scholarly journals SENTENCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN THE LAW OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-130
Author(s):  
Miodrag Simović ◽  
Marina Simović ◽  
Vladimir Simović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
Severe Form ◽  
Death Sentence ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
European Court ◽  
Societal Reaction

In the system of measures of societal reaction towards the perpetrators of criminal offences, all the modern criminal laws, including the new legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, recognise sentences in the first place. They are the main types of criminal sanctions whose purpose can be achieved to the fullest, and that is the protection of society and social goods from all forms and types of injury and threat caused by the commission of criminal offences. Given that in the structure of criminal offences occur those with serious consequences, violating the highest social values, committed with a severe form of guilt by a repeat offender, in concurrence or by a group or organised crime group, it is logical that all penal systems recognise the harshest sentence - longterm or life imprisonment - especially after the abolition of the death sentence - capital punishment, for the severest forms of crimes. The paper analyses issues related to the harshest sentence, long-term, or life imprisonment in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the special emphasis on the European Court of Human Rights case law.

Freedom of Religion in the Workplace

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Nedim Begović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Religion ◽  
European Court

Abstract The article analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on accommodation of Islamic observances in the workplace. The author argues that the Court has not hitherto provided adequate incentives to the states party to the European Convention on Human Rights to accommodate the religious needs of Muslim employees in the workplace. Given this finding, the author proposes that the accommodation of Islam in the workplace should, as a matter of priority, be provided within a national legal framework. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, this could be achieved through an instrument of contracting agreement between the state and the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

scholarly journals The Reducible Life Imprisonment Standard from a Worldwide and European Perspective

Global Jurist ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Davide Galliani
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Level ◽  
European Perspective ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
European Court ◽  
Comparative Methodology ◽  
The Right

AbstractLife Imprisonment, unlike the death penalty, does not attract the attention of the doctrine. There are, however, significant developments in the European Court of Human Rights case law. In this paper, using a comparative methodology, we highlight the standard that, at international level, allows to consider Life Imprisonment compatible with human dignity-that is the right to a substantial judicial review. It is no longer acceptable that the ‘last word’ on the lifers’ early release is still entrusted to political power.

scholarly journals Life sentence penalty and extradition under article 3 of the ECHR: A leading case of the European Court of Human Rights

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dr.Sc. Mario Antinucci
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Severe Form ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Diverse Range ◽  
Criminal Justice Reform ◽  
Form Of Life ◽  
European Court ◽  
Life Sentence ◽  
The Moment

Life sentence penalty covers a diverse range of practices, from the most severe form of life imprisonment without parole, in which a person is sentenced to die in prison so long as their sentence stands, to more indeterminate sentences in which at the time of sentencing it is not clear how long the sentenced person will spend in prison. Dealing with the question whether the extradition of a person to a foreign state where is accused of a crime for which a sentence of life imprisonment can be imposed can potentially violate article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.What all these sentences have in common, however, is that at the time the sentence is passed, a person is liable to be detained for the rest of his or her natural life. We all know “The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules” and relevant international instruments on the rehabilitation of imprisonment, but at the moment more than 73 States in the world retain life imprisonment as a penalty for offences committed while under the age of 18. General perspective of criminal justice reform in Latin America should take into a right account the meaning of life - imprisonment penalty under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

scholarly journals KAZNA DOŽIVOTNOG ZATVORA U EVROPSKOM SISTEMU ZA ZAŠTITU LJUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-171
Author(s):  
Nezir Pivić ◽  
Lejla Zilić-Čurić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Research Paper ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Subject

Sentencing to life imprisonment is not in contrast with human rights issued in European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. However, the sentenced imposed to life imprisonment and system to of its execution must meet certain standards to be compatible with requirements stated in Article 3 of European Convention. The subject of our research paper are mentioned standards that Contracting States have to respect in terms of enforcing the sentence of life imprisonment. Introduction to the subject of the research is given in the form of penological review of life imprisonment as well as review of internationally established legal standards under the umbrella of the United Nations and the Council of Europe that relate to sentencing and enforcement of life imprisonment. In focus of this research paper is case law of the European Court of Human Rights that refer to life imprisonment. In that context, the focus of this research paper deals with the issue of the relationship between life imprisonment and prohibition of torture as human right that is absolutely protected and the issue of the Contracting States’s margin in appreciation in prescribing the form and conditions of revision of the sentence. The intention of the authors is focused on the legal analysis of Strasbourg case law on issue of compatibility of life imprisonment with the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention and to present the standards generated by Strasbourg case law regarding the implementation and mechanism of revision of life imprisonment.

scholarly journals Staying the Return of Aliens from Europe through Interim Measures: The Case-law of the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights

2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Haeck ◽  
Clara Burbano Herrera
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
Political Activities ◽  
Clear Tendency ◽  
European Court ◽  
Interim Measures

AbstractThe Strasbourg case-law demonstrates a clear tendency to protect aliens through interim measures in case of imminent deportation. Usually but not uniquely those persons claim(ed) before the supervisory organs to be in a situation of extreme gravity in case of forcible return to their country of origin because they can be subject to the death penalty, life imprisonment, persecution for their political activities, deprived of medicine/adequate medical treatment. This contribution explores which typologies of cases have led the European Commission and Court to apply interim measures in those situations, as well as which rights and freedoms have been protected thereby.

scholarly journals CASE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN DECISIONS REGARDING NON-COMPLIANCE OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-46
Author(s):  
Dzhuzha О. M. ◽  
◽  
Melnychenko І. P. ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Life Imprisonment ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article provides a legal analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in such cases like “Vinter and Others v. The United Kingdom”, “Hutchinson v. The United Kingdom”. The European Court of Human Rights has established key standards for those sentenced to life imprisonment, compliance with which will ensure that this type of punishment meets the requirements of the Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Such standards are: 1) sentencing of life imprisonment is not prohibited and does not conflict with the Article 3 or any other article of the Convention. The imposition of “non-reducible” life imprisonment may raise questions of compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention; 2) in decision making whether life imprisonment can be considered as “non-reducible”, it is necessary to establish whether the person convicted to life imprisonment had any prospect of release. If national law provides for the possibility of reviewing life imprisonment regarding its mitigating, reducing, terminating or releasing, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of th Article 3 of the Convention; 3) for the purposes of the Article 3 of the Convention it is sufficient that life imprisonment is reducible de jure and de facto; 4) European penitentiary policy is currently focusing on the correctional purpose of imprisonment, in particular until the end of long prison sentences; 5) at the very beginning of the sentence a person convicted to life imprisonment has the right to know what he must do to consider the possibility of his release and under what conditions the sentence will be reviewed or also in what order a request to this may be made; 6) if domestic law does not provide for any mechanism or possibility to review life imprisonment, then the non-compliance with the requirements of the Article 3 of the Convention occurs at the time of imposition of life imprisonment and not at a later stage. The importance of such standards separating of the European Court of Human Rights for the national theory and practice of life imprisonment is that these provisions are effective guidelines for determining the prospects of releasing from sentencing in the form life imprisonment. Key words: European Court of Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, case law, convict, life imprisonment.

Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights Concerning the Protection of Minorities, July 2012 to August 2014

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-222
Author(s):  
Bill Bowring
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Minority Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The State ◽  
Recent Period ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
European Court ◽  
Positive Duties ◽  
Social And Economic Rights

This article highlights a number of interesting and significant cases concerning minority rights at the Strasbourg Court during the recent period of just over two years. The issues include the continuing deadlock in enforcing the Court’s controversial antidiscrimination judgment in Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina; a new emphasis on and attention to social and economic rights as protected by the Revised Social Charter in the context of forced evictions; the Court’s expanding jurisprudence on the positive duties of the state; the fascinating Slovenian case on the fate of the “erased;” and a continuing focus on discrimination against Chechens as part of the Court’s recent return to a focus on the long-neglected Article 14 of the Convention. The article concludes by summarising a new scholarly interpretation of minority rights through the concept of vulnerability.

scholarly journals The restrictions of the right to inspect the case file in Bosnia and Herzegovina in light of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 463-479
Author(s):  
Faruk Avdić
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Case File ◽  
European Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedure Codes

This paper aims to assess the compliance of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing with the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file with the standards developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The working hypothesis laid out in this paper is that the right of the prosecutor to unilaterally restrict the defense right to access the case file during the investigation and to unilaterally decide which evidence he will use as the basis for the indictment does not satisfy the requirements stemming from the right to a fair trial. The starting point of this paper is the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. Afterward, the paper turns to the consideration of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina dealing with the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file. In that purpose, this paper employs normative and formal dogmatic legal methods in analyzing the particulars of its subject. The conclusion of the paper is that the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina when it comes to the restrictions of the right to inspect the case file is not in line with the standards of the European Court of Human Rights. For this reason, there is a need for the amending of the Criminal Procedure Codes in force in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the aim of making these Codes compliant with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in that respect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document