Condensed: A judgment should include the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning. However, a detailed answer to every argument advanced by a party is not required. The extent of the reasoning required may vary according to the legal tradition of a country. The reasoned judgment requirement ensures many fair trial guarantees, chief of which is to facilitate appeal or review proceedings. The effective operation of the judiciary may require higher courts to merely endorse the reasons of a lower court in dismissing an appeal. Comprehensive: The HRC has held that ‘the judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning must be made public.’[1] A judgment should thus clearly set out the reasons on which it is based. The right to a reasoned judgment is inherent in the right to a fair trial which is recognized in various international and regional human rights instruments.[2] In Verlinden v Netherlands, the HRC stated that article 14(1) of the ICCPR ‘cannot be interpreted as requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by a complainant.’ The HRC further noted that ‘the effective operation of the judiciary may require courts, especially the highest courts of States parties, merely to endorse the reasons for the lower court's decision in dismissing an appeal, so as to handle their caseload.’[3] The extent of the reasoning required may vary according to the legal tradition of a country. In Hiro Balani v Spain the ECtHR held:[4] The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. It is moreover necessary to take into account, inter alia, the diversity of the submissions that a litigant may bring before the courts and the differences existing in the Contracting States with regard to statutory provisions, customary rules, legal opinion and the presentation and drafting of judgments. The 'reasoned judgment' requirement ensures many fair trial guarantees, chief of which is to facilitate appeal or review proceedings.[5] (See *right to appeal*). In Hamiltonv Jamaica, a court of second instance failed to provide reasons for judgment. The HRC held that ‘the failure to issue a reasoned written judgment has effectively prevented the availability of a further remedy’.[6] A court of final instance is also required to provide reasons.[7] Higgins and Others v France dealt with a succession dispute giving rise to three sets of proceedings. The applicants asked that the proceedings should be transferred to another court because of alleged bias. The Court of Cassation held that two of the proceedings should be transferred but made no finding on the third set of proceedings. The ECtHR, in finding a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment, held ‘it is impossible to know whether the Court of Cassation simply neglected to make an order in respect of the third set of proceedings or whether it decided not to order transfer and, if so, why’[8] In Hadjianastassiou v Greece, the ECtHR found a violation of the ‘reasoned judgment’ requirement where a court read a judgment in open court which contained no reasons for the prescribed sentence.[9] [1] HRC General Comment 32 para 29.
[2] ICCPR art 14(1); ECHR art 6(1); ACHR art 8(1); ACHPR art 7. See also ICC art 74(5).
[3]Verlinden v Netherlands communication 1187/2003 (HRC 2006) para 7.7.
[4]Hiro Balani v Spain,application 18064/91 (ECtHR 1994) para 27.
[6]Hamilton v Jamaica communication 333/1988 (HRC 1994) para 9.1. See also Aboushanif v Norway communication 1542 2007 (HRC 2008); Garcia Ruiz v Spain, application 30544/96 (ECtHR 1999) para 26.
A judgment should include the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning. However, a detailed answer to every argument advanced by a party is not required. The extent of the reasoning required may vary according to the legal tradition of a country. The reasoned judgment requirement ensures many fair trial guarantees, chief of which is to facilitate appeal or review proceedings. The effective operation of the judiciary may require higher courts to merely endorse the reasons of a lower court in dismissing an appeal.
Comprehensive:
The HRC has held that ‘the judgment, including the essential findings, evidence and legal reasoning must be made public.’[1] A judgment should thus clearly set out the reasons on which it is based. The right to a reasoned judgment is inherent in the right to a fair trial which is recognized in various international and regional human rights instruments.[2]
In Verlinden v Netherlands, the HRC stated that article 14(1) of the ICCPR ‘cannot be interpreted as requiring a detailed answer to every argument advanced by a complainant.’ The HRC further noted that ‘the effective operation of the judiciary may require courts, especially the highest courts of States parties, merely to endorse the reasons for the lower court's decision in dismissing an appeal, so as to handle their caseload.’[3]
The extent of the reasoning required may vary according to the legal tradition of a country. In Hiro Balani v Spain the ECtHR held:[4]
The extent to which this duty to give reasons applies may vary according to the nature of the decision. It is moreover necessary to take into account, inter alia, the diversity of the submissions that a litigant may bring before the courts and the differences existing in the Contracting States with regard to statutory provisions, customary rules, legal opinion and the presentation and drafting of judgments.
The 'reasoned judgment' requirement ensures many fair trial guarantees, chief of which is to facilitate appeal or review proceedings.[5] (See *right to appeal*). In Hamilton v Jamaica, a court of second instance failed to provide reasons for judgment. The HRC held that ‘the failure to issue a reasoned written judgment has effectively prevented the availability of a further remedy’.[6]
A court of final instance is also required to provide reasons.[7] Higgins and Others v France dealt with a succession dispute giving rise to three sets of proceedings. The applicants asked that the proceedings should be transferred to another court because of alleged bias. The Court of Cassation held that two of the proceedings should be transferred but made no finding on the third set of proceedings. The ECtHR, in finding a violation of the right to a reasoned judgment, held ‘it is impossible to know whether the Court of Cassation simply neglected to make an order in respect of the third set of proceedings or whether it decided not to order transfer and, if so, why’[8]
In Hadjianastassiou v Greece, the ECtHR found a violation of the ‘reasoned judgment’ requirement where a court read a judgment in open court which contained no reasons for the prescribed sentence.[9]
[1] HRC General Comment 32 para 29.
[2] ICCPR art 14(1); ECHR art 6(1); ACHR art 8(1); ACHPR art 7. See also ICC art 74(5).
[3] Verlinden v Netherlands communication 1187/2003 (HRC 2006) para 7.7.
[4] Hiro Balani v Spain, application 18064/91 (ECtHR 1994) para 27.
[5] HRC General Comment 32 para 49.
[6] Hamilton v Jamaica communication 333/1988 (HRC 1994) para 9.1. See also Aboushanif v Norway communication 1542 2007 (HRC 2008); Garcia Ruiz v Spain, application 30544/96 (ECtHR 1999) para 26.
[7] Hiro Balani v Spain para 28.
[8] Higgins and Others v France, application 20124/92 (ECtHR 1998) para 43.
[9] Hadjianastassiou v Greece application 12945/87 (ECtHR 1992) paras 33-34.