Fitting a Square Peg in a Round Hole? : Challenges and Prospects of Inter-State Human Rights Complaints as (Overlapping) Avenues for Individual Reparations

This article examines the evolving role of inter-state human rights complaints as a procedural avenue for reparations, particularly where they intersect with individual claims. Traditionally regarded as diplomatic instruments or tools of strategic litigation, inter-state applications increasingly serve as mechanisms for addressing large-scale human rights violations. This study analyses the legal framework governing such proceedings and examines whether and to what extent human rights bodies reconcile State responsibility with individual reparations. It further investigates the complexities of quantifying and allocating reparations in overlapping claims, particularly concerning res judicata, lis pendens, and the prohibition of double recovery. Additionally, it evaluates the potential of friendly settlements as a flexible mechanism for balancing sovereign interests with victims’ rights. Ultimately, the article advocates for a cohesive and integrated framework that harmonizes judicial adjudication with alternative reparative mechanisms, reinforcing accountability and strengthening human rights protection in inter-state litigation.