based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the

individual and the state.

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed
only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It is not meant to be
invoked against acts of private individuals.

in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties granted by the Constitution cannot be invoked
against the State. The constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure refers to the immunity of
one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government. Its protection is directed only to
governmental action.

An act violating human rights which is not directly imputable to a State initially will lead to State responsibility
not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent or to respond to the violation.
(Velasquez v. Honduras)

For a custom to become binding as international law, it must amount to a settled practice and must be
rendered obligatory by a rule requiring it.

Belgium did not have jus standi, recognized rights, to exercise diplomatic protection for its nationals that held
stake in the Traction Company. International law states that the national State of the company can exercise this
right and seek payment. No such law has been established for shareholders. If a wrong was done to a
company which resulted in harming of the shareholders, then only the company has the authority to seek
compensation.

The court found that Belgium did not have jus standi, recognized rights, to exercise diplomatic protection for its
nationals that held stake in the Traction Company. International law states that the national State of the
company can exercise this right and seek payment. No such law has been established for shareholders. If a
wrong was done to a company which resulted in harming of the shareholders, then only the company has the
authority to seek compensation.

One principle of law that arouse within this case was that of jus standi or recognized right. States have
recognized rights that individuals do not have when it comes to international law. If a law is recognized and
becomes a custom among nations then it is considered law in the international realm.

ad hoc (FORMED FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ONLY) tribunals dealing with criminal cases against
individuals have been created to deal with the core international crimes, namely genocide, war crimes and
crimes against humanity.

Martens Clause: Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties
deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants
and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the law of nations, as they result from the
usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the public
conscience.

This clause had already acquired the status of a customary rules and was adopted wholly or in part by later
instruments of international law.

Several national and international courts have considered the Martens Clause when making their judgements.
IThe clause served rather as general statement for humanitarian principles as well as guideline to the
understanding and interpretation of existing rules of international law.