1 / 37

Day 1: Part II Implementation and identification of human rights

Day 1: Part II Implementation and identification of human rights. Key Questions. Who is responsible for the implementation of human rights? What is the nature of their obligations? How are these obligations operationalised in the context of: (a) civil and political rights; and

lea
Download Presentation

Day 1: Part II Implementation and identification of human rights

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Day 1: Part IIImplementation and identification of human rights

  2. Key Questions • Who is responsible for the implementation of human rights? • What is the nature of their obligations? • How are these obligations operationalised in the context of: • (a) civil and political rights; and • (b) economic social and cultural rights?

  3. 1. The burden bearers – perhaps not as simple as it seems • Under the Vic Charter….[day 2 detail] • Under INL ….

  4. 2. The nature of the burden – how far does it spread?? • Vic Charter [see day 2] • INL – the tripartite typology • Respect • Protect • Fulfill • Example: right to life – McCann v UK (ECHR); Osman v UK (ECHR); Colle and Colle v Chief Constable of Hertforshire [2007] EWCA Civ 325; infant mortality

  5. 3. Operationalisation(I): civil and political rights • (a) general obligation • Article 2(2) • … each State party undertakes to take the necessary steps… to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognised in the present Covenant

  6. (b) Non derogable rights • Article 4 ICCPR • 1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin. • 2. No derogation from articles 6 (life), 7 (torture) 8 (paragraphs I and 2) (slavery), 11 (prison for K) 15 (non retrospective) 16 (person b/4 law) and 18 (thought, conscience and religion) may be made under this provision

  7. Example: torture • Article 7 ICCPR • No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment • [Cf: Vic Charter s 10 • A person must not be subjected to torture or treated in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way…(also prohibits medical experimentation)

  8. Note also… • Other treaties • CAT art 1 • CRC art 37 • Rome Statute art 7 • ECHR art 3 • Geneva Conventions Common art 3

  9. Giving meaning to c and p rights • Consider: • Principles of interpretation: ordinary meaning etc • Other treaties/resolutions/declarations etc • IN Jurisprudence: treaty bodies (General Comments and concluding observations); IN tribunals (ICJ and IN crim courts); other UN mechanisms eg: special rapporteurs • Regional jurisprudence: Euro Court; Inter American Court • Domestic jurisprudence

  10. Case study: Giving meaning to torture • Human Rights Committee General Comment 20 – conjunctive approach • Duty of states to protect against acts prohibited under art 7 whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity (para 1) • Complemented by requirement to treat all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (para 2) • Prohibition extends to physical and mental suffering (para 5) • Not necessary to draw sharp distinctions between different kinds of treatment; depend on nature, purpose and severity of treatment applied (para 4)

  11. HRC cont’d • Corporal punishment and prolonged solitary confinement may violate prohibition (para 5-6) • Must not expose individ to danger of torture et al upon return to another country by way of extradition, expulsion or refoulement (para 9)

  12. Compare: Euro Crt of Human Rights Disjunctive Approach (Vic approach) • Torture • ‘deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel suffering’: • Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 35 para 167 • special stigma attached • eg: rape: Aydin v Turkey (1997)

  13. Inhuman treatment or punishment • Must attain minimum level of severity: depends on c/t of case including duration of treatment, physical and mental effects and sometimes the sex, age, and state of health of the victim: Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) • No requirement that suffering be intended: Selcuk and Asker v Turkey (1998) 26 EHRR 477

  14. Degrading treatment • Level of humiliation or debasement more than lawful treatment: assessment relative and depends on all c/t case, nature and context of punishment and method of execution: Tyrer v United Kingdom • Irrelevant that state or even public does not consider treatment to violate prohibition and may well suffice that the victim is humiliated in his own eyes even if not in the eyes of others (para 32): Tyrer v UK • Treatment which arouses feelings of fear, anguish or inferiority capable of humiliating or breaking the resistance of a person will amount to degrading treatment: Ireland v United Kingdom (1978) 2 EHRR 25

  15. Increasing standard… • Eg: Tyrer v United Kingdom • Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in light of present day conditions • Thus court cannot but be influenced by the developments and commonly accepted standards in the penal policy of the member states of the COE in this field (judicial cp) • THUS degrading punishment

  16. Selmouni v France (2000) 29 EHRR 403 • Having regard to the fact that the Convention is a living instrument which must be interpreted in light of present day conditions… certain acts which were classified in the past as inhuman and degrading as opposed to torture could be classified differently in the future… the increasingly high standard being required in the area of the protection of human rights and fundamental liberties correspondingly and inevitably requires greater firmness in assessing breaches of the fundamental values of democratic societies (para 101)

  17. Examples • Imprisonment: Price v UK (Euro Court) • Corporal punishment: A v UK (Euro Court) • Protection of kids: Z and others v UK (Euro Court) • Art 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The obligation requires States to take measures designed to ensure that individuals within their jurisdiction are not subjected to torture and other ill treatment administered by private individuals. The measures should provide effective protection in particular of children and other vulnerable persons and include reasonable steps to prevent ill treatment of which the authorities has or ought to have had knowledge (see also Osman v UK re right to life)

  18. Death penalty: Pratt v Morgan (PC); Atkins v Virginia(USSCrt); Roper v Simmons (US SCrt); Makwanyane (SAfrican ConCrt) • Deportation/ Extradition: HRC; Soering (Euro Court); Chalal (Euro Court) • Interrogation: Ireland v UK (Euro Court); Public Committee against Torture (Israel SCrt) • Detention conditions: Dybeku v Albania (ECHR)- mental health care; Mamedova v Russia (ECHR) - resources

  19. (c) Rights subject to limitation • Why are limitation clauses significant? • *Sub Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities ‘The Siracusa Principles of the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ E/CN4/1985/4 (1985) • [cf: section 7 Vic Charter – day 2]

  20. Example: respect for privacy et al • Eg: Article 17 ICCPR (see s13 Charter) • 1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. • 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

  21. Ascertaining Meaning - what are the steps? • 1. General Principles • 2. Institutional commentary • 3. Comparative case law

  22. Institutional Commentary • Human Rights Committee General Comment 16 • Term unlawful means that no interference can take place except in cases envisaged by law • Arbitrary inference = intended to guarantee that even interference guaranteed by law should be in accordance with the provisions , aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be reasonable in the circumstances • Family = broad interpretation to include all those comprising the family as understood in the society of the State concerned • Home = place where person resides or carries out usual occupation

  23. Comparative Case law • Eg: Privacy Pretty v UK (2002) 35 EHRR 1 (ECHR) Broad term which covers all aspects of a person’s physical, psychological and social identity and relationships

  24. Lawrence and Garner v Texas (USA) • … entitled to respect for their private lives and state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime • It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the govt may not enter • … times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress

  25. Case study: freedom of religion/expression - which one(s) would you ban?

  26. What kind of judge would you be? • See: • R (on the application of Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)) (Respondent) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (Appellants) [2006] UKHL 15 • Multani and Multani v Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys and AG of Quebec 2006 SCC

  27. 4. Operationalisation II: economic social and cultural rights • Questions for consideration • What is an economic, social and cultural right? • What is the nature of State’s obligations with respect to economic, social and cultural rights? • How do we determine the content of economic, social and cultural rights - Case study: health • [Note: consider relevance to 4 year review]

  28. (a) What are eco, soc and cultural rights? • Any thoughts? • Mere aspiration? • Indeterminate? • Resource dependent? • Unenforceable?

  29. Responding to the myths • False dichotomy between ‘negative’ cp rights and ‘positive’ esc rights • ESC rights are justiciable • Eg: Government of South Africa v Grootboom [2001] 1 SA 46 • Occupiers Oliva Road v City J’burg [2008] ZACC 1 • Adjudication does not usurp parliamentary sovereignty • Soobramoney (1997) 12 BCLP 1969 or Treatment Action Campaign [2002] 5 SA 271

  30. (b) General obligations of states • Article 2(1) • Each state party to the present Covenant undertakes to take stepsindividually and through international assistance and cooperation especially economic and technical to the maximum of its available resources with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present Covenant by all appropriate means including particularly the adoption of legislative measures

  31. Making Meaning of the obligations • See generally: • General Comment No 3 C’tee ESCR; • Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights E/CN4/1987/17 Annex (reprinted in (1987) 9 Human Rights Quarterly 122-135 • Maastricht Guidelines on Violation of Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Maastricht 22-26 January 1997 (reprinted in (1998) 20 Human Rights Quarterly 691-701

  32. (i) Progressive obligation • General Comment No 3 C’tee ESCR • imposes obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards goal of realisation of rights • any deliberately retrogressive measures would require careful consideration and would need to be justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources • [consider relevance at budget time?]

  33. (ii) Minimum Core: C’tee GC 3 para 10 • Each right has minimum core which requires State to ensure satisfaction of at the very least minimum essential levels of each of the rights under ICESCR • Where fail to realise minimum core state must demonstrate that every effort has been made to use all resources at its disposition in an effort to satisfy as a matter of priority those minimum obligations • State where significant number of households deprived essential foodstuffs, essential primary health care of basic shelter and housing or most basic forms of education is prima facie failing to discharge obligations under the Covenant

  34. (iii) Tripartite typology of duties • Right to food • General Comment No 12 (1999) • Right to food includes: • Right to respect: State cannot take steps to prevent enjoyment of right • Right to protect: State must protect individual against 3p d/n deprive individual of right • Right to fulfill: State must take measures to facilitate realisation of right

  35. Making meaning of the content of esc rights • Case study: Right to housing • Article 11 • 1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent..

  36. Consider role of: • Text and principles of interpretation • ESC Committee: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/index.htm • Special Rapporteurs: eg: Right to housing http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing/index.htm • Commentators • Case law (judicial implementation)

  37. See General Comment 4 (attached) • What does GC 4 tell us about the right to housing? • See also: • Special Rapporteur • Case law: • Grootboom (2000) 3 CHRLD 199

More Related