Right to the Truth Paradigm in the UK - Essay Example

In The European Court Of Human Rights Endorsed The Recognition Of The ‘Right To Truth’. Does This Open The Way For Greater Accountability In Future Cases Of Abuse? Critically Discuss. Table of Contents Introduction 3 Discussion 4 Background 4 Situational Implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ 6 Benefits Associated With Implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ By ECHR 7 Issues Associated With Implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ By ECHR 10 Summarised Evaluation of the Above Facts 12 References 14 Introduction The historical existence of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) can be traced back during the period of 1959. This judicial organisation is regarded as one of the most profound regulatory bodies, which projects active involvement under situations wherein there occurs a breach within the protocols of human rights. ECHR, in the present scenario, administers the human rights related violation cases within 47 member states, as stated in the compliance guidelines list of ‘Protocol no.14 reforms’1. However, the recent scenario witnessed multiple case hoardings where the convicts get subjected to false allegations regarding being involved in terrorism related activities and thus get tortured in an unethical manner. The case of ‘El-Masri v The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’ is an appropriate example, wherein the conduct of such unethical practise can be recognised2. In this case, an individual named ‘El-Masri’ was captured by the Macedonian agents and illegally tortured for being suspected as a terrorist. However, due to the lack of evidence, El-Masri was finally released. From this incident, one can clearly understand regarding the violation of the human rights of El-Masri without the existence of any specific evidence3. Understanding the situational intensity of such events, the ECHR focused on endorsing a recent theory of ‘Right to the Truth, providing the victim along with the public with the right of knowing the types and levels of human rights violations carried out by the government under situations of domestic security. From a legal perspective, it can be stated that the initiative undertaken by government is justified, if it involves the notion of national security4. However, from the other perspective, it can also be inferred that under the situation of false allegations, the respective governments do not possess the authority of torturing the convicted felons by imparting extreme level of physical punishment5. In addition, the appropriate implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm will also be subjected to multiple complicacies based on the fact that it will create a link between the actual chains of events, which require to be hidden. In relation to the above context, the prime intent of this essay is to understand all the compliances and remedial elements of the ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm as endorsed by ECHR. Moreover, the essay tends to emphasise understanding the possible dimensions within which the paradigm will find suitable applicability. In an associated manner, the endorsed paradigm by ECHR will also impart certain benefits that future human rights based violation cases are ought to obtain through effective implementation of this new paradigm. Discussion Background The structured paradigm the ‘Right to the Truth’ specifically comprises certain set of principles that govern authentic applicability within every case associated with the abuse made towards human rights. These principles have been elaborated in detail in the following: Principle 1: As per this principle, it is the responsibility of the states to inform the family members regarding the type and level of crime committed by the convict for which he / she has been subjected to human rights violations6. Principle 2: In accordance with this principle, every individual or perpetual group has the right to know about the past chain of events that have forced them in getting subjected to human rights violations or any other sort of abuse7. Principle 3: This principle regulates the appropriate implementation of the two previous principles irrespective of whether the convict is currently under judicial subjugation or went missing8. From a legal perspective, it can be stated that the applicability of the above discussed three principles are ought to increase the effectiveness of ECHR in the context of safeguarding the interests of those individuals who are subjected to governmental harassment based upon false allegations9. In alignment to these aspects, the applicability of ‘Right to the Truth’ can be found relevant within the regional, national as well as international levels. Justification in relation to the above context can be made based on the increase in the number of individual abduction by governmental secret service organisations, if suspected of being involved within terrorism related activities10. The practice concerning forced disappearance of suspected individual encompasses the involvement of multiple other non-governmental organisations that project high level of obligation regarding the illegal and unethical disappearance of civilians who get suspected as terrorists without the presence of any rigid evidence11. In alignment to this paradigm, every individual within the society has the right to know the truth associetd with all his or her subjugations. However, the ‘Right to the Truth’ fails to address the fact that disclosure of the actual truth regarding the suspects might distort the social and societal harmony, therefore causing a chaotic scenario12. Other beneficiary aspects associated with ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm include maintaining the morality and belief of individuals over the respective governments. Multiple instances of compliance articles can also be projected that confronts with the severity associated with forced disappearance of suspected civilians. The compliance guidelines mentioned within the article 32 of the Protocol 1 can be duly considered as appropriate evidence in alignment with the provided context13. Situational Implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ Being concerned about the safeguarding the interests of innocent civilians, the paradigm ‘Right to the Truth’ finds wider applicability under various political, democratic as well as armed strategies. For instance, the individuals involved within susceptive interrogation of the convicts should adhere to the compliance guidelines as mentioned within the paradigm of ‘Right to the Truth’14. Under situation of compliance failure, the concerned parties will be subjected to thorough investigation by the ‘truth commission’ with the prime intention of evaluating the actual chain of events that resulted in occurrence of such human rights violation. Multiple situations also arise wherein the family members of the abducted suspects are only made aware of the reason regarding forced disappearance. However ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm elaborates the fact that the family members of the abducted suspects should also be informed regarding the tenure till which the suspect will be held along with the status of the investigation15. It is worth mentioning that the compliance guidelines, as established by ECHR, also elaborated about how ‘right to information’ along with ‘Habeas corpus’ can be utilised by the individuals for preventing the risk of illegal forced abduction on being subjected to false allegations. However, the declarations made within the Article 13 of ECHR state that the judiciary authorities can only project the reports associated with the investigations considering that these will not hamper the credibility and precision factor of the overall investigation16. Benefits Associated With Implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ By ECHR Demand for Specific Evidence Effective endorsement of the ‘Right to the Truth’ by ECHR is ought to bring in multiple benefits to the individuals who are subjected to considerable level of violations. In this regard, one of such benefits is the offering of sound judgement by ECHR’s court, which the UK government will need to adhere irrespective of any circumstance17. This will gradually help in reinforcing the fact that without the presence of appropriate evidence, the UK government or the secret service organisations will not be capable of detaining any individual who assumed as having active, direct or indirect involvement with terrorism. Considering the above sated facts, it is worth mentioning that effective implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm would gradually impose higher value of positive impact upon the decision making procedure within the future occurrences of similar cases 18. Counter Questioning of Courts Jurisdiction The paradigm of ‘Right to the truth’ also supports the identification of multiple other dimensions where the future occurrences of abusive cases can be handled with greater accountability. This can be justified based on the ECHR’s capabilities of counter questioning the decisions imparted upon the suspects by the UK courts19. Thus, it can be stated that the implementation of the previously mentioned paradigm by ECHR is specifically meant to control the UK government from overpowering the nation’s interest over promoting individuals’ safety. As a matter of fact, this paradigm, through its appropriately structured compliance guidelines, projects an active involvement in maintaining societal harmony and legal faith within the UK individuals. This also corresponds to the fact that appropriate usage of this paradigm will gradually help in tackling such irreverent cases of human rights abuse in future20. Support from Other Member States ECHR works under the supportive framework provided by all its associated members. As a matter of fact, it is ought to receive higher levels of publicity in comparison with that of the bureaucratic and beneficiary aspects projected by the UK government irrespective of multiple violations within human rights. More importantly, it also aims towards forming as well as maintaining harmony within all the member states21. Moreover, the joint operation of ECHR along with the UK government is ought to reveal multiple other evidential facts regarding the occurrence of a terrorising incident, failure to which might restrain an individual under false allegations22. In simple words, effective accumulation of evidences will support the European court in providing an accurate judgement in favour of the victims if actually not committed any sort of crime. In this context, it is worth mentioning that specific intervention of ECHR through its ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm has the potentiality of effectively handling the cases related to abuse of human rights23. Issues Associated With Implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ By ECHR Issues Related To Disclosure of Evidence War crimes are often subjected to political disabilities. Consequently, disclosure of certain credential information might hamper the peace process within multiple nations and raise more political and bureaucratic issues further. This is one of the possible issues, which is related with the implementation of ‘Right to the Trust’ paradigm, affecting the decision imparted towards a suspected individual24. Possible complications within multiple rights might also result in clouding the judgemental procedures. Apart from these, possible investigation associated with ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm might also reveal multiple governmental secrets. Moreover, relevance of such secrets might destabilise the overall economic performance of a nation and give rise to possible riots. Thus, the continued endorsement of ‘Right to the Truth’ by ECHR might witness high level of opposition from the UK government when it comes to impart judgement to the suspected individuals25. Issues Related To False Identifications Multiple instances are witnessed wherein certain terrorist organisations make use of fake identities while committing illegal activities. This eventually creates a lot of confusion for the government agents in identifying the alleged individuals. In this similar concern, the case of ‘Ibrahim and others v The United Kingdom’ also reflect a similar kind of incident wherein three of the Islamic individuals were falsely alleged regarding being involved in a bombing incident26. In this case, the convicts were falsely accused for being involved in the bombing attack that in London during 2005. However, due to the active involvement of ECHR, the findings associated with this case turned out to be completely different. This reflects how the actual convicts have escaped the legalised executions that should have been forced upon them. Rather, the execution was subjected upon three other individuals who did not project any sort of involvement within such activities27. This eventually denotes that endorsing the identification of the paradigm “right to truth” opens the way higher accountability in future cases relating to abuse. Issues Related To Judicial Execution Though it has been already stated that the new paradigm ‘Right to the Truth’ has the potential of questioning the government on direct fronts, it might distort the overall performance of the legal structure within a specific nation wherein it is applied. The entire concept can be seen from two specific viewpoints28. From the positive viewpoint, it can be stated that appropriate implementation of ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm might safeguard the interests of human rights and thus prevent subjection of false allegations upon them. However, from a negative perspective, it can be inferred that such frequent interventions from ECHR might jeopardise the legal structure and practise within the member states. More significantly, the ‘Right to the Truth’ endorsement by ECHR also imposes considerable level of threat towards maintaining peace as well as harmony between the general population and the government within a nation. The situation might get worsened to further extent due to the fact that the applicability of ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm by ECHR can be found within all sorts of functional dimensions and thus pose tremendous impact on the overall functionality rate of multiple other industrial sectors29. Summarised Evaluation of the Above Facts The above discussion has been highly compulsive in illustrating the possible benefits and obligations that ECHR is yet to face within its active endorsement of ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm, which emphasised safeguarding the interests of the general people from being subjected to human rights violations. Further evaluation of the compliance guidelines associated with this new paradigm illustrates its major focus upon safeguarding the interests of the common individuals from being unnecessarily harassed under false allegations of being involved in terrorism related activities. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that ECHR has taken consideration of the positive as well as negative aspects while structuring the ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm30. Furthermore, analysis in alignment with this topic corresponds to the fact that the intensity of positivity associated with this paradigm is much high in comparison with that of the negativities. ECHR is also witnessed to take consideration of multiple other principles that need to be apprehended in case a suspected individual is taken under judicial custody. Clear compliances of this Act state that none of the government agencies have the right of forcefully abducting any individual for intensive torture or interrogation until and unless proper evidences justify the involvement of such individual in conducting criminal or terrorism related activities. Evidence regarding such aspects has been provided in the case of ‘El-Masri v The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’31. Conclusion Throughout the discussion, multiple facts have been projected that illustrate the necessity about why ECHR should undertake active initiatives towards endorsing the ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm. Multiple factual justifications regarding such initiatives have also been provided regarding how the ‘Right to the Truth’ can be utilised as an appropriate tool for safeguarding the interest levels of the general public from being penalised with false allegations. From a societal perspective, it can be stated that such initiative has the potentiality of changing the perception of the general populaces towards a nation’s government. Thus, it can be concluded that the ‘Right to the Truth’ paradigm will definitely help the UK government along with the ECHR in handling future cases related to human rights abuse and thus open the way for greater accountability in the same. Justification regarding this statement can be provided based on the facts that appropriate intervention of the ECHR focuses upon the extraction of potential evidences that in turn can lay considerable amount of impact upon the overall decision-making process. However, the ECHR along with the respective government will also need to take care of the consequences that are likely to generate while implementing this paradigm. References Berkaw, A. ‘Presumed Guilty: How the European Court Handles Criminal Libel Cases in Violation of Article 6(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms’ [2014] (Home) accessed 31 December 2014. Carl Gordon Olson, Getting the Gospel Right - A Balanced View of Salvation Truth (Global Gospel Publishers, 2005) Chandra Lekha Sriram, Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding on the Ground: Victims and Ex-combatants (Routledge, 2013) Chigara, B. Kelly, P. J. and Rudman, A. ‘SPILJ State Practice and International Law Journal’ [2014] Sellier European Law Publishers 1 CJICL. ‘The Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Perinçek v. Switzerland: Reducing Genocide to Law’ (Current Affairs 2014) < http://cjicl.org.uk/2014/01/27/echr-reducing-genocide-law/> accessed 31 December 2014. Donald, A. Gordon, J. and Leach, P. ‘The UK and the European Court of Human Rights’ [n.d.] Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 83 Dzehtsiarou, K. ‘European Consensus and the Evolutive Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ [2011] European Consensus & the ECHR’s Evolutive Interpretation 1731 Dzehtsiarou, K.and Greene, A. ‘Legitimacy and the Future of the European Court of Human Rights: Critical Perspectives from Academia and Practitioners’ [2011] German"Law"Journal 1708 European Court of Human Rights, ‘Case of Ibrahim and Others v. The United Kingdom’ (Criteria, 2014) accessed 31 December 2014. European Court of Human Rights, ‘Case of El-Masri v. The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (Criteria, 2014) < http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115621#{"itemid":["001-115621"]}> accessed 06 January 2014. Fabbrini, F. ‘The European Court of Human Rights, Extraordinary Renditions and the Right to the Truth: Ensuring Accountability for Gross Human Rights Violations Committed in the Fight against Terrorism’ [2014] Human Rights Law Review 14 Groome, D. ‘The Right to Truth in the Fight against Impunity’ [2011] Berkeley Journal of International Law 175 Hamber, B. ‘Ere Their Story Die: Truth, Justice and Reconciliation in South Africa’ [2002] Institute Of Race Relations 61 Heri, C. ‘Enforced Disappearance and the European Court Of Human Rights’ Ratione Temporis Jurisdiction’ [2014] A Discussion of Temporal Elements in Janowiec and Others v. Russia 1 Letsas, G. ‘The Truth in Autonomous Concepts: How to Interpret the ECHR’ [2004] EJIL 279 Library of the Court. ‘New Acquisitions Bulletin of the Court Library’ [2014] (Bulletin Des Nouvelles Acquisitions De La Bibliothèque De La Cour) accessed 31 December 2014. McGregor, L. ‘Torture and State Immunity: Deflecting Impunity, Distorting Sovereignty’ [2008] The European Journal of International Law 903 Méndez, J. E. ‘National Reconciliation, Transnational Justice, and the International Criminal Court’ [n.d.] Punishment, Pardon, and Peace 1 Mohan, G. and Holland, J. ‘Human Rights And Development In Africa: Moral Intrusion Or Empowering Opportunity?’ [2001] The Open University’s Repository of Research Publications and Other Research Outputs 1 Naqvi, Y. ‘The Right to the Truth in International Law: Fact or Fiction?’ [2006] International Review of Red Cross 245 Olsen, T. D. Payne, L. A. Reiter, A. G. And Brahm, W. E. ‘When Truth Commissions Improve Human Rights’ [2010] The International Journal of Transitional Justice 457 Queen Mary Law Journal, ‘Why protect free speech?’ [2012] Introduction 1 Robin N. Fiore and Hilde Lindemann Nelson, Recognition, Responsibility, and Rights: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory (Rowman & Littlefield 2003) Smith, R. ‘The Margin of Appreciation and Human Rights Protection in the „War on Terror‟: Have the Rules Changed before the European Court of Human Rights?’ [n.d.] Introduction 1 Sonja C. Grover, The European Court of Human Rights as a Pathway to Impunity for International Crimes (Google eBook, Springer Science & Business Media, 2010) Tan, A. M. L. ‘Extraordinary Rendition, Victims’ Rights, and State Obligations’ [2013] The Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies 82 Tullio Scovazzi and Gabriella Citroni, The Struggle against Enforced Disappearance and the 2007 United Nations Convention (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007) Read More