(~C~'t' ACH PR ;' 1 African Commission on Human Rights our Collective Responsibility Human and Peoples' Rights compensatiorr". She adds that while in the present owed to her by the Respondent case she focuses on the payment State, it is important to emphasize of compensation that in the case of serious violations such as those committed in the present case, reparations should also involve restitution, measures and guarantees of non-repetition such as changes in law and practices". argues that according to international jurisprudence, of satisfaction 4. The Complainant a human rights violation, se48. per She further reparation constitutes compensation but fails to provide adequate indicates that in the jurisprudence a "procedural" for ill-treatment, or provides of the European where a State is responsible this failure will constitute of the ECtHR, failure compensation a "procedural" Convention on Human a violation to provide at a level below what it considers violation for adequate if a State fails to provide violation of the relevant law. Accordingly, States may be found to have committed other ill-treatment) reparation, rehabilitation, of Article 3 (prohibition appropriate, of torture and Rights49 . In the same vein, the IACtHR found that the State party was in violation of the right to judicial protection, and of the general obligation in Article 1(1) to respect and ensure rights50 . 5. The Complainant compensation, alleges that the Respondent by not enforcing the judgment State has failed to provide an effective remedy, of its own court awarding compensation. including Alleged Violation of the Right to Property under Article 14 of the African Charter 6. The Complainant states that the jurisprudence of a State to pay a compensation right to property protected of the African Commission award made in a court judgment has established constitutes that the failure in itself a violation of the by Article 14 of the African Charter. She explains that in Bissangou v. Congo, ibid; see, for example, ECtHR, Kopylov v. Russia (2010), Appl. No. 3933/04, 29 July 2010, para. 130 (in the case of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, compensation for the material and moral damage arising from the violation must in principle be available within the range of remedies); see, for further information, UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation, para. 20; UN Convention against Torture, Article 14; Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Article 9. 47 See, for example, UN Basic Pri.nciples and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation; CAT, General Comment No.3, paras. 2, 6-18 48 Human Rights Committee, Horvath v. Australia, Comm. No. 1885/2009, CCPR/C/1l0/D/1885/2009, 27 March 2014, paras. 8.5 and 8.8. Ibid, para 8.6. 49 See, for example, ECtHR, Kopylov v. Russia (2010), App!. No. 3933/04, 29 July 2010, paras. 143-150. 50 IACtHR, Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, Series C No. 144, Judgment (Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs) of 7 February 2006, para. 220. Ibid, para. 278; IACHR, Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A S,!ud_yof the Rules Established by the Inter-American System of Human Rights, Chapter V: The Substance of the Right t -t1~~tiveI'J~~dJctional Protection against Violations of Social Rights, 7 September 2007, para. 322. :\"O\_'(if\RI.,l,T ,(.~ ,0 xc. u~\ CAT, General Comment No.3, ara. 38. .~i' <:> (~ 46 ---'-'---- -- -- ---. ._ u l '1S ~ The African Commission on Human ~~<dPe ple~(Rr~ts 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, KVmbo Nort~ Di"strid't, West GQi1st R gion ~nibia. Phone: (220) 230 436~~x:~ ) 44l...~ Email: aU-banjUI@·a(f.i..ca+j.l~ httPS":I1;(.Chpr.~j:>r),juP& <, c ~:. i5 if Q{:} tfJ rfI~X.....X.0q_"v ' -,~::::"E E1o\: s' Page 20 on 32 CI.