Access to justice. For African communities like the Bangwa who are not supported by strong governments, access to justice poses an additional obstacle. What forum could evaluate a human rights claim based on the argument that the continued deprivation of sacred cultural objects is an infringement of the right to ‘access to culture’ and the UNDRIP? Since 2013, the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR offers a complaints procedure. This procedure, however, appears to be limited 157 Kuprecht (2014) 55-56. 158 In New Zealand in 2003, a repatriation policy was developed of ancestral remains on behalf of Maori and Xxxxxxx. The National Te Papa Museum has, since then until 1 May 2017, repatriated 420 ancestral remains from overseas institutions. Furthermore, in 2011, the Australian government adopted a policy to facilitate the repatriation of ancestral remains. See also Study by the Expert Mechanism (n. 156). 159 Bill C-391 on the Canadian Indigenous Human Remains and Cultural Property Act (Febru- ary 2019) <xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xx/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-391/third-reading> (accessed 15 January 2021). After publication of this article in IJCP, in September 2019, this bill had not become law. Acc. to information kindly provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage, it remains to be seen whether the issue will be taken up in the future. 160 On 10 April 2018, China’s National Cultural Heritage Administration (NCHA, formerly SACK) called on the auction house to ‘abide by the spirit of international agreements and code of professional ethics, as well as respecting the cultural rights and national feelings of the Chinese people.’ See the website of the National Cultural Heritage Administration, an administrative agency of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the People’s Republic of China (in Chinese) <xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx.xx/art/2018/4/10/art_722_148344.html> accessed 30 October 2018. I thank Xxxx Xx for her assistance finding and translating this source. to nationals or groups in the state responsible for the alleged violation.161 In the Bangwa case, it concerns an African community claiming an object from a French foundation. What about developments in the regional human rights systems? With respect to the European human rights system, one stumbling block may be that the European Convention on Human Rights does not include a right to culture.162 The right (of access) to tangible cultural objects has been addressed in case law but always from the perspective of the right to property of ...
Access to justice. 1 — Each Party shall, within the framework of its national legislation, ensure that any person who con- xxxxxx that his or her request for information under arti- cle 4 has been ignored, wrongfully refused, whether in part or in full, inadequately answered, or otherwise not dealt with in accordance with the provisions of that arti- cle, has access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body estab- lished by law. In the circumstances where a Party provides for such a review by a court of law, it shall ensure that such a person also has access to an expeditious procedure established by law that is free of charge or inexpensive for reconsideration by a public authority or review by an independent and impartial body other than a court of law. Final decisions under this paragraph l shall be binding on the public authority holding the information. Reasons shall be stated in writing, at least where access to infor- mation is refused under this paragraph.
Access to justice. All persons have the right to a fair trial and an effective legal remedy to ensure the protection, respect and enjoyment of their rights with regard to the prevention measures planned or if the authorities fail to act to adopt prevention and disaster risk reduction measures and to organise relief.
Access to justice. Ensuring that interim visa arrangements are available for the purpose of legal or administrative proceedings in cases where workers claim to have been exploited or wrongly dismissed (to prevent them being deported due to the cancellation of their employment-linked visa) and, in cases of proven exploitation, facilitating a shift to another employer.
Access to justice. Article 9 of the Aarhus Conventions contains the third pillar, the access to justice pillar. Arti- cle 9(1) orders the Parties to have in place a re- view procedure to deal with decisions and other issues connected to Article 4 of the Convention. This approach resembles the measures provided for by the Environmental-Information-Directive of 1990. Under Article 9(2) of the Convention, which connects to its Article 6, the Parties are to ensure that members of the public concerned, fulfilling a defined interest test, have access to a review procedure before a court of law and/or another independent and impartial body estab- lished by law, to challenge the substantive and procedural legality of any decision, act or omis- sion subject to Article 6. The interest test, having
Access to justice. The Regional ABS Mechanism shall facilitate access to justice and redress for providers and users, including administrative and judicial remedies, as well as alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The countries signatory to this Framework Agreement agree to ensure access to justice and redress following the national legislation of the country where a complaint is filed within the region, regardless of the country where misappropriation or other problems regarding this Framework Agreement occurred.
Access to justice. The Government must ensure that persons with disabilities have equal and effective access to justice. To that end, the Government shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice such as police and prison staff. Did you know? In 2015, the Appropriate Adult Scheme (AAS) was launched to provide persons with developmental disabilities (PWDDs) with trained volunteers who will act as a bridge between them and police investigation officers. The volunteer accompanies the PWDDs and facilitates the police interview process, enabling PWDDs to understand the officer’s queries and communicate more effectively. This safeguards PWDDs from admitting a crime they did not commit. Persons with disabilities with low income can approach the Legal Aid Bureau for legal advice, aid and assistance. The Legal Aid Bureau covers a wide range of civil matters such as divorce, adoption, custody of children and estate matters. However, the Legal Aid Bureau assistance is only offered to Singapore citizens or Permanent Residents residing in Singapore. The Vulnerable Witness Support Programme provides support to persons with mental capacity aged 16 years and below who are giving evidence in criminal cases in court. The support to the witness under this programme is through a Volunteer Support Person recruited by the State Courts and Singapore Children’s Society. The Committee for Assisting Offenders with Mental Disabilities, chaired by the Attorney-General’s Xxxxxxxx, was formed to look into safeguards for persons with disabilities in the criminal investigation process. The committee includes representatives from the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, the Singapore Police Force, the Law Society of Singapore, MSF and NCSS. In addition, DPA was informed that the Supreme Court of Singapore accepts the use of Sign Language in courts, and that the court will provide a Sign Language interpreter free of charge where necessary. However, this crucial information is not publicised on the Supreme Court website and thus not known to many. The lack of accessibility information is not isolated to the Supreme Court website and, in fact, many Government and public services websites lack sufficient information about accessibility. Despite the efforts above, there remains areas of the Criminal Justice System where not enough has been done to accommodate persons with disabilities. In March 2018, the case of a young offender with a mild intellectual di...
Access to justice. 142) The Aarhus Convention also covers various aspects of environment-related access to justice but these provisions have only limited application to environmental plans and programmes adopted at the EU level. In the first place, the Aarhus Convention requires that review procedures shall be secured within the framework of internal legislation of the parties so 550 The Directive 2001/42/EC, also covers plans and programmes co-finance by the EU, but it is only addressed to Member States and does not cover activities of the EU institutions. See Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment [2001] L 197 OJ30–37 (SEA Directive), art 2. 551 Aarhus Convention (n Aarhus Convention), art 7. 552 ibid., art 6.3 in relation to art 7. 553 ibid., art 6.4 in relation to art 7. 554 ibid., art 6.8 in relation to art 7. 555 Aarhus Regulation (n 338), art 9. 556 ibid., art 9.9 that if any person believes that his/her request “has been ignored, wrongfully refused, whether in part or in full, [or] inadequately answered”,557 such person “has access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial body established by law.”558 The procedural provisions implementing these requirements of the Aarhus Convention are found in the Regulation 1049/2001, under which a failure to provide environmental information could be challenged either through a complaint filed in the courts of the EU pursuant to article 263559 of the TFEU, or a complaint lodged with the Ombudsman, or both.560,561 143) Secondly, the Aarhus Convention mandates that persons having sufficient interest shall have the right to challenge environment-related ‘decisions on specific activities’562 which is more related to the EIA process rather than to general environment-related plans and programs. Thirdly, the Aarhus Convention requires that any person shall have the right to “challenge acts and omissions by private persons and public authorities which contravene provisions of its national law relating to the environment”,563 which is more relevant to the judicial systems of Member States than the judicial system of the EU.564 In addition, in all three situations, the Convention parties “shall provide adequate and effective remedies, including injunctive relief as appropriate, and be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.”565
Access to justice. 225) The Industrial Emissions Directive further requires that the ‘public concerned’978 shall have a possibility to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of authorisations before court or other independent and impartial bodies,979 as already set forth in the 2008’s consolidated version of the Council Directive 96/61980. Nonetheless, the Industrial Emissions Directive makes such access-to-justice-right conditional upon a ‘sufficient interest’ of the public concerned,981 and leaves it to the Member States to determine details such as 1) whether maintaining the ‘impairment of rights’ shall be precondition of sufficient interest,982 2) the determination of what the ‘sufficient interest’ and ‘imparairment of rights’ shall mean in a specific jurisdiction,983 and 3) at what stage the public concerned can challnge specific authorisations, act or omissions984. Nonetheless, the Industrial Emission Directive still mandates in the case of NGOs that 1) the interest of any NGO promoting protection of environment and operating in accoradance with national law of given Member State shall be deemed sufficient,985 and 2) the right of such NGOs shall be deemed to be capable of being impaired by the authorisations986. 968 Defined as “the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the taking of a decision on the granting or the updating of a permit or of permit conditions; for the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest.” See Industrial Emissions Directive (n 569), art 3.17 969 Industrial Emissions Directive (n 569), art 24.1.a-d. 970 ibid, art 24.2.a. 971 ibid, art 24.2.b. 972 ibid, art 24.2.c. 973 As opposed to public concerned (see n 968), ‘public’ is defined under Industrial Emissions Directive as “one or more natural or legal persons and, in accordance with national law or practice, their associations, organisations or groups.” See Industrial Emissions Directive (n 569), art 3.16. 974 ibid, annex IV, point 1.a. 975 ibid, annex IV, point 1.c. 976 ibid, annex IV, point 1.d. 977 ibid, annex IV, point 1.f. 978 ibid, art 3.17. See also, n 968. 979 Industrial Emissions Directive (n 569), art. 25.1 in initio. 980 Directive 2008/1 (n 942), art 16. 981 Industrial Emissions Directive (n 569), art. 25.1.a. 982 ibid, art. 25.1.b. 983 ibid, art. 25.3. 984 ibid, art. 25.2. 985 ibid, art. 25.3 in fine. 986 Ibid.
Access to justice. The Parties recognise the importance of ensuring that right holders have access to justice and shall ensure that they have in place an effective judicial system and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to allow right holders to enforce their rights without unwarranted delay and without unreasonable costs. Enforcement of protection against misappropriation of trade secrets
