Developing quasi-criminal review in Africa: lessons from the Inter- American Court of Human Rights

This article aims to address the pervasive implementation crisis in global human rights systems through an analysis of the measures regional courts take to ensure state compliance with their rulings. Utilising a comparative methodology, this study examines the post-judgment phase efforts of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Inter-American Court) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) to enforce compliance through innovative remedies. The article begins by exploring the concept of compliance within the context of regional human rights systems, drawing on the effective adjudication framework developed by Helfer and Slaughter and Roach and Budlender’s typology of governmental responses to non-compliance. The article then examines the development and procedural elements of quasi-criminal jurisdiction by the Inter-American Court, which includes orders for states to investigate, prosecute, and penalise perpetrators of gross human rights violations, followed by court-monitored compliance. Comparative analysis reveals that both the Inter-American Court and African Court have adopted similar quasi-criminal measures, suggesting a trend towards more robust enforcement mechanisms in response to persistent non-compliance. The findings indicate that while declaratory orders are effective for negligent governments, more assertive remedies are necessary for addressing incompetence and obstinacy. This study concludes that while the African Court has adopted most elements of quasi-criminal review, more still needs to be done for this practice to be as successful as it has been in the Inter-American Court. More specifically, the African Court needs to develop its monitoring practices and the Draft Framework for Reporting and Monitoring Execution of Judgments and other Decisions of the African Court represents a step in the direction for this purpose.