New remedial responses in the practice of regional human rights courts: Purposes beyond compensation

Abstract

In theory, remedies ordered by regional human rights courts aim at the full reparation of the consequences of a human rights violation (restitutio in integrum). In spite of this premise, both the European and the Inter-American Courts of Human Rights have traditionally focused on the provision of pecuniary and non-pecuniary remedies for repairing actual damage directly caused by said violations. On the few occasions where the courts have been asked to grant remedies beyond a compensatory aim, they have refused to do so, declaring that these types of remedies do not fall within their competence. This article takes issue with these declarations and, through an analysis of selected case law, demonstrates that the practice of both regional courts has changed. They, each in their own way, have started to use remedial measures as an instrument that is not solely directed at compensation, but also at cessation, deterrence, and policy-making.