Human Rights Litigation before the Ethiopian Federal Courts
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2024-05
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
AAU
Abstract
In the wake of the reception of international human rights norms and standards into domestic legal order, it is incumbent up on states to ensure access to justice and remedy to victims of human rights violations. The FDRE constitution embraced international human rights law in various ways laying down the normative foundation for human rights implementation at the domestic level. It further guaranteed the right to access to justice and remedy in broader terms which is equally applicable to human rights provisions. Accordingly, access to adjudicatory forums with mandates is one of the defining elements of access to justice and remedy in the event of human rights violation.
Despite this, the practice in the federal courts does not match with the promises of the law and direct human rights court actions are almost non-existent. The practice again has been shaped by normative and practical factors. On the other hand, recent legislative reform measures added specificity and new features to the existing legal framework offering hope for increased protection of fundamental rights and freedoms through human rights adjudication.
Direct human rights court actions are now coming to courts of law and it is imperative to assess the factors which shaped and would probably continue to shape the practice of human rights litigation. The research through literature review; review of relevant laws, case analysis as well as through key informant interviews analyzed the framework in place and tested the practice in federal courts in demonstrating the practical status and the associated challenges in informing more measures needed to ground human rights adjudication well.
Description
Keywords
Human Rights, Human Rights Litigation, Adjudicatory forums, Standing Substantive Remedies, Legislative Expression, Activism.