A/HRC/30/42 16. In 2004, the Human Rights Committee held that the purposes of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights “would be defeated without an obligation integral to article 2 to take measures to prevent a recurrence of a violation of the Covenant. Accordingly, it has been a frequent practice of the Committee … to include … the need for measures, beyond a victim-specific remedy, to be taken to avoid recurrence of the type of violation in question”. 5 17. The first jurisprudence by the Committee regarding right-to-life cases requiring States to “take steps to ensure that similar violations did not occur in the future” dates back to the 1980s. 6 The former Special Rapporteur, Theo van Boven, argued on that basis that “there exists a definite link between effective remedies to which the victim(s) is (are) entitled, remedies aimed at the prevention of the recurrence of similar violations and the issue of the follow -up given by the State party”. 7 18. The general commitment to adhere to a right involves making efforts to ensure that its violation ceases and is not repeated. The duty to prevent recurrence is hence closely linked to the obligation of cessation of an ongoing violation. On this basis, “guarantees serve a preventive function and may be described as a positive reinforcement of future performance”. 8 19. Regional human rights courts and human rights treaty bodies have, with increasing frequency, issued orders related to guaranteeing non -recurrence. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has interpreted its remedial powers broadly and ordered remedies directed not only at victims, but also at communities and towards society at large. Significant progress by the Court includes a practice of requiring States to take measures to preserve the victim’s memory or making relevant parts of its ruling public for educational purposes. 9 On legislative reform, the Court held that laws that place civilians under military court jurisdiction are a violation of the American Convention on Human Rights; consequently, it ordered the State to change the legislation. 10 Such orders are not uncommon in Court decisions. As the Court argued in its landmark Velásquez Rodríguez decision, States are obliged “to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights” . 11 B. Conceptual issues 20. Despite the significant growth of the relevant international standards, the term “guarantees of non-recurrence” requires elaboration regarding the following conceptual questions: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 6 See CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, para. 17. See communications No. 88/1981, Larrosa v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1983, para. 13; No. 124/1982, Muteba v. Zaire, decision on admissibility dated 25 March 1983, para. 13; and No. 176/1984, Peñarrieta et al. v. Bolivia, Views adopted on 2 November 1987, para. 18. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8, para. 55. See Draft Articles on State Responsibility, article 30. See Arturo J. Carrillo, Justice in Context: The Relevance of Inter-American Human Rights Law and Practice to Repairing the Past (Oxford University Press, 2008). Ibid. See also Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Judgement of 30 May 1999, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ser. C, No. 52. para. 222. See Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgement of 29 July 1988, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ser. C, No. 4, para. 166.