Examiners’ reports 2019

Examiners’ reports 2019

LA2029 International protection of human rights

Introduction
The exam paper followed a slightly different format from previous years in that it had
seven questions as opposed to eight; students had to answer three questions as
opposed to four. As usual, students had a free choice as to which questions they
chose to answer. The rubric allows the inclusion of scenarios – problem-type
questions – and essay-type questions. To keep the paper varied from year-to-year,
there was no problem question this year – there had been one last year. The study
of IPHR lends itself to essay-type questions and problem-type scenarios.
On the whole, the best scripts were those that had two key qualities. First, those that
ensured that each answer focused on the actual question being asked and the
specific issues it raised. Answering the question alone is not enough. Many students
reproduced almost verbatim the same pre-learnt answer – they did not do as well as
they might have. Better answers demonstrated that the student had read around the
subject and was able to apply this wider reading to the issues raised by the questions.
The second key quality was answering the correct number of questions. There
were two variations of this. First, a surprising and new feature was the number of
rubric violations, where students answered four questions seeking to take advantage
of the fact that the best three marks will be recorded. This is unwise, as you lose time
writing better answers to the questions you can do. See further below on this.
Secondly, was where a significant number of students were able to answer two
questions well but either ran out of time for the third question or had revised too
narrowly and were unable to write a third answer that had any substance to it. More
generally, students also should refer to the Assessment Criteria to familiarise
themselves with the criteria that are applied to mark the examinations.
When the examination starts it is important to read very carefully the whole paper
question by question and then decide which questions you are potentially able to
attempt. It is then key to try to evaluate which questions you can answer best. Only
identify the correct number of questions. When you have decided which questions to
do, it is always best draw up a brief plan of how you will answer each question. Then
once you have done this you should begin answering the first question you have
identified. Some examiners think it is best to start with the question students can
answer best. Others feel it is better to get the weaker ones out of the way and then
write your stronger questions toward the end. This is deemed to give ‘exit velocity’.
Others have no views. There is no one approach that works for all students and it is
better to answer questions in the order you feel suits you best. The questions are set
out to allow you to demonstrate your knowledge and understanding in relation to
specific issues. Although there may be some marginal overlap, there are no two
questions on the same topic. There are no trick questions, so ask yourself ‘why have
the examiners asked me this?’

1
As noted above, in sitting an examination timing is very important: divide up the total
allowable examination time into time for reading and planning (5 minutes each
question) and time to write the answer. In the case of IPHR this is 60 minutes per
question as you have to answer three questions in three hours and 15 minutes.
Remember to stick rigidly to this – that means you stop writing immediately the 60
minutes writing time you have allotted is up. If you do not you are throwing marks
away. As noted above, there were many papers where students answered two out of
three questions well but had clearly run out of time for the third and final answer. By
spending less time on each of the other questions and more on the final question,
their overall mark would have improved significantly.
To return to the other key issue noted above, it cannot be overstated but your primary
aim in the examination is to answer the question. You are told this constantly both
because it is true and because failing to abide by this simple rule is the number one
cause of failure or underperformance in examinations. At every point in the
examination you should ask yourself whether you are answering the question. Essay
questions can cause difficulty for students as they provide scope for a general
discussion that fails to answer the question. Many students read an examination
question, identified it as a particular area and then simply wrote an essay covering all
they knew about it; they did not do well on those questions. There was also clear
evidence of students having pre-learnt an answer and then interpreted a question so
as to be about the pre-learnt answer. Again, they did poorly on those questions. Read
the question, identify the area it is actually about (not what you hope it is about) and
analyse the question. Break it down into its constituent parts, and really think – ‘what
am I being asked here?’ and ‘how can I best answer it?’ If many students did this for
all questions answered, their final mark would have improved significantly.
It should be noted, however, there were some very good, indeed outstanding,
individual answers as well as overall papers in this examination. Some other students
had a good grasp of the relevant issues, cases, treaties and national legislation but
were not always able to write an answer reflecting that knowledge. But there were
also certain common errors, which occur in most examination sittings. Some
candidates answered two questions on the same topic. As noted above, it is highly
unlikely that this is ever the case on any law exam paper and it was certainly not the
case on this paper. If you discuss exactly the same material twice in the same exam
paper, you have misunderstood the scope of at least one of the questions.

Comments on specific questions

Question 1
‘There should be no place for individual petition mechanisms in global
systems for the protection of human rights.’
Discuss.
General remarks
Not the most popular question although a good number of students tackled it. There
were some outstanding answers. Many others followed a similar format and had
clearly been pre-learnt by rote and discussed all they knew about enforcement.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
There were no specific cases that needed to be discussed.
Common errors
There were generic common errors, such as not answering the actual question but
nothing specific.

2
 Examiners’ reports 2019

A good answer to this question would…

consider the question carefully. The question was worded broadly enough for
students to discuss Charter and Treaty-based mechanisms although the focus
should have been on the value or not of individual petition mechanisms in light of
the narrow focus of such mechanisms. These can be contrasted with reporting
mechanisms and further with Charter-based mechanisms, among others. These
other mechanisms can be reactive as well as proactive and deal with situations as
opposed to the individual nature of petition systems. Equally, petition systems can
lead to important changes in the law – and very good answers expanded on this.
Good answers discussed how jurisprudence from petition systems in the UN Treaty
Bodies can help with the development of General Comments. Such answers also
highlighted the complementarity of mechanisms but also the overlap and tensions
between them. Some good answers discussed the politicisation that relates to how
the Charter mechanisms/procedures operate. Very good students contrasted this
with the legalisation and objectivity of petition systems. There was no one way to
answer the question and students were given credit for tackling it in any relevant
way and discussing issues that relate to it.
Poor answers to this question…
did not answer the question or tended to be pre learnt.
Student extract
Petition systems are where individuals can go before international courts to
have their human rights upheld. These are powerful mechanisms for
enforcing human rights. The European Court of Human Rights is such a court
and there is an American one also. These courts can make states respect
rights and there are many examples of courts protecting rights against the
wishes of states. For example, in Saadi v Italy, the European Court forced
Italy to not send someone back against their will even though they were a
terrorist. ... At the UN the most important body is the Human Rights
Commission. Other UN methods including reporting systems and the UN
Charter system exist. Reporting systems are where States have to submit
reports. Every UN treaty has one. Not all have courts set up but the reporting
system is important. Reports allow States to set out and explain how they are
meeting their obligations. The committee considers the report and gives
advice. The same committee also becomes a court and can hear the
petitions. This can be tricky as there is less trust. States do not like courts as
they can lose. Example of a case before the CEDAW court was A v Hungry
[sic] where there was domestic violence. European court is the busiest court
and hears cases from Europeans all over the world. It is the most successful
of the courts. There are many cases which make a difference. Saadi and
Chahal and also Soering. But the system is in a lot of problems…
Comments on extract
This was overall a reasonably good answer to the question and the student was
awarded a middling lower second. The student understood the question and was
trying to use his/her knowledge to answer it. The answer displays that the student
understands what a petition system is but equated that to a court. The various UN
human rights petition systems are not courts but Committees (the answer refers to
the Human Rights Commission – it is the Human Rights Committee, they probably
mean) – and are better described as quasi-judicial as opposed to judicial. The
student is correct in that the European Court system is a petition system but it is not
a global one, rather a regional one. That, of course, tells us something – regional
and universal mechanisms can be complementary but also compete with one
another. The student also recognised that different mechanisms to monitor or
supervise compliance exist. The student did not, however, really explore some of

3
the consequences of his/her observations. Developing the understanding and
linking things up would have enhanced the answer and the mark awarded.
Question 2
‘Economic, social and cultural rights are by far the most important of all
rights.’
Discuss.
General remarks
A quite popular question. There were some outstanding answers. There were a few
pre-learnt by rote answers but they did not do well.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
There were no specific cases that needed to be discussed.
Common errors
Nothing specific.
A good answer to this question would…
consider the question carefully. This question asked students to consider the
relationship between all rights – economic and social rights, civil and political rights
and further solidarity or other rights and rights related processes such as
development, which they were familiar with. The question challenged students to
consider whether, for example, education and housing are less or more important
than, for example, freedom of expression and whether the relationship between
them is mutually dependent. Better students discussed the interrelationship
between rights as set out in various documents such as the Vienna Conference but
highlighted that the relationship set out there does not fully stand up to scrutiny.
Better answers also considered the fact that those rights that are jus cogens or erga
omnes (with the exception of self-determination) are civil and political in nature.
Students justifiably could agree or disagree with the proposition and that was
perfectly acceptable as long as a coherent answer was provided.
Poor answers to this question…
simply did not relate matters to the question actually posed on economic and social
rights and their relationship with their rights.
Student extract
We are always told that rights are inter-related, indivisible, inter-dependent.
This has been said may times. It means all rights are just as important as one
another, no rights which are more important. I do disagree with this as I feel
some rights are more important. In many countries rights are not respected
as they are seen as western. Even where rights are seen as ‘universal’
countries differ. Judge Higgins says everyone wants the same things. This is
right but what I might need is different from other people. In Africa food and
water is seen as important to survive. In rich countries, it is how good the
house is. The rights we need are for us. For a child in Malaysia important
rights are different than for a rich person in New York. This is not relativism
but the idea that no right is always important to everyone. For hungry children
in India is the right to food more important or the right to work? There are no
easy answers to these questions.
Comments on extract
This answer tackled the question posed and spent all the discussion trying to address
it. The student wrote everything he or she knew or thought relevant to the issue but
did not seek to write a coherent answer that had a theme running through it. If the
student had thought through and reflected upon the way in which the question was
phrased, he or she would have realised the theme of the question was on the

4
 Examiners’ reports 2019

importance (or not) of economic and social rights. The student spent time discussing
all rights but not using economic and social rights as the yardstick. Later on, the
student’s answer did move on to the issues at the heart of the question and returned
to some of the observations here. Focusing on this aspect of the question earlier on
and in more detail would have provided a better answer. It was awarded a lower
second but it was clear the student – if more thought had gone in to the structure –
could have achieved a higher mark with their knowledge.
Question 3
‘The Women’s Convention has inadvertently “ghettoised” and prevented the
mainstreaming of women’s rights.’
Discuss.
General remarks
A very popular question. A majority of students tackled it. On the whole, many
students described a litany of abuses of women’s rights but did not discuss the
value of the Women’s Convention. Answering the question was key here. Some
students did exceptionally well.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
No specific cases to discuss.
Common errors
Not answering the question posed. The question is about whether the Women’s
Convention is inadvertently harmful to women’s rights – that needed to be
addressed.
A good answer to this question would…
seek to consider the value provided by the Women’s Convention and related
activities such as the Special Rapporteur. The Women’s Convention does not as
such protect rights that are not addressed in other treaties but it does provide
specific focus and attention and furthers the opportunity for normative development
and or innovation on the issues that specifically affect women such as FGM and
domestic violence or trafficking for sexual purposes, which do not affect men in the
same way or on the same scale. There is, with the adoption of the Women’s
Convention, no simple duplication but added value and a broader understanding of
what we consider to be human rights and how violations can be tackled. Very good
students pointed out problems of coordination between UN treaty bodies, in
particular, where they start to take different approaches to the same issues. There
is a broader point, however, which is the question seeks to consider the validity of
the entire Convention due to the fact that it arguably ‘compartmentalises’ or
‘ghettoises’ Women’s rights. A number of feminist scholars have criticised the
Convention for this reason and this was part of the set reading. Students could have
tackled the question any way they wanted but should have recognised the value of
the women’s rights and the Women’s Convention.
Poor answers to this question…
simply discussed abuses of rights and did not relate the discussion to the question
actually posed.
Student extract
The Womans [sic] Convention has many reservations to it and many Muslim
country do not like it. This is because it is not a Convention adopted with
Islam in mind. …In Muslim countries, men can marry four wives and women
cannot even gives the evidence. The Womans Convention makes the men
and women the same but they are not same. Mens cannot have children but
womens can be doctor and lawyers. The Womans Convention is western but

5
 many country is not the western. In Pakistan we had social media star
Qandeel Baluch. She tries to be western but her brother kill her. Police arrest
him but many peoples support him as she brings the shame… Woman
Convention not change things in many countries for women…
Comments on extract
This was an interesting and thoughtful approach to the question. The student’s
basic thesis was that the Women’s Convention makes no difference to the lives of
women in many countries. This is because women are marginalised and ghettoised
so their rights will be also. Using a series of examples, starting with some recent
incidents in Pakistan, the answer highlighted the effective marginalisation of the
rights of women in many countries and how the Convention made no difference to
them. An issue not addressed by the answer was why women’s rights may be any
different from other rights, for example, the right to a fair trial or the right to not be
tortured. But it was thoughtful, insightful and in parts quite novel. It was awarded an
upper second.
Question 4
‘Continued focus on the cultural relativism of human rights overlooks the fact
that so much of the corpus of human rights is universally accepted.’
Discuss.
General remarks
A very popular question. A majority of students tackled it. Some students did
exceptionally well, these were those who answered the question posed. Those who
reproduced a rote learnt answer did not do well.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
References to the Vienna Conference and Beijing Conference were welcome.
Common errors
A common error was not answering the actual question posed.
A good answer to this question would…
realise that the question turned the usual assumptions on their head and asked
students to consider the ‘universality’ of human rights and what is agreed as
opposed to what is not. With regard to cultural relativism, answers may properly
have referred to women’s rights, children’s rights or religious rights, for example, but
those issues should not have been subject to detailed focus. Very good answers
considered other rights such as torture, where relativism is limited and highlighted
that there is a corpus of law where states agree, even if they violate those rights in
practice. Students could have agreed or disagreed with the proposition and that
was perfectly acceptable so long as a coherent answer was provided.
Poor answers to this question…
simply discussed cultural relativism and did not relate it to the question actually
posed.
Student extract
The Vienna Conference made very clear that all rights are just as important
as one another, no right is more important than another. Cultural relativity is
the idea that the rights we have depend on our culture. In some countries
rights are protected and in some they are not but this is not always related to
culture. In China or Saudi Arabia is it culture that means rights are breached?
In Saudi Arabia it is because of the place of Islam. In China it is because it is
not democratic. But democracy does not mean rights. In the USA you have
Gitmo [Guantanamo Bay] and we can see from President Trump that he does

6
 Examiners’ reports 2019

not respect the rights of women or Muslims. There is no one reason why
rights are not protected. Culture is sometimes an excuse, sometime not.
Comments on extract
This answer adopted a ‘scatter-gun’ approach. This means that the student wrote
everything he or she knew or thought relevant to the issue but did not seek to write
a coherent answer which had a theme running through it. It is here where the
‘thinking and planning time’ is best used. If the student had thought through and
reflected upon the way in which the question was phrased, he or she would have
realised the theme of the question is on the body of agreement not on the areas of
disagreement. Focusing knowledge to this end would have provided a far better
answer. It was awarded a third.
Question 5
‘Those aspects of international law dealing with the rights of displaced
persons are not fit for purpose.’
Discuss.
General remarks
Another very popular question. Many students tackled it. Some did extremely well,
others interpreted it too narrowly.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
The 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
Common errors
Many students considered this question to be solely about refugees. It refers to
‘displaced persons’ and that includes IDPS, asylum seekers and those who are
granted refugee status under the terms of the 1951 Convention and its 1967
Protocol.
A good answer to this question would…
examine what the 1951 Convention is and how the 1967 Protocol amends that. The
question is broader than just the Geneva regime, however, and refers to ‘displaced
persons’ and thus students should also have discussed those who are internally
displaced and the limits of the law in that regard. Further, there are those who are
seeking asylum or displaced outside their state of nationality but not covered by the
Geneva Convention regime. Very good answers examined such matters. Good
answers also examined the background to the Convention and how a regime and
approach focused on time-specific events in Europe became the basis for a global
regime. Students who took this approach normally considered what a well-founded
fear is and set out its grounds. Better answers considered the scope of the grounds
and their focus on civil and political rights and also how the courts in some States
have sought to extend some of them – for example, with regard to women fleeing
domestic violence and those persecuted due to the their sexual orientation. Good
answers also considered the rights of refugees and their entitlements if awarded
that status. These issues needed to be considered in the context of the tensions
that exist. At heart the 1951 Convention was a delicate balancing exercise and the
best answers considered if the balance struck in 1951 is still viable and realistic or
not.
Poor answers to this question…
simply sought to explain the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol without
considering it more broadly in the context of the question.
Student extract
Persons may be displaced by many things, natural disasters such as
earthquakes, floods and volcanoes, conflict, a lack of food or simply the

7
 search for a better life. How people are displaced and where make a
difference. People who move due to the environment, such as drought or
flooding are not protected if they stay within their country. In some countries
people move about to escape fighting again they are not protected.
International human rights law only plays a role when person crosses a
border. If you do not cross a border then you are an internally displaced
person and you are not covered by the 1951 Geneva Convention. IDP are at
the mercy of the state. In Burma many Rohing[y]a Muslim are not refuge[e]s
and the world does not help them. But in many parts of the world, asylum
seekers are not protected. Many people drown crossing to Europe. The
Europeans do not respect these people as human. In many poor countries
there are far more refugees than in European States like Sweden or the UK.
If you are outside your country then you can be refugee and it does not
matter if you went on holiday.
Comments on extract
This student seems to have picked up many of the nuances in the question but did
not develop them. The opening sentences have some keen observations but they
are left hanging. It was absolutely the case that the answer could cover IDPs,
asylum seekers and those granted refugee status under the 1951 Convention/1967
Protocol. All are mentioned in the extract. IDPs are of course covered by
international human rights law, contrary to the claim made, but in the strict sense
that they are within the domestic jurisdiction of their own state. It is the absence of a
global separate treaty regime for IDPs that is key and that is probably what the
student is referring to. Equally, the student is correct that those in transit are in a
legal limbo of sorts, especially when crossing oceans/seas to seek sanctuary. Once
individuals arrive in the state where they wish to claim asylum then they are still not
refugees until they have satisfied the national authorities that they have a well-
founded fear of return and this is due to one of the reasons listed in the Convention.
The 1951 Convention reflects a European, Cold War mentality with a clear focus on
the violation of civil and political rights. Environmental disasters or climate change-
related displacement, which may become increasingly commonplace, are not
recognised by the regime.
Question 6
‘The absolute prohibition of torture and other forms of ill-treatment is both
unviable and unnecessary.’
Discuss.
General remarks
The question most routinely tackled by students in this examination. Answers
reflected the full spectrum of abilities and knowledge.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
References to UNCAT, Article 3 ECHR, Article 7 ICCPR and the relevant
jurisprudence would be expected. See below.
Common errors
There were no particular common errors, other than not tackling the question set.
A good answer to this question would…
consider the prohibition against ill treatment and whether the absolute prohibition is
viable and necessary. It is clear that the prohibition has been considered by national
courts and human rights bodies such as the ECtHR to be of the utmost importance.
Students should have discussed cases such as Re A and before the ECtHR they
should have discussed cases such as Soering, Chahal and Saadi or any other
relevant cases they are familiar with. Good answers identified that in civil and

8
 Examiners’ reports 2019

political rights treaties these are non-derogable rights and without limit and that in
itself is important. In the UNCAT, the definition is specifically geared to extracting
information and in the context of the ‘war on terror’ that is important as it highlights
the rejection of torture by states no matter what the circumstances. The question
also lent itself to students considering the philosophical importance of the
prohibition in the human rights edifice. The question could have been tackled in a
number of ways and students were able to adopt any position they wanted, as long
as they could back this up. Some very good answers pulled in some pertinent,
broader themes from across the course and that was rewarded.
Poor answers to this question…
tended to be ‘everything I know’ about torture as opposed to the question that
challenged the very necessity of the prohibition.
Student extract
All States that are a part of the Convention for the Elimination of Torture,
Cruel and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishments have an
interest and a duty to protect individuals from being tortured. This is
considered one of the best protected of all treaties. The prohibition of torture
can be found in many treaties and conventions, and a breach is a breach of
human rights and an abuse of the rule of law and incompatible with due
process. In the West, States that torture should not be accepted even in
exceptional circumstances. Human rights treaties consider torture to be
unacceptable. The UDHR, the ICCPR, the UNCAT all prohibit torture. The
UNCAT is the most comprehensive. Article 1 provides the definition and then
later provisions expand on this. …Before the HRC, cases such as Judge v
Canada have been decided and these highlight that torture is never
permitted… In a similar way the European Court has considered cases such
as Soering which do the same…
Comments on extract
This was a good answer and was awarded a mark of a low upper second mark. The
student considered the question carefully and sought to address it. The opening
paragraph – above – set the scene and the student filled in the details over the
course of the answer. The student did not get all the facts correct and there were
gaps in the answer but the student engaged with the question and the knowledge
used was done with a clear purpose. A good answer.
Question 7
‘The ad-hoc Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are the most
effective model for addressing gross and systematic human rights violations.
Other approaches, mechanisms and institutions are simply too compromised
or ineffective.’
Discuss.
General remarks
A question relatively few students tackled. On the whole done well, although a few
took the opportunity to write rote-learnt answers on other topics they hoped they
would be examined on.
Law cases, reports and other references the examiners would expect you to use
Nothing specific, although obviously reference to the ICTY, ICTR and ICC would be
wise.
Common errors
No common errors as such.

9
A good answer to this question would…
recognise that, notwithstanding its apparent narrow focus, this was a broad
question that allowed students to examine the establishment of ad hoc and
permanent institutions such as the ICTY and the ICC respectively. Students were
able to highlight the problems and considerations that relate to both ad hoc and
permanent international institutions and good answers did so. Better answers also
considered national mechanisms such as the Iraqi Tribunal. The ICC is beset with
issues and political considerations such as the role and powers of the Security
Council as well as legal issues, such as who it has jurisdiction over. There are other
approaches/developments such as national tribunals but these are also beset with
issues such as rights to a fair trial. The recent trend for accountability was
established at Nuremburg and Tokyo but these trials are as much about power as
they are the law, although their importance in developing, even creating, the law
cannot be denied. The best answers picked up on these issues. Some students
also noted the lack of accountability in certain conflicts such as that in Vietnam or
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in the early 1990s. A few noted, very insightfully, that
colonialism had led to many atrocities but no subsequent accountability. The
conflicts in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda did lead to the establishment of ad hoc
Tribunals, which were meant to hold all accountable for atrocities but they have
been wound up due to cost and the fact that such mechanisms are selective. Very
good answers noted that the establishment of the ICC was supposed to be a
permanent move away from selectivity, thus accountability for all, but has been
beset by problems and accusations of bias. Power and politics play a significant
role in who can be prosecuted by the ICC, the role and powers of the Security
Council for example, exacerbate this. Further, the ICC prosecutor is widely accused
of a focus on situations in Africa, where other situations are being ignored. Some
very good answers discussed all of the above. These recognised that while the
statement is partially accurate it is no more than that.
Poor answers to this question…
tended to simply recount the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949.
Student extract
This statement calls for an analysis of the treaty bodies and the mechanisms
used for the monitoring and implementation of human rights by particular
states. Yugoslavia is a member state of Russia which is one of four
permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations.
Yugoslavia is also a member of the European Union and the European
Convention on Human Rights. Rwanda is an African state and part of the
African Charter. The European Convention in Article 19 set up the European
Court to ensure the observance and engagements by the High Contracting
Parties…
Comments on extract
There was not enough here for the student to be awarded a pass mark for this
answer. It is a good example of a student not having revised enough of the syllabus
to do well on three of the questions posed. The student clearly has little idea as to
what Yugoslavia is – it no longer exists as a state, was never a part of Russia and
there are five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Discussion of the
European Court is at very best tangential. It cannot be stressed enough, you must
revise enough of the syllabus to answer the requisite number of questions properly,
otherwise you are throwing away marks – your maximum mark with perfect answers
will be 66 per cent. Two first class answers will give you a mark of 46 per cent – so
a third!

10