3.1.5 Trial within reasonable time Condensed: Factors to be considered in determining whether a civil case has been decided within reasonable time include the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute. States have a duty to act with exceptional diligence in cases where there is a danger that any procedural delay will result in the de facto determination of the issue submitted to the court before it has held its hearing, for example in cases dealing with child custody. Comprehensive: The HRC has held that the provision on fair hearing in article 14(1) of the ICCPR necessarily entails that justice be rendered without undue delay not only in criminal trials as provided for in article 14(3)(c), (see *trial without undue delay*), but also in civil proceedings.[1] Both the ECHR and the ACHR provide that both criminal and civil proceedings should be concluded ‘within a reasonable time’.[2] According to the ECtHR factors to be considered in determining whether a case has been decided within reasonable time include ‘the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute’.[3] With regard to the complexity of the case, the ECtHR has held that a first instance court should not take four years to decide a dispute, with no fault of the complainants, that ‘originated simply in an action for recovery of possession’.[4] States have a duty to act with ‘exceptional diligence’ in cases where there is a ‘danger that any procedural delay will result in the de facto determination of the issue submitted to the court before it has held its hearing’,[5] for example in cases dealing with child custody[6] or where the plaintiff is terminally ill.[7] In Gonzalez v Guyana the HRC held that an appeal against a decision denying citizenship which had the effect of separating a man from his wife should not have taken 28 months to decide.[8] High workload of courts is no excuse for excessive delays.[9] The HRC has held that where ‘delays are caused by a lack of resources and chronic under-funding, to the extent possible supplementary budgetary resources should be allocated for the administration of justice.’[10] Systems should be in place to determine which cases should take priority.[11] Additional references L Burgorgue-Larsen & A Ubeda de Torres The Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Case law and commentary (2011) M Nowak UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – CCPR commentary (2005) C Ovey & R White The European Convention on Human Rights (2006) M Sepúlveda et al Universal and regional human rights protection – Cases and commentaries
[1]Muñoz Hermoza v Peru communication 203/1986 (HRC 1998) para 11.3. [2] ECHR art 6(1), ACHR art 8(1). ACHPR art 7(1)(d) provides for the ‘right to be tried within a reasonable time’. The ACmHPR has held that this provision also covers civil proceedings see Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Zimbabwe communication 293/2004 (ACHPR 2008) para 130. [3]Scordino and Others v Italy (No 1) application 36813/97 (ECtHR 2006) para 177. See also Valle Jaramilloet al v Colombia (IACtHR 2008) para 155. [4]Strain and Others v Romaniaapplication 57001/00 (ECtHR 2005) paras 67-69. [5]H v UK application 9580/81 (ECtHR (plenary) 1987) para 85. [6] See eg Fei v Colombia communication 514/1992 (HRC 1995) para 8.4. [7] X v France application 18020/91 (ECtHR 1992) para 47. [8]Gonzalez v Guyana communication 1246/2004 (HRC 2010) para 14.2. [9]Muti v Italy application 14146/88 (ECtHR 1994) para 15. [10] HRC General Comment 32 para 27. [11] Cf Casanovas v France communication 441/1990 (HRC 1994) paras 7.3 & 7.4.
Condensed:
Factors to be considered in determining whether a civil case has been decided within reasonable time include the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute. States have a duty to act with exceptional diligence in cases where there is a danger that any procedural delay will result in the de facto determination of the issue submitted to the court before it has held its hearing, for example in cases dealing with child custody.
Comprehensive:
The HRC has held that the provision on fair hearing in article 14(1) of the ICCPR necessarily entails that justice be rendered without undue delay not only in criminal trials as provided for in article 14(3)(c), (see *trial without undue delay*), but also in civil proceedings.[1] Both the ECHR and the ACHR provide that both criminal and civil proceedings should be concluded ‘within a reasonable time’.[2]
According to the ECtHR factors to be considered in determining whether a case has been decided within reasonable time include ‘the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities, and the importance of what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute’.[3]
With regard to the complexity of the case, the ECtHR has held that a first instance court should not take four years to decide a dispute, with no fault of the complainants, that ‘originated simply in an action for recovery of possession’.[4]
States have a duty to act with ‘exceptional diligence’ in cases where there is a ‘danger that any procedural delay will result in the de facto determination of the issue submitted to the court before it has held its hearing’,[5] for example in cases dealing with child custody[6] or where the plaintiff is terminally ill.[7]
In Gonzalez v Guyana the HRC held that an appeal against a decision denying citizenship which had the effect of separating a man from his wife should not have taken 28 months to decide.[8]
High workload of courts is no excuse for excessive delays.[9] The HRC has held that where ‘delays are caused by a lack of resources and chronic under-funding, to the extent possible supplementary budgetary resources should be allocated for the administration of justice.’[10] Systems should be in place to determine which cases should take priority.[11]
Additional references
L Burgorgue-Larsen & A Ubeda de Torres The Inter-American Court of Human Rights – Case law and commentary (2011)
M Nowak UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – CCPR commentary (2005)
C Ovey & R White The European Convention on Human Rights (2006)
M Sepúlveda et al Universal and regional human rights protection – Cases and commentaries
[1]Muñoz Hermoza v Peru communication 203/1986 (HRC 1998) para 11.3.
[2] ECHR art 6(1), ACHR art 8(1). ACHPR art 7(1)(d) provides for the ‘right to be tried within a reasonable time’. The ACmHPR has held that this provision also covers civil proceedings see Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights and Another v Zimbabwe communication 293/2004 (ACHPR 2008) para 130.
[3] Scordino and Others v Italy (No 1) application 36813/97 (ECtHR 2006) para 177. See also Valle Jaramillo et al v Colombia (IACtHR 2008) para 155.
[4] Strain and Others v Romania application 57001/00 (ECtHR 2005) paras 67-69.
[5] H v UK application 9580/81 (ECtHR (plenary) 1987) para 85.
[6] See eg Fei v Colombia communication 514/1992 (HRC 1995) para 8.4.
[7] X v France application 18020/91 (ECtHR 1992) para 47.
[8] Gonzalez v Guyana communication 1246/2004 (HRC 2010) para 14.2.
[9]Muti v Italy application 14146/88 (ECtHR 1994) para 15.
[10] HRC General Comment 32 para 27.
[11] Cf Casanovas v France communication 441/1990 (HRC 1994) paras 7.3 & 7.4.