Justice

2021 ◽  
pp. 271-294
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
Modern Human ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Right ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Right Of Access

The right to justice is central to modern human rights law. This is often summarised as a right to a fair trial but the right to justice has other important dimensions. In terms of fair trial rights, they encompass the right to equality before and under the law and to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. When the trial is criminal in nature, the presumption of innocence must be respected as well as many detailed guarantees for the defence. Special procedural protections are required when children are prosecuted. Furthermore, the principle of legality, which comprises a prohibition of retroactive criminality and requirements of legal certainty, must be ensured. The right to justice also comprises a broader right of access to justice.

Simoncioni v. Germany

2015 ◽  
Vol 109 (2) ◽  
pp. 400-406
Author(s):  
Riccardo Pavoni
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

With Judgment No. 238/2014, the Italian Constitutional Court (hereinafter Court) quashed the Italian legislation setting out the obligation to comply with the sections of the 2012 decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy; Greece intervening) (Jurisdictional Immunities or Germany v. Italy) that uphold the rule of sovereign immunity with respect to compensation claims in Italian courts based on grave breaches of human rights, including—in the first place—the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court found the legislation to be incompatible with Articles 2 and 24 of the Italian Constitution, which secure the protection of inviolable human rights and the right of access to justice (operative paras. 1, 2).

9. Article 6: The right to a fair trial

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Harris ◽  
Michael O’Boyle ◽  
Ed Bates ◽  
Carla Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
Criminal Charge ◽  
The Right

This chapter discusses Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial in both criminal and non-criminal cases. In all cases, it guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing trial within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. There are particular guarantees for persons subject to a criminal charge, including the right to be presumed innocent, to be informed of the charge, to adequate time and facilities to prepare the accused’s defence, to legal assistance, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to an interpreter.

Taricco principles beyond Taricco

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-37
Author(s):  
Fabio Giuffrida
Keyword(s):  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Form Part ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
Alleged Incompatibility ◽  
The Eu

This contribution examines whether the principles laid down in M.A.S., M.B. (‘ Taricco II’) may play a role in some forthcoming decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). In Scialdone, the Court will be asked to strike a balance between the effectiveness of national legislation on VAT offences and the principle of lex mitior. The key difference between Taricco and Scialdone lies in the fact that the lex mitior principle, unlike the regulation of the statute of limitation, falls within the scope of the principle of legality at the European level. Kolev concerns instead an alleged incompatibility between Article 325 TFEU and the Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure. Unlike Taricco, therefore, the CJEU will have to deal with national rules that form part of procedural criminal law. Nevertheless, it cannot be excluded that the Court may reach a Taricco II-like conclusion (i.e. disapplication in theory, exception to the disapplication in practice), especially if the reasoning of the CJEU will rely on the importance of foreseeability and legal certainty in criminal matters. These same principles could lead the CJEU, in Menci, not to endorse the partial revirement of the European Court of Human Rights in the A. and B v. Norway ruling and, as a consequence, not to lower the EU standard of protection of the right not to be tried or punished twice for the same offence.

5. Deprivations of life and liberty

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Clapham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Legal Restrictions ◽  
The Right ◽  
Association Property

‘Deprivations of life and liberty’ considers the rights to life and liberty, which may be limited through legal restrictions designed to protect a defined legitimate objective. The human rights approach starts from a presumption that we all have rights to liberty, freedom of expression, belief, assembly, association, property, and fair trial. Any restriction on these rights has to be justified as proportionate to the aims pursued by the restriction according to a four-stage schema developed in human rights law. Is the right to life absolute? When is the detention of an individual lawful?

scholarly journals The United Kingdom’s Coronavirus Act, deprivations of liberty, and the right to liberty and security of the person

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Pugh
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
The Public ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
Article 5

Abstract In response to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic the UK government has passed the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA). Among other things, this act extends existing statutory powers to impose restrictions of liberty for public health purposes. The extension of such powers naturally raises concerns about whether their use will be compatible with human rights law. In particular, it is unclear whether their use will fall within the public heath exception to the Article 5 right to liberty and security of the person in the European Convention of Human Rights. In this paper, I outline key features of the CA, and briefly consider how the European Court of Human Rights has interpreted the public health exception to Article 5 rights. This analysis suggests two grounds on which restrictions of liberty enforced some under the CA might be vulnerable to claims of Article 5 rights violations. First, the absence of specified time limits on certain restrictions of liberty means that they may fail the requirement of legal certainty championed by the European Court in its interpretation of the public health exception. Second, the Coronavirus Act’s extension of powers to individuals lacking public health expertise may undermine the extent to which the act will ensure that deprivations of liberty are necessary and proportionate.

When Is the Right to Justice Undermined? Identifying and Applying International and Islamic Human Rights Law Standards for Domestic Judicial Processes: The Case of the Seven Bahá’í Leaders and Iran’s Revolutionary Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-113
Author(s):  
Golriz Ghahraman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Minimum Standards ◽  
Defence Counsel ◽  
The Right ◽  
Principle Of Legality ◽  
General Operation

Section one of this article is divided in two parts, defining a ‘competent tribunal established by law’, and secondly independence and impartiality, including both structural and substantive standards for assessment. The second section provides an assessment of the legitimacy of the process in terms of minimum standards of due process. This part consists of three sub-sections, addressing three aspects of the right to due process that most gravely risk political manipulation of trials. These are: the principle of legality; procedural transparency; and the right to be represented by competent defence counsel. Both these sections also apply the components identified to the general operation of Iran’s Revolutionary Courts. Finally, section three will analyse the conduct of Iran’s Revolutionary Courts in the particular trials of the seven Bahá’í leaders (known as the ‘Yaran’ or ‘friends’) in Iran in 2010.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE OF LEGAL PERSONS

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (77) ◽  
pp. 26
Author(s):  
Edgars Golts
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Legal Person ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Equity Principle ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

There is a link between a presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. The rights of a legal person, to be regarded as innocent, protection is ensured by the guarantees in law. The Court of Justice has recognized that the right to the presumption of innocence, the legal persons does not apply in the same way as natural persons. The Constitution reinforces the presumption of innocence is to be subject to the right to a fair trial arising from the principle of justice. The Constitution stipulates that the rights of the person may be limited to the benefit of the public, but not the right to the presumption of innocence. In the article the author expresses the conviction, nowadays, the development of such rights, – the environment, animal, unborn children, deceased persons and other types of law; it is obvious that, on the basis of an equity principle, human rights are extended translated and applied. Justice fully embraces the principles of equality law, which allows concluding on the physical and legal persons to equality before the law and the courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document