The anti-European step taken by the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, by protecting the expulsion of asylum seekers to third countriesexposes the deterioration of human rights. In this field, the difficulties center on the numerous obstacles of the states themselves that prevent the implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations Committees or the resolutions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) or the Court of Justice of the European Union ( CJEU), as we have just seen with the violation of its ruling of October 4 on asylum.
We see a notorious example of the lack of effectiveness of certain rights in Spain in the ineffectiveness of the rulings of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), on housing. Since 2013, when the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) came into force, the committee that supervises it has issued twelve opinions on forced housing evictions. In none of the nine sentences against Spain have the victims received the reparation that the ruling demanded.
The lack of effective implementation of the resolutions of the human rights committees affects fundamental rights. Some of these matters have ended up in the Supreme Court, which maintains a variable doctrine. Faced with this uncertainty, María José Añón Roig, professor of Philosophy of Law at the University of Valencia, and Sonia Olea Ferreras, legal expert in Human Rights, propose legal changes to achieve the effectiveness of these rights. In their study The reform of the Treaty Law as a legislative response to the Supreme Court’s request to regulate the opinions of the human rights Treaty bodies, they advocate a reform of Treaty Law 25/2014 to “have a regulation that responds to this new paradigm of interrelation between international law and domestic law.”
The jurists who have analyzed the resolutions of the Supreme Court that examine the resolutions of the International Human Rights Committees emphasize that “in all the sentences the lack of a specific legal channel to respond to those decisions in which violations of rights are declared is confirmed. humans.” “What happens,” explains Sonia Olea, “is that when we see that the resolutions of the Rights Committees are not complied with, we have to go to the Supreme Court, but we have no certainty of what it will decide, that is why we ask for a legal change. . What we ask is that the victim’s reparation be direct and she does not have to return to court.”
The obstacles are fundamental. On occasions, the Supreme Court has declared that the decisions of the Committees are not comparable to the rulings of international courts. Thesis supported by the State Attorney’s Office in Circular 1/2020 that states: “the opinions do not have binding legal force.” We have the adversaries of the effectiveness of human rights at home.
