strictu) or to (ii) a distinction of complainant and victim, that is the rightholder (even unknown or
only identifiable) and the complainants are not identical and have no special relationship. This
kind of complaint is known in IHRL only for inter-state complaints.51
Sixthly, it is possible to enforce the substantive right of an infringed group or individual by a
complaint filed by an NGO, where again the right holder and the complainant are not identical,52
so called “altruistic” NGO complaints. Here, the NGO acts as complainant on behalf of the vic-
tims, claiming another ones´ substantive right. This has to be distinguished from so called “ego-
istic” NGO complaints whereby the NGO claims its own right as a corporation and it also has to
be distinguished from those cases where NGOs help victims bringing a complaint as representa-
tives, that is, NGOs act similar to lawyers. Altruistic NGO complaints are mostly called actio
popularis, by the juridical bodies as well as in the literature. Nevertheless, there are important
differences. Actio popularis in its strict sense does not require any victim - the complaint may
solely allege the incompatibility of national laws or practices with international law. It is there-
fore a complaint in abstracto challenging objective law. In contrast, NGO complaints are mostly
brought on behalf of identified or at least identifiable victims, thereby claiming somebody’s else
rights in its own name. Nevertheless, complaints by NGOs may also be called actio popularis if
the NGO does not need to identify or name the victims. Furthermore, in an actio popularis any-
body may bring a claim, whereas usually for an NGO to be admitted as a complainant, the NGO
needs to be registered. Therefore, NGO complaints are usually filtered via the process by which
NGOs are registered.53
If NGOs file complaints as representatives of victims, they usually do not take any money and
help the victim with the complaint as counsel. Still, they need the victims to consent and the vic-
tims need to be named and act as complainants. Even if incentive problems of purely individual
complaints, as described in 1), are mitigated if NGOs act as counsels, not all cases are covered as
the prerequisite continues to be the individual victim requirement. In circumstances especially of
large-scale violations when victims are too numerous or not identifiable or there is no access to
justice, an altruistic NGO complaint may be the only way of brining a case.
Class Complaints, NGO complaints and actio popularis shall be called “collective complaints”
hereinafter, because those categories dispense either with the requirement of an individual victim
in total or with the requirement of an individual victim being directly involved in the complaint.
In IHRL, they are rare de lege lata.
50 See Aceves, supra note 47, at 356 et seq., where he considers erga omnes obligations to be an issue for actio
popularis.
51 So called “abstract applications” with the character of an actio popularis, See for the ECHR, van Dijk/van
Hoof, supra note 8, at 40. Those complaints are seldom used, see supra note 8.
52 See for the role of NGOs in IHRL Shelton, supra note 8; Caroline Schwitter Marsiaj, The Role of
International NGOs in the Global Governance of Human Rights, 2004, Zürich, especially for Africa Kwadwo
Appiagyei-Atua, “Human Rights NGOs and their Role in the Promotion and Protection of Rights in Africa”,
International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 9 (2002), 265-289, especially for the Americas Bertha
Santoscoy, La Commission Interaméricaine des Droits de l’Homme et le Développement de sa Compétence
par le Système des Pétitions Individuelles, 1994, Paris, at 57 et seq. and Jo M. Pasqualucci, The Practice and
Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 2003, Cambridge, at 100 et seqq.
53 For differences between class action and actio popularis, see Aceves, supra note 47, at 358.
14