large case load in the face of an explosion in litigation that is not matched by the required judicial infrastructure and resources.163 c) Delays in enforcement of awards Delays and non-enforcement of awards against state entities The swift enforcement of awards is an integral element of the rule of law. Most litigants readily understand that they will have to prove their case in court. However, they will often find it incomprehensible that there are difficulties in the enforcement of judgments that is frequently taken for granted. This is particularly true in cases of human rights violations, such as torture, where the recognition of liability carries a public acknowledgment that the torture victim’s version of events was true or at least partly true and that the state was, either directly or indirectly, responsible. Prolonged delays in the enforcement of judgments are therefore not only a source of frustration preventing torture survivors from enjoying the benefits deriving from a judicial award but are also prone to undermine if not negate altogether the acknowledgment inherent in the judgment. Litigants in torture cases will often face the same difficulties in enforcing judgments against those personally responsible for torture as litigants seeking enforcement of other civil claims. Debtors may have insufficient assets or seek to evade enforcement by a variety of means. The same difficulties might not be expected when it comes to enforcing judgments against the state as the latter should be in a position to honour judgments. However, in reality it is often even more difficult to enforce judgments against the state. The lack of effective enforcement procedures is a systemic problem in countries around the world. There are frequently no procedures for enforcing judgments against the state and the state may fail to comply with judgments as a means of showing disrespect for particular decisions, for budgetary reasons or out of administrative malpractice. In Georgia, for example, the amount of compensation that can be awarded for illegal conduct of state authorities, including torture, is limited as the state has set aside an annual budget of 50,000/100,000 Lari (approx. $ 28,000/56,000) out of which all compensation awards made against the state are to be paid.164 In some cases, the amount of compensation awarded against the state has been reduced upon appeal by reference to budgetary constraints.165 Furthermore, state authorities have apparently routinely failed to comply with adverse court rulings. This has left successful plaintiffs at the mercy of the government and often emptyhanded.166 Case study: Marcos case, Philippines 163 See Jan Willem Bakker, The Philippine Justice System, The Independence and Impartiality of the Judiciary and Human Rights from 1986 to 1997, PIOOM, Leiden, 1997 and Judge Dolores Español, The Philippines: Towards Significant Judicial Reform, in Transparency International, ‘Global Corruption Report 2007: Corruption and Judicial Systems,’ pp.258 et seq. 164 This is not laid down by law but adopted as administrative practice. The sum allocated for rehabilitation purposes was 59 000 Lari in 2001, 50 000 Lari each in 2002 and 2003 and 100,000 Lari in 2004. 165 Tamaz Shapatava v Georgia, an application pending before the European Court of Human Rights relating to a judgment of the Supreme Court of 18 June 2002 is a case in point. He demanded rehabilitation and compensation of 1 000 000 USD for the moral damage resulting from his unlawful detention that had lasted one year. The Supreme Court of Georgia awarded him 14 000 Lari as rehabilitation on the grounds that there is a social-economic crisis in Georgia and that the sum of money (50 000 Lari) set aside in the budget is envisaged for dozens of persons and cannot be spent on one person only. Article 42 has brought this case before the European Court of Human Rights arguing that the low amount of damages awarded signifies a lack of effective remedies for such breaches in violation of Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 166 Complaints against public officials tasked with enforcing judgments brought under Article 18 of the Law on Enforcement Proceedings of 1999 challenging the lack of action to enforce awards against the Government have to date been unsuccessful. The lack of effectiveness of enforcements is at present being challenged by Article 42 before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kokashvili v. Georgia. 35