The humanity faced very tragic consequences of war and other cruel teratments from state practices in history. To minimise the human rights violations, international community started to construct human rights protection systems.

There is no a legal definition of ‘gross violations’ in international human rights treaties. As a descriptive term, ‘gross violations’ expresses the situations of human rights abuses that also be called ‘wide-spread’ or ‘large scale’.

The language about gross violation concept can be found in 1503 and 1235 resolutions of United Nations Economic and Social Council. In those resolutions the authority was given to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and Sub-Commission (in words of resolution) “to examine information relevant to gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms”. United Nations resolutions state that The Human Rights Commission is authorised to establish a procedure for the examination of communications pertaining to ‘situations which appear to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights requiring consideration by the Commission” (emphasis added). These resolutions do not define ‘gross violations’ clearly as well. Because of the vagueness of the gross violations concept it is more useful to recognise that concept in practice rather than to describe in theory.

European Commission for Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights in its case law have developed the concept of the “administrative practice” with regard to allegations concerned wide scale human rights abuses. According to the Commission’s decision an ‘administrative practice’ consists of two elements: a) repetition of acts and b) Official tolerance.

The Commission explained these two elements as follows:
“ By “repetition of acts” is meant a substantial number of acts of torture or ill-treatment which are the expression of a general situation. The pattern of such acts may be either, on the one hand, that they occurred in the same place, that they were attributable to the agents of the same policy or military authority, or that the victims belonged to the same political category; or, on the other hand, that they occurred in several places or at the hands of distinct authorities, or were inflicted on persons of varying political affiliations. By ‘official tolerance’ is meant that, though acts of torture or ill treatment are plainly
illegal, they are tolerated in the sense of that the superiors of those immediately responsible though cognisant of such acts, take no action to punish them or prevent their repetition (emphasis added); or that higher authority, in face of numerous allegations, manifests indifference by refusing any adequate investigation of their truth or falsity, or that in judicial proceeding, a fair hearing of such complaints is denied.”

As a reason for gross violation ‘official tolerance’ concept established by the Commission gives significant facility to understand the gross violations practice. It directly is a reason of gravity of violation. The commission emphasised that “…the higher the organ tolerating the acts the more serious the violation involved.”

A pattern of systematic and gross violation of human rights does not occur in a vacuum or a result simply of negligence or default on the part of governmental authorities. On the contrary such a practice requires the sanction of the state at some level.

In conclusion, in the situations those allegations of human rights abuses are widespread the Commission can identify the elements of and administrative practice’ and especially official tolerance at a higher level, so it can be implied that the Commission is dealing with a situation of gross violation.

Simply defined Reparations are sets of measures that provide redress to victims of gross violations of international human rights law, serious violations of international humanitarian law.

A State is also obliged to provide reparations if it fails to take reasonable steps to protect the human rights of its citizens from being violated.

Non state perpetrators serious crimes are also liable to provide reparations to victims in certain circumstances. Absent those circumstances they are liable as normal under national law for criminal and civil damages. Where the reality is that no such reparations are likely to be made, Government is strongly recommended to recognize the harm caused to victims, at a minimum in terms of solidarity.

And, Everything about all violations other than human rights…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.