Despite the considerable literature on the topic, the scope of the application of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies in the context of the diplomatic protection in general and in the context of international protection of human rights in particular, remains an ambiguous topic and needs further clarification. The expanded and flexible application of this rule under international human rights law raises the question of whether the rule which continues to perform its original function within the framework of the diplomatic protection, has undergone a fundamental transformation that makes it, within the framework of international human rights law, a distinguished rule with different objectives and functions, or is it just an extension of a rule from one area to another. What can be noted is that the rule is interpreted, in the context of human rights protection, in a more flexible manner that takes into account the interests of the victims of human rights violations. This broad and flexible approach to the rule's application is consistent with the need to take into account the general framework of the protection of individuals established by the international human rights conventions. The study of the practice of international human rights bodies shows that such bodies tend to prefer an expanded interpretation of the rule over a restrictive interpretation that continues to be applied in ethe field of diplomatic protection, as the rule is not applied by such bodies as a strict requirement for the consideration of individual communications and complaints but rather as a rule that must be applied flexibly. This has been asserted by the European Court of Human Rights and the of Human Rights Council and the human rights treaty bodies. What can be concluded from the practices of these bodies is that the rule requires the exhaustion of available, effective and adequate remedies. On the other hand, these bodies have subjected the rule to a number of exceptions, particularly with regard to the nature and conditions of the remedies to be exhausted, and these exceptions can be considered necessary to conceptual the rationale for the rule when it is applied in the field of human rights protection, or as limitations to the rule more than just exceptions. These exceptions include lack of local remedies, ineffective or adequate remedies, denial of justice or delay, and disciplinary and administrative procedures.
See More
See Less