Free Willy

Free Willy

My friend Humph took me to collect Willy from the Animal Rescue Centre @ approx 11am.

He's on 48 hours home trial.

When 15 year old Maniek called Willy slipped past me and ran off in the direction of the small park out back. He was swiftly recaptured.

Later anotheof my Polish "grand children" sniggeringly called out "Willy" and the dog responded. So he's now called Willy.

A couple of problems, Willy sicked up his breakfast. And he's had flatulence all day. Phew!

Rocky II

Rocky II

Add caption

Male x Labrador, Approx 7-8 years old. William has been returned to us as he can be protective over certain things i.e chairs, william will need to have boundries in his new home and we feel a more experienced owner would be ideal. He is a lovely boy in the kennels and causes no problems, he loves his walks on our field and is a favourite of our dog walkers. William is good with other dogs. A home with no children is preferred.

Comment: I found him on the website of the rescue centre where I got Rocky.  Phoned up today and went to see him and take him for a walk. Like Rocky he is keen on scents and drags on the lead. Rocky was crossed with a greyhound. William probably a terrier. He's a bit smaller and not as strong as Rocky was in the shoulders for dragging me where he wanted to go.

Due to pick him up on Thursday morning.

My friend said "You're not keeping the name William are you? Everyone will still call him Rocky II". My Polish friends already refer to him as that. I hope Wiliam does not mind the name change...

Taxi for Rocky to doggy heaven

Taxi for Rocky to doggy heaven.

This morning the house feels empty and quiet.

Yesterday morning I came down wondering if I would find Rocky lying dead on the fireside carpet. He had not jumped up on to the bed beside me. Something was wrong. He lay there not giving me any attention. I thought I had better get him down to the PDSA. I went to look for the phone number. When I came back Rocky was stood by the front door. I thought he was going out to be sick. He took a few wobbly steps and then collapsed. My heart sank.

I phoned friend to take us down to the PDSA but he said he was in the middle of a field in Lincolnshire tending the horses and would not be back until lunchtime. He suggsted getting Rocky a blanket. I wrapped a duvet around him.

I phoned the PDSA and said I needed an ambulance. I was told they no longer provided this service. It was suggested I get a taxi. I thought 'where am I going to get the money for a taxi from?'. I did hope that my pension had been paid in early for Christmas. I was told to bring a letter from the Council Tax or Housing Benefit with me. I got irrate with them worrying about a piece of paper when Rocky was in such a state. I did not know where I would find a recent letter after the workmen had moved everything around to get the double glazing installed in my study/bedroom.

I kept popping out to check on Rocky.

A neighbour called with a Christmas card for Rocky and me. He offered to pay for a taxi. I said I would check if my money had come first.

Lunchtime came and I phoned my friend again only to be told he was now at work and that his partner had got the car.

I left Rocky to go to the cash point, and luckily my pension money was available.

Then I had a brain wave where I might find the necessary letter for the PDSA, I found it and got a 3.15pm emergency appointment. I ordered a taxi for 2.45-3pm.

I was not fit enough to pick up Rocky so the Taxi driver suggested we each pick up two corners of the duvet and stretchered Rocky into the taxi.

At the PDSA the surgeon said that Rocky's gums showed that he was anemic and that she suspected internal bleeding and feared it would be cancer. She said they would need to do blood tests and X-Rays. If I did not hear anything by 4.30 to phone back.

Approximately 4.30pm I received the phone call I was dreading. The surgeon said Rocky had lost a lot of blood, and she had difficulty finding the veins. He had a ruptured spleen. She could operate but Rocky may not survive the anasthetc. I said Rocky deserved the chance

During the operation it was discovered that the cancer had spread to Rocky's liver and that removing the spleen would make no difference.

I said to put him to sleep.

Rocky is now in doggy heaven.

Rocky RIP

Rocky RIP

Xmas cartoon

Xmas cartoon

Eight Scots seceding, seven spads-a-spinning, six MPs letting...
Five omnishambles!
Four royal letters, three safe seats, two posh boys... and patronage from the party!

Prison rape: Is the US doing enough to protect inmates?

New measures are being implemented in the US to tackle rape and sexual assault in prison. But in Alabama, one women's prison has gained a notorious reputation for being unsafe.

Prisoner held 9 years after release date!

Prisoner held 9 years after release date!

Drugs, alcohol and violence all rife at Lincoln Prison

Bullying and violence are rife at a Victorian prison which is so overcrowded that prisoners are too scared to leave their wings and one had been held for nine years after his release date.

Europe says no to UK on keeping status quo

CASES No. 30
1157th meeting – 6 December 2012
Cases against the United Kingdom

Europe says no to UK on keeping status quo HIRST No. 2 GROUP
Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on
74025/01	HIRST No. 2	06/10/2005	Grand Chamber
60041/08+	GREENS AND M.T.	23/11/2010	11/04/2011

CM/ResDH(2009)160, DH-DD(2011)139, DH-DD(2011)679E, DH-DD(2012)1106E
Decisions
The Deputies
1. recalled that in the judgment Hirst No. 2 and the Greens and M.T. pilot judgment the European Court found violations of Article 3 of Protocol 1 due to the blanket ban on voting imposed automatically on the applicants due to their status as convicted offenders detained in prison;
2. recalled further that the United Kingdom authorities had until 23 November 2012 to introduce legislative proposals to amend the electoral law imposing a blanket restriction on voting rights of convicted prisoners in prison;
3. noted with great interest that the United Kingdom authorities introduced legislative proposals to Parliament on 22 November 2012 to amend the electoral law imposing a blanket restriction on voting rights of convicted prisoners in prison, which include a range of options for a Parliamentary Committee to consider;
4. welcomed and strongly supported the announcement made by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice when presenting the legislative proposals to Parliament that “the Government is under an international legal obligation to implement the [European] Court’s judgment” and “the accepted practice is that the United Kingdom observes its international obligations”;
5. considered that the final version of the legislation that will be proposed to Parliament should be in conformity with the fundamental principles recalled in this announcement;
6. in this respect endorsed the view expressed in the Explanatory Report to the draft bill presenting the legislative proposals, that the third option aimed at retaining the blanket restriction criticised by the European Court cannot be considered compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights;
7. recalled that §115 of the pilot judgment states that the legislative proposals should be introduced “with a view to the enactment of an electoral law to achieve compliance with the Court's judgment in Hirst No. 2 according to any time-scale determined by the Committee of Ministers” and invited the authorities to keep the Committee regularly informed of progress made and on the proposed time-scale;
8. decided to resume consideration of the case at the latest at its 1179th meeting (September 2013) (DH) in the light of the above.

UK Action Plan to Committee of Ministers on prisoners votes

UK Action Plan to Committee of Ministers on prisoners votes

2012dd1106DH

Ashfield teenage prisoners to begin legal battle

Seven young offenders who claim they were punished unlawfully at a privately-run Bristol prison will begin a legal battle later.

Who guards the guardian of the Judiciary?

Who guards the guardian of the Judiciary?

Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics questioning Chris Grayling on votes for prisoners

AN: All right. Let’s come on to prisoners voting. David Cameron said that prisoners are not getting the vote under this government, but you are going to place options before parliament, some of which would give prisoners the vote.  Which way will you vote?

34:16

A: Well we haven’t got anything to vote on yet, but let’s be clear about what the legal position is and my position is particularly different in this because I am Lord Chancellor, I’ve sworn an oath to uphold the law. The requirement upon government and government ministers is very clear. That it is our duty to implement rulings of the European Court. But the legal position for parliament is different. That – and this is advice that’s come from the Attorney General,  there was also advice under the House of Lords 12 years ago from Lord Justice Hoffman, that parliament has the right to overrule the European Court of Human Rights if it believe it wants to do so. It has to accept there may be a political consequence for doing that, but it has the right to do so. So what we’ve done is we’ve said to parliament, right, this is the legal position. We’re under an obligation to do that, you’re not. I’m going to give you three options two of which involve giving some prisoners the vote, the third of which will give you the right to exercise your sovereignty and say no to the European Court. It’s up to you to decide. And there’s going to be a process of consultation over the next few months before it reaches the point of a vote.

AN: I understand that, but are you saying that as Lord Chancellor you cannot vote for the option which is status quo no votes for prisoners?

35:29

A: Well when we come to the point of a vote I will take appropriate legal advice. My position’s very different to other Members of Parliament on this because of my role as Guardian of the Judiciary.

AN:  Could the prime minister vote no?

35:39

A: I’m the only person who’s subject to the oath to uphold the law. The prime minister is subject to the ministerial code and he is of course the arbiter of the ministerial code. He will have to decide at the time what he wants ministers to do. My position is different, but it’s a matter for parliament as a whole.

AN: I understand that too but you – what  you I think are saying is that you may be asking parliament to vote for something, ie no votes for prisoners which you cannot vote for yourself or your Cabinet colleagues cannot vote for. Is that true? Is that a possibility?

36:08

A: There is no question – I mean the prime minister’s view on this is clear. I’m on the record on my view on this.

AN: I’m asking you  how you would vote.

36:13

A: But also I have legal responsibility and you can’t be Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and not uphold the law. Whether you like the law or not. You can try and change the law. What I will do at the time is I’ll take appropriate legal advice about what I can and can’t do, but fundamentally this is a choice for parliament and what I’ve done is say to parliament it would be very easy simply to accept the ruling but actually the legal base is different. The legal base says, you as members of parliament,  you as parliament collectively have the right to decide yes or no to accept this ruling, I’m offering you the choice.

AN: Thank you for clarifying that.

Tony Blair stated in the HoC that prisoners would not get the vote under a Labour government. It's Ground-hog Day! David Cameron said that prisoners are not getting the vote under this government. Can he justify this statement? It appears to clash with the views expressed by two members of the Cabinet; the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Attorney General Dominic Grieve. If Cameron's reasoning is based upon his other statement that the thought of giving prisoners the vote makes him physically ill, it is contended that this reasoning is not legally sound.

Is the draft Bill presented to Parliament by Chris Grayling legally valid? In particular, the option to maintain the blanket ban, and excluding the option for full franchise?

Which way will Grayling vote? It depends if he has a conscience. He dodged answering Andrew Neil's question, before feeding him with a load of waffle. Laughably Neil then thanked Grayling for clarifying the issue. Clear as mud!

Andrew Neil: “Which way will you vote?”.

Chris Grayling: “Well we haven’t got anything to vote on yet, but let’s be clear about what the legal position is and my position is particularly different in this because I am Lord Chancellor, I’ve sworn an oath to uphold the law. The requirement upon government and government ministers is very clear. That it is our duty to implement rulings of the European Court. But the legal position for parliament is different. That – and this is advice that’s come from the Attorney General,  there was also advice under the House of Lords 12 years ago from Lord Justice Hoffman, that parliament has the right to overrule the European Court of Human Rights if it believe it wants to do so. It has to accept there may be a political consequence for doing that, but it has the right to do so. So what we’ve done is we’ve said to parliament, right, this is the legal position. We’re under an obligation to do that, you’re not. I’m going to give you three options two of which involve giving some prisoners the vote, the third of which will give you the right to exercise your sovereignty and say no to the European Court. It’s up to you to decide. And there’s going to be a process of consultation over the next few months before it reaches the point of a vote”.

The prisoners votes case is over 7 years ago. Why hasn't there been anything to vote on yet? Hasn't Grayling heard of the legal principle 'justice delayed is justice denied'? He appears to be a man without principle.

Call me Dave has stated 'were all in this together'. Grayling is now claiming he's different. I don't accept his position is any different. Aren't the Tories the 'law and order' party? Are they now to be known as the lawless and disorder party? The requirement upon the government and ministers he is referring to relates to the Ministerial Code. However, the Prime Minister's Rules are not a creature of statute and have no legal status. They might as well be called the Bullingdon Club Rules! The Ministerial Code should be laid down in an Act of Parliament, because as they stand it is doubtful that a court would enforce the Code or provide a remedy for its breach, in other words, adopting a 'hands-off' policy on the issue. Nor is it accepted that it is different for Parliament. Hirst v UK (No2) is binding on all three arms of the State; Executive, Parliament and Judiciary.

Grayling has misunderstood advice given by Dominic Grieve, and misunderstood what Lord Hoffman stated. Parliament has no legal right to overrule the ECtHR, its decisions are final. There is no so-called 'democratic override'. The Greek Colonels discovered this in the 1960s, and more recently the President of Belarus. Dictatorships, authoritarian or totalitarian States do not adhere to human rights, democracy and rule of law. Grayling has also misled Parliament with his non-lawyer “legal advice” claiming parliamentary sovereignty of being above the law with the right to break the law. The consultations are yet another delaying tactic.

Given that Cameron has had appropriate legal advice and ignored it like Blair did on the Iraq War, will Grayling also ignore the appropriate legal advice when he votes on prisoners votes?

Grayling: “I have legal responsibility and you can’t be Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary and not uphold the law”.

Charles Falconer, Jack Straw and Kenneth Clarke managed to do this, not uphold the law.

Given that Grayling accepts that it would be easy simply to accept the ECtHR ruling, why has the UK resisted for over 7 years? It is nonsense to claim that the legal base for Parliament is different, it's the same for all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe. Toe the line. Grayling is saying he's given Parliament the choice of sticking up two fingers to the ECtHR. It's pure spin. Grayling's choice is the modern equivalent of Hobson's choice. He's given less margin of appreciation than the ECtHR.

Treaty of London 1949 - Statute of the Council of Europe

 The Treaty of London was signed on May 5, 1949, which created the Council of Europe.

 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,

                   Convinced that the pursuit of peace based upon justice and international co‑operation is vital for the pres­ervation of human society and civilisation;

                   Reaffirming their devotion to the spiritu­al and moral values which are the common heritage of their peoples and the true source of indi­vidual freedom, political liberty and the rule of law, princi­ples which form the basis of all genuine democracy;

                   Believing that, for the maintenance and further realisation of these ideals and in the interests of economic and social prog­ress, there is a need of a closer unity between all like‑minded countries of Europe;

                   Consid­ering that, to respond to this need and to the ex­pressed aspirations of their peoples in this regard, it is neces­sary forthwith to create an organisation which will bring European States into closer associa­tion,

                   Have in consequence decided to set up a Council of Europe consisting of a commit­tee of repre­sentatives of governments and of a consultative assembly, and have for this purpose adopted the following Statute.

Chapter I – Aim of the Council of Europe

                   Article 1

          a        The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a great­er unity between its members for the purpose of safe­guarding and reali­sing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.

          b        This aim shall be pursued through the organs of the Coun­cil by discussion of questions of common concern and by agree­ments and common action in economic, social, cultural, scientific, legal and administra­tive matters and in the main­tenance and fur­ther realisation of human rights and fundamen­tal freedoms.

          c        Participation in the Council of Europe shall not affect the collabora­tion of its members in the work of the United Nations and of other international organisations or unions to which they are parties.

          d       Matters relating to national defence do not fall within the scope of the Council of Europe.

2

Chapter II – Membership

                   Article 2

                   The members of the Council of Europe are the Parties to this Statute.

                   Article 3

                   Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the princi­ples of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdic­tion of human rights and fundamen­tal freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.

Article 7

                   Any member of the Coun­cil of Europe may withdraw by formally notifying the Secre­tary General of its intention to do so. Such with­drawal shall take effect at the end of the financial year in which it is noti­fied, if the notification is given during the first nine months of that financial year. If the notification is given in the last three months of the finan­cial year, it shall take effect at the end of the next finan­cial year.

                   Article 8

                   Any member ofthe Coun­cil of Europe which has seriously vio­lated Article 3 may besuspended from its rights of repre­sentation and re­quested by the Committee ofMinisters to withdraw under Arti­cle 7. If such member does not complywith this request, the Commit­tee may decide that it has ceased to be a memberof the Council as from such date as the Committee may determine.

***************************************************************************

The Council of Europe (French: Conseil de l'Europe) is an international organization promoting co-operation between all countries of Europe in the areas of legal standards, human rights, democratic development, the rule of law and cultural co-operation. It was founded in 1949, has 47 member states with some 800 million citizens, and is an entirely separate body^[1] from the European Union (EU), which has only 27 member states. Unlike the EU, the Council of Europe cannot make binding laws. The two do however share certain symbols such as the flag and the anthem.
The best known bodies of the Council of Europe are the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Pharmacopoeia Commission, which sets the quality standards for pharmaceutical products in Europe. The Council of Europe's work has resulted in standards, charters and conventions to facilitate cooperation between European countries.
Its statutory institutions are the Committee of Ministers comprising the foreign ministers of each member state, the Parliamentary Assembly composed of MPs from the parliament of each member state, and the Secretary General heading the secretariat of the Council of Europe. The Commissioner for Human Rights is an independent institution within the Council of Europe, mandated to promote awareness of and respect for human rights in the member states.
The headquarters of the Council of Europe are in Strasbourg, France, with English and French as its two official languages. The Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress also use German, Italian, and Russian for some of their work.

History

 n a speech at the University of Zurich on 19 September 1946, Sir Winston Churchill called for a "kind of United States of Europe" and the creation of a Council of Europe.^[2][3] He had spoken of a Council of Europe as early as 1943 in a radio broadcast.^[2]
The future structure of the Council of Europe was discussed at a specific congress of several hundred leading politicians, government representatives and civil society in The Hague, Netherlands, in 1948. There were two schools of thought competing: some favoured a classical international organisation with representatives of governments, while others preferred a political forum with parliamentarians. Both approaches were finally combined through the creation of the Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly under the Statute of the Council of Europe. This dual intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary structure was later copied for the European Communities, North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

 The Council of Europe was founded on 5 May 1949 by the Treaty of London. The Treaty of London or the Statute of the Council of Europe was signed in London on that day by ten states: Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Many other states followed, especially after the democratic transitions in central and eastern Europe during the early 1990s, and the Council of Europe now includes all European states except Belarus,^[4] Kazakhstan,^[4] Vatican City^[5] and the European states with limited recognition.^[a]

Aims and achievements

Article 1(a) of the Statute states that "The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress." Therefore, membership is open to all European states which seek European integration, accept the principle of the rule of law and are able and willing to guarantee democracy, fundamental human rights and freedoms.
While the member states of the European Union transfer national legislative and executive powers to the European Commission and the European Parliament in specific areas under European Community law, Council of Europe member states maintain their sovereignty but commit themselves through conventions (i.e., public international law) and co-operate on the basis of common values and common political decisions. Those conventions and decisions are developed by the member states working together at the Council of Europe, whereas secondary European Community law is set by the organs of the European Union. Both organisations function as concentric circles around the common foundations for European integration, with the Council of Europe being the geographically wider circle. The European Union could be seen as the smaller circle with a much higher level of integration through the transfer of powers from the national to the EU level. Being part of public international law, Council of Europe conventions could also be opened for signature to non-member states thus facilitating equal co-operation with countries outside Europe (see chapter below).
The Council of Europe's most famous achievement is the European Convention on Human Rights, which was adopted in 1950 following a report by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. The Convention created the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Court supervises compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and thus functions as the highest European court for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is to this court that Europeans can bring cases if they believe that a member country has violated their fundamental rights.
The wide activities and achievements of the Council of Europe can be found in detail on its official website. In a nutshell, the Council of Europe works in the following areas:

• Protection of the rule of law and fostering legal co-operation through some 200 conventions and other treaties, including such leading instruments as the Convention on Cybercrime, the Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, the Conventions against Corruption and Organised Crime, the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.^[6]

• CODEXTER, designed to co-ordinate counter-terrorism measures
• The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ)
• Protection of human rights, notably through:
  • the European Convention on Human Rights
  • the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture
  • the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance
  • the Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings^[7]
  • the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse^[8]
  • social rights under the European Social Charter
  • linguistic rights under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages
  • minority rights under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
  • Media freedom under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Convention on Transfrontier Television
• Protection of democracy through parliamentary scrutiny and election monitoring by its Parliamentary Assembly as well as assistance in democratic reforms, in particular by the Venice Commission.
• Promotion of cultural co-operation and diversity under the Council of Europe's Cultural Convention of 1954 and several conventions on the protection of cultural heritage as well as through its Centre for Modern Languages in Graz, Austria, and its North-South Centre in Lisbon, Portugal.
• Promotion of the right to education under Article 2 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and several conventions on the recognition of university studies and diplomas (see also Bologna Process and Lisbon Recognition Convention).
• Promotion of fair sport through the Anti-Doping Convention^[9] and the Convention against Spectator Violence.^[10]
• Promotion of European youth exchanges and co-operation through European Youth Centres in Strasbourg and Budapest, Hungary.
• Promotion of the quality of medicines throughout Europe by the European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and its European Pharmacopoeia.

Institutions

The institutions of the Council of Europe are:

• The Secretary General, who is elected for a term of five years by the Parliamentary Assembly and heads the Secretariat of the Council of Europe. The current Secretary General is the former Prime Minister of Norway, Thorbjørn Jagland, who took office on 1 October 2009.^[11]
• The Committee of Ministers, comprising the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of all 47 member states who are represented by their Permanent Representatives and Ambassadors accredited to the Council of Europe. Committee of Ministers' presidencies are held in alphabetical order for six months following the English alphabet: Turkey 11/2010-05/2011, Ukraine 05/2011-11/2011, the United Kingdom 11/2011-05/2012, Albania 05/2012-11/2012, Andorra 11/2012-05/2013, Armenia 05/2013-11/2013, Austria 11/2013-05/2014, and so on.
• The Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), which comprises national parliamentarians from all member states and elects its President for a year with the possibility of being re-elected for another year. In January 2010, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu from Turkey was elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly. National parliamentary delegations to the Assembly must reflect the political spectrum of their national parliament, i.e., comprise government and opposition parties. The Assembly appoints members as rapporteurs with the mandate to prepare parliamentary reports on specific subjects. The British MP Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was rapporteur for the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights. Dick Marty's reports on secret CIA detentions and rendition flights in Europe became quite famous in 2007. Other Assembly rapporteurs were instrumental in, for example, the abolition of the death penalty in Europe, the political and human rights situation in Chechnya, disappeared persons in Belarus, freedom of expression in the media and many other subjects.
• The Congress of the Council of Europe (Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe), which was created in 1994 and comprises political representatives from local and regional authorities in all member states. The most influential instruments of the Council of Europe in this field are the European Charter of Local Self-Government of 1985 and the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities of 1980.
• The European Court of Human Rights, created under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, is composed of a judge from each member state elected for a renewable term of six years by the Parliamentary Assembly and is headed by the elected President of the Court. Since 2007, Jean-Paul Costa from France is the President of the Court. Under the new Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights, the terms of office of judges shall be nine years but non-renewable. Ratification of Protocol No. 14 was delayed by Russia for a number of years, but won support to be passed in January 2010.
• The Commissioner for Human Rights, who is elected by the Parliamentary Assembly for a non-renewable term of six years since the creation of this position in 1999. Since April 2012, this position has been held by Nils Muižnieks from Latvia.
• The Conference of INGOs. NGOs can participate in the INGOs Conference of the Council of Europe. Since the [Resolution (2003)8] adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 19 November 2003, they are given a "participatory status".
• Information Offices of the Council of Europe in many member states.