Source: http://freeassembly.net/foaa-online/remedies/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:53:33+00:00

Document:
Everyone has a right to an effective remedy for acts violating their human rights. UDHR, art. 8: “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” When the right to freedom of association has been infringed, both associations and their members have the right to an effective remedy, which includes access to judicial review and reparations. States have an obligation to investigate fully any allegations of a violation of the right to freedom of association and to hold individuals, including State authorities, responsible for malicious infringement of the right. In addition, States must take measures to prevent future violations of the right, such as the revision of laws, the issuance of prosecutorial guidelines, and any other necessary measures.
17. In general, the purposes of the Covenant would be defeated without an obligation integral to article 2 to take measures to prevent a recurrence of a violation of the Covenant. Accordingly, it has been a frequent practice of the Committee in cases under the Optional Protocol to include in its Views the need for measures, beyond a victim-specific remedy, to be taken to avoid recurrence of the type of violation in question. Such measures may require changes in the State Party’s laws or practices. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, adopted 29 March 2004.
The right to an effective remedy is integral to the exercise of the right to freedom of association. This right to a remedy includes the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on matters affecting one’s realization of the right to freedom of association. The right to a fair trial or adjudication of one’s rights before an impartial tribunal is guaranteed in Article 14 of the ICCPR, Article 7 of the ACHPR, Article 6 of the ECHR, and Article 8 of the ACHR.
117. All associations should have equal standing before impartial tribunals and, in case of an alleged violation of any of their rights, have full protection of the right to a fair and public hearing. This is a fundamental aspect of protecting associations from undue control by the executive or administrative authorities.
118. The founders, members and representatives of associations should likewise enjoy the right to a fair trial in any proceedings commenced by or against them. Therefore, in matters concerning restrictions placed on an association, the right to receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law is an essential requirement to be secured by legislation. OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission, Joint Guidelines on Freedom of Association, 2015.
Under international law, a State Party is obliged to provide reparation for any injury or damage caused when it violates its obligation to promote or protect the right to freedom of association under an international or regional human rights treaty. As the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) (which preceded the current International Court of Justice – ICJ) explained almost 100 years ago, reparation “is the indispensable complement of a failure to apply a convention and there is no need for this to be stated in the convention itself.” Case Concerning the Factory At Chorzów (Claim for Indemnity) (The Merits), PCIJ, Judgement of 13 September 1928.
In cases of infringement of freedom of association, associations and their members have the right to restitution as well as compensation for any damages that resulted from the violation. UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, para. 81.
The AComHPR Draft Guidelines specify that “[i]n addition to restitution remedying the specific harms inflicted, associations shall have the right to compensation for any and all damages that may have occurred.” AComHPR, Draft Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, 22 September 2016, para 60.1. The OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission’s Joint Guidelines on Freedom of Association similarly instruct States that effective remedy for violations of freedom of association in the national courts “should include compensation for moral or pecuniary loss.” OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission, Joint Guidelines on Freedom of Association, 2015, para. 116.
In addition, each of the major human rights treaties has a treaty-monitoring body, or mechanism, that explicitly envisions States Parties’ obligation to attempt to make victims’ of rights violations whole, including through compensation for injuries sustained. The pertinent regional human rights courts retain a great deal of discretionary power in ordering reparations and specific remedial measures.
the Association’s founders and members must have suffered non-pecuniary damage as a consequence of the Association’s dissolution, which cannot be compensated solely by the finding of a violation. Ruling on an equitable basis, the Court awards the Association the sum of EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable. This sum is to be paid to Mr Sabir Israfilov, who will be responsible for making it available to the Association. Tebieti Mühafize Cemiyyeti and Israfilov v. Azerbaijan, ECtHR, Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction), paras. 84-91 (October 8, 2009).
In Tanganyika Law Society et al. v. United Republic of Tanzania, the ACtHPR found that Tanzania’s prohibition on independent candidates in elections violated its obligation to promote freedom of association by requiring individuals to join a political association to run for office. It then ordered Tanzania to “to take constitutional, legislative and all other necessary measures within a reasonable time to remedy the violations found by the Court and to inform the Court of the measures taken” and gave the individual applicant the further opportunity to make submissions concerning compensation and other reparation. Tanganyika Law Society et al. v. United Republic of Tanzania, ACtHPR, Judgment of 14 June 2013.
The failure to undertake a complete, impartial, and effective investigation into instances of intimidation or attacks upon members of an association constitutes a violation of the association members’ rights to freedom of association.
Article 16(1) of the Convention includes the “right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes.” These words establish literally that those who are protected by the Convention not only have the right and freedom to associate freely with other persons, without the interference of the public authorities limiting or obstructing the exercise of the respective right, which thus represents a right of each individual; but they also enjoy the right and freedom to seek the common achievement of a licit goal, without pressure or interference that could alter or change their purpose. Therefore, the execution of a trade union leader, in a context such as that of this case, not only restricts the freedom of association of an individual, but also the right and freedom of a determined group to associate freely, without fear; consequently, the right protected by Article 16 has a special scope and nature, and this illustrates the two dimensions of freedom of association. Huilca Tecse v. Peru, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 March 2005, para. 69.
The Court considers that the content of freedom of association implies the power to choose how to exercise it. In this regard, an individual does not enjoy the full exercise of the freedom of association, if, in reality, this power is inexistent or is limited so that it cannot be implemented. The State must ensure that people can freely exercise their freedom of association without fear of being subjected to some kind of violence; otherwise, the ability of groups to organize themselves to protect their interests could be limited. Huilca Tecse v. Peru, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 March 2005, para. 77.
The Court found that, in this case, the right to freedom of association became illusory because Huilca Tecse was not capable of exercising his right to freely associate without being subjected to fatal repercussions by State authorities. Huilca Tecse v. Peru, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 March 2005, para. 78. The Court also considered that Huilca Tecse’s murder, and the failure to investigate or hold anyone accountable for the murder, would intimidate other workers in the trade union movement to self-impose a limitation on associating with a group for fear of similar reprisals. Huilca Tecse v. Peru, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 March 2005, para. 78.
Where the authorities pursue warrantless sanctions, or have pursued sanctions with the aim of harassing particular associations, those responsible for prosecuting the cases in question shall be held liable for violating the right to freedom of association.  AComHPR, Draft Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, 22 September 2016, para 60.2.
In cases of infringement of the right to freedom of association, associations and their members have the right to restitution and compensation for any damages that resulted from the violation. UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, para. 81.
The AComHPR Draft Guidelines specify that “[i]n addition to restitution remedying the specific harms inflicted, associations shall have the right to compensation for any and all damages that may have occurred.” AComHPR, Draft Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, 22 September 2016, para 60.1 The joint guidelines of the OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission similarly instruct States that effective remedy for violations of freedom of association in the national courts “should include compensation for moral or pecuniary loss.” OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission, Joint Guidelines on Freedom of Association, 2015, para. 116.
Where the authorities pursue warrantless sanctions, or have pursued sanctions with the aim of harassing particular associations, those responsible for prosecuting the cases in question shall be held liable for violating the right to freedom of association. AComHPR, Draft Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, 22 September 2016, para 60.2.
In addition, where non-State actors have threatened or attacked association members on the basis of their membership, the State must investigate and, if sufficient evidence exists, prosecute those responsible. The failure to undertake a complete, impartial, and effective investigation of such incidents constitutes a violation of the association members’ rights to freedom of association. See, for example, Huilca Tecse v. Peru, (Merits, Reparations and Costs), IACtHR, Judgment of 3 March 2005.

References: art. 8
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.