A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE JURISDICTIONS OF REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COURTS

Abstract

This work provides a comparative analysis of the jurisdictions of regional human rights courts in Africa, the Americas, and Europe, focusing on their jurisdictional scope, mandates, and procedures. It utilizes a doctrinal method to review the treaties, protocols, and case laws governing the European Court of Human Rights (ECt.HR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACt.HR), and the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACt.PHR). The findings indicate that the ECtHR has a broader jurisdictional scope than both the IACtHR and ACtHPR, while the ACtHPR's jurisdiction is uniquely defined by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Key challenges confronting these courts include state reluctance to comply with decisions, limited resources, political pressures, and restricted mandates. The courts have employed various strategies to mitigate these challenges, such as effective follow-up mechanisms, state engagement, and potential sanctions. The analysis underscores the critical role of regional human rights courts in promoting human rights and stresses the necessity for sustained cooperation with states. It concludes with recommendations for courts to enhance their strategies, strengthen independence and impartiality, improve access to justice, and ensure transparency and accountability in their operations.