Recalde-Vela 183 Under the “traditional approach”, through diplomatic protection, stateless victims of wrongful acts were ‘left entirely without any recourse’,5 as under the traditional approach any wrongful act committed against an individual was a wrongful act committed against the individual’s state.6 This gave rise to an obligation of the harmed individual’s state to “vindicate” both itself and its citizen by demanding that the offending state redress the harm. This meant that victims of internationally wrongful acts depended on their state of nationality to file claims for reparations on their behalf against the state which harmed them,7 normally through diplomatic channels (diplomatic protection). Under this practice, nationality is a key element of access to redress for harm committed by a state. Therefore, the application of the traditional approach left stateless victims of wrongful acts ‘entirely without any recourse’.8 While today international law continues to be state-oriented to a large extent, access to redress for internationally wrongful acts9 is becoming less state-dependent.10 This is evident particularly when the victims of said internationally wrongful acts are individuals and not states or (international) entities. Today, there is a clear and well-established legal basis under international law which provides for the obligation to provide reparations to be given to victims affected by internationally wrongful acts. In the area of international human rights law, there is an extensive body of jurisprudence from regional human rights courts11 where a state is found guilty of committing human rights violations and is subsequently ordered to make reparations to the victims of said violations. This growing body of jurisprudence has contributed to shaping approaches to redress in the general field of international human rights law. Redress is also available for violations of international criminal law, especially before a relatively new international organism: The International Criminal Court, which has a victims’ mandate and places a greater emphasis on redress, in addition to punishing perpetrators. These developments have facilitated access to redress for stateless persons, who under the traditional approach were excluded from obtaining redress due to their lack of nationality. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 C Evans, The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (1st, Cambridge University Press, 2012), at 92–93. P De Greiff (ed.), The Handbook of Reparations (1st, Oxford University Press, 2006), at 482. EC Gillard, ‘Reparation for violations of International Humanitarian Law’ (2003) 85(851) International Review of the Red Cross 529. C Evans, The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (1st, Cambridge University Press, 2012), at 92–93. For the purposes of this article, internationally wrongful acts will be understood as violations of human rights law (codified in international human rights instruments), international crimes (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, as codified under the Rome Statute and other instruments of international criminal law), and any other gross violation of human rights and international humanitarian law as established in the van Boven/Bassiouni principles; see n21 below. According to Mapp, for instance, the idea that states are the sole subjects of international law is “not absolute”. See W Mapp, The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: The First Ten Years, 1981–1991: An Assessment of the Tribunal’s Jurisprudence and Its Contribution to International Arbitration (Manchester University Press, 1993), at 262. It should be emphasized out that the IACtHR does not have jurisdiction over ‘crimes’, it has jurisdiction over human rights violations. Including violations to the right to life (article 4), the right to humane treatment (article 5), right to a fair trial (article 8), right to judicial protection. It has heard multiple cases on human rights violations that fall within the scope of ‘gross violations’ of human rights including torture, such as Garcia Lucero et al. v. Chile, Garcia Cruz and Sanchez Silvestre v. Mexico. It has heard multiple cases regarding massacres, including the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v Guatemala (IACtHR, 2009), Plan de Sánchez Massacre v Guatemala (IACtHR, 2004), Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador (IACtHR, 2012). It also has heard multiple cases on enforced disappearance, a common human rights violation across the region; its jurisprudence includes landmark cases Molina Theissen v Guatemala (IACtHR, 2004) and Velásquez-Rodríguez v Honduras (IACtHR, 1989). Extra-judicial killings are also common in the Court’s jurisprudence, including cases Cruz Sanchez v. Peru (2015) and Garcia Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador (2015). See for instance also Ticona Estrada et al. v Bolivia (Merits, Reparations and Costs) (IACtHR, 2008); Lysias Fleury et al. v Haiti (Merits and Reparations) (IACtHR, 2011); Fontevecchia and D’Amico v Argentina (Merits, Reparations and Costs) (IACtHR, 2011); Expelled Dominican and Haitian People v the Dominican Republic (Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs) (IACtHR, 2014); C ­ arpio Nicolle et al. Guatemala (IACtHR, 2004); De La Cruz Flores v Peru (IACtHR, 2004); Aloeboetoe v Suriname (IACtHR, 1993); among others. Jurisprudence on reparations at the European Court of Human Rights includes Papamichalopoulos and others v Greece (ECtHR, 1993); Brumarescu v Romania (ECtHR, 1997); Selcuk and Asker v. Turkey (ECtHR, 1998); Jamil v France (ECtHR, 1995); the ECtHR is more restrained when it comes to the reparatory measures it orders. See also I Nifosi-Sutton, ‘The Power of the European Court of Human Rights to Order Specific Non-Monetary Relief: a Critical Appraisal from a Right to Health Perspective’ (2010) 23 HHRJ; T Antkowiak, ‘Remedial Approaches to Human Rights Violations: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights and Beyond’ (2008) Columbia Journal of Transitional Law; D Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2nd, Oxford University Press, 2005); E Lambert Abdelgawad, The execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (2008) Human rights files, No. 19. The African Court on Human and People’ rights is a relatively new mechanism; the Court has issued rulings on reparations, in the cases of App. No. 013/2011 – Abdoulaye Nikiema, Ernest Zongo, Blaise Ilboudo & Burkinabe Human and Peoples’ Rights Movement v Burkina Faso ‘Ruling on Reparations’ (ACtHPR, 2015); App. No. 009/2015 – Lucien Ikili Rashidi v. United Republic of Tanzania ‘­Judgment (Merits and reparations)’ (ACtHPR, 2019). For more on the court’s approach to reparations see GJ Naldi, ‘Reparations in the Practice of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ (2004) 14(3) Leiden Journal of International Law 681. See also REDRESS, ‘Reaching for Justice: The Right to Reparation in the African Human Rights System’ (2013) available at <https://redress.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/1310reaching-for-justicefinal.pdf> accessed April 9th, 2019.