Article 6 of the European Courts of Human Rights
“The common law always contained due process principles. Article 6 of ECHR merely provides a new way of thinking about them as human rights.” Discuss.. Article 6 of the ECHR builds up a body of principles that relate to fair trial rights in regular courts. Nevertheless, an essential question which applies to both special tribunals and courts still remains whether they operate with sufficient fair trial guarantees. The term ‘due process’ refers to the legal obligation that a state must respect and provide all of the legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individuals from it. For example, when a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation. The common law is a law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process issued by the executive bench. It does contain due process principles as well as other basic human rights but it is to a certain degree. The European Court of Human Right which is located in Strasburg was established by the European Conventions on Human rights. It hears complaints that one of the 47 member state has violated the human rights written in the convention and its rules. Complaints can be brought by an individual or other contracting state and the court can also issue advisory opinion. Article 6 of the European Courts of Human Rights focuses basically on the right to a fair trial. Section 1 of the Article states that “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of...
...HumanRights Law Essay
The European Convention for the Protection of HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereafter referred to as “ECHR”) sets out rights and freedoms for the members of Council of Europe and consists of 59 articles. Article 2 -The Right to Life is considered as a very important right out of all the rights. For example, in the case, Pretty v. the United Kingdom, the court stated that without life, one cannot enjoy any other rights or freedoms set out in the ECHR. The Right invokes both positive and negative obligations on the part of a member state. This essay would discuss such obligations and it’s limitations with reference to case law from the EuropeanCourt of HumanRights( hereafter referred to as ECtHR).
The member states are under a duty to protect the right of life by enforcement of law but how they full fill and to what extend it is covered, is up to the member state. It is at least required to make killing illegal and abolish death penalty in accordance with protocol no. 13, which abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances. The state have the obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent over exertion of power by police and other security forces, with...
...Should evidence that was obtained illegally or in violation of human privacy be admissible in court? The Exclusionary Rule in the United States protects the privacy of citizens, and evidence proved to be obtained in such a manner is not admissible. However, this rule has stirred up a lot of controversy in the United States and not all countries have the same perspective on this issue. In Europe, The EuropeanCourt ofHumanRights holds a slightly different position on the rights people have and the way evidence is obtained.
The exclusionary rule is defined as “The principle based on federal Constitutional Law that evidence illegally seized by law enforcement officers in violation of a suspect's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used against the suspect in a criminal prosecution.” (Farlex, 2011) The rule was fashioned in the early 1900s, before then any relevant evidence was admissible in a criminal trial, no matter what manner it was obtained. In 1914, the case of Weeks v. United States, a federal agent entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery ticking through the mail. The search was conducted without a warrant, and on appeal the court held the way the papers were seized from Weeks’ residence directly violated his Fourth Amendment...
...Humanrights refer to the natural or basic rights and freedoms to which all people are entitled to. Traditionally, the rights and freedoms of citizens were protected by an Act of Parliament or by the judges in developing the common law. Prior to World War II, the convention for the protection of humanright and freedom was drafted in 1950s by the Council of Europe. It was drafted because of disgust with fascism and an anxiety to protect basic freedom. On 1953, it has developed to become an international treaty, which all 47 countries of the continent of Europe are bound by the European Convention of HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950, also known as ECHR. United Kingdom (UK) was one of the first countries to sign the Convention in November 1950. Although it entered into force in the UK on 3rd Sept 1953, UK chose not to incorporate its terms into domestic law. Therefore UK was only bound to ECHR on the matter of international law and not within the domestic legal system. During 1960s, there are few parties concerned had campaigned for the enactment for HumanRights Act in UK. These parties are the commentators and public interest groups. However, due to several criticisms and the reluctant of UK government to pass such legislation, the HRA did not enact until 1998. Though the convention did not incorporate into...
...1. “The HumanRights Act has revolutionised the way in which judges interpret statutes.”
1. From the statement, what do you understand? Critically give your own definition/ view on the statement
2. Briefly explain history of HRA and SI.
3. In your own view, what are the connections between HRA and SI
1. How HRA influence Judge interpret statutes
a. tools- SI
b. Consequences - Judges make law
2. The effect of SI
a. s3 HRA
i. How it influence parliamentary supremacy
ii. How SI violated SOP.
3. Where is the validity of HRA
a. s4 (declaration of incompability)
b. Parliamentary supremacy
4. According to validity of HRA, where is humanrights, why citizen will seek ECtHR help instead of UK Court(HRA 1998).
5. Current policy (Updates)
a. Current rights( How expandable of rights given by HRA 1998)
2. own view
The question statement suggests that the HumanRights has fundamentally changed the way judges interpret statutes. Though it admittedly has...
...Are humanrights innate and universal?
Post WWII on the 10 December 1948, the Universal Declaration of HumanRights (UDHR) was espoused by the General Assembly of the United Nations in order to agree on the notion that such atrocities that occurred throughout the Great War and the Second World War would not ever be reciprocated. The document that was drawn up in less than two years by the UN and Western states, and although ambitious it would guarantee a premise for life and living for every individual all over the world. The UDHR are founded on nobility, equality and reverence, and are said to be aimed at all cultures and religions within the West and East of the globe. However there is great discrepancy regarding the justification and practicality of humanrights all over the world due to political, economic and cultural differences and limitations. Universal means that ‘something’ affects, applies or is completed by everyone all over the world – there is no distinctive bias shown and equal policies are applied. Innate, in relation to humanrights, means that people are given natural rights purely based on the fact that he/she is human and alive. Therefore, are humanrights universal and innate or is the Universal Declaration of Human...
What are HumanRights
What are humanrights?
Humanrights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our humanrights without discrimination. T hese rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible. Universal humanrights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of treaties, customary international law, general principles and other sources of international law. International humanrights law lays down obligations of Governments to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect humanrights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.
Universal and inalienable
T he principle of universality of humanrights is the cornerstone of international humanrights law. T his principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on HumanRights in 1948, has been reiterated in numerous international humanrights conventions, declarations, and resolutions. T he 1993 Vienna World...
We will deal with each of these in turn, with reference to international legal instruments and bodies. We will observe first of all how the rights of individuals, although falling outside the province of international law as it was conceived in the1600s, began to seep into the framework of international legal rules over the centuries, eventually coming to prominence during the 'humanrights era' that followed the end of the Second World War. We will consider secondly the various mechanisms that have been put in place by the international community in order to deal with the enforcement and observance of individual rights enshrined in international legal instruments. Lastly, we will critically assess the claim that questions about individual rights should be the sole concern of domestic legal systems.
The scholars who laid the intellectual foundations of international law in the Western world, like Hugo Grotius (1625) and John Locke (1690), all stressed in their writings that legal systems, be they domestic or international, were founded in natural law and commonly accepted standards of (Christian) morality. It may seem surprising, therefore, that for centuries the rights of individuals played no significant role in the framework of international law. International law, as the name suggests, was the body of legal rules governing the relations...
...The incorporation of The European Convention of HumanRights (ECHR) into the domestic law under The HumanRights Act 1998 (HRA) as a first step towards a better protection of rights, Finally, the ultimate question, whether to incorporate or not? The judiciary was ill equipped to assume the mantle of guardian of individual rights in the face of executive power and the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. It concerns over the matter in which ‘incorporation’ will affect the conventional balance power between the judges and the Parliament.
Professor Dicey stated that the Rule of Law(1) required judicial protection of Humanrights and he placed a responsibility on the administration of the country to ensure arbitrariness and inequality was not procured during the governing process. Whether or not UK could submit to this Rule of Law depends on whether judges have been able to protect rights when they faced government’s arbitrariness.
In the absence of a written constitution, the protection of HumanRights had been given little emphasis. The doctrine of Parliamentary Supremacy compels judges to construe and comply with Acts of Parliament when interpreting statutes and there is no rule of construction that requires judges to imply the sanctity of HumanRights into the ambiguously...