Models of liability for the administrative tort sanctioned with fi nancial penalties on the example of selected European countries

During the last decade in many European countries, especially post-communist ones, which until now have been developing their economy, there has occurred a change regarding the place of criminal liability which allowed for the introduction of administrative liability based on repressive sanctions in a form of administrative penalties (fi nancial penalties). Administrative sanctions are applied in addition to traditional instruments of criminal law since as a powerful tool they potentially prevent and combat violations, especially in business law, environmental law, agriculture and food law, transport law, telecommunications and postal services law. I am particularly interested in this topic due to the fact that administrative fi nes for administrative torts are often more repressive than fi nes for off ences. Currently, a number of legal scholars in all European countries, are focused on analyzing administrative penalties. Administrative fi nes are a special kind of sanctions which are more similar to criminal penalties than to administrative ones. The subject of this article is administrative fi nancial penalties regulated by public law in selected European countries. The European Commission strongly encourages the Member States to apply these measures to protect the observance of the European Community regulations incorporated into the legal systems of the Member States. However, the exact scope and application of administrative measures by the Member States still remains unclear. This study aims to explore


Introduction
During the last decade in many European countries, especially post-communist ones, which until now have been developing their economy, there has occurred a change regarding the place of criminal liability which allowed for the introduction of administrative liability based on repressive sanctions in a form of administrative penalties (fi nancial penalties). Administrative sanctions are applied in addition to traditional instruments of criminal law since as a powerful tool they potentially prevent and combat violations, especially in business law, environmental law, agriculture and food law, transport law, telecommunications and postal services law.
I am particularly interested in this topic due to the fact that administrative fi nes for administrative torts are often more repressive than fi nes for off ences. Currently, a number of legal scholars in all European countries, are focused on analyzing administrative penalties. Administrative fi nes are a special kind of sanctions which are more similar to criminal penalties than to administrative ones.
The subject of this article is administrative fi nancial penalties regulated by public law in selected European countries. The European Commission strongly encourages the Member States to apply these measures to protect the observance of the European Community regulations incorporated into the legal systems of the Member States. However, the exact scope and application of administrative measures by the Member States still remains unclear. This study aims to explore how and when administrative measures can be and are applied in the context of administrative torts. In the European countries there is no clear defi nition of administrative law. This is not surprising as there is no universal defi nition of a administrative sanction. Administrative law and its instruments are based on national context. The article presents administrative systems operating in France, Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic and how these system view direct responsibility. Then, by briefl y explaining the choice of the legal systems analyzed in this article, it points out that these countries represent the leading trends aff ecting other European countries.
On the European continent there are three main models of adjudicating minor violations (administrative tort) of the law: French, Austrian and English (common law) model The French model is based on the assumption that all punishment comes from the court because only the Court can exercise justice -even with respect to the smallest matters of violations of the law. However, in this country there are also constituted administrative sanctions.
The second model has been developed in Austria where the dominant model adopted a just administrative system though bypassing a group of off enses in the general-criminal dimension. In this system two categories of off enses emerged, i.e.: a) petty off ences (minor crimes) included in the criminal law; b) administrative misconduct being detrimental to the functioning of administration sanctioned under the administrative laws. Administrative off ences are considered to be a measure of administration, their imposition falls within the competence of administrative bodies.
A pattern from Austria scooped the Czech Republic because of their shared history. The countries that have outlined a clearer boundary between administrative sanctions and criminal sanctions include: Portugal, Italy and the Netherlands. These states regulate criminal sanctions and administrative sanctions separately. In these countries, the legislator should take into account the fact that crimes and administrative torts perform other functions and fulfi ll diff erent aims. Also, Belgium and Romania are characterized by a diversity of administrative sanctions of criminal penalties at the legislative and teleological level.
The article also concentrates on the model of administrative tort in common law jurisdictions, the representative of which is the United Kingdom. In England torts which are in violation of public law are qualifi ed into criminal proceedings. These sanctions must be consistent with fundamental human rights and must comply with the requirements of justice. In these countries there are no regulations of administrative sanctions. Similarly, in Sweden, fi nes have only criminal character.
It should be noted that the general principles relating to administrative sanctions may be regulated by substantive or procedural law which is characteristic for countries, such as: Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, as well as it may also result from the case law which applies in: France or the United Kingdom 1 . The European countries can be divided into two groups regarding the degree of diff erentiation of administrative sanctions compared with criminal sanctions. In the fi rst group there are countries with a low degree of diff erentiation between administrative and criminal sanction. In the UK there is no specifi c statutory regime that applies to public administration. Both the administrative penalties and criminal sanctions must be consistent with the general principles of law, because in this legal system there are no homogeneous rules of the dimension of administrative sanctions. The second group of countries, which includes Germany, Austria and France distinguishes very broadly and in detail between fi nes and criminal sanctions. The legislators in those countries have to take into consideration that criminal and administrative off ences have their own basic characteristics 2 .
The application model of administrative penalties will be presented in the following order: a) rules governing liability, b) typology of administrative penalties; c) guarantees which apply to perpetrators of administrative torts.
Additionally in this article I will try to verify the thesis in my research that administrative penalties are a distinct type of penalties from criminal sanctions, but at the same time substantive and procedural guarantees for the punished should be similar to them.

Model of liability for the administrative tort in France
Administrative penalties have been applied since before the French Revolution, simultaneously with criminal penalties. Nowadays, in the French legal system there are more than 500 types of infringements punishable by administrative sanctions in domains as diverse as culture, communications, tax, market regulation, health, public transport, social security and the environment. France has a long-standing tradition of administrative sanctions, which bear the name (les sanctions administratives). Depending on the off ender, sanctions are named (nuisances commises par des personnes) which means committed by a person or (nuisances commises par des établissements) which means committed by an institution.
These sanctions can be defi ned as non-criminal sanctions of a punitive nature that can be imposed by administrative authorities 3 . French law provides for a number of mechanisms allowing administrative authorities to screen and monitor persons and legal entities. This makes the administrative authorities eager to use administrative sanctions for violation of administrative duties. Administrative penalty is considered as a fl exible and effi cient substitute for criminal penalties 4 . France has no codifi ed administrative procedure, and the rules governing the use of administrative penalties are determined under the Conseil d'Etat and Constitutional Council -not to mention the central role of the ECHR 5 .
In France there is no legal defi nition of administrative sanction, however the doctrine defi nes it as ex-post response of the institution to unlawful conduct consisting of or infl icting a form of suff ering of one kind or another on the infringer. They are opposite to the institution known as police measure imposed ex-ante.
Administrative sanctions have essentially a repressive function. There is no doubt that the punishment often also serves as a deterrent, and thus a preventive measure, but it is not primarily intended. When in doubt, e.g. in the event of withdrawal of approval, a disqualifi cation, prohibition or incapacity, the judge researches the essential purpose of the text that has to be applied. Whereas one shall bear in mind that an essentially repressive purpose characterizes the sanction 6 and an essentially preventive purpose characterizes a police measure 7 . Similarly, tax penalties are regarded as penalties and not as simple repairs because of their essentially repressive purposes.
Countries may freely substitute administrative sanctions for criminal penalties, as long as, by doing so, it does not deprive individuals of their basic traditional substantive and procedural guarantees protecting anybody charged with a criminal off ence 8 . While the Constitutional Council would prohibit administrative sanctions in certain cases in order to protect from excessive limitation of freedoms and violation of the principle of proportionality 9 .
Administrative sanctions are a tool for a number of administrative bodies and independent agencies. French law distinguishes between fi nancial penalties and measures of administrative police manifested in the non-imposition of sanctions 10 . An example of the adoption of new penalties associated with the infl ux of migrants is the Act introduced in 1992 in view of reinforcing the arsenal to combat illegal immigration, which implements an administrative penalty of EUR 5,000 pronounced by the interior minister against sea or air transportation companies for each non-EU passenger disembarking on the French territory without proper travel or immigration documents 11 .
The most severe penalties are in principle of criminal law, but this hierarchy is not absolute: administrative fi scal fi nes, customs or competition law can reach amounts signifi cantly higher than those of the most common criminal fi nes. In addition, the legal regime of administrative punishment tends to be closer to criminal sanctions, especially 6  procedural guarantees. Ultimately, it is the nature of the public authority -the judge or an administrative body -vested with the power to punish, which as a result appears to be the relevant criterion between administrative sanctions and criminal penalties.
Administrative sanctions are considered by the Conseil d'Etat as implemented to fair trial regime under Article 6 of the ECHR. However, sanctions which remain outside the scope of Article 6 are submitted to secure a certain level of guarantees pursuant to general principles of administrative law as a set of legal principles designed by the Conseil d'Etat without any direct statutory or other basis. Protection under Article 6 ECHR is stronger than that of the general principles. The decision which imposed the sanction must be justifi ed and the person in question must have been given the opportunity to present prior written explanation and observations upon their request. For some sanctions, the Conseil d'Etat is of the opinion that although these administrative authorities are not courts under the French law, they should be considered as such for the purpose of the application of Article 6 ECHR, and also that most of the corresponding guarantees should be applicable from the beginning of the administrative procedure and not only during a judicial review 12 .

Model of liability for the administrative tort in Austria
The punishment of infringements by administrative authorities has a long tradition in Austria 13 . The criminal code during the ruling of Joseph II, code of crimes and severe police off ences from 1803 allowed for distinguishing between criminal off ences and administrative torts. Then, under the criminal code of 1852 only off ences stipulated in this code were to be regarded as criminal off ences, other infringements were qualifi ed as administrative off ences, which are part of administrative penal law. It should be noted that the acts sanctioned with administrative law were called administrative off ences, and the law governing them -administrative and criminal law. The legislator did not use the word "tort" for similar violations of civil law for the determination of infringement. Important for the creation of the model of administration punishment was the establishment of the Administrative Court in 1875. In 1925 the Administrative Penal Code entered into force. This Act regulates the administrative penal law and the basic principles which are close to criminal law. Since 1925 the Act has been amended several times. The main diff erence between criminal and administrative penalties is that the administrative penal law is normally suffi cient to impose punishment in the case of negligence; however criminal negligence should be qualifi ed as intentional infringement 14 .
In the Austrian legal system there is no legal defi nition of the termadministrative sanction. Austrian criminal law is divided in two fi elds: a hard one recognized by the courts and a light system of directing certain behaviours by punishments -mainly fi nes -as a part of the vast fi eld of administrative law 15 . In the fi eld of administrative law there is a wide range of administrative sanctions. Austrian legislation outlines a dividing line between criminal and administrative sanction. The division is associated with the bodies that impose sanctions. The power to impose administrative sanctions belongs to administrative authorities, but criminal sanctions belong only to the court. In the repressive administrative law we can distinguish diff erent areas -general administrative penal law, which is regulated in Verwaltungsstrafgesetz 16 and the fi scal off ences law.
Administrative fi nes which in Austria are called verwaltungsstrafe are the most important penalties, but in the Austrian legal system there are also other sanctions, e.g. withdrawal of license, or permission. Austrian law provides for maximum and minimum fi nes, the lowest punishment is 7 euro. If the same person commits several administrative torts, every act is independently punished.
Administrative sanctions are not regarded as penalties, although they have a penal character. If they are imposed because of a violation infl icted on a person, they are administrative measures. The doctrine stands for the aim of these measures which on the one hand is the protection of the general public from a wrongdoer, but on the other hand -the protection of a person against him/herself 17 . Regarding certain administrative torts, there is criticism in doctrine about their legal qualifi cation as administrative sanctions and not as criminal penalties since they fulfi l a repressive function. The Austrian Constitutional Court has adjudicated that fi nes may be imposed by administrative bodies only on condition that the range of administrative off ences is not as high as the crime off ences. But the Constitutional Court has not given a clear limit on how high the fi nes in administrative law could be 18 . In contrast, for committing an administrative off ense one may be punished with imprisonment only of six weeks 19 .
Article 6 20 of the ECHR has an impact on the system of administrative sanctions and legal guarantees. It provides that there are no essential diff erences between a criminal sanction and an administrative sanction. The ECJ said that administrative penal proceedings can be qualifi ed as criminal charges with the meaning of Article 6 ECHR. Austrian doctrine claims that it is necessary to apply criminal guarantees in administrative penal law. But nowadays criminal guarantees are not always fully implemented in administrative penal law. Most of the guarantees proper for criminal law are governed by VStG 21 .

Model of liability for the administrative tort in Germany
Administrative sanctions play a signifi cant role in the German legal system. This category of sanctions is the result of a large number of violations of public law 22  criminal sanctions and administrative sanctions 23 . The fi rst Administrative Off ences Act was enacted in 1952. This Act defi ned administrative off ences and types of administrative sanctions. Under German law sanctions can be imposed for the infringement of law or of administrative decisions. This responsibility is independent of guilt and based on the principle of risk 24 . These defi nitions are created by the doctrine, but they have not been adopted by German law.
In the German legal system there are various types of administrative sanctions which are called verwaltungsstrafen. The system of sanction imposed by an administrative body distinguishes between administrative sanctions (repressive administrative maßnahmen) and disciplinary sanctions (disziplinarmaßnahmen). The fi rst category contains remedial sanctions and repressive sanctions. The purpose of remedial sanctions is of a compensating nature; they serve to remedy illegal eff ects. Repressive sanctions are another category. They do harm to the perpetrator as retribution for violation of the law. Repressive sanctions are set out in criminal law and administrative law. Finally, as a third category, there are preventive sanctions. These sanctions are the most popular in the public law as their intention is to prevent future off ences and stop a continuing infringement 25 . This category includes sanctions like public security and correction measures. But sanctions in public law do not have an equal status. Among the sanctions under public law, some categories are more similar to criminal sanctions and other less (non-criminal sanctions). Legal consequences of wrongful acts imposed by administrative authorities are called administrative sanctions. They do not have a high degree of socio-ethical condemnation -culpability. The role of the legislator is to classify a sanction as being of criminal or administrative nature taking into consideration its characteristics and the degree of seriousness of the unlawful act 26 . The legislator should remember that drafting administrative sanctions instead of criminal punishment leads to violations of the principles of a constitutional state 27 . The criminal sanctions are regulated by the German Penal Code 28 (Grundgesetz), and criminal procedural law, but general principles governing administrative off ences are stipulated in the Administrative Off ences Act 29 . But most of the administrative sanctions are scattered over a multitude of various laws and regulations. Administrative Off ences Act contains general principles and rules for all administrative off ences, including the possibility to impose an administrative fi ne according to federal and state laws. This is a very appropriate legislative solution, which is missing in the Polish legislation. In the Polish legal system, administrative sanctions are regulated by diff erent acts and regulations and they are not homogeneous; there are no common rules for their imposition. Discrepancies call for the application of individual administrative sanctions, which consequently leads to the violation of the principle of equality of citizens before the law.
Fines are the most frequently stipulated administrative penalties 30 . This sanction can be imposed in conjunction with another administrative sanction. A pecuniary sanction pursues both repressive and preventive aims. It indicates that an administrative fi ne is meant to punish a committed violation (repressive aim) and also acts as a deterrent to future violations (preventive aim) 31 . Under German law there is a special procedure for imposition of administrative sanctions, which is divided into two phases. The fi rst phase stipulated in Section 35 II OWiG concerns issuing an administrative order imposing a fi ne. If a punished person appeals, the administrative bodies could change the decision, revoke the decision or are even obliged to refer the matter to the public prosecutor's offi ce on the basis of Section 69 II OWiG. Phase two starts after fi ling an appeal. This phase is similar to criminal trial and is regulated by Section 71 I OWiG.
The next step is to clarify to what extent general legal principles, particularly criminal law principles, can be applied to administrative sanctions. In Germany, the principles regarding which the punishment is determined by statutory law e.g. nullum crimen sine lege, Nulla poena 28  sine lege, prohibition of analogy, prohibition of retroactivity, are laid down in art. 103 II GG. These principles are also applied in relation to administrative sanctions.

Model of liability for the administrative tort in the Czech Republic
Czech administrative law consists of a set of public regulations that govern the organization and functioning of public administration. Unlike civil or penal law, administrative substantive law is not codifi ed 32 . Administrative law also regulates the responsibility for public law offences that are not criminal off ences 33 . Public law off ences consist of two subsets, criminal off ences and administrative off ences. Administrative off ences can be defi ned as acts violating or threatening the interests of the society. The Czech legal system diff erentiates among more than 200 administrative off ences 34 . Punishing (trest) -deciding on guilt and punishment for violation of the law -consists of judicial punishment (soudní trest) and administrative punishing (správní trest). The system of torts distinguishes between administrative off enses (přestupky), administrative disciplinary torts (správní disciplinarni torts), administrative torts (tzv. správní pořadkove torts) and other administrative torts (jine správní torts) 35 . The administrative criminal law is considered a sub-system of the administrative law including the regulation of the legal basis and the consequences of liability in the administrative law, or in other words -responsibility for administrative off ences. It contains rules of substantive, organizational and procedural law. The existence of administrative criminal law is an expression of the fact that administrative law is the only branch of the law which also has "its own criminal law".
In the 1950s a new kind of administrative off ences called other administrative off ences of individuals began to be recognized in the Czech Republic. These off ences are not criminal off enses or disciplinary off enses. 32  Despite criticism of such practice and theory, this category of administrative off ences exists also today. This type of administrative off ences initially referred to as off ences committed by employees are related to the breach of obligations that are in some way connected with the fi elds of their employment activity. Apart from administrative off ences, there are off ences committed by employees which constitute another group of administrative off ences of individuals, whose prosecution was taken out of the regime of the Act on off enses. The doctrine of the Czech Republic was in favour of removing such off ences from the legal system because they had not been regulated by the basic principles of responsibility or the necessary procedural institutions. The constituent element of such criminal activity is the principle of objective liability, with no possibility of exemption from liability. This construction was justifi ed primarily by the fact that the authorities in practice have the problem of proving guilt 36 .
Administrative off ences as measures other than criminal off ences have also been introduced into the legal system in the Czech Republic. fact that the tort corresponds to legal entities and individuals, but only if they are entrepreneurs and have committed a tort in connection with the business activities as entrepreneurs 39 .
In the Czech Republic part of the overall administrative off ences regulating the rules of liability, circumstances excluding liability, limitation, etc. have not been settled. Some of the issues falling under the "general part of the liability for administrative off ences" are governed by the substantive laws providing for such responsibility, but not all and not always. As for the legal protections aff orded to a person found guilty of an administrative off ence, these are regulated partly by the Misdemeanor Act 40 and partly by the general provisions of the Code if Administrative Procedure (CAP) 41 . The CAP imposes a duty on the administrative authority to instruct persons adequately as to their rights and duties and where needed, about the nature of the administrative act and the person's personal situation.
One of the most important legal principles in the Czech Republic, also with regards administrative off ences is nullum crimen sine lege. This principle is expressed explicitly in Article 39 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms 42 . At the same time the principle ne bis in idem does not apply to administrative off ences. The decision to impose an administrative sanction in the form of an administrative act for an administrative off ence is a self-suffi cient legal instrument, just like a criminal sanction. This is why their concurrent use does not constitute a breach of the ne bis in idem principle.
However, fully justifi ed would be a preparation of a special principle of liability for administrative off ences, which would cover the issues related to the basis of liability and the procedure. It is essential to regulate the grounds for exemption from liability in cases where the off ender has done everything that is required to prevent a violation of the law. In such a general act one should regulate the exemptions from liability in case of vis major and the limitation period 43 .

Model of liability for the administrative tort in the United Kingdom
The issue of sanction for a breach of administrative legal duties is a developing fi eld of study within the United Kingdom 44 .The sanctioning system in the United Kingdom has changed over the past hundred years. In the English legal system, nowadays there are many legal and economic instruments available to implement and enforce administrative decisions, for example administrative penalties 45 . In the UK law there is no general defi nition of what an administrative sanction is, nor is there a clear distinction between criminal off ences and administrative torts. The traditional distinction between criminal and administrative sanctions are the range of off ences and their seriousness.
The administrative sanctions in the UK are governed by the specifi c statutory arrangements that are applicable to a particular set of regulations or fall within the powers of a particular regulatory bodies. There is no statutory regime which applies to public administration and there is no code governing administrative sanctions. These sanctions are increasingly important and their success is linked to appropriate enforcement policy. A variety of agencies, bodies, organizations, inspectorates and regulatory bodies are entitled to impose sanctions.
Administrative sanctions improve compliance with the law and the execution of administrative decisions in diff erent sectors such as health, education, and environment and in the public and private sectors including fi nancial organizations. There are wide ranges of examples of off ences covering pollution, breaching license conditions, or non-compliance with notices issued by the regulator.
Administrative penalties generally involve the suspension or revocation of licenses and fi nancial penalties. For many of these, criminal law provisions shall be applied in order to impose administrative penalties, but not to all of them. Applying the rules of criminal law depends on the importance of the infringement. Although these sanctions are referred as administrative, a criminal standard of proof is required on the basis of Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act of 2008.
The privatised industries have also an impact on creating a new generation of regulatory bodies which are entitled to impose sanctions for a breach of duties. However, in the UK some of the infringements qualifi ed in other countries of the European Union as administrative tort, constitute a crime. For example, the UK treats violations of fi sheries law as criminal off ences and deals with them under criminal law, but in Germany and France these infringements have an administrative method of sanctioning 46 .
In the United Kingdom, the concept of administrative sanctionsdeliberately disconnected from criminal law -is increasingly common, but it remains a relatively new phenomenon that is still developing 47 . The imposition and recovery of administrative fi nes are regulated separately in diff erent reference areas, but the procedures are similar.

Conclusions
The most signifi cant trend in Europe is using administrative sanctions for the protection of public law, especially the law relating to economic activity, environmental issues, competition and consumer protection, and the protection of fi nancial markets. Without doubt, the most usual administrative sanction is a fi ne, when the off ender is made to pay a sum of money. For administrative fi nes there is no constitutional limit to the amount, nor any legislation establishing that the sum for administrative sanction should be lower than the amount established for crimes.
The main distinguishing feature of an administrative as opposed to criminal law is that the decision to impose an administrative sanction is under the control of an administrative authority instead of a court. This objection was raised against the use of administrative sanctions by administrative authority. It was claimed that imposition of sanctions by the executive was contrary to the binding principle of the separation of powers. But in reality there is no strict division of powers between the authorities, which allows to impose an administrative sanction 48 . The legislator cannot draw a defi nite line between what it must consider to be a crime or an administrative off ence, or between what is punishable by a court and what by an administrative body.
An analysis of administrative fi nes in selected European countries allows us to formulate a thesis that administrative fi nes are a diff erent kind of sanctions independent of criminal penalties, because they are a sign of responsibility for administrative torts or administrative off enses. Pecuniary sanctions are an essential feature of a regulatory enforcement toolkit and are central to achieving compliance by signalling the threat of a punishment to the off ender that have committed a tort 49 . Furthermore, the administrative fi nes are quick in administration and much more effi cient. Moreover, administrative fi nes are a convenient instrument for obtaining cash by the state.
In all legal systems of the countries described in this article, administrative sanctions have a preventive as well as a repressive nature. There is no prevention without repression, since it is the severity of the penalties that should deter and prevent the violation of law. Administrative sanctions are considered a criminal charge and therefore procedural or other legal protection must be accorded to defendants. The European Court of Human Rights ruled that those principles which belong to criminal cases, such as: the nullum crimen, non-retroactive principle, or the principle of proportionality should be applied to all punitive sanctions, including administrative sanctions.
That is why in all the countries discussed above it should be postulated that administrative fi nes be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringements and caused damage to property protected by administrative law. What is more, administrative penalties should only refer to statutory regulations.
A guarantee that no one can be administratively punished twice for the same off ense under the same provisions is also important in order to protect the same public interest. So is the rule of limitation and rapid response to a violation of the law, because the actions to impose administrative sanctions should be taken within a "reasonable" period, with the adjustment of speed to the circumstances of the case. In a democratic state, proceedings commenced on the imposition of a fi ne must end with a resolution closing the proceedings in the form of an administrative decision. Each party of the proceedings should be informed about the threatening penalty and at least: a) of the nature and cause of initiation of administrative proceedings promptly -in a language which they understand, b) adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence when they appoint a representative, or if the party has insuffi cient funds to cover the costs of legal representation by a professional representative -free use of legal aid, c) the right to be heard by an administrative body conducting the proceedings; d) the right to protection of business secrets and other confi dential information; e) the possibility of free assistance of an interpreter if they do not understand the language or do not speak the language; f) the right to appeal and judicial review of the decisions of the administrative bodies. This is why it is important to make a list of principles and draw a framework for administrative fi nancial sanctions. Today, none of the analysed legal systems applies all the mentioned legal guarantees.
It would be very diffi cult to introduce these general legal regulations regarding administrative fi nes in these countries analysed in this paper because they are internally diverse, they only have a common name; thus a call for compliance of these instruments with international rules to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.