Bringing People Down

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-466
Author(s):  
John Vorhaus
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Beings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Relational Concept ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
As If

Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, degrading treatment and punishment is absolutely prohibited. This paper examines the nature of and wrong inherent in treatment and punishment of this kind. Cases brought before the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) as amounting to degrading treatment and punishment under Article 3 include instances of interrogation, conditions of confinement, corporal punishment, strip searches, and a failure to provide adequate health care. The Court acknowledges the degradation inherent in imprisonment generally, and does not consider this to be in violation of Article 3, but it also identifies a threshold at which degradation is so severe as to render impermissible punishments that cross this threshold. I offer an account of the Court’s conception of impermissible degradation as a symbolic dignitary harm. The victims are treated as inferior, as if they do not possess the status owed to human beings, neither treated with dignity nor given the respect owed to dignity. Degradation is a relational concept: the victim is brought down in the eyes of others following treatment motivated by the intention to degrade, or treatment which has a degrading effect. This, so I will argue, is the best account of the concept of degradation as deployed by the Court when determining punishments as in violation of Article 3.

scholarly journals The legal meaning of the terms "torture", "inhuman treatment or punishment", "degrading treatment or punishment" and their distinction in the decisions of the European commission of human rights and the European court of human rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 26-33
Author(s):  
Khrystyna YAMELSKA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Legal Meaning

The paper reveals the legal meaning of the terms "torture", "inhuman treatment or punishment", "treatment or punishment that degrades human dignity". A distinction between these concepts is made on the examples of court decisions of European courts, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. The genesis of the origin of the above concepts is investigated through a prism of the decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The paper reveals the absolute nature of the "jus cogens" norm of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The author proposes to modernize the Ukrainian criminal legislation on the reception of the position of the European Court of Human Rights on the delimitation of these concepts. In contrast to the European convention regulation of ill-treatment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the author notes that the Ukrainian legislation regulates this issue quite succinctly. The Article 127 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine provides a definition only of torture, which in essence coincides with the definition of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the position of the European Court of Human Rights. The paper notes that the practice of Ukrainian courts shows that a distinction (similar to that provided by the European Court of Human Rights) is not implemented.

I respingimenti in mare di migranti alla luce della Convenzione europea dei diritti umani

2009 ◽  
pp. 591-607
Author(s):  
Alfredo Terrasi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
North African ◽  
European Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
High Seas

- Italian authorities have recently undertaken a new policy to face migration flows from north african coasts. Since May, 6th 2009 Italian coastguard and financial police vessels have intercepted a large number of boats carrying migrants and returned them to Libya, in force of a readmission agreement between Italy and Libya. These operations, even if they take place on the high seas, have to comply with the European Convention for Human Rights, considering that the migrants fall under jurisdiction of Italian authorities within the meaning of art. 1 of the Convention. In particular, on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights case law, it can be argued that returning migrants to Libya, as long as they can be exposed to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, is prohibited by art. 3. Moreover, art. 4 or the Fourth Protocol prohibits the collective expulsions of aliens. Notwithstanding, it's uncertain whether forcible return of aliens is consistent with the latter provision considering that the European Court requires that aliens ‘leave the country' in order to apply art. 4. In the end the praxis of Italian authorities is inconsistent with the Convention non-refoulement obligation deriving from art. 3.

Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy. Application No. 27765/09

2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (2) ◽  
pp. 417-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irini Papanicolopulu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
Effective Remedy ◽  
Maritime Search And Rescue ◽  
The Right

In a unanimous judgment in the case Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (Court) held that Italy’s “push back” operations interdicting intending migrants and refugees at sea and returning them to Libya amounted to a violation of the prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR or Convention), the prohibition of collective expulsions under Article 4 of Protocol 4 to the Convention, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention. Hirsi Jamaa is the Court’s first judgment on the interception of migrants at sea and it addresses issues concerning the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 1979 International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, as well as the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Principles Corroborated by Practice? The Use of Country of Origin Information by the European Court of Human Rights in the Assessment of a Real Risk of a Violation of the Prohibition of Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Femke Vogelaar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Consistent Manner ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Degrading Treatment

This article studies the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) approach to country of origin information in its case law under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It will first examine the standard set by the ECtHR on the use of country of origin information, followed by an assessment of the application of these principles by the ECtHR in its case law. The article specifically focusses on the use of country of origin information in expulsion cases of applicants from Somalia, Tamils applicants from Sri Lanka and applicants from Iran. The analysis of the ECtHR’s case law in this article will show that the ECtHR does not apply its own standards in a transparent and consistent manner. This raises questions as to the quality of the ECtHR’s assessment of the risk of a violation of Article 3.

scholarly journals RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE UNDER ARTICLE 8 ECHR IN IMMIGRATION CASES: A HUMAN RIGHT TO REGULARIZE ILLEGAL STAY?

2008 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Thym
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Life ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Immigration Laws ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

AbstractApplying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to immigration cases has always been a balancing exercise between the effective protection of human rights and the Contracting States' autonomy to regulate migration flows. In its recent case law, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR) has considerably extended the protective scope of Article 8 ECHR by granting autonomous human rights protection to the long-term resident status independent of the existence of family bonds under the heading of ‘private life’. This has important repercussions for the status of legal and illegal immigrants across Europe, since the new case law widens the reach of human rights law to the legal conditions for leave to remain, effectively granting several applicants a human right to regularize their illegal stay. The contribution analyses the new case law and develops general criteria guiding the application of the ECHR to national immigration laws and the new EU harmonization measures adopted in recent years.

scholarly journals Rethinking Suresh: Refoulement to Torture Under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2009 ◽  
pp. 125-160
Author(s):  
David Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
European Court ◽  
Canadian Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Degrading Treatment

This article takes the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Saadi v. Italy and uses it as an opportunity to re-examine the Canadian case of Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). The author argues that the national security exception in Suresh is no longer tenable in light of subsequent developments in both international and Canadian law. The author concludes that the Supreme Court of Canada should reject the Suresh exception at its first opportunity and adopt an approach to review of refoulement cases similar to that under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

scholarly journals NEPRUŽANJE ZDRAVSTVENE SKRBI KAO POVREDA ČLANKA 3. EUROPSKE KONVENCIJE S POSEBNIM OSVRTOM NA PRAKSU SUDA U PREDMETIMA IZVAN KONTEKSTA ZADRŽAVANJA

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-104
Author(s):  
Maša Marochini Zrinski ◽  
Karin Derenčin Vukušić
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Health ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Health Care ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Character

The European Convention on Human Rights, as a main Council of Europe instrument for the protection of civil and political rights, does not guarantee the right to health care. However, the European Court of Human Rights broadly interprets Convention rights, and within the context of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention it gave certain indications that it might start dealing with the issue of health care. Without going into details of all the mentioned articles, this paper will analyse cases where the Court dealt with the issue of violation of Article 3 due to non-provision of health care outside the context of detention. Namely, within the context of detention, there is a clear obligation for states to provide health care, and the Court often relies on the reports of the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. What we consider important to point out is the Court’s case-law on providing health care outside the context of detention, given the social character of the right to health care, which goes beyond the civil and political character of the Convention.

Corporal punishment of children: a caning for the united kingdom

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-293
Author(s):  
Andrew Bainham
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
The Government

THE ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in A v. United Kingdom (Human Rights: Punishment of Child) [1998] 2 F.L.R. 959 that to beat repeatedly a nine-year-old boy with a garden cane, leaving linear bruises on his thighs and buttocks which remained for up to one week, amounted to “torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” contrary to Article 3 of the Convention will occasion little suprise. What will have come as unwelcome news to some is the unanimous decision of the Court that the Government of the United Kingdom could itself be held liable for failing to take measures which could have prevented these beatings by the child's stepfather.

Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1, European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Corporal Punishment ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Substantive Issue ◽  
European Court

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Tyrer v United Kingdom (1979-80) 2 EHRR 1, European Court of Human Rights. The substantive issue in this case concerned whether state-inflicted corporal punishment was a breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In ruling on the issue, the Court also established an interpretive doctrine—the Convention as a ‘living instrument’—which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document