The Role of African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Achpr) for Human Rights Protection: The Case of Libyan Crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of regional human rights systems depicts one of the greatest achievements in the internationalization of human rights. The foundation of the charter paved the way for the birth of the court thereafter. The African Court is established by virtue of the 1998 protocol to the Charter and the court is built upon an arsenal of protective and remedial techniques. The establishment of the court has reset the stage and created a new platform for the protection of human rights in Africa. The cardinal objective of the paper is to investigate the role of African Court on human and Peoples’ rights protection in Libya Crises taking the case of Saif Al Islam Gaddafi. The paper has utilized qualitative methodology. The government of Libya responded with brutal force against civilian protesters in contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law. The security force of the government of Libya killed many protesters as well. This situation intensified human rights violations and enforced many of the peoples to displace. The court issued an important ruling in March 2011, ordering provisional measures against Libya in the armed conflict in its territory. Libya government denied the claims of human rights violations in its territory and showed its willingness to subject itself to criminal investigations by the Court if necessary. The issue of the fund, independence, commitment and competence of judges to interpret mandate and jurisdiction, the willingness of the states to support and to abide by court decisions, and powers of the concerned body to enforce court decisions hampered the court from being effective. Generally, unless African States act in good faith with respect to the decisions of the African Human Rights Court, the court becomes no more significant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".