Talk:European Convention on Human Rights/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Original texts resume

Hey guys, I just wanted to point out that article 15 concerning derogation, the quote credited to Nicholas, is in fact from Hoffman, and the we love a bit of hoffie and cake club would like to point it out.

You're right, I checked the link and the quotation is actually from Lord Hoffmann. Next time, why don't you just go ahead and edit the page yourself? On the other hand, I don't think I understand what you are saying about hoffie and cake club, but that might just be because I'm not a native English speaker. Oh, and please remember to sign your posts. Anyway, thanks for pointing out that mistake. SFinamore 11:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

(Personal missive removed Wyss 02:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC))

I hope there is a place for the following information somewhere on Wikipedia. Any Ideas?

European Court of Human Rights Denying Human Rights to Access Information.

There seems to be nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights protecting human rights to access to information - at least any rights to information regarding the basis for decision of the Three Judge Committee to reject a complaint brought before the European Court of Human Rights. Note that a typical rejection letter from The European Court of Human Rights states that following the Three Judge Committee decision to reject a complaint, the person bringing the complaint before the European Court of Human Rights has no right to any specific information regarding the decision of the courts, no right to a reply to further correspondence regarding the case and no right to effective remedy against the decision of the Committee. A logical step towards guaranteeing human rights would be to bring this to public attention in hope to amend the Convention and include decision to protect human rights to access information regarding the Court's decisions. Making sure that following all articles of the Convention are to be not only expected by all nations but also by the European Court of Human Rights itself. For instance, the lack of application of Article 13 of the convention by the European Court of Human Rights to its own behaviour is highly questionable - the fact that the Court of Human Rights denies people any effective remedy against its decisions rejecting cases or finding them unfounded. This in combination with denying access to any specific information regarding the basis for Committee's decision to do so is reminiscent of courts under Stalin.

Sources http://mailgate.supereva.com/pl/pl.listserv.dziennikarz/msg21874.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_court_of_human_rights Submitted copies of additional rejection letters would be welcome. At least one translation coming soon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Know_Day

(Writ by MC.)

POV

I "honestly" don't mean to be difficult, but this article, as it stands, is nothing more than a whitewash of European history. What of the rights of the millions of Native Americans who were exterminated by Europeans? What of the rights of all those indiginous people subjected to empire building? What of the millions of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals killed in WWII? What of the rights to freedom of association, free speech etc, of Eastern Euopeans?

This above unsigned comment is completely unspecific. What in the article is objectionable? Why, and in what way, should the above matters be dealt with in the article? The article is NPOV as it sets out a disapssionate account of the content and application of the Convention. It is not about Human RIghts in Europe generally. --Lucifer(sc) 12:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the comment has clearly been made without an actual understanding of the topic and an ignorance of what the ECHR actually is, or indeed its origins. Should be completely ignored. SCL 15:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As a student of British constitutional law, I find that comment completely absurd. The ECHR didn't come into existence until 1950, so questions about colonialism and WWII aren't remotely relevant, except perhaps as a backdrop to the motivations behind the Convention. I'm not sure what the point about Eastern Europeans is aimed at. If there's particular rampant violations of the ECHR that the original poster would like to bring up, that would be relevant. Otherwise, I agree that the comment should be ignored --LBW 22 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.196.182 (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Assertions in 'article 15' section

Hey there,

I'm slightly confused - the section on Article 15 (derogations) includes the conditions: "the state of affairs relied on is temporary and exceptional" and "the emergency is actual or imminent in that the emergency is about to occur"

Neither of these appear in the article itself, which is quite short:

1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law. 2. No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3, 4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision. 3. Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.

So, either the article is incorrect, or it's relying on text from outside article 15, in which case that should be explicitly stated. I've whacked some [citation needed] tags on those two statements, but I'm really not enough of an expert in European law to be sure which is the case...

131.111.139.100 (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

date of entry into force?

This website indicates that the treaty entered into force on March 9, 1953. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 09:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They're European dates. 3/9/1953 means 3 September 1953. Sorry about the late response. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 12:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Main article links

The reason it's a good idea to put main article links at the top of each section is that it encourages editors to expand the pages there. This is good format, per WP:STYLE. For each article there is one. Not all of them are stubs, but some of them are, and they need to be improved. If you delete the links here, those pages become orphaned. Each article is worthy of a Wikipedia page in its own right, just like the US Bill of Rights page. Wik idea 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. The whole point of the {{main}} template and the Wikipedia:Summary style policy is that sections of large articles should be summarised with more detailed content being put in the sub-article.

This article isn't very long and doesn't need the summary style approach yet. If and when it happens that an editor come along and doubles the size of the article (on my to do list I swear) then would be a good time to split the article in parts. But as it stands, the reader only finds the same information that they got here and just clicks the back button - hence the blind alley. And there's no reason in discouraging editors from expanding this article, since we're not starved for space.

I realise you're also included the text of the relevant article in each sub-article but frankly this is what Wikisource is for. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Protocol 11 ?

When did Protocol 11 allowing individual applications for redress come into effect? Or does it depend on what date the ratifing countries actually signed the protocol or ratified the protocol? --TGC55 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Effective date of "1 November 1998" added by an editor.--TGC55 (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the date without mentioning it here. I would like to point out that protocol 11 didn't "allow[] individual applications for redress", individual were a feature of the European system for a great many years prior protocol 11. The protocol removed the commission which had essentially played the role of a court of first instance. If they ruled that no human rights had been violated there was the possibility of appeal to the court. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this up to date

Sorry about gatecrashing the top of the posting, but there's a number of points URGENTLY needing attention and dropping it to the bottom of the pile doesn't meet the need.

1. Per the Council of Europe's text here, it's now the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This has been altered to enshrine some of the conventions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

2. You need mention of the latter, which is on hold while the Treaty of Lisbon situation is sorted out.

I apologise for not doing it myself, but I'd breach some of your fundamental guidelines if I did.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.227.84 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 12 March 2009

Wrong on all accounts I'm afraid:

1 It's always been the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" - never anything else. The full title is given in the lead. The "European Convention on Human Rights" is the common name of the convention and used much more widely, and includs academic and media usage. The article name is consistent with English Wikipedia policy - WP:COMMON. The ECHR hasn't been renamed, much less altered, to reflect the EU's charter.

2 You're confusing the Council of Europe with the European Union. The relationship between these different human rights instruments is a matter for another day. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Derogations under Article 15

Our current section on Article 15:

Article 15 allows contracting states to derogate from the rights guaranteed by the Convention in time of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation". Derogation from the rights in the Convention, however, is subject to a number of qualifying criteria, these are that: the state of affairs relied on is temporary and exceptional;^[1] the circumstances are grave enough to threaten the organised life of the entire community; the emergency is actual or imminent in that the emergency is about to occur^{[citation needed]}; the threat is to the life of the nation which seeks to derogate; and the measures for which the derogation is required are "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation".

In November 2001 the United Kingdom government held that there was such a dire state of emergency in the country that it was necessary to implement Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and detain a number of terrorist suspects indefinitely without charge in Belmarsh Prison pending deportation. This lasted until April 2005, after the Law Lords ruled on 16 December 2004 that the claim was not consistent with the Convention. Lord Hoffmann went further to say:

“

The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.^[2]

”

^ "exceptional" taken from the Lawless case 1961 at para 28
^ Cited from:the law lord's judgement

is rather slanted and wrong on several (if not all) points.

1. We quote from Lord Hoffmann even though he was in a minority of one and all the other law lords disagreed with him, as did the ECHR.

2. We say that derogations should be temporary even the ECHR rejected this contention in A v UK para 178.

3. We give the impression that the UK's state of emergency was ruled illegal by the House of Lords when in fact only Lord Hoffmann thought this. What actually happened was that both the HoL and the ECHR held that the measures taken by the Britain were not strictly required by the exigencies of the situation.

4. Given points 1 and 3, I don't think the decision really deserves the paragraph it has at present.

I'm going to make a few changes. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Lisbon

The EU is not yet a signatory of the ECHR. Before this can happen, Protocol 14 of the ECHR needs to come into force (which won't happen until June) and the EU need to actually sign the Convention. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

signatories

given that conventions of the council of europe are open to many non-member states, could a more precise list be made of states that signed these documents? (quick googling didn't give me that info)Aryah (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Is the Vatican a member? samwaltz (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of the Human Rights convention, non-member states cannot join, but - for the record - here's a list of exactly which countries have signed up to the Convention: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=005&CM=3&DF=21/03/2011&CL=ENG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.164.229.102 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Torture-Free Zone

Are there any torture-free zones in Europe? If so, they should be listed in the article. The Mint Hotel chain has been providing free Disappoint-Mints on the pillow of all guests staying there.

Chicago has declared itself to be a "torture-free zone" and on February 23, 2012, Kenyans for Limited Government announced a Leadership and Integrity Bill to vet politicians seeking office. The vetting agencies include National Intelligence Service, police, Kenya Revenue Authority, Chief Registrar of Judiciary and the Commission for Administrative Justice. Others are Higher Education Loans Board, other relevant professional agencies or commercial organisations and any individual or institution as prescribed by the Bill. After the vetting, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) will issue a certificate to the aspirant to vie for the seat.

"Where the Commission issues a certificate confirming that a particular State officer is not compliant with one or all the provisions of Chapter Six of the Constitution or this Act, that person shall not be eligible for election or appointment to any state or public office." However, almost as soon the process moved from the technical to the political level it ground to a shuddering halt. It is understood – although this is hard to verify, given that the poor flow of information – that objections almost exclusively from one large EU member state (no prizes for guessing which one) have made it impossible for the EU to find a common position.

Formal negotiations on accession to the human rights convention were launched by EU Commissioner Reding and Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjørn Jagland in June 2010. Despite the significant technical and legal complexities involved, they were successfully completed – on time – a year later.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms may be the most advanced human rights mechanism in the world, and is something that we Europeans can be proud of. Decoupling the United States and mutants from NATO is the foundation for building a comprehensive and coherent “common space” for human rights in Europe that will defend Europe from mutants, not for mutants. While it may be interoperable with other zones, the Euro-zone should not run foreign operating systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.140.29 (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Human Rights section it should mention that Armenia is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights

European Union

The Council of Europe should not be confused with the Council of the European Union or the European Council. The European Union is not a party to the Convention and has no role in the administration of the European Court of Human Rights.

I feel that the above note should form part of the main text (perhaps the introduction) rather than a footnote, as it is important to understanding what the ECHR is, and is something that many readers are likely to not be aware of. Alboran (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not mentioned anywhere in the text and there's a lot of confusion especially in the UK, where it's quite fashionable to hate the EU in part because of perceived restrictions due to the ECHR. Jaredjeya (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation

I've found that there's a general lack of information on the formal citation of treaties such as the ECHR for the purposes of academic papers. Most people seem to just refer to them by name and assume people know what they mean. I dredged up a citation format and edited into the article, but I'm sure it's not the only citation format for international treaties. If anyone sees a more appropriate/common one, please fix it. LBW 22 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.196.182 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the ECHR's long title is the "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". That is not a former title as the Wiki page previously suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.21.211 (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What is "ducknapping" a term found in the main text explaining the role of the ECHR. I have never seen the term before and a Google search was unhelpful. Clarification or a citation would help. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.73.21 (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation 35 (humanrights.gov.uk) is dead, as far as I can see. 82.9.84.200 (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Right to social security

Does the European Convention on Human Rights state right to social security, that is being given food and housing if not having it? I wonder if there is a requirement that new member countries in the European Union have social security. The Copenhagen criteria requires that new members follow the European Convention on Human Rights, but nevertheless there are beggars from some new member countries who claim that they will starve if going back there.--BIL (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Source link broken

Either I don't know how doi sources work or sources 24 and 26 ("Roffee, J. A. (2014). No Consensus on Incest? Criminalisation and Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights". doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngu023]. ) don't work, leading to a broken page (DOI not found). And the two entries are duplicates so one could be deleted too? But I'm unsure, asking for someone more familiar with wikipedia to help out, don't want to make a mistake. 93.103.94.211 (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed myself with 2 links of the same author, same title (and presumably same contents...) Tadejpetric (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on European Convention on Human Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Which protocols are active?

The article states:

As of January 2010, fifteen protocols to the Convention have been opened for signature. These can be divided into two main groups: those amending the framework of the convention system, and those expanding the rights that can be protected. The former require unanimous ratification by member states before coming into force, while the latter require a certain number of states to sign before coming into force.

It should be stated which group each protocol is in. For example, one protocol abolishes the death penalty, and has not been ratified by three states. If the protocol is in the first group, unanimous ratification, it is not binding on any signatory of the treaty. If it is in the second group, needing a certain number of ratifications before being binding on all (similar to a USA Constitutional amendment) what number is needed?

Suggest each protocol be labelled as either needing all members to ratify to be valid, or needing only a certain number of ratifications to be valid, and what that number is.

A brief description of why the difference exists would also be useful. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:8537:A0E2:E05F:E95B (talk) 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

[1] "exceptional" taken from the Lawless case 1961 at para 28

[2] Cited from:the law lord's judgement

[1]

[2]