PHA-Exchange> The European Court of HR

[Claudio]

From: "David Werner" <healthwrights at igc.org>

Court That Countries Have to Answer to.

By Jay Walljasper, Ode
August 26, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40502/
(excerpts)

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a special judicial body 
upholding the European Convention on Human Rights, a
1950 treaty now signed by 46 nations.
Headquarters are in Strasbourg, France, where judges from Cyprus, Norway, 
Azerbaijan, Luxembourg, Croatia, Greece and Russia consider cases.
The European Court of Human Rights is like no other court in the world. Its 
basic premise is that individuals have the right to bring human-rights cases 
before these judges if they believe that justice has not been served in 
national courts -- even going so far as
to challenge the rulings of their own governments. Nations must then abide 
by their ruling. This seems astonishing in an era when the world's dominant 
power, the United States,
acts as though it is not bound by any treaty or convention, and routinely 
defies judgments of international bodies.
The ECHR can actually set policy for all of Europe. It has jurisdiction over 
every corner of
Europe except the Vatican and notoriously corrupt Belarus. It plays a 
powerful role in creating continent-wide minimum standards on a wide range 
of issues ranging from freedom of religion and election procedures to
property rights and family law.

Indeed, the European Court of Human Rights can be credited with transforming 
European society on a number of issues:
· Abolishing the death penalty, based on 1983 and 2002 revisions of the 
European Convention on Human Rights
· Confirming gay rights, based on judgments throwing out anti-sodomy laws in 
the UK and Ireland
· Expanding freedom of the press, based on a Danish case
· Establishing the precedent that European nations will not extradite 
criminal suspects to the United States if those people face the death
penalty in American courts
· Outlawing excessive force by police, based on a French case.

It is quite revolutionary that court can overrule a national government. But 
no country likes to be accused of a human-rights violation. No government 
can say now that they don't care about human rights. That gives the court 
real power.
The court also counts on the media to give negative coverage of offending 
countries.

Prospective EU members with questionable human-rights records, such as 
Bulgaria and especially Turkey, understand compliance with the ECHR is 
critical for their acceptance into the EU.

Overall, the court's success in serving justice has been remarkable given 
its lack of direct power in carrying out decisions. Only a fraction of the 
almost 6,000 judgments over the past 30 years have posed any problems in
enforcement. Despite being a thorn in their side, governments see theCourt 
as a necessity.

The court's biggest obstacle right now is the
inexorably rising tide of cases. The backlog stands at 80,000, which means 
long delays in hearings and rulings. The Council of Europe, which sponsors 
the court, recently announced funding for 50 more lawyers to be added to the 
ECHR staff.

The European Convention on Human Rights,  enacted in 1950,remains the 
foundation of all ECHR work. In a series of rulings, which started off 
timidly in the 1950s but has grown more confident since the 1970s, the court 
has shaped a common set of human-rights policies
for member nations.

One of the key accomplishments of the court through its history has been to 
establish common principles on human rights across nations with very 
distinct cultural and legal traditions.
The court keeps its focus on the outcomes of human-rights policies, not on 
the means used to achieve them.
A growing number of observers believe that now, as economic globalization 
ties the world together, it's time for an international court to promote 
human rights all over the planet.

The court, however, expands the idea of people's rights. It's a good model 
for regional legal institutions, and perhaps that could lead someday to a 
global court.

Two regional courts already exist: the African Court on Human and Peoples' 
Rights, established in 1987 and based in Banju, Gambia; and the 
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, established in 1979 and based in San 
José, Costa Rica. The Inter-American Court encompasses 25 members, including
nearly all Latin American nations, and some from the Caribbean, but not the 
United States or Canada.

The court has proved among European states that it works. It is a viable 
idea to do it on an international basis.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/40502/