Notes la Romanie, deuxieme phase, avis consultatif, C.I.J., Recueil, 1950, p. 228. See also Article 1 of the draft Articles on State Responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001: Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State. (UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.602/Rev.1, 26 July 2001 (“ILC draft Articles on State Responsibility”)). 162. Permanent Court of Arbitration, Chorzow Factory Case (Ger. V. Pol.), (1928) P.C.I.J., Sr. A, No.17. 163. Albert Wilson v. the Philippines, Communication No. 868/1999, U.N. Doc. CCPR/ C/79/D/868/1999 (2003). The Human Rights Committee has referred in several decisions to the duty to afford “appropriate” compensation. See Bozize v. Central African Republic (No. 449/1990); Mojica v. Dominican Republic (No. 449/1991). In Griffin v. Spain (No. 493/1992) the Committee ordered “appropriate compensation for the period of his detention in the prison in Melilla”. See also Bossuyt, Marc J. “Guide to the ‘travaux preparatoires’ of the international covenant on civil and political rights” (2002 ed. Kluwer Academic Publishers). 164. Adopted by General Assembly Resolution A/Res/60/147, 16 December 2005. 165. See also, Principles 8 - 10 of the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 40/34 of 29 November 1985. 166. Commentary to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts; Report of the International Law Commission on its Fifty-three Session, GA, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10); cph. IV.E.”). 167. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Interpretation Of The Compensatory Damages Judgment, Judgment of August 17, 1990, Para. 27. 168. See for example the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol; UN Convention against Torture; Declaration on Enforced Disappearances; Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. 169. Principle 24, Final report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. M. Cherif Bassiouni, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 1999/33, E/CN.4/2000/62, 18 67 January 2000. 170. Question of the impunity of perpetrators of human rights violations (civil and political); E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, 2 October 1997, para. 17. 171. For an overview of universal and national human rights instruments recognising the right to an effective remedy see REDRESS, Sourcebook on Reparation, 2003. 172. See, for example, General Comment 29 on States of Emergency (Art. 4) if the UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/ Add.11, 31 August 2001, at para. 14: “Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant requires a State party to the Covenant to provide remedies for any violation of the provisions of the Covenant. This clause is not mentioned in the list of non-derogable provisions in article 4, paragraph 2, but it constitutes a treaty obligation inherent in the Covenant as a whole. Even if a State party, during a state of emergency, and to the extent that such measures are strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, may introduce adjustments to the practical functioning of its procedures governing judicial or other remedies, the State party must comply with the fundamental obligation, under article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant to provide a remedy that is effective.” The Committee considered further that “It is inherent in the protection of rights explicitly recognized as non-derogable […] that they must be secured by procedural guarantees[…] The provisions of the Covenant relating to procedural safeguards may never be made subject to measures that would circumvent the protection of non-derogable rights […].” Similarly the Inter-American Court of Human Rights explained that the judicial remedies to protect non-derogable rights are themselves non-derogable. (Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of 6 October 1987. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 25(8) American Convention on Human Rights. Series A No. 9.) 173. Some instruments explicitly call for the development of judicial remedies for the rights they guarantee; the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights for example, provides that all remedies should be judicial. See Art. 7 of the African [Banjul] Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, adopted June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev.