Second, it might take cases to court in its own name, without having to rely on the initiative of others. Third, it might intervene in court proceedings, commenting to judges on the relevance of international human rights standards to the case at hand. To my knowledge, HRCs in the United States, whether state- or citybased, tend to have all of the above litigating powers. National HRCs outside of the U.S. sometimes have the third power, less frequently have the first, and rarely have the second. Deciding how to use whatever powers it has is a difficult determination to make.
Litigation is a risky business.
It can be expensive, and there is no certainty that costs incurred will be recouped in the award of a favorable decision. Also, judgments issued pursuant to litigation may not always satisfactorily clarify points at issue and often they have a limited application to future cases. Moreover, procedural matters, such as wrangles over limitation periods or standing issues, can frequently intrude and sidetrack the court from more important substantive issues. If the European experience is any indication, though, litigation is by far the best way to achieve change on the human rights front. It may be difficult for a non-European to realize just how large a role the European Court of Human Rights plays in shaping government policy throughout the Continent.