Introduction
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was founded under the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950 to observe conformity by Signatory Parties. The European Convention on Human Rights, or officially called Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms became one of the most significant documents accepted by the Council of Europe. All 47 states-members of the Council of Europe are also parties to the Convention. Claims against Signatory Parties for human rights abuses can be brought to the Court either by other States Parties or by persons.
It often happens that the regarded cases become a legal authority for the changing of the human rights defense system. The following cases are bright examples of such changes.
Cases by the court
In December 1977, the court regarded that the government of the UK was responsible for “cruel and humiliating conduct”, of men interned with no trial, by the courtyard, next to a case given by the Republic of Ireland (Case No. 5310/71). The court stated that whilst their imprisonment was an infringement of the declared human rights, it was reasonable in the situation; it conversely ruled that the experience of the five methods and the practice of hammering prisoners comprised cruel and humiliating penalties in violation of the conference, although not torment.
After that case, the human rights defense system was improved by adding some additional regulative points on the means of punishment and forbidding any type of torture and beating.
In 1980, the court regarded out the essential right to prosecute the mother carrying the fetus. In the previously regarded case Paton v. the United Kingdom, it was stated that the life of an unborn child is “closely linked with, and in no way can be viewed separately from, the life of a pregnant woman”.
The 1980 case encouraged the court to adopt the means of punishment of the violators and gave a bit more clear explanation of the precedential case.
In 2003 and 2004, the court regarded the case, stating that “Sharia is unable to get along with the essential standards of democracy”, as the Sharia principles and rules on heritage, women’s rights, and holy liberty infringe human rights as stated in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The results of the procedure can not be found in the free access, but the only thing that is known for sure is that the result of the procedure was the statement on respect of other religions, especially those, which are regarded to be the key ones.
In 2006, the court denied the admissibility of the applications of former Soviet secret services operatives convicted in Estonia for Stalinist crimes against humanity after Estonia became independent in 1991.
This denial resulted in the tacit principle of solving such cases, which motivates alike denials by the fact, that the states joined the Soviet Union voluntarily.
As the Russian armed forces entered Chechnya for the second time in 1999, the courtyard has consented to hear cases of human rights mistreatment brought forward by Chechen residents against Russian citizens. In 2007, for instance, the Court stated that Russia was accountable for the murders of a human rights protester Zura Bitiyeva and her family. Other precedents regarded against Russia involved the fatalities of Ruslan Alikhadzhyev, Shakhid Baysayev, Nura Luluyeva, and Khadzhi-Murat Yandiyev, the case of attacking of Katyr-Yurt and some of the victims during Novye Aldi slaughter.
This is one of the few cases, which had not been solved completely, and had no impact on the human rights defense system, as Chechen activists are also accountable for the numerous victims in Beslan (2005), Moscow (Nord-Ost performance in 2004), and some others.
John Murray v. the United Kingdom
One of the most notable cases is the case of John Murray v. the United Kingdom. It was a lawful case regarded by the European Court of Human Rights in 1996 associated with the right to stillness in the UK, particularly the validity of the decrease in the right to permit for unfavorable deductions to be created.
John Murray was one of eight activists seized on January 7, 1990, in Belfast, Northern Ireland under the Avoidance of Terrorism (Temporary Prerequisites) Act 1989, he was concerned as particular in the Criminal Confirmation (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Following his capture and over twelve dialogues at Castlereagh, over twenty-one hours in total for the next two days, Mr. Murray rejected to reply any questions despite being advised each time that “a court might depict such common logic deductions as appeared appropriate from his breakdown or denial to do so.”
Mr. Murray was prized £15,000 towards his prices and operating expenses.
The Court’s verdicts were by mass – 14-5 in observe of no breach of Article 6-1 and 6-2, 12-7 in regard of defiance of 6-1 with 6-3c, and commonly that it is not essential to examine the applicant’s grievance of an infringement of 6-1 and 14.
The described case originated the appearance of a stated regiment of the total time of questionings.
References
Robertson, David. A Dictionary of Human Rights. London: Europa Publications, 2005.
European court of Human Rights. Web.