Abstract:
This article compares second-order state compliance in respect of regional and sub-regional human rights tribunals (HRTs) in Africa. Using as its unit of analysis the compliance orders issued by these HRTs, the article analyses state compliance with 75 such orders contained in 32 decisions of six selected HRTs, decided in the period between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015, in five states – Nigeria, The Gambia, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Based on available data supplemented by in-depth interviews conducted between July 2015 to December 2018, the study establishes the compliance status of the 75 reparations orders. The authors advance the notion of ‘aggregate compliance’, which accords weight to both full and partial compliance, as a suitable yardstick to compare state compliance. Finding that 29 percent aggregate compliance was recorded with respect to reparations orders issued against the selected states by African sub-regional HRTs, compared to 33 percent aggregate compliance with respect to regional HRTs, the study concludes that the hypothesis that the studied states comply better with decisions of African sub-regional HRTs than regional HRTs cannot be substantiated. It argues that the defining factors for compliance are state-level characteristics, the nature of the reparation orders and the effectiveness of follow-up.
