The European Implementation Network (EIN) this month published two new documents aimed at aiding civil society organisations to further the implementation of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The first relates to the creation of so-called national Implementation Hubs, in which NGOs can cooperate, complement eahc other's strategies and share the burden of the work (available in English, Romanian and Russian). This is the abstract:
'As recognition of the importance of ECtHR implementation grows, EIN members and partners are leading the way in turning that attention into effective civil society action. However, it is usually impossible for a single organisation to carry out all of the civil society work on ECtHR implementation which would be desired in each country. The ECtHR implementation challenge is significant - with an average of 26 leading cases pending in each Council of Europe member state, each representing a structural and/or systemic human rights problem. It is usually impossible for a single organisation to cover all of the cases pending for their country.
Creating a national “implementation hub” can help share the burden of implementation work. Implementation hubs carry out a wide range of activities to improve the engagement of civil society with the implementation of ECtHR judgments, as well as improve the authorities’ approach to ECtHR implementation as a whole.'
The second publication is entitled Holding Governments Accountable for Their ECtHR Implementation Record (available in English). This is the abstract:
'EIN has produced a new resource on how NGOs can report on the implementation record of their country, to encourage governments to engage positively with the implementation process. Putting relevant government authorities face to face with data that accurately reflect their implementation record is the primary starting point for holding them accountable.
Key indicators of a country’s capacity to fully implement judgments of the European Court of Human Rights include:
- The overall number of leading cases pending;
- The proportion of leading cases pending; and
- The average time leading cases have been pending.
This guide also looks at how awareness about states’ ECtHR implementation records can be promoted through different types of advocacy activities, and how these activities can also inform the creation and efforts of domestic implementation oversight mechanisms.
The implementation of ECtHR judgments is a long-term process. Often, cases go inactive, and sometimes they are not sufficiently or seriously engaged with by the authorities. In other cases, we see a lack of immediate response to time-sensitive issues. We hope this guide will help enhance ECtHR implementation, by helping civil society motivate governments to address their track record.'
