Human rights: ECtHR's integrity questioned and Draft Brighton Declaration amended

Human rights: ECtHR's integrity questioned and Draft Brighton Declaration amended

An appeasement approach in the European Court of Human Rights? By Helen Fenwick at the UK Constitutional Law Group blog questions the integrity of the ECtHR following the UK's corrupting influence.

Unfortunately is on Easter holiday until May therefore there is no way of knowing whether this latest development changes Helen Fenwick's conclusion.

Comment: I am still waiting for an explanation why the UK published its Draft Brighton Declaration to the other 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, and we in the UK had to rely upon a leaked report via a French newspaper?

Similarly, why do I have to rely upon a blog in the Netherlands to discover that there is a new version of the Draft Declaration? Unfortunately, Antoine Buyse fails to state where it was “discussed yesterday in Strasbourg” and to provide a link. http://echrblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/brighton-update-new-version-of-draft.html

The CoE UK Chairmanship website http://www.coe.int/web/coe-portal/event-files/chairmanship-committee-of-ministers/uk-november-2011-may-2012 constantly promises updates for information but then fails to deliver the goods “Preparations are underway and more information will be published here shortly”. http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/brighton-conference/default_en.asp

There is something absurd about a human rights violating nation holding the High-Level Conference, and seeking to restrict individual applications to the ECtHR and decide itself whether it has abused human rights. Member States are required to abide by ECtHR decisions which go against the Member State. For example. Hirst v UK (No2). As it stands at present, Member States are not bound by decisions against other Member States. For example, Scoppola v Italy. Why is the UK awaiting a decision against Italy to comply with a decision against the UK? It does not make sense. Therefore, why do we tolerate it?