By Denis Joseph Bukenya,
There are numerous approaches to adjudicating international human rights law. Among them are approaches vernacularized to the third world context like the Interdependence Approach under the economic social and cultural rights (ECSCR). It is a method of quasi-judicial enforcement of the ECSCR that is vernacularized through relying on the process and procedural rights that are common among groups of rights and the overlapping component of substantive rights. Analysis of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has showed there is a solid basis for the interdependence approach evidenced in the protection of the different groups of rights vernacularized to clearly being stated as indivisible and interdependent.
This paper through a desk review analysis of international statutes, case law and scholarly papers on the African Human Rights perspectives will explore the uniqueness in application of international law by establishing the extent indirect approaches like interdependence and its interpretation of substantive rights bridge gaps in the protection of specific ECSCR to ensure the coherent application of human rights norms vernacularized. Further thereto, relevance to the jurisprudence of the ACHPRs will be examined in regard to the interdependent approach.
The discussion will note that mostly the direct justiciability of the rights protected under the African Human Rights Systems tend to undermine the interdependence approach viewing it as a separate and self-standing method of adjudication of ECSCR yet in most cases they apply in one and the same cases. Examples will be drawn from cases of Purohit & Another v The Gambia (2003) AHRLR 96 (ACHPR 2003) para 84 and Gunme & Others v Cameroon (2009) AHRLR 9 (ACHPR 2009) paras 102-108&162 to show the extent International Law has been vernacularized.