JUSTICE STUDENT HUMAN RIGHTS NETWORK
CONTENTS
WELCOME
Welcome to the 8th edition of the JUSTICE Student Human Rights Network e-bulletin and the first of 2009. We are excited to announce that on Saturday 14 March 2009 we will be holding the second annual conference on human rights for students, pupil barristers and trainee solicitors. Human rights, civil liberties and democracy will be hosted by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. This year the keynote speaker will be Baroness Helena Kennedy QC, the newly elected chair of JUSTICE's council. Last year's conference was really successful, we hope to see you there this year. Please click here for more information.
This edition of the bulletin sees the beginning of a new project of producing a set of Questions and Answers on each of the key articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. We open with Article 2, the right to life. The intention is to provide you with a useful guide that will point you both to the key European Court of Human Rights decisions and also relevant British developments in terms of law and policy. In time, we should have a comprehensive guide to the Convention which should provide a unique guide to its operation in the UK.
We also include a briefing on the International Commission of Jurists. This is a Geneva-based organisation of which JUSTICE is the British section. Over the past year, the ICJ played a major role in highlighting the treatment of lawyers and judges in Pakistan and its latest activity has been around seeking a ceasefire in Gaza. In February, it will publish the report of its Eminent Jurists Panel on counter-terrorism law and policy. We are holding an event to discuss the report on 17 February. Click here for more information on the event.
The case note in this bulletin is on the recent judgment of the European Court of Human Rights; S and Marper v UK (2008) and we also include a guide to relevant human rights websites that we hope you will find useful. The bulletin concludes with a section on ways you can get involved in human rights with JUSTICE and more widely - one of which being the JUSTICE summer internship programme (this year open to law graduates only due to the nature of the work involved in the internship). The closing date for applications is 15 May 2009 - more details are available here.
We hope you
enjoy this edition of the JUSTICE Student Human Rights Network e-bulletin
and as ever welcome your feedback - please email jshrn@justice.org.uk
with any comments or questions or if you would like to be added to our
mailing list to automatically receive this newsletter.
INTRODUCTION
From Roger Smith, Director of JUSTICE
Welcome to the first electronic bulletin of the new year from the JUSTICE Student Human Rights Network. We have been delighted at the interest in the network that has been shown by students keen to attend our training sessions and conferences. Five members recently gave invaluable assistance in participating in a debate at the British Library on a bill of rights as part of an afternoon celebrating Liberty in early December. We want to find other ways in which we can involve you in the network and welcome any suggestions. In the meantime, we hope to see you at the first of this year's events - our second annual conference on 14th March where you can get involved in dicussing topical human rights issues and have your say in how we can take the network forward.
In November 2008, Helena Kennedy took over as chair of Council. She will be speaking at our March conference and is passionately committed to getting students involved in human rights. She has written two books that are worth reading and have inspired numbers of people into the legal profession: Eve was Framed: Women and British justice and Just Law - The Changing Face of Justice and Why it Matters to Us All.
As we enter the New Year, it is not clear how the Government will take forward its 'constitutional renewal' programme. Last year, it published a draft bill that was widely attacked as being too timid. The Queen's Speech was noticeably silent about its future. Whatever initiative the Government takes (or even if it takes none), the constitution is bound to remain a major political issue. Too many reforms have been half completed. The implications of devolution have yet, for example, to be fully explored. Meanwhile, the conservative party seems to be consolidating its opposition to the Human Rights Act. It is not at all clear that the conservative leadership and the popular right-wing press has quite appreciated the extent to which the UK is bound to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, whatever the fate of the Human Rights Act. The loss of the Act would be a major setback to human rights and serious plans for its abolition would precipitate, hopefully, major opposition. These are issues which we hope to take forward both at JUSTICE and with the network over the coming months.
I hope you will be inspired by the bulletin to take your interest in human rights further. As one indication of that, we invite you to join JUSTICE as a student member and encourage us to be even more active than we already are. Details of membership can be found here.
Do make sure you are kept up to date by emailing jshrn@justice.org.uk to be added to the mailing list if you do not already directly receive these emails! Don't forget you can also read past editions of the JUSTICE Student Human Rights Network electronic bulletin on our website, as well as see details about past events and read network members' contributions on a variety of human rights issues.
Please contact
us if you have any questions or comments about the network, if you are
interested in hosting a joint event, or if you would like to make a contribution
to the website. Email us at jshrn@justice.org.uk
or telephone 020 7762 6422.
Best wishes and good luck in 2009
Roger Smith
Briefing: European Convention on Human Rights Q & A
Article 2: The right to life
What provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights cover the right to life?
Article 2. Protocols 6 and 13.
What is protected under Article 2?
Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his own 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.
Any limitations provided for in Article 2?
Yes. Article 2(2) provides:
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:
(a) in defence of a person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person
lawfully detained;
(c) In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
And in the protocols?
Protocol 6 (ratified by the UK in January 1999) bans the death penalty in peacetime and 13 (signed by the UK in May 2002) in wartime.
Can a country derogate from Article 2 at a time of national emergency?
No. Article
2 is one of four exceptions from the power to derogate in Article 15 of
the Convention (the others are Articles 3, 4(1) and 7).
How has the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) dealt with the contentious issue of the right to life of a foetus?
With considerable caution. In Open Door Couselling and Dublin Well Women v Ireland (1992), the Court said:
The national authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in matters of morals, particularly in an area … which touches on matters of belief concerning the nature of human life … it is not possible to find … a uniform conception of morals, and the State authorities are, in principle, in a better position than the international judge to give an opinion on the exact content of the requirement of morals …[1]
This has remained the Court's basic position despite some subsequent ambiguities. In Vo v France (2004)[2] , the Court asserted that it was 'neither desirable nor even possible … to answer in the abstract' whether a foetus could be a person covered by Article 2. In Evans v UK (2006) [3], the Court repeated that 'the issue of when the right to life begins comes within the margin of appreciation which the Court generally considers that States should enjoy in this sphere'.
Does the position of the European Court of Human
Rights differ from that of the US Supreme Court in the celebrated case
of Roe v Wade in 1973?
Significantly. The US Supreme Court based its decision on the 14th amendment of the US constitution:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Supreme Court found that:
A state criminal abortion statute of the [then] current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[4]
As a consequence of the decision, controversy over abortion in the United States takes place in the context of reversing or otherwise amending the court decision rather than in the political arena.
Does the right to life under Article 2 include the right to death?
Not according
to current judicial interpretation;
Article 2 cannot, without a distortion of language, be interpreted as conferring the diametrically opposite right, namely a right to die, nor can it create a right to self-determination in the sense of conferring on an individual the entitlement to choose death rather than life. (Pretty v UK (2002))[5]
Thus, euthanasia
is a matter for national authorities and the law on assisted suicide varies
throughout Europe. It remains an offence to assist someone's suicide in
the UK under the Suicide Act 1961 - the provision that Mrs Pretty was
seeking to challenge. However, in the case of Daniel James, a young person
paralysed in a rugby accident, the Director of Public Prosecutions recently
accepted that there was 'sufficient evidence' to prosecute the parents
who assisted his suicide in Switzerland but that it was 'not in the public
interest' to do so (10 December 2008).
To what extent does Article 2 impose a positive duty to uphold the right to life?
Considerably and in at least four respects:
(1) A duty
to protect people against the risk of harm from the activities of public
authorities
(2) A duty to investigate suspicious deaths
(3) A duty to protect people against threats to their lives
(4) A duty to provide arrangements to secure legal accountability for
those responsible for a death.
How does the positive duty to protect individuals against harm apply in a law enforcement situation?
It means that states will be liable for deaths caused by police officers and state officials unless they come within the requirements of Article 2(2) and, in particular, are 'strictly necessary'. In McCann v UK (1995)[6], the ECtHR decided that this meant 'strictly proportionate' to achieving a clear lawful purpose and that, therefore, no other action, short of using lethal force, could have achieved that that purpose. In addition, any security or police operation must be 'planned and controlled by the authorities so as to minimise, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to legal force'. This was the test also applied in Ergi v Turkey (1998) where an innocent woman was apparently caught in crossfire at an ambush by state forces against guerrillas.
What is the duty to investigate suspicious deaths?
It must be effective - and, thereby, independent, prompt and transparent (Jordan and others v UK (2001))[7]. Deaths in England and Wales can be investigated by coroners through the medium of inquests for a number of reasons: about a third of all deaths are so treated (click here for the Coroners' Society website).
The duty to find out what happened is particularly strong in relation to a death in custody:
Where the events in issue lie wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, as in the case of persons within their control in custody, strong presumptions of fact will arise in respect of injuries and death occurring during such detention. Indeed, the burden of proof may be regarded as resting on the authorities to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation. (Salman v Turkey (2000)[8] ).
How does the duty to avoid harm apply in relation to hospital treatment or care?
The House of Lords has recently considered the approach of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to this issue in the case of Savage v South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2008][9]. In this case, in which JUSTICE was an intervenor, the House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the respondent, South Essex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, who sought to limit the scope of sitations to which the further operational duty outlined in Osman applied. It was held that:
in terms of article 2, health authorities are under an over-arching obligation to protect the lives of patients in their hospitals. In order to fulfil that obligation, and depending on the circumstances, they may be required to fulfil a number of complementary obligations … [This] requires health authorities to ensure that the hospitals for which they are responsible employ competent staff and that they are trained to a high professional standard. In addition, the authorities must ensure that the hospitals adopt systems of work which will protect the lives of patients. Failure to perform these general obligations may result in a violation of article 2 … Even though a health authority employed competent staff and ensured that they were trained to a high professional standard, a doctor, for example, might still treat a patient negligently and the patient might die as a result. In that situation, there would be no violation of article 2 since the health authority would have done all that the article required of it to protect the patient's life.
Finally, article 2 imposes a further "operational" obligation on health authorities and their hospital staff. This obligation is distinct from, and additional to, the authorities' more general obligations. The operational obligation arises only if members of staff know or ought to know that a particular patient presents a "real and immediate" risk of suicide. In these circumstances article 2 requires them to do all that can reasonably be expected to prevent the patient from committing suicide. If they fail to do this, not only will they and the health authorities be liable in negligence, but there will also be a violation of the operational obligation under article 2 to protect the patient's life.
And what about the duty to secure legal accountability?
The
duty to investigate a death under Article 2 is closely linked with the
right to an effective remedy under Article 13 ECHR. An inquiry that follows
a suspicious death must be designed to lead to criminal proceedings where
appropriate. (Akkoc v Turkey (2000))[10].
Thus, the Crown Prosecution Service must be prepared to give reasons for
any failure to prosecute after an inquest finding of unlawful killing.
How strong is the duty to prevent harm?
The European Court has held Turkey liable for failing to protect a journalist and a doctor in cases where there was a strong suggestion, but no proof, of state involvement. (Kilic v Turkey (2000)[11], Mahmut Kaya v Turkey (2000)[12]). The test is that the authorities:
(a) 'knew
or ought to have known at the time of the existence of a real and immediate
risk to the life of an identified individual or individuals from the criminal
acts of a third party' and
(b) 'they failed to take measures within the scope of their powers which,
judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk. (Osman
v UK (1998)[13]).
The breadth
of this principle was shown in Öneryildiz v. Turkey (2005)[14]
where the state was held liable for deaths caused by a foreseeable environmental
disaster where slum dwellers were killed in a landslide at a rubbish tip.
However, in Osman the police discharged their duty of protection
against a threat of violence by a fairly cursory investigation of the
risk: 'such an obligation must be interpreted in a way which does not
impose a reasonable or disproportionate burden on the authorities.' The
test is thus a high one and not easily satisfied. (see for example Van
Colle v Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police [2008][15])
What relevance has Article 2 in relation to events related to the second Iraq war?
An attempt to use Article 2 to force a wide-ranging inquiry into the causes of the war failed on the ground that the case really related to international rather than Convention law. (R (on the application of Gentle and another) v Prime Minister and others [2008])[16]. However in Al-Skeini and others v Secretary of State for Defence [2007], the court accepted that:
the deceased, Mr Baha Mousa, was taken to a detention unit in a British military base in Basra where, it is said, he was so brutally beaten by British troops that he died of his injuries. The Secretary of State accepts that, since the events occurred in the British detention unit, Mr Mousa met his death 'within the jurisdiction' of the United Kingdom for purposes of article 1 of the Convention. (per Lord Rodger, para. 61[17]).
Mr Mousa's
family subsequently obtained an inquiry into the circumstances of their
son's death under a retired judge Sir William Gage (www.bahamousainquiry.org)
and a total of £2.83m was paid in compensation to the family of
Mr Mousa and others detained with him.[18]
Footnotes
18
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/2281567/MOD-in-andpound3m-abuse-pay-out-to-Baha-Mousa-and-nine-other-Iraqi-'torture'-victims.html
| Top |
Briefing: The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
What is the International Commission of Jurists?
The ICJ is an international non-governmental organisation which promotes human rights and the rule of law. Its membership consists of sixty eminent jurists from around the world. Its new President is Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and former President of the Republic of Ireland. The ICJ has an International Secretariat based in Geneva, which has smaller regional offices in South Africa, Thailand, Nepal and Central America.
In addition to Mary Robinson, other notable ICJ Commissioners include Justice Unity Dow, the first female High Court judge of Botswana and a noted novelist; Asma Jahangir, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief; Gustavo Gallón Giraldo, ad hoc judge of the Constitutional Court of Colombia; and Karinna Moskalenko, the well-known Russian lawyer. Before Mary Robinson became ICJ President in 2008, the President was Arthur Chaskalson, formerly Chief Justice of South Africa and President of the ground-breaking South African Constitutional Court.
What is JUSTICE's relationship to the ICJ?
JUSTICE is the UK section of the ICJ. The ICJ has a network of national sections in different countries around the world, as well as affiliated organisations in others. National sections differ in size and structure - JUSTICE is one of the larger national sections, with seven full time staff and a membership of around 1500. In some states the national sections do not have staff and rely entirely upon pro bono work of judges, lawyers, interns and others to keep the section running. Affiliated organisations are pre-existing organisations working to protect human rights and the rule of law in their own countries who have chosen to become affiliated to the ICJ network for mutual benefit. For example, in Japan the affiliated organisation is the Japan Civil Liberties Union; and in Zambia it is the Law Association of Zambia.
JUSTICE shares the aims and values of the ICJ, and sometimes works on projects, third party interventions and conferences with the International Secretariat. JUSTICE's Council and staff are, however, independent and we determine our own policies and activities.
What have been the ICJ's main achievements?
Since its foundation in 1952 the ICJ has done much to further the cause of human rights at a national and international level. In the 1960s it lobbied for the appointment of a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and for protocols to the Geneva Conventions improving humanitarian law. In the 1970s it contributed to the development of the UN Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol, and to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights. In the 1980s it submitted a then draft European Convention for the Prevention of Torture to the Council of Europe, and gathered together a group of experts to develop the Limburg Principles on economic, social and cultural rights. In the 1990s the ICJ was influential in the UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and in the international movement to set up the International Criminal Court.
What has the ICJ done more recently?
JUSTICE staff have in recent years attended two World Conferences of the ICJ; in Berlin in 2004 the Conference adopted the ICJ Declaration on Upholding Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Combating Terrorism. The most recent conference, held in 2008 in Geneva, developed the ICJ Declaration and Plan of Action on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis. These 'soft law' documents, together with their Commentaries, are extremely useful in expanding upon the human rights obligations of states in circumstances of particular relevance to our times.
The ICJ has also established an expert Eminent Jurists Panels to examine Terrorism, Counter Terrorism and Human Rights (EJP), and an Expert Legal Panel on Corporate Complicity in International Crimes (ELP). The EJP travelled to many jurisdictions, including the UK, to hear evidence on the impact of counter-terrorism measures on human rights, and is due to publish its final report and recommendations in 2009. The ELP has now published its final report, developing the legal and public policy meaning of corporate complicity in international crimes.
Where can I find out more?
International Commission of Jurists website: www.icj.org (includes links to national sections and affiliated organisations)
Special Rapporteur
on Freedom of Religion or Belief:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/religion/index.htm
Observer
interview with Unity Dow:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/17/davidberesford.theobserver
European
Convention for the Prevention of Torture:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/126.htm
Berlin Declaration: http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3503&lang=en
Declaration and Plan of Action on Upholding the Rule of Law and the Role of Judges and Lawyers in Times of Crisis: http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=4422&lang=en
Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter Terrorism and Human Rights: http://ejp.icj.org/
ICJ Panel
on Corporate Complicity report:
http://www.business-humanrights.org/Updates/Archive/ICJPaneloncomplicity
JUSTICE: www.justice.org.uk
Briefings form an important part of Justice's work. To see all our current
work visit the In
The News section of our website.
CASE NOTE
S. and Marper v the United Kingdom
(Applications
nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04)
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, 4 December 2008
Facts
The first
applicant, Mr S., was arrested in January 2001 at the age of eleven and
charged with attempted robbery. His fingerprints and DNA samples were
taken but he was subsequently acquitted. The second applicant, Mr Marper,
was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassment of his partner.
His fingerprints and DNA samples were taken. Before a pre-trial review
took place, he and his partner had become reconciled thus the charge was
not pressed and in June 2001 the case was formally discontinued. Both
applicants asked for their fingerprints and DNA samples to be destroyed,
but in both cases the police refused.
The applicants
applied for judicial review of the police decisions not to destroy the
fingerprints and samples. In March 2002 the Administrative Court rejected
the application. In September 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision
of the Administrative Court by a majority of two to one and in 2004 the
House of Lords dismissed an appeal by the applicants.
The applicants
put in applications to the European Court of Human Rights. The applicants
complained under Articles 8 and 14 that the authorities had continued
to retain their fingerprints and cellular samples and DNA profiles after
the criminal proceedings against them had ended with an acquittal or had
been discontinued.
Held
In a unanimous judgment the Court found that the retention of the applicants' fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles was in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to respect for private and family life.
The Grand Chamber considered whether the retention by the authorities of the applicants' fingerprints, DNA profiles and cellular samples constituted an interference in their private life under Article 8 and if so, whether the interference was: (a) in accordance with the law; (b) in pursuit of a legitimate aim; and (c) necessary in a democratic society. In doing so it considered the power to retain under amendments to s64 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and compared this to the approach in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other EU member States, as well as looking at the recent Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on the forensic use of bioinformation.
The Court considerd that, while it may be necessary to distinguish between the taking, use and storage of fingerprints, on the one hand, and samples and profiles, on the other, in determining the question of justification, the retention of fingerprints constituted an interference with the right to respect for private life.
In considering whether this interference was justified, the Court agreed with the UK Government that the retention of fingerprint and DNA information pursues the legitimate purpose of the detection and prevention of crime. However, the Court stressed that the question was not whether the retention of fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles may in general be regarded as justified under the Convention, rather the only issue to be considered was whether the retention of the fingerprint and DNA data of the applicants, as persons who had been suspected, but not convicted, of certain criminal offences, was justified under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention.
The Court was struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales. The material may be retained irrespective of the nature or gravity of the offence with which the individual was originally suspected or of the age of the suspected offender. The retention is not time-limited and moreover, there exist only limited possibilities for an acquitted individual to have the data removed from the nationwide database or the materials destroyed.
The Court thus concluded that the nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, as applied in the case of the present applicants, failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the the UK had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard. Accordingly, the retention at issue constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.
In light of this conclusion the Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicants' complaint under Article 14 of the Convention.
Click here for full judgment
___________________________________________________________________________
This case concerned the legality of amendments to s64 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which enable the police to retain bodily samples, DNA profiles and fingerprints from anyone arrested for a recordable offence, whether or not they are charged, prosecuted or convicted.
The judgement has been welcomed by human rights organisations and is likely
to have significant implications for practice in the UK, which has proportionately
the largest DNA database in the world. Under Article 46 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the government is under a duty to implement
the Court's judgment. This will require the government to reconsider its
policies under which the DNA of innocent individuals (those who have not
been charged or cautioned) is permanently retained by police. (the Home
Office has reported that 857,366 innocent individuals' profiles are currently
held on the National DNA Database). The government has announced that
it will shortly bring forward a consultation paper on changes to the retention
rules and other aspects of the NDNAD. JUSTICE will be responding to the
consultation in due course.
If you are interested in the JUSTICE position on the National DNA Database
and related issues, please click here
to read our recent response to the Human Genetics Commission consultation
on the National DNA Database.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
1. Come to our conference!
Human
Rights, civil liberties and democracy
We will be holding the second annual conference for the JUSTICE Student
Human Rights Network on
Saturday 14 March 2009 from
10am - 5pm at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London EC4Y 1HT
This conference for law students, trainee solicitors and pupil barristers builds upon on the successes of last year and gives you an opportunity to discuss topical issues concerning human rights and democracy. There will also be a chance to offer your input as to how we can take the JSHRN forward. The keynote address this year will be by the recently elected chair of JUSTICE Council, Baroness Helena Kennedy QC.
Tickets for the conference will be £10 (£5 to JUSTICE members)
Please click here for the full programme and booking form.
For further
information please email jshrn@justice.org.uk
2. Apply for an internship with JUSTICE.
The Human
Rights Lawyers Association runs a bursary scheme to assist students who
wish to undertake a human rights internship in the summer of 2009. For
more information click
here.
We are
now inviting applications for the summer internship programme at JUSTICE.
The scheme will run from June to September 2009 and interns should be
able to commit to at least one month. For more details and how to apply
click
here. Please note that interns undertake in-depth legal research in
a particular area of JUSTICE's work. For this reason we are now seeking
applications from law graduates only. This includes people who expect
to have completed a law degree or conversion course by the time they start
their internship.
3. Write something for the student human rights network.
If you would like to have your work on the website please email jshrn@justice.org.uk. We will publish original and interesting pieces relevant to the issues covered by the electronic bulletin. Maximum word limit of articles 1500 words. All work remains the property of the author and does not necessarily reflect Justice's opinion.
4. Join JUSTICE as a student/pupil/trainee member.
See http://www.justice.org.uk/supportus/becomemember/index.html for further information.
5. Get involved in Justice's student human rights network.
We intend to develop the network as a way of bringing together and encouraging students, trainees and pupils interested in human rights. Would you like JUSTICE to provide a speaker for an event? Would you like to have some material on JUSTICE to distribute at your college, university, firm, chambers?
To join or
contact us about anything to do with the network:
email jshrn@justice.org.uk
6.
Explore human rights on the web
For JUSTICE's latest detailed submissions on proposed legislation and other political initiatives, consult www.justice.org.uk.
Every issue, we intend to provide an introduction to a number of websites that may be of interest - covering both international and UK concerns. See below also for websites relating to issues discussed in this bulletin.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
The Equality and Human Rights Commission was establised in 2007 amid concern about public perception of the Human Rights Act and thus has as its mandate the promotion of understanding of the Act. The Commission brings together the work of the three previous equality commissions and also takes on responsibility for the other aspects of equality: age, sexual orientation and religion or belief, as well as human rights. Its main areas of work include enforcing the law through individual legal actions, influencing the development of the law and government policy and conducting campaigns and events promoting human rights values. It has just celebrated its first anniversary with a publication; One Year, Ten Stories.
Reprieve was founded by human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith in 1999. Its work is divided into three main fields; litigation, investigaton and public education, although it is probably most well known for the work carried out by its lawyers in representing prisoners facing the death penalty in the United States as well as those subject to imprisonment outside the reach of the law as a result of the ‘war on terror'; in particular detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Reprieve seeks to raise the profile of human rights abuses surrounding the death penalty and the war on terror.
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
The Commission
was set up under statute and began work in 1999. It sees its role as to
promote awareness of the importance of human rights in Northern Ireland,
to review existing law and practice and to advise the UK government on
what steps need to be taken to fully protect human rights in Northern
Ireland. It is specifically charged with drafting a Bill of Rights to
supplement the European Convention on Human Rights and thus advises Government
on the scope for a constitutional-level Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland,
to include rights not protected by the Convention. Its work also includes
research around the issue of investigation of deaths, particularly in
the context of the 3,500 deaths from the Northern Ireland conflict.
INTERIGHTS, the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights, works to promote respect for human rights through the use of law. It provides legal expertise to lawyers, judges, human rights defenders and other partners concerning international and comparative human rights law. The main focus of their work is strategic litigation – bringing or supporting cases in critical areas where there is either a potential for human rights standards to be developed or where existing standards are under threat. INTERRIGHTS is particualrly concerned with economic and social rights, equality, and security and the rule of law. As an international organisation that works regionally in Africa, Europe, the Commonwealth, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and South Asia, it is able to bring an international and comparative law perspective to its work.
INQUEST is a charity that provides a free advice service to bereaved people on contentious deaths and their investigation with a particular focus in its casework on deaths in custody. INQUEST conducts policy work and research on issues relating to deaths in custody. It aims to raise public awareness, improve the investigation processes following contentious deaths and increase accountability of state officials in order to prevent future avoidable deaths. INQUEST has also lobbied for changes to the inquest and investigation process. The charity thus has a direct relevance to the briefing in this bulletin on Article 2 ECHR, particuarly in relation to the positive duty under Article 2 to protect life that has been interpreted to include a duty to investigate suspicious deaths.
You are welcome to use the information in this website but must attribute
the source to JUSTICE in any written work
We
do not bear responsibility for the content of external websites