An update on compliance by Zimbabwe with decisions and judgments of international human rights judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.

Abstract

The human rights discourse continues to follow a path of increasing emphasis on ensuring domestic implementation of human rights standards by state parties to various human rights instruments. It appears there is a clear and deliberate shift of focus from standard setting ushered by the proliferation of human rights instruments and institutions after WWII. Still to a fairly substantive degree, standard setting continues to be part of international human rights discourse as supervisory institutions continue to elaborate on them for the mutual benefit of duty and rights bearers alike. These human rights standards in question are predominantly provided for in international treaties and authoritative interpretations of supervisory institutions taking the form of general comments,views, findings, general recommendations as well as in decisions and judgments of judicial tribunals established at that level. In states where international law has influenced the domestic legal strata, international human rights standards are variably transposed into national bills of rights.