With the exception of the African system and the Inter-American system, altruistic complaints
brought by NGOs are not permissible. The African Commission, admitting altruistic NGO com-
plaints, was well aware of the circumstances in Africa, which inhibit the filing of complaints and
therefore opened the gate for NGOs. Also, it considered this step necessary because of the group
and peoples’ rights included in the African Charter. Due to the collective good context inherent
in those rights, there is a particularly strong disincentive to claim those rights before a judicial
body. This reasoning would thus apply to all those treaties which provide for minority and group
rights. But also infringements of individual rights with a possibly huge collective aspect, such as
racial or gender discrimination, are suited for NGO complaints. Furthermore, if the victims do
not have to be named, altruistic NGO complaints minimize non-monetary costs for victims such
as the risk of repression by state actors. NGOs have the advantage of being “professional” in the
field, thus fighting with more equal swords. In very poor countries, they may also be the only
possibility of raising awareness and bringing a claim - class actions need a minimal access to the
legal sphere, whereas in NGO cases, the victims only need to be identifiable or give their con-
sent. NGO complaints may also bring along greater publicity and therefore foster compliance of
the respondent state with the decision. Of course, this situation is not unique to the Inter-
American or African context. Rather, it applies in most regions of the world and thus, if effective
enforcement of the human rights treaties is desired, NGO complaints should be introduced. Em-
pirical research supports that result: human rights treaty ratification is more beneficial if there is
a strong civil society, that is, the more citizens participate in international NGOs.236
With the exception of the African system, actio popularis is not admissible. But deplorable
socio-economic and political conditions, low levels of literacy, unavailability of access to media,
and arbitrary denial of justice which might inhibit individual access to complaint mechanisms are
not unique to Africa.237 Furthermore, victims often lack the resources necessary to pursue a
claim or lack access to lawyers or to courts able to hear their claims. Human rights complainants
may also lack basic knowledge of their legal rights under international law.238 If widespread vio-
lations occur, few people would bring a complaint for rational reasons, with the exception of
NGOs, which in the Inter-American cases still have to name the victims or at least have to make
the victims identifiable. That might also constitute a huge hurdle. Consequently the African
Commission has dispensed with the naming requirement. An actio popularis, also for NGOs,
might be the only appropriate legal solution for those cases. Abuse of actio popularis is not to be
expected, as argued above, and furthermore can be dealt with through other legal means, such as
abuse provisions, existent in all treaties.
None of the treaties allow for class actions. The class action mechanism also has the potential to
give force to grievances about government practices and policies that violate individual human
rights on a collective scale. Adopting an expansive conception of the causes of the harm alleged
by members of the class facilitates the discovery and disclosure of a pattern of wrongdoing, per-
236 Neumayer, supra note 6.
237 See Jo M. Pasqualucci, “The Inter-American Human Rights System: Establishing Precedents and Procedure
in Human Rights Law”, University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 26 (1995), 297-361, at 314 et seq.
238 Schaack, supra note 46, at 319 et seq.
47