Integrated Human Rights in Practice
Show Less

Integrated Human Rights in Practice

Rewriting Human Rights Decisions

Edited by Eva Brems and Ellen Desmet

This book aims to introduce concrete and innovative proposals for a holistic approach to supranational human rights justice through a hands-on legal exercise: the rewriting of decisions of supranational human rights monitoring bodies. The contributing scholars have thus redrafted crucial passages of landmark human rights judgments and decisions, ‘as if human rights law were really one’, borrowing or taking inspiration from developments and interpretations throughout the whole multi-layered human rights protection system. In addition to the rewriting exercise, the contributors have outlined the methodology and/or theoretical framework that guided their approaches and explain how human rights monitoring bodies may adopt an integrated approach to human rights law.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 4: Use of comparative authority in the drafting of judgments of a new regional human rights court: African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Zongo v Burkina Faso

Magnus Killander


For a new regional human rights court it is particularly important to engage with comparative authority in its judgments. This chapter explores the merits judgment of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Zongo v Burkina Faso. It illustrates how the Court in this case failed to engage with relevant comparative material from the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the United Nations, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Reference to such material is important to strengthen the reasoning of the judgments of the Court and thereby enhancing their legitimacy. Fortunately the engagement with comparative material is much better in most of the other judgments so far delivered by the Court. The chapter explores how the Court’s use of comparative material in Zongo could have enhanced the reasoning in relation to the two merits issues of the judgment, namely due diligence in investigation of alleged extrajudicial executions and the chilling effect on the media arising from extrajudicial executions of journalists.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.