State Responsibility, Necessity and Human Rights

Author(s):  
Cedric Ryngaert
Author(s):  
Kushtrim Istrefi ◽  
Cedric Ryngaert

Judgment: European Court of Human Rights, Makuchyan and Minasyan v Azerbaijan and Hungary 17247/13 (ECtHR, 26 May 2020) Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction). Section of the Court: Chamber (Fourth Section). Applicable Convention Rights: Article 2 echr – violation of procedural obligations by Azerbaijan, no violation of substantive obligations by Azerbaijan, and no violation of procedural obligations by Hungary. Article 14 echr and Article 2 echr – violation by Azerbaijan. Article 38 – no violation by Azerbaijan or Hungary. Primary Legal Issues: Did Azerbaijan acknowledge and adopt the conduct of R.S. in question as its own, and does that violate substantive obligations under Article 2 echr; Did Azerbaijan violate the procedural limb of Article 2 by pardoning and releasing R.S. following his transfer from Hungary to Azerbaijan to serve the prison sentence; Did Hungary violate the procedural limb of Article 2 because of failing to secure specific diplomatic assurances that Azerbaijan will not release R.S. upon his transfer. Link to Case: <http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-202524>.


2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dian Purwaningrum Soemitro ◽  
Indra Wahyu Pratama

Abstract: Scope of State Responsibility Against Terrorism in International Law Perspective; Indonesian Cases. The emergence of global terrorism cases within more than a decade, marked by the tragedy of 9/11, making the issue of it being a big problem. The State as one of the subjects of International Law, into the spotlight. One of the problems that developed was the extent of the responsibility of the State towards acts of terrorism that occurred in the region of his sovereignty, which caused casualties both its own citizens or foreign nationals. In the case of terrorism that happened in Indonesia, the State's responsibility to the International Conventions implementation are very insufficient and the efforts from the country by creating a system of criminal justice to the criminal offence of terrorism has not been a maximum. There should be an obligation of the internationally imposed on it. The problem is if the terrorism was occurred will be submitted to the International Law are likely to be open to foreigners intervention. This is of course contrary to the principles of International Law. However, in the development of International Law as it has evolved in the Principle of the Responsibility to Protect and that should be accepted by any countries in order to attract the embodiment of the country against the security and Human Rights Abstrak: Lingkup Pertanggungjawaban Negara Terhadap Terorisme dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional pada Kasus Indonesia. Munculnya kasus terorisme global dalam satu dekade, ditandai dengan tragedi 9/11 yang menjadi masalah besar. Salah satu masalah yang berkembang adalah sejauh mana tanggung jawab negara terhadap aksi terorisme yang terjadi di wilayah kedaulatannya, yang menyebabkan timbulnya korban, baik warga negaranya sendiri atau warga negara asing. Dalam kasus terorisme yang terjadi di Indonesia, pertanggungjawaban negara terlihat dalam pelaksanaan Konvensi Internasional dan upaya menciptakan sistem peradilan pidana bagi pelaku tindak pidana terorisme. Jika permasalahan terorisme diserahkan kepada Hukum Internasional, maka cenderung akan membuka intervensi asing. Hal ini tentu saja bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip Hukum Internasional. Namun, dalam perkembangan Hukum Internasional telah berevolusi dalam Prinsip Tanggung Jawab untuk melindungi, selain adanya keharusan setiap negara untuk menjaga keamanan dan Hak Asasi Manusia  DOI: 10.15408/jch.v2i1.1841


2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Rizky Adi Pinandito

The purpose of this study is to explain in depth how the responsibility of the state c.q Government of Indonesia against violations of the principle of freedom of religion in the case of Sampang, Madura. The method of approach used in this research is normative juridical in discussing the issue of implementation of protection and guarantee to freedom of religionand belief which is regulated in constitution and Indonesian legislation system and how state responsibility to religious conflict happened in Sampang, Madura, Jawa East. The results of the research conducted in the case of Sampang are, the security forces do not act or do omission(omission) in the event of riots. In addition, the government’s attitude that provoked provocation was shown by the MUI who issued a decree stating that the Shia taught by Tajul Muluk is heretical. The State should (in this case the Police) take precautions. Therefore, the State c.q The Government of Indonesia is obliged to provide compensation, restitution and rehabilitation to victims of human rights violations as well as to give legal assertiveness to all perpetrators of riots including government officials who allow the riots of human rights violations


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document