&host=rt.com&uri=/politics/russia-ratifies-protocol-14/comments/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
Russia ratifies Protocol 14 on human rights court reform
Published: 15 January, 2010, 15:10
Edited: 27 February, 2010, 18:53
The Duma has ratified Protocol 14 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR), which paves the way for court reform.
Russia is not apart of the EU, there should be no appeals to them to begin with. What jurisdiction they think they have over Russia legally? NONE! The Strasbourg court is nothing more than a circus. More politics than judicial law. One only has to watch how they prosecute "War Crimes" of the former Yugoslavia.
Count Cash. You are quite wrong in your statement concerning the ECHR The ECHR came about from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 10th of December 1948. However it was deemed that the declaration itself could not be held binding by States It was left to States themselves to make sure that the human rights of their citizens would be held in sacrosanct. It has no effect either in International Law. Neither do States themselves have to abide by the declaration. For this reason the countries, in western Europe, who created the Council of Europe decided to enshrine the articles set forth in the declaration to a Commission and a Court of Human Rights. This body that was created would be neutral to the local politics of any of the signatory states of the Council of Europe. It was designed to hear cases from applicants, who are citizens of the signatory states, who felt that they had a legitimate legal grievance against their government. Applicants would first have to go through their local legal system up to the highest court. If no satisfaction had been found then they could apply to the Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg who would consider the merits of the application. If the Commission felt that the application came within the bounds of the articles invoked the applicant would be notified that the case had been accepted. The Government concerned would also be notified and asked for an explanation, which would be then sent to the applicant to further answer. The Commission would try to bring about an amicable conclusion between applicant and their government. Failing this the Commission would hear the case in camera in Strasbourg before a panel of judges. The last resort would be the Court, if the government is found in breach, they are bound by the judgment of the court to correct the imbalance within their local law. There is nothing political in them.
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights is from The Council of Europe, not the European Union, they're two completely different entities
Don't kill yourself with kindness. Some are victims of human rights. Used as the face of another for another. Set up for failure. There's always a reason for a crime, reaction and punishment, righting. It's uniting the two that matters. I have a hunch prisoners endure crappy conditions because the state is not making criminals a priority or a caste.
Interesting that the Russia Duma wants to is move towards the ECHR, when the public in the UK want to leave it. The Conservative opposition party in the UK has mentioned that if elected in the May general election they will withdraw from the ECHR. People in the UK have had enough of the fact that some laws passed by parliament are ruled illegal by the ECHR as they are "against peoples human rights", Conty Cash is correct, the ECHR is a political tool, it is anti-British, it shows in its rulings against the UK, and if Russia joins it will find itself in the same position as the UK is now, and the "first victors" will be Russia's illigal immigrants
CADCZ, It will certainly be a positive step for the UK if they withdraw from the ECHR political circus. Europe tries to take UK cash and then impose its will on it, in a staunch anti British fashion. I also think the ECHR route will bring nothing but trouble for Russia as the European political masters pull the strings. The EU plays a corrupting role at the moment in all european structures. They exist as a block, which should entitle them to a sigle vote/presence, but then they come with all their individual national votes. Even worse within the EU, they have sub blocks with aligned anti Russian sympathies. Until the EU has a single vote/presence in wider european structures, then all these structures will be fundamentally corrupt and politically biased organisations. Russia should have aimed at a non political court structure, before it signed up. Whilst I always like to be positive and have faith that we have not miscalculated here. My fear is that the ECHR will continue to be a political tool utilised to create immense political problems for Russia. I even think that in the end it could see us exit the Council of Europe itself. But this might be an end game already considered by us. My view is that we should have narrow interfaces to the EU,PACE, NATO ... not be actively within them. We should, in line with our multipolar ambitions be seeking more world wide organisations, in this respect, joining Britain in a world wide court structure would have been a much better option. Let's hope Britain can show leadership here. For others, it was the design of the Titanic to be watertight; its operatives hovever, took it and operated it in such a fashion as to make it non watertight and display its inherent fundamental robustness flaws.
The ECHR is just a political tool of Europe, it has nothing to do with law, little to do with human rights and has no concept of justice. We should have moved away from this 'court', not towards it. Yes we need to improve our Judicial process and operation, but stepping towards the ECHR is a degrade not an improvement. The European legal system, like the general legal environment of the west is one of corruption and political control. We should have stepped towards a grouping of the wider world, in line with our overall multipolar direction. I appreciate that we are recognising the 'court' as a political machine and in our own pragmatic way, just trying to politically jostle for the best political outcome. However, is this really the foundation for true law. It isn't, it is a recipe of slipping into the highly politicised western 'judicial' processes and away from the rule of law. Worse the European political legal sham is anti Russian to the core, which will mean more political strife, as the legal poodle jumps to the tug on the leash from its European political dictators.