Irina Crivet

The Republic of Moldova ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on September 12, 1997. Since then, Moldova has had to ensure that domestic legislation is compatible with the ECHR requirements and that there are legal provisions to enforce the substance of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. The present study aims to build on the current scholarly literature that analyzes the implementation of the general measures of human rights judgments within the European Human Rights System. The research asks to what extent Moldova has been responsive to the general measures required by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to prevent repetition of human rights violations based on an analysis of 63 closed cases by the Committee of Ministers and 76 leading pending judgments of the ECtHR against Moldova before the Committee of Ministers between 1998 and 2015. The thesis argues that the Republic of Moldova is responsive to ECtHR judgments. However, the general measures taken or planned to be taken by the Moldovan Government can only describe Moldova as a selective partial complier. Moldova has the political willingness to comply with ECtHR ruling, but lacks the economic capacity and practical knowledge to fully comply with ECtHR jurisprudence. This makes the institutional authorities in Moldova to be more responsive to certain problematic areas, and less responsive to other human rights issues.

This post considers Belarus’ persistent non-compliance and non-cooperation with the HRC with respect to violations of freedom of expression and assembly that have continued since 2010. This situation is highlighted by the HRC’s statistical survey of individual complaints from March 2016. The post commences by considering Belarus’ record before the HRC and the UN treaty bodies, with a focus on the flawed Belarussian legislation on mass events that produces clone cases on violations of the freedoms of expression, association and assembly. It then turns to analyse Belarus’ persistent refusal to recognise the HRC’s authority and implementation of its views, and the current trends relating to Belarus’ poor compliance record. It argues that the growing challenge of handling repetitive cases – which have also come out of Denmark, Cameroon, Canada, Australia, and Jamaica – demonstrates a pressing need to take stock of the deficiencies in the implementation of the HRC’s views and develop an effective mechanism to enhance their ability to ensure compliance.

Extensive literature talks about the relationship between trade and human rights, and the ways in which International Human Rights Law (IHRL) can be integrated in International Trade Law (ITL). Indeed, IHRL and ITL nexus is discussed with respect to a wide range of rights provided for in IHRL. Say ITL and plenty of rights come to mind; for example, labour rights, right to property, right to food, right to health, environmental dimensions of human rights protections, freedom of expression, right to an adequate standard of living, and right to development. Yet, how many of these are reflected in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) jurisprudence or regional judicial bodies that overlook after trade-related treaties? In order to examine the effects of IHRL on ITL as reflected in the case-law, I focus on ten notable cases. It must be noted at the outset that the WTO dispute settlement bodies have not yet directly dealt with IHRL qua IHRL in interpreting trade law. There are cases where possible conflicts between WTO law and other areas of PIL have been touched upon. But those conflicts have not led to a direct discussion of IHRL and its relationship with ITL. Nevertheless, there are some instances where the WTO panels and Appellate Bodies (ABs) or/and the State parties involved in a dispute refer to international human rights instruments and regional human rights courts case-law – in particular, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Given the scarcity of WTO cases directly resorting to IHRL, I also touch upon the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), where principles of economic exchange were balanced against human rights law principles and provisions.