Compensating human dignity: “just satisfaction” and integral reparation approaches : a comparative analysis between the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court Human Rights

Abstract

Reparations are intimately related to the effectiveness of the Regional Human Rights Protection System. For the adequate protection of human dignity, it is crucial that every system provides the right to reparation within its conventions. In response to the lack of an integral system for reparation, the United Nations created the “Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law” as a standard guide to the international human rights law on reparations. However, the jurisprudence’s practices and developments in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights, have made notable differences in recognition of the right to reparations. The Inter-American System has opted to establish and grant an integral reparation, providing a broader catalogue of measures and remedies that states must adopt in specific cases for proper redress. While the European System has differed substantially, and the right to reparation has been based on the principle of subsidiarity, limiting its action, letting the states decide the means and the form in which they will compensate the victim. Nevertheless, the essential objective of reparation is to restore human dignity, which is recognized as the guiding principle of human rights by international law and the regional systems. Therefore, a theoretical and practical comparison between both systems is made to visualize the most effective way to protect and human dignity.