Human rights and correctional health policy: a view from Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Rogan

Purpose Correctional healthcare should promote the protection of human rights. The purpose of this paper is to bring a discussion of human rights into debates on how such policy should be best organized. Design/methodology/approach The paper achieves its aim by providing an analysis of European prison law and policy in the area of prison health, through assessing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as policies created by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. Findings The paper describes the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the topics of access to healthcare, ill health and release from prison, mental illness in prison, and the duty to provide rehabilitative programming for those seeking to reduce their level of “risk.” It also argues that human rights law can be a source of practical reform, and that legal frameworks have much to offer healthcare leaders seeking to uphold the dignity of those in their care. Originality/value This paper will provide a rare example of the engagement of human rights law with correctional health policy. It provides practical recommendations arising out of an analysis of European human rights law in the area of prisons.

2015 ◽  
Vol 97 (900) ◽  
pp. 1295-1311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Landais ◽  
Léa Bass

AbstractStates party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms that engage in military operations abroad face an increased risk to be held responsible for violations of the Convention, given the relatively recent case law adopted by the European Court of Human Rights. This article examines some of the issues raised by the concurrent applicability of international humanitarian law and European human rights law. It also seeks to identify ways to reconcile these two different, but not incompatible, branches of international law.


The European Court of Human Rights is one of the main players in interpreting international human rights law where issues of general international law arise. While developing its own jurisprudence for the protection of human rights in the European context, it remains embedded in the developments of general international law. But the Court does not always follow general international law closely and develops its own doctrines. Its decisions are influential for national courts as well as other international courts and tribunals, thereby, at times, influencing general international law. There is thus a feedback loop of influence. This book explores the interaction, including the problems arising in the context of human rights, between the European Convention on Human Rights and general international law. It contributes to the ongoing debate on fragmentation and convergence of International Law from the perspective of international judges as well as academics. Some of the chapters suggest reconciling methods and convergence while others stress the danger of fragmentation. The focus is on specific topics which have posed special problems, namely sources, interpretation, jurisdiction, state responsibility, and immunity.


2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-218
Author(s):  
Peter Langford ◽  
Ian Bryan

AbstractThis article evaluates the protections against 'arbitrary' and 'unlawful' detention aff orded to nonnationals on having entered the territory of a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Focussing on Article 5 ECHR and the various permissible exceptions therein, the article examines leading decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and, in so doing, illuminates and explores tensions arising from the juncture at which Contracting States' capacity to detain entry-seeking non-nationals, without criminal charge or trial, intersects with the requisites of Article 5(1)(f ) ECHR, as construed by the ECtHR. It argues that the ECtHR's interpretative standpoint regarding the 'lawful' administrative detention of 'unauthorised' non-nationals gives disproportionate preference to Contracting States' interest in managing migration flows. It also argues that in consequence States' obligations in international human rights law, the strictures of Article 5 ECHR and the credibility of the Strasbourg Court itself are enfeebled.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Samovich

The manual is devoted to making individual complaints to the European Court of human rights: peculiarities of realization of the right to appeal, conditions of admissibility and the judicial procedure of the European Court of Human Rights. The author analyses some “autonomous concepts” used in the court's case law and touches upon the possibility of limiting the right to judicial protection. The article deals with the formation and development of the individual's rights to international judicial protection, as well as the protection of human rights in universal quasi-judicial international bodies and regional judicial institutions of the European Union and the Organization of American States. This publication includes a material containing an analysis of recent changes in the legal regulation of the Institute of individual complaints. The manual is recommended for students of educational organizations of higher education, studying in the areas of bachelor's and master's degree “Jurisprudence”.


2014 ◽  
pp. 13-31
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Grzelak-Bach

Following a brief introduction of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the author begins by analyzing case law from the European Court of Human Rights regarding the legal reasoning in judicial proceedings. The main premise of this paper is to present a formula for preparing legal reasoning in administrative court proceedings. The author draws attention to the role of judges who, in the process of adjudication, should apply creative interpretation of the rules of law, when they see errors or omissions in legislative provisions, or blatant violations of the European legal order. The conclusion of those deliberations finds, that the process of tailoring the approach to meet Strasbourg’s requirements should, on a basic level, be at the discretion of judges rather than the legislators.


Author(s):  
Phillip Drew

The years since the beginning of the twenty-first century have seen a significant incursion of international human rights law into the domain that had previously been the within the exclusive purview of international humanitarian law. The expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction, particularly by the European Court of Human Rights, means that for many states, the exercise of physical power and control over an individual outside their territory may engage the jurisdiction of human rights obligations. Understanding the expansive tendencies of certain human rights tribunals, and the apparent disdain they have for any ambiguity respecting human rights, it is offered that the uncertain nature of the law surrounding humanitarian relief during blockades could leave blockading forces vulnerable to legal challenge under human rights legislation, particularly in cases in which starvation occurs as a result of a blockade.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori G. Beaman

Moreover, with the benefit of hindsight, it is easy to identify in the constant central core of Christian faith, despite the inquisition, despite anti-Semitism and despite the crusades, the principles of human dignity, tolerance and freedom, including religious freedom, and therefore, in the last analysis, the foundations of the secular State.A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.In March, 2011, after five years of working its way through various levels of national and European courts, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights decided that a crucifix hanging at the front of a classroom did not violate the right to religious freedom under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Specifically, Ms. Soile Lautsi had complained that the presence of the crucifix violated her and her children's right to religious freedom and that its presence amounted to an enforced religious regime. The Grand Chamber, reversing the lower Chamber's decision, held that while admittedly a religious symbol, the crucifix also represented the cultural heritage of Italians.


2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky

On 22 December 2009, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: the Court) issued a judgment on the applications filed by two citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr Dervo Sejdić and Mr Jakob Finci. It found a violation of their rights under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under the Protocols to the Convention. Bosnia and Herzegovina had violated the applicants' rights under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 3 of Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document