31.
The Respondent State maintains that the enforcement of judgments lies outside
the
jurisdiction
international
of international
human
courts
and
further
asserts
rights courts, just as those of the
that judgments
of
International Court of
Justice; are only of a declaratory nature. It adds that States are merely required
to produce the results required by these judgments and are free to choose the
necessary means and measures in their domestic legal systems to comply with
the courts’ orders. Accordingly, international courts do not have the authority to
annul or repeal State laws that do not comply with the international instruments
these courts are mandated to protect.
32.
For the Respondent State, that is exactly what would happen if the Court were to
order a State not to implement a law as long as that law has not been amended
in the way prescribed by a previous judgment.
33.
With
regard
Respondent
to the African
State
system
for the protection
refers to a division of competences
of human
between
rights,
the
the Member
States and the Court. In its view, the Protocol mandated the Assembly of Heads
of State and Government (hereinafter referred to as “the Assembly”) to monitor
the execution by Member States of the judgments of the Court in accordance with
Article 29(2) and Article 31 of the Protocol.
34.
For the Respondent State, it therefore follows that the Court does not have the
jurisdiction to monitor the execution
of its judgments.
The execution
or non-
execution of the Court’s judgments does not constitute a human right enshrined
in the Charter or any other relevant human
rights instrument that the Court is
entitled to apply under Article 3 of the Protocol.
35.
The Respondent State also claims that this provision must be read together with
Article 27(1) of the Protocol. According to the Respondent State, these provisions
of the Protocol establish a direct relationship between the decision of the Court
and a “violation of a human or peoples’ right”. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the
Court cannot be established beyond a violation of human rights.
10