China releases prominent human rights lawyer Teng Biao

China releases prominent human rights lawyer Teng Biao

The Chinese authorities have released a prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Teng Biao after 70 days in custody.



Rights group said he was freed on Friday afternoon and his wife was quoted as saying that he "is okay".

Mr Teng's release came shortly after China and the US held two-day of talks on human rights issues in Beijing.

But in a separate development, another well-known Chinese human rights lawyer Li Fangping has disappeared, human rights groups said.

His alleged disappearance "the very same day... suggests that security forces are conducting a carefully planned assault on outspoken human rights defenders in a calculated effort to eviscerate China's rights defence movement", Phelim Kine from New York-based Human Rights Watch organisation was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

China has not publicly commented on the reports of Mr Li's disappearance.

The advocacy group China Aid said both Mr Teng and Mr Li were members of the Chinese Christian Rights Defence Association.

Friday's release of Teng followed the talks in between Chinese officials and US Assistant Secretary of State Michael Ponser in Beijing.

Mr Posner told reporters that he had voiced Washington's "deep concerns" about the crackdown on dissidents and human rights activists, following appeals on the internet for mass protests similar to those that have rocked a number of Arab countries.

The organisation Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) says dozens of activists have been taken into police custody or placed under house arrest in recent months.

Don't look down

Don't look down

Give me this to the Royal Wedding any day!

Give me this to the Royal Wedding any day!

Awesome: Uluru is one of Australia's natural wonders - so, too, are the country's huge skies

Do we need a new constitution?

Do we need a new constitution?

"The civil servants realise that real power now often lies with Brussels bureaucrats and unaccountable European judges.

The recent controversy over prisoners’ voting rights shows their cynical calculation is right. Our elected representatives in the Commons voted against the enfranchising of murderers, but then unelected European judges over-ruled them. Politicians may talk about asserting Parliament’s supremacy, but this is mere posturing and David Cameron knows it".

Cockadoodleflamingo!

Cockadoodleflamingo!



Photo: Hat-Tip to Prisoners Families Voices

Tories plot to overturn referendum results

Tories plot to overturn referendum results

By Nigel Morris, Deputy Political Editor

Friday, 29 April 2011

Secret moves are planned by senior Conservatives to overturn the result of next week's referendum on electoral reform if the country votes to scrap the first-past-the-post system.

They would make a last-ditch attempt in the House of Commons to block a switch to the alternative vote (AV) if it is backed on a low turn-out of electors. No-to-AV campaigners would argue that the result lacked legitimacy because such an important constitutional change should have been approved by a majority of the public.

Under the plan, supporters of first-past-the-post would approach the Commons business committee of MPs, which has the power to set aside time for issues concerning backbenchers.

Although recent polls show the No campaign in a comfortable lead, large numbers of voters still appear not to have made up their minds how – or whether – to vote. The tactic of using the business committee to force a Commons division was successful in overturning moves to give the vote to prisoners.

A senior Conservative MP said last night: "Suppose there was a tiny majority in favour of AV, but only 20 per cent of the country took part in the referendum; people on our side would find it hard to accept. There would be contact with the business committee." He suggested a turn-out of 50 per cent should be required to give legitimacy to a Yes vote – a hurdle that could be impossibly high to clear.

The Government fought off attempts to impose a 40 per cent threshold to make the referendum outcome binding. But a fresh attempt to block a Yes vote in the event of a low turn-out would present David Cameron with a dilemma. He would almost certainly argue that the result should stand, but would face fury among Tory backbenchers.

A survey yesterday showed voters moving decisively against the proposed switch to AV. A ComRes poll for No to AV found the No vote on 45 per cent, the Yes vote on 33 per cent and 22 per cent of voters saying they did not know.

When "don't knows" are excluded, there is a 60-40 margin against the change. A decisive factor in the turnaround appears to have been the attitude of Labour voters, who oppose AV by 61 to 39 per cent.

Comment:

I would have expected better from a Deputy Political Editor, and a so-called Independent newspaper than to write and publish such utter nonsense as this "The tactic of using the business committee to force a Commons division was successful in overturning moves to give the vote to prisoners".

The motion was unlawful, the debate was flawed, and the vote counted for nothing because it is not binding on the Government. Whereas Hirst v UK (No2) is binding upon the UK, and the UK has 6 months to legislate for change or else face sanctions.

Don't let truth get in the way of your little scare story!

Steve Bell on Blair and Brown's royal wedding snub

Steve Bell on Blair and Brown's royal wedding snub

Steve Bell on Syria and the former prime ministers not being invited to the royal wedding

Daily Telegraph and Tom Whitehead get it all wrong again!

Daily Telegraph and Tom Whitehead get it all wrong again!



British courts regain power to deport terrorist suspects

British courts yesterday won back the power to deport terrorist suspects, criminals and failed asylum seekers after European judges were told to stop interfering.



By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor, Daily Telegraph, 11:52PM BST 27 Apr 2011

A declaration from all the countries signed up to the European Court of Human Rights said it should only rule on asylum and immigration cases in "exceptional circumstances".

Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, who had been one of the principal figures behind the declaration, said it was an "important first step" in the wider reform of European human rights laws.

It means, in most cases, that the final decision on who should be removed from a country will rest once again with domestic courts. The move will help to allay concerns that Britain is powerless to eject extremists and terrorist suspects who pose a risk to the public.

Suspects have been able to resist deportation by taking their cases to Europe after exhausting all appeals in the domestic courts. It has meant that firebrand preachers, such as Abu Qatada, have been able to stay in the country on state handouts.

But the influence of the European court in deportation cases will be severely curtailed as a result of yesterday's declaration.

The statement was signed by the 47 members of the Council of Europe, which set up and oversees the Strasbourg court, after a conference on the future of the court held in Turkey. The declaration said the conference "invites the court, when examining cases related to asylum and immigration, to assess and take full account of the effectiveness of domestic procedures and, where these procedures are seen to operate fairly and with respect for human rights, to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances".

For Britain, that would mean the Supreme Court, in most cases, would become the last point of appeal for those fighting deportation.

It will also ease any indirect pressure on domestic judges who may be concerned their rulings will be dragged off to Europe to be scrutinised.

Mr Clarke said yesterday: "I believe that it is for national parliaments and courts to protect the rights in the Convention [European Convention of Human Rights].

"Strasbourg should not be used as a court of appeal from our own Supreme Court – and it shouldn't step in where cases have already been properly considered by independent, reputable national courts."

Comment:

I am aware that journalists don't always write the headlines and sub-headings to go with their stories. This "British courts regain power to deport terrorist suspects" and this "British courts yesterday won back the power to deport terrorist suspects, criminals and failed asylum seekers after European judges were told to stop interfering" bear very little if any truth at all to the facts.

I was not aware that British courts had lost this power in the first place. In making their decisions the courts have to take into account the terrorist suspects, criminals and failed asylum seekers human rights under the Convention. The ECtHR is an independent body therefore the judges were not told anything of the sort to stop interfering. The straw of truth in all the bullshit becomes clearer later. I would question why a Home Affairs editor is writing about a subject it would appear he knows nothing about whatsoever? For example, under Rule 39 'interim measure' the ECtHR has the jurisdiction to prevent deportation until such time as the Court has had the opportunity to fully consider an application.

Even if Tom Whitehead cannot be blamed for writing the headline and sub-heading, he is guilty of writing this "A declaration from all the countries signed up to the European Court of Human Rights said it should only rule on asylum and immigration cases in "exceptional circumstances"." Following the Izir Conference the representatives of the 47 Council of Europe Member States did make the Izir Declaration which contains 15 points, in addition to 9 proposals and a 36 point follow up plan. Out of 60 points, Tom Whitehead ignores 59 of them and only focuses upon 1 of them. And, even then he misinterprets it to suit his own or the newspaper's agenda. Notice how Tom Whitehead uses the word "should" which in legal terms is a mandatory requirement? Whereas later on he uses the actual word from the document which is "invites", and this has a totally different connotation and is only a request for the Court to consider the issue.

Tom Whitehead is obviously getting paid under false pretences with this "Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary, who had been one of the principal figures behind the declaration, said it was an "important first step" in the wider reform of European human rights laws". There are no principal figures as all 47 Member States are equally represented, and Kenneth Clarke is but 1/47th of the total. The ECtHR has been undergoing reform for 10 years now. Therefore, in my view, the important first step is now a decade old. Wake up at the back there Kenneth!

"It means, in most cases, that the final decision on who should be removed from a country will rest once again with domestic courts. The move will help to allay concerns that Britain is powerless to eject extremists and terrorist suspects who pose a risk to the public". Given that 9/10 applications are declared inadmissable by the ECtHR, and that deportation cases form only a small part of the areas covered by the Court, it follows that in most cases the final decision does already rest with the domestic courts, so no change there then. As for helping to allay fears, if the media and politicians did not create the fear in the first place it would not need to be allayed!

"Suspects have been able to resist deportation by taking their cases to Europe after exhausting all appeals in the domestic courts. It has meant that firebrand preachers, such as Abu Qatada, have been able to stay in the country on state handouts". It is only right that an independent body makes the final decision given that the Executive drafts rules to favour its policy of deporting suspects. Those who have successfully been allowed to stay would most likely suffer torture and or death if deported, and Articles 3 and 2 of the Convention would have been violated.

"But the influence of the European court in deportation cases will be severely curtailed as a result of yesterday's declaration". This has no truth to it whatsoever and is only wishful thinking on the part of Tom Whitehead. As I pointed out earlier it was only an invitation and not an order. Besides, the invite only formed part of the action plan for the future and did not form part of the actual 15 points in the Declaration itself.

"The statement was signed by the 47 members of the Council of Europe, which set up and oversees the Strasbourg court, after a conference on the future of the court held in Turkey. The declaration said the conference "invites the court, when examining cases related to asylum and immigration, to assess and take full account of the effectiveness of domestic procedures and, where these procedures are seen to operate fairly and with respect for human rights, to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances"". Whilst the Council of Europe set up the Court it does not oversee the Court, it is a separate body. The Court only intervenes when necessary. It would appear that the UK is particularly sensitive to criticisms. I suspect that this is because being an island there is a tendency to be inward looking.

"For Britain, that would mean the Supreme Court, in most cases, would become the last point of appeal for those fighting deportation.

It will also ease any indirect pressure on domestic judges who may be concerned their rulings will be dragged off to Europe to be scrutinised.

Mr Clarke said yesterday: "I believe that it is for national parliaments and courts to protect the rights in the Convention [European Convention of Human Rights]".

As I have already said, the UKSC is in most cases the final point of appeal. I don't think that the judges will be under any indirect pressure. Recently, the UK huffed and puffed and were unable to blow the ECtHR down. Judges are made of sterner stuff than politicians and do not get swayed by populist knee-jerking. Does Ken Clarke also believe in fairies? If Parliament and the courts did not abdicate responsibility in the first place then Strasborug would not have to step in to fill the gap left by a failure to deliver justice.

"Strasbourg should not be used as a court of appeal from our own Supreme Court – and it shouldn't step in where cases have already been properly considered by independent, reputable national courts."

Of course Strasbourg should be used as the final court of appeal in relation to human rights. The UKSC does not have the jurisdiction to strike down offending primary legislation, so it's Supreme only over lower courts. Too frequently, the ECtHR has ruled that judicial review fails to provide an effective remedy. There is nothing reputable about a national court where you have to ask permission to take a case, and where most of the judges act as goalkeepers for the Secretary of State.

Kenneth Clarke's speech fisked

Kenneth Clarke's speech fisked

High level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights
Izmir, 26-27 April 2011

The Izmir Conference pursues three main goals in the context of ensuring the effectiveness of the supervisory machinery set up by the European Convention on Human Rights and maintaining momentum in the efforts to achieve this. The first is to make a preliminary assessment of the impact of Protocol No. 14. The second is to take stock of what has been achieved by the reform process launched by the Interlaken conference in February 2010 and the third is to reflect upon further ideas for pursuing that reform.

Whilst it may well be in order for Kenneth Clarke to thank the Turkish Chair of the Committee of Ministers for hosting the Conference in Turkey, he is out of touch when he states in his speech "I would like to congratulate you on choosing as the topic for this conference the reform of the European Court of Human Rights". In truth, the Council of Europe chose the topic!

According to Kenneth Clarke's speech "The British people have an unshakeable belief in individual liberty, freedom, fairness and a sense of what is right". Whatever, he then makes a false statement "that human rights are integral to our view of the world". Followed by another false statement "which we in Europe are able to rely on the Convention to protect". And yet another false statement "The UK remains as committed to the Convention as the day we first ratified it, 60 years ago last month".

I have a problem with liars!

You won't find Kenneth Clarke's speech to the High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights in IZMIR, 26 – 27 April 2011, on the MoJ website.

According to Kenneth Clarke's speech "The British people have an unshakeable belief in individual liberty, freedom, fairness and a sense of what is right". Whatever, he then makes a false statement "that human rights are integral to our view of the world". Followed by another false statement "which we in Europe are able to rely on the Convention to protect". And yet another false statement "The UK remains as committed to the Convention as the day we first ratified it, 60 years ago last month".

Prisoners are a national minority subjected to "Civic Death". Under the Convention and ECtHR decisions prisoners are human beings entitled to their human rights. The Prisoners Votes Case proves that human rights are not integral at all. And that prisoners cannot rely upon the Convention to protect them from State abuse and victimisation by wider society. If the UK was really committed to the Convention, to secure for all within its jurisdiction the human rights contained within the Convention, why has the UK failed to fully comply with Hirst v UK (No2) for over 5 years?

Over to you Kenneth Clarke for an answer.

Meanwhile, he continues with his speech "But the power of the Convention relies on an effective and efficient Court process which applies human rights consistently and carefully. This includes due respect for the decisions of national courts and of democratic national parliaments. I fear that the Court’s current position and backlog – even with the changes brought about by the Fourteenth Protocol – are unsustainable. Indeed, my fear is that they could threaten the authority of and respect for the Convention itself".

Apparently, Kenneth Clarke fails to appreciate that the power of the Convention also relies upon Member States honouring their obligations to abide by the Articles of the Convention including abiding by the Court's decisions. What Hirst v UK (No2) shows, is that the High Court decisions to defer to Parliament on the issue of prisoners human right to the vote was a violation of the Convention. Therefore, it is wrong for Kenneth Clarke to call for due respect where it is not warranted. The UK is now responsible for a backlog of 3,500 cases from prisoners seeking the vote before the Court, and all because the UK has failed to fully comply with the Hirst v UK (No2) judgment. This unlawful conduct by the UK is what is threatening the authority of and respect for the Court and Convention.

"In the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, we must find better ways for the Court to focus quickly, efficiently and transparently on the important cases that require its attention. Judges need the time and the means to produce high quality reasoned judgments on the sensitive issues before them. And we must ensure that the best possible candidates become judges of the Court. Steps in this direction will help the Court in its important work: providing binding interpretations of the Convention and intervening on truly significant issues where national courts have failed".

Whilst Hirst v UK (No2) is not the most important case the Court has dealt with, nevertheless it remains a leading case. Indeed, the Committee of Ministers entrusted to supervise execution of the Court's judgments has elevated Hirst v UK (No2) to enhanced case status. Therefore, it is deemed by the Council of Europe to be a significant issue upon which the national courts have failed. It is a very good indication that there is a structural and systemic failure within the UK.

"But most fundamentally, the British government thinks that we need to reaffirm that it is individual States and their courts which have primary responsibility for implementing the Convention and granting effective remedies for any violation. In this way, we ensure that our citizens can take full ownership of their rights".

The Council of Europe employs the subsidiarity principle which places the onus upon Member States for abiding by the Convention and to provide effective remedies. However, only when a Member State fails in relation to both of these does the Council of Europe step in to fill the gap left vacant by the Member State. As for taking full ownership of our rights, it would help if the HRA incorporates Articles 1 and 13 of the Convention. The former guarantees everyone is entitled to the rights under the Convention and the latter provides for an effective remedy.

"This boundary is of paramount importance. If the Strasbourg Court is too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national parliaments and courts that have through their own processes complied with the Convention, it risks turning the tide of public opinion against the concept of international standards of human rights, and risks turning public opinion against the Convention itself. In Britain, it is going to be really quite difficult to persuade Parliament to pass legislation to comply with the Court’s judgment on vote for prisoners. This is regarded by our Parliament as a domestic political issue, on which there are valid arguments on both sides".

The Council of Europe has been very patient with the UK for over 5 years. The UK was given a wide margin of appreciation to fully comply with Hirst v UK (No2). However, it is not so wide as to ignire the Court decision. If the national courts and Parliament processes had complied with the Convention, then the Court would have rejected my application. The Court has already dispensed with the public opinion argument, stating that offending public opinion is not a ground for denying human rights to an unpopular group. It is no more difficult in Britain than in any other Member State to pass legislation. The UK lost the argument that it is a domestic political issue. Therefore, it is not true to claim that there are valid arguments on both sides. The UK lost and it remains for the UK to fully comply with the Court decision or face appropriate sanctions.

"These concerns are deeply held by the United Kingdom Government, and we have heard the same concerns expressed by other delegations who have spoken already. For this reason, the United Kingdom is going to dedicate its forthcoming chairmanship to delivering on the desire of colleagues around this table for Court reform. We want to see a strong and effective Court that is respected by the people of Europe and around the world. That requires urgent and real reform to how it operates. This must be our shared priority in the coming months".

What is deeply held by the UK Government is prejudice. A strong and effective Court requires Member States to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. What is in need of reform is attitudes within the UK Government. It cannot have it both ways, be part of the United States of Europe and also remain a totally Sovereign state. Kenneth Clarke being the Secretary of State for Justice does not include the ability to decide that judges are wrong in particular cases and to ignore their decisions accordingly. Either he abides by the responsibilities of the job or he resigns.

The government has a problem with lawyers

The government has a problem with lawyers

The government’s strained relationship with the Civil Service is a recurring story at the moment. Much of the disquiet seems to be the normal tit for tat exchanges immortalised by Anthony Jay and Jonathan Lynn. In the mean, ministers and their advisors express high regard for their officials.

But there are some resilient bones of contention between the government and its lawyers. Again, this is not unusual. When Gordon Brown was Chancellor, parliamentary counsel were exasperated by his inability to take decisions. Brown’s budgetary machinations were finalised in a predictably mad rush, which incensed those who had to amend the bill hours before it was put to parliament.

However, the growing volume of European and International law is deepening the divide between those who make laws and those who interpret them. This morning’s Independent reports that government lawyers advise that training or assisting the Libyan rebels is illegal. Back in February, the government was told that it would have to honour the ECHR’s prisoner voting judgment ‘even if Britain left the ECHR’. According to a leading barrister in the field, this is due to our treaty obligations to organisations such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and the IMF. (Crucially, a British Bill of Rights would not supersede those jurisdictions, even if the government were seriously considering its introduction.)

The barrister says that the prisoner voting case is arguable, but government lawyers are discouraging confrontation. The Attorney General might seek an alternative view; but, as Tim Montgomerie revealed a couple of weeks ago, Dominic Grieve, a lawyer’s lawyer, empathises with Whitehall’s position. He is entitled to do so, but the stalemate in Libya and the prison voting saga is damaging the government politically. Dick the Butcher’s solution is rather extreme; but a second opinion might not be a bad idea.

Comment: What a pity that this "leading barrister" in the field is anonymous!

"The barrister says that the prisoner voting case is arguable". It was arguable because I argued it and won it before the highest court in Europe. All that remains is for the UK to fully comply with the ECtHR ruling in Hirst v UK (No2).

Until the UK toes the line it will remain in the dock. Besides the political pressure to comply from the Council of Europe and the UN, the EU has also joined forces against the UK.

Kenneth Clarke's speech shows he is not fit for purpose!

Kenneth Clarke's speech shows he is not fit for purpose!

High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights
IZMIR, 26 – 27 April 2011

27/04/2011

SPEECH
by
Rt Hon Kenneth CLARKE QC MP
Secretary of State for Justice
Lord Chancellor
UNITED KINGDOM

Statement at the Izmir Conference by the Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom

Mr Chairman, may I begin by repeating the thanks expressed by other delegations for the warm welcome and hospitality that you have given us here in the city of Izmir. Like others who have spoken, I would like to congratulate you on choosing as the topic for this conference the reform of the European Court of Human Rights. Many delegations have today welcomed the progress we have made on Court reform, but also highlighted the urgent need to maintain the momentum that has begun. I would like to echo and reinforce these views.

The British people have an unshakeable belief in individual liberty, freedom, fairness and a sense of what is right. Every day, the news from North Africa and the Middle East reminds us that human rights are integral to our view of the world. People there are fighting for their basic freedoms – freedoms which we in Europe are able to rely on the Convention to protect. The UK remains as committed to the Convention as the day we first ratified it, 60 years ago last month.

But the power of the Convention relies on an effective and efficient Court process which applies human rights consistently and carefully. This includes due respect for the decisions of national courts and of democratic national parliaments. I fear that the Court’s current position and backlog – even with the changes brought about by the Fourteenth Protocol – are unsustainable. Indeed, my fear is that they could threaten the authority of and respect for the Convention itself.

In the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, we must find better ways for the Court to focus quickly, efficiently and transparently on the important cases that require its attention. Judges need the time and the means to produce high quality reasoned judgments on the sensitive issues before them. And we must ensure that the best possible candidates become judges of the Court. Steps in this direction will help the Court in its important work: providing binding interpretations of the Convention and intervening on truly significant issues where national courts have failed.

But most fundamentally, the British government thinks that we need to reaffirm that it is individual States and their courts which have primary responsibility for implementing the Convention and granting effective remedies for any violation. In this way, we ensure that our citizens can take full ownership of their rights.

This boundary is of paramount importance. If the Strasbourg Court is too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national parliaments and courts that have through their own processes complied with the Convention, it risks turning the tide of public opinion against the concept of international standards of human rights, and risks turning public opinion against the Convention itself. In Britain, it is going to be really quite difficult to persuade Parliament to pass legislation to comply with the Court’s judgment on vote for prisoners. This is regarded by our Parliament as a domestic political issue, on which there are valid arguments on both sides.

These concerns are deeply held by the United Kingdom Government, and we have heard the same concerns expressed by other delegations who have spoken already. For this reason, the United Kingdom is going to dedicate its forthcoming chairmanship to delivering on the desire of colleagues around this table for Court reform. We want to see a strong and effective Court that is respected by the people of Europe and around the world. That requires urgent and real reform to how it operates. This must be our shared priority in the coming months.

Turkey and UK condemned for human rights concerns

Turkey and UK condemned for human rights concerns



Dear Turkey

Re: High level Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights 26-27 April, Izmir (Turkey)

I note from the

"Welcoming Address by H.E. Ahmet DAVUTOĞLU, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Chairman of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of"

that you have missed out the word "Europe" from the end of your title.

"First of all you are most welcome to one of the most beautiful city of the Mediterranean, İzmir. I hope you will enjoy your stay in Izmir. I hope we will have a very fruitful session".

And, instead of "city" correct English should be "cities".

"As one of the founding members of the organisation, Turkey is pleased to host this important conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. On behalf of the Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers and the Government of Turkey, I wish to extend to you all a very warm welcome to Izmir and to Turkey".

Below I have copied and pasted the list of the founding members of the Council of Europe from the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe).

"The Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Irish Republic, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

As you can plainly see, Turkey is not a founding member.

According to Wikipedia:

"The Council of Europe was founded on 5 May 1949 by Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Greece and Turkey joined three months later, and Iceland and Germany the next year. It now has 47 member states, with Montenegro being the latest to join".

Harold Wilson famously said that a week in politics is a long time. However, my 3 months in Detention Centre has also been described as a "Short, sharp, shock". You were 3 months late getting to the party. Your misreading of history and the typos referred to above are not the real reasons why I launch my attack upon you.

"My country has responded positively to the invitation made at Interlaken in February 2010 to the future Chairmanships of the Committee of Ministers to follow up on the implementation of the Interlaken Declaration. The reform of the Court has been identified as a priority of the Turkish Chairmanship".

Kenneth Clarke has also recently "warned Britain would seek to reform the Strasbourg-based court when it takes over the chairmanship of the council of Europe in November".

You quite rightly state:

"The Convention system, to which the European Court of Human Rights is central, plays a pivotal role, establishing common standards for the respect and protection of human rights. It has value both as a symbol enshrining our shared values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, and it also serves as a practical mechanism for ensuring that rights and freedoms are protected and that our shared values are thus respected".

Given what you say, here, can you explain why it is that you are presently the Chair of the Committee of Ministers, and seeking reforms of the Court, and yet your human rights record according to the Court statistics is atrocious? Between 1959-2010 you have been found guilty of 2,245 human rights violations by the Court! This is the worst record of any of the 47 Member States in the Council of Europe. Belarus cannot join because of human rights concerns. Don't you think your track record is of great concern?

Approximately 9,000 cases are before the Committee of Ministers waiting for execution of the Court's judgments. According to the Joint Committee on Human Rights report in 2006 50 of those cases involve the UK.

The Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Turkey and the UK all suffer from a credibility problem. It is too late to stop Turkey being the Chair of the Committee of Ministers because its period is almost over. However, given the concern in relation to the UK is it right that the UK should assume the Chair in November 2011?

The Court may well be in need of reform. But, there is also a need to reform the Committee of Ministers because there are too many Ministers from countries with bad human rights records. This means that its function of supervising execution of judgments is compromised. The UK also is in need of reforms to rectify the systemic failures. A country which cannot implement judgments against it can hardly sit in a position of supervising execution of judgments against other countries.

Prisoners demand voting rights in West Bengal

Prisoners demand voting rights in West Bengal

KOLKATA, April 27, 2011

By Ananya Dutta

On the day of the crucial third phase of the Assembly Elections in West Bengal a number of inmates of the three Central Jails in the city observed a day-long huger strike demanding that they be given the right to vote.

Prisoner of the Presidency Correctional Home, the Alipore Central Correctional Home and the Dum Dum Central Correctional Home observed a fast on Wednesday in protest against the law that denies them the right to vote while they are in custody, B.D. Sharma, the State's Additional Director-General and Inspector-General of Correctional Services told The Hindu.

Memorandums

“They have submitted memorandums to me addressed to President Pratibha Patil in which they have asked that they be allowed to vote,” Mr. Sharma said, adding that he will be forwarding the documents to the office of the President.

The prisoners pointed out that about 70 percent of the inmates in most prisons are under-trials, who are denied their “sacred democratic right” despite the fact that their guilt has not been established.

“Secondly, the approach towards prisons has shifted from that of punishing offenders towards ensuring reform. Convicted prisoners and their family members are also tax-payers and should be a part of the democratic process,” Mr. Sharma said.

Cameron says the thought of Marr makes him physically ill

Cameron says the thought of Marr makes him physically ill



Photo: Stolen from Charon QC

Court Rules Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Death Sentence is Unconstitutional, Grants New Sentencing Hearing

Court Rules Mumia Abu-Jamal’s Death Sentence is Unconstitutional, Grants New Sentencing Hearing



The case of Pennsylvania death row prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal took a surprising turn Tuesday when the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously declared his death sentence unconstitutional. It is the second time the court has agreed with a lower court judge who set aside Abu-Jamal’s death sentence after finding jurors were given confusing instructions that encouraged them to choose death rather than a life sentence. Now Abu-Jamal, a former Black Panther and journalist, could get a new sentencing hearing in court. We speak with his co-counsel, Judith Ritter, and Linn Washington, an award-winning journalist who has followed Abu-Jamal’s case for almost three decades.

Ryan Giggs obtains gagging order over affair with Imogen Thomas

Ryan Giggs obtains gagging order over affair with Imogen Thomas

Ryan Giggs

Stacey Cooke/Giggs

Imogen Thomas

UPDATE: Latest hyper-injunction

Latest news for 16 May 2011 here.

Latest news for 22 May Ryan Giggs named in Scottish press.

IZMIR Declaration

IZMIR Declaration

27 April 2011

The High Level Conference meeting at Izmir on 26 and 27 April 2011 at the initiative of the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (“the Conference”),

1. Recalling the strong commitment of the States Parties to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and to the control mechanism it established;

2. Expressing its determination to ensure the effectiveness of this mechanism in the short, medium and long terms;

3. Recognising again the extraordinary contribution of the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”) to the protection of human rights in Europe;

4. Reaffirming the principles set out in the Declaration and Action Plan adopted at the Interlaken High-Level Conference on 19 February 2010 and expressing the resolve to maintain the momentum of the Interlaken process within the agreed timeframe;

5. Recalling that the subsidiary character of the Convention mechanism constitutes a fundamental and transversal principle which both the Court and the States Parties must take into account;

6. Recalling also the shared responsibility of both the Court and the States Parties in guaranteeing the viability of the Convention mechanism;

7. Noting with concern the continuing increase in the number of applications brought before the Court;

8. Considering that the provisions introduced by Protocol No. 14, while their potential remains to be fully exploited and the results so far achieved are encouraging, will not provide a lasting and comprehensive solution to the problems facing the Convention system;

9. Welcoming the ongoing negotiations on the modalities of European Union accession to the Convention;

10. Welcoming the concrete progress achieved following the Interlaken Conference;

11. Considering, however, that maintaining the effectiveness of the mechanism requires further measures, also in the light of the preliminary contribution by the President of the Court to the Conference and the opinion adopted by the Plenary Court for the Conference;

12. Expressing concern that since the Interlaken Conference, the number of interim measures requested in accordance with Rule 39 of the Rules of Court has greatly increased, thus further increasing the workload of the Court;

13. Taking into account that some States Parties have expressed interest in a procedure allowing the highest national courts to request advisory opinions from the Court concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention;

14. Considering, in the light of the above, that it is time to take stock of the progress achieved so far to consider further steps in the pursuit of the Interlaken objectives and to respond to the new concerns and expectations that have become apparent since the Interlaken Conference;

15. Recalling the need to pursue long-term strategic reflections about the future role of the Court in order to ensure sustainable functioning of the Convention mechanism;

The Conference:

1. Proposes, firstly, to take stock, in accordance with the Interlaken Action Plan, of the proposals that do not require amendment of the Convention and, secondly, having also regard to recent developments, to take necessary measures;

2. Welcomes the measures already taken by the Court so far to implement Protocol No.14 and follow up the Interlaken Declaration, including the adoption of a priority policy;

3. Takes note of the fact that the provisions introduced by Protocol No. 14 will not by themselves allow for a balance between incoming cases and output so as to ensure effective treatment of the constantly growing number of applications, and consequently underlines the urgency of adopting further measures;

4. Considers that the admissibility criteria are an essential tool in managing the Court’s caseload and in giving practical effect to the principle of subsidiarity; stresses the importance that they are given full effect by the Court and notes, in this regard, that the new admissibility criterion adopted in Protocol No. 14, which has not yet had the effect intended, is about to be shaped by the upcoming case law and remains to be evaluated with a view to its improvement, and invites the Committee of Ministers to initiate work to reflect on possible ways of rendering the admissibility criteria more effective and on whether it would be advisable to introduce new criteria, with a view to furthering the effectiveness of the Convention mechanism;

5. Reaffirms the importance of a consistent application of the principles of interpretation;

6. Welcomes the recent creation of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights, responsible for examining the candidatures proposed by States Parties before they are transmitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe;

7. Invites the Committee of Ministers to continue its reflection on the criteria for office as judge of the Court and on the selection procedures at national and international level, in order to encourage applications by good potential candidates and to ensure a sustainable recruitment of competent judges with relevant experience and the impartiality and quality of the Court;

8. Notes with interest the adoption of a new approach in relation to the supervision of execution of Court judgments by the Committee of Ministers;

9. Adopts the Follow-up Plan below as an instrument, which builds on the Interlaken Action Plan while taking into account recent developments in the Council of Europe, the Court, and the Committee of Ministers as well as the concerns and expectations that have emerged since the Interlaken Conference.

Follow-up Plan

A. Right of individual petition

The Conference:

1. Reaffirms the attachment of the States Parties to the right of individual petition as a cornerstone of the Convention mechanism and considers in this context that appropriate measures must be taken rapidly to dissuade clearly inadmissible applications, without, however, preventing well-founded applications from being examined by the Court, and to ensure that cases are dealt with in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity;

2. Reiterates the call made for the consideration of additional measures with regard to access to the Court in the Interlaken Declaration and therefore invites the Committee of Ministers to continue to examine the issue of charging fees to applicants and other possible new procedural rules or practices concerning access to the Court;

3. Welcoming the improvements in the practice of interim measures already put in place by the Court and recalling that the Court is not an immigration Appeals Tribunal or a Court of fourth instance, emphasises that the treatment of requests for interim measures must take place in full conformity with the principle of subsidiarity and that such requests must be based on an assessment of the facts and circumstances in each individual case, followed by a speedy examination of, and ruling on, the merits of the case or of a lead case. In this context, the Conference:

- Stresses the importance of States Parties providing national remedies, where necessary with suspensive effect, which operate effectively and fairly and provide a proper and timely examination of the issue of risk in accordance with the Convention and in light of the Court’s case law; and, while noting that they may challenge interim measures before the Court, reiterates the requirement for States Parties to comply with them;

- Underlines that applicants and their representatives should fully respect the Practice Direction on Requests for Interim Measures for their cases to be considered, and invites the Court to draw the appropriate conclusions if this Direction is not respected;

- Invites the Court, when examining cases related to asylum and immigration, to assess and take full account of the effectiveness of domestic procedures and, where these procedures are seen to operate fairly and with respect for human rights, to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances;

- Further invites the Court to consider, with the State Parties, how best to combine the practice of interim measures with the principle of subsidiarity, and to take steps, including the consideration of putting in place a system, if appropriate, to trigger expedited consideration, on the basis of a precise and limited timeframe, of the merits of cases, or of a lead case, in which interim measures have been applied;

4. Welcomes the contribution of the Secretary General, which recommends the provision to potential applicants and their legal representatives of objective and comprehensive information on the Convention and the case-law of the Court, in particular on the application procedure and the admissibility criteria, along with the detailed handbook on admissibility and the checklist prepared by the Registry of the Court, in order to avoid, insofar as possible, clearly inadmissible applications;

5. Calls on the Secretary General to implement rapidly, where necessary in co-operation with the European Union, the proposals regarding the provision of information and training contained in the report which he has submitted to the Committee of Ministers.

B. Implementation of the Convention at national level

The Conference:

1. Reiterates calls made in this respect in the Interlaken Declaration and more particularly invites the States Parties to:

a. Ensure that effective domestic remedies exist, be they of a specific nature or a general domestic remedy, providing for a decision on an alleged violation of the Convention and, where necessary, its redress;

b. Co-operate fully with the Committee of Ministers in the framework of the new methods of supervision of execution of judgments of the Court;

c. Ensure that the programmes for professional training of judges, prosecutors and other law-enforcement officials as well as members of security forces contain adequate information regarding the well-established case-law of the Court concerning their respective professional fields;

d. Consider contributing to translation into their national language of the Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria prepared by the Registry of the Court;

e. Consider contributing to the Human Rights Trust Fund.

2. Invites the States Parties to devote all the necessary attention to the preparation of the national reports that they must present by the end of 2011, describing measures taken to implement relevant parts of the Interlaken Declaration and how they intend to address possible shortcomings, in order that these reports provide a solid basis for subsequent improvements at national level.

C. Filtering

The Conference:

1. Notes with satisfaction the first encouraging results of the implementation of the new single-judge formation. It nevertheless considers that, beyond measures already taken or under examination, new provisions concerning filtering should be put in place;

2. As regards short term measures, invites the Court to consider and evaluate the system of filtering by judges, of the existing bench who dedicate their working time to single-judge work for a short period, and to continue to explore further possibilities of filtering not requiring amendment to the Convention;

3. As regards long-term measures, invites the Committee of Ministers to continue its reflection on more efficient filtering systems that would, if necessary, require amendments to the Convention. In this context, it recalls that specific proposals for such a filtering mechanism that would require amendments to the Convention have to be prepared by April 2012.

D. Advisory opinions

The Conference:

1. Bearing in mind the need for adequate national measures to contribute actively to diminishing the number of applications, invites the Committee of Ministers to reflect on the advisability of introducing a procedure allowing the highest national courts to request advisory opinions from the Court concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention that would help clarify the provisions of the Convention and the Court’s case-law, thus providing further guidance in order to assist States Parties in avoiding future violations;

2. Invites the Court to assist the Committee of Ministers in its consideration of the issue of advisory opinions.

E. Repetitive applications

The Conference, whilst reiterating the calls made in the Interlaken Action Plan concerning repetitive applications and noting with satisfaction the first encouraging results of the new competences of committees of three judges:

1. Invites the States Parties to give priority to the resolution of repetitive cases by way of friendly settlements or unilateral declarations where appropriate;

2. Underlines the importance of the active assistance of the Court to States Parties in their efforts to reach friendly settlements and to make unilateral declarations where appropriate and encourages the Court’s role in this respect as well as the need for creating awareness of friendly settlements as an integral part in the Convention for settling disputes between parties to proceedings before the Court;

3. Considers that the Court, when referring to its “well-established case-law” must take account of legislative and factual circumstances and developments in the respondent State;

4. Welcomes the ongoing work of the Committee of Ministers on the elaboration of specific proposals that would require amendment to the Convention, in order to increase the Court’s case-processing capacity, and considers that the proposals made should also enable the Court to adjudicate repetitive cases within a reasonable time;

5. Welcomes the new Rule 61 of the Rules of the Court adopted by the Court on the pilot-judgment procedure.

F. The Court

The Conference:

1. Assures the Court of its full support to realise the Interlaken objectives;

2. Reiterating the calls made in the Interlaken Action Plan and considering that the authority and credibility of the Court constitute a constant focus and concern of the States Parties, invites the Court to:

a. Apply fully, consistently and foreseeably all admissibility criteria and the rules regarding the scope of its jurisdiction, ratione temporis, ratione loci, ratione personae and ratione materiae;

b. Give full effect to the new admissibility criterion in accordance with the principle, according to which the Court is not concerned by trivial matters (de minimis non curat praetor);

c. Confirm in its case law that it is not a fourth-instance court, thus avoiding the re-examination of issues of fact and law decided by national courts;

d. Establish and make public rules foreseeable for all the parties concerning the application of Article 41 of the Convention, including the level of just satisfaction which might be expected in different circumstances;

e. Consider that decisions of the panels of five judges to reject requests for referral of cases to the Grand Chamber are clearly reasoned, thereby avoiding repetitive requests and ensuring better understanding of Chamber judgments;

f. Organise meetings with Government agents on a regular basis so as to further good co-operation;

g. Present to the Committee of Ministers proposals, on a budget-neutral basis, for the creation of a training unit for lawyers and other professionals;

3. Notes with satisfaction the arrangements made within the Registry of the Court that have allowed better management of budgetary and human resources;

4. Welcomes the production by the Court’s Registry of a series of thematic factsheets dealing with different case-law issues and encourages the Court to pursue this work in relation to its case-law on other substantive and procedural provisions which are frequently invoked by applicants;

5. Encourages furthermore the States Parties to second national judges and, where appropriate, other high-level independent lawyers to the Registry of the Court.

G. Simplified procedure for amendment of the Convention

The Conference, taking account of the work that has followed the Interlaken Conference at different levels within the Council of Europe, invites the Committee of Ministers to pursue preparatory work for elaboration of a simplified procedure for amending provisions relating to organisational matters, including reflection on the means of its introduction, i.e. a Statute for the Court or a new provision in the Convention.

H. Supervision of the execution of judgments

The Conference:

1. Expects that new standard and enhanced procedures for supervision of the execution of judgments will bear fruit and welcomes the decision of the Committee of Ministers to assess their effectiveness at the end of 2011;

2. Reiterates the calls made by the Interlaken Conference concerning the importance of execution of judgments and invites the Committee of Ministers to apply fully the principle of subsidiarity, by which the States Parties have in particular the choice of means to deploy in order to conform to their obligations under the Convention;

3. Recalls the special role given to the Committee of Ministers in exercising its supervisory function under the Convention and underlines the requirement to carry out its supervision only on the basis of a legal analysis of the Court’s judgments.

I. Accession of the European Union to the Convention

The Conference welcomes the progress made in the framework of negotiations on accession of the European Union to the Convention and encourages all the parties to conclude this work in order to transmit to the Committee of Ministers as soon as possible a draft agreement on accession and the proposals on necessary amendments to the Convention.

Implementation

The Conference:

1. Invites the States Parties, the Committee of Ministers, the Court and the Secretary General to ensure implementation of the present Follow-up Plan, which builds on the Interlaken Action Plan;

2. Invites the Committee of Ministers to:

a. Continue its reflection on the issue of charging fees to applicants, including other possible new procedural rules or practices concerning access to the Court, and on more efficient filtering systems that would, if necessary, require amendments to the Convention;

b. Reflect on the advisability of introducing a procedure allowing the highest national courts to request advisory opinions from the Court;

c. Pursue preparatory work for elaboration of a simplified amendment procedure for provisions relating to organisational matters, including reflection on the means of its introduction, i.e. a Statute for the Court or a new provision in the Convention.

3. Invites the Court to consider and evaluate the system of filtering by judges, of the existing bench who dedicate their working time to single-judge work for a short period, and to continue to explore further possibilities of filtering not requiring amendment to the Convention;

4. As regards Rule 39, expresses its expectation that the implementation of the approach set out in paragraph A3 will lead to a significant reduction in the number of interim measures granted by the Court, and to the speedy resolution of those applications in which they are, exceptionally, applied, with progress achieved within one year. The Committee of Ministers is invited to revert to the question in one year’s time;

5. Invites the States Parties, the Committee of Ministers, the Court and the Secretary General to pursue long-term strategic reflections about the future role of the Court;

6. Invites the Committee of Ministers and the States Parties to consult with civil society during the implementation of the present Follow-up Plan, where appropriate, involving it in long-term strategic reflections about the future role of the Court;

7. Reminds the States Parties of their commitment to submit, by the end of 2011, a report on the measures taken to implement the relevant parts of the Interlaken Declaration and the present Declaration;

8. Invites the Committee of Ministers to confer on the relevant committees of experts the mandates necessary in order that they pursue their work on the implementation of the Interlaken Action Plan in accordance with the calendar defined therein and in the light of the goals set out in the present Declaration;

9. Asks the Turkish Chairmanship to transmit the present Declaration and the Proceedings of the Izmir Conference to the Committee of Ministers;

10. Invites the future Chairmanships to follow-up the implementation of the present Declaration jointly with the Interlaken Declaration.

Why the UK must play second fiddle to Europe's lead

Why the UK must play second fiddle to Europe's lead



High level Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights
26-27 April, Izmir (Turkey)

Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Embargo against delivery/Check against delivery

Ministers,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I will start by thanking our hosts, the Turkish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, for having organised this important Conference and ensuring such a warm welcome in the beautiful city of Izmir.

We are gathered here today to find solutions to the important challenges faced by the European Court of Human Rights which, over the last 50 years, has become the world’s largest and most influential international court as well as its foremost human rights court.

The Court’s case-law has over the years raised the protection of human rights in all our member States to a higher and uniform standard. The Court has thus become the guarantor of long lasting international stability and peace.

If the Court fails, the Convention system fails; and if the Convention fails, the Council of Europe will fail.

Let me illustrate, with facts and figures, the challenges faced by the Court:

1. At the end of last month, there were 149,100 applications pending before the Court.

That is almost 30,000 more than when we met in Interlaken last February.

The Court is receiving far too many applications.

2. The overwhelming majority of these applications are inadmissible: in fact 9 out of 10 applications are declared inadmissible.

Most of these applications should never have been made.

3. In 2010, the Court found violations in 1,282 judgments.

Most of these judgments should not have been necessary because they related to problems for which the Court had already indicated solutions.

In other words, they were what we call clone or repetitive applications. There were about 25 000 such applications pending before the Court at the end of 2010.

Too many applicants are obliged to bring their applications to Strasbourg, because their national authorities are failing to resolve well-known, widespread problems.

As a result of these important challenges the Court is faced with, it is spending far too much of its resources on work that falls outside its core function.

This means less time can be devoted to the original and noble purpose of the Court: to examine applications that are of principal importance for human rights protection in Europe.

How can we respond to these challenges ?

Our priority must be to do something about the repetitive applications as well as the inadmissible applications.

1. In that context, the Court needs to exploit the full potential of Protocol no. 14.

I refer in particular to the new single judge procedure for dealing with inadmissible applications; and also to the new three-judge committee procedure, for dealing with repetitive applications.

I know that the Court has made excellent progress in implementing these two innovations.

At the same time, I am sure that there is still scope for improvement.

Why not have a small number of judges working full-time on filtering for a certain, limited part of their nine-year term of office?

The new admissibility criterion contained in Protocol 14 – that applicants must show that they have suffered “manifest disadvantage” – has great unexploited potential.

By using it more extensively, the Court could reject a greater number of unimportant cases by simple decision, instead of issuing judgments that are far more complex and time-consuming.

Protocol No. 14 has now been fully in force for almost eleven months; growth in the backlog has however continued and shows no signs of slowing down.

Protocol No. 14, therefore, may be palliative - but it will not be the cure.

2. The problem of repetitive applications is a fundamental issue.

When States find themselves confronted with applications involving familiar problems, they should more often propose solutions directly to the Court, without waiting for yet another judgment from the Court.

Friendly settlements and unilateral declarations can allow the Court to strike applications out of its list by a simple decision.

And if the settlement or declaration includes appropriate general measures, the underlying problem may be solved once and for all. Council of Europe relevant entities should be of assistance to member States in the adoption of general measures requiring amendments to the legislation or changes in the practice

3. The problem of inadmissible applications must be tackled from both sides: reduce the rate of incoming applications and increase the Court’s output of decisions to reject them.

Both the Court and I have taken, or are proposing various measures to provide better information to applicants on the role of the Court – and in particular on the limits to that role.

There are other, more radical possibilities for deterring inadmissible applications, such as introducing a system of fees for applicants or obliging them to have legal representation when applying.

These possibilities will continue to be examined.

What we cannot avoid however is to reach agreement on a new procedure or mechanism for filtering by the Court, one that goes beyond the single judge procedure and one that does not need any amendment to the Convention.

Once we have agreed on this, I am prepared to mobilize resources for the Court so that the filtering can be effective.

Ladies and gentlemen,

National experts have been discussing these issues– and others – since the Interlaken Conference.

I do understand that careful technical preparation is absolutely necessary, but it must be backed up by political determination: a recognition of the need for immediate action and a willingness, if necessary, to compromise in the wider interest.

The only completely unacceptable option is to do nothing, or – perhaps even worse – to tinker around the edges and imagine that this will be enough.

In the end, the big answers to the big problems can only come from the State parties themselves.

This should come as no surprise, since the Convention system is based on the principle of “subsidiarity.”

When we talk about subsidiarity in the Convention system, what do we mean?

First and foremost, we mean that “human rights protection begins at home.”

The States parties to the Convention have all voluntarily accepted to respect and protect the rights and freedoms it contains.

For the past ten years, the need for greater action at national level has been a constant theme of work on reform of the Convention system.

Yet the need is still there.

Violations of the right to fair trial, on account of the excessive length of domestic judicial proceedings, are still by far the most frequent form of violation found by the Court in its judgments.

The Court has for years been issuing judgments against a number of States in which it has found this kind of violation.

Subsidiarity also means that States must execute the Court’s judgments swiftly and fully.

The more judgments the Court issues, the more work the Committee of Ministers has in supervising their execution – and the Court’s output has increased impressively in recent years.

I therefore welcome the Committee of Ministers’ new working methods for supervision of the execution of judgments, and encourage all member States to co-operate fully and effectively.

Subsidiarity also concerns the Court. The President of the Court will inform you about the different measures taken by the Court in that respect following Interlaken.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I will repeat what I have already stated in Interlaken.

The Court is not an isolated body and cannot operate in an institutional, political or social vacuum.

The Court judgments provide authoritative interpretation of Convention provisions, underpinning our standard-setting and co-operation activities and giving important references to our other human rights mechanisms.

This is the driving force of the Council of Europe as an intergovernmental organisation.

Other Council of Europe mechanisms, institutions and programmes which help member States to fulfil their obligations without the need for Court judgments, are a reference point for the Court.

The Council of Europe is therefore indispensable to the effective functioning of the Convention system.

That is why, with the support of the Committee of Ministers, I am proposing far-reaching reforms to revitalise and streamline our work and preserve our relevance for the future.

The aim of these reforms will be to ensure greater impact and effectiveness – including cost-effectiveness – as well as greater visibility for priority activities in our central fields of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

I am convinced that when these reforms are fully implemented, the number of applications before the Court will decrease.

In this connection, alongside our work on reform of the Convention system, we – the member States and the European Union together – are working to extend that system through accession of the European Union to the Convention.

European Union accession to the Convention is one of our highest priorities.

I am personally committed to helping to achieve a successful outcome as soon as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Our work to ensure a sustainable, effective European human rights protection system is well under way.

Interlaken, along with the last State’s ratification of Protocol No. 14, marked a new starting point, and the Izmir Conference will mark an essential staging post for stock-taking, clarification and prioritisation.

I find it fitting to recall President John F. Kennedy’s words that as problems are made by men, solutions to the problems will also be found by men.

So let us be clear: the State parties to the Convention have a collective responsibility to bring this process to a sustainable, successful conclusion.

The Convention is Europe’s human rights badge of honour, made exceptional by the fact that the Court issues binding judgments on individual applications.

We must therefore renew our vigour and determination for the difficult tasks that still lie ahead: to ensure that future generations may benefit from the enormous advantages that the Council of Europe has brought to us by giving birth to the Convention and the Court.

Thank you

Have 8,000 European Court of Human Rights rulings been ignored?

Have 8,000 European Court of Human Rights rulings been ignored?

26 April, 2011 - 12:44 -- Patrick Casey



The number of judgments from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that are yet to be fully implemented is more than 8,000. However do these unimplemented rulings represent instances where Government's have simply ignored the court?

“Other countries have turned a blind eye to 8,000 Strasbourg judgments, without the sky falling in on them.” Daily Mail 14 April 2011

As the row over votes for prisoners between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights continues, it has been suggested that the Government should follow the example of other states by simply blocking out the sound of banging Strasbourg gavels.

Earlier this month, the Daily Mail reported that a group of Conservative MPs were urging Prime Minister David Cameron to ignore the ruling that British prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections, pointing to the vast number of ECtHR rulings seemingly disregarded by other nations bound by the Court's judgments

The article cited the figure of 8,000 cases which it stated had been “ignored”, giving some specific examples.

Curious about the size of the figure we went in search of facts and, despite contacting the ECtHR directly, we were initially uncertain where the figures had come from.

Last week, the figure is elaborated on in a report published by the think tank Civitas, which is authored by Conservative MP Dominic Raab.

As Mr Raab explains: 'As of 2009, there were 8,661 cases "pending" before the Committee of Ministers - i.e. unimplemented judgments.”

This is indeed what the figures show, so far as the cases pending are concern. Page 33 of the Annual Report on the execution of the ECtHR's judgments gives the number.

The Annual Report explains that some of the rise is due to increasing complexity of actually implementing these judgements.

It states: "The last few years have seen a significant increase in the number of cases relating to complex and sensitive issues, which need much more time to resolve such as those touching upon relations between state entities and federal authorities, freedom of religion or of association (particularly in the political sphere), or revealing situations of serious discrimination or raising the need of large-scale reforms (e.g. excessive length of proceedings or non-execution of judicial decisions).

"The difficulties inherent in such situations are evident at the stage of supervising execution and the assistance capabilities available can play a significant role in the search for satisfactory execution measures."

The problem is that although all of these cases are pending - some for a long time - we should not necessarily view them all as "ignored".

Philip Leach, Professor of Human Rights at London Metropolitan Universities explained to Full Fact: "It is a complete misrepresentation to describe these cases as ones which have been 'ignored' by other states. Of course, the implementation of judgments is a process which may require various steps, which can be more or less complex and more or less time-consuming."

So where does this leave the reporting of the figures? It is clear looking at the lengthy list of judgments that it isn't quite as simple as saying they were all ignored. Wading through some of the examples in the database of pending ECtHR cases highlights some of the lengthy and complex disputes that have gone on for some of these 8,000.

But nevertheless because these cases are classed as pending they have, by definition, not been fully implemented.

The political implications of these pending cases does not seem to be severe. As the ECtHR website explains that where judgments are yet to be executed, “in practice, the Committee of Ministers very seldom needs to exert political and diplomatic pressure but functions rather as a forum for constructive dialogue, thus helping states find satisfactory solutions enabling them to execute the Court's judgments.”

JOINT STATEMENT FOR THE HIGH LEVEL CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

JOINT STATEMENT FOR THE HIGH LEVEL CONFERENCE ON THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN
COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

IZMIR, TURKEY (26-27 APRIL 2011)

The European Court of Human Rights is at the heart of the system for the protection of human rights in Europe. Its role is to ensure the observance of the obligations of the 47 states which are party to the European Convention on Human Rights for some 800 million people. The Court makes binding judgments in cases where individuals claim that their Convention rights have been violated and that the state has not granted effective redress. Securing the long term effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) is therefore crucial. The High Level Conference at Izmir presents an opportunity to consider the measures needed to strengthen the Court further in the context of the Convention system as a whole, including implementation of the Convention, and of the Court’s judgments, at national level.

Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Interights, the International Commission of Jurists, JUSTICE, and Liberty consider that the following principles should inform the debate and conclusions of the Izmir Conference.

Protect the integrity and authority of the Court Respect for the essential role of the Court in the protection of individual rights under the Convention and respect for the independence and impartiality of the Court must serve as guiding principles for any current and future reform of the European Court of Human Rights. Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Interights, the International Commission of Jurists, JUSTICE, and Liberty urge that the Izmir Conference be guided by these principles. The states should not view the independence of the Court as an obstacle to its reform, and should not allow the reform process to be used to put forward grievances against particular aspects of the Court’s jurisprudence. Rather, the Izmir Conference should be an occasion for states to affirm their commitment to a strong and independent Court.

Protect the right of individual application

The Interlaken Action Plan describes the right of individual application “as a cornerstone of the Convention system which guarantees that alleged violations that have not been effectively dealt with by national authorities can be brought before the Court”. Furthermore, the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights identified this right, together with the judicialisation of the complaint resolution mechanism, as “fundamental principles” of the Convention system.

Guarantee effective access to the Court

In the organisations’ view, two reform proposals currently under consideration would significantly undermine the right of individual petition: the introduction of a system of fees on applicants to the Court and the revision of or establishment of additional admissibility criteria with the aim of curtailing access of applicants to the Court. The Court itself opposes the introduction of a fee for applicants, both due to objections of principle and that it would give rise to considerable practical and administrative problems.

We therefore oppose the introduction of a system which would impose fees on individuals who apply to the Court seeking redress for alleged violations of their Convention rights, together with some 270 civil society organizations from over 40 countries who signed a petition opposing the introduction of fees for applicants to the Court.

The Conference of International NGOs of the Council of Europe shares this view.

As the current admissibility criteria have been in force with regard to all applications filed against all state parties for less than a year, we consider that further review of the admissibility criteria by the Committee of Ministers would be premature. Moreover, any such eventual review should be limited by the principle that, in light of the independence of the Court, the interpretation and application of the present admissibility criteria under Article 35 is a matter for the Court alone. We would oppose additional admissibility criteria that would curtail redress by the Court for violations of Convention rights.

Preserve effective Interim Measures

Interim Measures are a necessary means for the Court’s effective discharge of its role in ensuring the observance of the engagements undertaken by the states parties to the Convention, in certain cases, including but not limited to cases where the principle of non-refoulement is in issue. Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Interights, the International Commission of Jurists, JUSTICE, and Liberty consider it essential that the Court’s power to indicate such measures, and the obligation of states to comply with them, should not be in any way curtailed, hampered, or delayed, including by requiring the Court to provide reasoned decisions on Rule 39 applications. This latter requirement would risk undermining the effectiveness of the Interim Measures system whose purpose is to maintain the status quo pending the Court’s determination of the justification for the measure when there is an imminent risk of irreparable damage to the enjoyment by the applicant of one of the core rights under the Convention. The Izmir Declaration should however highlight the importance and the potential that the effective implementation of the Convention at the national level has in reducing the need for recourse to Interim Measures. The need for such measures could be substantially reduced if effective national remedies against removal with suspensive effect were in place in all member states.

Ensure national implementation

Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Interights, the International Commission of Jurists, JUSTICE, and Liberty urge states to use the opportunity presented by the Izmir Conference to renew their commitment to better implementation of the Convention at national level, and thereby reduce the need for individuals to apply to the Court. The current reform proposal to expand the powers of the Court to provide Advisory Opinions on Convention issues at the request of the highest national Courts of the 47 parties could also contribute in this regard.

The responsibility of states to make the Convention rights a reality at the national level is central to the idea of subsidiarity. This was acknowledged by the Interlaken Declaration, which referred, in regard to the subsidiary nature of the Convention mechanism, to “the fundamental role which national authorities, i.e. governments, courts and parliaments, must play in guaranteeing and protecting human rights at the national level.” Renewed efforts by states to implement the Convention in national law, policy and practice are now essential for effective application of the principle of subsidiarity, in accordance with the aims of the Interlaken Declaration. The principle of subsidiarity does not, by contrast, justify states placing inappropriate pressure on the Court with regard to its interpretation and application of the Convention.

Preserving an effective legal framework for the Court

While welcoming the current work within the Steering Committee on Human Rights on a mechanism for enabling the simplified amendment of some Convention provisions of an organizational nature, we consider that further discussions are needed to fully analyse two options: a new provision in the Convention allowing for simplified amendment or a Statute for the Court. We also note that additional study on the proposal overall is required in the light of recent clarifications that the national law in several states imposes obstacles to simplified amendment of an international treaty that had been subject to parliamentary ratification. We consider that at this stage of the discussions, it would be premature to take a decision which would prioritise one of the possible mechanisms for simplified amendment – that of a Statute – over the possible addition of a provision of the Convention for this purpose. Any new mechanism must preserve the independence of the Court, including its authority to regulate its procedures through the Rules of Court.

Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Interights, the International Commission of Jurists, JUSTICE, and Liberty consider that the High Level Conference of Izmir is an opportunity for states to inform and deepen current discussions on reform of the Court. It should complement current reform discussions rather than pre-empt conclusions on issues that affect the fundamental role of the Court in the protection of human rights in Europe.

Appropriate solutions to the problems faced by the Court must be devised on the basis of informed analysis and transparent evaluation of both the root of the problems and recent and future reforms.

In brief, Amnesty International, the AIRE Centre, the International Commission of Jurists, The European Human Rights Advocacy Centre, Interights, JUSTICE, and Liberty consider that any reforms to the Convention system should ensure that:

• the fundamental right of individual petition is preserved and not further curtailed by imposing a fee on applicants or adding additional admissibility criteria;

• there is an efficient, fair, consistent, transparent and effective screening of applications received, in order to identify the admissible applications from the very high proportion (around 90 per cent) of applications that are inadmissible under the current criteria;

• judgments are given within a reasonable time, particularly in cases where time is of the essence, or that raise repetitive issues where the Court’s case law is clear and those that arise from systemic problems;

• the Court, including its Registry, is given adequate financial and human resources, without adversely impacting the budgets of other Council of Europe human rights mechanisms and bodies.

Comment: They are sending a strong message to Kenneth Clarke, Dominic Raab and the like to stop interfering and act responsibly towards the UK's guilt and to protect human rights.

The first rule of journalism.

The first rule of journalism.

TUESDAY, 26 APRIL 2011

By Fleet Street Fox

Jug-eared love rat Andrew Marr.

THERE are many cardinal sins in Fleet Street but with his super-injunction Andrew Marr broke the most serious of all - 'never become the story'.

To protect the lovechild he thought was his is fair enough; the story was not in the public interest, merely of interest to the public. That the gag had the knock-on effect of sparing his blushes and keeping him in his £600,000-a-year position as the BBC's top political commentator was, I am sure, a happy coincidence.

But it was the job that ultimately proved his and the injunction's undoing. Had he been any other kind of journo, famous or not, the court order would have held indefinitely. It was his position as a high-profile, impartial interrogator for the publicly-funded state broadcaster which made him, in his own words, "a stinking hypocrite".

It was that smell which meant every hack in the street knew about his affair, the child, and his mistress. Marr got one of the first super-injunctions, which bans anyone from even saying they've been injuncted. When we've been gagged by one of our own it tends to stick in the throat, so word spread out of vengeance as much as a desire for a good gossip.

The injunction also rendered him incapable of doing his job - the one we all pay him for. He was not the type to interview John Terry, fortunately, but whenever he was presented with a politician whose character was in doubt Marr knew - and every journalist watching him knew - that he could not ask the questions he should.

As a result Private Eye and its impish editor Ian Hislop, who quite rightly wanted to report that licence-fee payers' money should not be spent on gagging the Press, went to court. They overturned the 'super' part of the injunction and it became more widely known that Marr had injuncted something.

Next week the Eye was going back to court to try to overturn the rest of the injunction. Aware he was going to have to continue shelling out tens of thousands of pounds to fight what was probably going to be a losing battle, Marr came clean.

He said he felt "uneasy" but it was the right thing to do "at the time" to repair his damaged marriage and protect the child involved.

What he didn't say is that in the meantime he had discovered, via a DNA test, that the child he had been paying maintenance for was not his. His decision to speak now carries the unpleasant reek of a man who has utterly washed his hands of a seven-year-old who for some years will have regarded him as her father. Setting aside the irresponsibility of unprotected sex and of an affair outside marriage, while that child has no legal claim upon him there is surely a degree of consideration she still deserves.

It does seem however that Marr has finally realised it was getting the injunction in the first place which made the story of legitimate public interest. It also caused years of gossip for his wife and mistress to endure, and now all of Fleet Street will get a second bite of the apple where, originally, only one paper had the story. The same is true of every other celebrity gagging order - first there's the nameless details, accompanied by a silhouette, then the internet speculation, the cheeky asides in gossip columns. Eventually, and inevitably, it all comes out.

It always does. It always will. That's another of the rules of journalism. Number four, I think.

So rather than having a month of embarrassment Marr and his nearest and dearest have had years of innuendo, and now will have significantly more. If the identity of the child is revealed she will be known forever as 'Not Andrew Marr's Lovechild'. He has done everyone concerned a massive disservice in trying to hush it up: the only bonus is that now he will be labelled a "jug-eared love-rat" every time he's ever mentioned in print.

That's not to say journalists are not all hypocrites to some extent. We're as flawed as any other humans, but we have to be able to criticise or praise those that deserve it without our personal reputations overshadowing our work, and that means keeping our heads below the parapet and our noses (relatively) clean. A hack can have a fling with a celebrity, indulge in misbehaviour or push the boundaries of privacy so long as a) they don't get caught and b) no-one cares. Once those actions become of public interest the journalist becomes the story, and that makes it impossible to do the job - it's for this reason, and this alone, that Andy Coulson left the Screws of the World and, later, his job as spinmeister to Prime Minister Dishface.

As a result of all this Marr can never question a politician about their private life, however legitimate the enquiry could be. He cannot comment or ask about fatherhood, paternity rights, the legal system, the creeping privacy law no-one in this country has voted for, or even raising a child when arguably his actions will have harmed the one involved in this story.

Andrew Marr should never work as a journalist again. He probably will, because the BBC can be very stupid like that, but his credibility is shot, his impartiality is gone and his reputation is ruined.

If only he'd kept his trousers on, hey?