The European Convention on Human Rights

The European Convention on Human Rights



The European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1950 and came into force three years later, is a unique reflection of the values of civilisation and democracy. It gives practical form to certain of the rights and freedoms embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and provides a list of guaranteed rights such as the right to life, the prohibition of torture, slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, respect for private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, the right to marry, the right to an effective remedy and the prohibition of discrimination.

Over half a century, the rights enshrined in the Convention have gradually evolved, thanks to the way the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted it – its so-called case-law – and to various protocols that have established new rights relating to circumstances that could not have been anticipated when it was first adopted.

The importance of the Convention lies not just in the rights it protects but also in the supervisory system set up to consider alleged violations and ensure that states abide by their treaty obligations. This requires them to grant these rights and freedoms to anyone within their jurisdiction, and not just their own nationals.
The Court's judgments are binding on the parties to each case, who are required to take all necessary measures to comply with them. Under Article 54 of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of Court judgments. Finally, Article 52 authorises the Secretary General to request parties to explain how their internal law ensures the application of the Convention.

How civilised and democratic is the UK?

There is a black mark in relation to the illegal war with Iraq, and murder and torture of innocent victims.

There is another black mark in relation to the Prisoners Votes Case, Hirst v UK(No2).

"The importance of the Convention lies not just in the rights it protects but also in the supervisory system set up to consider alleged violations and ensure that states abide by their treaty obligations. This requires them to grant these rights and freedoms to anyone within their jurisdiction, and not just their own nationals.
The Court's judgments are binding on the parties to each case, who are required to take all necessary measures to comply with them. Under Article 54 of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of Court judgments. Finally, Article 52 authorises the Secretary General to request parties to explain how their internal law ensures the application of the Convention".

In the examples I have given above, the European Convention failed to protect those guaranteed human rights. Therefore, they are not guaranteed human rights at all. This is because if a State wishes to ignore its obligations, it can do so. The ECHR relies upon State compliance. When a State like the UK ignores what it is required to do, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can employ sanctions against the pariah or rogue State. However, previously the CM preferred not to invoke sanctions and the UK took advantage of this weakness. The CM can be fairly criticised for this soft approach, because it has allowed the UK to continue to breach the human rights of convicted prisoners by denying them the franchise.

On 1 June 2010, the CM and ECtHR new powers come into force. Also on that date the CM considers execution of the Court's judgment of Hirst v UK(No2). Will the CM decide to get tough with the UK, or will it also like the UK fail to do its duty?

Given that "Article 52 authorises the Secretary General to request parties to explain how their internal law ensures the application of the Convention", will the Secretary General request such an explanation from the UK in relation to the Prisoners Votes Case?