Advice to Amy Hart with Regard to the European Convention on Human Rights - Essay Example

Human Rights: Advice to Amy Hart with Regard to The European Convention on Human Rights Amy Hart is the mother of Abel, a man who was detained for his involvement as a foreign fighter. He was secretly flown to Solemnia from Bandem prior to being interrogated to such extent that he deceased during such interrogation. Certainly, Amy is right to seek council with respect to the European Convention’s policies on in depth methods of extracting information which can essentially be translated to mean that he was a victim of torture. The purpose of this discussion is to provide research information which will serve to council Ms. Hart on the specific aspects of the ECHR which have been violated in the case of her son Abel such that an application may be prepared by her, in order to petition for a court hearing before the European Council. Amy Hart is entitled to apply for such a hearing based on the following: “Article 34 – Individual applications: The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organization or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right”(ECHR, 2007). For thousands of years, kingdoms and governments all over the world, have been involved in information extraction techniques that have served only to degrade, humiliate, harm or kill human beings. As medical knowledge and our understanding of the human body has advanced, so has the human propensity to abuse that knowledge. In an age of heightened terrorism awareness, countries in almost every part of the globe have found themselves the focus of news broadcasts exposing detailed reports and photographs of human degradation in the name of anti-terrorism. The problem of terrorism has single handedly given rise to an equally malignant problem and that is the moral decay of democracies and dictatorships alike to the point of justifying the most heinous of human degradation and humiliation. While admittedly, terrorism is itself a monumental problem on a global scale at this point in time, it is also important to realize that tactics which violate human rights such as acts of torture and abandon of due process only add to the overall problem at hand. The following is an accurate definition as recognized by international law, on what classifies as terrorism: “Efforts in the United Nations to achieve by consensus a comprehensive definition of terrorism have been pursued since 1996. (2) These efforts were accelerated after the events of 11 September 2001, but so far have stumbled over the difficulty of accommodating liberation movements. In this, as in so much else, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians casts a long shadow. However, the core definition has been agreed. Article 2 of the Draft Convention provides: ‘1. Any person commits an offence within the meaning of this Convention if that person, by any means, unlawfully and intentionally, causes: (a) death or serious bodily injury to any person; or (b) serious damage to public or private property, including a place of public use, a state or government facility, a public transportation system, an infrastructure facility, or the environment; or (c) damage to property , places, facilities or systems referred to in paragraph 1(b) of this article, resulting or likely to result in major economic loss, when the purpose of the conduct, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act’.”(Shaerer, 2003). Clearly, if Abel was active in the murder of political leaders and the destruction of property, he was in fact acting in a terroristic capacity but having never been given a trial or a hearing, the accounts of his actions or merely hearsay. The very fact that he was never given a trial or hearing is in and of itself a violation of article 5 of the ECHR, “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; (c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority of reasonable suspicion of having committed and offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so”(ECHR, 2008). The European Convention on Human Rights has been an active political liaison in such inhumane activities and has been integral in setting a standard for basic human decency. The following discussion will focus on how the European Convention on Human Rights can be used to justify Amy Hart’s reasons for bringing the case of her son Abel, before the European Court of Human Rights. One of the fundamental reasons that the European Convention on Human Rights was developed was to provide a standard of ethics pertinent to the treatment of human beings particularly with respect to their state or country. In the event that those fundamental rights are violated, the party responsible become accountable to the criteria set forth in the ECHR. Application submission to the council regarding such violations could result in conviction of the offending party or parties, “The [European] Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, known simply as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), was the COEs first legal treaty to protect human rights, as well as the first international human rights treaty with enforceable mechanisms. It was inspired by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), which was signed in Rome on November 4, 1950, and entered into force on September 3, 1953”(Human Rights Education Associates, 2008). If convicted of allegations of torture and crimes against humanity, a state participating within the European union or the UN may be expelled from such affiliation. Being apart of the UN or the European Union is integral to economic stability and national for any state or country. If a state is not granted a place within the union, trade possibilities become minimal and the economy functions accordingly Therefore, abiding by these regulations and statutes is of enormous importance to most any territory. The basic requirement for the council’s consideration of such a trial is that one not only feels that one’s human rights have been violated by a state party; which is certainly applicable in the case of Amy Hart’s son Abel, but also that one may be able to produce evidence to indicate such a human rights violation. It is clear that Abel was detained in Bandem and then secretly flown to Solemnia where he was interrogated. The fact that he died during the interrogation implicates his captors in not only torture, but in his murder. The decisions of the court are not entirely legally binding but in cases where their decisions are in favor of the individual versus the state, the individual may be awarded damages by the state party which acted in their mistreatment or in the mistreatment of the individual whom the party is pursuing damages for such as in the case of Amy Hart who stands in place of her deceased son Abel. It is helpful to look at a few of the specific protocols set forth by the convention such that one can better determine which articles were violated in the specific case of Abel. Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights dictates that the use of the death penalty is reserved only for times of war. In the case of Abel, there was not a trial or a conviction surrounding his case although the state in question may opt to imply that his death was the result of a war on terror at the time. The lack of said conviction would nullify the use of such a defense on the part of the state. In certain instances of torture or allegations of torture, a state or political party may use what is known as the “ticking time bomb” defense whereby it is implied that the victim of torture was implicated in the possible deaths of many people. For example, had it been Abel who had knowledge of a code necessary to deactivate a bomb which would have killed hundreds of civilians, and there was no other way in lew of time, to gain the code needed for deactivation, it may have been arguably necessary to gain the code from Abel by any means necessary in order to save hundreds of lives. This however, was in no way the case especially since the militant group in which Abel was active in had a policy to avoid the killing of civilians. To look more closely at the direct violations which took place in the case of Amy Hart’s son Abel, it is important to reference the specific protocols of the ECHR which were violated in the case of Abel, Amy Hart’s son. First of all, the first section of the ECHR dictates that every human being within his/her respective state or territory, has a right to life and a right to have that life protected by their respective government. The exception to this is in the event that one has been sentenced to death and that sentence has been rightfully carried out. In the case of Abel, no such sentence was issued as no trial was held. “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary” (ECHR, Section 1, article 2). Article 3 of the ECHR goes on to prohibit acts of torture, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”(ECHR, Section 1, Article 3). Without knowing the details of what conditions Abel was subjected to, it is clear that he was in fine health prior to his capture. Because he did not return from said capture alive, it can be assumed without a doubt, that he was subject to subhuman conditions and inhumane circumstances which resulted in his death. To reiterate the purpose and goal of the ECHR, the very right to human life and protection of that life by one’s state or government is to be provided for in Section1 article 2. The article which pertains to torture within the ECHR is a non negotiable stipulation and may never be deviated from, “But not all human rights issues in the fight against terrorism require balancing. Some human rights are absolute. The ban on torture, for example, may never be infringed, not even in a state of emergency”(Vries, 2007). This means that no matter what it was that Abel was suspected of doing, his torture and murder was in fact a direct and certain violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ms. Hart may find it helpful to have knowledge of landmark cases which have successfully been brought before the European Council in instances similar to the case of her son Abel. The following briefly outlines the events of the case of Ireland vs. The United Kingdom: “The Ireland v. United Kingdom case was the first inter-State case brought before the European Court of Human Rights and as such, was the first ever legal proceedings between States before an international human rights tribunal. The Northern Ireland Stormont administration took the immensely controversial step of introducing internment or detention without trial on the 9 th August 1971. Under the first operation, Operation Demetrius, 342 members of the nationalist community were detained in different detention centers across Northern Ireland. Many of those detained were released within the first 48 hours. However, allegations quickly emerged, from released detainees or relatives of those still detained, that detainees were being subjected to severe ill-treatment”(Ireland Centre for Human Rights, 2008). The case of the Irish individuals who were detained and subjected to mistreatment is quite similar to that of those, along with Abel, who were taken from Bandem to Solemnia in a secretive manner. The UK was found guilty of having treated Irish detainys in a similar manner in which Able was treated. The investigation findings revealed the following:” The European Commission of Human Rights delivered its decision on admissibility in October 1972. It ruled that the Irish Government had successfully submitted ’substantial evidence’ of an administrative practice violating articles 3 (right to freedom from torture….), articles 5 (right to liberty…) and 6 (right to fair trial) in the context of article 15 (right of State parties to derogate) and article 14 (right to equality) in the context of article 15. Article 1 (secure the rights and freedoms) was also joined to the merits. It dismissed the claim on article 2 (right to life), considering the allegation of an administrative practice as unsubstantiated, and the claim on article 8 (right to private and family life), considering the allegation, which has not been pleaded by the Irish Government in the oral hearings, as withdrawn”(Ireland Centre for Human Rights, 2008). Ms. Hart’s son is only one case of what goes on in political and military situation where accountability is lacks and where individuals who act in a violent and abusive manner are allowed to remain on government payroll. Amy’s situation is certainly an example of what often happens in politically charged situations which is precisely why it is so important for her to make sure that Abel’s story is heard and addressed. References: ------------------.2008. “Ireland vs. The UK (1971-1978)”, The Ireland Centre for Human Rights [online], available at http://www.nuigalway.ie/human_rights/Projects/Project_Ireland/ireland_v_uk.html [accessed 5 January 2009] ----------------------. 2008. “The European Human Rights System”, HREA. [online], available at http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=143 [accessed 5 January 2009]. ------------------------, 1995-2009. “The Council of Europe: The European Council of Human Rights”, The Hellenic Recourses, [online] available at http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html [accessed 5 January 2009]. Council of Europe. 2003. “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as Amended by Protocol number 11” [online] available at http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/EnglishAnglais.pdf [accessed 5 January 2009]. Jansen, Bjorn. 2008. “Combating Terrorism While Protecting Human Rights”, [online] available at http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ud/kampanjer/refleks/innspill/menneskerettigheter/combating_terrorism.html?id=535383 [accessed 5 January 2009]. Shearer, Ivan. 2003. “Human Rights in an Age of Terrorism”, Monash University [online] available at http://www.law.monash.edu/castancentre/events/2003/shearerpaper.html Accessed 5 January 2009. ----------------. 1994. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, The United Nations [online] available at http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/2007/hrphotos/declaration%20_eng.pdf [accessed 5 January 2009]. -------------------------. 2004. “Resolution Against the Use of Torture as a Violation of Our Basic Values” International Responsibilities Task Force [online] available at http://www.pitt.edu/~ttwiss/irtf/resolutions.torture2.html [accessed 5 January 2009]. Vries, Gijs. 2007. “Accountability at the Level of the European Union” [online] available at http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/submissionDeVries.pdf [accessed 5 January 2009] Read More