NGOs under European Convention on Human Rights / Tymofeyeva

3.2 Compensation mechanism under the Convention

3.2.1 Main principles of just satisfaction under Article 41 To begin with, it must be noted that the compensation mechanism provided by the Convention is one of the most elaborated instruments in the international system of compensation in the world. 1355 The key of its success is the obligatory force of the Court’s judgments and the effective work of the Committee of Ministers, which plays the role of the CoE ‘bailiff ’. 1356 Human rights standards establish the obligation to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and to provide reparation to victims. 1357 The general principles of compensation under the Convention were described by the Court, inter alia , in the case of Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine : “193. In the context of the execution of judgments in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention, a judgment in which the Court finds a breach of the Convention imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation under that provision to put an end to the breach and to make reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach. If, on the other hand, national law does not allow – or allows only partial – reparation to be made for the consequences of the breach, Article 41 empowers the Court to afford the injured party such satisfaction as appears to it to be appropriate. It follows, inter alia , that a judgment in which the Court finds a violation of the Convention or its Protocols imposes on the respondent State a legal obligation not just to pay those concerned the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in its domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and make all feasible reparation for its consequences in such a way as to restore as far as possible the situation existing before the breach (see Maestri v. Italy [GC], no. 39748/98, § 47, ECHR 2004-I; Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 198, ECHR 2004-II; and Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, § 487, ECHR 2004-VII). 194. The Court reiterates that its judgments are essentially declaratory in nature and that, in general, it is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention, provided that such means are compatible with the conclusions set out in the Court’s judgment (see, among other authorities, Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, § 210, ECHR 2005-IV; Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy [GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, § 249, ECHR 2000-VIII; and Brumărescu v. Romania (just 1355 The comparison on the different mechanisms of compensation may be found in a grand study ŠTURMA, P., Compensation in international law . Studies in International Law. No. 5 (28). Prague: Charles University in Prague, 2013. As to mechanism of compensation under the Convention see TYMOFEYEVA, A., BLŠŤÁKOVÁ, T. Just satisfaction under the European Convention on Human Rights . In Compensation in international law . Studies in International Law. No. 5 (28). Prague: Charles University in Prague, 2013, p.119. 1356 LAMBERT-ABDELGAWAD, E. The execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights . Strasbourg : Council of Europe Pub., 2008, p. 36. 1357 VIAENE, L. and BREMS, E. Transitional justice and cultural contexts: learning from the universality debate. 28 Neth. Q. Hum. Rts. 199 2010, p. 202.

264