ABSTRACT
Introduction One of the general propositions formulated by Kauzlarich, Matthews and Miller in their article “Towards a Victimology of State Crime” is that: “Victims of state crime tend to be among the least socially powerful actors” (Kauzlarich et al. 2001: 183). They identify structural patterns that facilitate state crime victimization, noting that: “the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and women are explicitly or tacitly victimized by the state” (Kauzlarich et al. 2001: 176). Holding states accountable for their crimes has been a central issue for both formal, informal, domestic and international control mechanisms (Ross 2011). One important form of control of the activities of the state is found in the work of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (hereafter referred to as the European Court or the Court). The European Court examines allegations pertaining to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights made by individuals, groups, organizations and private businesses who consider their rights to have been violated. It is not only citizens who have the right to make complaints to the Court, but all individuals present within a country’s borders who are affected by the decisions of its public sector agencies. These complaints are directed at the state as the body responsible for the actions of persons working in the public sector, and not at individuals or specific public sector agencies (Bring and Mahmoudi 2007). The European Court can be understood as an example of what Mulgan (2000: 565) has referred to as “institutions of accountability” and as a formal institution for seeking redress.
