The cases show that national courts often get things badly wrong and that is why it is critical to protect the right of people to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights, writes COLM O'GORMAN
THE BRITISH Prime Minister David Cameron has recently launched a major offensive against the European Court of Human Rights, saying changes are needed to prevent the court from being swamped with cases. While purporting to address the backlog of cases, the UK’s proposals would restrict people’s ability to take cases to the court.
The court had over 150,000 cases on its books in January. But it also decided 52,000 cases last year. Delays have been a worrying feature of the court for many years but there have been improvements. The court now swiftly processes cases that do not meet the basic admissibility requirements, and estimates the backlog of such cases will be cleared in three years.
Further, it is up to its parent body, the Council of Europe and its 47 members, to ensure that it has the resources needed to deal with the cases coming before it.
The court’s job is to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights and it hears cases that arise in any of the Council of Europe’s 47 member states. It found human rights violations in 85 per cent of the 1,500 cases for which it issued a full judgement.
In February, the court found Russia responsible after police took a man from his cell into a forest, where they beat him to force a confession to murder. The court also held Ukraine responsible for a police beating, which left a man disabled. In both cases the authorities failed to investigate police crimes and bring those responsible to justice.
So why does the British government, in the guise of “reform” proposals, want to weaken a court that is trying to ensure these kinds of human rights abuses do not go unpunished?
Inadmissible cases are a burden, but a familiar and acceptable one. It’s better to winnow out unfounded cases than limit access to the courts. What about the so-called “repetitive” cases, which comprise 50-60 per cent of all admissible cases? In fact, these cases are brought repeatedly against countries for torturing suspects, arbitrary detention, unlawful killing, and for persistent failures to protect human rights.
Instead of restricting access to the court, countries should be making greater efforts to implement its rulings. That’s particularly true of Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, which in 2011 accounted for most of the court’s negative judgements.
Perhaps most disturbing is the UK’s suggestion that the court shouldn’t hear an application if it is similar to that “examined by a national court taking into account the rights guaranteed by the Convention” unless the domestic court “clearly erred”.
How would this work? Would the court have to accept claims by national courts that they had taken the Convention on Human Rights into account? If so, what would have happened if the Irish Government had not withdrawn its Supreme Court appeal in the Lydia Foy case on gender recognition? If the Government had won its appeal, and if this proposal went ahead, this is the sort of case that may never have had a hearing in Strasbourg.
Rulings of the court have led to important reforms of Irish law and practice, such as decriminalising homosexuality, introducing independent reviews of mental health detention and establishing the civil legal scheme. The cases show that national courts often get things badly wrong and that is why it is critical to protect the right of people to take cases to the European Court of Human Rights.
Britain, and the other countries endorsing these proposals, maintains that a long history of protecting human rights is proof of good intentions. But perhaps they simply do not want regional scrutiny of their practices. These, after all, have included participation in illegal rendition to places of torture and attempts to deport unaccompanied children to Afghanistan.
It is up to the other member states of the Council of Europe to stop them. We need to see Ireland standing firm as a champion of the court, ensuring it has the necessary resources to do its job and opposing attempts to undermine one of Europe’s chief guarantors of human rights.
Colm O’Gorman is executive director of Amnesty International in Ireland