Chapter 1. Introduction: the European Convention on Human Rights and Mental Disability

2002 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Lewis

AbstractThis paper will analyse the essential legal requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights which touch on the lives (and deaths) of people with mental disabilities. It will examine the procedural safeguards which must be followed when involuntarily detaining a person under mental health legislation; access to a court to test the lawfulness of detention; the requirement to be free from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence; and the right to life, including investigation after a death. The paper will discuss some of the factors which explain the relative scarcity of mental disability cases decided by the Strasbourg Court. In conclusion there will be an examination of the role of lawyers and other key players in mental disability, and how stakeholders can move forward to prompt much needed social reform.


2019 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom ◽  
Valerie Sperling ◽  
Melike Sayoglu

Over the past two decades, Russian citizens whose rights have been violated at home have appealed tens of thousands of cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which rules on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). But only three of the Russian cases that have reached a judgment from the ECtHR have included gender discrimination claims, and all three of these cases were brought by men, not women. This chapter briefly discusses the domestic and international barriers to bringing gender discrimination complaints to Russian courts and to the ECtHR. The chapter also introduces our cross-national and cross-issue comparison cases: discrimination against women in Turkey, and against the LGBT community in Russia and Turkey, and court cases on these issues in Russia, Turkey, and at the ECtHR. The chapter includes our methodology (a description of our research process and our interviewees in both countries) and a brief explanation of how the ECtHR works. The chapter summarizes our findings as to what enables legal victories in domestic and international courts on gender discrimination cases: activism requires activists; winning cases requires legal expertise on discrimination cases (which is often lacking); winning discrimination cases requires systematic data proving a pattern of bias; winning cases is contagious, in that winning a legal victory on one issue (such as domestic violence) leads to further legal victories on that issue. Chapter 1 also includes summaries of the rest of the book’s chapters.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2019 (25) ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lucy Series

<p>The Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 will introduce a new framework––the Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS)––for authorising arrangements giving rise to a deprivation of liberty to enable the care and treatment of people who lack capacity to consent to them in England and Wales. The LPS will replace the heavily criticised Mental Capacity Act 2005 deprivation of liberty safeguards (MCA DoLS).  The new scheme must provide detention safeguards on an unprecedented scale and across a much more diverse range of settings than traditional detention frameworks linked to mental disability. Accordingly, the LPS are highly flexible, and grant detaining authorities considerable discretion in how they perform this safeguarding function. This review outlines the background to the 2019 amendments to the MCA, and contrasts the LPS with the DoLS. It argues that although the DoLS were in need of reform, the new scheme also fails to deliver adequate detention safeguards, and fails to engage with the pivotal question: what are these safeguards for?</p><p>Keywords: Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019; Mental Capacity Act 2005; deprivation of liberty safeguards; liberty protection safeguards; article 5 European Convention on Human Rights; P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another; P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19; [2014] A.C. 896; [2014] H.R.L.R. 13</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document