HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE FAILURES OF ECHR

MOST RECENT GRAND CHAMBER JUDGEMENTS
MOST RECENT JUDGMENTS - IMPORTANCE 1, 2 AND 3
MOST RECENT JUDGMENTS - IMPORTANCE 1 AND 2
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS RUN LIKE HOW UK JUDGES RUN BRITISH COURTS
A correspondent has sent me an attachment with info on UK cases in the European Court of Human Rights.

I add my own experiences.

The ECtHR own '40 year Survey' (c1955-c1995, I think) shows that (apart from an odd Court Martial), not one single case complaining of a British judge has ever GOT to the ECtHR, much less been decided upon. They have all been declared 'Inadmissible' by the guard dogs who guard the entrance! So, if people ask my advice about going to the ECtHR I tell them, whatever you do, DON'T criticise a judge!

As a result of my own Article 6 case (Scarth v UK, 33745/96), the UK Government gave a solemn promise that they had taken steps to make certain that such a violation could not occur again. Another violation, exactly the same, DID happen to me again, not only violating Article 6, but breaking the very promise they had given to the ECtHR!

I took it all the way to the Appeal Court (as is required), where just one judge (can't remember her name) decided 'on the papers' that it was 'TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT', the three words on which I have recently made comment. So, I took that case to the ECtHR (can't remember the number). Unfortunately the shysters who run that outfit are as corrupt as our own lot. They begrudge me that one success & are determined I will NEVER win another.

Despite the cast iron precedent of my previous case the guard dogs declared it 'INADMISSIBLE'! That gives you an idea of how widespread is the skulduggery we are up against.

Norman Scarth.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • UK cases at the European court of Human Rights since 1975
  • UK JUDICIAL LACKEY SELECTED FOR NOTORIOUSLY INHUMANE HUMAN RIGHTS COURT
    We have challenged the ECHR on why they do NOT use juries for human rights cases instead use judicial lackeys from all of the countries that have a long history of human rights abuses and clearly prejudiced and discriminatory and why so many cases especially from the UK fall at the very first hurdle. Judges judging judges is like Hitler being judged by the Gestapo.

    Paul Mahoney, who spent 30 years as an administrator at the European court of human rights, is to be Britain's new judge on the Strasbourg court.

    In the immediate aftermath of his election, a row erupted over the pattern of voting, with allegations that Conservatives had encouraged Russian and east European MPs to vote against another British human rights lawyers whose record was seen as being too liberal. Mahony was not the favourite candidate for the position. He is 65 and may not be able to serve his full nine-year term under ECHR rules which stipulate that judges must retire at 70. The regulations are under review. He was elected by the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, polling nearly twice as many votes as his nearest rival, Ben Emmerson, QC. The final figures were Mahoney 83, Emmerson 48 and Raquel Agnello, QC, 27.

    His success follows a campaign by rightwing British newspapers and politicians to denigrate Emmerson, a barrister specialising in human rights cases, who had been considered the leading contender. Emmerson, 48, is currently a UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights. Last week, he reported to the UN in Geneva on the need to investigate US drone strikes in Pakistan. In 2003, Emmerson represented Abu Qatada, the Islamist cleric – along with a number of other Belmarsh inmates – at a hearing of the special immigration appeals commission arguing that they should not be detained without charge or trial. That professional association has been used by one tabloid to question his credentials.

    Last weekend, the Mail on Sunday reported that the potential appointment of Emmerson had alarmed Conservatives. The Tory MP and lawyer Dominic Raab told the paper: "If you're trying to rein in the human rights industry you don't appoint its equivalent of [the trade union leader] Len McCluskey." An Oxford University-educated barrister, Mahoney lectured in law at University College London for six years before practising for a short time at the bar in London during the 1970s. He has spent most of his career working for European institutions. He worked in the administration of the ECHR where he was deputy registrar then registrar between 1995 and 2005. Since leaving the ECHR, he has served as a judge and president of the European Union civil service tribunal in Luxembourg. He has also worked in a judicial role at the European Space Agency in Paris.

    Mahoney speaks French and some Italian and has written books and articles about human rights legislation. The shortlist of three candidates was drawn up by the Ministry of Justice in London. The byzantine appointments procedure has involved secret interviews with MPs and peers in London as well as question sessions in Paris and Strasbourg. Agnello, 48, who studied law at Sussex and Strasbourg universities, is a commercial litigation specialist. She became a QC in 2009, specialising in corporate insolvency and company litigation. She has appeared for the Pensions Regulator and is fluent in English, French, Portuguese and Swedish. She also sits in the high court part time as a deputy registrar in bankruptcy.

    The UK vacancy at the court arises because the present incumbent, Sir Nicolas Bratza, who is also president of the ECHR, retires in the autumn. Each of the 47 countries on the council has one judge on the court. Appointees enjoy a tax-free annual salary of £150,000. Last week, the ECHR announced it was opening a special account and seeking contributions from member states to help recruit more lawyers to deal with the estimated backlog of 150,000 unresolved cases that have accumulated in Strasbourg. The UK, which already pays for 12% of the court's budget, has not revealed whether it will make make any further payments.

    Political lobbying played a role in the appointments process in Strasbourg. The Labour MP Paul Flynn, who is on the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, told the Guardian: "The Tories are very active on the council these days. Most of the socialist group voted for Ben Emmerson, for the right reasons. "The Tories are in a group with the Russians and they were certainly putting pressure on the Russians for their candidate. It's a shame. Emmerson was a good candidate."

    Lady Helena Kennedy ( AS IF SHE CARES ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES WHEN HEAD OF THE BRITISH COUNCIL SHE WAS MANUFACTURING VILE LAWS TO UNDERMINE MEN AND PROP UP A RADICAL FEMINIST AGENDA) raised the issue during a debate on legal reforms in the Lords on Wednesday evening. "I'm really shocked at what has happened to Ben Emmerson," she told The Guardian afterwards. "This really is the use of political leverage. The Conservatives at [the highest level] supported Ben, but at a lower level down the people who are hostile to human rights and and the whole court [in Strasbourg] decided to scupper him because they felt that he's someone who is too committed to the idea of human rights across Europe. It's a shocker when you look at the fact that it was Russians and Serbs who voted. They were obviously lobbied."

    But Robert Walter, the Conservative MP who is chair of the 18-strong UK delegation to the Council of Europe, said Mahoney had been recommended by the assembly's judicial sub-committee. "I voted for Paul Mahoney," he confirmed. "I thought he was the best candidate. The ECHR needs somebody who has a good working knowledge of the court, even if he can only do four years because of his age. "These are four very important years for the court. There was no official line on this matter in our political group, but it was a matter that was on the agenda and we discussed it."

    Walter is also chairman of the European Democrat Group on the Council of Europe, an alliance of conservative parliamentarians from the UK, members of Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party, Turkish conservatives and Czechs. "I"m not a lawyer, but out of the three candidates, Mahoney appeared to be the most competent in court matters. He has a very long track record of working at the court. He will be able to hit the ground running and get on with the reforms," Walter said. Mahoney speaks English and French, as well as some Italian. He has written books and articles about human rights legislation.

    The shortlist of three candidates was drawn up by the Ministry of Justice in London. The byzantine appointments procedure has involved secret interviews with MPs and peers in London and well as question sessions in Paris and Strasbourg. Agnello, 48, who studied law at Sussex and Strasbourg Universities, is a commercial litigation specialist. She became a QC in 2009, specialising in corporate insolvency and company litigation. She has appeared for the Pensions Regulator and is fluent in English, French, Portuguese and Swedish. She also sits in the high court part time as a deputy registrar in bankruptcy. The UK vacancy on the court arises because the present incumbent, Sir Nicolas Bratza, who is also president of the ECHR, retires in the autumn.

    Each of the 47 countries on the council has one judge on the court. Appointees enjoy a tax-free annual salary of £150,000. Last week the ECHR announced it was opening a special account and seeking contributions from member states to help recruit more lawyers to deal with the estimated backlog of 150,000 unresolved cases that have accumulated in Strasbourg. The UK, which already pays for 12 per cent % of the court's budget, has not revealed whether it will make make any further payments. Political lobbying played a role in the appointments process in Strasbourg. The Labour MP Paul Flynn, who is on the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe, told the Guardian: "The Tories are very active on the council these days. Most of the socialist group voted for Ben Emmerson, for the right reasons.

    "The Tories are in a group with the sub-fascist Russians and they were certainly putting pressure on the Russians for their candidate. It's a shame. Emmerson was a good candidate." But Robert Walter, the Conservative MP who is chair of the 18-strong UK delegation to the Council of Europe, said Mahoney had been recommended by the assembly's judicial sub-committee. "I voted for Paul Mahoney," he confirmed. "I thought he was the best candidate. The ECHR needs somebody who has a good working knowledge of the court, even if he can only do four years because of his age.

    "These are four very important years for the court. There was no official line on this matter in our political group but it was a matter that was on the agenda and we discussed it." Walter is also chairman of the European Democrat Group on the Council of Europe, an alliance of conservative parliamentarians from the UK, members of Vladimir Putin's United Russia Party, Turkish conservatives and Czechs. "I"m not a lawyer but out of the three candidates, Mahoney appeared to be the most competent in court matters. He has a very long track record of working at the court. He will be able to hit the ground running and get on with the reforms," he said.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Meet our new Euro human rights judge... who's not even a real judge: Top Strasbourg job for man who's never sat in a British court
  • THE WHOLE LEGAL SYSTEM RIGHT UP TO ECHR ARE ALL CORRUPT
    by Norman Scarth

    Paradoxically, it was during my own single-handed in the ECHR (Scarth v UK, 33745/96) I l earned that the lawyers who run that outfit are as corrupt as our own lot. Having 'Judicial Experience' (i.e. having been members of the Judicial Mafia) would certainly not improve matters! Up till the age of 70 I believed (as we were constantly told) that 'British Judges are the Finest in the World'. During the three years which followed I learned that ALL practicing lawyers & judges are corrupt, but was still gullible enough to believe that academic lawyers would retain their integrity.

    However, I had not allowed for the fact that all their funding comes from The Establishment & Big Business. By the end of my first year as a geriatric student of law at the University of Leeds I had learned that academic lawyers are just as corrupt as the rest. They are certainly not going to rock The Establishment Boat, or bite the hand that feeds them!

    PS: The European CONVENTION on Human Rights is excellent, as is much of British Law, on which it was based. The trouble is the courts (Strasbourg & British) are all run by crooked lawyers - & that's a tautology!

  • Seven of eleven sitting at Europe's human rights court deciding fate of hate preacher Qatada have never been judges
  • The masonic European human rights judicial mafia(no jury) back UK's police state and kettling
  • TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 12 MARCH 2012
  • EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 50 YEAR STATS
  • Another UK legal lackey joins the other state lackeys at the European Court of Human Rights
  • TORIES WANT 47 COUNTRIES TO SUPPORT REDUCTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIDEO

    FROM THE BRIGHTON CONFERENCE

  • Brighton conference on human rights a farce between political and judicial lackeys of the state infighting with no mention of a lack of juries in deciding human rights
  • MASONIC CONTROL OF ECHR JUDGES BACKS STIFLING OF DISSENT AND PROTEST
    The European court of human rights has delivered its eagerly awaited judgment on the lawfulness of the police tactic of "kettling" or containment. The use of this tactic at the G20 protests in 2009 – when Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed while trying to get through a police cordon – and at student and anti-capitalist protests, has led to fears that it is being deployed as a routine crowd control measure.

    Cuts to public services and the NHS, increases in student fees and attacks on welfare benefits all mean that there is more and more reason to take to the streets against government policies. But the prospect of being kettled, detained against your will in a crowd for many hours, is a serious deterrent and has an obvious chilling effect on the right to demonstrate. Moreover the use of kettling is thought by many to increase the risk of public disorder by making people feel justifiably angry. It was hoped that the European court would shed some reason and light on this debate and rise above self-interested government arguments. Sadly that has not happened. This may be because the court was considering not the more recent uses of the tactic but the policing of a May Day demonstration in 2001.

    The case was brought by a client of my firm, Lois Austin, and three others. Austin was at the demonstration as a protester. She was detained for seven hours without access to food or water or toilet facilities, and was unable to collect her baby daughter from a creche as planned. The three other applicants – George Black, Bronwyn Lowenthal and Peter O'Shea (who were separately represented) – were not part of the demonstration but just happened to be in Oxford Circus at the time. Two of them were working in the area and on their lunchbreaks, and one was shopping there. They were detained for similar periods of time in the same conditions. They all complained that their detention was a deprivation of liberty which could not be justified under Article 5.1 of the European convention. Before the case came to the European court it had gone through the entire English court system, as is the requirement, with the House of Lords finding in January 2009 that there was no deprivation of liberty.

    The majority of the judges in the European court have essentially upheld the Lords judgment and relied on the same rather vague statements made by their lordships. These refer to what the European judges call situations that "commonly occur in modern society where the public may be called on to endure restriction on freedom of movement or liberty in the interests of the common good". Examples given include such events as police stopping cars on a motorway. The bracketing of such an example with restrictions on protesters ignores the tendency of governments and police to want to curb and stifle protest, and is not in any event equivalent to the experience of being corralled for many hours. The assurance in the ECHR judgment that such restrictions on movement are acceptable "so long as they are rendered unavoidable as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the authorities and are necessary to avert a real risk of serious injury or damage and are kept to the minimum required for that purpose" does not convince that it places any real requirements on the police imprisoning people in the street. The judgment of the majority is skewered by an impressive dissenting judgment of three judges (from Belgium, Luxembourg and Poland) led by Françoise Tulkens. They point out that the special treatment of deprivation of liberty arising from public order considerations is a dangerous precedent, singling out the words quoted above as sending "a bad message to police authorities". They also point out that, in the case when the European court ruled against the UK government on the indefinite detention of foreign nationals, the court did not accept Britain's attempt at special pleading for national security cases and similarly should not do so here for public order reasons. They say that there are better methods of controlling a crowd than an indiscriminate cordon applied even to non-demonstrators.

    "The police could have been expected to apply less intrusive means. As it was, it seems that all people who happened to be at Oxford Circus at around 2pm were treated like objects and were forced to remain there as long as the police had not solved other problems around the city." Cases relating to more kettling at more recent protests have been put on hold pending this ruling and one can only hope that when the supreme court considers whether the containment of the climate change camp sit-in at the G20 protest is lawful, it will impose a more stringent test than is to be found in this disappointing decision.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • The masonic European human rights judicial mafia(no jury) back UK's police state and kettling
  • TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 12 MARCH 2012
  • EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 50 YEAR STATS
  • TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 12 MARCH 2012
    TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

    In the judgement Application No. 26740/02

    Grande Oriente d `Italia di Palazzo Giustiniani v Italy (No. 2), 31 May 2007 ECHR

    Please confirm the names of the judges sitting in the above judgement?

    Please confirm what steps the European Court of Human Rights had taken to ensure those judges were totally impartial and were NOT members of any secret society including freemasonry at the time they made that decision?

    Please also confirm whether the European Court of Human Rights is in fact breaching its own rules by failing to ensure Human rights judgements are decided by an impartial tribunal of a jury of our peers and NOT a hand picked bunch of lackeys from states that continue to abuse human rights?

    Also that due to the UK having a judiciary totally controlled by freemasonry men in their thousands are daily being stripped of their livelihoods , homes and children primarily because of freemasons sitting at the ECHR in judgement and the single most vile decision taken by the ECHR is No. 26740/02 and that freemasons continue to use the admiralty court structure to deny jury hearings in civil cases across the UK allowing freemason judges to act with impunity against men not part of their satanic network of power.

    We have for many years been exposing the utter hypocrisy of a supposed human rights court that has never provided the necessary impartiality as required under a properly managed court structure but merely rubber stamps the tyranny of the courts across Europe but particularly the United Kingdom that has an appalling record especially within the family courts all of it aided and abetted by judges sitting in the European Court of Human Rights. Judges that were once part of the very system they are now sitting in judgement over.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • Landmark victory for Freemasons (Thanks to their ECHR judicial buddies)
  • The European court of human rights is in a mess
  • European human rights mafia meet and greet with the UK's political mafia
  • The masonic European human rights judicial mafia(no jury) back UK's police state and kettling
  • ECHR JUDGE STOPS INVESTIGATION INTO WIFE IN BRIBERY CASE
    AS WE HAVE BEEN EXPOSING FOR MANY YEARS THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IS STUFFED FULL OF LACKEYS THAT PROTECT THE JUDICIAL MAFIA'S DECISIONS RIGHT ACROSS EUROPE. JURIES AND JURIES ALONE SHOULD DECIDE ON HUMAN RIGHTS NOT A BUNCH OF CROOKED JUDGES PROMOTED TO MAKE ABHORRENT DECISIONS THAT UNDERMINE ALL THE VICTIMS OF THE CRIMINALS MASQUERADING AS JUDGES THROUGHOUT EUROPE. FREEMASONS ARE BEHIND THE CONTROL OF ALL JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PROPS UP THE RICHEST DESPOTS ON THE PLANET.

    A judge at the European Court of Human Rights has used his position to try to block a corruption investigation into his wife.

    Corneliu Barsan, Romania's judge at the Strasbourg court, is using his diplomatic immunity to shield his wife, Gabriela. Mrs Barsan is being investigated over allegations of corruption among judges in Romania, where she sits on the Supreme Court. Investigators claim she received bribes worth thousands of pounds for favourable rulings.

    Prosecutors accuse her of 'influence-peddling'.They searched her home and confiscated her computer and documents. But Mr Barsan, who was not a judge before sitting on the ECHR, said this breached the Vienna Convention, which gives foreign diplomats immunity from prosecution. As an ECHR judge, he is also protected. However, experts say immunity is not given to judges for their own benefit or to hamper justice. The case has raised fresh fears over the quality of ECHR judges.

    Stephen Booth, of the Open Europe think-tank, said: 'This is a damning indictment on the standard of some judges at the court, which has the power to overrule the UK.' ‘The sooner that the UK introduces proper safeguards against rulings from judges in Strasbourg the better.' The businessman accused of paying the alleged bribes said he gave them ‘out of friendship’, Romania Libera newspaper has reported. The gifts are said to include access to an apartment in Paris for her son.

    ‘They allegedly received on several occasions presents from a lawyer and a businessman to intercede in favour of the latter,’ prosecutors said in a statement. Corruption is a major concern in Romania and Bulgaria, which both joined the EU in 2007. A report from the EU Commission this year said allegations were not properly pursued, and accused judges of being prone to taking bribes.

    Often suspects walk free because the time allowed for prosecutions runs out, the report said. A series of rulings by the Strasbourg court in recent months have put it on a collision course with Government ministers. Strasbourg is demanding all prisoners held in British jails must be given the right to vote - despite Parliament voting against such a move.

    In June the court ruled up to 200 Somali nationals - including convicted criminals and illegal immigrants - cannot be sent back to their home country because of the risk of ill treatment. Last month the court ruled a Nigerian rapist cannot be sent back because of his ‘private life’ in Britain. Akindoyin Akinskipe was convicted of rape in 2002 when, aged 15, he carried out an horrific assault on a 13-year-old girl.

    The court refused to send him back, citing his rights to a ‘private and family life’ under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Ministers have pledged to reform the court when Britain takes over the presidency of the Council of Europe - the court’s governing body - next month. They want Europe to take on fewer cases and have more respect for rulings by domestic courts and member states’ Parliaments.

    At least seven new cases are lodged against Britain at the court every day and there is already a huge backlog of cases. The number of actions against the UK almost doubled in the last 12 months - from 1,690 in 2009 to 3,172 last year. Its total backlog of cases against all countries rose nearly 20 per cent last year to 140,000 - up from 120,000.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • ECHR JUDGES(NO JURIES) ARE A JOKE AND PART OF THE MASONIC AGENDA
  • MASONIC HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGES BACK FREEMASONS SURPRISE SURPRISE
  • JUDGES WANT TO DESTROY CORE MORAL VALUES. WE SIMPLY CAN'T LET THEM SUCCEED
    AS WE HAVE BEEN SAYING FOR A VERY LONG TIME HUMAN RIGHTS AS JUDGED SOLELY BY JUDGES ARE THE CAUSE OF MORALLY CORRUPTING OUR SOCIETY. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS WAS A CONSPIRACY AIDED BY TONY BLAIR TO GIVE RIGHTS TO BACK HOMOSEXUAL AGENDAS, SERIAL CRIMINALS (AND THE ULTRA RICH LEGAL AID LAWYERS WHO HANG ON TO THEIR COATTAILS) AND A MASONIC AGENDA WHERE HUMAN RIGHTS JUDGEMENTS FAVOUR ONLY THE VERY FEW IN THOSE NARROW CATEGORIES.

    One of the great bulwarks of a democracy is an independent judiciary, which acts as the ultimate defender of liberty because the judges are free from political control. In Britain and Europe, however, something very alarming has taken place. The judges are increasingly becoming a positive threat to liberty because they have usurped the political process. As a result, they are straying — no, actually marching with banners flying and drums beating — into territory which should lie well beyond their remit.

    In recent days, there have been two such outrageous court rulings. The European Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the European Union, ruled that insurance companies may no longer differentiate between men and women when calculating the rates offered on annuities which are used to convert pension pots into an annual income. Until now, men have received higher rates because their average life span is shorter than that of women. But because the ruling will force firms to treat both sexes equally, men stand to lose hundreds of pounds of retirement income per year. The reasoning, however, is utterly specious. The judges have interpreted anti-discrimination law in the most bone-headed way by saying that any gender difference in these rates is discriminatory.

    But there is a very good reason for this difference, in that women live longer than men. Discrimination surely occurs only when people in the same circumstances are treated differently. Which is patently not the case with pensions, where the different rates aim to ensure men don’t lose out. The ruling will therefore impose unfairness upon the pension system. And to put the tin lid on it, this is being forced upon us by a foreign court.

    'What in heaven’s name entitles a bunch of judges who represent no one and are not even part of our society to supersede our own democratic decision-making and dictate to us our own pension arrangements? In any sane universe, nothing at all.'

    The second case was in many ways very much worse. This was a ruling handed down in the High Court, which effectively upheld the ban on a black Christian couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, from fostering children because they refused to undertake to tell a child that homosexuality was acceptable. In just about every respect the Johns are ideal foster parents — decent, solid, loving and with years of experience. Given the chronic shortage of foster parents and the large number of black children in care, one might have thought the Johns would be as valuable as gold dust. Yet Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson justified the ban by ruling that the couple’s attitude to homosexuality was a legitimate reason to withhold official approval from them. Such people are therefore effectively being punished for having the wrong attitudes. This is the kind of behaviour associated with totalitarian societies, not liberal Britain.

    More jaw-dropping still, the children whose ‘right’ to be told that homosexuality is acceptable is supposedly infringed by the Johns’ Christian beliefs would all be under ten years of age. So the Johns are being punished for wanting to protect children from inappropriate talk which would surely be an abuse of their childhood. And despite the judges’ insistence that they are not taking an anti-Christian position, that is precisely what their ruling does. For it effectively holds that traditional Christian beliefs harm children.

    Indeed, the judges went much further and said there was no place in law for Christian beliefs, since ‘the laws and usages of the realm do not include Christianity’.

  • FULL ARTICLE HERE
  • CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
    as amended by Protocol No. 11 with Protocol Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 7


    Article 1 -Obligation to respect human rights

    The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

    Section I – Rights and freedoms

    Article 2 – Right to life

    1 Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

    2 Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

    a in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

    b in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

    c in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

    Article 3 – Prohibition of torture

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 4 – Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

    1 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

    2 No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

    3 For the purpose of this article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:

    a any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of
    Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;

    b any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are
    recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;

    c any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the
    community;
    d any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

    Article 5 – Right to liberty and security

    1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the
    following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
    a the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
    b the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order
    to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
    c the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
    legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably
    considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
    d the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful
    detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
    e the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of
    unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
    f the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country
    or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
    2 Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons
    for his arrest and of any charge against him.
    3 Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.c of this article shall be
    brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be
    entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by
    guarantees to appear for trial.
    4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which
    the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention
    is not lawful.
    5 Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this article shall
    have an enforceable right to compensation.

    Article 6 – Right to a fair trial

    1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is
    entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal
    established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from
    all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society,
    where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent
    strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the
    interests of justice.
    2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
    3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    a to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of
    the accusation against him;
    b to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
    c to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient
    means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

    d to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
    witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
    e to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in
    court.

    Article 7 – No punishment without law

    1 No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute
    a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier
    penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
    2 This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the
    time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised
    nations.

    Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life

    1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
    2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
    accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public
    safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
    health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

    1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change
    his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to
    manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
    2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by
    law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public
    order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    Article 10 – Freedom of expression

    1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to
    receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
    This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
    enterprises.
    2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such
    formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic
    society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder
    or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for
    preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and
    impartiality of the judiciary.

    Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association

    1 Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including
    the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
    2 No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and
    are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention
    of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
    others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by
    members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State.

    Article 12 – Right to marry

    Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the
    national laws governing the exercise of this right.

    Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy

    Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective
    remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting
    in an official capacity.

    Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination

    The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without
    discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
    or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

    Article 15 – Derogation in time of emergency

    1 In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may
    take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the
    exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under
    international law.
    2 No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war, or from Articles 3,
    4 (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.
    3 Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary General of the
    Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also
    inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and
    the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.

    Article 16 – Restrictions on political activity of aliens

    Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from
    imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.

    Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights

    Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to
    engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth
    herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.

    Article 18 – Limitation on use of restrictions on rights

    The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any
    purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
    Section II – European Court of Human Rights

    Article 19 – Establishment of the Court

    To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the
    Convention and the Protocols thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter
    referred to as "the Court". It shall function on a permanent basis.

    Article 20 – Number of judges

    The Court shall consist of a number of judges equal to that of the High Contracting Parties.

    Article 21 – Criteria for office

    1 The judges shall be of high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for
    appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.
    2 The judges shall sit on the Court in their individual capacity.
    3 During their term of office the judges shall not engage in any activity which is incompatible with their
    independence, impartiality or with the demands of a full-time office; all questions arising from the application
    of this paragraph shall be decided by the Court.


    Article 22 – Election of judges

    1 The judges shall be elected by the Parliamentary Assembly with respect to each High Contracting Party by
    a majority of votes cast from a list of three candidates nominated by the High Contracting Party.
    2 The same procedure shall be followed to complete the Court in the event of the accession of new High
    Contracting Parties and in filling casual vacancies.

    Article 23 – Terms of office

    1 The judges shall be elected for a period of six years. They may be re-elected. However, the terms of office
    of one-half of the judges elected at the first election shall expire at the end of three years.
    2 The judges whose terms of office are to expire at the end of the initial period of three years shall be chosen
    by lot by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe immediately after their election.
    3 In order to ensure that, as far as possible, the terms of office of one-half of the judges are renewed every
    three years, the Parliamentary Assembly may decide, before proceeding to any subsequent election, that
    the term or terms of office of one or more judges to be elected shall be for a period other than six years but
    not more than nine and not less than three years.
    4 In cases where more than one term of office is involved and where the Parliamentary Assembly applies the
    preceding paragraph, the allocation of the terms of office shall be effected by a drawing of lots by the
    Secretary General of the Council of Europe immediately after the election.
    5 A judge elected to replace a judge whose term of office has not expired shall hold office for the remainder of
    his predecessor's term.
    6 The terms of office of judges shall expire when they reach the age of 70.
    7 The judges shall hold office until replaced. They shall, however, continue to deal with such cases as they
    already have under consideration.

    Article 24 – Dismissal

    No judge may be dismissed from his office unless the other judges decide by a majority of two-thirds that he
    has ceased to fulfil the required conditions.

    Article 25 – Registry and legal secretaries

    The Court shall have a registry, the functions and organisation of which shall be laid down in the rules of the
    Court. The Court shall be assisted by legal secretaries.

    Article 26 – Plenary Court

    The plenary Court shall
    a elect its President and one or two Vice-Presidents for a period of three years; they may be re-elected;
    b set up Chambers, constituted for a fixed period of time;
    c elect the Presidents of the Chambers of the Court; they may be re-elected;
    d adopt the rules of the Court, and
    e elect the Registrar and one or more Deputy Registrars.

    Article 27 – Committees, Chambers and Grand Chamber

    1 To consider cases brought before it, the Court shall sit in committees of three judges, in Chambers of seven
    judges and in a Grand Chamber of seventeen judges. The Court's Chambers shall set up committees for a
    fixed period of time.
    2 There shall sit as an ex officio member of the Chamber and the Grand Chamber the judge elected in
    respect of the State Party concerned or, if there is none or if he is unable to sit, a person of its choice who
    shall sit in the capacity of judge.
    3 The Grand Chamber shall also include the President of the Court, the Vice-Presidents, the Presidents of the
    Chambers and other judges chosen in accordance with the rules of the Court. When a case is referred to
    the Grand Chamber under Article 43, no judge from the Chamber which rendered the judgment shall sit in
    the Grand Chamber, with the exception of the President of the Chamber and the judge who sat in respect of
    the State Party concerned.

    Article 28 – Declarations of inadmissibility by committees

    A committee may, by a unanimous vote, declare inadmissible or strike out of its list of cases an application
    submitted under Article 34 where such a decision can be taken without further examination. The decision
    shall be final.

    Article 29 – Decisions by Chambers on admissibility and merits

    1 If no decision is taken under Article 28, a Chamber shall decide on the admissibility and merits of individual
    applications submitted under Article 34.
    2 A Chamber shall decide on the admissibility and merits of inter-State applications submitted under Article
    33.
    3 The decision on admissibility shall be taken separately unless the Court, in exceptional cases, decides
    otherwise.

    Article 30 – Relinquishment of jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber

    Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the
    Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a
    result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before
    it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the
    parties to the case objects.

    Article 31 – Powers of the Grand Chamber

    The Grand Chamber shall
    a determine applications submitted either under Article 33 or Article 34 when a Chamber has relinquished
    jurisdiction under Article 30 or when the case has been referred to it under Article 43; and
    b consider requests for advisory opinions submitted under Article 47.

    Article 32 – Jurisdiction of the Court

    1 The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the
    Convention and the protocols thereto which are referred to it as provided in Articles 33, 34 and 47.
    2 In the event of dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the Court shall decide.

    Article 33 – Inter-State cases

    Any High Contracting Party may refer to the Court any alleged breach of the provisions of the Convention
    and the protocols thereto by another High Contracting Party.

    Article 34 – Individual applications

    The Court may receive applications from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals
    claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the
    Convention or the protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the
    effective exercise of this right.

    Article 35 – Admissibility criteria

    1 The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the
    generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the
    final decision was taken.
    2 The Court shall not deal with any application submitted under Article 34 that
    a is anonymous; or
    b is substantially the same as a matter that has already been examined by the Court or has already been
    submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement and contains no relevant new
    information.
    3 The Court shall declare inadmissible any individual application submitted under Article 34 which it considers
    incompatible with the provisions of the Convention or the protocols thereto, manifestly ill-founded, or an
    abuse of the right of application.
    4 The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It may do so at any
    stage of the proceedings.

    Article 36 – Third party intervention

    1 In all cases before a Chamber or the Grand Chamber, a High Contracting Party one of whose nationals is
    an applicant shall have the right to submit written comments and to take part in hearings.
    2 The President of the Court may, in the interest of the proper administration of justice, invite any High
    Contracting Party which is not a party to the proceedings or any person concerned who is not the applicant
    to submit written comments or take part in hearings.

    Article 37 – Striking out applications

    1 The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where
    the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
    a the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or
    b the matter has been resolved; or
    c for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the
    application.
    However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined
    in the Convention and the protocols thereto so requires.
    2 The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify
    such a course.

    Article 38 – Examination of the case and friendly settlement proceedings

    1 If the Court declares the application admissible, it shall
    a pursue the examination of the case, together with the representatives of the parties, and if need be,
    undertake an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all
    necessary facilities;
    b place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the
    matter on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto.
    2 Proceedings conducted under paragraph 1.b shall be confidential.

    Article 39 – Finding of a friendly settlement

    If a friendly settlement is effected, the Court shall strike the case out of its list by means of a decision which
    shall be confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

    Article 40 – Public hearings and access to documents

    1 Hearings shall be in public unless the Court in exceptional circumstances decides otherwise.
    2 Documents deposited with the Registrar shall be accessible to the public unless the President of the Court
    decides otherwise.

    Article 41 – Just satisfaction

    If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, and if the internal
    law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if
    necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.

    Article 42 – Judgments of Chambers

    Judgments of Chambers shall become final in accordance with the provisions of Article 44, paragraph 2.

    Article 43 – Referral to the Grand Chamber

    1 Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in
    exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.
    2 A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question
    affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or a serious issue of
    general importance.
    3 If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment.

    Article 44 – Final judgments

    1 The judgment of the Grand Chamber shall be final.
    2 The judgment of a Chamber shall become final
    a when the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or
    b three months after the date of the judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber has not
    been requested; or
    c when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43.
    3 The final judgment shall be published.

    Article 45 – Reasons for judgments and decisions

    1 Reasons shall be given for judgments as well as for decisions declaring applications admissible or
    inadmissible.
    2 If a judgment does not represent, in whole or in part, the unanimous opinion of the judges, any judge shall
    be entitled to deliver a separate opinion.

    Article 46 – Binding force and execution of judgments

    1 The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they
    are parties.
    2 The final judgment of the Court shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers, which shall supervise its
    execution.

    Article 47 – Advisory opinions

    1 The Court may, at the request of the Committee of Ministers, give advisory opinions on legal questions
    concerning the interpretation of the Convention and the protocols thereto.
    2 Such opinions shall not deal with any question relating to the content or scope of the rights or freedoms
    defined in Section I of the Convention and the protocols thereto, or with any other question which the Court
    or the Committee of Ministers might have to consider in consequence of any such proceedings as could be
    instituted in accordance with the Convention.
    3 Decisions of the Committee of Ministers to request an advisory opinion of the Court shall require a majority
    vote of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee.

    Article 48 – Advisory jurisdiction of the Court

    The Court shall decide whether a request for an advisory opinion submitted by the Committee of Ministers is
    within its competence as defined in Article 47.

    Article 49 – Reasons for advisory opinions

    1 Reasons shall be given for advisory opinions of the Court.
    2 If the advisory opinion does not represent, in whole or in part, the unanimous opinion of the judges, any
    judge shall be entitled to deliver a separate opinion.
    3 Advisory opinions of the Court shall be communicated to the Committee of Ministers.

    Article 50 – Expenditure on the Court

    The expenditure on the Court shall be borne by the Council of Europe.

    Article 51 – Privileges and immunities of judges

    The judges shall be entitled, during the exercise of their functions, to the privileges and immunities provided
    for in Article 40 of the Statute of the Council of Europe and in the agreements made thereunder.
    Section III – Miscellaneous provisions

    Article 52 – Inquiries by the Secretary General

    On receipt of a request from the Secretary General of the Council of Europe any High Contracting Party
    shall furnish an explanation of the manner in which its internal law ensures the effective implementation of
    any of the provisions of the Convention.

    Article 53 – Safeguard for existing human rights

    Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and
    fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any
    other agreement to which it is a Party.

    Article 54 – Powers of the Committee of Ministers

    Nothing in this Convention shall prejudice the powers conferred on the Committee of Ministers by the
    Statute of the Council of Europe.

    Article 55 – Exclusion of other means of dispute settlement

    The High Contracting Parties agree that, except by special agreement, they will not avail themselves of
    treaties, conventions or declarations in force between them for the purpose of submitting, by way of petition,
    a dispute arising out of the interpretation or application of this Convention to a means of settlement other
    than those provided for in this Convention.

    Article 56 – Territorial application

    1 Any State may at the time of its ratification or at any time thereafter declare by notification addressed to the
    Secretary General of the Council of Europe that the present Convention shall, subject to paragraph 4 of this
    Article, extend to all or any of the territories for whose international relations it is responsible.
    2 The Convention shall extend to the territory or territories named in the notification as from the thirtieth day
    after the receipt of this notification by the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
    3 The provisions of this Convention shall be applied in such territories with due regard, however, to local
    requirements.
    4 Any State which has made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article may at any time
    thereafter declare on behalf of one or more of the territories to which the declaration relates that it accepts
    the competence of the Court to receive applications from individuals, non-governmental organisations or
    groups of individuals as provided by Article 34 of the Convention.

    Article 57 – Reservations

    1 Any State may, when signing this Convention or when depositing its instrument of ratification, make a
    reservation in respect of any particular provision of the Convention to the extent that any law then in force in
    its territory is not in conformity with the provision. Reservations of a general character shall not be permitted
    under this article.
    2 Any reservation made under this article shall contain a brief statement of the law concerned.

    Article 58 – Denunciation

    1 A High Contracting Party may denounce the present Convention only after the expiry of five years from the
    date on which it became a party to it and after six months' notice contained in a notification addressed to the
    Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who shall inform the other High Contracting Parties.
    2 Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the High Contracting Party concerned from its
    obligations under this Convention in respect of any act which, being capable of constituting a violation of
    such obligations, may have been performed by it before the date at which the denunciation became
    effective.
    3 Any High Contracting Party which shall cease to be a member of the Council of Europe shall cease to be a
    Party to this Convention under the same conditions.
    4 The Convention may be denounced in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraphs in
    respect of any territory to which it has been declared to extend under the terms of Article 56.

    Article 59 – Signature and ratification

    1 This Convention shall be open to the signature of the members of the Council of Europe. It shall be ratified.
    Ratifications shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
    2 The present Convention shall come into force after the deposit of ten instruments of ratification.
    3 As regards any signatory ratifying subsequently, the Convention shall come into force at the date of the
    deposit of its instrument of ratification.
    4 The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify all the members of the Council of Europe of the
    entry into force of the Convention, the names of the High Contracting Parties who have ratified it, and the
    deposit of all instruments of ratification which may be effected subsequently.
    Done at Rome this 4th day of November 1950, in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in
    a single copy which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General
    shall transmit certified copies to each of the signatories.

    Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
    The governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council of Europe,
    Being resolved to take steps to ensure the collective enforcement of certain rights and freedoms other than
    those already included in Section I of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
    Freedoms signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
    Have agreed as follows:

    Article 1 – Protection of property

    Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be
    deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law
    and by the general principles of international law.
    The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it
    deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the
    payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

    Article 2 – Right to education

    No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in
    relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education
    and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.

    Article 3 – Right to free elections

    The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under
    conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

    Article 4 – Territorial application

    Any High Contracting Party may at the time of signature or ratification or at any time thereafter communicate
    to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe a declaration stating the extent to which it undertakes that
    the provisions of the present Protocol shall apply to such of the territories for the international relations of
    which it is responsible as are named therein.
    Any High Contracting Party which has communicated a declaration in virtue of the preceding paragraph may
    from time to time communicate a further declaration modifying the terms of any former declaration or
    terminating the application of the provisions of this Protocol in respect of any territory.
    A declaration made in accordance with this article shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with
    paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Convention.

    Article 5 – Relationship to the Convention

    As between the High Contracting Parties the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of this Protocol shall be
    regarded as additional articles to the Convention and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply
    accordingly.

    Article 6 – Signature and ratification

    This Protocol shall be open for signature by the members of the Council of Europe, who are the signatories
    of the Convention; it shall be ratified at the same time as or after the ratification of the Convention. It shall
    enter into force after the deposit of ten instruments of ratification. As regards any signatory ratifying
    subsequently, the Protocol shall enter into force at the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.

    The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who
    will notify all members of the names of those who have ratified.
    Done at Paris on the 20th day of March 1952, in English and French, both texts being equally authentic, in a
    single copy which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General
    shall transmit certified copies to each of the signatory governments.


    Protocol No. 4 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
    Fundamental Freedoms securing certain rights and freedoms other than
    those already included in the Convention and in the first Protocol
    thereto
    The governments signatory hereto, being members of the Council of Europe,
    Being resolved to take steps to ensure the collective enforcement of certain rights and freedoms other than
    those already included in Section 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
    Freedoms signed at Rome on 4th November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “Convention”) and in
    Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, signed at Paris on 20th March 1952,
    Have agreed as follows:

    Article 1 – Prohibition of imprisonment for debt

    No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation.

    Article 2 – Freedom of movement

    1 Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of
    movement and freedom to choose his residence.
    2 Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
    3 No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law
    and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the
    maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the
    protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
    4 The rights set forth in paragraph 1 may also be subject, in particular areas, to restrictions imposed in
    accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.

    Article 3 – Prohibition of expulsion of nationals

    1 No one shall be expelled, by means either of an individual or of a collective measure, from the territory of the
    State of which he is a national.
    2 No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the state of which he is a national.

    Article 4 – Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens

    Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.

    Article 5 – Territorial application

    1 Any High Contracting Party may, at the time of signature or ratification of this Protocol, or at any time
    thereafter, communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe a declaration stating the extent
    to which it undertakes that the provisions of this Protocol shall apply to such of the territories for the
    international relations of which it is responsible as are named therein.
    2 Any High Contracting Party which has communicated a declaration in virtue of the preceding paragraph
    may, from time to time, communicate a further declaration modifying the terms of any former declaration or
    terminating the application of the provisions of this Protocol in respect of any territory.
    3 A declaration made in accordance with this article shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with
    paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Convention.
    4 The territory of any State to which this Protocol applies by virtue of ratification or acceptance by that State,
    and each territory to which this Protocol is applied by virtue of a declaration by that State under this article,
    shall be treated as separate territories for the purpose of the references in Articles 2 and 3 to the territory of
    a State.

    5 Any State which has made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article may at any time
    thereafter declare on behalf of one or more of the territories to which the declaration relates that it accepts
    the competence of the Court to receive applications from individuals, non-governmental organisations or
    groups of individuals as provided in Article 34 of the Convention in respect of all or any of Articles 1 to 4 of
    this Protocol.”

    Article 6 – Relationship to the Convention

    As between the High Contracting Parties the provisions of Articles 1 to 5 of this Protocol shall be regarded
    as additional Articles to the Convention, and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.

    Article 7 – Signature and ratification

    1 This Protocol shall be open for signature by the members of the Council of Europe who are the signatories
    of the Convention; it shall be ratified at the same time as or after the ratification of the Convention. It shall
    enter into force after the deposit of five instruments of ratification. As regards any signatory ratifying
    subsequently, the Protocol shall enter into force at the date of the deposit of its instrument of ratification.
    2 The instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who
    will notify all members of the names of those who have ratified.
    In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Protocol.
    Done at Strasbourg, this 16th day of September 1963, in English and in French, both texts being equally
    authoritative, in a single copy which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The
    Secretary General shall transmit certified copies to each of the signatory states.


    Protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
    Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty
    The member States of the Council of Europe, signatory to this Protocol to the Convention for the Protection
    of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed at Rome on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to
    as “the Convention”),
    Considering that the evolution that has occurred in several member States of the Council of Europe
    expresses a general tendency in favour of abolition of the death penalty;
    Have agreed as follows:

    Article 1 – Abolition of the death penalty

    The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.

    Article 2 – Death penalty in time of war

    A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of
    imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in
    accordance with its provisions. The State shall communicate to the Secretary General of the Council of
    Europe the relevant provisions of that law.

    Article 3 – Prohibition of derogations

    No derogation from the provisions of this Protocol shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

    Article 4 – Prohibition of reservations

    No reservation may be made under Article 57 of the Convention in respect of the provisions of this Protocol.

    Article 5 – Territorial application

    1 Any State may at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or
    approval, specify the territory or territories to which this Protocol shall apply.
    2 Any State may at any later date, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of
    Europe, extend the application of this Protocol to any other territory specified in the declaration. In respect of
    such territory the Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the date of receipt of
    such declaration by the Secretary General.
    3 Any declaration made under the two preceding paragraphs may, in respect of any territory specified in such
    declaration, be withdrawn by a notification addressed to the Secretary General. The withdrawal shall
    become effective on the first day of the month following the date of receipt of such notification by the
    Secretary General.

    Article 6 – Relationship to the Convention

    As between the States Parties the provisions of Articles 1 and 5 of this Protocol shall be regarded as
    additional articles to the Convention and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.

    Article 7 – Signature and ratification

    The Protocol shall be open for signature by the member States of the Council of Europe, signatories to the
    Convention. It shall be subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. A member State of the Council of
    Europe may not ratify, accept or approve this Protocol unless it has, simultaneously or previously, ratified
    the Convention. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary
    General of the Council of Europe.

    Article 8 – Entry into force

    1 This Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the date on which five member
    States of the Council of Europe have expressed their consent to be bound by the Protocol in accordance
    with the provisions of Article 7.
    2 In respect of any member State which subsequently expresses its consent to be bound by it, the Protocol
    shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the date of the deposit of the instrument of
    ratification, acceptance or approval.

    Article 9 – Depositary functions

    The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify the member States of the Council of:
    a any signature;
    b the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval;
    c any date of entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with articles 5 and 8;
    d any other act, notification or communication relating to this Protocol.
    In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Protocol.
    Done at Strasbourg, this 28th day of April 1983, in English and in French, both texts being equally authentic,
    in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary General of
    the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of Europe.

    Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
    The member States of the Council of Europe signatory hereto,
    Being resolved to take further steps to ensure the collective enforcement of certain rights and freedoms by
    means of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed at Rome
    on 4 November 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
    Have agreed as follows :

    Article 1 – Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens

    1 An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a
    decision reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed:
    a to submit reasons against his expulsion,
    b to have his case reviewed, and
    c to be represented for these purposes before the competent authority or a person or persons designated
    by that authority.
    2 An alien may be expelled before the exercise of his rights under paragraph 1.a, b and c of this Article, when
    such expulsion is necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.

    Article 2 – Right of appeal in criminal matters

    1 Everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or sentence
    reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it may be exercised,
    shall be governed by law.
    2 This right may be subject to exceptions in regard to offences of a minor character, as prescribed by law, or
    in cases in which the person concerned was tried in the first instance by the highest tribunal or was
    convicted following an appeal against acquittal.

    Article 3 – Compensation for wrongful conviction

    When a person has by a final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his
    conviction has been reversed, or he has been pardoned, on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact
    shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment
    as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to the law or the practice of the State
    concerned, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly
    attributable to him.

    Article 4 – Right not to be tried or punished twice

    1 No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the
    same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with
    the law and penal procedure of that State.
    2 The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with
    the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts,
    or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the
    case.
    3 No derogation from this Article shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention.

    Article 5 – Equality between spouses

    Spouses shall enjoy equality of rights and responsibilities of a private law character between them, and in
    their relations with their children, as to marriage, during marriage and in the event of its dissolution. This
    Article shall not prevent States from taking such measures as are necessary in the interests of the children.

    Article 6 – Territorial application

    1 Any State may at the time of signature or when depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance or
    approval, specify the territory or territories to which the Protocol shall apply and state the extent to which it
    undertakes that the provisions of this Protocol shall apply to such territory or territories.
    2 Any State may at any later date, by a declaration addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of
    Europe, extend the application of this Protocol to any other territory specified in the declaration. In respect of
    such territory the Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a
    period of two months after the date of receipt by the Secretary General of such declaration.
    3 Any declaration made under the two preceding paragraphs may, in respect of any territory specified in such
    declaration, be withdrawn or modified by a notification addressed to the Secretary General. The withdrawal
    or modification shall become effective on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of two
    months after the date of receipt of such notification by the Secretary General.
    4 A declaration made in accordance with this Article shall be deemed to have been made in accordance with
    paragraph 1 of Article 56 of the Convention.
    5 The territory of any State to which this Protocol applies by virtue of ratification, acceptance or approval by
    that State, and each territory to which this Protocol is applied by virtue of a declaration by that State under
    this Article, may be treated as separate territories for the purpose of the reference in Article 1 to the territory
    of a State.
    6 Any State which has made a declaration in accordance with paragraph 1 or 2 of this Article may at any time
    thereafter declare on behalf of one or more of the territories to which the declaration relates that it accepts
    the competence of the Court to receive applications from individuals, non-governmental organisations or
    groups of individuals as provided in Article 34 of the Convention in respect of Articles 1 to 5 of this Protocol.

    Article 7 – Relationship to the Convention

    As between the States Parties, the provisions of Article 1 to 6 of this Protocol shall be regarded as additional
    Articles to the Convention, and all the provisions of the Convention shall apply accordingly.

    Article 8 – Signature and ratification

    This Protocol shall be open for signature by member States of the Council of Europe which have signed the
    Convention. It is subject to ratification, acceptance or approval. A member State of the Council of
    Europe may not ratify, accept or approve this Protocol without previously or simultaneously ratifying the
    Convention. Instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval shall be deposited with the Secretary
    General of the Council of Europe.

    Article 9 – Entry into force

    1 This Protocol shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of two
    months after the date on which seven member States of the Council of Europe have expressed their
    consent to be bound by the Protocol in accordance with the provisions of Article 8.
    2 In respect of any member State which subsequently expresses its consent to be bound by it, the Protocol
    shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of two months after the
    date of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval.

    Article 10 – Depositary functions

    The Secretary General of the Council of Europe shall notify all the member States of the Council of Europe
    of:

    a any signature;
    b the deposit of any instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval;
    c any date of entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with Articles 6 and 9;
    d any other act, notification or declaration relating to this Protocol.
    In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto, have signed this Protocol.
    Done at Strasbourg, this 22nd day of November 1984, in English and French, both texts being equally
    authentic, in a single copy which shall be deposited in the archives of the Council of Europe. The Secretary
    General of the Council of Europe shall transmit certified copies to each member State of the Council of
    Europe.