The process of international recognition of the rights of each individual, based on the essential dignity of each human being, has created a branch of international law called international human rights law. Human rights are defined by a set of principles and rules initially enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was subsequently followed by other international legal instruments, which in turn went further in recognising the rights and freedoms of individuals. In addition to fundamental rights, international human rights treaties have introduced a comprehensive system involving legal mechanisms designed to protect individuals from human rights violations and to ensure effective enforcement of those rights. [1]

States that become parties to international human rights treaties undertake the obligation to create favourable conditions for the realisation of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the relevant international instrument, as well as the obligation to provide all types of protection for violated rights and freedoms. [2] Accordingly, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) establishes in Article 2 that “each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant”. [3] Binding human rights legal instruments thus require States that have signed and ratified them to take actions towards the fulfilment of their international obligations.

From the very beginning of its formation and operation, the United Nations has called for the fulfilment of international obligations. This is emphasised by the UN Preamble, which outlines the purposes of the Peoples of the United Nations, one of which is “to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained”. [4] The generally recognised rule of customary international law, which obliges States that have voluntarily become parties to international treaties to fulfil their treaty obligations [5], finds its roots in the necessities of international life, the self-interest of States, a sense of justice and morality, in the principle of good faith and in a variety of other aspects. [6]

International legal regulation is primarily aimed at achieving the final result that the subjects of international communication strive for. [7] The purpose of human rights treaties is the full realisation of individual human rights and freedoms. Thus, becoming a party to a human rights treaties is not the ultimate goal. In this light, it seems relevant to cite  the observation of Prof. Christoph H. Heyns and Prof. Frans Viljoen: “Wide ratification of the core UN human rights treaties does take place, but ratification itself is largely a formal and in some cases an empty gesture. The challenge now is to ensure that the promises contained in the treaties and confirmed by ratification are realized in the lives of ordinary people around the world.” [8] At the same time, in order to achieve a real result, as Kalugin V.Y. noted, it is necessary to have “an optimal mechanism of implementation as a certain set of legal and organisational means used by the subjects of international law at the international and national levels in order to fulfil requirements of the norms of international law”. [9]

It should be concluded that in order to achieve results in the proclamation and protection of human rights and freedoms, it is necessary for states that have become parties to international human rights treaties to fulfil in good faith the legal undertaken obligations. The fulfilment of obligations itself, in turn, is achieved through the process of implementation of international standards into national legal systems. This requires efforts at both the international and national levels. However, it is important to recognise that the ultimate goal of human rights treaties – the full realisation of individual human rights and freedoms – takes place at the national level, and therefore the national level of implementation is most relevant to this paper.

It seems necessary to clarify the concept of the implementation process in more detail. The first step is to define the term “implementation” in order to improve the terminological apparatus. The term “implementation” is interpreted as the process of putting into action in accordance with a certain procedure. This term is identified with the concept denoting the targeted organizational and legal activity of States, undertaken individually, collectively or within the framework of international organizations for the purpose of timely, comprehensive and complete implementation of the obligations they have undertaken under international law. [10]

Compliance with international legal standards must be ensured by the proper organization of domestic judicial and legal systems [11], where the process of implementing international norms plays a key role. Accordingly, the Human Rights Committee (HRC), in General Comment No. 31, referring to the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the ICCPR, concluded: “The Committee, for its part, is of the opinion that the rights guaranteed in the Covenant can be better protected in States where the Covenant is automatically or through an appropriate incorporation procedure becomes a part of the domestic legal system. In order to promote the full enjoyment of the rights recognised in the Covenant under Article 2, the Committee encourages those States parties in which the Covenant is not part of the domestic legal order to consider incorporating the Covenant in order to make it part of domestic law”. [12]

Implementation should not be viewed as a sudden one-time process, but as a combination of appropriate actions with various stages at the domestic and international levels.[13] Implementation mechanisms that ensure the transmission of international norms into national legal systems involve a variety of measures. The norms of international law in the sphere of human rights and freedoms, as a rule, do not regulate the issues of the choice of means, methods, and ways of ensuring them by States – these issues fall within the exclusive competence of the States themselves. [14]

The HRC in General Comment No. 31 says: “Article 2 of the ICCPR requires States parties to take legislative, judicial, administrative, educational and other appropriate measures to fulfil their legal obligations”. [15] The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) stated in its General Comment No. 9: “The primary obligation of States parties under the Covenant is to ensure the enjoyment of the rights recognised therein. By obliging governments to achieve this ‘by all appropriate means’, the Covenant offers a broad and flexible approach that takes into account the specificities of each State’s legal and administrative systems, as well as other relevant considerations”. [16] The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) in Article 9 obliges States parties to submit a report for evaluation by the Committee of the legislative, judicial, administrative or other measures taken by State to give effect to the provisions of the Convention [17], which also shows the extensiveness of the applicable measures. Moreover, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), in its General Recommendation No. 31, includes among the indicators of potential causes of racial discrimination any gaps in national legislation against racial discrimination, requiring States parties to fully implement the provisions of the Convention, in particular Article 4. [18] Thus, the failure to take measures to implement the ICERD norms directly contradicts the essence of the Convention.

Therefore, States can resort to a wide variety of measures to implement norms of an international instrument. Such measures may involve enacting specific norms and principles in legislation, undertaking legislative reforms to repeal contradictory laws, including constitutional provisions, addressing the failure of legislative measures and others. The judicial application of the provisions of a human rights treaty is undoubtedly an essential element for implementation. In addition, States must take positive measures to ensure guaranteed rights, to promote the enjoyment of human rights, to prevent violations, to protect in case of violation, and to inform individuals of the rights granted to them under the treaties that these States are parties to. [19]Such flexibility in defining measures to fulfil treaty obligations allows States to effectively determine the most suitable methods and means of fulfilling their obligations, taking into account the internal specificities of the State itself.[20] However, as the CESCR noted in General Comment No. 9, “this flexibility coexists with the obligation of each State party to use all means at its disposal to ensure the enjoyment of the rights recognized in the Covenant.” [21]

At the domestic level, the implementation process is expressed as “a composition of two interrelated components: the legislative mechanism and de facto implementation, including through judicial protection”. [22] The legislative mechanism of implementation is formed under the influence of a number of factors, among which the concept of the correlation between international and national law should be highlighted. [23]

It is necessary to begin by noting that the fundamental principle of sovereignty precludes any foreign authoritative instruction regarding the way in which states should view the relationship between the national and international legal orders. [24] This leads to the existence of different conceptions of the relationship between international and national law, which is classically expressed in the theories of monism and dualism.[25] The practical significance of understanding a particular concept that prevails in a legal system lies in the fact that it makes it possible “to judge whether a national system recognises the possibility of direct application of the rules of international law or whether, prior to the application of international rules in practice, it is required to incorporate them into the national legal system through domestic measures.” [26]

According to the monistic approach, the unity of international and national systems is recognised in terms of direct application of the provisions of international treaties, the norms of international and national law are placed in a single normative section and endowed with the effect of direct effect.[27] Another approach is defined as dualistic. It considers the norms of international and national law in different normative contexts, and the norms of international law do not have the effect of direct application. [28] It should be noted that the direct effect of a norm of international law determines that this norm has legal force without implementation by the legislature of the national system, while according to the indirect effect, norms of international law have legal force only if the legislature implements them in the national legal system. [29]

The juristic literature emphasises that legal models in practice are not pure representatives of the concepts of monism and dualism. [30] “Reality is more complex, and just as there are different shades of black and white, there are different shades of monism and dualism”. [31] For example, moderate dualism allows international law and domestic law to refer to each other. [32]

Nevertheless, from the perspective of the texts of international human rights instruments, it would be more appropriate to enshrine obligations that are identical for all Member States than to distinguish between systems that are monist, dualist or other manifestations of the two concepts. For this reason, with regard to human rights treaties, monism and dualism are blurred and the international mechanism details a “universal implementation mechanism” aimed at obtaining a “social effect” of international norms.[33] This occurs through the establishment of what are known as general implementation obligations. For example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Article 2 states the need to take steps “to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.”[34] The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment defines in Article 2 that “Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.”[35] Another example is the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which in Article 4 obliges States Parties “to ensure and promote the full realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all persons with disabilities without discrimination of any kind on the basis of disability. To this end, States Parties undertake: to adopt all appropriate legislative, administrative and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention; [36] to take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities; [37] to promote the training of professionals and staff working with persons with disabilities in the rights recognized in this Convention so as to better provide the assistance and services guaranteed by those rights [38].

Moreover, the doctrine of the relationship between international and national law – dualism/monism – must itself take other concepts into account. These include the self-executing nature of international law, as well as the universally recognised principle of pacta sunt servanda. With respect to the concept of self-executability for human rights treaties, it should be pointed out that States cannot deny that those treaties seek to regulate the protection of the rights of the individual. This invalidates the arguments of proponents of the concept of non-self-executability on the ground that the treaty is not intended to be directly applied by the courts. [39] In addition, it is necessary to refer to the basis of international human rights standards, the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which also forms the basis for the application of human rights conventions in national courts. Article 8 of the UDHR enshrines that “everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.” [40] This provides a ground for States to ensure the application of international instruments in national legal systems, in particular “if an individual considers that international standards offer him or her better protection than national law” [41].

The principle of pacta sunt servanda codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) provides that treaty obligations are binding on States and must be fulfilled in good faith. [42] The HRC, for example, in its General Comment No. 31, referred to the principle of pacta sunt servanda as a reminder of the obligation to fulfil the Covenant. [43] Non-compliance with this principle in national law and practice is considered a violation of international law.The responsibility to fulfil a contractual obligation in good faith requires that its provisions be respected in the spirit and to the letter of the contract itself, and that what has been promised be performed without evasion or subterfuge, honestly and to the best of the ability of the party who made the promise. [44] It requires a party to refrain from attempting to evade its obligations on trivial grounds or technicalities of interpretation. [45] A State that violates this fundamental principle and is guilty of a breach of the treaty is accordingly a State that commits manifest acts in breach of its obligations under a particular treaty or that, by omission, fails to fulfil those obligations.

The principle of pacta sunt servanda leads to the conclusion that even a dualistic system should facilitate, at all levels of government, the implementation of the norms of the human-rights contract, and in particular, assist the courts in applying the norms of this instrument. In the absence of any of the elements, such as action by the legislature or application by the courts, a State’s treaty obligations may be jeopardised. In turn, monistic systems may or may not use the step of legislative action, it is important that the international obligations assumed by the state are honoured and the individual can be protected by a national court through international law.

Continued reference should be made to the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, namely to Article 27, which provides that “a party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. [46] Thus, for instance, a State cannot invoke “that a code of procedure or a law governing judges prevents courts from applying international law in the defence of individual rights and freedoms”. [47] This provision of the VCLT provides a basis for the direct application of international human rights treaties in national courts.

Moreover, the principle of universality of human rights and freedoms also affects the direct application by the courts of the norms of international human rights conventions. This principle operates imperatively to protect the individual from undue restrictions “without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion” [48], even taking into account national and cultural characteristics. 

Thus, States that have become parties to international human rights treaties have assumed legal obligations resulting in purposeful organisational and legal activities, namely the implementation of the norms of the relevant treaties. For its part, “implementation is the process by which the relevant actors to whom a norm is addressed act in conformity with its provisions”, where additional measures, both legal and organisational, are often necessary to give full effect to the norms of international law.[49] According to the fundamental principle of pacta sunt servanda, obligations must be fulfilled in good faith. Therefore, in order to fulfil international obligations in good faith, implementation must take place at all governmental levels, including at judicial. Accordingly, as Prof. Sarsembaev M.A. noted, “the courts are the final step in the implementation of international standards for the protection of human rights”. [50] It means that the fulfilment in good faith of international obligations under UN human rights conventions includes judicial protection of enshrined rights. Moreover, “in the absence of effective mechanisms of judicial protection, fulfilment of the provisions of the UN Human Rights Conventions is simply a matter of transposing them into national legislation”. [51]

In this light, it seems important to cite the CESCR’s arguments in the General Comment on the application of the ICESCR in domestic law: “legally binding international human rights standards should operate directly and immediately within the domestic legal system of each State party, thereby enabling individuals to seek enforcement of their rights before national courts and tribunals”. [52] By emphasising this, the CESCR has underlined the importance of the judicial element in the chain of implementation of the ICESCR in national law. The role of the judiciary is therefore crucial to the activation of human rights standards, where the application by national courts of the provisions of international human rights treaties is part of the fulfilment of international obligations undertaken by the State party.

“The future in the application and development of human rights law belongs to national courts”, as Dr L.V. Uliashina has noted. [53] The absolute importance of the judicial element for international human rights law lies in the development and strengthening of international human rights standards by further detailing them through the practical application of international human rights treaties. [54] Undoubtedly, human rights legal instruments alone cannot have a positive impact if individuals are unable to seek and obtain legal protection when their rights have been violated. Justice can be achieved by recourse to the courts, which provide redress for violated rights of an individual.

As previously has been indicated, the determinacy in the application of international human rights treaties at the domestic level in the process of judicial protection arises from the international obligations undertaken. It would seem, however, that the concept of “application by national courts” of international human rights treaties should be clarified. For these purposes, the UN human rights treaty bodies should be referred to. The committees monitor the implementation by States parties of their obligations under UN human rights treaties. [55] One of the monitoring mechanisms is the submission by the State party of periodic reports on measures taken, following the examination of which the UN Committees draw up concluding observations in which they identify main areas of special concern, as well as relevant proposals and recommendations. [56] Among other observations, the Committees raise the issue of the insufficient application by national courts of the provisions of the relevant human rights conventions. An analysis of the opinions of the UN treaty committees leads to the conclusion that the application by national courts of the provisions of the human rights treaty contains a number of elements necessary for application. [57]

The first element of the process of application of a human rights convention by the courts is the implementation of the provisions of appropriate сonvention, which allows for the integration of the provisions of the treaty into the legal system. For instance, CRC, in its Concluding Observations on the combined second to fourth periodic reports of Turkmenistan, noted that “the Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its efforts to ensure that this right is appropriately integrated and consistently applied in all legislative, administrative and judicial proceedings and decisions, as well as in all policies, programmes and projects that are relevant to and have an impact on children”. [58]

The second element, educational, can be identified in HRC General Comment No. 31: “Article 2 requires that States Parties adopt legislative, judicial, administrative, educative and other appropriate measures in order to fulfil their legal obligations. The Committee believes that it is important to raise levels of awareness about the Covenant not only among public officials and State agents but also among the population at large”. [59] For instance, the HRC, in its Concluding Observations on the report of the Republic of Moldova, recommended that the State party “should make serious efforts to disseminate knowledge of the provisions of the Covenant among judges to enable them to apply the Covenant in relevant cases and among lawyers and the public to enable them to invoke its provisions before the courts”. [60]

The third and final element is the application of the provisions of the UN Conventions directly by the courts in judicial acts. Accordingly, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) considered the third and fourth combined periodic report of Azerbaijan and highlighted the following in its concluding observations: “While noting that the Constitution of the State party accords priority to international ratified treaties over domestic laws and, in principle, allows for the direct application of international treaties, the Committee is concerned that there is a lack of judicial practice and precedent which has directly applied the Convention. It also notes with particular concern that there have reportedly been instances in which law-enforcement and judicial bodies have refused to directly apply the provisions of the Convention…”. [61]

Thus, analysing the texts of the Concluding Observations of the UN Human Rights Committees, it should be concluded that the very application by the courts of the provisions of the Human Rights Conventions includes a number of elements: first, the implementation of the provisions of the relevant Human Rights Convention; second, the educational element, “which includes the need to systematically raise awareness among the branches of government, including the judiciary, so that they apply the provisions of the Conventions as a basis for all laws, judgements, etc., as well as raise awareness among lawyers and the public so that they can properly use the provisions of the UN Conventions to justify and argue their case in disputes” [62]; third, the courts’ direct application of the provisions of the UN Conventions in judicial acts.

A closer look at these three elements appears appropriate, considering the example of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). [63] CEDAW is one of the core international human rights treaties of the UN, requiring States Parties to undertake legal obligations to respect, protect and fulfil women’s rights as set out in the Convention itself. CEDAW addresses discrimination against women in political and public life, labour and commercial life, education, health, citizenship, civil rights, as well as marriage and family rights. [64] By becoming a party to the Convention, a State demonstrates to the international community its willingness to commit itself legally to taking all measures to realise the objectives of CEDAW, and its willingness to introduce and implement laws, policies and programmes to achieve these objectives. [65] Moreover, this State also shows its commitment to submit its laws, policies and programmes to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women for close examination. [66] With the adoption of the Convention, States undertake legal obligations that lead to targeted institutional and legal activities for the implementation of CEDAW norms.

The implementation of CEDAW in the legal systems of States Parties is a central requirement of the Convention itself. [67] As pointed out earlier, the international mechanism details a ‘universal implementation mechanism’ aimed at obtaining the social effect of international norms, which occurs through the establishment of so-called general implementation obligations. [68] In this respect, CEDAW in Article 2 refers to this mechanism by obliging States to incorporate the principle of equal rights of men and women into their national constitutions or other relevant legislation, where this has not yet been done, and to ensure, through law and other appropriate means, the practical realisation of this principle; [69] to take appropriate legislative and other measures, including sanctions, where necessary, prohibiting all discrimination against women; [70] to take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices that constitute discrimination against women; [71] and a number of other measures that will contribute to the practical realisation of the principle of equal rights of men and women and the elimination of discrimination against women. 

Article 2(c) of CEDAW obliges States parties “to establish legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men and to ensure through competent national tribunals and other public institutions the effective protection of women against any act of discrimination”. [72] In order for this legal obligation of States parties to be fulfilled, the judicial system must be knowledgeable about CEDAW and must apply it. [73]

CEDAW’s position in the Concluding Observations on the fifth periodic report of Uzbekistan should be cited: “The Committee is concerned that the State party has not undertaken a comprehensive legislative review or enacted new legislation to incorporate all the provisions of the Convention into domestic law. It notes with concern that, in the absence of such incorporation, the Convention is rarely directly applied in national courts”. [74] CEDAW thereby emphasised the direct link between the legislative implementation of the provisions of the Convention and the application of those provisions by national courts. The Committee also highlighted that legislative implementation is expressed through a complex approach: through both the adoption of new legislation and the review of existing legislation for compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

It must be concluded that, in the absence of national legislation that complies with the provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, effective judicial remedies are not possible. Meanwhile, the implementation process shows its efficiency to a greater extent at the stage of judicial defence. Hence, there is a clear connection between these components, which only together, along with other components, lead to the realisation of CEDAW norms.

It seems possible to proceed to the analysis of the second element – educational. To begin with, it should be recalled that the main way to fulfil international obligations is through the direct realisation of certain rules of behaviour by those for whom they are intended. [75] As a general rule, international law is intended for subjects of international law. As I.I. Lukashuk defines, “subjects of international law are independent entities capable of directly possessing rights and obligations under international law, participating in the creation and implementation of its norms”. [76] States and inter-State organisations are commonly recognised as subjects of international law. [77] However, as such, the state is incapable of acting physically. This brings to the conclusion that the real fulfilers of international obligations are the State organs and individuals of a State party to an international treaty. [78] Consequently, the fulfilment of international obligations under human rights treaties undertaken by a State is attributable to that State, but is carried out by individuals. This also suggests that an essential element in the implementation of the norms of an international treaty is the education of individuals in understanding and using the norms of the treaty in accordance with its objectives.

In reference to the human rights treaties, it is the educational element that plays a crucial role in the judiciary’s informed application of the provisions of the Conventions, as well as in equipping the individuals to use the provisions of the Conventions in justifying their position in a legal dispute [79]. Accordingly, CEDAW, in its General Recommendation No. 28 on the core obligations of States parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, noted that “States parties should ensure that all Government bodies and organs are fully aware of the principles of equality and non-discrimination on the basis of sex and gender and that adequate training and awareness-raising programmes are set up and carried out in this respect”. [80] CEDAW also stated that States parties should undertake specific educational and training programmes “about the principles and provisions of the Convention directed to all Government agencies, public officials and, in particular, the legal profession and the judiciary”. [81] Moreover, the Committee emphasized the need to enlist “all media in public education programmes about the equality of women and men, and ensuring in particular that women are aware of their right to equality without discrimination, of the measures taken by the State party to implement the Convention, and of the concluding observations by the Committee on the reports of the State party”. [82]

In its General Recommendation No. 33 on women’s access to justice, CEDAW also highlighted that “States parties have further treaty-based obligations to ensure that all women have access to education and information about their rights and the remedies that are available and how to gain access to them, and access to competent, gender-sensitive dispute resolution systems, as well as equal access to effective and timely remedies”. [83] The Committee also recommends to “integrate into curricula at all levels of education, educational programmes on women’s rights and gender equality, including legal literacy programmes, that emphasize the crucial role of women’s access to justice and the role of men and boys as advocates and stakeholders”. [84] The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women therefore underlines the importance of training for the judiciary and law enforcement officials in the spirit of the provisions of the Convention: mandatory specific training programmes on the articles of CEDAW are needed for all public servants, lawyers, and the judiciary. Moreover, public awareness of their rights plays a key role and hence the promotion of legal literacy trainings and education programmes is particularly welcomed.

A related Committee opinion could be cited in its Concluding Observations on the fifth periodic report of Azerbaijan, where CEDAW encourage the State party to continue “to strengthen legal education and capacity-building programmes for judges, prosecutors, and lawyers on the Convention, the Optional Protocol, the Committee’s general recommendations and the Committee’s views on individual communications and inquiries, to enable them to invoke and/or refer to the provisions of the Convention directly to interpret national legislation in line with the Convention”. [85] This recommendation also relates to the last element – the direct application of CEDAW provisions by courts in judicial acts, which it seems appropriate to consider further.

In international law, there are two criteria for determining whether the rules of a convention can be directly applied. [86] The first criteria is subjective. It is based on the prevailing concept of the relationship between international and national law, which is classically expressed in the theories of monism and dualism. [87] States with a monistic system often directly implement agreements, while States with a dualistic tendency deliberately do not recognise direct application unless domestic measures have been undertaken. [88] However, this division is not definitive. [89] The second criteria is objective. It is based on the possibility of direct application of the provisions of an international treaty without the need for additional internal procedures.

In this regard, the Committee’s views expressed in the Concluding Observations on Kazakhstan’s report may provide a valuable guidance. After the Committee welcomed the increasing rate of reference to the Convention in civil, criminal and administrative proceedings, the Committee expressed its concern regarding the adoption of an amendment to Article 4 of the Constitution that established that “international treaties ratified by the State party, while still prevailing over its laws, are no longer directly applicable, the procedure and conditions for their application being determined by law”. [90] Consequently, the Committee made the following recommendation to Kazakhstan: “The Committee recommends that the State party ensure the applicability of the Convention in the light of the 2017 constitutional amendments and ensure that the Convention can be invoked in all types of court proceedings in relation to women’s rights. It recommends that the State party incorporate the Convention into its national legislation, build the capacity of the judiciary and legal professionals to apply the Convention and raise public awareness, in particular among women, of how to invoke it”. [91] In this way, the Committee emphasised the link between the direct application by national courts of the Convention, as well as the legislative opportunity to do so, notwithstanding the primacy of international treaties over national law. 

It is worthnoting the statement of Catherine Lange regarding the fact that CEDAW is based on the view that discrimination is generally determined by the social environment with its characteristic role models and culturally determined role expectations. [92] Actions based on these perceptions reflect the division of resources and power in society and prolong these divisions, thereby contributing to discrimination. [93] It applies to the social sphere in general, and hence to the judicial sphere as well. [94] CEDAW, in General Recommendation No. 33 on women’s access to justice, stated that the existence of stereotyping “can cause judges to misinterpret or misapply laws. This has far-reaching consequences, for example, in criminal law, where it results in perpetrators not being held legally accountable for violations of women’s rights, thereby upholding a culture of impunity”. [95] It results in the conclusion that the knowledge of the judiciary of the provisions of CEDAW, public awareness of it, a competent and effective system of legislation, and the direct application of international human rights standards by the courts can only together lead to the realisation of the objectives of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, that is, the elimination of discrimination and the flourishing of gender equality.

It seems possible to outline the conclusion of the paper. In this regard, it is worth quoting the observation of Prof. Christoph H. Haines and Prof. Frans Viljoen: “The successes or failures of any international human rights system must be assessed according to its impact on human rights practice at the societal level”. [96] Indeed, the network of international human rights treaties established by the United Nations has brought true universal and formal recognition of human rights. However, the ultimate goal of human rights treaties – the full realisation of individual human rights and freedoms – takes place at the national level.

Undoubtedly, international human rights treaties themselves cannot have a positive impact if individuals are unable to seek and obtain legal redress when their rights are violated. Moreover, in order to develop and strengthen international human rights standards, it is necessary to apply those standards in the operations of national courts. This would result in further detailing international human rights standards through the application of international human rights treaties in practice.

Effective judicial protection plays a crucial role for the international image of a State “as the performance of the judiciary is subject to the most detailed scrutiny and evaluation by international organisations as well as UN human rights committees”. [97] The application by national courts of the provisions of UN human rights treaties is based on three elements: the implementation of the provisions of the relevant treaty, the educational element to educate public authorities, in particular the judiciary, and to raise awareness of the public about the Convention, and the direct application by national courts of the provisions in judicial acts.

The application of the provisions of UN human rights treaties by national courts would lead to the accumulation of positive experience of the judiciary in addressing international human rights standards, which would have a beneficial impact on:

• strengthening the independent judiciary and enhancing the credibility of the judiciary;
• the development of standards in judicial activities that can influence the development of the institution of human rights protection and international relations in general [98];
• contributing to the elaboration of proposals for the improvement of procedural legislation, taking into account international standards and best foreign practices [99];
• raising the authority of national judicial decisions, which would “save States from the ‘shameful’ procedure of submitting to the decisions of international committees, which found a violation of international legal obligations” [100];
• the fulfilment of the principle of judicial competence and diligence (‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’), which obliges judges to “keep himself or herself informed about relevant developments of international law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms” [101].

The following recommendations for ensuring an effective mechanism for national courts to apply the provisions of UN international human rights conventions, using CEDAW as an example, should be highlighted:

• Conduct a detailed analysis of domestic legislation to ensure compliance with CEDAW norms. If necessary, adopt new legal acts that meet the requirements of the Convention, and revoke or amend non-compliant acts. 
• Regularly collect and assess data to examine the actual living conditions of women in relation to the issues contained in CEDAW, and continuously and comprehensively evaluate progress in the implementation of the Convention. In response to the gaps identified, develop a national plan of action to incorporate CEDAW standards into State legislation and practice.
• Become a State party to the Optional Protocol to CEDAW.
• Develop strategies for the integration of the content of the provisions of CEDAW, its Optional Protocol, the Committee’s General Recommendations and Concluding Observations into the curricula and professional legal training of judges, prosecutors, lawyers, law enforcement officers, civil servants, educators and all other relevant professionals, as well as to train students receiving education in these fields.
• Ensure that all information on CEDAW, including Committee’s Decisions, General Recommendations, Concluding Observations, is accessible in relevant databases in order to raise public awareness of it. Information should be translated and made available in national languages.
• Highlight and promote information about CEDAW through media, educational films and training courses.
• Establish an independent supervisory body to monitor and control the implementation of the provisions of the Convention at the national level.

[1] BOUROUBA, Samia. Arab Jurisprudence in the Application of the International Conventions on the Rights of Women. Raoul Wallenberg Institute, 2016. P.9.
[2] SARSEMBAEV, M.A. International standards protect human rights and their implementation in court decisions. Astana, 2016. P. 23.
[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (entered into force on 23 March 1976), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI). Article 2 (2).
[4] Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945) Can TS 1945 No.7. Preamble.
[5] The American Journal of International Law. Article 20. Pact of Sunt Servanda. Supplement: Research in International Law, vol. 29, Cambridge University Press, 1935. p. 989.
[6] Ibid.
[7] KALUGIN, Vitaly. The Mechanism for Implementing the Norms of International Humanitarian Law at the Domestic Level. Belarusian Journal of International Law and International Relations, No. 1. [online]. 2000, [accessed: May 13, 2021]. Access via the Internet: http://evolutio.info/ru/journal-menu/2000-1/2000-1-kalugin
[8] HEYNS, Christof H.; and VILJOEN, Frans. The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level. Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 23, No. 3, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. P. 483.
[9] KALUGIN, Vitaly. The Mechanism for Implementing the Norms of International Humanitarian Law at the Domestic Level. Belarusian Journal of International Law and International Relations, No. 1. [online]. 2000, [accessed: May 13, 2021]. Access via the Internet: http://evolutio.info/ru/journal-menu/2000-1/2000-1-kalugin
[10] GAVERDOVSKY, A. S. Implementation of the norms of international law. Kyiv: Vishcha shk., 1980. P.62.
[11] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 229.
[12] HRC, “General Comment No. 31 [80] – The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant” (2004), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Para. 13.
[13] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 165.
[14] ZIMNENKO, Bogdan. On the place and significance of the practice of interstate bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms in the legal system of the Russian Federation (based on the example of consideration of specific cases by the courts of the Russian Federation). In:  Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.95.
[15] HRC, General Comment No. 31 [80] — The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (2004), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Para. 7.
[16] CESCR, General Comment No. 9 – Domestic Application of the Covenant (1998), E/C.12/1998/24. Para.1.
[17] International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (21 December 1965), adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX). Article 9.
[18] CERD, General Recommendation No. 31 on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system (2005), CERD/C/GC/32. para. 4 (a).
[19] ISTREFI, Remzije; and ISLAMI, Iliriana. Incorporation of international human rights into national legislation: The case of Kosovo. In Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, vol. 20, No. 1, Future labour market challenges: digitalisation and Brexit,Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 2017. P. 119.
[20] Ibid. P. 118.
[21] CESCR, General Comment No. 9 – Domestic Application of the Covenant (1998), E/C.12/1998/24. Para.2.
[22] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 166.
[23] Ibid.
[24] ISTREFI, Remzije; and ISLAMI, Iliriana. Incorporation of international human rights into national legislation: The case of Kosovo. In Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, vol. 20, No. 1, Future labour market challenges: digitalisation and Brexit, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, 2017. P. 117.
[25] JACKSON, Patrick Thaddeus. Foregrounding ontology: dualism, monism, and IR theory. Review of International Studies, vol. 34, No. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2008. p. 129-153.
[26] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 167.
[27] TUGUSHI, Georgy. Brief overview of international standards of administration of justice. In: Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.35.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 167.
[31] WILDHABER, Luzius. The European Convention on Human Rights and International Law. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2007. P. 219.
[32] RAKISHEVA, Aray. Theoretical concepts and features of interaction of international and national law of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan Republic of Kazakhstan Institute of Law, No. 3 (35), 2014. P. 214.
[33] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 184.
[34] International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entered into force 3 January 1976), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 2200 A (XXI). Article 2 (1).
[35] Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (entered into force on 26 June 1987), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 39/46. Article 2 (1).
[36] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (entered into force on 3 May 2008), adopted by UNGA resolution 61/106. Article 4 (1) (a).
[37] Ibid. Article 4(1)(b).
[38] Ibid. Article 4(1)(i).
[39] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 253.
[40] Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 December 1948), adopted by UN General Assembly resolution 217A (III). Article 8.
[41] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 234.
[42] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (on 23 May 1969) A/CONF.39/11/Add.2. Article 26.
[43] HRC, General Comment No. 31 [80] – The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (2004), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Para.3.
[44] The American Journal of International Law. Article 20. Pacta Sunt Servanda. Supplement: Research in International Law, vol. 29, Cambridge University Press, 1935. p. 981.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (on 23 May 1969) A/CONF.39/11/Add.2. Article 27.
[47] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 234.
[48] Charter of the United Nations (26 June 1945) Can TS 1945 No.7. Article 1, part 3.
[49] KALUGIN, Vitaly. The Mechanism for Implementing the Norms of International Humanitarian Law at the Domestic Level. Belarusian Journal of International Law and International Relations, No. 1. [online]. 2000, [accessed: May 29, 2021]. Access via the Internet: http://evolutio.info/ru/journal-menu/2000-1/2000-1-kalugin
[50] SARSEMBAEV, M.A. International standards for the protection of human rights and their implementation in court decisions. Astana, 2016. P. 27.
[51] VASHKEVICH, Alexander; and TUGUSHI, Georgy; and SALAEV, Azamat. Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.13.
[52] CESCR, General Comment No. 9 – Domestic Application of the Covenant (1998), E/C.12/1998/24. Para. 4.
[53] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 229.
[54] SARSEMBAEV, M.A. International standards for the protection of human rights and their implementation in court decisions. Astana, 2016. P. 27.
[55] OHCHR. UN Human Rights Bodies. [online]. 1996-2021, [accessed: 31 May 2021]. Accessed online: https://www.ohchr.org/ru/HRBodies/Pages/HumanRightsBodies.aspx
[56] VASHKEVICH, Alexander; and TUGUSHI, Georgy; and SALAEV, Azamat. Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.12.
[57] Ibid. P. 17.
[58] CRC, Concluding Observations: Turkmenistan (2015), UN Doc CRC/C/TKM/CO/2-4. P. 21.
[59] HRC, General Comment No. 31 [80] — The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant (2004), UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13. Para.7.
[60]  HRC, Concluding Observations: Republic of Moldova (2009), UN Doc CCPR/C/MDA/CO/2. Para.6.
[61] CRC, Concluding Observations: Azerbaijan (2012), UN Doc CRC/C/AZE/CO/3-4. Para. 9-10.
[62] VASHKEVICH, Alexander; and TUGUSHI, Georgy; and SALAEV, Azamat. Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.18-19.
[63] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UN GA Resolution 34/180.
[64] Engender organization. СEDAW frequently asked questions. [online]. 2011, [cited 28 May 2021]. P.1. Available from Internet: https://www.engender.org.uk/files/cedaw-frequently-asked-questions.pdf
[65] United Nations. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and its Optional Protocol. Handbook for Parliamentarians. [online]. 2004, [accessed: 1 May 2021]. Chapter 4. Accessible via the Internet: https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/cedaw_handbook/ch4.shtml
[66] Ibid.
[67] LANGE, Katrin. Awareness and application of CEDAW in the judicial systems of Germany and France. Frankfurt a. M.: Institute for Social Work and Social Education, 2017. Р.1.
[68] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 184.
[69] Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force on 3 September 1981), adopted by UN GA Resolution 34/180. Article 2(a).
[70] Ibid. Article 2 (b).
[71] Ibid. Article 2 (f).
[72] Ibid. Article 2 (c).
[73] LANGE, Katrin. Awareness and application of CEDAW in the judicial systems of Germany and France. Frankfurt a. M.: Institute for Social Work and Social Education, 2017. Р.1.
[74]  CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Uzbekistan (2015), UN Doc CEDAW/C/UZB/CO/5. Para. 9.
[75] KALUGIN, Vitaly. The Mechanism for Implementing the Norms of International Humanitarian Law at the Domestic Level. Belarusian Journal of International Law and International Relations, No. 1. [online]. 2000, [accessed: April 21, 2021]. Access via the Internet: http://evolutio.info/ru/journal-menu/2000-1/2000-1-kalugin
[76] LUKASHUK, I.I. International Law. General Part. Textbook for students of law faculties and universities. Rus. Academy of Sciences, Institute of State and Law, Academic Law University. 3rd edition, revised and enlarged. Moscow: Wolters Kluwer, 2005. p. 22.
[77] Ibid.
[78] KALUGIN, Vitaly. The Mechanism for Implementing the Norms of International Humanitarian Law at the Domestic Level. Belarusian Journal of International Law and International Relations, No. 1. [online]. 2000, [accessed: April 23, 2021]. Access via the Internet: http://evolutio.info/ru/journal-menu/2000-1/2000-1-kalugin
[79] VASHKEVICH, Alexander; and TUGUSHI, Georgy; and SALAEV, Azamat. Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.18-19
[80] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 28 concerning the core obligations of States parties under Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (2010), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/28. Para. 17.
[81] Ibid. Para 38 (d).
[82] Ibid. Para 38 (e).
[83] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 33 on women’s access to justice (2015), UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/33. Para. 11.
[84] Ibid. Para 33 (с).
[85] CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Azerbaijan (2015), UN Doc CEDAW/C/AZE/CO/5. Para. 9 (c).
[86] BOUROUBA, Samia. Arab Jurisprudence in the application of the International Conventions on the rights of women. Raoul Wallenberg institute, 2016. P.47.
[87] JACKSON, Patrick Thaddeus. Foregrounding ontology: dualism, monism, and IR theory. Review of International Studies, vol. 34, No. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2008. p. 129-153.
[88] BOUROUBA, Samia. Arab Jurisprudence in the application of the International Conventions on the rights of women. Raoul Wallenberg institute, 2016. P.48.
[89] Ibid.
[90] CEDAW, Concluding Observations: Kazakhstan (2019), UN Doc CEDAW/C/KAZ/CO/5. Para 9 (a).
[91] Ibid. Para 10.
[92] LANGE, Katrin. Awareness and application of CEDAW in the judicial systems of Germany and France. Frankfurt a. M.: Institute for Social Work and Social Education, 2017. Р.22-23.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid.
[95] CEDAW, General Recommendation No. 33 on Women’s Access to Justice (2015), UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/33. Para 26
[96] HEYNS, Christof H.; and VILJOEN, Frans. The Impact of the United Nations Human Rights Treaties on the Domestic Level. Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 23, No. 3, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. P. 483.
[97] VASHKEVICH, Alexander; and TUGUSHI, Georgy; and SALAEV, Azamat. Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.11
[98] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 71.
[99] VASHKEVICH, Alexander; and TUGUSHI, Georgy; and SALAEV, Azamat. Application of the provisions of the UN Convention on Human Rights in decisions of the courts of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Collection of materials of a practical seminar. Tashkent, 2020. P.11.
[100] ULYASHINA, L.V. International legal standards in the field of human rights and their implementation: theory and practice of application. Vilnius, 2013. P. 229.
[101] Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (26 November 2002) E/2006/99 (SUPP). Para 6.4.