English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

While many commentators have critiqued the lack of enforcement and monitoring mechanisms with the African human rights system, there have only been a few contributions that focus their analysis on the implementation of the recommendations provided by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. This lacuna means that little is actually known of the status of state compliance. The purpose of this article is to address the issues of implementation and compliance by examining in detail the ‘aftermath’ of two decisions of the African Commission: Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group (on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council) v Kenya (Endorois) and Mr Mamboleo M Itundamilamba v Democratic Republic of Congo (Mamboleo). By analysing the way state parties have reacted to these findings, the article aims to shed some light on the effectiveness of the mechanisms set up to monitor compliance, highlights the arguments used by state parties when refusing to implement the recommendations of the African Commission and examines the ways in which implementation is avoided.

african human rights yearbook

The (un)willingness to implement the recommendations of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights: revisiting the Endorois and the Mamboleo decisions