This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/mar/30/more-can-be-done-to-protect-human-rights-across-europe

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
More can be done to protect human rights across Europe More can be done to protect human rights across Europe
(about 1 hour later)
It must have seemed a good idea at the time. A couple of years ago, when Belgium was making plans for its once-in-a-generation turn at running the 47-nation Council of Europe for six months, Britain’s achievements in that role must have been fresh in Belgians’ minds.It must have seemed a good idea at the time. A couple of years ago, when Belgium was making plans for its once-in-a-generation turn at running the 47-nation Council of Europe for six months, Britain’s achievements in that role must have been fresh in Belgians’ minds.
In the spring of 2012, a few months before he lost his job as justice secretary, Ken Clarke promised that the Brighton ministerial conference and the declaration it had just produced would lead to fewer cases being heard by the European court of human rights. Sure enough, the number of pending cases in Strasbourg has gone down from more than 150,000 at the beginning of 2012 to fewer than 70,000 now.In the spring of 2012, a few months before he lost his job as justice secretary, Ken Clarke promised that the Brighton ministerial conference and the declaration it had just produced would lead to fewer cases being heard by the European court of human rights. Sure enough, the number of pending cases in Strasbourg has gone down from more than 150,000 at the beginning of 2012 to fewer than 70,000 now.
In fact, the backlog would probably have been reduced anyway, because of earlier reforms by the court as well as new concessions granted by national governments. And although two amendments to the human rights convention were approved in Brighton, they have not yet received the ratifications needed for them to take effect. But the UK is still associated with successfully streamlining the court.In fact, the backlog would probably have been reduced anyway, because of earlier reforms by the court as well as new concessions granted by national governments. And although two amendments to the human rights convention were approved in Brighton, they have not yet received the ratifications needed for them to take effect. But the UK is still associated with successfully streamlining the court.
The Belgians decided that they too should call a high-level meeting of justice ministers. Since court reform was no longer on the agenda, the meeting would discuss enforcing the court’s judgments. And the nine-page Brussels declaration, issued as the conference ended last Friday, includes an “action plan” to ensure that judgments are implemented quickly and effectively.The Belgians decided that they too should call a high-level meeting of justice ministers. Since court reform was no longer on the agenda, the meeting would discuss enforcing the court’s judgments. And the nine-page Brussels declaration, issued as the conference ended last Friday, includes an “action plan” to ensure that judgments are implemented quickly and effectively.
But implementing court rulings is the responsibility of the member states. And states have no particular incentive to repair the human rights breaches found by the court – apart from reputational damage as a result of breaching the human rights convention, which they seem to live with. Still less do states seem to feel much pressure to change the law so that breaches do not happen in the first place.But implementing court rulings is the responsibility of the member states. And states have no particular incentive to repair the human rights breaches found by the court – apart from reputational damage as a result of breaching the human rights convention, which they seem to live with. Still less do states seem to feel much pressure to change the law so that breaches do not happen in the first place.
So campaign groups attending the Brussels conference on Friday called for more to be done. Prof Philip Leach of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre described the closing declaration as a missed opportunity. He suggested that the committee of ministers, which supervises implementation on behalf of the member states, should hold public hearings – similar to those held by parliamentary select committees – at which intransigent states would be asked to explain their non-compliance.So campaign groups attending the Brussels conference on Friday called for more to be done. Prof Philip Leach of the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre described the closing declaration as a missed opportunity. He suggested that the committee of ministers, which supervises implementation on behalf of the member states, should hold public hearings – similar to those held by parliamentary select committees – at which intransigent states would be asked to explain their non-compliance.
Nuala Mole of the AIRE centre agreed that states were “collectively nervous about adopting language in the declaration that might come back and bite them”. She and Leach both accused the member states of watering down the declaration from its original draft.Nuala Mole of the AIRE centre agreed that states were “collectively nervous about adopting language in the declaration that might come back and bite them”. She and Leach both accused the member states of watering down the declaration from its original draft.
I put that point to the Belgian justice minister, Koen Geens. “You can’t have an initial text that won’t be watered down when it has to be agreed by 47 states,” he replied. “But for states with diverse histories and divergent political interests, agreeing a declaration is a major achievement.”I put that point to the Belgian justice minister, Koen Geens. “You can’t have an initial text that won’t be watered down when it has to be agreed by 47 states,” he replied. “But for states with diverse histories and divergent political interests, agreeing a declaration is a major achievement.”
Earlier, those states had been reminded by the secretary general of the Council of Europe that the human rights court generally avoided overturning decisions taken by member states if they raised sensitive ethical questions on which there was no European consensus. Thorbjørn Jagland expressed sympathy for Natallie Evans, a woman left infertile by cancer treatment who failed to persuade the court in 2007 that she had the right to use frozen embryos created with her former partner. But there was no suggestion from Jagland that the court had got it wrong.Earlier, those states had been reminded by the secretary general of the Council of Europe that the human rights court generally avoided overturning decisions taken by member states if they raised sensitive ethical questions on which there was no European consensus. Thorbjørn Jagland expressed sympathy for Natallie Evans, a woman left infertile by cancer treatment who failed to persuade the court in 2007 that she had the right to use frozen embryos created with her former partner. But there was no suggestion from Jagland that the court had got it wrong.
When I asked the secretary general why he had singled out a case in which the UK government had been successful, he pointed out that he had also mentioned the court’s recent willingness to leave issues such as the French burqa ban and crucifixes in Italian classrooms to the national authorities. He pointed out that only four violations were recorded against the UK last year, compared with 16 against Belgium, 17 against France, 39 against Italy and 122 against Russia.When I asked the secretary general why he had singled out a case in which the UK government had been successful, he pointed out that he had also mentioned the court’s recent willingness to leave issues such as the French burqa ban and crucifixes in Italian classrooms to the national authorities. He pointed out that only four violations were recorded against the UK last year, compared with 16 against Belgium, 17 against France, 39 against Italy and 122 against Russia.
But Jagland said he had also raised the question of prisoners’ votes with the British government several times. Britain’s failure to lift the blanket ban on voting by prisoners nearly 10 years after the court’s grand chamber found against the government must surely qualify as one of the so-called “pockets of resistance” identified by Strasbourg officials: examples from other countries include discrimination against Roma, overcrowding in prisons and excessive use of pre-trial detention. And yet the the committee of ministers, sensitive to political realities, has put off consideration of the prisoners votes issue until the general election. People I spoke to in Brussels were very interested in what the incoming UK government might do. But Jagland said he had also raised the question of prisoners’ votes with the British government several times. Britain’s failure to lift the blanket ban on voting by prisoners nearly 10 years after the court’s grand chamber found against the government must surely qualify as one of the so-called “pockets of resistance” identified by Strasbourg officials: examples from other countries include discrimination against Roma, overcrowding in prisons and excessive use of pre-trial detention. And yet the the committee of ministers, sensitive to political realities, has put off consideration of the prisoners’ votes issue until the general election. People I spoke to in Brussels were very interested in what the incoming UK government might do.
They also wondered how willing the Conservatives would be to contemplate taking the UK out of the human rights convention if they found themselves in a position to do so. Officials noted that Chris Grayling’s draft bill of rights and responsibilities had not appeared last year, despite the justice secretary’s promises. They thought David Cameron might have concluded that opposition to European human rights would not sit well with the government’s support for tightening EU sanctions against Russia if Vladimir Putin mounts further offensives in Ukraine.They also wondered how willing the Conservatives would be to contemplate taking the UK out of the human rights convention if they found themselves in a position to do so. Officials noted that Chris Grayling’s draft bill of rights and responsibilities had not appeared last year, despite the justice secretary’s promises. They thought David Cameron might have concluded that opposition to European human rights would not sit well with the government’s support for tightening EU sanctions against Russia if Vladimir Putin mounts further offensives in Ukraine.
Grayling, of course, did not come to Brussels for the justice ministers’ meeting, leaving the UK’s interests in the hands of a diplomat whose contribution was limited to pleasantries and lasted, I’m told, for less than a minute. But although the conference did little to strengthen the protection of human rights in Europe, it did nothing to weaken them — which had been a real fear among officials at one point. And those battling to protect fundamental rights across Europe will live to fight another day.Grayling, of course, did not come to Brussels for the justice ministers’ meeting, leaving the UK’s interests in the hands of a diplomat whose contribution was limited to pleasantries and lasted, I’m told, for less than a minute. But although the conference did little to strengthen the protection of human rights in Europe, it did nothing to weaken them — which had been a real fear among officials at one point. And those battling to protect fundamental rights across Europe will live to fight another day.