Broken windows theory

Broken windows theory

On Saturday night at 8.15 I heard a bang on the front door and believing this to be the result of a stone throwing attack I glanced up at the CCTV monitor which confirmed my belief. I saw a couple of young kids 10-12 years of age. Previously, the police had advised that I don't go out when so threatened. I responded that if I don't then they will only end up breaking a window. Nevertheless I accepted the police advice.

I watched helplessly as one of the kids threw another stone which broke one of the lounge windows.

I dialled 999 and asked for the police.

Approximately 12.15pm on Sunday I received a visit from two police officers.

Why is it an ambulance is supposed to arrive within 8 minutes of a 999 call, and the police response takes 16 hours?

A Point of View: Do human rights really exist?

A Point of View: Do human rights really exist?

Do "human rights" really exist, when they can be so easily taken away, asks Will Self.

The Jertemy Hunt is on...But...

The Jertemy Hunt is on...But...

Source

Jeremy Hunt, Sir Alex Allan and David Cameron should all do the right thing and resign

Jeremy Hunt, Sir Alex Allan and David Cameron should all do the right thing and resign

Sir Alex Allan, the independent adviser on the Ministerial Code, is dependent upon David Cameron doing the right thing and referring a case to him to be investigated. Therefore it calls into question his independence. Apparently, Sir Alex Allan has stated that he would resign if an attempt to sideline him was made. Given that Lord Leveson is conducting a public inquiry into media standards, he is not the person to investigate whether Jeremy Hunt has breached the Ministerial Code. Therefore David Cameron's attempt to palm off the matter to Lord Leveson is an attempt to sideline Sir Alex Allan.

David Cameron's decision not to refer Jeremy Hunt to Sir Alex Allan is justicible by way of a judicial review.

Jeremy Hunt, Sir Alex Allan and David Cameron should all do the right thing and resign.

The 'world's most pampered - and bored - prisoner'

The 'world's most pampered - and bored - prisoner'

He is the most pampered prisoner in the world, but the sole inmate of the only jail in the microstate of San Marino is said to be suffering from boredom and loneliness.

The 30-year-old man has his meals brought to him from a local restaurant because it is not economical to lay on a canteen service for him alone.

He enjoys the exclusive use of a gym, library and television room and occupies one of six cells which make up San Marino's only jail, which is tucked into a wing of a former Capuchin monastery.

The monastery lies on the flanks of a massive limestone outcrop which, together with a few miles of flat farmland and residential areas, makes up Europe's third smallest state, after the Vatican and Monaco.

As recently as 2009 the minute facility held 14 detainees, but now it boasts just one increasingly bored and lonely prisoner.

Since he moved in last month, the only human contact the man has is with his guards, along with occasional visits from lawyers and relatives.

He is allowed out for an hour each day as a break from what is effectively solitary confinement.

The man, who authorities declined to name because of privacy rules, still has eight months to serve of his sentence, having been convicted on a domestic violence charge.

But his lonely penance is about to come to an end - a second inmate is expected to be incarcerated in the next few days.

San Marino has a population of about 30,000 and claims to have been an independent republic for the last 1,700 years, making it the world's oldest.

A tax haven which has grown rich from secret banking, it has been at the centre of money laundering scandals but otherwise has a low crime rate.

It's a scandal the McCanns have not faced justice in 6 years!

It's a scandal the McCanns have not faced justice in 6 years!

UK Police seek to bring closure to the case

In all probability Kate McCann killed Madeleine and Gerry McCann disposed of her body.

In an attempt to evade justice the McCanns staged a fake break-in at Apartment 5A, and invented the story of an abductor and abduction as a cover for Madeleine's disappearance.

As we know the evidence did not support the McCanns claim of a break-in.

In all probability, no break-in means no abductor or abduction. This means that Madeleine's disappearance is down to the McCanns themselves.

Meanwhile the McCanns release a computer generated image of how they want us to believe Madeleine looks today. Once again the McCanns are engaged in manipulation.

The Met Police spend £4M of taxpayers money on holidays in Portugal as they pretend that 40 officers are reinvestigating the case.

If the UK police were really interested in bringing closure to the case, they would question the McCanns version of events and treat them as suspects rather than victims.

In all probability my photo reflects how Madeleine really looks now after 6 years.

BBC story.

No amount of squirming can save Jeremy Hunt

No amount of squirming can save Jeremy Hunt

This was no single incident, but an entire relationship of staggering impropriety

The Leveson Inquiry's exposure of endemic bribery of police and public officials by some News International journalists was shocking enough. But yesterday's revelations of what appears to be a "back channel" between the media group and the cabinet minister charged with ruling on its highly controversial plan to take over BSkyB cast even that into the shade. In the circumstances, the position of the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is untenable. He must resign.

The picture painted by the 163 pages of emails handed over by News International as James Murdoch took to the witness stand yesterday is a highly disturbing one. The documents suggest an almost daily contact between Mr Hunt's office and News Corp's head of public affairs, Fréd Michel, providing a running commentary on the progress of the £8bn BSkyB deal.

According to Mr Michel, Mr Hunt's office told him that the Government would be "supportive throughout the process", cooked up a plan that would mean "game over for the opposition", and even leaked information ahead of a statement by Mr Hunt to Parliament, with an (apparently joking) aside that such practices were "absolutely illegal".

Given that Mr Hunt had the quasi-judicial task of ruling on a corporate takeover that would materially affect not only the company itself, but Britain's entire media landscape – with all that that implies – it is difficult to overstate the seriousness of yesterday's revelations. It is one thing for a lobbyist to put their employer's case, and for government ministers and officials to hear it. But what has been exposed here is something else entirely; indeed it looks little short of collusion. Even worse, Mr Hunt was only given the responsibility after Vince Cable was caught out by a newspaper sting boasting that he had "declared war on Rupert Murdoch" and removed from the role because of his perceived bias.

The Culture Secretary must now show he was not biased the other way.

Mr Michel stated explicitly that the "JH" in the emails was shorthand for the cabinet minister's office, rather than the man himself. And Mr Hunt will be at pains to prove not only that he never had any dealings with Mr Michel, but that he took legal counsel throughout, and that either his political advisers went too far, or the lobbyist was wildly exaggerating to his bosses, or both. Indeed, Mr Hunt's statement last night claimed discrepancies in Mr Michel's evidence. The Culture Secretary also said he was confident the public would see he conducted the process with "scrupulous fairness".

In fact, the minutiae do not matter. Even if Mr Hunt was not in direct contact with News International himself, he must take responsibility for the wholly inappropriate activities of his staff. After all, this was no single incident, this was pages and pages of emails, an entire relationship of such staggering impropriety as to leave Mr Hunt yesterday charged with acting as a "cheerleader" for News Corp within the Government. Fair or not, the damage is done and he cannot credibly continue in the job.

The Prime Minister was last night sticking to the line that he has full confidence in his Culture Secretary. That this is the same David Cameron who, before the election, warned that corporate lobbying was "the next big scandal"only adds to the sense of – in Mr Cameron's own words – "a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest". And Mr Murdoch's admission yesterday that he did briefly mention the takeover to the Prime Minister, at a dinner held by Rebekah Brooks, hardly helps.

For all yesterday's dirt, there may yet be more to come. When Rupert Murdoch follows his son to the witness stand at Leveson this morning, he may take the opportunity to turn the tables on the political class that has tried so hard to hang him out to dry. Either way, if Mr Hunt will not resign, Mr Cameron has no option but to sack him.

Amnesty International condemns UK and other States for human rights abuses

Amnesty International condemns UK and other States for human rights abuses

Brighton declaration: States must be serious about European Court’s judgments instead of tampering with its independence

Press release

First inmates at Wolverhampton private jail HMP Oakwood

First inmates at Wolverhampton private jail HMP Oakwood

The first inmates will arrive later at a new privately-run prison in Wolverhampton.

HMP Oakwood will be run by G4S, who already run six prisons in England and Wales, including HMP Birmingham, HMP Altcourse in Liverpool and YOI & HMP Parc in Bridgend.

The prison will house 1,605 category C male prisoners. G4S said it expects the prison to be at "operational capacity" by the autumn.

The prison has been built next to the existing HMP Featherstone and HMP Brinsford.

HMP Oakwood is named after an oak tree, the so-called Royal Oak, thought to have been used by King Charles II to hide from Cromwell's troops, in nearby Boscobel Wood.

Taxpayers will pay for Straw's legal defence

Taxpayers will pay for Straw's legal defence

Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary, will have his legal bills paid by the taxpayer in any court case over the "rendition" of terror suspects.

 A Libyan military commander wants to sue Mr Straw over suspected British involvement in the chain of events that led to him being tortured by Muammar Gaddafi's regime. Abdelhakim Belhaj's lawyers claim Mr Straw signed papers that facilitated his rendition, at the same time that the government was officially denying it deported suspects to countries where they faced possible torture.

 The legal action is against Mr Straw personally, but senior civil servants have indicated privately that if he needs legal representation to answer the charge, the taxpayer will pay.

 A spokesman for the Cabinet Office said it did not comment on potential legal claims but added: "The Government provides appropriate representation to HM Government and ex-HM Government employees, ministers or officials, in relation to potential civil liability that arises in the performance of their official duties."

 Mr Belhaj and his wife allege that CIA agents took them from Thailand to Libya, via Diego Garcia, an Indian Ocean territory under British jurisdiction.

 Comment: It beggars belief that civil servants claim that sending somebody to be tortured was only Jack Straw performing his official duty as Foreign Secretary! In other words, the UK condones torture!

Abu Qatada could stay in UK for years after May presides over 'shambles'

Abu Qatada could stay in UK for years after May presides over 'shambles' Complicated judicial arguments set to delay the effort to deport radical cleric to Jordan for at least 18 months

Government attempts to deport the radical cleric Abu Qatada face becoming embroiled in possibly years of legal argument, threatening to further embarrass the home secretary, Theresa May.

 A panel of senior European judges will decide within the next three months if Qatada should be allowed to appeal to the grand chamber of the European court of human rights against his deportation.

 The Home Office argues that it can deport him to Jordan, where he is wanted on terrorist charges, as the time frame for him to be protected against deportation ran out on April 16. His lawyers lodged an appeal the next day which they say fell within the time frame.

 May says assurances from the Jordanian government that evidence obtained under torture will not be used against Qatada should allow his deportation to proceed. If the dispute is referred to the grand chamber, it would take 12-18 months before a decision on his status was reached, say legal experts.

 Qatada's lawyers are understood to be considering options that would block May's efforts to deport a man once described by a Spanish judge as the "spiritual head of the mujahideen in Britain". They are thought to favour a twin-track approach that would see them seek to revoke the deportation order while preparing an appeal through the immigration courts if they are turned down.

 If May were to then intervene in the process – by arguing that Qatada's case had no new merit – his lawyers would go on to seek a judicial review of her actions.

 The complex dispute means he is unlikely to leave Britain for months. His legal team is expected to appeal for his release from a high-security unit in Belmarsh prison while it is resolved. They will also contest four aspects of his deportation, further complicating proceedings.

 Qatada has spent the equivalent of a 20-year sentence behind bars without being charged. The team are expected to challenge this on the grounds of habeas corpus and say his treatment has been unreasonable.

 They will argue that evidence produced under torture, and with possible financial inducements, would be used in his trial in Jordan. They claim that the fact that the case will be heard in a quasi-military court should be grounds for his deportation to be refused and will also say the government has not won the argument under article 6 of the European convention on human rights: that he can be guaranteed a fair trial.

Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of the probation union Napo, said it was clear the protracted nature of the legal dispute meant Qatada would remain in the UK for some time.

"There are four major problems that need addressing by the Home Office before any deportation can be made," Fletcher said. "This will see the process take many months to resolve, if not longer."

Qatada's continued presence in Britain is an acute embarrassment for May, who has been accused of presiding over a shambles.

But the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, has dismissed the delay in deportation as "no big deal". Clarke said: "The key thing is when do we get the decision which we want, which is that he should be deported to Jordan to stand trial in a case where torture has not been used to get the evidence."

Comment: I think Abu Qatada will still be here long after the Tories lose the next general election.

Final Draft Brighton Declaration

Final Draft Brighton Declaration Final Draft Brighton Declaration

The UK and the European Court of Human Rights

The UK and the European Court of Human Rights The UK and the European Court of Human Rights

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights Draft speaking notes

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights Draft speaking notes

High level Conference Brighton 18-20 April 2012

Mr Chairman, Ministers, Secretary General, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,

May I begin by thanking the United Kingdom Government for organising this conference following on from those held in Interlaken and Izmir and for the efforts made to consult the Court throughout the process. We appreciate too the initiatives of different Governments to maintain the impetus of the reform process launched at Interlaken and to reinforce the effectiveness of the Convention system. I would also take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all those who have contributed to this process, including the Non-Governmental Organisations which have been tireless in their support for the Court.

Let me say immediately that I welcome the fact that, as at the Interlaken and Izmir conferences, the Declaration starts by a reaffirmation of the firm commitment of member States to the Convention and to the protection of fundamental rights. At a time when human rights and the Convention are increasingly held responsible in certain quarters for much that is wrong in society, it is worth recalling the collective resolve of member States of the Council of Europe to maintain and reinforce the system which they have set up. We should not lose sight of what that system is intended to do, that is to monitor compliance with the minimum standards necessary for a democratic society operating within the rule of law; nor should we forget the Convention’s special character as a treaty for the collective enforcement of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is no ordinary treaty. It is not an aspirational instrument. It sets out rights and freedoms that are binding on the Contracting Parties.

The Declaration also reaffirms the attachment of the States Parties to the right of individual petition and recognizes the Court’s extraordinary contribution to the protection of human rights in Europe for over 50 years. In setting up a Court to guarantee their compliance with the engagements enshrined in the Convention, the member States of the Council of Europe agreed to the operation of a fully judicial mechanism functioning within the rule of law. The principal characteristic of a court in a system governed by the rule of law is its independence. In order to fulfil its role the European Court must not only be independent; it must also be seen to be independent. That is why we are, I have to say, uncomfortable with the idea that Governments can in some way dictate to the Court how its case-law should evolve or how it should carry out the judicial functions conferred on it.

I would respectfully submit that these elements must be borne in mind in any discussion of proposals for reform. Convention amendment must be consistent with the object and purpose of the treaty and must satisfy rule of law principles, notably that of judicial independence. The true test of any proposed amendment is the extent to which it will actually help the Court cope more easily with the challenges facing it.

Having said that, there is much in this Declaration with which the Court is in complete agreement. I refer in particular to the emphasis placed on steps to be taken by the States themselves, the recognition of the shared responsibility for the system requiring national authorities to take effective measures to prevent violations and to provide remedies. The text outlines the different areas for action in a comprehensive manner. It also rightly underlines the important role of the Council of Europe in providing assistance.

Let us be clear: the main issue confronting the Court has been, and continues to be, the sheer quantity of cases. Failure to implement the Convention properly at national level is a primary source of the accumulation of meritorious cases which constitute the most serious problem that the Court has to cope with. It is also a regrettable fact that over 30,000 of the pending cases relate to repetitive violations of the Convention, in other words cases where Contracting Parties have failed to take effective steps to remedy the underlying systemic problem previously identified by the Court. It is to be hoped that the Declaration will provide a stronger basis for dealing with this unacceptable situation.

Yet we also know that while more effective action by States both generally and following a judgment finding a violation is indispensable for the long-term survival of the Convention system, it will not provide a solution in the short to medium term. That is why the Court has developed a clear strategy as to how to approach its case-load. We fully accept that we have a responsibility, particularly in the current difficult economic climate, to make the most efficient use of the resources made available to us. We are pleased that in a recent report, which has not yet been made public, the Council of Europe’s external auditors have expressed their clear approval of the policy and strategy choices that the Court has made in the organisation of its work. I should also say that the latest figures are likewise a source of encouragement, with a 98% increase in the number of decided applications and a significant decrease in the number of pending applications since last summer. Cases are also coming in at a lower rate than in previous years. The perspective of reducing or even eliminating backlog, and attaining the balance referred to at Interlaken, is now a real one but this will require additional resources and that is why I strongly welcome the Secretary General’s proposal to set up a fund.
These promising statistics should not, however, lull us into a false sense of security, into a feeling that no further action is needed to help the Court. In particular, as the Court points out in its preliminary opinion for this conference, efficient filtering and more effective prioritisation still leave a very large volume of cases not catered for. Moreover these are cases which are likely to be admissible and well-founded.

So what more needs to be done? In its preliminary opinion the Court set out its own view on future action. But in the process of the preparation for the conference there has been much discussion on whether it is right and necessary to reinforce the notion of subsidiarity and the doctrine of margin of appreciation; whether some new form of admissibility criterion should be added to the arsenal of admissibility conditions that are already available to the Court and which allow it every year to reject as inadmissible the vast majority of the applications lodged with it; or again whether dialogue with national courts should be institutionalised through advisory opinions?

As to subsidiarity, the Court has clearly recognised that the Convention system requires a shared responsibility which involves establishing a mutually respectful relationship between Strasbourg and national courts and paying due deference to democratic processes. However, the application of the principle is contingent on proper Convention implementation at domestic level and can never totally exclude review by the Court. It cannot in any circumstances confer what one might call blanket immunity.

The doctrine of margin of appreciation is a complex one about which there has been much debate. We do not dispute its importance as a valuable tool devised by the Court itself to assist it in defining the scope of its review. It is a variable notion which is not susceptible of precise definition. It is in part for this reason that we have difficulty in seeing the need for, or the wisdom of, attempting to legislate for it in the Convention, any more than for the many other tools of interpretation which have been developed by the Court in carrying out the judicial role entrusted to it.

We welcome the fact that no proposal for a new admissibility criterion is now made in the Declaration and we are grateful for the efforts to take on board the Court’s concerns in this respect. In this context may I repeat that it is indeed the Court’s practice to reject a case as inadmissible where it finds that the complaint has been fully and properly examined in Convention terms by the domestic courts.

The Court has discussed the idea that superior national courts should be enabled to seek an advisory opinion from Strasbourg and distributed a reflection paper on it; it is not opposed to such a procedure in principle, although there remain unanswered questions about how it would work in practice.

Mr Chairman, before concluding, I would wish to reiterate the Court’s unequivocal support for the rapid accession of the European Union to the Convention. We of course fully subscribe to the call in the declaration for a swift and successful conclusion of the work on the accession agreement.

Mr Chairman, the introduction by the Convention of the right of individual petition before an international body changed the face of international law in a way that most people would hope and believe was lasting. We do not have to look very far outside Europe today to understand the continuing relevance of the principle that States which breach the fundamental rights of those within their jurisdiction should not be able to do so with impunity.

It is nevertheless not surprising that Governments and indeed public opinion in the different countries find some of the Court’s judgments difficult to accept. It is in the nature of the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law that sometimes minority interests have to be secured against the view of the majority. I would plead that this should not lead governments to overlook the very real concrete benefits which the Court’s decisions have brought for their own countries on the internal plane. At the same time I am confident that they understand the value of the wider influence of the Convention system across the European continent and indeed further afield. It is surely not controversial to maintain that all European partners are best served by the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law throughout the continent. The political stability and good governance which are essential for economic growth are dependent on strong democratic institutions operating within an effective rule of law framework.

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, the Convention and its enforcement mechanism remain a unique and precious model of international justice, whose value in the Europe of the 21st century as a guarantee of democracy and the rule of law throughout the wider Europe is difficult to overstate. While much has changed in the past 50 years, the need for the Convention and for a strong and independent Court is as pressing now as at any time in its history.

Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Speech by Thorbjørn Jagland Secretary General of the Council of Europe

High-Level Conference On the future of the European Court of Human Rights
Brighton, United Kingdom, 19 April 2012

Ministers, Ladies and gentlemen,

Today we find ourselves together for the third time in as many years. During this period of reform, the Committee of Ministers, the Court, our expert committees and many others have been working hard. The process and the draft declaration that we have on the table today show the following:

- all member States recognise the Court’s extraordinary contribution to human rights protection in Europe;
- all accept the ultimate authority of the Court to interpret the Convention;
- all have unanimously reaffirmed their attachment to the right of individual petition;
- all accept that they must fully implement the Court’s judgments.

The draft declaration also underlines the principle of subsidiarity that has underpinned the work of the Court from the very beginning and the doctrine of the margin of appreciation set up and developed by the Court itself.

My conclusion is therefore that the process which started in Interlaken has underlined and strengthened the role and authority of the Court.

But we have two main challenges that still need to be met.

Firstly – to improve the national implementation of the Convention. So that fewer violations occur, structural and systemic problems are resolved, and the Court’s judgments are fully and rapidly executed. Effective remedies are readily available that can ensure that fewer applications are made to Strasbourg; or at least, fewer admissible applications.

Secondly, to improve the Court’s capacity to respond to applications that are made, whether admissible or not. The Court should be able to give the appropriate response to every application within reasonable time.

[National implementation]

When it comes to the first point, it is clear that effective human rights protection begins and ends at home. The meaning of the Court was never to take over responsibility of the national courts. Therefore I am pleased to see that the Declaration emphasises the shared responsibilities first and foremost of States, as well as the Court for the effective implementation of the Convention.

I understand that changes to national institutions, laws and administrative practices often need time and may sometimes need money. But where there are shortcomings, States parties’ obligations under the Convention require genuine efforts on implementation. These efforts must be seen as an investment, not a cost.

This is especially so where structural and systemic problems give rise to repetitive applications; and even more so, where those problems are well-known and long-standing. These cases, which are almost by definition well-founded, often affect the core institutions of democracy, and are of great importance to the respect for human rights and the rule of law.

It is very important to understand that there are strong institutional links between the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe’s different bodies and activities. The Court is not an isolated body and cannot operate in an institutional or political vacuum.

The Council of Europe has for many years been supporting member States to implement the European Convention on Human Rights at national level. Activities include legislative expertise, training and capacity development, as well as dissemination of training materials. The aim of the institutional reforms during my term of office has been to improve our delivery of these services.

A lot more can be done, even within current institutional constraints and limited resources. I am personally committed to ensuring better co-ordination of all co‑operation activities. Today, we need to target our activities more closely to those areas where the European Court of Human Rights, the execution process, the Human Rights Commissioner or monitoring mechanisms have identified shortcomings.

As in many areas, co-operation with the European Union will be crucial. Joint programmes represent already the largest source of funding for Council of Europe’s technical assistance and co-operation projects. Through our new Directorate General of Programmes and the strengthening of our field presence, we will ensure that joint programmes are reinforced, coordinated and better targeted. Our aim is to avoid any unnecessary duplication of activities, nor should important issues identified by the Strasbourg Court or human rights monitoring mechanisms be left overlooked or unattended.

[Execution of judgments]

Rapid and efficient implementation of the Court’s judgments is essential for the authority and credibility of the Convention system.

The annual report presenting the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the execution of judgments acknowledges that, despite positive indication in last year’s figures, there remain many important and complex structural problems in member states. I therefore support the idea to reflect on more effective measures that could be taken in respect of States that persistently fail to implement judgments of the Court, notably those relating to repetitive cases and serious human rights violations.

The second main challenge, which I mentioned, relates to the Court’s capacity to respond to applications made.

For the Convention system to remain effective, it is indispensable that the Court is playing its role fully, efficiently and independently.

Thanks to new working methods that give full effect to the Single Judge system introduced by Protocol No. 14, there have been very encouraging signs from the Court that the long-standing problem of the backlog of clearly inadmissible applications may finally be coming under control. I can only applaud President Bratza, the Registrar and the Court for their efforts, welcome their results and encourage further innovations within the current legal framework. I welcome the Court’s stated expectation to deal with new applications as they arrive and to progressively eliminate the backlog.

I also welcome the amendment of the existing admissibility criteria introduced by Protocol 14. It should make it easier for the Court to declare trivial cases inadmissible.

We must be honest and realistic about the possible budgetary aspects of certain proposals that have been discussed during the preparation of this very important conference. I am highly sensitive to the budgetary situations of our member States. But if our words are to be backed up by action, we must recognise that some small budgetary efforts may be unavoidable. Now time has come to set up a special fund, in particular for the backlog of the Court, to which member States could contribute on a voluntary basis.

The statute of the Council of Europe and the European Convention of Human Rights entrusts the Secretary General with tasks that relate both to the effective implementation of the Convention and to the efficient functioning of its institutions. I reiterate my absolute commitment to the fulfilment of these obligations. I will spare no effort to make sure that the Council of Europe is and remains the most relevant and efficient partner to our member States, in their efforts to fulfil their obligations under the Convention.

I will return to what I said from the outset: the process from Interlaken to Izmir and now Brighton has strengthened our common recognition of the importance of the Convention system and the Court.

I congratulate the UK Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers for their efforts to reform and strengthen the Court.

There is no other way to build peace and unity in Europe, than to ensure the full respect for human rights and the rule of law. The member states have themselves freely chosen to submit to an international judicial control mechanism, because they are deeply convinced that this is a vital safeguard for democracy, freedom and peace across our continent. They are, as a result, obliged to respect the standing, independence and authority of the Court, in the same way as they show respect for their own courts at home.

As political leaders we all have an obligation to convey to our citizens that an international convention system that gives the same rights to everybody, may lead to judgments from the Court with which not everyone will agree. From time to time even a majority in our societies may disagree.

But we have to keep in mind that human rights are very often about protecting the rights of minorities. It cannot be left to a majority within a society to protect such rights. These rights cannot be subject to shifting political winds.

As a consequence of the devastating nationalism and wars in the 20th century, the world moved from nationalism towards internationalism. The UN was established and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights was adopted. It was based on the belief that basic human rights do not come from any majority or any authority. They come from the fact that we are all human beings and that every nation has an obligation to uphold these rights by law.

The European Convention on Human Rights is the only real and concrete realisation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let us take new steps to strengthen this system further.

Thank you for your attention.

Human Rights in the World and the EU's Policy on the Matter

Human Rights in the World and the EU's Policy on the Matter

Human Rights in the World and the EU's Policy on the Matter

European Parliament paves way for EU human rights 'czar'

European Parliament paves way for EU human rights 'czar'

The European Parliament voted overwhelmingly yesterday (18 April) to change the future direction of the EU's human rights policy and pave the way for a new position of "human rights czar".

The report's author, British Labour MEP Richard Howitt (Socialists & Democrats), said the EU had finally "filled the gap" with the United States and would no longer lack the authority to make its case heard whenever human rights are violated across the globe – be it in Iraq, Syria or Burma.

"Europe was negotiating improved trade terms with Gaddafi just four weeks before we started dropping bombs on him, and it is time to show the mistakes of the past will not be repeated," Howitt said.

Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief, attended the plenary debate in Strasbourg and praised her fellow Labour colleague Howitt for achieving "a consensus across the political spectrum on his report".

"Work is in hand to pave the way for appointment of a special representative for human rights … It is important that this person be somebody with a strong track record and on in international human rights," Ashton said.

The 47-page Parliament report seeks export bans to be placed on technologies which restrict internet freedom and calls on governments to establish consultations on human rights at the same level as other foreign policy discussions. The report also calls for each of the 130 delegations of the EU across the world to appoint a contact person responsible for human rights issues.

The human rights resolution was adopted by a vote of 580-28.

Consensus?

Not all deputies appeared to share Howitt's views, however. The Labour MEP had initially insisted on adding a clause to the report condemning Britain for what he described as an "obstructionist attitude" in negotiations over the EU's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (see background).

British Prime Minister David Cameron has vetoed the EU's accession to the ECHR, saying it would unnecessarily interfere in cases already dealt with satisfactorily by national courts. Cameron also says some countries such as the UK observe the European Convention's rules much better than others and the ECHR should really focus its efforts on the worst violations of human rights.

According to the BBC, some high-profile cases have set Cameron's government at odds with the Strasbourg court.

The court threatened action against Britain for not complying with a 2005 ruling that said prisoners had a right to vote under the European Convention. The ruling regarded a convicted killer, John Hirst, and a majority of MPs at Westminster voted to defy the ECHR on this issue.

Then the case of Islamist cleric Abu Qatada made headlines when the ECHR blocked a UK move to deport him to Jordan to face trial. The judges feared that evidence obtained by torture would be used against him in Jordan.

Qatada, said to be linked to al-Qaeda, now faces deportation as the UK government says it has received new assurances from Jordan about his case.

Conservative MEP Charles Tannock, the Tory party's foreign affairs spokesman in the European Parliament, said: "Labour seems unable to tell the difference between a bad record on human rights and a good record on defending common sense, on upholding national sovereignty and on making sure the European convention, once it is implemented, works as it should."

"Prime Minister Cameron is absolutely right to block EU accession to the ECHR which would threaten much of the UK's hard won economic reforms and enormously expand the powers of the unelected Strasbourg judges."

Final text of the Howitt report.

EurActiv.com

Sir Nicolas Bratza warns on European Court of Human Rights reform

Sir Nicolas Bratza warns on European Court of Human Rights reform

Europe's human rights court is "uncomfortable" at the suggestion governments can dictate how it should carry out its work and there is no need for new admissibility criteria for cases, its president said today.

Sir Nicolas Bratza's comments risked embarrassing Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke as he tries to reach a deal on reform of the court in talks with the 47 member nations of the Council of Europe in Brighton.

The British judge told governments to leave the court to decide how it carries out its own work and said it did not matter if most people disagreed with its decisions.

Protecting human rights often meant standing up for the minority, he said.

It came as two leading members of the council also called for its members to pay more towards the court's work.

In January, Prime Minister David Cameron warned that the court risked undermining its own reputation by "going over national decisions where it does not need to".

And he insisted there was "credible democratic anxiety" that insufficient account was being taken of the decisions of national parliaments on issues such as prisoners' votes.

But addressing the council today, Sir Nicolas said: "In order to fulfil its role the European court must not only be independent, it must also be seen to be independent.

"That is why we are, I have to say, uncomfortable with the idea that governments can in some way dictate to the court how its case law should evolve or how it should carry out the judicial functions conferred on it."

He said there had been much discussion on "whether some new form of admissibility criterion should be added to the arsenal of admissibility conditions that are already available to the court".

"We welcome the fact that no proposal for a new admissibility criterion is now made in the declaration and we are grateful for the efforts to take on board the court's concerns in this respect," he said.

"In this context may I repeat that it is indeed the court's practice to reject a case as inadmissible where it finds that the complaint has been fully and properly examined in convention terms by the domestic courts."

On the court's unpopular decisions, Sir Nicolas went on: "At a time when human rights and the convention are increasingly held responsible in certain quarters for much that is wrong in society, it is worth recalling the collective resolve of member States of the Council of Europe to maintain and reinforce the system which they have set up.

"It is nevertheless not surprising that governments and indeed public opinion in the different countries find some of the court's judgments difficult to accept.

"It is in the nature of the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law that sometimes minority interests have to be secured against the view of the majority.

"I would plead that this should not lead governments to overlook the very real concrete benefits which the court's decisions have brought for their own countries on the internal plane."

The agreement, expected to be signed this afternoon, comes in the wake of the ongoing furore over Government attempts to deport terror suspect Abu Qatada and after European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) judges ruled that the UK must give some prisoners the right to vote.

Thorbjorn Jagland, the council's Secretary General, told its members the time had come for states to pay more for the court and set up a fund to help pay for its work.

"We must be honest and realistic about the possible budgetary aspects of certain proposals that have been discussed during the preparation of this very important conference," he said.

"I am highly sensitive to the budgetary situations of our member States.

"But if our words are to be backed up by action, we must recognise that some small budgetary efforts may be unavoidable.

"Now time has come to set up a special fund, in particular for the backlog of the court, to which member states could contribute on a voluntary basis."

His comments were backed by Jean-Claude Mignon, president of the council's Parliamentary Assembly, who also called for states to pay more to help fund the court's costs.

Earlier Mr Clarke told the council the declaration would "speed up the momentum of reform".

He wants to improve its efficiency, reduce the backlog of 150,000 cases and the number of cases it hears, and increase the role of nation states in protecting human rights.

"The ultimate goal is not for the court to process ever more cases and deliver even more judgments but for the rights embedded in the convention to be protected," he said.

Senior Government officials also insisted last night that what had been achieved was "very much" what the Prime Minister set out in January.

One official said they were "confident that the impact on the system itself is very much the impact we were seeking to have".

The reforms would lead to "many fewer cases", another said, but Europe's human rights judges would still consider key cases where they felt "there was a serious issue or a new issue for them to consider".

This would include issues like those raised previously over removing innocent people from the national DNA database, the officials said.

It could also include the controversial case of Jordanian terror suspect Abu Qatada, as the court's ruling in January was the first time the court found an expulsion would be in violation of the right to a fair trial. But the officials would not comment on Qatada's case.

A study by the Equality and Human Rights Commission showed more than half of the UK cases deemed admissible by the court between 1999 and 2010 led to the human rights judges finding a violation by the UK.

In all, nearly 12,000 applications were brought and the vast majority of these were declared inadmissible.

But 215 of the 390 UK cases deemed admissible resulted in a judgment finding a violation, the report showed.

John Wadham, the commission's general counsel, said: "This month's judgment on the Abu Hamza case highlights that, contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of rulings by European Court of Human Rights are in Britain's favour, rather than against it."

PA

'No crisis' about foreign judges

'No crisis' about foreign judges

There is no "great constitutional crisis about foreign judges trying to ride roughshod over British law", a justice minister involved in talks to reform Europe's human rights court said today.

Lord McNally's comments come ahead of a meeting of the 47 member nations of the Council of Europe in Brighton tomorrow at which the Government hopes to secure a deal on reforms that will see the Strasbourg-based court meddle less in British affairs.

It follows David Cameron's claim in January that the court's work defending human freedom and dignity was being put "under threat" due to public unease over some of its decisions.

The Prime Minister warned that the court risked undermining its own reputation by "going over national decisions where it does not need to".

And he insisted that there was "credible democratic anxiety" that insufficient account was being taken of the decisions of national parliaments on issues such as prisoners' votes.

But on the eve of the key conference where the Brighton declaration is expected to be signed, Lord McNally said: "I don't believe we've got some great constitutional crisis about foreign judges trying to ride roughshod over British law or British processes."

Speaking at the Arts and Humanities Research Council conference on human rights in central London, he said the court needs to change because there is a danger of it acting as a "convenient safety net" for under-performing states.

The Liberal Democrat peer said national responsibility for human rights runs through draft plans for reform "like the letters through a stick of Brighton rock".

The Brighton declaration would ensure there was "an onus at national level" for them to consider all human rights implications, he said.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) "cannot secure the rights and freedoms of 800 million people and, what is more, we should not even ask them to try", he said.

Instead, the council should ensure that human rights obligations "are properly addressed at a national level".

But he denied that foreign judges were simply trying to overrule British courts.

The draft declaration "leaves the important decisions for Strasbourg and gets the balance right", he said.

Lord McNally also said the European court was still receiving more applications than it could handle, with a backlog of more than 150,000 cases.

Just 45,000 cases were presented to the court in its first 40 years, but in 2010 alone it was asked to consider 61,300 applications.

In future it should "focus on cases which particularly require the attention of an international court", he said.

He added that the draft declaration was "pretty much there" and "starts with national implementation" of the European Convention on Human Rights and how it may be implemented more effectively by states.

PA

Abu Qatada appeal halts deportation

Abu Qatada appeal halts deportation

Radical cleric's lawyers thwart home secretary with 11th-hour appeal to European court of human rights

Abu Qatada's deportation has been put on hold, in an acutely embarrassing development for the home secretary. Photograph: Matt Dunham/AP

The European court of human rights has dramatically put the deportation of Abu Qatada on hold less than 24 hours after it was ordered by the home secretary, as it emerged that the cleric's lawyers had lodged an 11th-hour appeal.

Theresa May ordered the arrest and detention of the radical Islamist on Tuesday in the belief that the final deadline had passed for appeals to be lodged against the original Strasbourg ruling.

But a European human rights court spokesman has confirmed to the Guardian that they believe the deadline was actually Tuesday midnight and not Monday night as was assumed by the Home Office.

"We did receive a referral to the grand chamber from the applicant at 11pm and it will be decided by a panel of judges at a date to be fixed," said an ECHR spokeswoman. She confirmed that the effect was that a legal injunction against Qatada's deportation to Jordan remains in force until the outcome of the appeal.

Qatada's lawyers have appealed against the original Strasbourg ruling in January on the grounds that it was wrong to decide that he would not be at risk of torture if he was sent back to Jordan.

The decision is acutely embarrassing for the home secretary, who promised the Commons on Tuesday that the radical Islamic cleric would soon be on a plane out of the country.

European Court of Human Rights kicks Catwoman Theresa May in the cunt over Abu Qatada's deportation to Jordan!

European Court of Human Rights kicks Catwoman Theresa May in the cunt over Abu Qatada's deportation to Jordan!

Abu Qatada deportation appeal lodged with European court

Radical cleric Abu Qatada cannot be deported from Britain yet, the European Court of Human Rights has said, after an appeal was lodged.

The appeal was lodged just before the deadline last night.

This means the deportation process cannot begin until a panel of judges has decided whether the case should go to the Grand Chamber of the court.

Home Secretary Theresa May acknowledged on Tuesday that the process could take months if an appeal were started.

Abu Qatada, 51, who faces charges in Jordan of plotting bomb attacks, had been arrested on Tuesday and denied bail.

In a statement to the Commons later, Mrs May said he could be removed from the UK "in full compliance of law".

The last-minute lodging of the appeal by his lawyers was a huge embarrassment and blow to Mrs May, says BBC correspondent Danny Shaw.

The European Court of Human Rights had blocked Abu Qatada's deportation to Jordan in January, saying evidence obtained by torture might be used against him.

Mrs May travelled to Jordan in March for talks with the king and ministers on the case of the Palestinian-Jordanian, whom ministers have described as "extremely dangerous" and consider a threat to UK national security.

Before the appeal was lodged, lawyers for Mrs May had told a Special Immigration Appeals Commission hearing this week that she intended to deport the cleric on or around 30 April.

Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the democratic deficit

Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the democratic deficit

Parliaments and Human Rights: Redressing the democratic deficit

Revised Draft Brighton Declaration

Revised Draft Brighton Declaration

Revised Draft Brighton Declaration

Jack Straw sued over illegal rendition of Abdel Hakim Belhadj

Jack Straw sued over illegal rendition of Abdel Hakim Belhadj

A Libyan military commander is suing the former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw over his alleged complicity in illegal rendition and torture.

Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw (left) and Abdel Hakim Belhadj former leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Photo: Lewis Whyld/PA/Geoff Pugh

The civil action, believed to be the first of its kind against such a senior ex minister, could lead to Mr Straw facing a criminal prosecution.

Abdel Hakim Belhadj, 45, is seeking a response to allegations that papers approving his rendition were personally signed off by Mr Straw.

The amount of compensation being sought has not yet been disclosed although lawyers representing Mr Belhadj have said that they are “not ruling anything out”. They argue that "public acknowledgment" and an "admission" of his role by Mr Straw is their main priority.

Today, Sapna Malik, a partner at law firm Leigh Day & Co who is representing Mr Belhadj, said that it was only right "that liability must follow the chain of command".

She added: "The civil action is against Mr Straw personally and seeks his response to allegations that he was complicit in torture and misfeasance in public office.

“If the former Foreign Secretary does not now own up to his role in this extraordinary affair, he will need to face the prospect of trying to defend his position in court.”

Mr Belhadj claims that in 2004, CIA agents took him against his will from Thailand to Libya, via the UK-controlled island of Diego Garcia in the central Indian Ocean.

At that time Mr Belhadj was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) and had been living in exile in Beijing, China, after leading opposition to the Gaddafi regime.

MI5 had believed LIFG had close links to al-Qaeda and Mr Belhadj alleges he and his wife, Fatima Bouchar, were detained by American agents in Bangkok as they travelled to the UK to claim political asylum.

The former rebel, also known as Abu Abd Allah Sadiq, says he was tortured during the rendition process itself as well as following his arrival in Libya, where he was subsequently imprisoned.

Earlier this month, it was revealed that the British government had approved the rendition of Mr Belhadj, although it was unclear at exactly what level.

On 15 April, the Sunday Times published an article which quoted sources alleging Mr Straw had personally authorised the process.

Yesterday, Mr Belhadj’s lawyers served papers on Mr Straw, referencing the newspaper article. They claim their case is “further strengthened by a number of documents which came to light after the fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's regime.”

Mr Belhadj, now Tripoli's military council commander, is already suing the UK government, its security forces, and senior MI6 officer Sir Mark Allen, over the same allegations. His lawyers claim their new action against Mr Straw is owing to his position as foreign secretary with responsibility for MI6 at the time of the rendition.

A letter written by Sir Mark to Moussa Koussa, the head of the Libyan Secret Service under Gaddafi, appears to indicate British involvement in Mr Belhadj's rendition as it congratulates the Libyans on his safe arrival in the country.

The letter, dated March 18, 2004, states: “Most importantly, I congratulate you on the safe arrival of Abu Abd Allah Sadiq. This was the least we could do for you and for Libya to demonstrate the remarkable relationship we have built over the years. I am so glad. I was grateful to you for helping the officer we sent out last week.”

Yesterday, Mr Belhadj’s lawyers said they anticipated Mr Straw's response would mirror the Government solicitor's "neither confirm nor deny" reply to their previous letters of claim regarding Mr Belhadj.

They said they had sought a response from the MP for Blackburn by close of business on May 17 "following which proceedings may be issued against you without further notice". Mr Straw has not commented on the matter.

In an interview with BBC Radio 4 last year, he said the Labour government had been opposed to unlawful rendition.

"We were opposed to any use of torture or similar methods," he said. "Not only did we not agree with it, we were not complicit in it and nor did we turn a blind eye to it."

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he has no memory of Mr Belhadj’s case and has claimed he was not aware of any occasion when his government breached its opposition to rendition.

Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype panels, indicator set and evidence base

Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype panels, indicator set and evidence base

Human Rights Measurement Framework: Prototype panels, indicator set and evidence base

Civil society needs to say 'human rights abuse not in our name!'.

Civil society needs to say 'human rights abuse not in our name!'.

I've got an opinion, and this is my piece.

Prisoners are part of civil society. “According to Lord Wilberforce, a prisoner 'retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by implication' (Raymond v Honey (1982)). Shaw LJ, states similarly in St Germain (No.1)(1979); 'Now the rights of the citizen, however circumscribed by a penal sentence or otherwise, must always be the concern of the courts unless their jurisdiction is clearly excluded by some statutory provision'” (PRT, 1988). And in Alexander v Home Office it was held that prisoners are a section of the public. When I referred these cases to a prison Governor in 1990, he replied “What are these rights, and where are they set down?”. A good question. As I was studying law at the time I thought I would look into this.

Strangeways Prison riot erupted and lasted for 23 days. When the prison authorities regained control of the prison, TV News showed the prison Governor raising the Prison Service flag. He said that all of the prisoners had now been returned to legal custody. I shouted at the TV that as none of the rioters had escaped they had not left legal custody in the first place! The Government responded by announcing an inquiry into the events and causes of the disturbances in various prisons. The Woolf Report concluded that there was a lack of justice in prisons. One of the factors being the absence of a grievance procedure.

A solicitor from the Humberside Law Centre gave me a copy of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). When I quoted it to lawyers I got frustrated when they said it was not binding in English law, and the courts only had to take it and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions into account. Then Labour came into power and the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated most of the ECHR into domestic law. Alex Bailin QC, (Matrix Chambers) has said, if Hirst v UK (No2) is the yardstick then the HRA is toothless. The ECtHR has no enforcement powers and simply passes judgments to the Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the judgments. There are 5 cases against the UK which the UK has not complied with in over 5 years! Today the Independent reports that the UK:

“is being urged to confront Russia over its human rights record today when it chairs a high-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Campaigners want the Government to persuade Europe’s leaders to invoke new “exceptional” measures against Russia for failing to comply with almost 200 critical rulings from the ECtHR”.

It has been claimed that there are 8,000 cases before the Committee of Ministers awaiting to be implemented by Member States of the Council of Europe. And that's the problem, 47 representatives of Member States, many of them are human rights violators, the guilty not wanting to point the finger at others in case it gets pointed back at them. This is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs. So is the fact that there is no grievance procedure within the Council of Europe for any of the 800,000,000 citizens of Europe to air any grievance. There is a lack of justice in the system. The UK states that the remedy lies in Strasbourg, and the latter states that it is the Member States responsibility to abide by the ECHR and abide by the ECtHR decisions. This is political ping-pong! Human rights are too valuable to be entrusted to those too powerless to act, and those who fail to act such as the Committee of Ministers and failing States like the UK where the responsible Ministers act irresponsibly. The power vacuum should be filled by civil society. They are our human rights and we have a duty to protect them.

The Interlaken process was designed to sanction rogue or pariah States to get them to toe the line. It was adopted by the Council of Europe. The focus has been upon reform of the ECtHR and reforms needed in some Member States. The UK is focusing upon the former and largely ignoring the need to reform a failing State with structural problems and systemic failures. There is a need for reform starting with amendments to the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe), within the Council of Europe itself including the Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the ECHR and ECtHR.

The HRA is not ECHR compliant. By not bringing the rights home in Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR, we have the situation whereby Parliament has the discretion to treat some people as subhuman and therefore not entitled to the minimum human rights listed in the ECHR, and they have no remedy before a national authority for their breach. The Act needs to be amended (alternatively a written constitution enacted) to state expressly that human rights are higher law. Obviously this lays to rest the doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament. When there is a lack of parliamentary will for penal reforms, for example, sovereignty of the people should ensure that they do work for us rather than fill their own pockets and serve self interests. Giving prisoners the vote would provide an effective oversight of MPs and provide a check upon the criminal justice system. A reading of Hirst v UK (No2) shows that not only did Parliament abdicate responsibility but also the judges in the courts on the issue of prisoners votes. What example does this hypocrisy show to prisoners who are expected to take responsibility for their actions? What right does Parliament have to assume that prisoners are less eligible for human rights than other human beings? The ECtHR rejected the UK argument that prisoners had lost the moral authority to vote. Moral authority has never been a criterion for the franchise in this country. Upon what moral authority did MPs and Lords fiddle their expenses? In the Prisoners Votes Case the prisoners have the moral high ground, and the attacks upon the judgment come from the low moral ground. On this issue the prisoners are the law abiding and the public authorities are the law breakers.

Given that the Council of Europe does not have a monopoly upon wisdom, what about the inclusion of those wise men and women in civil society?

Who’s Afraid of Europe’s Human Rights Court?

Who’s Afraid of Europe’s Human Rights Court?

By James A. Goldston and Yonko Grozev

SOFIA – At a time when the ongoing European debt crisis is fracturing public faith in the continent’s political and economic institutions, one would expect Europe’s leaders to strengthen as many unifying symbols as they can. Instead, they have allowed one of the jewels of post-World War II European integration – the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – to come under threat as well.

Unlike the Brussels-based European Union, long beleaguered by its democratic deficit, the Strasbourg-based ECHR is, if anything, too well loved. In 2011, more than 60,000 people sought its help – far more than can expect a reasoned decision. (By contrast, the United States Supreme Court receives roughly 10,000 petitions a year.)

To save the ECHR from this crushing burden, some member states have proposed changes that could weaken it, even if unintentionally. Those of us who passionately believe in the Court and its achievements must speak out now to persuade the protagonists of misguided reforms to reverse course. Instead, the ECHR’s 47 member states – with 800 million people – need to shoulder more responsibility to make the existing system work.

Launched in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the ECHR has become a potent symbol of Europe’s commitment to government by law, not force, by vindicating the rights to life, humane treatment, free expression, and access to a lawyer. For example, the Court ruled that the infamous “five techniques” – an early form of “enhanced interrogation” employed by the British in Northern Ireland in the 1970’s – constituted inhuman treatment, and condemned racial segregation of Roma children in Czech schools.

Because of their quality, the ECHR’s opinions have a profound impact beyond Europe. When Strasbourg speaks, the world’s judges and lawyers listen. Even the US Supreme Court cited its reasoning when striking down anti-homosexuality laws in Texas in 2003.

Nonetheless, the ECHR’s future is in serious jeopardy. As the only impartial check on abuse of power in some countries, the Court is swamped with complaints – more than 60% come from Russia, Turkey, Italy, Romania, and Ukraine.

Some argue that the answer to the flood of cases is to limit the Court’s powers. But that approach seems unwise.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, has told the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that national decisions “should be treated with respect” – code for less judicial oversight. Similarly, other senior officials have called for new restrictions on cases that the ECHR may hear, including deferral to those national courts which have supposedly taken full account of European human-rights law.

In the United Kingdom, the Court’s 2005 ruling against a blanket withdrawal of voting rights for prisoners, on the grounds that disenfranchisement can be disproportionate to the offense, provoked official wrath. And, earlier this year, the Cameron government was incensed by a decision that barred the deportation of an Islamic preacher to Jordan on terrorism charges, because his trial there might be tainted by evidence obtained under torture.

Even under new rules, such cases might still come before the Court, because they raise fundamental questions that require interpretation of the European Convention. Indeed, there is no evidence that proposed Convention amendments aimed at limiting the court’s authority would reduce its caseload. But they send a dangerous message that some governments should be exempt from standards that apply to everyone else.

Reducing the flow of complaints depends, above all, on governments doing more to entrench the rule of law at home – even if they must be pushed and shamed into it. Authoritative and binding Court judgments, many of which require governments to compensate victims, are among the most effective tools for constructive pressure – and may well provide better value in promoting the rule of law than the millions of euros invested annually in technical assistance and training in the erring states.

In addition, legislative reforms enacted in 2010 must be given time and resources to work. All agree that the ECHR is making progress in reducing the backlog of pending applications.

More can be done. The Court can increase the number of “pilot judgments” concerning systemic harm, prescribe more specific measures of redress, and stiffen monetary awards where repeated violations reflect persistent failure to heed prior judgments. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees implementation, should issue public sanctions where appropriate. And states must take more seriously their obligations to remedy violations before cases reach Strasbourg.

To be sure, no court gets every decision right, or pleases all parties. But even democratic governments sometimes make big mistakes. Some political leaders seem too preoccupied with their own disagreements with individual decisions to see the larger interest in preserving a European institution that commands widespread admiration.

The next two months will be telling. The UK, which currently holds the rotating Council of Europe Chair, has announced that it will seek adoption by April of a ministerial declaration on Court reform. Though a draft is now circulating in national capitals, the role of civil-society groups remains unclear. It is crucial that those who have the greatest stake in the ECHR – Europe’s people – participate meaningfully in these discussions.

In a time of financial constraint, the Court’s judges issue more than 1,000 rulings annually, many of great importance, for less than the cost of the EU’s publications budget. A half-century after its birth, the ECHR provides an invaluable public good, not just for Europeans, but for all people concerned with human rights anywhere. In the coming weeks, Europe’s governments will be measured by their commitment to the preservation of this vital global resource.

Exchange of views of National Implementation

Exchange of views of National Implementation

Implementation of the Convention at the national level has been a key theme of the reform process, being reflected in the declarations adopted at Interlaken and Izmir. The draft Brighton Declaration also reiterates States Parties’ collective commitment to fully implement the Convention.

As a further demonstration of this commitment, it is proposed to hold an exchange of views during the Brighton Conference on practical measures to promote better implementation of the Convention. This exchange of views is scheduled to take place on the afternoon of Thursday 19 April.

Participants are encouraged to draw upon their national experience to identify measures that have proved useful in promoting better implementation of the Convention; to identify further steps that might usefully be taken in this regard; and to indicate the considerations that they regard as of particular importance in ensuring the fullest possible implementation of the Convention.

In doing so, participants may wish to consider how the Convention can be implemented more effectively by the different aspects of the State, and in particular the executive, legislature and judiciary. Questions that participants may wish to address include:

What practical steps can national executives take to ensure that officials working for the State are aware of, and act upon, the State’s obligations under the Convention; and how can they ensure that policies and administrative practices reflect those obligations fully?

What role do national parliaments have to play in implementing the Convention at a national level; in particular how can they best ensure that the Convention is fully taken into account in the legislative process; and what role should national parliaments have in overseeing implementation of the Convention by the executive?

How should national courts give effect to the Convention when adjudicating cases before them; what procedures are desirable to enable courts to do this?

Britain urged to confront Russia over human rights

Britain urged to confront Russia over human rights

Britain is being urged to confront Russia over its human rights record today when it chairs a high-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Campaigners want the Government to persuade Europe’s leaders to invoke new “exceptional” measures against Russia for failing to comply with almost 200 critical rulings from the ECHR.

However, Britain risks igniting a diplomatic storm if it adopts an aggressive stance while international efforts to garner Moscow’s support for a Syrian peace plan hang in the balance.

David Cameron and other senior Tory ministers have criticised the ECHR for meddling in Britain’s domestic affairs, suggesting that the court should concentrate on serious human rights abuses in countries like Russia.

But the ECHR has found Russian security forces culpable of multiple abuses in at least 180 separate cases arising from unlawful killings, abductions, secret detention, torture, ill-treatment and destruction of property perpetrated in Chechnya and other republics in the North Caucasus region.

A systematic failure by Russian authorities to adequately investigate the crimes has been a feature of almost all the cases ruled on by the ECHR since 2005. The Russian authorities have failed to hold anyone to account for the crimes leading to allegations by the United Nations of “widespread impunity” for perpetrators of human rights violations in the region.

The Committee of Ministers - the 27 EU foreign ministers responsible for monitoring compliance with ECHR judgements – could use new “infringement proceedings” for the first time which has the potential to embarrass the Russians by refocusing international attention on its ‘dirty’ internal conflict.

On Monday Britain has a unique opportunity to push for this as it chairs the conference in Brighton as part of its six month stint as head of the Committee of Foreign Ministers. The ECHR has made it clear that it has done as much as it can and that it is now down to political leaders to confront over its disregard of the court.

Lord Frank Judd, the Labour peer and former rapporteur on Chechnya, last night said Europe's feeble response to Russia's human rights record mounted to “wanton irresponsibility as its actions continued to incite terrorism and extremism in the region”. This comes amid warnings by MI5 that Moscow controlled assassins are operating in the UK.

Professor Philip Leach from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre at London Metropolitan University said: “The ECHR has played an absolutely vital role in holding Russia to account, which no other international body has been able to do… Taking up infringement proceedings against Russia would signal that governments are serious about tackling grave human rights abuses on the European continent. Not to do so would call into question the effectiveness of the human rights machinery in Europe.”

Human rights experts want the Committee of Ministers to specifically refer the Russian military’s “indiscriminate” aerial and arterial bombardment of the village of Katyr-Yurt in February 2000 back to the ECHR. The bombings that led to dozens of unarmed, civilian men, women and children being killed during the three-day “disproportionate” military attack, have been ruled on twice by the ECHR, yet still the Russian authorities refuse to properly investigate.

In 2005, in the case of Isayeva, the court ruled that the Russian armed forces planned the attack by enticing the rebel fighters from Grozny into Katyr-Yurt, but failed to warn the villagers. The Isayeva family were attacked by aerial bomb while trying to escape through an apparent “humanitarian corridor”. The court found that the death of Isayeva’s son and three nieces as a result of FAB-250 bombs fired by two SU-25 military planes, violated Article 2, the right to life, including the right to a subsequent adequate investigation, and Article 13, the right to effective remedy.

Five years later, in a case brought by 29 of the villagers, including Marusya Abuyeva (pictured), involving 24 deaths during the same attack, the court said that Russia had “manifestly disregarded the specific findings of a binding judgment” in failing to carry out an effective investigation in response to the Isayeva judgment.

In an unprecedented move, the judges ruled that it was now up to the Council of Ministers, rather than Russia, to address what authorities should do in practical terms to comply with the judgment, which must include a “new, independent investigation”.

Tanya Lokshina from Human Rights Watch in Moscow said: “Russia submits regular reports to the Committee of Ministers on the alleged progress with implementation of ECHR judgement, however, this cooperation appears to be largely perfunctory.

“The Committee is possibly reluctant to invoke infringement proceeding because making Russia a test case is quite a challenge. There may fear that the invocation of infringement proceedings may result in Russia becoming even less cooperation on implementation issues.”

An FCO spokeswoman said: “Russia’s continued non-implementation of ECHR judgements relating to violations in the North Caucasus remains of concern. We have called and will continue to call for Russia to fully implement vital judgements, including pressing on individual cases through the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.”

Comment: It would be hypocritical of the UK to confront Russia over non compliance of ECtHR judgments when the UK has failed to comply with 5 ECtHR judgments (including the Prisoners Votes Case) for over 5 years.

The journalist has erred with "The Committee of Ministers - the 27 EU foreign ministers responsible for monitoring compliance with ECHR judgements". Of course it has nothing to do with the EU, the 47 Foreign Ministers being part of the Council of Europe!

Muslim terrorist Lord Ahmed puts £10M bounty on the heads of Presidents Bush and Obama

Muslim terrorist Lord Ahmed puts £10M bounty on the heads of Presidents Bush and Obama

Lord Ahmed has repaid the Establishment for not charging him with causing a death by dangerous driving and giving him a lenient prison sentence (which was cut even further upon appeal), by announcing that he will pay £10M for the heads of ex-President George W Bush and President Obama.

“If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush,” Lord Nazir said.

The Labour party has responded by suspending Lord Ahmed from the Labour party. So far there have been no calls for Lord Ahmed to be extradited to the US to face charges for terrorist related offences.

Prison break Taliban-style: hundreds escape jail in Pakistan

Prison break Taliban-style: hundreds escape jail in Pakistan

Death row prisoners escape after brazen, two-hour raid by heavily-armed militants

Militants in Pakistan carried out a brazen strike against the security forces in the early hours of yesterday morning – launching a two-hour long attack on a jail and releasing almost 400 inmates.

The authorities were last night trying to trace at least 380 prisoners, among them many militants, who fled after dozens of Taliban fighters carried out a sustained attack on the jail in the town on Bannu, close to Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area.

Despite the duration of the attack, the prison guards apparently received no back-up from the military.

"We have freed hundreds of our comrades in Bannu in this attack. Several of our people have reached their destinations, others are on their way," a Taliban spokesman told Reuters.

Reports said that anywhere up to 100 fighters were involved in the attack that began sometime before dawn, and were equipped with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.

Having breached the walls of the jail, the militants apparently made their way to the section where prisoners who are on death row were held.

Their priority appears to have been securing the release of Adnan Rashid, who was in jail for his role in a failed assassination against former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

For up to two hours the militants fought with the jail's guards before setting part of the jail on fire and releasing the inmates. Officials said 20 of those who escaped were considered particularly dangerous.

The incident will be a painful reminder of the enduring power and threat of the militants after a number of operations against them by the Pakistani military since 2007. The country's authorities have been repeatedly pressured by the US to do more to take on the Taliban and its al-Qa'ida allies, especially those involved in cross-border attacks inside Afghanistan.

The results have been mixed and the Pakistani military has shown little appetite to confront militants who are not a threat to the state.

Imtiaz Gul, an author and head of the Centre for Research and Security Studies, an Islamabad-based think-tank, said the incident was a huge embarrassment that demanded a full investigation. He said it appeared that the militants had received inside information about the location of their jailed colleagues.

"This is unprecedented in the history of Pakistan. It's a huge embarrassment for the entire security apparatus," he said. "Militants always have the element of surprise on their side. But this also shows the lack of communication between the civilian and military bodies. This went on for two hours and the army or paramilitaries should have had time to get there."

Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails to go on hunger strike

Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails to go on hunger strike

Around 1,600 prisoners expected to take part in protest against imprisonment without charge and solitary confinement

Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are expected to embark on hunger strikes this week to draw attention to imprisonment without charge and solitary confinement. They will build on a protest that has resulted in deals to release two inmates who refused food for prolonged periods.

At least 11 prisoners are already on hunger strike, three of whom have been transferred to hospital. One began refusing fluids last week, increasing concern about the rate of deterioration of his health.

A wave of hunger strikes is planned to begin on or around Prisoners' Day on Tuesday, held under the slogan: "We will live in dignity." About 1,600 prisoners have agreed to take part in the protest, according to Palestinian prisons minister Issa Qaraqi. "The situation inside Israeli prisons has become very dangerous and serious," he was quoted as saying.

There are around 4,600 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, according to the prisoners' rights group Addameer. More than 300 are held under "administrative detention", meaning they and their lawyers are not informed of accusations or evidence against them, no trial is held, and their term of imprisonment is determined by an Israeli military judge.

Of the 11 prisoners currently on hunger strike, two have refused food for 46 days. Bilal Diab, 27, who has been held under administrative detention since last August, has also refused fluids either orally or intravenously since 8 April, and has lost consciousness a number of times, according to Physicians for Human Rights.

PHR has urged the Israeli authorities to grant Diab's request to be transferred to a civilian hospital and has cited World Medical Association advice that "the body is unable to survive without liquids for more than a few days, and in most cases a hunger striker will die during the first week".

Thae'r Halahi, 34, has been held in administrative detention for 22 months, plus for five separate previous periods of between three months and one year. His condition was described as stable but commensurate with a prolonged period without food.

Khadar Adnan, the first prisoner to begin a hunger strike in the current wave, refused food for 66 days before agreeing to a deal that should see him released this week after four months in administrative detention.

Adnan, 33, was followed by a woman prisoner, Hana Shalabi, who was released and deported to Gaza after 43 days on hunger strike. Her family home is in the village of Burqin, near Jenin, in the north West Bank.

She considered herself "not deported but freed to Gaza", where she had never been before, she told the Guardian. "It's a victory for me." But she acknowledged that she had come under pressure from the Israeli authorities to accept the deal and end her protest, amid fears that her life was in danger.

Hunger strikes were, she said, "a good and effective tool, and the only way prisoners can achieve something". She is still suffering from weakness and swollen legs since ending her protest, and is under medical supervision. "Physically it was hard, but morally I was high," she said.

Shalabi, 30, had previously been held for 25 months under administrative detention, but was freed in October under the prisoner exchange deal struck by Israel to secure the release of the captured soldier Gilad Shalit. She was re-arrested on 16 February.

She denied being an activist with Islamic Jihad. However, the faction had rented an apartment in Gaza City for her, in which a large Islamic Jihad poster was displayed on the wall. Her brother, Samir, who was killed in an exchange of fire with Israeli soldiers in 2005, had been convicted of Islamic Jihad activities.

Under the terms of the deal that ended her hunger strike, she must stay in Gaza for three years, after which she will be allowed to return to the West Bank unless she is found to have been involved with a banned organisation. "The Israelis also threatened me that if I took part in any political or military activity, then I could be targeted [for assassination]," she said.

Addameer described Shalabi's deportation as a "forced displacement". "We consider this a violation of the fourth Geneva convention," said Sahar Francis, director of Addameer. "We're happy she was released but not to be forced to live in Gaza. They have sent her from one prison to another big prison."

Shalabi agreed to the deal when physically and mentally weak and without access to independent lawyers, said both Addameer and Amnesty International. "The deal may amount to a forcible deportation given her medical condition and the denial of access to independent doctors and lawyers," said Ann Harrison of Amnesty.

Israeli government spokesman Ofir Gendelman said Shalabi was deported to Gaza "because she cannot pose from there a clear and present danger to the safety of the Israeli public … If Shalabi was to return to the West Bank, there is no doubt that she would return to her terrorist activities with the Islamic Jihad."

Since being released in October, she had planned attacks against Israeli citizens, he added.

Around one third of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released last October in the first stage of the Gilad Shalit deal were deported to Gaza, 17 for three years and 144 permanently. The Hamas government is now building a new neighbourhood south of Gaza City for them, and is also paying salaries to those not provided for by other factions.

Hamas has said that the only way to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners is by abducting Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips. "If the enemy has not learned, we are prepared to give them practical lessons," Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader in exile, told a conference in Qatar this month. "The only way to free prisoners is by exchanging them for [Israeli] prisoners and leaders."

Hamas leaders inside Gaza echoed the call for militants to step up efforts to seize Israeli soldiers.