Human Rights Act of 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights - Essay Example

European Convention on Human Rights defines several important rights that should be protected by the s-signatures of the convention. Such rights as right to life, prohibition of slavery, right to liberty and security, freedom of assembly and association, right to marry and prohibition of discrimination and others should be protected and respected by the states. Wherever some articles, such as Artilce4 and Artcile5 provide more specific definition of the terms in question (for example it is possible by inference to define what constitute such terms as force labor and liberty or security), such article as Article3 is more vogue. In contrast to two articles mentioned this article does not provide us with any information on what torture or inhuman and degrading treatment might be. In my opinion it would be appropriate to be more specific in this case and define precisely what kind of treatment is meant by these terms. In case of torture one could at least rely on common knowledge about this process which implies the infliction of severe mental or physical pain to a person, wherever degrading treatment is more partial term. Most of the rights mentioned in the convention can be limited by the Government in the interest of the nation. These interests are defined as the interests of national security for the prevention of crimes or for the protection of other individuals. In my opinion the interests mentioned can be broadly interpreted by the Government, yet in modern era of the fight against terrorism they are frequently used to protect public. Understandably such freedoms as freedom of thoughts and religion, expression and assembly can be limited by the Government if for instance they are used to incite violent actions or disorder. Article 13 as well as Artilce14 can not be limited by the actions of the Government. 2) Limitations mentioned are explained by the phrase “…as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society….” Many countries have already signed the convention and the governments of the nations intend to respect major rights defined in it. However, the countries mentioned have their own national laws that might limit certain activities of their citizens and some of the rights mentioned in convention can be restricted by national laws of the countries. One of the major responsibilities of every government is to preserve the right and order in its country. That is why some of the freedoms can be limited, because their limitations deem to be necessary in order to maintain order. 3) The convention covers major rights and freedoms that should be protected in the democratic society. In my opinion some of the rights such as the right to choose the place of employment should be covered there as well. The judgment in the case “McLeod v United Kingdom”. In order to understand why the European Court of Human Rights found violations in the case “McLeod v United Kingdom” one should recall this case. The ex-couple -McLeods were unable to divide the property after divorce, and had to use litigation procedures to do it. On 3 October, 1989 Mr. McLeod decided to collect his part of the property, believing (erroneously) that the court had already awarded this right to him. However, he asked the police to assist him so there would be no breach of peace when the property mentioned was being removed. McLeods entered the house of his ex-wife anв removed the property, wherever the police was watching this process. Ms McLeod was not at home when her property was being removed and charged the police with the violation of her right of private life and consequently the violation of the article 8 of the ECHR, that guarantees the right “ to respect for his freedom and private life”( Arcticle8, ECHR). In spite of the fact that the police did not take any active part in the removing of the property, they nevertheless, in opinion of the European Court of Human Rights did not have any legitimate grounds to be at the house of Ms McLeod as the assertion that the court awarded to Mr. McLeod to take the property on the day mentioned was wrong. The police should have made some steps in order to verify the trustworthy of Mr. McLeod’s assertions and taken their actions based on the decisions of the court rather than the statements of Mr. McLeod. Human Right Act of 1998 and European Convention on Human Rights. In spite of fact that Human Right Act is less than a decade old, the laws of the United Kingdom had been protecting the rights of its citizens even before this Act was implemented. British citizens had enjoyed the rights of freedom of thoughts and expressions covered in European Convention on Human Rights, yet there were some inconsistencies that can be explained by the fact that there was no list of the rights that should be protected. There was some legislation that covered some rights and freedoms as well as limitations such as mentioned in Official Secrets Act of 1989 that forbade the divulging of official information or Public Order Act of 1986 that prohibited the incitements of racial hatred. Some lawyers are the staunch supporters of the previous legal practice when basic rights and freedoms were defined not in one act or law but in several ones. For the instance A.V Dickey claimed that the rule of law protected main freedoms and rights of the man. In my opinion Dickey based his arguments on what the British subject was not forbidden to do rather than on the fact that some of his rights should be protected legally. If the law does not prohibit any subject to vote in the elections, participate in them and even become the Member of Parliament than his rights as well as equality in the society is protected. However, I hold the belief that the rights of the citizens are better protected if the law defines them. Yes, theoretically one might say that if the law is based on equality that there is no need to protect some specific rights as everyone presumed to be equal by the law. Nevertheless, the legal system should take some steps to protect those members of the society who can be subjected to some prejudices based on their nationality, race, sex and etc; and to make acts of the discrimination based on factors mentioned punishable by the law. As was mentioned earlier, the majority of the rights and freedoms of European Convention on Human Rights had been efficiently protected by the English law before the convention was signed. One should not forget that European Convention of Human Rights was ratified by the government of the United Kingdom in 1951, however up till 1998 it had been the treaty which meant that it had served as the guide only and it could not be enforced by British law. Also major principles and definition were defined in numerous court decisions; for the instance in R v. Country Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, the decision was taken that the term “breach of peace” did not constitute a criminal offence. , yet the term was not defined and further attempts to formulate it were made in various other court decisions. The same pertains to other aspects of the English law, the major rights of the Convention were protected and if there was any need they were amended. That is why one might claim that the main rights of the convention were recognized and protected. Works cited. A. V. Dicey, INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 Available from McLEOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 24755/94 [1998] ECHR 92 (23 September 1998) Available from Prof. Peter Leyland Lecture outline Corso di Lingua giuridica inglese April 6th 2005 THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPACT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 Available from Read More