68 A practical guide to the Istanbul Protocol – for lawyers 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986. 174. See Jeremy McBride, “Access to Justice and Human Rights Treaties” (1998) 17 Civil Justice Q.235. 175. See Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, European Court of Human Rights. 176. Article 13 requires “the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief ” although State have some discretion as to how to comply (para 69) D v. United Kingdom App. No. 30240/96 Judgment of 2 May 1997 (referring to Soering v. United Kingdom App. No. 14038/88 Judgment of 7 July 1989 and Vilvarajah v. United Kingdom App. No. 13163/87 Judgment of 30 October 1991). The HRC commented on Finland’s report (CCPR/C/95/Add.6) re the obligation under Art 2(b) of the ICCPR that “while noting that a recent reform of the Penal Code makes punishable the violation of several rights and freedoms, including those protected by articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant, the Committee is concerned that criminal law may not alone be appropriate to determine appropriate remedies for violations of certain rights and freedoms (Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, Finland: 08/04/98). 177. The nature (judicial, administrative or other) of the remedy should be in accordance with the nature of the right violated and the effectiveness of the remedy. In the case of grave human rights violations, which implicitly constitute a crime, like torture, there is unanimity in the jurisprudence of international human rights tribunals and bodies on the judicial nature of effective remedies. See REDRESS Sourcebook on the Right to Reparation, supra. 178. Nydia Bautista v. Colombia (No. 563/1993); José Vicente and Amado Villafane Chaparro, Luis Napoleon Torres Crespo, Angel María Torres Arroyo and Antonio Hugues Chaparro Torres v Colombia (No. 612/1995). 179. See e.g. Article 27.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights; Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Art 7 of the African Charter on Human Rights and People’s Rights, Article 13 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. 180. See Albert Wilson v. Philippines, Communication No. 868/1999, U.N. Doc. CCPR/ C/79/D/868/1999 (2003). 181. See above note 28 on judicial review of detention, including administrative detentions 182. See The CPT Standards: Substantive sections of the CPT’s General Reports, CPT/ Inf/E (2002) - Rev. 2003. 183. See in particular K. De Feyter, S. Parmentier, M. Bossuyt and P. Lemmens (editors), Out of the Ashes, Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations, Intersentia, Antwerpen-Oxford, 2005 and Pablo de Greiff (editor), The Handbook of Reparations, International Center for Transitional Justice, Oxford University Press, 2006. 184. See Principles relating to the status of national institutions (“Paris Principles”) UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/43, 16 December 1991. 185. See for an overview of Ombudsman institutions worldwide, www.law.ualberta.ca/ centres/ioi/eng/worldwide.html. Compare the broad mandate of the Ombudsman in Australia (UN Doc. CAT/C/25/Add.11, 15 May 2000, paras. 96 et seq.) and Bolivia (UN Doc. CAT/C/52/Add.1, 21 September 2000, paras.71 et seq.) with the more traditional, narrow mandate of their counterparts in Fiji (UN Doc. HRI/CORE/1/Add.122, 25 November 2002, paras.186 et seq.) and the Philippines (www.ombudsman.gov.ph) as well as the specific mandates concerning criminal investigations and prison services of the Ombudsman in Georgia (UN Doc. CAT/C/Add.1, 2 June 2000, para.107) and the Czech Republic (UN Doc. CAT/C/60/ Add.1, 4 October 2002, paras.87 et seq.). 186. See Gonzalo Elizondo and Irene Aguilar, Ombudsman Institution in Latin America: Minimum Standards for its existence, in Lindsnaes, Lindholt and Yigen, National Human Rights Institutions, supra, pp.209220, noting on p.209 that “The institution of the ombudsman in Latin America has been given diverse technical names, such as Defensor dels Pueblo in Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia, among others; Defensor de los Habitantes in Costa Rica; Comisionado Nacional de Derechos Humanos in Honduras and Mexico; or Sindic de