CYIL Vol. 6, 2015

MARTIN FAIX CYIL 6 ȍ2015Ȏ case of a violation of one of its rights enjoys a wider recognition than in the area of international humanitarian law. The practice of liability systems established by international organisations provides further support for such a conclusion. Already in 1965 the UN Secretary General U Thant stated in the context of UN peace operations that: “It has always been the policy of the United Nations … to compensate individuals who have suffered damages for which the Organization is legally liable. This policy is in keeping with generally recognized legal principles…” 84 To sum up: If international organisations breach human rights, they bear responsibility for such violations, and, based on the Chorzów factory principle, which is applicable as a general principle of international law, they have also the duty to provide reparation. Hence international responsibility can be considered as the basis on which an obligation of international organisations under general international law to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations can be constructed. 4. Conclusions and final comments InOctober 2010, theUnitedNations StabilizationMission inHaiti (MINUSTAH) introduced a cholera epidemic that infected and killed a large number of Haitians. Subsequently some 5000 cholera victims decided to file claims against the United Nations before US American courts, as the United Nations refused to provide any redress, including reparation, mainly on grounds of its immunity under international law. This recent example materializes legal issues connected with the qualitative and quantitative evolution of international organisations, which has led to their increased ability to impact individuals and their legal position directly, including violations of human rights. For victims of such violations, their right to reparation becomes the central issue in obtaining justice in such situations. Taking into account the separate legal position of international organisations under international law, it is only consistent to ask whether victims have a right to reparation against international organisations. Under current international law, an individual right to reparation is well established against States. It is enshrined in several international human rights treaties and further refined by their control mechanisms, i.e. international and regional courts, mechanisms and treaty bodies. A right to reparation exists, however, also outside of conventional regimes, as it seems plausible to conclude that under international human rights law every primary right is inevitably connected with the secondary right to reparation as a corollary right. It would be incoherent and contradictory to assume the existence of substantial individual rights but to deny the existence of the corresponding right to reparation. Such a position would create a substantial gap in human rights protection. 84 Letter Dated 6 August 1965 From the Secretary-General Addressed to the Acting Permanent Representatvie of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (UN Doc. S/6597).

182