Council of Europe: Protocol no. 7 To the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Extending the List of Civil and Political Rights

1985 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-437
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (91) ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Jelena Girfanova

In the paper “The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in closed Institutions” the author has examined the obxervasnce of  persons’  in detention,  custody or imprisonment human rights in the European regional acts and national instruments as well as the provision of health care for detainees and convicted persons alike.All basic human rights’ documents, namely: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms state that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, degrading his or her human dignity”.  All persons who have been punished, regardless of the crimes for which they were convicted, have the right to humane treatment and respect for their personality. No actions of people, whatever they may be, justify the inhuman treatment of them or the humiliation of their personality.  


2003 ◽  
Vol 75 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 409-422
Author(s):  
Nikola Mihailović

A breach of any right or freedom under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, leads to but is not limited to liability of the State for damages. That liability is much stricter than the State liability for damage provided according to the domestic law provisions currently in force. The current provisions on State liability for the work of its judiciary do not include the damage caused by improper interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions. In contrast, the liability of the Council of Europe Member States for the damage caused by their judicial and other authorities, through the breach of the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Convention includes their liability for improper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Convention. That liability is so strict that it in fact comes equal to no-fault liability, from the point of view of its legal consequences. This is so, although it is regulated only as a presumed liability for which there are no grounds of limitation. As a result, two systems of liability for damage caused by judicial authorities will exist in our State Union and in its member states, after the ratification of the aforementioned Convention: liability pursuant to the domestic legal provisions and liability pursuant to the Convention. For that reason, a reform of the provisions on liability is necessary, which will lead to tightening of liability for damage caused by judiciary pursuant to the domestic rules. How to achieve this is a separate issue, which will not be discussed on this occasion.


1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 889-908 ◽  
Author(s):  
José A. Cabranes

On December 16, 1966, the General Assembly approved three agreements designed to establish a global system of enforceable treaty obligations with respect to fundamental human rights. These agreements are the second part of the “international bill of rights” proposed at the San Francisco Conference. Eighteen years separated the adoption of these agreements—the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—and the approval in 1948 of the first part of the projected United Nations program for the protection of human rights, the non-binding Universal declaration of Human Rights.


Author(s):  
Corina Siman ◽  

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms empowers the decision-making and executive body of the Council of Europe, id est the Committee of Ministers, to supervise the execution of the European Court of Human Rights’ case law. The mechanism thus established possesses a certain specificity, which is inherent to the European system of protection of fundamental rights. Therefore, both the political nature of the Committee of Ministers and the elements that form the process of monitoring the implementation of the content of the Strasbourg Court’s judgments and decisions are of interest.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bartosz Pacholski

The subject matter of this commentary, which instigates the Views of the Human Rights Committee of 27 January 2021, is the protection of one of the fundamental human rights – the right to life. The Committee, as an authority appointed to oversee compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, had to decide on the issue of Italy’s responsibility for failing to provide assistance to a boat in distress, even if the area in which the vessel was located was not within the territory of this state and other acts of international law attribute the responsibility for executing the rescue operation to a third country. According to the Committee’s views, which applied extraterritorial approach to the protection of the right to life, whenever states have the opportunity to take action for the protection of human rights they should do everything possible in a given situation to help people in need.


1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 540-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis B. Sohn

Too much has been written lately about the limited approach to human rights at Dumbarton Oaks, the struggle at the San Francisco Conference, and the great flowering of declarations, conventions, covenants and instruments to implement them in the last fifty years. Instead of adding another retelling of these more than twice-told tales, this essay tries to look at the origin of two less known contributions to the law of human rights—the broad nondiscrimination clause which added a more practical meaning to the vague “human rights and fundamental freedoms” phrase; and the bold addition of economic and social rights to the more traditional civil and political rights.


1998 ◽  
Vol 92 (3) ◽  
pp. 563-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia Schiffrin

In October 1997, a little-noticed event took place at the United Nations that may roll back the international legal protection of human rights. Jamaica became the first country to denounce the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and thus withdrew the right of individual petition to the UN Human Rights Committee (Committee). Although it is provided for under the Protocol’s Article 12, no state has previously made such a denunciation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document