a set time frame, about the steps it has taken to give effect to its findings and recommendations. 1315 It nevertheless does not impose any direct sanctions for non-compliance with the decision in question. Very often, the formulations used in the recommendations are very vague, lacking any exact actions to be taken or a specific deadline for execution. Moreover, there is no universal enforcement body at the United Nations. Consequently, they cannot be considered efficient. Mechanisms established on the basis of an agreement between states envisaging special compensatorymechanisms for a particular situation showed to be more effective. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IUSCT’) was established on 19 January 1981 by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America. 1316 The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal came into existence as one of the measures taken to resolve the crisis in relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America arising out of the November 1979 hostage crisis at the United States Embassy in Tehran, and the subsequent freezing of Iranian assets by the United States. The government of the Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria served as an intermediary in the search of a mutually acceptable solution in this situation. A security account of one billion U.S. dollars exists specifically to guarantee payment of awards in favour of the claimants. 1317 The IUSCT faced almost 4,000 claims, encompassing issues of expropriation, contracts, and many other questions of commercial and public international law. 1318 For instance, on 2 July 2014, the IUSCT issued Award No 602 in Cases A15 (IV) and A24. It awarded to Iran an amount on specific litigation expenses totaling USD 70,144.39. 1319 1313 Communication No. 1186/2003, Human Rights Committee.Ninety-first session 15 October to 2 November 2007. CCPR/C/91/D/1186/2003, 13 November 2007. 1314 FLÍDROVÁ, E. Compensation of victims under international agreements on human rights. In ŠTURMA, Pavel, Compensation in international law . Studies in International Law. No. 5 (28). Prague: Charles University in Prague, 2013, p. 111. 1315 More detailed information of the activities of the human rights bodies of the UNO is available from URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 1316 Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. Official web pages URL: accessed 22 June 2015. 1317 BOCKSTIEGEL, K. Applying the UNCITRAL Rules: The Experience of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, 4 Int‘l Tax & Bus. Law. 266 (1986), p. 266. 1318 See URL: accessed 20 July 2015. 1319 See URL: accessed 20 July 2015.

258