Chapter 1 • International Human Rights Law and the Role of the Legal Professions: A General Introduction “is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private or family life (...). These obligations may involve the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for private life even in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves.”47 The States parties to the European Convention will thus have to provide “practical and effective protection” in their domestic law “where fundamental values and essential aspects of private life are at stake”, such as, for instance, in order to protect persons against sexual abuse,48 or in cases of corporal punishment by family members that constitutes a violation of article 3 of the Convention.49 With regard to the duty to secure for everyone within its jurisdiction the right to life, the European Court has held that it “involves a primary duty” to put “in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and punishment of such provisions”, and, further, that this duty “also extends in appropriate circumstances to a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual or individuals whose life is at risk from the criminal acts of another individual(...)”.50 These rulings are significant in that they extend the scope of States’ international legal obligations beyond the strict public sphere into the field of private life, thereby allowing for a more adequate and effective protection against various forms of human rights violations, such as physical and mental abuse of children, women and the mentally handicapped. ***** A State will however only incur international responsibility for a human rights violation if it has failed to provide the alleged victim with an adequate and effective remedy through the workings of its own courts or administrative authorities. The requirement at the international level that all effective domestic remedies must have been exhausted before an alleged victim’s complaints can be considered by an international monitoring body of a judicial or quasi-judicial character has been introduced precisely in order to allow the State itself to remedy the wrongs committed. This also means that the establishment of the various international machineries for the protection of the human person is in fact “subsidiary” to the available domestic systems for safeguarding the individual, since they “become involved only through contentious proceedings and once all domestic remedies have been exhausted”.51 47 Eur. Court HR, Case of X. and Y. v. the Netherlands, Judgment of 26 September 1985, Series A, No. 91, p. 11, para. 23. 48 Ibid., p. 14, para. 30 and p. 13, para. 27. 49 Eur. Court HR, Case of A. v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI, concerning the responsibility of the United Kingdom for beating of child by stepfather. 50 Eur. Court HR, Case of Mahmut Kaya v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, para. 85. The text used is that found on the Court’s web site: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ 51 Statement with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights, Eur. Court HR, Case of Handyside, Judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A, Vol. 24, p. 22, para. 48. 18 Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers