Advocates of Human Rights and Champions of Countrys and Citizens Safety - Research Paper Example

 ‘Presumption of Innocence, a right of the accused person in criminal trials, in most of the modern nations that states “no person should be considered guilty until finally convicted by a court”, and this means the prosecution bears the burden of proof and not the defendant, who has no obligation to prove anything, other than countering the allegations made by the prosecution. This is one of the foremost human rights, enjoyed by any human being of a modern state, communist and dictatorship governed states excluded. Presumption of guilt is unfair, unethical, biased and detrimental to human rights of the individual and in most of the cases, if the person had been alone; it is impossible to establish an alibi. “….the ECHR is an increasingly important source for the interpretation of English law. It also contains, however, a procedure whereby individuals and states may challenge the actions of other States as being contrary to the Convention,” (Stone, 1994, p.17). Another version is “the accused is presumed to be innocent until it has been declared guilty by a court,” and media can refer to the accused only as ‘accused’, ‘alleged criminal’ or the ‘defendant’. There is another argument that this form of interpretation disregards the authority of the higher courts to which the accused might appeal as a ‘freshly innocent’ person, as the same applies in every court. Hence, people who are convicted in the lower courts, but have appealed successfully to higher courts could neither be removed from office, nor could be deprived of other citizens rights, like getting elected for an elected post, or exercising voting rights etc. So, indictment or formal charge against any person is not an evidence of guilt because unless proved otherwise, the person is supposed to be innocent. It is the fundamental safeguard in British system. “It is precisely in order to protect this presumption of innocence that defendants are not generally required to face evidence which, while it may be highly prejudicial, does not actually prove the particular case against them” http://www.richardwebster.net/similarfactevidence.html Keeping this exclusive right of the defendant, he is excluded from ‘similar fact evidence’ meaning similar crimes committed by the accused in past will not have any bearing on the present case. Human Rights have become the most important principles of law today, in all civilised countries. World is at last acknowledging that individual and his rights are greater than any other rights, as long as it does not encroach another’s individual rights. Hence, human rights come to the forefront while dealing with individuality as the core matter of it. “Throughout the world, in international relations and international law, discourse is increasingly being conducted in the language of human rights. This trend represents the significant inroads which are being made by the international community of nations on the notion of state sovereignty,” (Feldman, 2002, p.35). United Kingdom on its own, and as part of European union, is committed to Human Rights of not only her citizens but also of people at large. The same principles are applied to asylum seekers, students, and immigrants, even though it clashes sometimes with national interest. “Human Rights issues raised in British Immigration and nationality law and practice are about human rights for the marginalized; for people who are not physically here or are not felt to belong,” (Seighart, 1998, p.27). But there is no denial that UK has always tried to uphold the principles of Convention and Human rights. “UK is party to, inter alia, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,” (Feldman, 2002, p.37). The Human Rights Act, 1998 imposes a legal duty on public authorities, courts and tribunals, to act in compatibility with the Convention rights so that the victim of a violation – to guard the individual liberties, including the presumption of innocence. The Convention Rights are those operating under ECHR and they say: ii) The right to be free of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3); iv) the right not to be deprived of liberty and security of the person except in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and with various safeguards (Article 5); v) The right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law in determination of civil rights and obligations and criminal charges, with special procedural safeguards in criminal cases (article 6); vi) the right not to be punished for an action which did not constitute an offence under national or international law at the time of its commission (article 7) (Feldman, p. 81). Human Rights are derived from the Natural Law of mankind. Even before the much-celebrated Human Rights came into existence as a symbol of human civilization’s zenith, they had always existed in the form of natural law. “The adherent of natural law believes that beyond, and superior to, the laws made by man are certain higher principles, the principles of natural law,” (Riddall, 1999, p.54). Natural law is a body of permanent, unalterable truths, applicable to the entire world and it will remain unaffected by any other human attitudes and modern advancement. In every society, culture, country, struggle for natural law had continued in one form or other, irrespective of being accepted by the society or not. “Since man’s natural ends are the same for all mankind, and remain the same for all time, it is natural (yet another meaning of the world) that the principles of natural law are constant,”(Riddall, p. 57). Riddall also insisted that if man-made law conflicted with natural law, man-made law is deemed to lack validity (p.58). In recent troubled times of terrorism, United Kingdom has seen turbulent days of bombing, trauma of having known that the bombers were insiders, and then again, the dilemma of deporting or retaining citizens who were not conducive to the good of British society. UK now realises the difficulties of facing a multicultural society, assimilating its ways and peculiarities, suspecting a community of using terrorism against innocent citizens, holding them against principles of law and also dealing with deportation. Every one of these actions are death knell to the accepted principles of Human Rights. To find a way not to encroach into the arena of Human Rights, without endangering the safety of the country and its citizens had been an awful act of balancing and the Government has not always succeeded in doing it. Many new laws are introduced today, keeping in view the altered conditions. But they have not helped Human Rights much. “The derogation is made in respect of the extended powers of arrest and detention of suspected terrorists, pending deportation, according to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act, 2001, which was passed in the wake of the terrorist attack on New York on 11 September 2001,” (Clayton, 2003, p.51). In every case, the guilt was not proved beyond doubt. In all cases, connected with terrorism, the accused individual could not completely enjoy the presumption of innocence. Debate between advocates of human rights and champions of country’s and citizens’ safety continues unabatedly. Many times right to a fair trial within a reasonable time would not exist. “The right to a fair trial also applies to an individual in the determination of his civil rights and obligations. In many respects this is a wide phrase: issues arising in contract, commercial law, insurance law, succession, family law and real and personal property are generally regarded as matters to which Article 6 applies,” (Wadham, 2000, p.86). BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Clayton, Richard and Tomlinson, Hugh (2001), The Law of Human Rights, Second Annual Updating Supplement, Oxford University Press. 2. Feldman, David (2002), Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, Oxford University Press. 3. Riddall, J.G. (1999), Jurisprudence, Butterworths, London. 4. Robertson, Geoffrey (1989), Freedom, the Individual and the Law, 6th ed., Penguin Books, London. 5. Sieghart, Paul (1988), Human Rights in the United Kingdom, Printer Publishers, London. 6. Stone, Richard (1994), Textbook on Civil Liberties, Blackstone Press Limited, London. 7. Singh, Rabinder (1997), The Future of Human Rights in the United Kingdom, Hart Publishing, Oxford. 8. Wadham, John and Mountfield, Helen (2000), Blackstone’s Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998, 2nd ed., Blackstone Press Limited, London. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://www.richardwebster.net/similarfactevidence.html Read More