with an excessive volume of cases reaching the highest courts,”156 and the lack of procedures or remedies to speed up proceedings.157 Another major factor is the lack of sufficient resources, resulting in particular in a low judge-population ration, a shortage of personnel, facilities and technology, corruption (administrative court staff, judges, lawyers)158 as well as contributing to poor case management.159 As a result, a huge backlog of cases is often allowed to accumulate and prolonged delays are, if only reluctantly, accepted as an inevitable feature of the judicial process.160 In turn, such developments erode confidence in the judicial system, undermine access to justice and may foster a culture either of alternative mediation that is inadequate in dealing with serious violations such as torture and out-ofcourt settlements or resort to self-help and violence.161 Case study: Aberca v Ver, Philippines In February 1983, twenty political prisoners brought a civil suit for damages on the grounds that their rights, including the freedom from torture, had been violated by twelve military officers, in particular Major General Fabian Ver as the head of the Task Force allegedly responsible for these violations during the Marcos regime. The plaintiffs were seeking actual/compensatory damages, moral damages and exemplary damages of at least 3,339,030.00 Pesos (around $72,000). The motion was dismissed by a regional trial court in November 1983 on the grounds that, inter alia, the defendants enjoyed immunity. After several unsuccessful attempts to challenge the dismissal, the Supreme Court of the Philippines, in 1988, reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the regional trial court for further proceedings. In 1993, the Quezon City Trial Court awarded actual, moral and exemplary damages, as well as attorneys’ fees to the plaintiffs, holding that the defendants were jointly and solidarily liable for torture and other human rights violations. The defendants appealed the ruling and, ten years later, in 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Quezon City Trial Court.162 In 2007, the review of the Appeals Court’s ruling was pending before the Supreme Court. No final decision has been reached in a staggering period of more than 24 years since the case was initially brought. The problem of the lack of effective and speedy access to justice is not confined to the Marcos victims. Serious delays are systemic in the Philippines justice system resulting from a 156 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/25, 18 January 2007, para.20. 157 See in this regard the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular in the case of Kudla v. Poland. 158 See Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption and Judicial Systems and Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Leandro Despouy, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/25, 18 January 2007, para.19. 159 Ibid., para.20. 160 See for example in TI India, Indolence in India’s judiciary, in Transparency International, ‘Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption and Judicial Systems,’ pp.215, 216 according to which, in February 2006, 33,635 cases were pending in the Supreme Court (26 judges); 3,341,040 in the high courts (670 judges) and 25,306,458 in the 13,204 subordinate courts. The article also quotes a report of a conference and workshop on ‘Delays and Corruption in Indian Judicial System and Matters Relating to Judicial Reforms’, organised by IT-India and Lok Sevak Sangh, in New Delhi, 18-19 December 1999: “At the current rate of disposal it would take another 350 years for disposal of the pending cases even if no other cases were added.” As increasingly recognised, the backlog and delays in resolving cases is itself a factor that fosters corruption in relation to the speeding up of cases. See for example S.I. Laskar, Bangladesh: Justice in Disarray, Transparency International, ‘Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption and Judicial Systems,’ p.181. 161 See on recourse to mediation, alternative dispute settlement and customary justice, REDRESS, Torture in Uganda, A Baseline Study, p.46. 162 TFDP, Breaking Impunity, 2006, pp.1, 2 and Cheryl M. Arcibal, Victims of rights abuses struggle to keep cases alive, Manila Times, Special Report, 28 February 2005. 34