Convention on Human Rights is under threat
Council of Europe Secretary General Turbern Yagland January 26 addressed to the PACE with an annual report on its activities.
But the performance of the secretary general proved particularly this year. Jagland first publicly announced the systemic threat that the European Convention on Human Rights – a document that defines and embodies the common European values - can be destroyed.
“European truth” results in an abridged translation of the historic speech Jagland in Strasbourg.
* * * * *
I want to take this opportunity to talk to you about our Convention. Because it is – one of the best tools to curb the many crises that Europe faces today.
And yet – because the Convention is currently under threat.
The European Convention on Human Rights strengthened freedom, democracy and the rule of law in each of our countries. Convention – is our compass. It provides a clear legal guidance in all dilemmas that we now face.
For example: What are the main standards should expect those who join our society?
And in turn, what standards they must adhere to?
Many people are asking these questions, especially after the terrible events in Cologne.
It is important to say that we still do not know exactly what happened at the Central station in Cologne on New Years Eve, and who exactly is responsible for this. Therefore, we must avoid broad generalizations that are going to benefit the extreme right.
There is the question of how to reconcile different cultures and thinking in a modern and diverse European society, and we must clearly understand that there is one set of values that must be respected each . They are written in black and white in the Convention.
Everyone in Europe must have a set of freedoms – no “if”, no “but”, no, depending on the cultural characteristics.
In the context of violence against women, these rights were given in the Istanbul Convention, which prohibits all forms of gender-based violence. And by the way, I think Germany will send a very encouraging signal if ratify now, “Istanbul”, which it signed almost five years ago.
The Convention also guides us in the fight against terrorism. How can we empower our security forces to prevent attacks without compromising civil liberties?
When freedom of expression becomes a call to violence?
This is – an extremely sensitive question, but the answers are already there, they are turned out in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
And our Convention is a general vocabulary, the basis for co-operation, even when the relationship – in jeopardy.
Take, for example, the controversy surrounding the legislative changes in Poland, which threaten to undermine the effectiveness of the Constitutional Court. I called on the Polish government to request the opinion of the Venice Commission, which they did, and we have established a dialogue with the government. On this issue, they will be assigned to contacts in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in my office.
The European Commission also launched a formal investigation to determine whether the Constitutional law violates the norms of the rule of law, and it is pushed to the contacts between Warsaw and Brussels. I know that both sides are interested to defuse tensions – and I welcome it – and both recognize that the Venice Commission – is a world authority in this matter, and want to hear her opinion …
Danger – real
But, despite all this, in spite of the reforms of recent years, aimed at improving the system, it is now growing political threat to the Convention.
There have always been those who challenge the authority of international institutions, but now these forces were in the mainstream – and they are gaining momentum.
If “connect the dots”, you will feel that the danger to our Convention – is very real.
In the UK, the debate continues on the ECHR decision on the rights of prisoners to vote. I appreciate that the government is with us in-depth dialogue to find a way out. I also understand that it takes time to perform some of the Court’s decisions.
But many other countries follow the example of the United Kingdom, the Council of Europe’s founding countries, and I am very concerned about the argument that I hear more and more often that the refusal of Parliament to make changes in the law is the last word. (EP Note – the above decision of the ECHR is a long, long time, Britain refused to fulfill it.)
In the Russian Federation, under the new law, if the authorities consider that there is a conflict between the Russian Constitution and the decision of the international court, they will be able to seek the opinion of the Constitutional Court.
This creates a significant chance that the Constitutional Court was not allowed to execute ECHR decisions in Russia.
No one knows what will happen if or when such a conflict arises, and compliance with the Convention will depend on the Constitutional Court, but it would be much better if this uncertainty is not there at all.
Also, it would be better not to have a dispute with Britain about whether the supreme power of the ECHR decision.
Meanwhile, in Switzerland, collected enough signatures on a petition for a referendum on the question of the role of international treaties over national legislation.
The Norwegian Parliament recently adopted a resolution, which states that international conventions should be adapted to the so-called “new realities.” They refer to the refugee crisis, considering that treaties such as the Geneva Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights were written for “sunny days”. Meanwhile, they have been designed specifically for protection of the rights of people in such difficult times as now.
In my opinion, this is very serious, it is very concerned about.
If it is not “bottom”, where is it?
And we see a number of States that deliberately ignore their obligations. I would like to dwell separately on the detention of well-known intellectual and activist Ilgara Mamedova in Azerbaijan.
Mr. Mammadov has been in prison for two years, and there are clear signs that he is faced with threats and abuse.
Yes, it is – not the only person in Europe who has been in prison, although there was not supposed to be. But he – the only one who is still in prison, despite the fact that the Strasbourg Court, the highest legal force on the continent, based on a rarely used article 18, came to the conclusion that the courts and prosecutors abuse their power in the proceedings against him .
In other words, against him politically motivated evidence was used.
In the few cases where the Strasbourg Court found a violation of Article 18, applicants quickly released, acquitted them and their criminal record has been canceled.
And in this case – nothing happens for a year and a half. Azerbaijani authorities did not respond to repeated calls from me, from the PACE and the Commissioner for Human Rights, the need to release Ilgar Mamedov.
In this situation, I have the right to take emergency measures. According to article 52 of the Convention, I will send for the first time since I became Secretary-General, a special mission into the country to secure the release of Mamedov.
It is a question of whether the Convention is working at all! We can not keep people in prison in the European continent, when our highest court has determined that the charges are false.
Dear, this is – the bottom level. If this is not the lowest level, what can be the bottom?
(Applause in the hall)
ECHR decisions are binding
All these disparate tendencies, if put them together, are the cause of this trouble.
Convention system – in which all the 47 Member States share the responsibility – is attached to the article 46 of the document, which states that the parties to the Convention undertake to comply with the decisions of the European Court .
It does not say “must have”. Written clearly – “must” !
When the individual states ignore their obligations, or when trying to choose what rules must be followed, and what – no, it pulls the connecting elements of the fabric of the Convention.
And if it starts to “unravel” the process will be very difficult to stop.
We in Europe have already experienced the worst of unlimited state power. It is because of this experience (after the Second World War -. Translator) Our countries have agreed on a set of common legal constraints. Because these restrictions make us all stronger, and Europe – is safer.
And this logic is still retains its meaning.
So my signal today – I call for urgent action and accountability. Parliamentary Assembly do not need to teach the ability to express themselves. I am extremely grateful for the firm and principled position which you occupy regularly.
But today I am speaking to you as individual members of parliament.
I ask you to go home and louder than ever before, to protect the architecture of the European human rights.
Ukraine and other priorities for 2016
Exactly the same signal as to you, I am informed, and to the Committee of Ministers. For its part, I will continue to lead the Council of Europe on the path of reform …
We will continue to cooperate with Kiev on the renewal of the Ukrainian Constitution and decentralization.
A lot of thought at the time – the cease-fire and the Minsk agreements. Challenges are many, but one thing is certain: the parties (Russia and Ukraine) will be able to find common ground only if it is based on the standards of the Human Rights Convention – standards which they both signed.
Another thing that is clear: all the people who live in Ukraine and Russia, are under the protection of the Convention and the Council of Europe must do everything possible for this protection, in spite of the disagreements, including on the status of Crimea.
Our position on the territorial status of Crimea has been clearly defined by the Committee of Ministers and the Assembly. This does not, however, let us control how met in Crimea the main articles of the Convention.
No international organization has not visited Crimea for over a year.
I was able to agree on how to send a mission on Human Rights on the peninsula. I have appointed Gerard Stoudmann, seasoned Swiss diplomat to head the mission – and I can confirm that he is now in the Crimea.
It should not be construed as an admission of a “de facto power” that it operates.
Rather, it is recognition of the fact that we, as defenders of the freedom of people, bear a special responsibility to ask for the protection of freedom for 2.5 million residents of the Crimea.
Once I get a report on a business trip, I submit its findings to the Committee of Ministers. At this stage, we can decide what further needs to be done to defend human rights.
This – our commitment.
* * * * *
In order to solve all the problems we have in Europe, we have the most perfect in the world of international cooperation system.
We have the rule of law, approved at the European level – it is a Convention on Human Rights.
And I want to add something personal.
Political arguments in this discussion will not be able to overthrow my steps. I’ll be watching the law, regardless of the interests of their own country (Norway). Everyone is equal.
Winston Churchill once said about this: “You have enemies It’s good It means that you are getting in your life to protect anything?.!”
Sometimes you need to stand up for something, if the ultimate goal – to protect the Convention.
We must stand up for what we believe, that what we say in this building in Strasbourg. It is very important now.
I repeat: the nature and logic of the Convention is now under threat. In several countries.
Yes, you have the right to say: “We are the masters in their home, the decision of the national parliaments is the highest.” But as soon as this principle becomes operational, it will mean the end of the European Convention on Human Rights. After all – I remind you – the Convention states that countries are obliged to comply with the ECHR decision.
If we begin to put it into question, in the end, we deprive ourselves of the fact that there is in Europe, which has no other continent in the world.
So I urge you, let us “stand up to protect something.”
Sourse, 26/01/2016
