International law, Sixth edition
Download 7.77 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
International Law MALCOLM N. SHAW
Jabari v. Turkey, Judgment of 11 July 2000.
82 Chahal v. UK, Judgment of 15 November 1996. 83 See e.g. McCann v. UK, Series A, vol. 324, 1996. 84 E.g. Tanli, Judgment of 10 April 2001, para. 152. 85 Cyprus v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 May 2001, para. 132; 120 ILR, p. 10. 86 LCB v. UK, Judgment of 9 June 1998. 87 Soering v. UK, Judgment of 7 July 1989, at para. 120. See also Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of 18 December 1996, at para. 95 and Akdeniz v. Turkey, Judgment of 31 May 2005, at para. 138. r e g i o na l p r o t e c t i o n o f h u m a n r i g h t s 359 understood as requiring states to undertake an effective investigation into arguable claims of the violation of Convention rights. This has included claims of violations of Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6. 88 Execution of Court decisions is the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers. 89 This is a political body, the executive organ of the Council of Europe, 90 and consists of the Foreign Ministers, or their deputies, of all the member states. 91 Under article 15 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, the Committee of Ministers, acting on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly or on its own initiative, considers the action required to further the aims of the Council of Europe, including the con- clusion of conventions or agreements, and the adoption by governments of a common policy with regard to particular matters. Under article 16 of the Statute, it decides with binding effect all matters relating to the internal organisation and arrangements of the Council of Europe. Res- olutions and recommendations on a wide variety of issues are regularly adopted. 92 The Committee of Ministers performs a variety of functions with regard to the protection of human rights. For example, in its Dec- laration on Compliance with Commitments Accepted by Member States of the Council of Europe, adopted on 10 November 1994, the Committee decided that it would consider the question of implementation of com- mitments concerning the situation of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in any member state which may be referred to it by member states, the Secretary-General or on the basis of a recommendation of the Parliamentary Assembly. Where the Court has found a violation, the matter will be placed on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers and will stay there until the respondent government has confirmed that any sum awarded in just sat- isfaction under article 41 has been paid and/or any required individual measure has been taken and/or any general measures have been adopted 88 E.g. Kaya v. Turkey, Judgment of 19 February 1998, at para. 107; Ilhan v. Turkey, Judgment of 27 June 2000, at para. 97; Kurt v. Turkey, Judgment of 25 May 1998, at para. 140 and Kudla v. Poland, Judgment of 26 October 2000, at paras. 146–9. The Court has noted that ‘the requirements of Article 13 are broader than a Contracting State’s obligation under Article 2 to conduct an effective investigation into the disappearance of a person last seen in the hands of the authorities’, Akdeniz v. Turkey, Judgment of 31 May 2005, at para. 139 and Estamirov and Others v. Russia, Judgment of 12 October 2006, at para. 118. 89 Article 46(2). 90 Article 13 of the Statute of the Council of Europe. 91 Article 14 of the Statute of the Council of Europe. 92 These are non-binding. Resolutions relate to the general work of the Council as such, while recommendations concern action which it is suggested should be taken by the governments of member states. 360 i n t e r nat i o na l l aw preventing new similar violations or putting an end to continuing viola- tion. 93 Information so provided by states is to be accessible to the public, unless the Committee decides otherwise in order to protect legitimate public or private interests. 94 Despite the reform of the Convention system by Protocol No. 11, diffi- culties remain. Applications continue to increase inexorably. 95 As a con- sequence, Protocol No. 14 provides that a single judge will be able to declare an application inadmissible and a committee of three judges will be able to rule on repetitive cases where the underlying matter is already the subject of well-established case-law. In addition, a new admissibility requirement will be added to article 35 so that an application may be declared inadmissible where the applicant has not suffered a significant disadvantage and where an examination on the merits by the Court is not seen as necessary in terms of respect for human rights, provided that the matter has been examined by a domestic tribunal. Judges will be elected for non-renewable periods of nine years. 96 Download 7.77 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling