513 / 532
497
COMPENSATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
other hand, the UN, EU or NATO are somewhat reluctant in reality to establish
stricter responsibility for damages due to peace operations.
Indemnification in the human rights domain
The part of the book dealing with human rights provided by Stanislava
Hýbnerová emphasizes that compensation for wrongful acts of the state against human
rights is of rather a regional nature. In this case the provision about compensation in
the text of conventions does not explicitly refer to indemnification. Therefore from the
practice of regional human rights courts it is evident that the right to idemnification
is given regularly on the basis of the discretion of the international quasi-judicial
or judicial organs rather than as an exercise of a specific substantial right of private
individual in the international agreement. In the case of general international public
law there exists no mechanism which can directly provide compensation for a breach
of an individual’s human rights. This is the result of the lacunae of positive law in
the general international law dealing with indemnification. A remark is also given to
the draft of the UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and
Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and
Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.
The topic researched by Eliška Flídrová in her chapter deals with the thesis
of whether it is possible to find explicit reference concerning indemnification in
selected international agreements on human rights and if these provisions explicitly
provide a private individual wronged with the right to compensation. Research is
provided for legal instruments such as the International Covenant for Civil and
Political Rights, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons
from Enforced Disappearance, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination or the Convention Against Torture.
Concluding remarks explain why international instruments pursue harmonization
of national legal orders by referring the state to ensure remedy to the individual.
Furthermore, answer is given in relation to the absence of a general international
human rights judicial organ and its substitution by selected quasi-judicial commissions
which may hear individual complaints. As is emphasized in the contribution, the
question is whether this sort of regime exercised by national law is effective enough
to provide indemnification for internationally wrongful state conduct.
The chapter provided by Alla Tymofeyeva and Tereza Blšťáková gives an account
of conditions, types and elements of just satisfaction derived from case law of the
European Court of Human Rights. Of additional value is an analysis of the controversial
difference in the judicature between enormous just satisfaction provided for pecuniary
loss and non pecuniary loss, such as in relation to legal persons in comparison to the
substantially lower satisfaction provided for natural persons as in the case of wrongful
state conduct interfering with the right to life. The authors further present methods
used for acquiring data from the judicature of the European Court of Human