In defence of the European Court of Human Rights
by Mary Honeyball
Last week, the former Director of Public Prosecutions for England and Wales Ken McDonald penned a piece for British newspaperThe Times - in which he claimed that the European Court of Human Rights was not fit for purpose. That the ECHR had a backlog of 150,000 cases, which were growing at a pace of 20,000 a year, as he was only too quick to point out - does create a convincing argument. There is another school of thought though, to which I subscribe. It is that the backlog has come about precisely because not enough has been invested into one of Europe's greatest success stories.
How can I claim it is a great success story when it is not fully in charge of the workload? The proof is glaringly obvious. The high volume of cases waiting to be heard illustrate its popularity among European citizens. It also answers many of the concerns I hear time and time again from the Eurosceptic camp; that European institutions are unaccountable and that we do not know what goes on deep within the corridors of Brussels and beyond. The work of the ECHR, alone, is a great rebuttal to this line. The remit of the ECHR means that it must be accessible by all those who require access to it. It also safeguards a most elementary principle, that of upholding human rights. Ensuring people have sufficient access to justice is a basic, yet fundamental, foundation of any western democracy. So as citizens of Europe, we should show full support for this important institution - and seek to expand the service rather than curtail it.
McDonald's article failed to acknowledge how big the role of the ECHR is. It must uphold the law of Europe, a task which some individual nations struggle to carry out successfully. McDonald forgets that the court must consider all cases brought to it, in which the claimant believes their rights have been violated according to that law. What is more, this big and important institution presents well as a lean organisation. Its website, by way of example, is modest - but well laid out and all of the information is available and easy to navigate around. There is nothing fancy about the online presence, and rightly so. It simply sets out a narrative on the work the organisation does.
Finally, the organisation works in a realm where the notion of human rights varies wildly - depending on which country you are in. Some places do not have much of a tradition in upholding human rights, while the UK has one of the best records. With different standards, it makes the playing field somewhat uneven and difficult to monitor. And, I should imagine, it is a real problem within the ECHR. Every country can better its human rights standards, including the UK - which McDonald fails to see.
Unfortunately it is not as simple as saying that the ex-Soviet countries have much to learn while the rest of the EU is a friendly place - with good levels of human rights. Even the UK, has some way to go. We have - for example - more work to do with victims of human trafficking, the discrimination of same sex couples and other erosions of civil liberties.
Mary Honeyball is a British Labour MEP and a member of the Socialists and Democrats Group in the European Parliament
I fully agree to a large extent with the substance in the article by Ken MacDonald concerning the ECHR. However, the public including myself do not trust politicians and the propsals to give ministers the rights to undermine the outcome of cases brought to the ECHR is unthinkable, irrational, oppressive and undemocratic. The world now knows that politicians, lawmakers cannot be trusted. They could not even comply with their own rules on expenses - I refer to the expenses scandal during the last Labour government.It is very important to retain one of the most principle cornerstones of our democracy- the independence of the judiciary and absence of political interferance in the dispensation of justice and the importance of impartiality. It appears to me that, the modern political elites, rather to work for a better society prefers to work for self interest; and this is shocking because the society and community loses. Everyone deserves their human rights to be protected irrespective of status, wealth, race, colour etc. How can the UK preaching one thing to the rest of the world whilst it is something else at home? those who are against the ECHR should actually be ashamed.
Jemima Cleo - UK
Tory politicians in the UK have claimed success over changes to the European Court of Human Rights, following the Council of Europe conference last weekend. But the truth is that the Brighton declaration changes little – it simply proves that British spin doctors have not lost their aptitude – says our secret columnist
