Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorO'Rourke, Maeve
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-22T11:06:22Z
dc.date.issued2019-03-28
dc.identifier.citationO’Rourke, Maeve. (2019). Prolonged Impunity as a Continuing Situation of Torture or Ill-Treatment? Applying a Dignity Lens to So-Called ‘Historical’ Cases. Netherlands International Law Review, 66(1), 101-141. doi: 10.1007/s40802-019-00127-5en_IE
dc.identifier.issn1741-6191
dc.identifier.issn0165-070X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10379/15282
dc.description.abstractAround the world many survivors of so-called historical abuses persist in seeking truth and justice decades after rights violations have been perpetrated. Recognising that prolonged impunity may cause victims suffering to intensify over time, the United Nations Committee Against Torture stated in its General Comment No. 3 that victims of torture or ill-treatment must be enabled to access comprehensive redress regardless of when the violation occurred. However, it seems far from settled in international human rights law that there is a substantive right to redress for torture or ill-treatment regardless of when in the past the violation occurred. In cases before several international human rights treaty bodies (and domestic courts), claims concerning historical rights violations have been rejected on the basis that the adjudicating body does not have temporal jurisdiction or, if temporal jurisdiction is not in issue, because the claimant is guilty of delay . This article proposes that a focus on the dignity of survivors could enable the international human rights treaty bodies and other actors to recognise the existence of a continuing situation of torture or ill-treatment where impunity for the initial substantive violation is prolonged. Such an understanding could provide the doctrinal basis for recognising a substantive right to redress for torture or ill-treatment even where the initial torture or ill-treatment occurred prior to the coming into force of the relevant treaty obligation, and indefinitely. The article illustrates its arguments using the case study of impunity for the systematic abuse of girls and women in Ireland s Magdalene Laundries.en_IE
dc.formatapplication/pdfen_IE
dc.language.isoenen_IE
dc.publisherSpringer and T.M.C Asser Pressen_IE
dc.relation.ispartofNetherlands International Law Reviewen
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ie/
dc.subjectDignityen_IE
dc.subjectReparationen_IE
dc.subjectRedressen_IE
dc.subjectContinuing violationsen_IE
dc.subjectTortureen_IE
dc.subjectHistorical abuseen_IE
dc.titleProlonged impunity as a continuing situation of torture or ill-treatment? Applying a dignity lens to so-called historical casesen_IE
dc.typeArticleen_IE
dc.date.updated2019-07-16T15:35:07Z
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s40802-019-00127-5
dc.local.publishedsourcehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-019-00127-5en_IE
dc.description.peer-reviewedpeer-reviewed
dc.description.embargo2020-03-28
dc.internal.rssid16135123
dc.local.contactMaeve O'Rourke. Email: maeve.orourke@nuigalway.ie
dc.local.copyrightcheckedYes
dc.local.versionACCEPTED
nui.item.downloads304


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland