Non implementation of Hirst v UK (No2) by the UK and failure of the Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the judgment
To: DGHL.Execution@coe.int
Hi
As you are aware it has now been over 6 years since the Court decided in Hirst v UK (No2) that the UK had violated Article 3 of the First Protocol.
According to Lord Bingham: “The primary aim of the European Convention was to promote uniform protection of certain fundamental human rights among the member states of the Council of Europe...The expectation therefore is, and has always been, that a member state found to have violated the Convention will act promptly to prevent a repetition of the violation, and in this way the primary object of the Convention is served”(paras 3 and 5).
Clearly my legitimate expectation has not been met, the UK has not acted promptly and as a result there has been a repetition of the violation, for example, Greens and MT v UK, and a backlog of 3,500 other prisoners cases.
Clearly there has been a lack of an effective execution.
Since my case was made an enhanced supervision case, instead of enhanced supervision there has been a reduced supervision. The last two human rights meetings of the Committee of Ministers the CoM failed to raise my case and ask the UK what it intended doing to fully comply with the Court’s judgment. Instead, the CoM merely let the UK send a letter stating that the UK wished to be an interested party in Scoppola v Italy. The Registrar allowed the UK a further unnecessary 6 month’s delay in complying with Greens and MT v UK.
Urszula Gacek, Polish Ambassador to the Committee of Ministers, has publicly stated that the problem is the corruption within the CoM.
Previously my solicitor has asked the CoM to initiate proceedings of non compliance in the Grand Chamber of the Court in order to make the state concerned execute the Court´s initial judgment.
I have not yet received any explanation why the UK and Council of Europe have failed to protect the human rights of convicted prisoners. The Council of Europe cannot honestly claim to protect the human rights of 800 million Europeans when it cannot even protect the human rights of 75,000 within the UK.
The Council of Europe states that the remedy lies with the national authorities. The UK claims that the remedy lies in Strasbourg.
This is not a game of ping pong.
There is no means to challenge the Council of Europe, therefore no accountability. Unless you rectify this deficit the Convention and Court counts for nothing. Those calling for the scrapping of human rights will win.
I trust you will now do the right thing and soundly condemn the UK?
Yours sincerely
John Hirst
Non implementation of Hirst v UK (No2) by the UK and failure of the Committee of Ministers to supervise exe...
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment