Human Rights Convention violation: Art. 2, 3, 8 and 10

Authors Avatar

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), was formed with the guidance from the Council of Europe in 1950 to protect the fundamental freedoms that are taken for granted and human rights. States who are members of the Council are party to the ECHR with joining members expected to follow suit. Cases from the United Kingdom could only be heard in Strasburg until the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 which is a statute to re-enforce the values laid out in the convention.

There are a number of possible article violations one would look to address, the first being a violation of article 2; the right to life. This article in essence provides that the Government and public authorities or state agents must protect the right to life. This may require, for example, that the police have to protect someone whose life is under immediate threat. It could also be used to argue that a patient should be able to get treatment that would save their life or in the case of Pretty v United Kingdom in which assisted suicide was the issue.

Generally, there will be a breach of Article 2 if someone is killed by a state official for example the police or prison officers. The only circumstances where there will not be a breach are set out in the second part of the article. However, where a death occurs in each of these three circumstances the responsible official will have to show that they did not use any more force than was absolutely necessary. So, if someone is killed when the police are trying to arrest them, there will be breach of Article 2 if it is shown that the police used more than the minimum amount of force necessary to detain the person. There have been illustrative cases such as
R (Silva) v DPP which involved the police and McCann v United Kingdom these both highlight the use of unnecessary force in which a violation of Art.2 was held. With article 2 there is also a positive duty on the authorities to have an adequate screening process highlighted by both Edwards and Osman. Osman simply re-enforces the fact the ‘state has a positive obligation to protect the right to life on the proviso that a state agent had done all that could be reasonably expected of them.’ This is now come to be known as the Osman Duty.

Join now!

Mr. Bloggs has served the ‘minimum term’ of 15 years which was laid out in the judgement. Now due for parole, evidence has deemed him to no longer be dangerous. It would therefore be safe to assume that the Parole Board has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that he would no longer be a danger or menace to society. After recognizing that the publics right to life would not be affected, there is a then also a ‘positive duty’ on the state to protect Mr. Bloggs’ right to life. If he were to be deported the state would ...

This is a preview of the whole essay