{"id":950,"date":"2001-10-09T13:08:35","date_gmt":"2001-10-09T13:08:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ihrda.huritech.org\/?p=950"},"modified":"2010-11-07T19:26:33","modified_gmt":"2010-11-07T19:26:33","slug":"judicial-colloquium-on-locus-standi-in-administrative-justice-and-human-rights-enforcement-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ihrda.org\/fr\/2001\/10\/judicial-colloquium-on-locus-standi-in-administrative-justice-and-human-rights-enforcement-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Judicial Colloquium on Locus Standi in Administrative Justice and Human Rights Enforcement"},"content":{"rendered":"

In cases involving human rights violations and those involving the responsibility of the State, the first obstacle encountered by the complainant is bound to question whether he has standing.<\/span> If the complainant has no standing to act, the complaint will be declared inadmissible.<\/span> This is one element of the procedure, which over the years have influenced the substance of the law.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Most of the country’s legal tradition of <\/span><\/span>common law<\/span><\/span><\/em> have adopted the test of ‘sufficient interest’ (<\/span><\/span>Sufficient interest<\/span><\/span><\/em>) to determine the <\/span><\/span>locus standi<\/span><\/span><\/em> standing.<\/span> However, some courts of these countries have limited the interpretation of the test of sufficient interest to plaintiffs who have a legitimate right (<\/span><\/span>personal right<\/span><\/span><\/em>).<\/span> This interpretation limits access to justice and therefore share the responsibility of the government in several ways:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n