![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
States have an obligation to ensure equal access to justice. This obligation entails the provision of free legal aid to those without sufficient means to pay for legal services. The absence of free legal aid is a barrier to equal access to justice, which in turn detrimentally affects vulnerable groups, hindering equality in the enjoyment of human rights. In the assessment of criteria for free legal aid, relevant criteria are the significance of the rights that are affected, the general impact of the case, the complexity of the case, the ability to self-represent, and the chances of success.
Notes
1P Galowitz ‘Right to Legal Aid and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Litigation’, in Legal Practitioner's Dossier, Centre on Housing Rights & Evictions (2006), http://www.right-to-education.org/resource/litigating-economic-social-cultural-rights-legal-practitioners-dossier. All websites were last accessed on 22 June 2015.
2A Durbach ‘The Right to Legal Aid in Social Rights Litigation’, in M Langford (ed), Social Rights Jurisprudence – Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law’ (Cambridge University Press, 2008). pp. 59–75.
3Knaul builds upon the work of the previous Special Rapporteur, Leandro Despoy, who emphasised the need to remove financial barriers to access to justice in his 2008 report to the Human Rights Council. See Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy (2008), UN Doc A/HRC/8/4.
4Report of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Gabriela Knaul (21 May 2013), UN Doc A/HRC/23 /43, para 20.
5 Ibid, para 27.
6 Oló Bahamonde v Equatorial Guinea, Communication No 468/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/49/D/468/1991 (1993).
7 Leonard John Lindon v Australia, Communication No 646/1995, UN Doc CCPR/C/64/D/646/1995 (25 November 1998), ZP v Canada, Communication No 341/1988, UN Doc CCPR/C/41/D/341/1988 (1991); Valichon Aliboev v Tajikistan, Communication No 985/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/985/2001 (2005); Barno Saidova v Tajikistan, Communication No 964/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/964/2001 (2004); Mr Azer Garyverdy ogly Aliev v Ukraine, Communication No 781/1997, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/781/1997 (2003); Robinson LaVende v Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No 554/1993, UN Doc CCPR/C/61/D/554/1993 (17 November 1997); HC v Jamaica, Communication No 383/1989, UN Doc CCPR/C/45/D/383/1989 (1992); Paul Kelly v Jamaica, Communication No 253/1987, UN Doc CCPR/C/41/D/253/1987 at 60 (1991); Desmond Taylor v Jamaica, Communication No 705/1996, UN Doc CCPR/C/62/D/705/1996 (4 June 1998); Lawrence Chan v Guyana, Communication No 913/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/85/D/913/2000 (2006); Fazal Hussain v Mauritius, Communication No 980/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/77/D/980/2001 (2003) ; and Karina Arutyunyan v Uzbekistan, Communication No 917/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/80/D/917/2000 (2004).
8For example, few states provide access to free legal aid for those without financial means in all cases where the interests of justice require legal assistance. Several states have decided not to provide free legal aid in certain areas of law. According to the Act relating to Legal Aid in Norway (3 June 1980, No 35) s 11, free legal aid is provided in seven different areas of law without any means testing. Further, free legal aid is provided in eight additional areas of law after a strict means testing. An exception clause exists. However, exceptions are only made when the case at hand closely resembles the areas of law enlisted in s 11. This means that many areas of law fall outside the scope of free legal aid. For example, victims of discrimination do not have access to free legal aid.
9Inter-American Commission of Human Rights OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc 68, Access to justice for women victims of violence in the Americas, 20 January 2007.
10Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of 17 September 2003, Requested by the United Mexican States, Juridical Condition and Rights of the Undocumented Migrants.
11 Simone André Diniz v Brazil, Case 12.001, Report No 37/02, Inter-Am. C.H.R., Doc 5 rev 1 at 167 (2002).
12 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy (n 3 above), para 65.
13Durbach (n 2 above) p. 68.
14IAmCtHR, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 (n 9 above), para 22.
15Inter-American Commission on Human rights ‘Access to justice as a guarantee of economic, social, and cultural rights. A review of the standards adopted by the system of human rights’, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129 Doc 4 (7 September 2007).
16In comparison, Principle G of the Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa describes an obligation to ensure effective and equal access to lawyers for all persons within the state's territory and jurisdiction, and without discrimination of any kind, including property; and Principle 1 of the Council of Europe's resolution 78(8) determines that no one should be prevented by economic obstacles from pursuing or defending his right before any court.
17 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy (n 3 above) para 23.
18Legal empowerment of the poor and eradication of poverty. Report of the Secretary-General (2009), UN Doc A/64/133.
19 Purohit and Moore v The Gambia, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Comm No 241/2001 (2003), para 37.
20CESCR General Comment No 20 Non-discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2009), UN Doc E/C.12/GC/20, para 35.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid, para 39.
25 Ibid, para 40.
26R Smith ‘Legal Aid Crisis: A Way Forward’, (2004) Justice Journal 1(2), 44–66.
27European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), as amended by Protocols Nos 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5, Art 13; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171, Art 2(3); and Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) (IAmCHR), entered into force 16 November 1999, OAS Treaty Series No 69 (1988) reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System OEA/Ser L V/II.82 Doc 6 Rev 1 at 67 (1992), Art 25.
28ICCPR (n 27 above), Art 14; and ECHR (n 27 above), Art 6
29 Feldbrugge v The Netherlands, Application No 8562/79, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Plenary) 29 May 1986; Deumeland v Germany, Application No 9384/81, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Plenary) 29 May 1986; Salesi v Italy, Application No 13023/87, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Chamber) 26 February 1993; and Schuler-Zgraggen v Switzerland, Application No 14518/89, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) 24 June 1993.
30 Airey v Ireland, Application No 6289/73, Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (Chamber) 9 October 1979, para 26.
31 Ibid.
32See Steel and Morris v United Kingdom (ECtHR, 15 February 2005). Also see the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Art 47 which determines that ‘Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice’.
33 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul (n 4 above), para 48.
34 Ibid, para 25.
35 Ibid, para 48.
36African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights: Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, A (2), DOC/OS(XXX) 247.
37IAmCmHR, A review of the standards adopted by the system of human rights (n 16 above).
38Galowitz (n 1 above), 47–48.
39Durbach (n 2 above), 70–75.
40Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993, para 5.
41 Airey v Ireland (n 31 above), para 26.
42 ZT v Norway, Communication No 238/2003, UN Doc CAT/C/35/D/238/2003 (2005).
43 ZT v Norway, Communication No 238/2003, UN Doc CAT/C/35/D/238/2003 (2005), para 6.3.
44CESCR, General Comment No 19 The Right to Social Security (Art 9) (2008), UN Doc E/C.12/GC/19, para 77.
45CESCR, General Comment No 4 The Right to Adequate Housing (Art 11 (1) of the Covenant), 13 December 1991, UN Doc E/1992/23.
46CESCR, General Comment No 7 The Right to Adequate Housing (Art 11.1): forced evictions, 20 May 1997, UN Doc E/1998/22.
47CESCR, General Comment No 17 The Right of Everyone to Benefit from the Protection of the Moral and Material Interests Resulting from any Scientific, Literary or Artistic Production of which He or She is the Author (Art 15, para 1 (c), of the Covenant) (2005), UN Doc E/C.12/GC/17, para 18.
48CESCR, General Comment No 15 The Right to Water (arts 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on ESCR) (2002), UN Doc E/C.12/2002/11, para 56.
49 Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant, Concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, UN Doc E/C.12/1/Add.19, para 9.
50 Ibid, para 22.
51CESCR, Concluding observations on the initial report of Togo, adopted by the Committee at its fiftieth session (29 April–17 May 2013) Togo, 3 June 2013, UN Doc E/C.12/TGO/CO/1, para 8.
52ECSR: Conclusions I, Italy, Norway, Turkey, 1969, 86.
53ECSR: Conclusions I, Germany, 1969, 217.
54ECSR: Conclusions XIV-1, Ireland (1998), 366.
55 International Movement ATD Fourth World v France, Complaint No 33/2006, Decision on the Merits 5 December 2007; European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v France, Complaint No 51/2008, Decision on the Merits 19 October 2009; International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH) v Belgium, Complaint No 62/2010, Decision on the Merits 21 March 2012; Medicins du Monde International v France, Complaint No 67/2011, Decision on the Merits 27 March 2013; European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v Italy, Complaint No 27/2004, Decision on the Merits 21 December 2005; European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA) v France, Complaint No 39/2006, Decision on the Merits 5 December 2006.
56Report of the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, Making the Law work for everyone: Vol 2 – Working Group Reports, UNDP (2008), 36.
57 ZUBS v Australia, Communication No 6/1995, UN Doc CERD/C/55/D/6/1995 (1999).
58 Nikolas Regerat et al. v France, Communication No 24/2002, UN Doc CERD/C/62/D/24/2002 (2003).
59 Ibid, para 5.2.
60 Ibid, para 6.3.
61 ZT v Norway (n 44 above).
62 Heiresh Kakazar Agalar v Norway, Application No 55120/09, European Court of Human Rights, 8 November 2011.
63Galowitz (n 1 above), 47–48.
64M Langford, ‘Judicial Review in National Courts – Recognition and Responsiveness’, in E Riedel, G Giacca and C Golay (eds), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law: Contemporary Issues and Challenges (Oxford University Press, 2014).
65 Andrew Harte & Family v Canada, report No 81/05, petition 11.862, 24 October 2005, para 80–83.
66Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Resolution 78(8) (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 January 1978, at the 281st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies).
67 DS v Sweden, Communication No 21/1998, UN Doc CERD/C/59/D/21/2001 (2001).
68Legal Aid Act (Finland), (257/2002) and its later amendments (972/2004 and (927/2008).
69JT Johnsen, ‘Do Norwegian Legal Aid Reforms Adequately Draw Upon the Lessons from Legal Aid Finland and England? Comments on White Paper nr. 26 On Public Legal Aid. Correct aid’, (2009) 35 Critical Law 157–95.
70 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul (n 4 above), para 50.
71 Airey v Ireland (n 31 above), para 26.
72Galowitz (n 1 above) p. 49.
73Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights reads ‘Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice’. This has not yet been concretised in a legally binding directive to EU member states to adopt legislation on this matter.
74For example, the Norwegian legal aid scheme has not once escaped international scrutiny. See Committee against Torture Concluding observations Norway, UN Doc CAT/C/NOR/6–7; Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations to Norway, UN Doc CCPR/C/NOR/CO/6; The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Observations to Norway, UN Doc CEDAW/C/NOR/CO/8; The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Concluding Observations to Norway, UN Doc CERD/C/NOR/CO/19–20; The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Concluding Observations to Norway, UN Doc E/C.12/NOR/CO/5i9; The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women Concluding Observations to Norway, UN Doc CEDAW/C/NOR/CO/8; The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Concluding Observations to Norway, UN Doc CERD/C/NOR/CO/19–20; and The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Concluding Observations to Norway, UN Doc E/C.12/NOR/CO/5i9.