Council of Europe and UK in a bugger's muddle over Prisoners Votes Case

Council of Europe and UK in a bugger's muddle over Prisoners Votes Case

According to the Council of Europe there is a commitment to safeguarding Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law in the Member States of the Council of Europe.

For me this is as simple as A,B,C or 1,2,3.

A. Human Rights
B. Democracy
C. Rule of Law

or

1. Human Rights
2. Democracy
3. Rule of Law

Has the Council of Europe honoured its commitment in the Prisoners Votes Case, Hirst v UK(No2)?

The relevant Articles under the Convention are;

ARTICLE 52

The judgment of the Court shall be final.

ARTICLE 53

The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties.

ARTICLE 54

The judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers which shall supervise its execution.

The original Court judgment in Hirst v UK(No2), by the Chamber, was 30th of March 2004. However, the UK decided to appeal to the Grand Chamber and this judgment was on 6th of October 2005.

Meanwhile, the UK general election was held on Thursday, 5th of May 2005.

The Council of Europe celebrated its 60th anniversary on 5th of May 2009.

But, the convicted prisoners in the UK are in no mood for celebrating because between the UK and the Council of Europe they feel that they have been let down in relation to their human right to vote, are excluded from democracy and the rule of law is not being applied to their situation. Therefore, lawyers and reform groups are advocating the next step.

"Rule 11 *

Infringement Proceedings

1. When, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers considers that a High Contracting Party refuses to abide by a final judgment in a case to which it is party, it may, after serving formal notice on that Party and by decision adopted by a majority vote of two thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee, refer to the Court the question whether that Party has failed to fulfil its obligation.

2. Infringement proceedings should be brought only in exceptional circumstances. They shall not be initiated unless formal notice of the Committee’s intention to bring such proceedings has been given to the High Contracting Party concerned. Such formal notice shall be given ultimately six months before the lodging of proceedings, unless the Committee decides otherwise, and shall take the form of an interim resolution. This resolution shall be adopted by a majority vote of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.

3. The referral decision of the matter to the Court shall take the form of an interim resolution. It shall be reasoned and concisely reflect the views of the High Contracting Party concerned.

4. The Committee of Ministers shall be represented before the Court by its Chair unless the Committee decides upon another form of representation. This decision shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of the representatives casting a vote and a majority of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.

Note * Rules 10 and 11 concern the implementation of Article 16 of Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention of Human Rights and consequently will only become applicable once the Protocol enters into force".

"On Thursday, just before the opening of the Ministerial Conference, the Russian Minister of Justice Alexander Konovalov in the presence of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe Thorbjørn Jagland and of Federal Councillor Widmer-Schlumpf deposited the ratification instrument. Protocol 14 will therefore enter into force on 1 June 2010".

Full text of Protocol 14 available here.