Monitoring the enforceability of orders and decisions of the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights
Joe VERHOEVEN - Professor (université Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas)
Linos-Alexandre SICILIANOS - Professor (université d'Athènes)
Hélène TIGROUDJA - Professor (université d'Artois)
Jean-Michel ARRIGHI - Professor (Secrétaire aux Affaires Juridiques de l'Organisation des Etats Américains)
Jean COMBACAU - Professor (université Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas)
In the absence of enforcement mechanisms, an international decision is deemed binding and non-enforceable, and execution is generally perceived as a "post-adjudicative" phase, belonging to the State's imperium. Study of the supervision of execution of the judgments and decisions of the European and Inter-american Courts of Human Rights reveals that these basic assumptions can be challenged. Whereas articles 46§2 of the ECHR and 65 of the ACHR provide for political modes of supervision of execution of the judgments and decisions of the European and Inter-american Courts of Human Rights, the practice has been completely different. It appears that the said supervision procedures are respectively quasi judicial and judicial and arise in the continuation of the trial. They are also contentious, given that the supervision authorities resolve disputes relating to the execution of judgments and decisions in accordance with due process principles. These procedures contribute to redefining the concept of trial in international law and illustrate that the notion of "post-adjudicative" phase does not exist. They also serve a double purpose. First, they allow control of two types of the State conduct, imposed and expected conduct. Illustrating that the State is not free in choosing its means of execution, such control aspires to achieve the effective execution of the judgment or judicial decision. The second purpose consists in following up on the resolutions and/or orders made in the course of supervision and which result in a res executiva. This res executiva, which would have emerged on the basis of clarifications made to res judicata and State conduct, in turn becomes the subject of the follow-up procedures. The consequences of such follow-up are twofold : from the procedural point of view, it creates new forms of appeals; from the substantive point of view, it formally constraints the State and achieves enforceability of judgments and decisions, guaranteed by the supervision authorities.