Celebrating, Reflecting, Connecting A Conference in honour of the 20th Anniversary of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, co-hosted by DISSECT: Evidence in International Human Rights Adjudication (ERC, Ghent University) and the Centre for Human Rights and NRF Chair in International Constitutional Law, University of Pretoria Evidence Matters Before Regional Human Rights Courts: The AfricanContinue reading “Pretoria Conference, 11-13 May 2026 Please submit your abstract by 30 September 2025”
Author Archives: Marie-Benedicte Dembour
Evidencing Pushbacks at borders of CoE Member States: Third Party Intervention in A.A.N. and Others v. Greece
By Grażyna Baranowska1, Marie-Bénédicte Dembour2 and Isabel Kienzle3 This post, an output of the DISSECT’s project, is concomitantly being published on the Strasbourg Observers blog. Regularly operated at many borders of CoE member states, pushbacks are problematic practices from a human rights perspective. They generally violate the principle of non-refoulement under Article 3 ECHR asContinue reading “Evidencing Pushbacks at borders of CoE Member States: Third Party Intervention in A.A.N. and Others v. Greece”
Pushing states to evidence pushbacks: Lessons from MH v. Croatia for intersecting domestic criminal law and international human rights
By Irina Fehr1 and Jill Alpes2 A ‘pushback’ refers to the forcible expulsion of individuals from a country without considering their specific circumstances, denying them the chance to seek international protection, often accompanied by violence and excessive force. Although pushback practices may also constitute crimes, human rights-based pushback litigation is predominant. In this blogpost, weContinue reading “Pushing states to evidence pushbacks: Lessons from MH v. Croatia for intersecting domestic criminal law and international human rights”
Bódi and Others v Hungary: when the Court’s focus on the volume of procedures speaks volumes about its stance on antigypsyism
By Emma Várnagy [This post first appeared on Strasbourg Observers] Introduction In this blog post, I discuss the case of Bódi and Others v Hungary (App.no.29554/17) declared inadmissible by the Court. The decision concerns the investigation of an anti-Roma hate crime with the potential involvement of a police officer. It is a disappointing decision becauseContinue reading “Bódi and Others v Hungary: when the Court’s focus on the volume of procedures speaks volumes about its stance on antigypsyism”
Scientific evidence in Strasbourg’s environmental jurisprudence through the prism of Ilva Taranto
By: Jozef Seghers* 1. Introduction Ilva Taranto is Europe’s largest steel plant, and its travails have given rise to commensurate amounts of legislation and court cases. In the past few weeks, the plant has been in the news in Italy once more, as the government wrangled with the private shareholders over yet another investment plan,Continue reading “Scientific evidence in Strasbourg’s environmental jurisprudence through the prism of Ilva Taranto”
Evidence between expertise and expedience: Reflections on the symposium ‘Evidentiary regimes of UN Treaty Bodies: Perspectives from research and practice’ (Ghent, 15-16 May 2023)
By Ergün Cakal* DISSECT hosted a two-day symposium on ‘Evidentiary regimes of UN Treaty Bodies’ (UNTBs) between 15-16 May 2023, at Ghent University. It brought together 20 participants who each presented and discussed a paper on research or practice around the use of evidence in different treaty bodies, upon the backdrop of the potentials andContinue reading “Evidence between expertise and expedience: Reflections on the symposium ‘Evidentiary regimes of UN Treaty Bodies: Perspectives from research and practice’ (Ghent, 15-16 May 2023)”
Applying an Evidentiary Lens to the Conflict in Ethiopia: Issues Arising from Investigative Mandates
By Edward Kahuthia Murimi & Ruwadzano Makumbe Introduction The war in Tigray has unleashed untold suffering for the people in the region. According to the reports of the Joint Investigative Team (JIT) of OHCHR and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (November 2021) and the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia (ICHREE or ‘theContinue reading “Applying an Evidentiary Lens to the Conflict in Ethiopia: Issues Arising from Investigative Mandates”
The escape of the state: No shift in the burden of the proof and no anti-Roma discrimination by the police in P.H. v Slovakia
By Marie-Bénédicte Dembour Thanks to Emma Várnagy whose insightful post on the P.H. case published on the Strasbourg Observers blog inspired me to write my own take on the case, and whose comments on my text helped improve it. Would you jump from a 7.7 metres high window? Of course not! Nobody would, although, according toContinue reading “The escape of the state: No shift in the burden of the proof and no anti-Roma discrimination by the police in P.H. v Slovakia”
P.H. v Slovakia: When the concept of discrimination goes out the window at the Strasbourg Court*
By Emma Várnagy [This post first appeared on Strasbourg Observers] The case of P.H. v Slovakia (Application no 37574/19) is at least the eleventh case before the Strasbourg Court in which it is confronted with the mysterious fall of a person from a police station window. It is the seventh case where questions of discriminationContinue reading “P.H. v Slovakia: When the concept of discrimination goes out the window at the Strasbourg Court*”
How long is (not) too long before filing an application at the African Court? Evidentiary challenges for incarcerated applicants
By Edward Kahuthia Murimi Typically, international human rights courts and bodies require applicants to meet various requirements for their applications to be deemed admissible. At the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (hereafter, African Court or Court) one requirement is that the application must be submitted ‘within a reasonable time from the date localContinue reading “How long is (not) too long before filing an application at the African Court? Evidentiary challenges for incarcerated applicants”