scholarly journals A Prisoner’s Right to be Released or Placed on Parole: A Comment on Öcalan v Turkey (No. 2) (18 March 2014)

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

Abstract The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for a prisoner’s right to parole and no international or regional human rights instrument provides for this right. However, recently, in the case of Öcalan v Turkey (No. 2), one of the judges of the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights as providing for a prisoner’s right to parole. This is the first time that a judge of this court, and to the author’s best knowledge, a judge of a regional or international court, has expressly held that a prisoner has the right to parole. The author assesses this holding in the light of the jurisprudence or practice on the right to parole from the Human Rights Committee, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In order to put the discussion in context, the author also highlights jurisprudence emanating from the European Court of Human Rights relevant to the relationship between parole and other human rights. The author recommends that the time has come for the right to parole to be recognised in human rights instruments.

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 168-173
Author(s):  
Tamara Gerasimenko

The subject. The article is devoted to the subject of the exhaustion of domestic remediesbefore filing a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.The purpose. The purpose of this article is to show and reveal the characteristics of suchimportant condition of lodging a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights asthe exhaustion of domestic remedies.The methodology. The following scientific methods have been used to write this article:analysis, comparing and making conclusions.Results, scope of application. The right of individual petition is rightly considered to be thehallmark and the greatest achievement of the European Convention on Human Rights. Individualswho consider that their human rights have been violated have the possibility oflodging a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. However, there are importantadmissibility requirements set out in the Convention that must be satisfied beforea case be examined. Applicants are expected to have exhausted their domestic remediesand have brought their complaints within a period of six months from the date of the finaldomestic decision. The obligation to exhaust domestic remedies forms part of customaryinternational law, recognized as such in the case – law of the International Court of Justice.The rationale for the exhaustion rule is to give the national authorities, primarily the courts,the opportunity to prevent or put right the alleged violation of the Convention. The domesticlegal order should provide an effective remedy for violations of Convention rights.Conclusions. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is an important part of the functioningof the protection system under the Convention and its basic principle. 


2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Xenos

In the liberal tradition, there has always been scepticism about the state's involvement in the activities of industry. Instead, internal measures by way of self-regulation and collective action have been preferred. In recognition of the reality that exclusive reliance on such solutions has not prevented violations of human rights, to which a high constitutional importance is attached, other arrangements have to be provided. In the system of the European Convention of Human Rights (hereinafter the Convention), positive obligations are imposed engaging the state in the active protection of human rights. The need to protect human rights against the hazards of industry has been the main issue in the case of Öneryildiz v. Turkey, in which, for the first time in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the Court), a claim under the right to life (Article 2 of the Convention) has successfully been asserted in the context of industry.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-244
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi

Human rights treaties (including Article 14(6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr); Article 3 of the Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and Article 10 of the American Convention on Human Rights) explicitly protect the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is silent on this right. The Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have developed rich jurisprudence on the ambit of the right to compensation for wrongful conviction or miscarriage of justice. States have adopted different approaches to give effect to their obligation under Article 14(6) of the iccpr. Relying on the practice and/or jurisprudence from States in Africa, Europe, North America, Asia, and Latin America and on the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the article illustrates the approaches taken by some States to give effect to Article 14(6) of the iccpr and the relevant regional human rights instruments.


Author(s):  
Wickremasinghe Chanaka

Entico v UNESCO provides the most detailed examination to date by a court in the UK of the relationship between the immunity of an international organization, UNESCO, and the right of access to a court, as it is implied in the interpretation of art. 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It raises an interesting question about the applicability of the much-cited judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Waite and Kennedy in the context of a UN Specialised Agency. The case teaches us that the huge variety of international organizations means that the extent of their immunities must be fashioned in the case of each organization to meet their particular functional needs. This suggests that the national court needs to approach generalizations with care, and a full appreciation of the international legal context that governs the organization in question.


2014 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 1025-1072
Author(s):  
Tom Syring

On July 1, 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or the Grand Chamber) delivered its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France pertaining to the legality of the French ban on wearing full-face veils in public, introduced by Law No. 2010-1192 of October 11, 2010. The decision comes on the heels of a number of related judgments in adjacent areas of dispute circumscribing the right to privacy and religion and delimiting the circumstances that may justify interference with such fundamental human rights. In the present case, the Court for the first time had to deal with a general ban on certain clothing that arguably, for those most affected, epitomizes the manifestation of their religion. Accepting the principle of “living together (le ‘vivre ensemble’)” as an inherent element of the “rights and freedoms of others” in the French context and conceding a wide margin of appreciation to the respondent state in preserving that principle, the Court found no violation of the applicant’s rights to respect for her private life (Article 8) and to freedom of religion (Article 9) under the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).


Author(s):  
Angelo Dube

On 16 July 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected an application by Russian human rights activist, Nikolay Alekseyev, on the basis that he had published personally offensive and threatening material online, directed towards the ECtHR. This was in the matter of Zhdanov and Others v Russia Applications Nos 12200/08, 35949/11 and 58282/12. Even though the published material fell afoul of the European Convention in that it amounted to an abuse of the court process, nothing offensive was contained in the applicant’s own submissions before the court. In like fashion to the ECtHR’s admissibility requirements, the African Charter contains a much more pointed exclusionary clause which renders inadmissible any communication that contains disparaging or insulting language. The difference between the two systems is that the European system relies on an open-ended concept of ‘abuse of the right of individual petition’, whilst the African system specifically proscribes insulting language. In this article, I analyse the approach of the ECtHR in the Zhdanov matter, and contrast it with the approach of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission) under Article 56(3) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. I further interrogate whether there were any instances where, in similar fashion to the Zhdanov matter, the African Commission declared a communication inadmissible on account of insulting language occurring externally, and not contained within the submission itself. Alive to the fact that the concept of ‘abuse’ in the European system is wide, the article is limited to cases in which the abuse of the right of individual petition under the European Convention manifests in disparaging or insulting language.


2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 558-622
Author(s):  
Christina M. Cerna

On December 13, 2012, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) issued a final judgment in the case of El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It found that Macedonia, as a State party to the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), was responsible for torturing El-Masri while he was in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYRM) The El-Masri judgment is the first time in which an international court has ruled on the U.S. practice of secret forced renditions. It follows the rationale of Soering v. United Kingdom, that a State can be held responsible for facilitating a violation by a State outside the Council of Europe, and places it in a modern war on terror context.


Author(s):  
Ivanna Maryniv ◽  
◽  
Aljona Babich ◽  

This article is devoted to highlighting the content and nature of women's right to abortion and opportunities for its protection. Since this right is attributed by scientists to the fourth generation of human rights and it is relatively new, it is extremely relevant to clarify the issue of the relationship between the rights and interests of a pregnant woman and an unborn child. The authors point out the existence of an urgent problem associated with the absence in European сountries of a unified approach to determining the criteria and conditions under which abortion is considered legal. It is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that a separate article dedicated to the right to abortion is absent in the European Convention on Human Rights. Since one of the conditions of acceptability of an individual complaint is the requirement to refer to violation of only those rights that are provided and guaranteed by the ECHR. The only opportunity for women to protect their right or receive compensation for violation of the right to abortion - is appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, referring to Article 8 of the European Convention, which determines the right of everyone to respect for privacy. Thus, the right to abortion is considered through the prism of the right to privacy. The main emphasis in this article is made on the analysis of the most important decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Affairs, where women complain about violation of their rights due to imprisonment of abortion, which led to terrible consequences. The authors clarified the relation of the ECHR to abortion and deprivation of the right of a woman on their conduct. The court has developed criteria that help determine whether there was a violation of a woman's right to respect for privacy, guaranteed by Article 8. In the article the main problems due to which women in most cases cannot implement their right in their own country properly are identified. Also, in the context of the court decisions, the difference between the ECHR positions regarding this issue and the internal legislation of some European countries, against which the complaints are most often served is analyzed. The authors draw the attention of states to the need to take into account the conclusions of the European Court and lead laws and other regulatory acts in accordance with its decisions.


Author(s):  
Iulia Motoc ◽  
Johann Justus Vasel

This chapter discusses the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), reaching the conclusion that the Court’s approach evolves towards judicial integration. After analysing the notion of lex specialis with regards to the question of responsibility and jurisdiction, as (implicitly) proposed by the ECtHR in the Catan judgement, the chapter considers the question of the attribution of conduct introduced for the first time in the Jaloud judgment. The chapter draws a parallel between the notion of effective control used in the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ’s) Nicaragua case and the Chiragov case. It argues that the Courts ruling in Chiragov is closer to the criteria of effective control imposed by the ICJ. The analysis will display that, in both recent decisions, the Court is moving towards judicial integration in the sense of a reasoned difference between the responsibility of human rights and general international law. It is evident that the European Convention of Human Rights is no self-contained regime.


2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 933-959 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kahn

Abstract Russia eagerly ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in 1998. Twenty years later, the chair of its Constitutional Court now expresses resentment at the subordination of Russian sovereignty. A new law expands his Court’s jurisdiction to deny effect to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, an unprecedented power that has already been used twice. This article analyses this law and its application in its first two years. Both the claim of ‘subordination’ and the Russian response to it, in law and practice, rest on weak legal ground. But Russia’s action also raises deeper theoretical and practical questions for the ECHR as a ‘living instrument’ subject to the ‘evolutive’ interpretations of the Strasbourg Court. If other member states mimic Russia’s response to these issues, a European human rights system premised on the final interpretive authority of an international court could come to its end.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document