Reparation as Prevention: Considering the Law and Practice of Orders for Cessation and Guarantees of Non-Repetition in Torture Cases

Abstract

The relationship between reparation and prevention is a key feature of the jurisprudence of human rights bodies and courts. Given the limited jurisdiction of courts to decide on the facts before them, remedies of cessation and guarantees of non-repetition have focused on practices that respond to such facts. There has been less scope in the jurisprudence to consider broader institutional failings that may also impact on the practice of torture. However, given that individual complaints are a key means by which institutional failings are documented, the role of courts is vital. The efficacy of prevention as a reparation measure is dependent on courts determining that measures of cessation and guarantees of non-repetition are only partial solutions and must be complemented by a variety of other, broader quasi-judicial and non-judicial measures. However, cessation and guarantees of non-repetition are also important features of reparation awards in that they afford victims the opportunity to be proactively involved in the determination of policies aimed at prevention.