i c j c e n s held in cooperation with the human …...eric ostberg frank orton eva wah^berg jens...

In t e r n a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n o f J u r i s t s

C o n f e r e n c e

o f

E u r o p e a n N a t i o n a l S e c t i o n s

H e l d in c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h e H u m a n R i g h t s D i r e c t o r a t e

o f t h e C o u n c i l o f E u r o p e .

S t r a s b o u r g

22 t o 24 A p r i l 1987

\

Page

List of P a r t i c i p a n t s 1

C o n f e r e n c e P r o g r a m m e 5

T opic one: _F u n c t i o n i n g_ o f _ t h e_ 0 r g a n s _ o f _ t h e_E u r o p e a n

C o n v e n t i o n °n_ H u m a n _ R i g h t s

R e p o r t - L l 3 f 9International C om m ission

R e s o l u t i o n of Jurists ( I C J ) 13G eneva, S w itzerland

W O R K I N G PAPERS

- R e p o r t by the Swiss D e l e g a t i o n to the E u r o p e a n 17M i n i s t e r i a l C o n f e r e n c e on H u m a n Rights,

Vienna, March, 1985

- D r a f t Pro t o c o l to the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n 43s u b m i t t e d by the D u t c h S e c t i o n of the ICJ

- M e m o r a n d u m on P r o c e d u r e s B e f o r e the E u r o p e a n 61C o m m i s s i o n of H u m a n Ri g h t s p r e p a r e d by Justice,

the I C J’s UK S e c t i o n

T o pic Two: The E ur op ean_C on vent i o n _ a n d_Doiii es t i c

R e p o r t 67

R e s o l u t i o n 70

W O R K I N G D O C U M E N T S

- Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s u b m i t t e d to ICJ E u r o p e a n N a t i o n a l 73S e c t i o n s and A f f i l i a t e s

- T a b u l a r S u m m a r y of R e s p o n s e s to the 75Quest i onn ai re

- N a r r a t i v e S u m m a r y of R e s p o n s e s to the • 76Q u e s t i o n n a i r e

T o p i c Three:_T h e _ R o l e _ o f _ N e n - G o v e r n m e n t a i

°ns t^.£_££HH£ii„°£_I.H££E£

R e p o r t 89

R e s o l u t i o n 97

W O R K I N G PAPER

: ' : : r ' : :: " : CONTENTS

- The Role of NGOs on H u m a n Rights M a t t e r s in the • 103

C o u n c i l of Eu r o p e by A n d r e w D r z e m c z e w s k i

lO - NlS ‘.Co m

cJ(> % ' .

T o pic Four: New T e c h n o l o g i e s _ a n d _ H u m a n _ R j . g h t s

R e p o r t

R e s o l u t i o n

W O R K I N G P A P E R

- New T e c h n o l o g i e s and H u m a n Ri g h t s by Paul S i e g h a r t

A p p e n d i x A

Text of the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n for the P r o t e c t i o n of H u m a n R i g h t s and F u n d a m e n t a l F r e e d o m s

and its

P r o t o c o l No. 8 C o n c e r n i n g A c c e l e r a t i o n of the P r o c e d u r e of the E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n and the E u r o p e a n C o urt ( i n c l u d i n g an E x p l a n a t o r y R e p o r t and C o m m e n t a r y )

121

125

141

149

119

1

L s t _ o f _ P a r t c £ £ a n t s

I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O M M I S S I O N OF JURISTS, G E N E V A

Niall M a c D e r m o t , Esq., Q.C.

Le s l e y S h e r w o o d Na n a Moe^j_ad

A _ U _ S _ T _ R _ I _ A

Dr. P e t e r Jann Dr. M i c h a e l Ne i d e r

Dr. E l i s a b e t h K e h r er

Dr. C h r i s t i n e K e l l e r - G r o d i c k y

Dr. R u d o l f M a c h a c e k

Dr. J o s e f T e i n e r and Mrs. T e i n e r

Dr. F a ust Wresoun_ig St e f a n W e b e r

B R A Z I L

S i l m a M a r l i c e M a d l e n e r

F E D. R E P . O F . G E R M A N Y

W e r n e r B e c k e n b a u e r and M r s . B e c k e n b a uer

Dr. Hans Bock

Dr. Ingrid Cromme Dr. R e i m e r D_ieckmann

Dr. Jo c h e n A b r . Frowein, M.C.L.

R a i m e r H a h n d orf W o l f g a n g H e i n r i c h

S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l , ICJ; for m e r M i n i s t e r of State, UK As s i s t a n t , ICJ S e c r e t a r y , ICJ

Judge, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Court M i n i s t e r i a l Couns e l l o r , S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the A u s t r i a n J u r i s t ' s A s s o c i a t i o n Legal A d v i s o r of the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l CourtA d m i n i s t r a t i v e Direc t o r , C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Court .Judge, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Court;S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the A u s t r i a nS e c t i o n of the ICJF o r m e r D i r e c t o r of the A u s t r i a nN a t i o n a l BankJudge, Civil Court, Graz

A d v o c a t e , Sao Paolo

Advoc a t e , Notary, Menden

F e d e r a l Judge, F e d e r a l C o urt of J u s t i c eC o m p a n y Lawyer, D a i m l e r Benz AG C h i e f S u p e r i n t e n d a n t of C r i m i n a lists, Baden-Wiirttemberg P r o f e s s o r for Public I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, U n i v e r s i t y H e i d e l b e r g ; D i r e c t o r at the Max P l a n c k I n s t i t u t for C o m p a r a t i v e Public Law and I n t e r n a t i o nal Law; V i c e - P r e s i d e n t of the E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n of H u man Rig h t s A d v o c a t e , F r e i b u r g A d v o c a t e , Notary, F r a n k f u r t

2

Mi c h a e l H u n d

Dr. C h r i s t o p h KJLaas

Dr. Kurt M a d l e n e r , M.C.L.

Dr. E r nst G o t t f r i e d M a h r e n h o l z

Dr. F e r e n c M a j o r o s R i c h a r d M u l l e r - B o r n e r and

and Mrs . Miiller^Borner M i c h a e l P r o t z - S c h w a r z

Dr. Hein R o d e rDr. K a r l h a n s R o t h e r , Mrs. R o t h e r

and D a r i a R o t h e r Chr. M a n f r e d S c h o l k o p f Dr. Theo

Dr. D i e t r i c h W_i e gan d

F _ I _ N _ L _ A _ N _ D

R a i m o Lahti

Lauri L e h t i m a j a

F R A N C E

Jean Moore Louis P e 11 t i. J a c q u e s M a u r o D a n i e l M a r c h a nd J a c q u e s D o r r e r F r a n g o i s R u h l m a n n

B a t o n n i e r Merkel

N E T H E R L A N D S

H . S t e e n b e r g e n J . Schokkenbroek ^ * S t ^ k e t e £L . P o f f e L . V e r h e yH. v o n Hebei

Judge, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Court K a r f s f u n eB a r r i s t e r at the F e d e r a l Court of Justice; S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the Ger m a n S e c t i o n of ICJ Advocate, S e n i o r R e s e a r c h e r at the M ax P l a n c k I n s t i t u t e for F o r e i g n and I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l Law,Fre iburgJudge, F e d e r a l C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Court L ecturer, U n i v e r s i t y W u r z b u r g D i p l . - I n g . , P a t e n t A t t o r n e y

D e p u t y on H u m a n Ri g h t s at the E v a n g e l i c a l C h u r c h in G e r m a n y Legal A d v i s o r of the D i o c e s e Miinchen A d v o c a t e , Bonn

A d v o c a t e , S t u t t g a r t P r o f e s s o r for C r i m i n a l Law and

I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l Law, U n i v e r s i t y G i e s s e nJudge, F e d e r a l Social Court Ka s s e l

P r o f e s s o r of C r i m i n a l Law, U n i v e r s i t y of H e l s i n k i ; P r e s i d e n t , F i n n i s h Juri s t s for H u m a n Rights L e g i s l a t i v e C o u n s e l l o r , M i n i s t r y of Justice; S e c r e t a r y for I n t e r n a tional R e l ations, F i n n i s h J u r i s t s for H u man Rights

P r e s i d e n t , Libre J u s t i c e H o n o r a r y P r e s i d e n t , Libre J u s t i c e A d v o c a t e at the Paris Court Legal Advisor, E d i t i o n s Lamy Advocate, M eauxAdvoc a t e , S t r a s b o u r g and Paris, m e m b e r E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e , Libre J u s t i c eS t r a s b o u r g ; ■

Se c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l NJCM ; :V i c e - S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l NJCM T r e a s u r e r ; . :M e m b e r NJCMV i c e - S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l NJ C M M e m b e r NJCM

A . W o j ^ e r J . B o e r e f i_ j_n L . Zwaak

U n i v e r s i t y of G r o n i n g e n■ ’U n i v e r s i t y of U t r e c h t N e t h e r l a n d s I n s t i t u t e of H u m a n Ri g h t s (S.I.M.)

N O R W A Y

Gu s t a v H o g t u n A d v o c a t e , Sec r e t a r y , N o r w e g i a n A s s o c i a t i o n of J u r ists for H u m a n Ri g h t s and Peace , Oslo

S W E D E N

B r i g i t t a A l e x a n d e r s o n

Sven Belling Per Bo h o l m Ake C a r l h a m m a r

E l i s a b e t h E k w a l l L e n n a r t Groll

K e r s t i n G u s t a f s s o n

C a r l - F r e d r i k x H a d d i n g

M i c h a e l v o n _ K o c h

H a n s - O l o f K r o k s tade and A n n a C a rin K r o k s t a d e

Tomas K r u g e r G o r a n L u t e r k o r t Dag M a t t s s o n J e a n - C l a u d e Nj em B r ita N o r b e r g Eric O s t b e r g F r a n k Orton Eva W a h ^ b e r g Jens W a l l e n An n i k a Wal^_in N .0. Wentz

A d v o c a t e , S t o c k h o l m a d v o k a t b y r a Judge, Appeal Court, S t o c k h o l m R e p o r t e r , S u p r e m e Court, S t o c k h o l m Direc t o r , S w e d i s h E m p l o y e r s C o n f e d e r a t i o n , S o l n a L a w y e r , OsloHead of D i v i s i o n Court of Appeal, C h a i r m a n of the S w e d i s h S e c t i o n of ICJLawyer, S w e d i s h Central O r g a n i z a t i o n of S a l a r i e d E m p loyees, S t o c k h o l m Head of Divis i o n , Court of Appeal, r e tired, S a l t s j o - D u v n a s Judge, D i s t r i c t C h i e f of Court r e tired, L i d i n g o A d v o c a t e , M a l m o

Judge, D i s t r i c t Court, M a l m oA dvoc a t e , M a lmoD i s t r i c t Court Clerk, LundJur Do c t o rA d v o c a t e , A s kimC h i e f P r o s e c u t o r , S t o c k h o l mR e p o r t e r , S u p r e m e Court, S t o c k h o l mReporter, S u p r e m e Court, S t o c k h o l mLawyer, M u n i c i p a l i t y S t o c k h o l mAdvoc a t e , U p p s a l aP r e s i d e n t , A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Court of Appeal of G o t e b o r g

S W I T Z E R L A N D

Dr. K a t h a r i n a Sameli Advocate, Z u r i c h

U N I T E D K I N G D O M

W i l l i a m Goodh a r t , Q.C. B a r r i s t e r , V i c e - C h a i r m a n E x e c u t i v e Com m i t t e e , Justice

4

D u l c i b e l M c K e n z i e

P h i l i p E n g l i s h and Mrs. E n g l i s h G e o r g i n a E n g l i s h

Dr. M a r g h e r i t a R e n d e ^

D a v i d G a rson R o n a l d Br a g g s Leah L e v i n P e t e r A s h m a nSi.£_Denis_Robson , KCB OBE QC

and Lady R o b s o n Paul S i e g h a r t

F e l i c i t y S_i(5g h a r t Muir Hunter, Q.C.

G i l l i a n H u n t e r

D i a n a GoodN o r m a n Marsh, C.B.E. Q.C.

and M r s . M a r s h M i c h a e l E l l m a n Dr. R a c h e l T r o st

D a v i d H a l l m a r k

R t d . b a r r i s t e r , Rent T r i b u n a l s ,

JudgeRtd. s o l i c i t o r , T r e a s u r e r of J u s t i c e

A s s o c i a t e m e m b e r of Jus t i c e , s o c i a l

w o r k e rR e a d e r in H u m a n Rights and E d u c a tion, U n i v e r s i t y of Lon d o n A s s o c i a t e m e m b e r of J u s t i c e Rtd. b a r r i s t e r Director, J u s tice Legal o fficer, J u s t i c e F o r m e r P e r m a n e n t S e c r e t a r y , Lord C h a n c e l l o r ' s D e p a r t m e n t Chairman, E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e Justice, Hon. V i s i t i n g P r o f e s s o r of Law, K i n g ' s College, Lo n d o n M a g i s t r a t eB a r r i s t e r , Hon. M e m b e r Council,

J u s t i c eA s s o c i a t e mem b e r of J u s t i c e S o l i c i t o r , LondonRtd. b a r r i s t e r , m e m b e r C o u ncil of

Ju s ticeS o l i c i t o r , m e m b e r C o u n c i l of J u s t i c e Lecturer, F a c u l t y of Law,S o u t h a m p t o n U n i v e r s i t y S o l i c i t o r , W o r c e s t e r

C _ 0 _ U _ N _ C _ I _ L __0 _ F__ E U R O P E

A l l a r d P l ate P r i n c i p a l A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Officer,Of f i c e of C l erk of P a r l i a m e n t a r y

A s s e m b l yD i r e c t o r of H u m a n Rights A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Officer, D i r e c t o r a t e of H u m a n Rights

Peter L e u p r e c ht A n d r e w D r z e m c z e w s k i

5

W e d n e s d a y ,

14.00 - 15

1 6 . 0 0 - 17

1 8 . 0 0

19.30

T h u r s d a y ,

09.00 - 10

11.00 - 12

P R O G R A M M E

22 April

.30 Opening Session

.30

Mr. N. MacDermot, Secretary-General, ICJ Mr. P. Leuprecht, Di re c to r of Human Rights,

Council of Europe

Topic One: F u nc t io ni ng of the Organs of theEur op ea n Convention on Human Rights

Introduced by:Prof. Dr. J .A . Prowein, Vice-President, European Commis si on on Human Rights

C h a i r m a n :Mr. L. Groll, President, ICJ Swedish Section

R a p p o r t e u r :Mr. H.A.M. von Hebei, Member, NJCM General Board (Netherlands)

13 April

.30

.30

R eception hosted by the Council of Europe

Private ’son et lumiere' concert (trumpet and organ) in Strasbourg Cathedral

Topic One continued

Topic Two: The Eu ropean Convention and Dom es ti c Law and Procedure

Introduced b y :Mr. P. Sieghart, Chairman, Executive Committee Justice (UK-Section)

C h a i r m a n :Dr. R. Machacek, Secretary-General, ICJ Austrian Section

R a p p o r t e u r : 'Mr. G. H6gtun, Secretary, Norwegian Association of Jurists for Human Rights and Peace

\

6

Th u rs da y

14.30 -

1 6 . 3 0 -

18.30

F r i d a y ,

09.00 -

11.00 -

14.30 -

1 6 . 3 0 -

(cont'd)

16.00

1 8 . 0 0

Topic Two continued

Topic Three: The Role of Non- G ov er nm en ta l Organisations in the Council of Europe

Introduced by:Mr. P. Boulay, Re pr esentative of the F e d e ration Internationale des Droits de l rHomme at the Council of Europe

Chairman:Prof. R. Lahti, President, F i nn is h Jurists for Human Rights

R a p p o r t e u r :Mrs. L. Levin, Director, Justice (UK-Section)

R ec ep ti on hosted by the Mayor of Strasb ou r g

24 April

1 0 . 3 0

12.30

1 6 . 0 0

18.00

Topic Three continued

Mr. A. Drze mc ze ws k i from the Human Rights Directorate, Council of Europe, will be available to answer questions

Topic Four: New Technologies and Human Rights-

Introduced by:Mr. P. Sieghart, Chairman of the E xe cutive Committee, Justice (UK-Section) .

C h a i r m a n :Dr. I. Cromme, Member of the Board, ICJ German Section

R a p p o r t e u r :Mr. D. Marchand, Member of the Executive Committee, Libre Justice (France)

Topic Four continued

C losing Session: Conclusions .

* * *

TOPIC ONE

F u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e O r g a n s o f t h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n

o n H u m a n R i g h t s

In t r o d u c e d b y

P r o f . D r . J.A, F r o w e i n

V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n o n H u m a n R i g h t s

C h a i r m a n

Mr. L. Groll

P r e s i d e n t , ICJ Sw e d i s h Se ct ion

R a p p o r t e u r

M r . H.A.M. v o n H e b e l

• Membe r, NJCM G e n e r a l B o a r d ( N e t h er la nd s)

REPORT

Z 2 Z I . : F u n c t i o n i n g of the Organs of the E u r o p e a n

C o n v e n t i o n on H u m a n Rights

This t o p i c was i n t r o d u c e d by P r o f e s s o r F r o w e i n who p o i n t e d

out that the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n , was set up for two p u r p o s e s .

First, as a s a f e t y d e v i c e a g a i n s t m a s s i v e v i o l a t i o n s of h u m a n

ri g h t s and s e c o n d to p r o t e c t i n d i v i d u a l s in the e x e r c i s e of

t h eir b a sic c o n s t i t u t i o n a l rights. No one c o u l d ha v e f o r e s e e n

that the C o n v e n t i o n w o u l d be c o m e such a dynamic i n s t r u m e n t and

w o u l d o p e r a t e w i t h su c h success. However, some p r o b l e m s have

arisen, e s p e c i a l l y in the last decade, r e g a r d i n g the f u n c t i o n i n g

of the C o n v e n t i o n o r g a n s . * These have r e s u l t e d f r o m the g r o w i n g

vo l u m e of cases b r o u g h t to the Commis s i o n , the i n c r e a s i n g

c o m p l e x i t y of ma n y of t h ese cases, the i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r of

cases w h i c h are d e c l a r e d a d m i s s i b l e and the g r o w t h o c c a s i o n e d by

the d y n a m i c j u r i s p r u d e n c e of the organs t h e m s e l v e s .

P r o f e s s o r F r o w e i n t h e n drew a t t e n t i o n to two o t h e r issues,

n a m e l y the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of c h a l l e n g i n g n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n

be f o r e a n a t i o n a l c o u r t in most of the states p a r t i e s to t h e

C o n v e n t i o n and the fact that in some c o u n t r i e s the C o n v e n t i o n

cannot be i n v o k e d b e f o r e the courts at all. As a r e s ult, the

p r e s s u r e of w o r k on the C o m m i s s i o n and the Court has i n c r e a s e dc o n s i d e r a b l y and has r e s u l t e d in an i n c r e a s i n g l y l e n g t h y p r o c e

dure. The best s o l u t i o n w o u l d be a r a d i c a l cha n g e in the C o n v e n

tion: the m e r g e r of the C o m m i s s i o n and the Court into one f u l l

- t i m e court. At the same time, however, P r o f e s s o r F r o w e i n was

p e s s i m i s t i c a b o u t the p o s s i b l e r e a l i z a t i o n of this c h a n g e in

*The E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n of H u m a n Rights and the

E u r o p e a n C o u r t of Human R i g h t s .

10

a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e . T h e r e f o r e , s t e p s s h o u l d a l s o be t a k e n to

d e v e l o p s h o r t - a n d m e d i u m - t e r m m e a s u r e s to c o p e w i t h t h e p r e s e n t

c r i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n . O n e o f t h o s e m e a s u r e s w o u l d be to g i v e t h e

C o u r t a p e r m a n e n t s t a t u s , c o m b i n e d w i t h a c h a n g e in t h e

C o m m i s s i o n ' s w o r k , n a m e l y to s e l e c t i m p o r t a n t c a s e s to b e d e a l t

w i t h b y t h e C o u r t . To a c h i e v e a n y r e s u l t , a n i n t e n s i v e E u r o p e a n

l o b b y is n e e d e d a n d ICvJ n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s in m e m b e r s t a t e s

c o u l d , a n d s h o u l d , m a k e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s to t h e i r n a t i o n a l

g o v e r n m e n t s . In t h i s r e s p e c t P r o f e s s o r F r o w e i n s p o k e a b o u t a

" E u r o p e a n p u b l i c " .

S e v e r a l m e m b e r s o f J u s t i c e , t h e I C J B r i t i s h s e c t i o n ,

p o i n t e d o u t t h e n e e d f o r a c o n s i d e r a b l e i n c r e a s e in t h e b u d g e t

f o r t h e C o n v e n t i o n o r g a n s a n d t h e i r s t a f f a n d f o r m e a s u r e s to

s p e e d u p t h e c o m p l a i n t s p r o c e d u r e . F o r e x a m p l e , b y i n c r e a s i n g

p r e s s u r e o n g o v e r n m e n t s to s u b m i t i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c

t i m e . R e f e r e n c e w a s m a d e i n t h i s r e s p e c t t o a r e c e n t m e m o r a n d u m

o f J u s t i c e (s e e i n f r a ) . T h e s e c o n d p a r t o f t h e d i s c u s s i o n o f

t h i s t o p i c e m p h a s i z e d t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f w o r k i n g t o w a r d s t h e

l o n g - t e r m g.oals . T h e D u t c h s e c t i o n p r e s e n t e d a d r a f t p r o t o c o l

( s e e i n f r a ), o f w h i c h t h e m a i n f e a t u r e s a r e :

— a m e r g e r o f t h e E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n a n d C o u r t i n t o o n e

f u l l - t i m e C o u r t

— a s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e ■ i n d i v i d u a l b y

p r o v i d i n g h i m w i t h 2.—— b e f o r e t h e C o u r t

— t h e c o n f e r m e n t o n t h e C o u r t o f t h e c o m p e t e n c e t o g i v e

p r e l i m i n a r y r u l i n g s at t h e r e q u e s t o f n a t i o n a l t r i b u n a l s on

t h e b a s i s o f an o p t i o n a l c l a u s e

D u r i n g t h e d i s c u s s i o n t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f i n c o r p o r a t i n g i n t o

t h e d r a f t p r o t o c o l p r o v i s i o n s c o n f e r r i n g c o m p e t e n c e o n t h e C o u r t

to g i v e a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n s o n d r a f t - l e g i s l a t i o n a t t h e r e q u e s t o f

n a t i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t s w a s s u g g e s t e d .

It w a s p r o p o s e d to a d o p t a r e s o l u t i o n to s e r v e as a

s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n a n d l o b b y i n g . A d r a f t i n g

c o m m i t t e e w a s n o m i n a t e d .

11

D u r i n g the d i s c u s s i o n it b e c a m e clear

that f u r t h e r e x a m i n a t i o n of the d raft P r o t o c o l does not p r e

clude the p r o m o t i o n of s h o r t - and m e d i u m - t e r m m e a s u r e s .

Mr. L e u p r e c h t and Mr. M a c D e r m o t p o i n t e d out that bo t h

sorts of m e a s u r e s s h o u l d be p r o m o t e d at the same time.

and that the d r a f t p r o t o c o l or any other l o n g - t e r m m e a s u r e

must not w e a k e n the r e s u l t s that have a l r e a d y been a c h i e v e d .

To c o n c l u d e , s e v e r a l r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s by d i f f e r e n t s p e a k e r s

have been made on this topic, some of w h i c h ha v e been

i n c o r p o r a t e d in the for m a l d r a f t r e s o l u t i o n .

13

R E S O L U T ION

T O P I C ONE: F u n c t i o n i n g of the O r g a n s of the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n

t i o n on H u m a n Ri g h t s

The E u r o p e a n n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n of

J u r i s t s (ICJ) r e p r e s e n t e d at the C o n f e r e n c e in S t r a s b o u r g f r o m 22

to 24 A p ril 1987;

R e c a l l i n g the n e e d for the m a i n t e n a n c e and d e v e l o p m e n t o f the

r i g h t s and f r e e d o m s set forth in the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on H u m a n

R i g h t s (the C o n v e n t i o n ) and its P r o t o c o l s ;

N o t i n g the c r i t i c a l p r o b l e m s t h r e a t e n i n g the e f f e c t i v e

f u n c t i o n i n g of the C o n v e n t i o n ' s s u p e r v i s o r y m e c h a n i s m as a r e s u l t

of the i n c r e a s e in its w o r k l o a d ;

C o n s i d e r i n g th a t u r g e n t s t e p s ha v e to be t a k e n in o r d e r to

p r e s e r v e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the C o n v e n t i o n ;

H a v i n g t a k e n no t e of the r e c e n t p r o p o s a l of the U.K. S e c t i o n of

the ICJ ( J u s t i c e ) for e x p e d i t i n g p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e the C o m m i s

s ion;

H a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d the Swiss R e p o r t for the M i n i s t e r i a l C o n f e r e n c e

on H u m a n R i g h t s in V i e n n a in 1985, the p r o p o s a l s m a d e at the

N e u c h a t e l S e m i n a r in 1986, and the d r a f t p r o t o c o l to the

C o n v e n t i o n s u b m i t t e d by the D u t c h S e c t i o n (NJCM) o f the ICJ at

the p r e s e n t C o n f e r e n c e , in r e g a r d to the m e r g e r o f the C o m m i s s i o n

a n d the C o u r t and the p o w e r o f a r e c o n s t i t u t e d c o u r t to c o n s i d e r

i n d i v i d u a l p e t i t i o n s and to give p r e l i m i n a r y r u l i n g s ;

14

R e a l i s i n g t h a t b u d g e t a r y m e a s u r e s o f f e r a n e c e s s a r y t h o u g h

i n c o m p l e t e a n s w e r to the p r o b l e m s m e n t i o n e d ;

1. R e c o m m e n d to the S t a t e s P a r t i e s to the C o n v e n t i o n : -

(a) T h a t t h e y s h o u l d r e g a r d a s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e of the b u d g e t

for the C o n v e n t i o n ' s o r g a n s as an i m m e d i a t e need;

(b) T h a t t h e y s h o u l d gi v e u r g e n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n to o t h e r s h o r t

t e r m m e a s u r e s , s u c h as those p r o p o s e d by the U.K. S e c t i o n ;

(c) T h a t t h e y s h o u l d t a k e note as a l o n g - t e r m o b j e c t i v e of the

d r a f t p r o t o c o l s u b m i t t e d by the D u t c h S e c t i o n and s h o u l d

e x a m i n e any d i f f i c u l t i e s w h i c h may be e n c o u n t e r e d in f i n a l i

s i n g and g i v i n g e f f e c t to it.

2. U r g e the n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s of the ICJ to t a k e a c t i o n to

p e r s u a d e t h e i r g o v e r n m e n t s to a c c e p t and c a r r y out t h e s e

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .

WORKING PAPERS

FOR

TOPIC ONE:

F u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e O r g a n s o f t h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n

o n H u m a n R i g h t s

17

★ ★

.. ★ ★

COUNCIL * * CONSEIL OF EUROPE ★ * * DE L'EUROPE

MDH (85) 1

EUROPEAN MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Vienna, 19-20 March 1985

FUNCTIONING OF THE ORGANS

OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION

ON HUMAN RIGHTS

(Assessment, improvement and reinforcement of the international control machinery

set up by the Convention)

Report submitted by the Swiss delegation

STRASBOURG1984

Contents

Page

Introduction........................................................... ^

I. NEED FOR A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION ................. 2_

1. Practical necessity . 2

2. Legal necessity ........... ......... ....................... 3

3. Political necessity ......................................... 4

IX. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIRABLE REFORMS ................... 6_

4. Recapitulation of the characteristics of the controlmachinery set up by the Convention ....................... 6

5. Criteria for selecting reforms ............. .............. 6

6. Reforms with slight or medium politicalimplications .................... ............................ 7

7. Reforms with considerable political implications ........ 9

a. Recognition of the individual's right to bringhis case before the Court -..... .................... 10

b. Making the control system completelyindependent ........................................... 11

c. Concentrating attention on preventive measures .... 13

d. Merger of the existing organs in a full-timeEuropean Court of Human Rights ........ ............ 16

III. NEED FOR A POLITICAL IMPETUS IN FAVOUR OF REINFORCINGTHE CONTROL SYSTEM ............................................... 17.

8. Possible framework for a discussion ..................... 17

9. Nature of the political impetus to be provided bythe Conference .............................................. 17

IV. CONCLUSION .................... .................................... 2JL

SUMMARY

19

Introduction .

In a few months it will be 30 years ago - namely 5 July 1955 - that the first individual petition was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights. Who could have guessed then that by 1985 more than 11,000 individual petitions would have been sent to the Commission, at the present rate of between 400 and 600 a year?

From one angle these figures are reassuring. They prove that the fundamental innovation introduced by those who drafted the Convention - the recognition of an individual right of petition before an independent international organ (Article 25 of the Convention) - has not remained a dead letter. The right of individual petition, which constitutes the cornerstone of the protection of human rights in Europe, has contributed significantly to making known the rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and its additional protocols. And if the protection of human rights remains the crowning feature of the Council of Europe's activities, it is more especially due to the echo produced by the case-law of the independent control organs set up by the Convention: the European Commission and Court of Human Rights.

An observer cannot fail to be struck by the fact that, in spite of the considerable increase in the number of petitions lodged with the Commission, the international control system appears to be functioning normally. The flexibility the control machinery has so far demonstrated is certainly in part due to certain specific measures taken by the Council of Europe and by the supervisory organs themselves. But it must be admitted that this adapting to circumstances has only been made possible by a remarkable degree of personal commitment on the part of the members of the Commission and the judges of the Court and of their respective Secretariat and Registry, as well as of the Directorate of Human Rights, which assists the Committee of Ministers in the carrying out of its functions under the Convention.

Nearly 35 years after the opening for signature of the European Convention on Human Rights (4 November 1950) and after some three decades during which the supervisory organs have been in operation (the Commission began work in 1955 and the Court in 1958), the time has come for a general political discussion on the international control machinery set up by this instrument and on the possibilities of reinforcing it. The first European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights would seem to be the ideal occasion for making such an assessment.

In this report, the Swiss delegation will first demonstrate (in Part I) that such a general discussion is needed for three types of reasons: practical reasons, legal reasons and political reasons. In Part II, stock will be taken of possible improvements and desirable reforms; priority will deliberately be given to reforms involving a political examination at the highest level. Finally in the third and last part of this report the need for a political impetus in favour of improving and reinforcing the international control machinery provided by the Convention will be emphasised.

20

X. NEED FOR A GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION

1 , Practical necessity

The system of protection set up by the European Convention on Human Rights is just emerging from a long running-in period (the Commission spoke recently of the end of a "transitional period" (1)). In short, the typical features of the present situation are that 17 of the 21 member states of the Council of Europe have recognised the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the Convention (the exceptions are: Cyprus, Greece,Malta and Turkey), that 19 of them have recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court by making the declaration provided for in Article 46 of the Convention (the exceptions are Malta and Turkey); that the impact of the European system of protection on the internal legal order of Contracting States is greater than in the past; and that as a result of better knowledge of the Convention within the member States of the Council of Europe, there has in recent years been a significant increase in the number and diversity of complex petitions submitted for examination by the organs of the Convention.

As early as 1980 the Commission sent a memorandum to the Committee of Ministers describing the position regarding the examination of petitions as "serious" (2). On the assumption that no change in its structure could be contemplated at the time, the Commission stated that it had decided to adopt as a matter of urgency certain internal measures (further simplification of the procedure for dealing with manifestly inadmissible petitions; condensing of the procedure for complex petitions; request for more staff and material). In its opinion, the measures suggested were not only urgent but constituted the "minimum for ensuring that the performance of its duties under the Convention is not jeopardised in the near future".

What then has happened since 1980?

A glance at the available statistics reveals that since 1980 a further increase in the Convention organs' caseloads has occurred. To be precise, although the number of petitions registered has flot undergone any substantial annual fluctuations for ten years or so (annual average of 431 for the period 1973-83, against 331 for the period 1955-72), an appreciable increase is now occurring in the number of complex petitions necessitating communication to the governments involved (average annual number of petitions communicated to governments by the Commission: about 100 since 1980 compared with about 20 before 1972). Even more spectacular is the increase in the activities of the Court: during the period 1958-72 the Court delivered one judgment a year on average; between 1973 and 1980, three judgments a year on average; and during the period 1981-84, 11 judgments a year on average.The Committee of Ministers itself is also having to take action more often, in pursuance of either Article 32 of the Convention (almost 60 resolutions up to the end of 1984) or Article 54, for the purpose of supervising the execution of the Court's judgments establishing one or more violations of the Convention (nearly 30 resolutions adopted in this context up to the end of 1984). .

The available statistics also provide some interesting figures in the form of proportions. For example, nearly 30% of all the petitions declared admissible by the Commission between 1955 and the end of 1984 (about 350) were so declared since 1981 (about 115). Similarly, more than 50% of the 85 or so judgments delivered by the Court so far were delivered since 1981.

Lastly, as regards the Committee of Ministers, more than 30% of all its Article 32 resolutions and even more than 60% of all its Article 54 resolutions were adopted since 1981 (3).

These figures fully bear out the fears which the Commission, despite the measures taken so far, has expressed of a "serious backlog" situation developing in the future. The internal measures taken hitherto have had some effects, but it is scarcely realistic to hope to contain in future, through measures of this kind, the effects of the increase in the Convention organs' workloads. Accordingly, one can readily agree with the Commission that it is now "high time to provide the organs of the Convention with the means to cope with this situation, while maintaining the quality of their work and the confidence they enjoy" (4).

Here is where a discussion by the European Ministers responsible for Human Rights assumes particular significance.

2. Legal necessity

A general discussion is also necessary for legal reasons. Here, the problem arises in terms of coherence. The international procedure before the Strasbourg organs is, of course, fundamentally different from a judicial procedure before national courts. The applicant cannot therefore expect vis-a-vis the Convention's organs all the guarantees which Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial) confers on him at domestic level.

Nevertheless, any judicial procedure worthy of the name - even an international one - must observe a number of fundamental principles, ie the procedure must be conducted expeditiously, in public and before an impartial body.

So far, an attempt has been made to deal with one of the most obvious defects of the international control machinery, namely the slowness of the proceedings. Work has been concentrated on the proceedings before the Commission, and the Committee of Ministers itself conceded on 29 September 1982 in its reply to Written Question No. 248 by Lord Northfield (5), that the acceleration of these proceedings seemed to be "urgently needed". But to tell the truth, it is the excessive length of the proceedings as a whole which brings the control machinery established by the Convention into discredit with lawyers and public opinion. In fact, the average total length of proceedings has not increased very much in recent years, and the States Parties to the Convention - which are often long in submitting their observations - are in part to blame for the slowness of the procedure. However, it would be useless to attempt to hide the fact that the Commission sometimes takes several years before declaring petitions lodged with it inadmissible (97% of the petitions lodged are rejected at the admissibility stage).

As regards those peitions declared admissible (3% of the cases), which make up the main part of the workload of the Convention's organs, the length of the proceedings is also excessive. For a case which terminates in a judgment of the Court, the average total length of the proceedings is six years (four years before the Commission and two years before the Court).For a case which leads to a decision of the Committee of Ministers, the average total length of proceedings exceeds four years (three years before the Commission and slightly less than one year before the Committee of

22

Ministers). In addition to these average figures, the extremes as regards the length of proceedings might be noted: when a case terminates in a judgment of the Court, its total length as from the lodging of the petition with the Commission varies between three years (Schiesser case, 1979) and nine years (Winterwerp case, 1979); when it leads to a decision of the Committee of Ministers, the total length of the proceedings as from the lodging of the petition with the Commission varies between one-year-and-a-half (Albrecht case, 1962) and ten years (Fourons case, 1964) (6).

Faced with this situation, it is no longer possible merely to repeat as the Committee of Ministers did once again on 23 October 1981 that for it the length of the proceedings and the delay in treating waiting cases "are a matter of continuing concern" (7). At the present stage one conclusion is obvious: the length of the international proceedings before the Strasbourg organs is manifestly excessive. The legal incoherence arising from this situation does not escape the attention of the general public, which fails to understand, for example, how it can take the Strasbourg organs three years and ten months to reach the conclusion that domestic proceedings lasting three-and-a-half years have exceeded the "reasonable time" . prescribed by Article 6 of the Convention (8).

But the speed of the proceedings is not the only criterion of their quality. The object must be to expedite the proceedings without falling into the error of summary justice. In other words, one must maintain an excellent system of justice, as regards both the procedure and the substance.

The Swiss delegation considers that more than three decades after the entry into force of the Convention (3 September 1953), we must have the political courage to undertake a critical reassessment of the system of control by asking the following questions against the background of Article 6 of the Convention: in 1985, can the international procedure with which we are familiar be considered as guaranteeing the litigant's right of access to an international tribunal when he has no right to bring his case before the Court? Is the intervention of the Committee of Ministers, which is an essentially political organ, compatible with the guarantee of impartiality of a tribunal to which the litigant is entitled on the domestic level? Finally, are the proceedings in the Commission and the Committee of Ministers, which are heard in private, compatible with the principle of a public hearing, which is fundamental to legal proceedings of any kind.

Let it be repeated that the international control procedure before the Strasbourg organs is no doubt fundamentally different from the procedure before the domestic courts. Nevertheless, lawyers and the public at large accept and understand less and less the obvious contradictions inherent in the system.

3. Political necessity

The preceding considerations naturally lead to the conclusion, that there is a political need for a general discussion on the operation of the organs of the Convention. For the member States of the Council of Europe it is a question of showing that the maintenance of the gains of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the effectiveness of its control machinery, is still a matter of political priority. An effort to strengthen

23

this machinery is moreover in line with the reasoning of the Council of Europe's Statute of 5 May 1949, which provides in Article 1 (b) that the means of achieving the aim of the Council of Europe (ie greater unity between its members) include "the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms".

In recent years the political organs of the Council of Europe have repeatedly stressed the political necessity of rethinking the control machinery established by the Convention. We may mention that in the solemn Declaration on Human Rights of 27 April 1978, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe expressed its conviction "that it is of paramount importance that the institutions established by the European Convention on Human Rights remain an effective instrument for ensuring the observance of the engagements which result from it"; that at its 69th session held on19 November 1981, the Committee of Ministers reaffirmed this commitment and underlined in this context the need to take the necessary steps "to enable the Commission and Court of Human Rights to exercise to the full their functions in the interest of the safeguard and effective exercise of fundamental rights in Europe" (9); and finally that in its reply on 29 September 1982 to Lord Northfield's Written Question No. 248, the Committee of Ministers recalled that it was "fully aware of the importance of improving and speeding up procedures before the Convention's organs in the interests of the efficiency and credibility of the supervisory machinery set up by the Convention" (10).

In turn the Parliamentary Assembly fears that the delay in dealing with cases "are bringing the Convention and its procedures into disrepute". It considers that the existing structures of the Commission, created 30 years ago, "need to be reviewed with a view to coping adequately with the present workload", and has recently requested the Committee of Ministers in Recommendation 970 (1983), which was adopted after Mr Muheim1s report (11), to "give high priority to the work on the improvement of procedure under the European Convention and to the efficiency of the Secretariat".

Finally, on 26 January 1983, speaking to the Parliamentary Assembly as Chairman-in-Office of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,Mr Leo Tindemans, Belgian Minister for External Relations, pointed out the need to strengthen the European regional system for the protection of human rights. He stated in particular the following (12): "Ways of simplifying and accelerating procedures still remain to be explored (...). The elimination of obstacles to the genuine protection of human rights at international level will take time, but it also calls for a firm determination to tackle the problem once again, analysing present realities and past errors as a prelude to action. Is this not a challenge to Europe to display renewed imagination?"

Assuming that for practical, legal and political reasons there is a recognised need for a general discussion on the system of control under the Convention, this report will attempt, in Part II, to set out the possible improvements of the system and desirable reforms.

24

II. POSSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIRABLE REFORMS

4 . Recapitulation of the characteristics of the control machinery • set up by the Convention

Before reviewing the possible ways of strengthening the control machinery set up by the Convention it is desirable briefly to recall the reasons for the Convention's existence.

According to Article 19 of the Convention, the European Commission and Court of Human Rights were set up "to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the present Convention". According to the preamble of the Convention the political bond uniting the member States of the Council of Europe is based, in addition to the democratic system, "on a common understanding and observance of (...) Human Rights". By securing certain rights and, freedoms "to everyone within their jurisdiction" (Article 1 of the Convention), the European States have sought to preserve human dignity against the arbitrary exercise of State power. Since the rights it contains are fundamental rights, the Convention, by means of its independent supervisory organs, is intended gradually to create a uniform nucleus of European constitutional law in the field of human rights. Both the Commission and the Court have pointed out the objective nature of the undertakings made by the States, and the will of the latter to establish a sort of European public order in the sphere of human rights (13). The rarity of inter-State cases under Article 24 of the Convention (11 cases to date, brought to Strasbourg via20 applications) is significant: in the control machinery it is the individual who, in protecting his own interests, plays the role of a useful stimulus and contributes indirectly to building up a body of law of a unitary and regional nature. Thus, though it is subsidiary when seen in relation to the national machinery for the control of human rights, the profound originality of the Strasbourg system lies in the place accorded to the individual (the individual applicant), proceeding under Article 25, and to the independent supervisory organs (the Commission and the Court set up under Article 19).

In the opinion of the Swiss delegation all improvements to the system and reforms to the control machinery should contribute to strengthening these two fundamental characteristics of the system. This is the fundamental political issue of the debate to be undertaken in 1985, at the end of a 30 year running-in period. ,

5. Criteria for selecting reforms

To date all the reforms considered were essentially directed to meeting two urgent needs: expediting the procedure and coping effectively with the present and foreseeable increase in the number of petitions.

In July 1982 the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure held an exchange of views on reforms which might be contemplated in the short-, medium- and long-term. On further thought it may be asked whether this approach remains completely valid. In fact not so long ago (up to 1980)the States Parties to the Convention were n0t prepared to contemplate revising that instrument to improve the control machinery (14).

25

In this context, the distinction between short-term reforms (not requiring revision of the Convention), medium-term reforms (requiring in most cases such revision) and long-term reforms (requiring a more

radical revision) made sense.

Today, however, when the taboo on revision is about to be overcome by the implementation of a number of medium-term reforms (establishment of a flexible system of Chambers and restricted committees in the Commission; establishment of Chambers of nine judges in the Court; strengthening of the requirements of independence and availability of the members of the Commission etc), it would be more useful, from the point of view of the work of the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights, to distinguish between two types of reforms: firstly, reforms with slight or medium political implications; secondly, those with considerable political implications.

The following considerations are conceived on the basis of this distinction. In fact, owing to the urgent nature of the reforms required, it is important to ensure that this first European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights immediately concentrates on the political choices which must be made now so as to possess tommorrow an international control machinery adapted to the requirements of European society at the end of the 20th century.

6. Reforms with slight or medium political implications

As already suggested, the attention of the European Ministers responsible for Human Rights should not be engaged for too long by this category of reforms. Most of these reforms can be achieved by mere administrative measures (notably through amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the Court and the Committee of Ministers) or by means of amending protocols similar to the one that is on the point of being opened for signature by member States (establishment of a flexible Chamber system for the Commission). However, some of the measures needed might have considerable budgetary implications. These should therefore be mentioned here as a preliminary.

It is no longer possible to ignore the fact that the working conditions of the Convention's organs are inadequate. This affects not only the Commission and its Secretariat and the Court and its Registry but also the Directorate of Human Rights, which assists and advises the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General in the exercise of their functions under the Convention^ (Articles 32, 54 and 57). Without going into detail, it may be pointed out that in the present building neither the members of the Court (who already spend nearly a week every month in Strasbourg on average) nor the members of the Commission (who often spend more than a week every month in Strasbourg, at the rate of five to six two-week sessions a year) have private offices or suitable premises for carrying out their work as rapporteurs. The two deliberation rooms are decrepit and inconvenient, and the Court's hearing room is now too small. The Commission's Secretariat and the Court's Registry are also short of space; so is the Directorate of Human Rights. Some think that the situation would be improved if the Directorate moved out of the Human Rights Building. Such a step would certainly be regrettable, however, as the premises thus vacated would in any case be inadequate for the actual needs of the

26

Convention's organs. Moreover, it is necessary and sensible for all the .Council of Europe departments that deal with human rights - including the new Documentation Centre set up as a result of a decision by the Committee of Ministers in 1982 - to be grouped together. It will be remembered that this Centre, which has made an encouraging start, is designed to serve not only the Commission and the Court but also the general public. It is at present run by the Directorate of Human Rights.In view of the still serious inadequacy of the documentary and data- processing resources available in Strasbourg for the human rights sector, the rapid expansion of the Documentation Centre may be seen as a priority; it would be sensible to transform it gradually into the biggest human rights data bank in Europe. The Swiss delegation would like the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights to support this idea. It also suggests that the Conference advance forthwith the idea of erecting a new Human Rights Building in Strasbourg to accommodate all the organs and departments concerned. There is already a clear practical need for such a project, and it would also be of obvious symbolic value for that most prestigous of the Council of Europe's activities: the international protection of human rights.

After mentioning these practical matters, let us now quickly review the measures and reforms which have been, are being or might be envisaged for the Commission, the Court and the Committee of Ministers.

As regards the Commission, the projected system of Chambers and restricted committees will no doubt speed up the processing of cases, especially the rejection of manifestly unfounded petitions. One may also welcome the present concern of the Convention's1 Contracting States to strengthen the guarantees concerning the independence and availability of the Commission's members. Other measures are also conceivable, such as: the publication of the Commission's reports in all cases; the abolition of hearings before the Commission in cases where it immediately becomes clear that there will be a referral to the Court; and an increase in the number and length of the Commission's sessions (16-17 weeks a year instead of the present 12). However, in view of the preparation time needed, such an increase would mean that the Commission's members would have to devote about 32-34 weeks a year to their Commission duties, which would amount to more than a half-time activity. In this context, consideration should be given to the proposal made by Mr N^rgaard,President of the Commission, to the Steering Committee for Human Rights on 21 March 1984 that arrangements might be made in future for members of the Commission, while continuing to work professionally in their home countries, to work principally as members of the Commission in Strasbourg (15).

As for the Court, several internal measures taken by it during the revision of its Rules, the new version of which came into force on 1 January 1983, may be welcomed. As a result of these: an applicant's status before the Court has been significantly strengthened, as he may take part in the proceedings if he wishes (Rule 33 (3) (d)); an intervention by a Contracting State not party to the proceedings may be authorised in the interest of the proper administration of justice (Rule 37 (2)); and the parties may dispense with the written stage of the proceedings (Rule 37 (1)). This last possibility should enable the frequent and tedious repetitions of the parties' arguments before the

27

Commission and the Court to be avoided. In future, the projected increase in the membership of Chambers (from 7 to 9 members) should also enable the proceedings to be speeded up, as there should be fewer relinquishments of jurisdiction by Chambers in favour of the plenary Court. In addition,- the transmission of the case-file from the Commission to the Court should be made automatic whenever a case is referred to the Court, and the combining of the judgment on the merits and the decision concerning Article 50 of the Convention (award of just satisfaction by the Court) should be made even more systematic. '

As far as the Committee of Ministers is concerned, ways ought to be envisaged of facilitating its decisions under Article 32 of the Convention. In particular, the present requirement of a two-thirds majority might be replaced by a simple-majority rule, and it might be suggested that the Commission make increased use of its option of making proposals to the Committee of Ministers when transmitting its report to the Committee (Article 31 (3) of the Convention). It would also be in accordance with the spirit of the Convention if the Committee of Ministers could award just satisfaction to the applicant, in the same way as the Court does under Article 50 of the Convention (16) . Similarly, the Committee of Ministers might specify more precisely the "measures" which the State should take to implement its decisions (Article 32 (2) of the Convention) and also play a part in supervising friendly settlements reached underArticles 28 and 30 of the Convention. .

It would, of course, be disrespectful to describe this initial series of reforms - which are listed here only indicatively - as mere logistical measures. Nevertheless, the Swiss delegation considers that once the need has been recognised to consolidate the present control system, improve the position of the applicant, provide better working conditions for the supervisory organs and simplify and speed up the procedure, the measures mentioned above go more or less without saying. It will, of course, remain to fix the practical details, a task that will not alwaysbe easy. These, however, are activities that can be entrusted to governmentexperts within the present structures (Steering Committee for Human Rights, Committee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure). In this connection, the role of the first Ministerial Conference on Human Rights should be to express its interest in the current activities and invite the responsible authorities to make every endeavour to ensure that they are actively continued and swiftly completed.

7. Reforms with considerable political implications

It is on such reforms that the first Ministerial Conference on Human Rights should concentrate its attention. Now that the system has been operating for 30 years there is no point, in 1985, in further postponing the necessary political decisions. The risk attending the current reforms is to take too short-term a view, to prefer, on grounds of principle as well as of ease, to take measures to meet the immediate need. The effect of such measures is uncertain and they might well make it more difficult later to make the necessary choice between the fundamental options.

28

In the opinion of the Swiss delegation any thorough reform of the Convention's, control machinery must combine the requirement of efficiency, at present given priority, (expediting the proceedings and effectively coping with the present and foreseeable increase in the number of petitions) with three fundamental requirements which should in future receive the same

priority:

- conferring on the individual the right to bring his case before the Court;

- making the system of control completely independent;

- concentrating more on preventive measures.

If all these criteria were taken into account at the same time it would make possible a considerable qualitative step forward as, regards the consolidation of the Convention's current control machinery.

There can be no question of considering each of these reforms in detail here. The Swiss delegation nevertheless believes it essential to draw the Ministerial Conference's attention to the range of conceivable reforms, the interdependence of some of them and the need to tackle them without any bias at ministerial level so as to give fresh impetus to theregional protection of human rights in Europe. As will be seen, not onlyare these reforms being debated in academic circles but many allusions are to be found to them in political speeches over the past few decades.Surely the time has come for Europe to embark once more on some pioneeringwork, if only by consolidating what has already been achieved.

a. Recognition of the individual's right to bring his case before the Court

This idea is not new. It was given a prominent place in the famous Declaration of the European Congress in The Hague in May 1948 and was also to be found in the draft Convention drawn up by the European Movement in July 1949.

In 1974 as part of the follow-up to the Parliamentary Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1971, the Committee of Experts on Human Rights considered that "the time had come ... to redefine the respective roles of the Commission and the individual in the proceedings before the Court" (17). The committee of experts took the precaution of obtainingthe opinions of the Commission and the Court on these questions.

Who still remembers today that in an opinion of 19 July 1974, the Commission, after finding that the present system was "... unsatisfactory" suggested "the recognition of the right of the individual applicant to refer his case to the Court when at least one-third of the members of the Commission, having participated in the adoption of a report prepared under Article 31 of the Convention, have concluded that a violation of the Convention exists" (18). The Court in turn, in its opinion of - 4 September 1974, pointed to the "serious inconvenience" of the present system owing to the absence of "equality of arms" within the meaning ofArticle 6 of the Convention in the proceedings before the Court, andstated: "The States should be encouraged to draw up an optional protocol - rather than' an amending protocol remaining beyond reach for the immediate

29

future - which would open to the individual applicant a right of direct access to the Court" (19). The Court suggested that the applicant's right to bring his case before the Court should be excluded in a case where the Commission had unanimously reached the view that there had been no violation of the Convention.

It seems surprising that such marked encouragement from the two organs set up by the Convention has not so far led to concrete results. Admittedly the question of the individual being able to bring his case before the Court is still included in the terms of reference of the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure. But it would not be realistic to imagine that any results will be achieved in the absence of a political stimulus.

In the opinion of the Swiss delegation the first Ministerial Conference on Human Rights, in 1985, should encourage progress in this direction thus showing by a practical example that the Europe of human rights still places the human interest at the centre of its concern. In proceeding in this way the Ministerial Conference would only be taking one step further the suggestion made on 26 January 1983 by the Chairman of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. Speaking to the Parliamentary Assembly Mr Tindemanns said: "Now that the Convention has been in existence for more than 25 years, the time has surely come to reassert the individual's position at the heart of the whole protective system, for example by giving the applicant the right to seize the Court?" (20).

b. Making the control system completely independent

Another decisive step to strengthen the international control machinery set up by the-Convention would be to reduce to the indispensable minimum the intervention of the Committee of Ministers.

Under the present system the Commission filters the applications, it conducts investigations and acts as conciliator but the final decision lies with the Court (when the case is brought before it) or with the Committee of Ministers, acting under Article 32 of the Convention. Moreover, by virtue of Article 54 of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers is entrusted with the important task of supervising the execution of the Court's judgments (21).

The Swiss delegation would like to emphasise the importance it attaches to the functions exercised by the Committee of Ministers under Article 54 of the Convention. In its opinion, it would be useful if States, in informing the Committee of Ministers "of the measures which it has taken in consequence of (a) judgment, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 of the Convention to abide by the judgment" (Rule 2 (a) on the application of Article 54), did not confine themselves to supplying the relevant information on specific measures taken in respect of the applicant (payment of the just satisfaction fixed by the Court, for example) but also furnished information on the more general action taken in pursuance of the judgment (informing of interested circles, legislative reforms in progress etc). This, at any rate, is the approach followed by the Swiss Government in the matter. It would be desirable in' this connection if the Committee of Ministers were to invite the Court, in pursuance of Protocol No. 2 to the Convention, to give an advisory opinion on the exact purport of Articlie 54 of the Convention.

30

It may also be wondered whether in future a certain role should be conferred on the Committee of Ministers in the supervision of the execution of friendly settlements concluded between the applicant and the State with the assistance of the Commission under Article 28 (b) of the Convention.

By contrast, the functions exercised by the Committee of Ministers under Article 32 of the Convention are much more problematical. Of course, strictly speaking, decisions taken by the Committee of Ministers under Article 32 of the Convention have the same binding force as the Court's judgments under Article 53. Some writers consider that when the Committee of Ministers adopts as its own the arguments set out in the Commission's report, it in some way confers a sort of quasi-judicial quality on this report. Such an approach, however, cannot disguise the fact that, in this last case, the entire proceedings are held in private (both in the Commission and in the Committee of Ministers) and that the organ that makes the final decision remains, by virtue of its composition, a political organ, which was admitted by the Committee of Ministers itself in 1975 (22).

The reasons for introducing this hybrid system into the Convention in 1950 are well known: when they made the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court optional, those drafting the Convention made provision for the intervention of the Committee of Ministers under Article 32 so as to insure that if a case was not brought before the Court it would not remain pending at an intermediate stage (the report mentioned in Article 31 of the Convention, which contains the Commission's "opinion" as to whether there has been a violation of the Convention). At present, however, intervention by the Committee of Ministers may increasingly be regarded as an anomaly within a system whose primary function is a judicial one. The Committee of Ministers, it is true, is still the organ most commonly calledupon to settle inter-State disputes (Article 24 of the Convention); butit should also be remembered that in the course of such cases, which often involve allegations of very serious breaches of the Convention, the difficulties encountered by the Committee of Ministers in reaching a decision impair the reputation of the control machinery as a whole.

The time would therefore seem ripe for taking up some historical initiatives which, aftec the passage of a few decades, would now appear, politically speaking, feasible.

In this context we may mention that The Hague Congress of1948 advocated the establishment of a single "Cour de justice"to ensure the observance of a "Charte des droits de 1'homme" (23); the preliminary draft Convention drawn up by the European Movement in July 1949 made no provision for the intervention of the Committee of Ministers; the Parliamentary Assembly's Recommendation 38 of 8 September 1949 also contained no provision corresponding to Article 32 of the Convention (24); on 13 September 1973 the Parliamentary Assembly itself proposed the simple deletion of Article 32 of the Convention (25) ; the Court, too, considered this solution as being in some ways attractive but preferred, in 1974, the granting of a right to the individual to bring his case before the Court (26); and recently, on 6 July 1982, the President of the European Commission of Human Rights, Mr C A Ntfrgaard, suggested, in his personal capacity, that the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure should once again consider the question of revising Article 32 of the Convention and, if appropriate, making the Commission's report automatically binding once the three months period had expired without the case being brought before the Court (27).

31

Two further reasons for bringing this question to the attention of the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights are to be found: first, in the fact that in his above-cited speech of 26 January 1983, Mr Tindemanns, too, expressed the opinion that the Court, as a judicial organ, should assume the functions exercised by the Committee of Ministers under the Convention, pointing out that "we would benefit greatly by a single supervisory system, operated by the body best qualified to do so both by its appointed role and membership” (28); secondly, in the fact that in its report of 23 September 1983 on cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Parliamentary Assembly considered that when completely reorganising the control machinery it would be possible to envisage the following system: ''individual applications would be referred to the Court for decision, whereas the Committee of Ministers would be required to examine only inter-State applications" (29).

The completion of the independence of the control system would have another practical advantage: it would get rid of the well-known difficulties with which the Committee of Ministers is sometimes faced when exercising its functions under Article 32 of the Convention, either because it does not succeed in obtaining a majority of two-thirds of the representatives entitled to sit on the Committee during the vote on the question of the existence of a violation (30), or again because, contrary to what is required by Article 32 (1) of the Convention, it is unable to proceed to a decision on the question "whether there has been a violation" of the Convention (31). From the political point of view it is impossible to continue to overlook the disrepute which these "non-decisions" cast on the control machinery established by the Convention.

After these remarks on the completion of the international system of control, reference should be made to the existence and value of the procedure provided for in Article 57 of the Convention, which confers on the Secretary General of the Council of Europe the right, which he must exercise in complete independence, to request Contracting Parties to the Convention to furnish him with an explanation of the manner in which their internal law ensures the effective implementation of one or more of the Convention's provisions. So far the Secretary General has exercised this right four times (in 1964, 1970, 1975 and 1983) (32). Lastly, it should be remembered that the firm resolve of Contracting Parties to the Convention to preserve the Commission's independence is reflected in the plan to supplement Article 23 of the Convention ("The members of the Commission shall sit on the Commission in their individual capacity") with a sentence worded as follows: "During their term of office they shall not hold any position which is incompatible with their independence and impartiality as members of the Commission or the demands of this office"(see Article 3 of the draft amending Protocol to the Convention, at present under discussion).

c. Concentrating attention on preventive measures

The paramount aim of the Convention is that the rights it contains should

be secured by the Contracting Parties (Article 1), whatever the domestic or international means most suitable to attain this object. In this connection Article 60 of the Convention throws light on the complementarity of the national and international procedures designed to attain this high objective. •

32 1

The possibility of making States internationally liable through the binding international establishment of breaches of the Convention is undoubtedly one of the most fundamental features of the control machinery set up by the Convention. The Court thus has occasion to establish breaches of the Convention in about two-thirds of the cases submitted to it, while the Committee of Ministers for its part establishes breaches in about a quarter of the resolutions it adopts under Article 32 of the Convention. But it should not be forgotten that this characteristic of the system is not its ultimate purpose, rather its extreme consequence. ,

From this point of view, therefore, the importance, under the present system, of several procedures which may be described as preventive should

not be neglected.<-

It may first of all be noted that the very existence of the

control system gives States a powerful incentive to observe the Convention's provisions domestically. National courts are not alone in feeling the effects; to an increasing extent, national governments, administrations and legislatures are becoming aware of it. The procedure under Article 57 of the Convention should once more be mentioned in this context, for by asking States for an explanation of the manner in which they ensure the effective implementation of this or that provision of the Convention, the Secretary General can easily lay emphasis on what he regards as weak points in the implementation of the Convention. The Commission, too, can, under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, indicate, as soon as a petition is lodged, "any interim measure the adoption of which seems desirable in the interest of the parties or the proper conduct of the proceedings before it". In this way it can forestall any damage which might be irreparable (particularly in extradition cases). It may be wondered whether this power is not important enough to warrant being embodied in the Convention itself. Among the preventive measures deriving from the very system of the Convention, mention may also be made of the possibility of reaching friendly settlements (Article 28 (b) of the Convention) and the possibility for the Commission, when transmitting its report to the Committee of Ministers, to make such proposals as it thinks fit (Article 31 (3) of the Convention). Lastly, one cannot deny the preventive effect of decisions of the Committee of Ministers and the Court (Articles 32 and 53 of the Convention) or that -of the procedure whereby the Committee of Ministers supervises the execution of the Court's judgements (Article 54). In the last three instances, there is a preventive effect not only for the State involved in the case but for all Contracting Parties to the Convention.

The Swiss delegation would ask whether in future one should not concentrate more on preventive measures. In this context it would like once again (as it has already done at the 14th Conference of European Ministers of Justice in Madrid, 21-31 May 1984) (33) to draw attention to the great political importance of the Parliamentary Assembly's recent Recommendation 971 (1983), adopted on 28 September 1983, to which is appended a draft European Convention on the protection of detainees from torture and from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment o r■punishment. In fact, torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 3 of the Convention) provide the most obvious example of violations of the Convention for which judicial control after the event by the organs of the Convention is admittedly necessary, but often unsatisfactory because it comes too late. The original feature of the system of control proposed

33

in the draft Convention lies in the idea of setting up in the framework of the Council of Europe a system of unannounced visits to places of detention by a Commission of five members, sitting in their individual capacity, in order to provide preventive protection against the torture of detainees. Like the Parliamentary Assembly, the Swiss delegation considers that this instrument will provide a useful supplement to the a posteriori control machinery set up by the European Convention on Human Rights. It would therefore be happy to see the first Ministerial Conference on Human Rights give its political support to a rapid completion of the work in this field (34).

Also under the heading of reforms placing emphasis on preventive measures, allusion may be made to the frequently mentioned idea of one day empowering the European Court of Human Rights to give preliminary rulings at the request of national courts.

It would, of course, be wrong to think that the preliminary rulings procedure which permits the well-known judicial dialogue between the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the national courts of the Community's member States (Article 177 of the EEC Treaty) can be transposed lock, stock and barrel to the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Strasbourg system, the existence of two parallel control procedures (viz preliminary supervision, followed, if appropriate, by ex post facto contentious control) might raise some awkward problems.It should not be forgotten either that certain questions concerning the interpretation of the Convention might be somewhat unsuited to a preliminary examination.

Having made these qualifications^ it will be recalled that the idea of introducing a preliminary rulings procedure was put forward by the Court itself in 1962; two present members of the Commission (Professor Ermacora in Vienna in 1965 and Professor Frowein in Brussels in 1970) have supported this idea; in its Recommendation 683 (1972), the Parliamentary Assembly called on the Committee of Ministers to study the possibility of adding to the system of the Convention a procedure of this type (35); at the request of the Committee of Experts on Human Rights, the International Institute of Human Rights (Cassin Foundation) gave its full support to this idea (36); and, most significantly, the Court, in anopinion requested by the Committee of Experts on Human Rights, stated in1979 that: "In the Court's view, such an innovation would have indisputable advantages: it would ensure unity in the interpretation of the Convention and make it possible to prevent - or correct in good time - the greater part of the violations instead of having to establish them after the event; the Convention, familiar to lawyers for the future, would be accepted bythem as an important feature of the positive law in force; the Courtitself, which would have frequent opportunities for interpreting and applying the Convention, would become fully integrated into the judicial system <pf the Contracting States" (37) .

Two recent proposals on the possible introduction of a preliminary rulings procedure before the Court might properly merit the attention of the European Ministers responsible for Human Rights. At an annual meeting of the Netherlands Bar Association, held in Dordrecht on25 September 1981 and attended by 450 barristers, the wish was unanimously expressed that a provision should be included in the Convention to allow national courts to submit preliminary inquiries to the European Court of Human Rights.

34

The memorandum of the Netherlands Bar Association of 23 April 1982 (38) inspired a motion for a recommendation by the Parliamentary Assembly of '6 July 1982, tabled by Mr Margue and several others (39). The Committee of Ministers was called on to prepare a Protocol to the Convention empowering the Court to give preliminary rulings at the request of national courts. Despite the innovatory nature of such a reform, it should not be ruled out for the future. It might be possible, for instance, for the right to consult the Strasbourg Court on a preliminary basis to be confined to the Contracting Parties' highest courts. These would thus have an opportunity to have certain questions of principle clarified within a non-contentious procedure, avoiding the danger and disadvantages of any subsequent establishment of a violation of the Convention, this time at the end of a contentious procedure.

Lastly, among the reforms placing emphasis on preventive measures, mention may be made in passing of two other ideas which have not yet been put into practice: that of empowering the Court to give advisory opinions on draft legislation at the request of States; and that of revising Protocol No. 2 so as to facilitate and broaden the consultation of the Court by the Committee of Ministers on questions concerning the interpretation of the Convention (40).

d. Merger of the existing organs in a full-time European Court of Human Rights

The reforms outlined above lead us naturally to the idea that already in the medium-term the most rational way of effectively ensuring international control of the undertakings accepted by the European States under the Convention would be to operate a merger of the existing organs to form a single full-time Court, assisted by full-time Advocates General.

At the present time there is an undeniable and regrettable overlapping between the activities of the Commission and those of the Court. We know, too, that if these two organs manage to cope with their task it is due to the exceptional personal commitment of each of their members. The considerable extension of their activities in the last four years shows that the existence of a permanent organ will very soon be justified.In July 1982 Professor J A Frowein, Vice-President of the Commission, suggested to the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure that it should look into the desirability of setting up a single full-time judicial body, if necessary assisted by Advocates General (41). The fact that the Commission itself is at present in favour of the idea of "the merger of the two organs, establishing one European Court to which applicants would have direct accoss" (42) is a factor of considerable importance for the development of ideas in this direction. If such a plan was carefully worked out (with a view, in particular, to enabling restricted Chambers of the Court to effectively filter petitions, as the Commission

does at the moment), a merger to form a single judicial body would constitute a considerable reinforcement of the international control system set up by the Convention. There is also every reason to believe that

this measure would make the international proceedings considerably quicker.

35

III. NEED FOR A POLITICAL IMPETUS IN FAVOUR OF REINFORCING THE CONTROL SYSTEM

8. Possible framework for a discussion

The questions raised in the present report have for years been the subject of academic debate or discussion in the Council of Europe's expert committees (the former Committee of Experts on Human Rights; now the Steering Committee for Human Rights and the Committee for the improvement of tha procedure before the organs of the Convention).

The current activities, which relate mainly to reforms with slight or medium political implications (Section 6 above), should, of course, be actively continued. But the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights is not the appropriate forum for discussing them. The Conference should confine itself to supporting the continuation of work in progress and recommending the adoption of any appropriate urgent measures (such as improving the working conditions of the Convention’s organs and of all the Council of Europe departments which contribute to their smooth functioning).

The reason why this report has deliberately laid emphasis on reforms with considerable political implications is that, in the Swiss delegation's opinion, only a political impetus from the Ministerial Conference on Human Rights can advance work on the reforms briefly described in Section 7 above (recognition of the individual's right to bring his case before the Court; making the control system completely independent; concentrating attention on preventive measures; and, finally, merger of the existing organs into a European Court of Human Rights operating full-time).

As it will be difficult for the Ministers to examine even superficially all these questions, it would be very useful if the 1985 Vienna Conference could at least give a decisive political impulse to the reforms mentioned in paragraph 7 (a) (recognition of the individual's right to bring his case before the Court) and initiate a favourable trend for the development of the present control system in the directions outlined in 7 (b) and 7 (d) (making the control system completely independent, with a view to creating in due course a single full-time judicial body).

The Swiss delegation considers that, on account of the interdependence and complementarity of the reforms outlined, it would be extremely difficult to introduce any of them separately by means of amending or additional Protocols to the Convention. It therefore believes that these reforms should forthwith be incorporated in the central objective of merging the existing organs into a full-time European Court of Human Rights that is accessible to individuals. It will be up to a "think tank" - eg a committee

of experts on the reform of the Convention's control machinery, subordinate to the Steering Committee for Human Rights - to work out a balanced and coherent set of reforms geared to that central objective.

9. Nature of the political impetus to be provided by the conference

After discussing this report, the first Ministerial Conference on Human Rights might adopt a Resolution addressed to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, statingl that it has examined the present

^ W i P P P S P P m m ***

36

control machinery set up by the European Convention on Human Rights;It might reaffirm in the Resolution its profound political commitment

to that international control machinery, which has been in existence for about 30 years. It might then invite the Contracting Parties to the Convention actively to continue the work in progress (creation of Chambers and restricted committees within the Commission; increase in the size of the Court’s Chambers etc) and express its full support for an improvement in the working conditions of the Convention's organs and the administrative departments which assist the Commission, the Court and the Committee of Ministers. In that connection it might recommend to the Committee of Ministers the construction of a new Human Rights Building to accommodate all those departments. Finally, and most importantly, the Ministerial Conference should decide to initiate forthwith a study of a more radical reform of the control machinery, including recognition of the individual's right to bring his case before the Court and the completion of the independence of the control system, with a view to merging the existing organs into a European Court of Human Rights operating full-time. More specifically, the Conference should advocate the setting up of a "think tank" of appropriate form under the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to be entrusted with the drawing-up of practical proposals by, say, the end of 1987. The think tank should have considerable autonomy and carry out its terms of reference with the sole aim of strengthening the present system. It should not only comprise government representatives but also involve the Commission and Court in its work, in a manner to be decided. In addition, the Conference should make a point of emphasising, with an eye to the establishment of a European human rights area, the importance of all Council of Europe member States recognising the right of individual petition (Article 25 of the Convention) and the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46).

IV. CONCLUSION

The foregoing considerations show that, even on the traditional question of the control machinery under the Convention, Europe could open a new chapter and "move away from the mere management of a heritage" (43) .On this question, too, the first Ministerial Conference on Human Rights could have a considerable impact both within the Council of Europe and . outside. It could in this connection encourage a greater awareness of the need to give a "human rights dimension" to some aspects of national policy (43).

Some writers have stated that politics is merely the "art of the possible". By taking up some important options for the future of the regional protection of human rights at the end of the 20th‘ century, the first European Ministerial Conference on Human Rights could prove that politics is much more a means of rendering possible what appears to be necessary or desirable.

37

NOTES

1. Memorandum of the European Commission of Human Rights of17 Novemher 1983 for the attention of the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure under the European Convention on Human Rights (DH-PR), doc. DH (.83) 7.

2. Memorandum of the European Commission of Human Rights of 29 May 1980addressed to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, doc. CM (80) 155.

3. For these figures see, as far as the Commission is concerned, the statistics given in DH (84) 1; as regards the Court, Series A of the publications of the Court (judgments and decisions); as regards the Committee of Ministers, see the Collection, published in 1984, of the Resolutions adopted under Articles 32 and 54 of the European Convention on Human Rights between 1959 and 1983, and the memorandum from the Directorate of Human Rights of 8 August 1983 on the Committee of Ministers' role in the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, doc. CM (83) 108.

4. See the memorandum of 17 November 1983 cited above (note 1).

5. Parliamentary Assembly, Doc. 4985. Reply from the Committee of Ministers to Lord Northfield's Written Question No. 248 of26 January 1982 on cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights, Doc. 4846 (text set out in Appendix III to Doc. 5102, cited in note 6),.

6. See the chronological table of cases in which the Court or the Committee of Ministers have been called upon to rule prepared in 1983 by the Court's Registry and set out in Appendix II of Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 5102 of 12 August 1983 (Muheim report on cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights).

7. Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 4809. Reply from the Committee of Ministers of 23 October 1981 to Lord Northfield's Written Question No. 240, of 12 May 1981, on cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights (text also set out in Appendix III to Doc. 5102, cited in note 6).

8. See Mr F Muheim's speech to the Parliamentary Assembly of28 September 1983 (reference to the Court's judgment of 13 July 1983 in Zimmermann-Steiner v. Switzerland, Series A No. 66).

9. Communique of the 69th session of the Committee of Ministers,Strasbourg 19 November 1981, para 9.

10. Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 4985, cited in note 5. . •

11. Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 970 (1983) of28 September 1983 on cases brought under the European Convention on Human Rights. See also the Muheim report, Doc. 5102, cited in note 6.

38

12. Parliamentary Assembly. Official Report of the debates of the 34th ordinary session (Part 3), sitting of 26 January 1983.

13. See inter alia the judgment in Ireland v. United Kingdom of18 January 1978, para 239, and more particularly the Commission'sreport in the Temeltasch case of 5 May 1982, paras 62-64, where the reasons expressed were adopted and confirmed by the Committee of Ministers in its Resolution DH (83) 6 of 14 March 1983.

14. The change of position occurred in 1981; see the reports of29 October 1981 and 29 March 1982 of the 6th and 7th meetings of theCommittee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure under the Convention, docs. DH-PR (81) 4, p 6 and DH-PR (82) 1, para 30.

15. See the report, dated 2 May 1984, of the 15th meeting of theSteering Committee for Human Rights, doc. CDDH (84) 17, p 9.

16. The Directorate of Human Rights is correct to consider possible theapplication of a rule analogous to Article 50; see its memorandumof 8 August 1983 entitled "The role of the Committee of Ministers under the European Convention on Human Rights”, doc. CM (83) 108,p 12, para 37.

17. Doc. DH/EXP (74) 18, paras 30-31. .

18. Commission’s opinion of 19 July 1984 set out in Appendix I to doc. CDDH (77) 24 of 9 November 1977 (p 9).

19. Opinion of the Court, of 4 September 1974, set out in Appendix IIto doc. CDDH (77) 24 of 9 November 1977 (pp 10-13).

20. See note 12. •

21. On the functions of the Committee of Ministers as a whole in thecontext of the Convention, see the above-cited memorandum of theDirectorate of Human Rights of 8 August 1983 entitled "The role of the Committee of Ministers under the European Convention on Human Rights", doc. CM (83) 108 (41 pp).

22. See the memorandum cited in note 21, paras 14-16.

,23. Cited from Etienne Cerexhe, Le droit europeen (Les institutions),Louvain 1979, p 13.

24. On these historical aspects, see the memorandum cited in note 21.

25. Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 3334 of 13 September 1973, para 94,cited in doc. CDDH (77) 24, p 12, para 16.

26. See above-cited Opinion of 4 September 1974, Appendix II todoc. CDDH (77) 24, p 12, para 16. .

27. Report of the 8th meeting (5-9 July 1982) of the Committee of Experts for the Improvement of the Procedure under the European Convention on Human Rights, doc. DH-PR (82) 3 of 9 July 1982, para 50.

39

28. See note 12.

29. Parliamentary Assembly, Muheim report of 12 August 1983, Doc. 5102, para 46.

30. Two precedents: DH (75) 2 Huber v. Austria and Resolution DH (77) 2 East African Asians v. United Kingdom.

31. Three precedents: Resolution DH (74) 1 Inhabitants of Fourons v.Belgium; Resolution DH (79) 1 Cyprus v. Turkey; and Resolution DH (79) 7 Eggs v. Switzerland; see doc. CM (83) 108 of8 August 1983, cited in note 21.

32. See on this subject the information note, dated 1 March 1984,prepared by the Directorate of Human Rights, doc. CDDH (84) 13 (56 pp) .

33. Fourteenth Conference of European Ministers of Justice, Madrid 29-31 May 1984, Conclusions and Resolutions of the conference, doc. MJU-14 (84), Concl., Strasbourg 1984, p 11.

34. See Recommendation ,971 (1983) of the Parliamentary Assembly of 28 September 1983 and its Appendix, and Parliamentary Assembly Docs. 5099 and 5123.

35. Recommendation 683 (1972) of the Parliamentary Assembly, of 23 October 1972, proposal C4.

36. Doc. DH/Exp. (76) 23.

37. Opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, H (79) 3, p 7.

38. Memorandum of 23 April 1982, set out in the Appendix to the studyundertaken by Professor A H Robertson for the Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly entitled "Proposals to confer on the European Court of Human Rights power to give preliminary rulings at the request of national courts", doc.AS/Jur (35) 19 of 7 October 1983.

39. A motion for a recommendation of 6 July 1982 submitted by Mr Margueon the basis of Parliamentary Assembly Doc. 4937 (co-signatories: Schulte, Valiante, Elmquist, Muheim, Alder, Stoffelen, Van Der Elst,Berrier, Scholten, Kazazis, 0 J Flanagan). See alsoMr Sieglerschmidt's report, Doc. 3852.

40. As regards these two proposals, see the report dated 15 January 1980drawn up by the Steering Committee for Human Rights on the questionof the revision of Protocol No. 2, doc. H (80) 1 (6 pp).

41. Doc. DH-PR (82) 3 of 9 July 1982 cited above, note 27.

42. See the above-cited memorandum of the Commission (note 1) of17 November 1983, DH (83) 7, p i .

43. See the concern expressed in this regard in the letter of15 June 1982 from the Austrian Chairman of the Ministersy Deputies,Mr Bukowski, at the time of the launching of the idea of a Ministerial Conference on Human Rights, doc. CM (83) 47.

40

The international control system set up by the European Convention on Human Rights has now been in existence for some 30 years.. It has on the whole proved its worth. However, the considerable increase in the workloads of the Commission and the Court in recent years makes it necessary, at the 1985 Vienna Ministerial Conference, to hold a general discussion on possible improvements to the system and desirable reforms.

In the Swiss delegation's opinion, such a general discussion is necessary for practical reasons (significant increase in the caseload since 1980, when the Commission was already describing the situation as "serious"), legal reasons (need to ensure a degree of coherence between national procedures and the international control procedure), and political reasons (the priority regularly affirmed by the Council of Europe's organs of consolidating the present control system).

The originality of the present control system mainly resides in two factors: the role played by individual applicants and the central place occupied by the Commission and the Court, two independent organs. In the Swiss delegation's opinion, any reform and improvement of the system should be aimed at reinforcing this twofold fundamental characteristic.

To facilitate the Conference's discussions, it seems appropriate to distinguish between reforms with slight or medium political implications - to which the Ministerial Conference could simply give its full support with a view to the continuation of the work already in progress - and reforms with considerable political implications, on which the Conference should concentrate. ’

The reforms with slight or medium political implications include in particular the present plan to set up Chambers and restricted committees within the Commission, the intention to increase the size of the Court's Chambers, the improvement of the working conditions of the Convention organs and the administrative departments which assist them, and, possibly, a decision to group all these departments (including the Human Rights Documentation Centre) together in a new Human Rights Building.

However, the above matters are not the most important issues.

The Swiss delegation believes that the Ministerial Conference should initiate forthwith consideration at the political level of a more far- reaching reform of the control machinery so as to ensure that at the end of the 20th century Europe possesses a control system appropriate to its contemporary needs. In this context it suggests that the Conference recommend the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers to set up an appropriate "think tank" under its authority entrusted with the drawing up of concrete proposals by, say, the end of 1987.

The think tank should in particular: pave the way for recognition of the individual's right to bring his case before the Court; identify appropriate ways of strengthening the control system's independence; lay emphasis on preventive measures; and draw up plans forthwith for merging the existing organs into a European Court of Human Rights operating full-time.

41

The pitfall to be avoided by the Ministerial Conference is failure to look far enough ahead. If Europe is to possess effective international control machinery in the year 2000, it must lay the foundations here and 'now, in 1985. That is the only way of consolidating a gain to which all the member States of the Council of Europe attach the utmost importance.

43

D R A F T P R O T O C O L TO THE E U R O P E A N C O N V E N T I O N F O R T H E P R O T E C T I O N OF

H U M A N R I G H T S A N D F U N D A M E N T A L FREED O M S .

s u b m i t t e d by: .the N e t h e r l a n d s J u r i s t s C o m m i t t e e for H u m a n R i g h t s ,(Dutch s e c t i o n of the ICJ)

44

NflTE FROM THE DUTCH SECTION OF THE I.C.J.

As a contribution to the discussion on the functioning of the Organs

of the European Convention on Human Rights the Dutch section of the

I.C.J. has prepared a Draft Protocol containing several fundamental

changes in the supervisory-mechanism of the Convention. These changes

have been taken from the proposals of the Swiss delegation to the

Ministerial Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1785 (See: Swiss

report, Human Rights Law Journal 19B5, pp. 77-117).

The changes intended are:

- the merger of the European Commission and Court into a permanent

European Court of Human Rights;

- the conferment of the right to individuals to submit their case to

the Court and to participate in the procedure before the Court on

the basis of an optional clause;

- the conferment to the Court of the competence to give preliminary

rulings on the request of national tribunals on the basis of an

optional clause;

The purpose of this Draft Protocol is twofold. First it is aimed

at solving the present problems of the overburdening of the

Commission and the Court by establishing a more up to date and a

more efficient procedure. Second, .it is aimed at a better imple

mentation of the Convention into the legal orders of the States

Parties by a preliminary rulings-procedure.

The Draft Protocol should not only serve as a framework for the

discussion during the conference, but should also be brought to the

attention of members of the Commission and the Court, of members of

national parliaments and governments and of officials of other NGO’s in

the field of Human Rights.

Realizing that this Draft Protocol can only be effective on the long

term, another measure has to be taken on the short term. This measure

is the extension of the Secretariat o f .the Commission which is badly

needed. We hereby urge every member of the I.C.J.-sections to bring

this serious message to the attention of national parliaments and

governments. . '

* The Te xt of the E u r op ea n Convention and of its Pr ot oc ol No. 8 w i l l be found at A p p e n d i x A.

45

. TEXT OF THE DRftFT PROTOCOL

The member States o-F the Council of Europe, signatories 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 it is desirable ta change certain provisions of the

Convention with a view to improving and expediting the procedures for

ensuring the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High

Contracting Parties in the Convention,

Considering that it is desirable to merge the European Commission of

Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights into one European

Court of Human Rights,

Have agreed as -follows:

Article I. ,

Article 19 of the Convention shall read as follows:

"To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High

Contracting Parties in the present Convention, there shall be set up a

European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as "the

Court"."

Article II.

Section III (the Articles 20 to 37 of the Convention) shall be

deleted and section IV shall became section III. The new section III

shall read as follows: .

Article 20 (art. 3B ECHR):

“The European Court of Human Rights shall consist of a number of

judges equal to that of the Members of the Council of Europe. No two

judges may be nationals of the same State."

Article 21 (art. 39 ECHR):

"1. The members of the Court shall be elected by the. Parliamentary

Assembly by a majority of the votes, cast from a. list of persons

T

46

nominated by the Members of the Council of Europe; each Member shall

nominate three candidates, o-f whom two at least shall be its nationals.

2. As -far as applicable, the same procedure shall be -fallowed ta

complete the Court in the- event o-f the admission o-f new members o-f the

Council of Europe, and in -filling casual vacancies,

3. The candidates shall be o-f high moral character and must either

possess the quali-fications required -for appointment to high judicial

office or bs jurisconsults o-f recognised competence."

Article 22 (art. 40 ECHR and art. 9, 8th Prat.):

“1. The members o-f the Court shall be elected -for a period o-f nine

years. They may be re-elected. However, o-f the members elected at the

first election the terms o-f four members shall expire at the end of

three years, and the terms of four other members at the end of si:;

years.

2. The members whose terms are to expire at the'end of the initial

periods of three and six years shall be chosen by lot by the Secretary

General immediately after the -first election has been completed.

3. In order to ensure that, as far as passible, ane third of the

membership of the Court shall be renewed every three years, the

Parliamentary Assembly may decide, before proceeding to any subsequent

election, that the term or terms of office af ane or mare members ta be

elected shall be for a period other than nine years but not more than

. twelve and not less than six years.

4. In cases where more than one term of office is involved and the

Parliamentary Assembly applies the preceding paragraph, the allocation

of the terms of office shall be effected by the drawing of lots by the

Secretary General immediately after the elections.

5. A member of the Court elected to replace a member whose term of

office has not expired shall hold office far the remainder of his

predecessor’s term.

6'. The members of the Court shall hold office until replaced. After

having been replaced, they shall continue to deal with such cases as

they already have under consideration.

7. The members af the Court shall sit in their individual capacity.

During their term of office they shall not hold any position which is

incompatible with their independence and impartiality as members of the

Court or the demands of this office."

Article 23 (art. 41 ECHR and art. 10, Bth Prat.):

"The Court shall elect its President and one or two Vice-Presidents

■for a periad of three years. They may be re-elected."

Article 24 (art. 43 ECHR and art. 11, 8th Prat.):

"For the consideration of each case brought be-fore it the Court

shall consist o-f a chamber composed o-f nine judges. There shall sit as

an ex officio member o-f the chamber the judge who is a national of any

State party concerned, or, if there is none, a person of its choice who

shall sit in the capacity of judge; the names of the other judges shall

be chosen by lot by the President before the opening of the case."

Article 25 (cf. art. 45 ECHR)!

"The jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases concerning

the interpretation and application of the present Convention."


"1. Any of the High Contracting Parties may at any time declare that

it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement

the jurisdiction of the Court in all matters concerning the interpre

tation and application of the present Convention.

2. The declaration referred to above may be. made unconditionally or

on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain other

High Contracting Parties or for a specified period.

3. These declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary General

of the Council of Europe who shall transmit copies thereof to the High

Contracting Parties."

Article 27 (compare art. 177 EEC-treaty):


it recognises the competence of the Court to give preliminary rulings

concerning the interpretation of this Convention.

2.' Where such a question is raised before any. court or tribunal of a

State which has made such a declaration, that court or tribunal may, if

it. considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it

to. give judgment, request the Court ta give a ruling thereon.

3. The declarations referred:- to above shall be deposited with the

Secretary General of the Council of Europe who shall transmit copies

thereof to the High Contracting Parties." .

48

Article 28 (cf. art. 24 ECHR):

"1. Any of the High Contracting Parties may refer to the Court any

alleged breach o-f the provisions o-f the Convention by another High

Contracting Party, provided that, the High Contracting Parties concerned

have made the declaration referred to in Article 26.

2. If the question is not referred to the Court an ad-hoc Commission

shall be established.

3. The ad-hoc Commission shall consist of five members. The members

shall be nominated by the Court, and they shall be elected by the High

Contracting Parties concerned.

4. The ad-hoc Commission shall elect its own Chairman and adopt its

own rules of procedure. The articles 30, 32, 40 and 45 are applicable

to the procedure before the ad-hoc Commission.



it recognises the competence of the Court to receive and consider

petitions from any person, nongovernmental organisation or group of

indivivuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High

Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention,

provided that the High Contracting Party against which the complaint

has been lodged has made the declaration referred to in Article 26.

Those of the High Contracting Parties who have made such a declaration

undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this

right. •

2. Such declarations may be made for a specific period.

3. The declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary General of

the Council of Europe who shall transmit copies thereof to the High

Contracting Parties and publish them. •

4. The Court shall only exercise the powers provided for in this

Article when at least six High Contracting Parties are bound by

declarations made in accordance with the preceding paragraphs."

Article 30 (cf. art. 26 ECHR): .

“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."

49

Article 31 (cf. art. 27 ECHR):

"1. The Court shall not deal with any petition submitted under

Article 29 which:

(a) is anonimous, or

(b) is substantially the same as a matter which has already been

examined by the Court or has already been submitted to another

procedure o-f international investigation or settlement and if it

contains no relevant new information.

2. The Court shall consider inadmissable any petition submitted

under Article 29 which it considers incompatible with the provisions of

the present Convention, manifestly ill-founded, or an abuse of the

right of petition.

3. The Court shall reject any petition referred to it which it

considers inadmissible under art. 30."

Article 32 (c-f. art. 28 and 30 ECHR and art. 4, Bth F'rat.):

"1. In the event of the Court accepting a petition referred to it:

(a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination af the

petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct

of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

after an exchange of views with the Court;

(b) it shall at the same time 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 this

Convention.

2. If the Court succeeds in effecting a friendly settlement it shall

draw up a Report which shall be sent to the States concerned, ta the

Committee af Ministers and to the Secretary General of the Council of

Europe for publication. This Report shall be confined to a brief

statement of the facts and of the solution reached."

Article 33 (cf. art. 29 ECHR and art. 5, 8th Prat.):

“After it has accepted a petition submitted under Article 29, the

Court may nevertheless decide by a majority of twothirds to reject the

petition if, in the course of its examination, it finds that the

existence of one of the grounds for non-acceptance provided for in

Article 31 has been established. In such cases, the decision shall be

communicated to the parties."

50

Article 34 (art. 6, 8th Prat.):

"1. The Court may at any.stage a-f the proceedings decide ta strike a

petition out of its list a-f cases where the circumstances lead to the

conclusion that!

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, or

(b) the matter has been resolved, or

(c) -for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer

justi-fied to continue the examination a-f the petition.

However, the Court shall continue the examination a-f a petition if

respect -for Human Rights as defined in this Convention sa requires.

2. If the Court decides ta strike a petition out of its list after

having accepted it, it shall draw up a Report which shall contain a

statement of the facts and the decision striking out the petition

together with the reasons therefor. The Report shall be transmitted to

the parties, as well as to the Committee of Ministers for information.

The Court may publish it.

3. The Court may decide to restore a petition to its list of cases

if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course."


"In the event of dispute whether the Court has jurisdiction, the

matter shall be settled by the decision af the Court."

Article 36: See article 50 af the Convention.

Article 37: See article 51 af the Convention.

Article 38: See article 52 of the Convention.




Article 42: In the first paragraph of article 56 of the Convention

"Article 46" shall be replaced by "Article 26".

Article III. '

Section V shall became section IV.


Article 44; "The expenses of the Court shall be barne by the Council

a-f Europe."

Article 45: "The members a-f the Caurt shall be entitled, during the

discharge of their -functions, ta the privileges and immunities provided

51

far in Article 40 af the Statute of the Council o-f Europe and in the

agreements made thereunder."

Article 47: See article 60 o-f the Convention.



Article 49: In the -fourth paragraph o-f Article 63 o-f the Convention,

the word "Commission" shall be replaced by the word "Court". ' .


Article 51: In the -fourth paragraph o-f article 65 o-f the Convention,

"Article 63“ shall be replaced by "Article 49".


Article IV.

1. This Protocol shall be open -far signature by member States o-f the

Council o-f Europe signatories o-f the Convention, which may express

their consent to be bound by:

(a) signature without reservation as to ratification, acceptance or

approval, or

(b) signature subject to ratL-fication, acceptance or approval,

-fallowed by rati-fication, acceptance or approval.

2. Instruments o-f rati-f ication, acceptance or approval shall be

deposited with the Secretary General a-f the Council a-f Europe.

Article V.

This Protocol shall enter into -force on the -first day o-f the month

-following the expiration o-f a period o-f three months a-fter the date on

which all Parties to the Convention have expressed their consent to be

bound by the Protocol in accordance with the provisions o-f Article IV.

Article VI.

The Secretary General o-f the Council o-f Europe shall notify the member

States of the Council of:

(a) any signature;

(b) the deposit of any instrument o-f. ratification, acceptance or

approval;

(c) the date of entry into farce af this Protocol in accordance with

Article V?

(d) any other act, notification ar cammunication relating ta this

Protocol•

52

EXPLANATORY REPORT. .

Introducti on.

The European Convention -for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms is well known -for its rather unique supervisory-

mechanism. Although it may have served as a source of inspiration -for

other international and regional covenants, conventions and charters,

its main -features are to be seen as a set of compromises which were

unavoidable in the years the Convention was drawn up. Now, thirty—five

years later, these compromises (such as the establishment o-f a

Commission besides a Court, bath -functioning on a part-time hasis)

appear to be the Achilles’ heel o-f the supervisory-mechanism. An

increasing number o-f individual complaints has clearly demonstrated

this weakness.

Aware o-f the need -far a mare -fundamental change o-f the supervisory-

mechanism, the Swiss delegation to the Ministerial Con-ference on Human

Rights in Vienna (19/20 March 1985) presented a study an passible

measures o-f improvement (see: Swiss Report, in: Human Rights Law

Journal, 1985, pp. 97-117). Subsequently, the Swiss proposal to merge

the Commission and the Court was made subject o-f the Colloquium in

Neuchatel (14/15 March 1986). '

The Dra-ft-Protacol hereby presented is based on some a-f the Swiss

proposals, such as the merger a-f the Commission and the Court into a

permanent Court o-f Human Rights, and the empowering of this Court to

give preliminary rulings.

Changing the Convention; a Dra-f t-Protocol.

The Dra-ft-Protocal hereby presented may be considered as an attempt

to translate the outcome o-f several discussions on improvement o-f the

supervisory-mechanism o-f the Convention by formulating an integral and

coherent set o-f treaty-articles.

The text o-f the articles corresponds to a large extend to the

existing text of the Convention. Behind each proposed article the

corresponding number o-f the present article o-f the Convention is

indicated. Alterations, such as those based on the 8th Protocol have

been incorporated in the text. Article 27 (introducing a preliminary

rulings-pracedure) was, with adaptations, derived -from the text o-f

53

article 177 of the EEC-treaty. The use a-f existing texts has the

advantage erf a more -fixed interpretation -based on existing jurispru

dence.

The merger—proposal.

The most -fundamental change provided by this Protocol is the merger

a-f the European Commission and the European Court o-f Human Rights into

a permanent Court. This proposal has been made by the Swiss delegation

to the Ministerial Conference in Vienna in 1985 (see: Human Rights Law

Journal, 1985, p. 114 (d)). At the Colloquium in Neuch'atel, which was

dedicated to this merger-propasal, nearly everybody agreed upon the

necessity o-f taking -far reaching measures in order to sa-feguard an

adequately -functioning of the supervisory-mechanism on the long term.

The support -for the merger-concept was nearly unanimous. The same goes

for the idea that the role o-f the Committee o-f Ministers in dealing

with individual complaints should be reduced, or even be abolished.

The Dr a-f t Protocol, which is based an the Swiss merger—proposal, is

aimed at the establishment o-f a permanent European Court at Human

Rights. This Court can deal with bath interstate and individual

complaints. Individuals will have the right to bring their case before

the Court and may (i-f the case is admissible) defend it before the

Court. The conferment of a locus standi is a logical consequence of the

recognition of the right to submit individual petitions, since the

Commission, being abolished, cannot decide anymore whether or not a

case should be dealt with by the Court. The competence of the Com

mission and of the Committee of Ministers under the present Convention

concerning interstate complaints not dealt with by the Court, is taken

over by an ad-hoc Commission (cf. the ad-hoc Conciliation Commission

under article 42 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights). The five members of this Commission shall be elected by the

State-Parties concerned with the interstate complaint. The names of

candidates will be proposed by the Court.

The conditions for admissibility of bath interstate and individual

complaints before the Court are identical to the existing rules related

to the procedure before the Commission. The articles 30, 32, 40 and 45

are also applicable ta the ad-hac Commission under article 28. The

abundant jurisprudence an these articles will avoid problems an

interpretation of the proposed articles* .

54

The preliminary rulinos-proaosal«

In order to improve the implementation o-f the Convention on the

national level, the proposed' article 27 introduces a preliminary

rulings-pracedure. This procedure should strengthen the cooperation

between national tribunals and the Court in interpreting and applying

the Convention. The application of the procedure under article 177 o-f

the EEC-treaty has proved the use-fulness o-f this kind o-f procedure on

the European level.

The history of initiatives to introduce a preliminary rulings-

pracedure under the Convention goes back to 1961. The subsequent

proposals are well described in the Swiss report (see: Human Rights Law

Journal, 1935, pp. 114, 115). _

The preliminary rul ings-procedure, as proposed in article 27 o-f the

Draft Protocol is not meant to be an exact copy of the 177 EEC-treaty-

procedure. First of all, there is an important difference in character

between the Convention and the EEC-treaty. The farmer daes not need to

be interpreted and applied in a strictly uniform way, wheras for the

latter uniform interpretation and application is a vital condition. The

only uniform interpretation the Convention needs regards the so-called

•"minimum-standards’. In cases where the Convention prescribes a minimum

level of protection, the interpretation must be uniform. But there is

no impediment whatsoever preventing national tribunals to provide for a

higher level of protection by interpreting the Convention more

extensively. This dynamic interpretation is even one of the main

features of the Convention, and this has been established by the Court

moreoften (cf.. The Sunday Times-case, April 26th, 1979, ECHR series A,

vol 46). Thus, a preliminary rulings-procedure enables national

tribunals to ask the Court where the ’bottom-line' of protection has to

be drawn. Subsequently, the national tribunals may decide to ’upgrade’

the ’bottom-line’ protection.

The advantages of this operation are clearly to denotes

- national tribunals can secure themselves of an interpretation of a

sufficient protection level;

- the case may be dealt with finally by the national tribunals, which

leaves the final decision on a national level, which means preser

vation of the principle of ’domestic remedies’;

- : because of the preventive character of the preliminary rulings-

pracedure a great number of contentious cases can be avoided;

55

- a mare -frequent use of the preliminary rulings-procedure compels

national tribunals ta practise the interpretation and application o-f

the Convention, and will make them more -familiar with the jurispru

dence a-f the Court; in short: it will reinforce the implementation

of the Convention.

The way in which the Court has to deal with preliminary rulings,

interstate and individual complaints in relation to the number of

judges concerned with the matter should be worked out in the Rules of

Procedure of the Court. Besides the proposed article 24, all further

rules concerning the attribution of tasks and procedures to be followed

should be flexible, and therefore details should be left out of the

Protocol.

56

Commentary on the provisions gf the Draft Protocol.

Article I.

This article changes, article 19 of the present Convention. Because

of the merger of the Commission and the Court in one full-time Court

article 19 paragraph a will be deleted.

Article II. '

Because of the merger of the Commission and the Court, section III

of the present Convention will be deleted (the articles 20 to 37).

The new section III will consist of partly new, partly changed and

partly renumbered articles from the present section IV of the Conven

tion.

Article 20: The text of this article is identical to that of the

present article 38 ECHR.


present article 39 ECHR; in accordance with a decision of

the Assembly in July 1974 the words "Consultative

Assembly" are changed in "Parliamentary Assembly".


present article 40 ECHR, including the change of name of

the Assembly. Paragraph 7 is added by virtue of article 9

of the Bth Protocol.'


present article 41 ECHR, including the addition by virtue

of article 10 of the 8th Protocol.


present article 43 ECHR, including the addition by virtue

of article 11 of the 9th Protocol.

Article 25: The text of this article is comparable with that of the

present article 45 ECHR. Because of the merger of

. Commission and Court, the words "which the High Con-

■ ■' tracting Parties or the Commission shall refer to it in

accordance with Article 48" shall be deleted.



Article 27: The article gives the national judicial organs the

possibility, an the basis o-f an optional clause, to

request the Court to give preliminary rulings. The text o-f

57

this article is comparable with that o-f article 177 of the

EEC-Treaty. However, there are some important differences!

- a preliminary ruling can only be given on the interpre

tation of. the Convention (compare art. 177 sub a EEC-

Treaty) ;

- there is no obligation for a court or tribunal of a

State Party "against whose decisions there is no judicial

remedy under national law" to request the Court to give a

preliminary ruling, when a question concerning the

interpretation of the Convention is raised. There is only

a possibility to request the Court for such a ruling. An

obligation is not necessary, because the uniformity in

interpretation and application of the EEC-Treaty in the

national legal orders of the EEC-Member States is not

required under the European Convention. The uniformity in

interpretation, which the Convention requires is of a

different character: the Convention only requires a

uniform ininimumstandard of the rights set forth in the

Convention, to be guaranteed in the national legal orders

of the States Parties to the Convention. Those States

Parties remain free to guarantee a higher level of

protection of the rights, set forth in the Convention.

The main goal of the preliminary rulings of the Court is

to give the national judicial organs a guideline far what

is understood as the "bottom-line" of the protection of

the rights, guaranteed by the Convention. In other words,

it is an instrument for preventing a too limited and

thereby violative interpretation of the Convention. After

the preliminary ruling, the national judicial organ must

give the final decision. It affects in no way the ’local

remedies’ rule.

Article 2S: This article contains the regulation af the interstate-

complaint-procedure. Such a complaint can only be brought

before the Court, if all the States concerned have

accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, in

accordance with article 26 of this Protocol, and are

willing to refer the case to the Court. Otherwise, an ad-

hoc Commission is to be established. The names of

58

candidates shall be proposed by the Court, and the members

shall be elected by the States-Parties concerned. This

Commission shall act in conformity with articles 30, 32,

40 and 45. .In this way the procedure before this Com

mission is given the same guarantees with regard to the

examination of the exhaustion of local remedies, the

possibility to reach a friendly settlement, as would have

been the case in a procedure before the Court. The report

of the ad-hoc Commission shall contain an opinion whether

or not there has been a breach of the Convention. This

report shall be transmitted to the Committee of Ministers

which shall supervise its execution.

The judgments and friendly settlements of the Court shall

be implemented in accordance with article 40 of the

Protocol.

Article 29: This article contains the regulation of the individual

complaint-procedure, on the basis of an optional clause.

The text of this article is comparible with that of

article 25 ECHR, with the addition that the compulsory

jurisdiction of the Court must first be recognized. The

recognition of the right, set forth in this article, means

that everyone falling under the jurisdiction of the

recognising State can bring his case before the Court.

Article 30: The text of this article is almost identical to that of

the present article 26 ECHR. Only the words "the Com

mission" shall be replaced by "the Court".

Article 31: The text of this article is almost identical to that of

the present article 27 ECHR. Only the words "the Com

mission" shall be replaced by "the Court".

Article 32:. The text of the first paragraph is almost identical to

that of the present article 2B ECHR. Only the words "the

Commission" shall be replaced by "the Court". In confor-*

mity with article 4 of the Bth Protocol this article will

be supplemented with the text of article 30 ECHR. Also in

this paragraph, the words "the Commission" shall he

replaced by "the Court". It goes without saying that in

• case the Court is not able ta reach a friendly settlement,

the Court will give a judgment. In that case, the articles

35 and following are applicable.

59

Article 33:

Article 34:

Article 35:

Article 36:

Arti cles

The text of this article is almost identical to that of

the present article 29 ECHR, as amended by article 5 of

the 8th Protocol. The words "the Commission" shall be

replaced by."the'Court", "article 25" by "article 29" and

"article 27" by "article 31".

The text of this article is identical to that a-f article

30 ECHR, as provided -for in article 6 a-f the Sth Protocol.

The text a-f this article is identical to that a-f the


No -further comment.

Ill - VI.

No -further comment.

60

ADVISORY OPINIONS

One of the preventive measures, proposed in the Swiss report, p. 113-114, is that of empowering the Court to give advisory opinions on (draft) legislation at the request of States.

As can be seen in the draft protocol, such a competence is not included. The reason is that, according to the opinion of the Netherlands Jurists Committee for Human Rights (N.J.C.M.), the advantages and disadvantages of such a competence are until now insufficiently worked out. It therefore proposes to discuss at this Conference the desirability of such a competence and the advisabili' ty of including it in the draft protocol.

The major problems to t,e discussed at the Conference are:— is there a need for such a procedure;— is it compatible with the task of a Court to give ru

lings in general on the compatibility of (draft) legislation with the Convention;

— what must be the width of the competence (only draft legislation or also existing legislation);

— what are the consequences of such a competence for the national legislative procedures (and the risk of misuse for postponing controversial draft legislation)

— what are the consequences for an individual who wants to file a complaint about legislation, which has already been subject of an advisory opinion;

— what are the consequences of such a competence for the working load of the Court.

61

J U S T I C E

M E M O R A N D U M ON P R O C E D U R E S BE F O R E THE E U R O P E A N C O M M I S S I O N OF H U M AN RI G HT S

While e n d o r s i n g in g e n e r a l the v i e ws and r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of such ot he r bo die s as I N T E R I G H T S and the Swiss De l e g a t i o n , J U S T I C E p r o p o s e s c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c r e f o r m s of the C o m m i s s i o n ' s p r o c e d u r e on the u n d e r s t a n d i n g that (a) the e x i s t i n g f u n c t i o n s of the C o m m i s s i o n and the d i v i s i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s b e t w e e n it and the Court will be m a i n t a i n e d for the time b e in g and (b) the c ha ng es in its s t r u c t u r e e n v i s a g e d in P r o t o c o l No. 8 of the C o n v e n t i o n will not b e c o m e o p e r a t i v e for many years. This d o c u m e n t is thus l i m i t e d in its scope, so that our s u g g e s t i o n s will in the main i nv ol ve a m e n d m e n t s to the e x i s t i n g Ru le s of P r o c e d u r e of the C o m m i s s i o n . Some of the s u g g e s t i o n s made by J U S T I C E c o u ld be a d o p t e d w i t h o u t n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t i n g any ch an ges in the R u l e s .

We r e c o g n i s e that the q u a l i t y of the s er vi ce p r o v i d e d u n d e r the C o n v e n t i o n i n e v i t a b l y r e f l e c t s the am o u n t of m on ey made a v a i l a b l e for it. Some of our p r o p o s a l s will r e q u i r e an i ncr ea se in the b u d g e t of the Coun cil of Europe, e s p e c i a l l y that p o r t i o n of it a l l o c a t e d to h u man rig h ts and the C o n v e n t i o n . This in turn r e q u i r e s a r e a l i s t i c and c o n t i n u o u s a s s e s s m e n t of p e r f o r m a n c e and needs in or der to g e n e r a t e su p p o r t w i t h i n me m b e r st a te s for p r o p e r funding. Many of the JU S T I C E p r o p o s a l s w h i ch f o l l o w do not i nv olv e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g re at er c os ts to the C o m m i ss io n. J U S T I C E r e c o g n i s e s that at pr e s e n t the r e s o u r c e s of the C o m m i s s i o n in te rms of f i na nc e and m a n p o w e r are w ho l l y i n a d e q u a t e v i s - a - v i s its ca se l o a d . P r o g r e s s of each case is u s u a l l y d e t e r m i n e d by the R a p p o r t e u r or the C o m m i s s i o n u n d e r Rule 42.4 ra t he r than by the pr e - s e t t i m e - l i m i t s . The d e m a n d s and e x p e c t a t i o n s of l i t i g a n t s b e f o r e the C o m m i s s i o n have n o w r e a c h e d su ch a level that r e f o r m s in this r e sp ec t are no w u r g e n t l y r e q u i r e d to avoid the m a c h i n e r y of the C o m m i s sion g r i n d i n g to a halt.

J U S T I C E t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e s as follows:

1 . R e a l i s t i c Time Tables

(a) The Rules s h o u l d be a m e n d e d to pr o v i d e for g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e and r e a l i s t i c t i m e t a b l e s for all b us in es s.

(b) P o s s i b l e limits are, for exampl e, four weeks to a ns w e r an i n quiry, three m on t h s to r e s p o n d to a su b m i s s i o n . A p e n a l t y of d i s a l l o w e d legal costs a nd / o r ri s k of d i s m i s s a l of a p p l i c a t i o n sh o u l d ens ur e c o m p l i a n c e by an a p p l i c a n t while a r e s p o n d e n t g o v e r nm en t c o ul d be put at ri s k of c o m p e n s a t i o n pa y a b l e to the a p p l i cant, w h a t e v e r the ou t co me , or of h a v i n g the a p p l i c a t i o n d e c l a r e d a d m i s s i b l e . _

(c) The Rules c o ul d p r o v i d e that in ev ery case the C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d have to consider at a fa i rl y early stage of the p r o c e e d i n g s , say w i t h i n two mo nt hs of the r e c e i p t and r e g i s t r a t i o n of the c o m plaint, w h e t h e r the f il i n g of the c o m p l a i n t s ho u l d not f o r t h w i t h

be c o m m u n i c a t e d to the r e s p o n d e n t g o v e r n m e n t r a t h e r tha n until af t er it has b ee n d e c i d e d that there m i g h t be a p o s s i b i l i t y of a

v i o l a t i o n as at p r e se nt . 1

(d) The C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d p r o d u c e its r e p o r t w i t h i n six m o n t h s of the date of a d m i s s i b i l i t y , as mo st of the m er i t s of the case will have been d e al t wi t h by that time and c lea r issues will have

e m e r g e d .

(e) F r i e n d l y s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d i n g s s h o u l d be c o m m e n c e d as so o n as an a p p l i c a t i o n has been d e c l a r e d a d m i s si bl e.

)

2. L e s s _ s £ C r e c y

E x p e r i e n c e of the p r e s e n t w o r k i n g of the C o m m i s s i o n s u g g e s t s thatp r a c t i t i o n e r s , l i t i g a n t s and ot he r i n t e r e s t e d p ar ti es feel that theC o m m i s s i o n f u n c t i o n s b e h i n d a veil of s e c r e c y that is i n a p p r o p r i a t eto a bo d y w h i c h is l o o k e d to as a p r o t e c t o r of h u m a n ri gh ts .

(a) The C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d always, for e xa mpl e, d i s c l o s e to the p a r ties any p r e v i o u s u n p u b l i s h e d o p i n i o n on w h i c h it i nt en d s to rely. Id eal ly , it s h o u l d p u b l i s h all its de ci si on s , s u b j e c t to any r e q u i r e m e n t s by the a p p l i c a n t as to c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y .

(b) A d ra ft co py of the C o m m i s s i o n ' s d e c i s i o n s s h o u l d al wa ys be sentto the a p p l i c a n t for c o m m e n t where it is p r o p o s e d to d e c l a r e the 1 a p p l i c a t i o n i n a d m i s s i b l e w i t h o u t a he a ri ng . As th ere is no a p peal m e c h a n i s m , this w o u l d en ab le the C o m m i s s i o n to r e v i s e its d e c i s i o n in the l ig ht of the a p p l i c a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . A l t e r n a tively, a s y s t e m of r e v i e w of, or app ea l ag ai nst , the C o m m i s s i o n ' s d e c i s i o n s h o u l d be in tro d uc ed .

I)

(c) The C o m m i s s i o n ' s p r o c e e d i n g s sh o ul d be c o n d u c t e d in pu b l i c e x c e p tfor good re as on . This w ou ld more a c c u r a t e l y r e f l e c t t h e i r q u a s i

j u d i c i a l na tu re . ’

I

3 . A dm i_s s i^b^ l i t yI

(a) The C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d have the power, where there is no c o n t i n u a lv i o l a t i o n , to w ai ve the six m o nt h t i m e - l i m i t in c ase s (i) wherea v i o l a t i o n of the C o n v e n t i o n wo ul d ap p ea r to have t a ke n place,(ii) w h i c h ra ise poi nt s or p r i n c i p l e s of ge ne r al s i g n i f i c a n c e or (iii) wh ere g ra ve i n j u s t i c e wo ul d be c a u s e d by the f a il ur e at least to e x a m i n e the a p p l i c a t i o n . This w oul d of co ur s e r e q u i r e a m e n d m e n t to the C o n v e n t i o n .

(b) The C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d d i s p e n s e with an oral h e a r i n g if it c o n s i d ers that an a p p l i c a t i o n is cl e a r l y ad m i s s i b l e . This is r e a l l y af o r m a l i t y wh ere the w r i t t e n a r g u m e n t s are r e p e a t e d o ra lly . A l t e r n a t i v e l y w h e re the a p p l i c a t i o n d i s c l o s e s a good p r i m a facie case, 1 the C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d p r o c e e d s t r a i g h t to an oral h e a r i n g and d i s p e n s e wi th w r i t t e n p l e a d i n g s or o th er i n t e r m e d i a t e steps. This 1 p r a c t i c e w o u l d save time and m one y and c o ul d be a c c o m m o d a t e d w i t h in e x i s t i n g Ru le 42.

63(c) If there is a fa ct ual c o n f l i c t wh ic h has not been r e s o l v e d by

in q ui ri es and s u b m i s s i o n s , the C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d d e l e g a t e to a small group the r e s o l u t i o n of the d is pu te by h o l d i n g a h e a r i n g in the m e m b e r state, w h i c h w o u l d p r o v i d e full f a c i l it ie s , and then re p o r t back. Full h e a r i n g s (of the C o m m i s s i o n ) w ou ld only be r e t a i n e d for the mos t d i f f i c u l t cases r a i s i n g i m p o r t a n t po int s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Co n v e n t i o n . (The s u g g e s t i o n s made in s u b - p a r a g r a p h s (b) and (c) ab ove w o ul d of co u r s e be a u t o m a t i c a l l y a c h i e v e d when P r o t o c o l No. 8 is f ull y i mp le me nt ed ).

^ • i££££££ill£_ £ £££®

(a) The Cou nci l of Eu r o p e s h o u l d s p o n s o r hu man ri gh ts NGOs to d i ss em i nate i n f o r m a t i o n and adv ice a b o ut the C o n v e n t i o n and its j u r i s p r u d e n c e .

(b) M em b e r St ate s s h o u l d be u n d e r an o b l i g a t i o n to en s ur e that o f f i cial legal e d u c a t i o n c o u r s e s c o n t a i n m a t er ia l a b o ut the C o n v e n tion. Where a m e m b e r s t at e o p e r a t e s a legal aid sch eme it s h o u l d co ver the p r e p a r a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n of a p p l i c a t i o n s and sh o u l d not be l i m i t e d to when the a p p l i c a t i o n is t r a n s m i t t e d to a Gov er n ment. Where there is no legal aid scheme, the C o m m i s s i o n s h o u l d be able to o ff er mo r e r e a l i s t i c a s s i s t a n c e to a p p l i c a n t s .

(c) If the p a r t - t i m e n at u r e of the C o m m i s s i o n p r e v e n t s it from c o p i n g with p r e s e n t and p r o j e c t e d levels of work then u r g e n t c o n s i d e r a tion s h o u l d be g i v en to c r e a t i n g a p e r m a n e n t C o m m i s s i o n . Again, ho we ver , JU S T I C E appreciates that a full i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of P r o t o col No. 8 w o u l d p r o b a b l y re m ov e some of the p r e s e n t d i f f i c u l t i e s .

TOPIC TWO

T h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n a n d D o m e s t i c L a w a n d P r o c e d u r e


M r , P. S i e g h a r t

C h a i r m a n , E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e , J u s t i c e ( u k )

C h a i r m a n

D r , R. M a c h a c e k

S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l , A u s t r i a n S e c t i o n

■ R a p p o r t e u r .

M r , G. H o g t u n

S e c r e t a r y , N o r w e g i a n A s s o c i a t i o n o f J u r i s t s f o r H u m a n R i g h t s

a n d p e a c e

671

: E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n and D o m e s t i c Law and P r o c e d u r e

D i s c u s s i o n of this topic was b a se d on the r e s p o n s e s to the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i s t r i b u t e d to all ICJ E u r o p e a n a f f i l i a t e s and

n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s (see page 73 )• This was d e s i g n e d to e s t a b l i s h

the m ea ns by w h i c h d o m e s t i c legal sy s t e m s p r o t e c t the C o n v e n t i o n

r ig h t s and fr eed oms .

The s eve n r e p l i e s r e c e i v e d were put into t a b u l a r and

n a r r a t i v e s u m m a r y f o r m by Prof. Paul S i e g h a r t (see pages 75 and

76). In his i n t r o d u c t i o n to this topic Prof. S i e g h a r t referred to

A r t i c l e 13 of the C o n v e n t i o n a c c o r d i n g to w hi ch e v e r y o n e wh ose

ri gh ts and f re ed om s, as set f or th in the C o n v e n ti on , are

vi o l a t e d , sh all have an e f f e c t i v e r e m e d y bef or e a n a t i o n a l

a ut h o r i t y . The C o n v e n t i o n h o w e v e r does not p r e s c r i b e in de t ai l

in w h i c h way this shall take place and it does not even set up a

model. This m i g h t be due to the fact that there is a f u n d a m e n t a l

d i f f e r e n c e a m on g the E u r o p e a n st at es a bo ut the r e l a t i o n s h i p

b e t w e e n n a t i o n a l law and i n t e r n a t i o n a l law. Some s ta t e s have a

d u a l i s t i c system, in w h i c h i n t e r n a t i o n a l law is not

a u t o m a t i c a l l y part of the d o m e s t i c legal system. Bef or e

i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s can be a p p l i e d by the d o m e s t i c co urt s

and o t h e r d o m e s t i c a u t h o r i t i e s they ha ve to be t r a n s f o r m e d into

d o m e s t i c law by way of the no r m a l l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e d u r e of the

state in qu est i on . On the o t he r hand, in st a te s with a m o n i s t i c

system, i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s to w hi ch these s ta t e s are

p a rt y are b i n d i n g upon them as such i n s t r u m e n t s a u t o m a t i c a l l y

be c o m e part of the d o m e s t i c legal system. In a d d i t i o n to this,

there are c e r t a i n l y many, ot her i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in the

ways in w h i c h d i f f e r e n t d o m e s t i c legal s y s t e m s ha n dl e c a ses of

d i s p u t e s on h u m a n ri gh ts . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e and the an s w e r s

g i ve n to it can not re v ea l all the p r o b l e m s a r i s i n g from that

REPORT

68

fact E v e n in w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d legal s y s t e m s d i s p u t e s have

a r i s e n w h i c h later on have g iv en rise to p e t i t i o n s u n de r A r t i c l e

25 of the C o n v e n t i o n many of wh ic h have been d e c l a r e d a d m i s s i b l e

af te r they ha ve been e x a m i n e d in a c c o r d a n c e wi t h A r t i c l e 27.

The p r e c o n d i t i o n s of co ur s e for su c h e x a m i n a t i o n is that

the s ta te c o n c e r n e d has d e c l a r e d that it r e c o g n i s e s the

c o m p e t e n c e of the C o m m i s s i o n to r e c e i v e such p et it io n.

D e c l a r a t i o n s to th a t e f f e c t have been l o d g e d by all the st at es

m e m b e r s of The Co u n c i l of Eu r o p e with the e x c e p t i o n of M a l t a and

Cyprus, the last two st at e s to r e c o g n i s e were Gr e ec e and Turkey.

D u r i n g d i s c u s s i o n on this topic oral s t a t e m e n t s in r e s p o n s e

to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e were m a d e by r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from the s e ve n

st a t e s who had p r e v i o u s l y s u b m i t t e d w r i t t e n r e p l i e s and also

fro m S w i t z e r l a n d and F in la nd, w h i ch is not yet a m e m b e r of the

C o u n c i l of Europ e.

A f t er so me d i s c u s s i o n of the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the m o n i s t i c

and d u a l i s t i c a p p r o a c h s to i n t e r n a t i o n a l law, it was s u g g e s t e d

that some d u a l i s t i c states, for exampl e, the U n i t e d Ki ng do m ,

s h o u l d be e n c o u r a g e d to i n c o r p o r a t e the p r o v i s i o n s of the

C o n v e n t i o n into t h e i r d o m e s t i c legal sy ste ms. It was p o i n t e d out

that su ch i n c o r p o r a t i o n w o u ld not af f e c t d o m e s t i c l e g i s l a t i o n

w h i c h af f o r d s the i n d i v i d u a l even g r e a t e r p r o t e c t i o n than is

g i v e n by the C o n v e n t i o n .

A c c o r d i n g to A r t i c l e 57, Sta tes P a rt ie s to the C o n v e n t i o n ,

at the r e q u e s t of the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the C o un ci l of

Eur ope , shall f u r n i s h an e x p l a n a t i o n of the m a n n e r in w hi ch

t he ir d o m e s t i c law e n su re s the e f f e c t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of any

of the p r o v i s i o n s of the Co n v e n t i o n . Suc h r e q u e s t s have been

made four times, in 1964, 1970, 1975 and 1983. T ho se r e q u e s t s

have r e f e r r e d to s p e c i f i c a r t i c l e s in the C o n v e n t i o n and to

s p e c i a l topics. The r e p l i e s given by all St ate s Pa rti es, with

fe w ex c e p t i o n s , were p u b l i s h e d in 1986. The s e c r e t a r i a t of the

69

Co u n c i l of E u r o p e has e x p r e s s e d the wish to see c o m p a r a t i v e

st u d i e s and c r i t i c a l a n a l y s e s mad e of these r e p l i e s by ou t s i d e

i n s t i t u t i o n s . It was s u g g e s t e d that the ICJ set up a c o m m i t t e e

to look at the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of Ar t i c l e 57 by the o r g a n s of the

C o un ci l of Europe.

70

R E S O L U T ION

T o p i c Two: The E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n and D o m e s t i c L a w a n d

P r o c e d u r e



to 24 A p r i l 1987;

D r a w a t t e n t i o n to the o b l i g a t i o n a c c e p t e d by all S t a t e s P a r t i e s

u n d e r A r t i c l e 13 of the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on H u m a n R i g h t s (the

C o n v e n t i o n ) to p r o v i d e an e f f e c t i v e r e m e d y b e f o r e a n a t i o n a l

a u t h o r i t y f o r v i o l a t i o n s of the r i g h t s an d f r e e d o m s s e t f o r t h in

the C o n v e n t i o n ;

R e c o g n i s e t h a t s u c h r e m e d i e s are n o t y e t a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e d in

all S t a t e s P a r t i e s ; ■

Call u p o n all S t a t e s P a r t i e s w h i c h h a v e n o t y e t c o m p l i e d w i t h

A r t i c l e 13 to do so, w h e t h e r by i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the C o n v e n t i o n

into t h e i r d o m e s t i c law or by o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e m e t h o d s ; and

U r g e th e n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s of the ICJ w h e r e n e c e s s a r y to p e r s u a d e

t h e i r g o v e r n m e n t s to take a c t i o n to g i v e e f f e c t to t h i s

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n .

WORKING DOCUMENTS

FOR

TOPIC TWO:

T h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n a n d D o m e s t i c L a w a n d P r o c e d u r e

73

T H E E U R O P E A N C O N V E N T I O N ON HUMAN RIGHTS A N D D O M E S T I C L A W A N D PROCEDURE

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e for N a t i o n a l Sections

ArticQ.es 2 to 12 of the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on Human Rights ("the Convention") define c e rtain rights and freedoms ("the Convention rights and freedoms"). In accordance with Article 1, the State Parties to the C o n v e n t i o n are bound to "secure" the Convention rights and freedoms "to everyone within their jurisdiction." A r t i c l e 13 requires that e v e r y o n e w h o s e Convention rights or freedoms have been violated "shall have an effective remedy before a national authority." .

It is not the purpose of this q u e s t i o n n a i r e to discover how well the Conven t i o n rights and freedoms are in fact protected in your country: there may well be d i f f e r e n t views about this. Rather, the purpose is to e s t a blish the means by which your legal system protects the C o n v e n t i o n rights and freedoms, and the procedures available, at the national level, to obtain a remedy for alleged v i o l a t i o n s .

Q U E S T I O N SA. C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L a w

1. Does the C o n v e n t i o n itself form part of the constitutional law of your c o untry ? (If so, go to section B.)

2. Does the C o n s t i t u t i o n of your c o untry contain a list of protected rights and freedoms for individuals ? (If not, go to section B. )

.*■ .3. Does that list include all the C o n v e n t i o n rights and freedoms ?

If not, w hich of t h e m are o m i t t e d ?

4. Are there any important diffe r e n c e s between the definitions of the Conven t i o n rights and freedoms in -

. a) the Convention; andb) your C o n s t i t u t i o n ?

If so, p l e a s e d e s c r i b e them.

5. Does your C o n s t i t u t i o n give these rights and freedoms to every individual "within the jurisdiction" of your State - or, for example, only to its nationals ?

6. Does your C o n s t i t u t i o n require all the rights and freedoms that it lists to be protected by law ?

74

B. O r d i n a r y Law

1. Are there, in your country, o r d i n a r y laws which regulate the full e x e r c i s e of all the Conven t i o n rights and freedoms ? If not, which of them are omitted, or limited or restricted to a g r e a t e r extent than in the C o n v e n t i o n ?

2. Does the C o n v e n t i o n itself form part of the o r d i n a r y law ofy o u r c o u n t r y ? ,

C . Reined iesA s s u m e that.an individual in your c o u n t r y claims that one of hiso r h e r C o n v e n t i o n rights or freedoms has been violated.

1. If the v i o l a t i o n constitutes a breach of an o r d i n a r y law which r e g u lates the exerc i s e of that right, by what p r o c e d u r e s could the individual concerned obtain a remedy for the violation ?

2. If the v i o l a t i o n does n o t consititute a breach of any o r d i n a r y law, are there any procedures by which the individual co n c erned can n onetheless obtain a r emedy -

a) if the v i o l a t i o n was one of a right p r o t ected by the C o n s t i t u t i o n ?

b) if the v i o l ation was one of a right not protected by the C o n s t i t u t i o n but p r o t ected by the Convention, or more w i d e l y p r o t ected by the Conven t i o n than by the C o n s t i tution ?

3. In w h a t circum s t a n c e s would it be possible for an individual u n d e r the j u r i s d i c t i o n of y o u r State to suffer a v i o l a t i o n of one of his or her C o n v e n t i o n rights or freedoms, but -

a) to be unable to establish that fact by any p r o c e d u r e w i t h i n y o u r legal system; or

b) to be able to establish that fact by some appropriate p r o cedure, but to be unable to obtain an effective remedy for the v i o l a t i o n ?

75

£

n

wJn

uS4c 0 0)

.. &<D +j T3

WQ)in

m•H

in

§

s

£•H

(1)U3

0

1

s■rH4JW

■O

■p a

<a

ti1<c4-1•rH

I —

XI*■->*

CMa i —

ina) &W& s s

(d

<N . •o

in!>i

to& I

in£1

in& 8

u

CMca

n

VO9<

in

<

9<

ro<<N

rtj

CO

a3in■5:

(0■Hu

'I• o

0)

&

8in

■h +ja) rtm 4-j

S*

8

tn

mtu>i

8§£

in

8

8

S'

*f

o•H

8

8oc4-> tna C , |

•3

8

in!>i

84Jin

<a

■d

$p

oc

-p<0

q G X in i>1r-tS.

9 O 0

rH

frH >i C c i

in in in in ina) SP a) a) a) 0>i >i >i c

0 0 0 0 0 oc c c c c cooCT\ (—!

■H

k

76

T o p i c 2

T H E E U R O P E A N C O N V E N T I O N A N D D O M E S T I C L A W A N D P R O C E D U R E

N a r r a t i v e S u m m a r y of R e s p o n s e s from

N a t i o n a l S e c ti on s

p r e p a r e d by Paul S i e g h a r t

Seven sections sent w r i t t e n responses to the questionnaire: two m o r e (Finland a n d Switzerland) gave oral answers at the C o n f e r e n c e itself, since amplified by letter. The responses v a r i e d w i d e l y in the degree of their detail, but m a y be summar i s e d as follows. (References are to the n u m bered questions in the questionnaire.)

A u s t r i a

E C H R has the rank of constitutional law. Accordingly, all the C o n v e n t i o n rights and freedoms form part of positive A u s t r i a n federal law of the h i ghest rank, so m a k i n g all the other qu e s tions in the questi o n n a i r e inapplicable. Since e v e ryone has d i r e c t access to the A u s t r i a n Constitutional Court on any q u e s t i o n of constitutional law, that court is competent, as a c ourt of first and last instance, to rule on any m a t t e r c o n c e r n i n g any of the C onvention rights or freedoms. (The C o n s titutional C o u r t does not have any appellate jurisdiction f r o m other courts.)

Ot h e r courts, being bound to apply constitutional law, likewise have jurisdiction to decide such questions if t h e y are r a i s e d before them. Accordingly, if Austria loses a case b e f o r e t h e S trasbourg organs, it can only be either because the a p p l i c a n t d i d not raise the question before the approp r i a t e do m e s t i c t r i b u n a l , or b e c a u s e the Strasbourg organs come to a di f f e r e n t conclu s i o n from that tribunal.

F e deral G e r m a n R e p u b l i c

A.l E C H R does n o t have the rank of constitutional law.

A . 2 The C o n s t i t u t i o n ("Grundgesetz" = GG) contains a list ofp r o t e c t e d rights and freedoms for individuals.

A . 3 This list does not e x p r essly cover all the C o n v e n t i o nrights and freedoms, b u t in practice any gaps are f illed by a liberal inter p r e t a t i o n of the rights and freedoms ex p r e s s l y protected.

A . 4 There are differences, e.g.:

E C H R 5(1) is d e c i d e d l y m o r e concrete than GG;

77

ECHR 5(5) does not require any "fault" as a precondition for compensation;

ECHR 6(1) is w i d e r than GG 19(4), which only protects against acts of public authorities;

ECHR 6(1), second sentence, has more occasions than GG for excluding the public from trials;

ECHR 10(1), second sentence, unlike GG 5(1), makes no exception for legislation;

ECHR 11 extends to all individuals: GG 8 and 9 extend only to German citizens;

the list of p rohibited grounds of discrimination in ECHR 14 is w ider than that in GG 3(3);

GG 13(3) has narrower exceptions for legislation than ECHR 8(2);In contrast to ECHR 14, GG 3(3) is not ancillary.

A . 5 The rights of assembly (GG 8) and association (GG 9(1))extend o n l y to German citizens. All others extend to all individuals, and there are yet others, not corresponding to any of the Convention rights or freedoms, which extend to German citizens.

A . 6 A c c o rding to GG 19(4), anyone whose rights are v i o lated by public authorities must have an enforceable legal remedy.

B.l No, but this is unnecessary since ECHR itself ranks as ordinary law.

B.2 Yes, and there is currently a movement towards g i ving ECHR the rank of constitutional law through the operation of GG 25.

C.l Normally by proceedings before the competent civil or a dministrative courts. A fter exhaustion of these, proceedings m a y be available before the Constitutional Court. Failing that, there is Strasbourg.

C .2 (a ) See C.1 above.(b) Likewise, but see also C.3(a) below.

C.3 (a) Since, for the moment, ECHR only has the rank ofordinary law, it m a y happen that a later ordinary lawoverrides ECHR as lex p o s t e r i o r . This has already o ccurred several times, though in the event these cases were resolved in favour of ECHR. This is a further argument for promoting ECHR to constitutional rank.

(b) This can happen if an applicant wins in Strasbourg w h e n he has lost before the domestic courts: that gives h i m no domestic legal remedy, and he m u s t rely on the good faith of the State to comply w i t h the Strasbourg judgement.

Fi nland

Finland is not a m e m b e r of the Council of Europe, nor a stateparty to ECHR. However, if it were at some time in the future toaccede to ECHR, the position w o u l d be as follows:

A.l E C H R w o u l d not have the rank of constitutional law.

A . 2 The C o nstitution A c t of Finland (= FC), dating from 1919,contains a list of protected rights and freedoms for i n d i v i d u a l s .

A . 3 This list does not expressly mention some things such astorture, habeas corpus, fair trial, or p u b l icity of p r o c e e d i n g s .

A . 4 The list is rather general in nature, and does not go into details.

A . 5 The w o r d i n g of FC only refers to Finnish citizens, but atthe level of ordinary legislation these rights are normally extended to all individuals.

A . 6 The FC Bill of Rights is basically regarded as a directiveto the legislator, and not to the judges a d m i nistering thelaw. In everyday legal practice, arguments advanced in a court are only seldom based directly on FC (and even more seldom on h uman rights l a w ) , but rather on ordinary legislation aiid "general principles" enshrined in the legal tradition. Constitutional rights are therefore m ostly implemented through the relevant provisions at the level of ordinary legislation.

B.l By and large, yes. Finland has ratified the UN Covenant onCivil and Political Rights (with certain reservations).The degree of conformity between Finnish domestic law and the ECHR depends on the interpretation given to such flexible norms as "promptly before the judge" or "trial w i t h i n a reasonable time". The greatest problems occur in the law concerning arrest and detention.

B.2 On the r a tification of a treaty, the relevant legislationtis carefully scrutinized, and necessary reforms are m a d e in order to establish conformity between the provisions of the treaty and those of domestic law. It is then possible to adopt the treaty either by a statutory decree or by an enactment of Parliament. If the latter procedure is applied, the provisions of the treaty are in fact te chnically incorporated into domestic legislation. This

79

is the prevailing legal opinion, but it has not yet been tested in practice. It is another question whether and to what extent the provisions of the treaty are in fact heeded and applied by the judges. The principle jura novit curia does not n e cessarily w o r k as it should. The treaties are not always m a d e sufficiently accessible to the judges. On the other hand, a certain degree of "judicial dynamism" is also discernible in Finland. There are those w h o fear that judges might become too adventurous in basing their arguments on human rights law instead of ordinary law.

C.l By regular legal remedies such as instituting civil or criminal proceedings, or lodging a complaint to the Chancellor of Justice (equivalent to an Attorney General), or the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Consumer Ombudsman or the Equality Ombudsman, etc.

In v i e w of the general nature of the Bill of Rights in FC, this situation is difficult to imagine in practice. Constitutional rights normally take effect through ordinary legislation.

If there is a discrepancy between ordinary law and the provisions of a human rights treaty, the latter having been incorporated into domestic law by Parliamentary enactment, the rule lex posterior deroqat legi priori will be applied.

The Finnish legal system provides the necessary means to establish any fact that m a y be of legal relevance and of sufficient legal interest for the individual suffering a violation of his or her rights.

The facts are normally established for the purpose of rendering the remedies available. In principle, they go hand in hand. However, the effectiveness of legal remedies is to some extent a political question, and there is always r o o m for improvement.

C.2 (a)I

>

- , (b)

C. 3 (a)

(b)

France

A.l E C H R does not have the rank of constitutional law.

A . 2 The French Constitution contains a list of protected rightsand freedoms for individuals.

A . 3 This list includes all the Convention rights and freedoms.

A . 4 There are no important differences between the rights andfreedoms protected b y ECHR and those protected by the Constitution.

A . 5 The Constitution gives these rights and freedoms to all individuals.

80

A . 6 The Consti t u t i o n requires all the rights and freedoms that it lists to be protected by law.

B.l O r d inary laws regulate the full exercise of all theConvention rights and freedoms.

B.2 ECHR does not itself form part of the ordinary law of F r a n c e .

C.l Proceedings before the Conseil d'Etat.

C.2 (a) Yes.(b) Yes.

C.3 Expulsion in the form of disguised extradition; telephone- tapping .

The Netherlands

A.l ECHR does not form part of the constitutional law of the Netherlands, but effectively enjoys a rank even above the C o nstitution itself (see B.2 below).

A . 2 Since its 1983 revision, the Netherlands Basic L a w (= BL) contains such a list.

A . 3 Not all the Convention rights and freedoms are included in the BL list. In particular:

BL does not expressly protect a right to life, but BL 114 prohibits capital punishment;

BL 11 guarantees the right to inviolability of the person, but there is no equivalent to ECHR 3;

There is no equivalent to ECHR 4;

BL 15 contains only some of the guarantees in ECHR 5;

BL 112(1) and 113(1) respectively confer exclusive jurisdiction on the judiciary in respect of disputes involving rights and debts under civil law, and criminal offences, but the rest of ECHR 6 is not expressly reflected in BL;

BL 10 protects privacy; BL 11 protects the right to inviolability of the person; BL 12 restricts entry into a home against the will of the occupant; BL 13 protects the p r i v a c y of correspondence, and of telephone and telegraph communications.; however, BL does not expressly protect t'he right to family life;

BL 99 provides for conscientious objection to m i l i t a r y service;

BL 7 is similar to ECHR 10, but does not guarantee the right to receive and impart information and ideas, nor does it extend to commercial advertising;

The right to m a r r y can be derived from paragraph 5 of Book I of the Civil Code, but is not expressly protected b y BL.

A . 4 E C H R was used as a model for the opening chapter of BL, and wh e r e the rights and freedoms correspond the definitions are very similar.

A . 5 Only eligibility for appointment to the public service, and to stand for and vote in elections for general representative bodies, are confined to Dutch nationals. There are provisions for alien residents to stand for, and vote, in elections for municipal councils.

A . 6 No.

B.l No.

B.2 By reason of BL 93, the Netherlands have a m onist system: international treaties are therefore directly applicable.By virtue of BL 94, they override conflicting domestic statutes. The Dutch courts consider ECHR 2 to 13 as selfexecuting; accordingly, they are binding in the Dutch legal order and prevail over domestic statutes - including BL itself - in case of conflict. (In effect, this seems to give ECHR a rank above the C o n s t i t u t i o n .)

C.l Not applicable.

C.2 (a) Normally, by proceedings before the competent civil,administrative, or criminal courts, or before some other competent public authority. However, BL 120 precludes the courts from determining that an Act of Parliament constitutes a violation of BL.

(b) As C.2(a), but in this case BL 120 would not apply.

C.3 In general, effective remedies are available for thev iolation of a n y Convention right or freedom, with few exceptions - e.g. where international law gives immunity from jurisdiction.

N o r w a y

A.l ECHR does not itself form part of constitutional law.

A . 2 In the Constitution (= NC, which originally dates from 11814) there are some protected rights and freedoms for i n d i v i d u a l s .

A . 3 The following are omitted: ECHR 2, 3 (in part), 4, 5 (inpart), 6 (in part), 8, 11, and 12 - as well as some of the

Articles of the Additional Protocols, not referred to in the questionnaire.

A . 4 There are important differences, for example:

Unlike E C H R 3, NC 96 does not extend to "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment";

The protec t i o n of liberty of the person in NC 99 extends o n l y to criminal procedure, and not to administrative d eprivation of liberty;

NC 100 absolu t e l y excludes prior censorship, and is therefore w i d e r than ECHR 10, but it is more limited as regards later sanctions against matter already published;

NC 97 goes further than ECHR 7 in p r ohibiting all retroactive legislation, and not only in criminal matters;

NC 105, w h i c h protects private property, expressly requires"full compensation", unlike Article 1 of the First Protocolto ECHR.

A . 5 Only the right to vote is confined to N o r w egian nationals; however, f r eedom of religion m a y extend only to domiciled p e r s o n s .

A . 6 No, N C is d i r ectly applicable by the courts.

B.l Not expressly, but there is a customary "principle oflegality" of constitutional rank w hich prohibits interference w i t h the individual unless authorised bystatute; there is also a principle of interpreting domesticlaw in h a r m o n y w i t h international obligations.

B.2 No: N o r w a y is a dualist country. However, the courts anda d m i nistrative organs increasingly take account of international norms in their application of domestic legal sources, and there are proposals for clarifying the position of ECHR in domestic law b y legislation.

C.l Recourse to the ordinary courts; administrative complaintto a higher authority; complaint to the Ombudsman, whosejurisdiction is only advisory.

C.2 (a) As C.l

(b) As C.l, to the extent that the court or otherauthority is w i lling to have recourse to ECHR as a m o d i f y i n g element for domestic law.

C.3 (a) It is conceivable that in matters affecting nationalsecurity no effective remedy establishing the fact of a v i o l ation m i g h t be available.

83

(b) In certain circumstances, the fact of a v i o l ation (asan international wrong) would justify the reopeningof a case, even though it was already res j u d i c a t a .

Sweden

A.l ECHR does not itself form part of Swedish constitutional law.

A . 2 The Swedish Constitution (= SC) contains a list ofprotected rights and freedoms for individuals.

A . 3 Yes, roughly.

A . 4 The formulations differ considerably, and SC II 12 allows restrictions and limitations by law to a substantially greater extent that ECHR.

A . 5 SC II 20 permits restrictions on the guaranteed rights of aliens over a wide range, including the freedoms of expression, information, assembly, association, religion; freedom from search and deprivation of liberty; publicity of court proceedings, etc.

B.l The rights and freedoms are provided by SC, but m a y be restricted by ordinary l a w s .

B.2 No: Sweden has a dualist system and has not incorporated ECHR into its domestic law.

C.1&2 Courts and administrative authorities apply ordinary domestic law, unless this is incompatible with SC. Only if there is u n certainty as to the interpretation of the ordinary law, the court m ight interpret it in accordance w i t h the State's international obligations. There are also four Ombudsmen w h o can censure public officials for behaviour incompatible w i t h the rights and freedoms of the individual, but they cannot revise the decisions of courts or other public authorities. A Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution annually examines government decisions from the point of v i e w of their constitutionality.

C.3 Failing any of these remedies, there is only Strasbourg.

Switzerland

A Swiss national section has not yet been formed, but the position of Switzerland was reported to be as follows:

A.l Switzerland is a m o nist country and, following theconsistent practice of the Federal Tribunal, ECHR is considered as self-executing. As a result, ECHR is in effect accorded constitutional rank.

A . 2 The Swiss Federal Constitution (= SFC) contains a list of prote c t e d rights and freedoms for individuals, which constitute the m i n i m u m standard throughout the Federation. In addition, the constitutions of the 26 Cantons all contain their own Bills of Rights. These are e s sentially the same as those in SFC, but some of t h e m go even further.

A . 3 Yes.

A . 4 There are differences of wording, but not of substance. Incase of doubt, the Swiss courts interpret SFC (and the Cantonal constitutions) so as to conform to ECHR.

A . 5 In general, to all persons.

A . 6 No, but there is a customary constitutional "principle of legality" requiring any limitation of a constitutional right or f r e e d o m to be authorised b y a specific legislative act, to be of preponderant public interest, and to respect the p r i n ciple of proportionality.

B.l Yes, at both Federal and Cantonal level. There are differences between the Cantons, but m i n i m u m standards are set b y Federal constitutional and ordinary law. ECHR inspires both the Federal and the Cantonal legislatures in their legislative programmes.

B.2 Effectively, ECHR is regarded as having constitutional rank: see A.l above.

C.1&2 Proceedings before the appropriate Cantonal or Federal courts, including an appeal to the Federal Tribunal e xercising its jurisdiction as a Constitutional Court.

C.3 The Constitutional Court has no power to control federallaw.

U nited K i n g d o m

A.1&2 No; the U K Constitution is unwritten, exists only at the level of ordinary law, and contains no explicit statement of any protected rights or freedoms for individuals.

B.l The U K has three different legal systems: one for England and Wales, one for Scotland, and one for N o r thern Ireland. Each of these is m a d e up partly of formal legislation, and pa r t l y of principles derived from past judicial decisions ("common law"). A part from the rights and freedoms protected b y A r t icle 8 of the Convention (privacy is not a concept familiar to the laws of the UK), the laws of each of these three jurisdictions protect the C onvention rights and freedoms in various ways, though not usually explicitly: m o s t of t h e m are protected by implication, simply b e c a u s e the law does not expressly restrict them. ("If there is no law against it, there is nothing to stop you from doing it.") Broadly speaking, the extent of the

85

protection is m u c h the same as the Convention provides, though on several occasions the European Court of Human Rights has found it inadequate.

B.2 No: the UK has a totally dualist system, and international treaties do not form part of its domestic law unless and until Parliament so legislates.

C.l By civil proceedings (e.g. an action for damages, or an application for judicial review) before the ordinary c o u r t s .

C.2 No.

C.3 (a) Whenever the violation does not constitute anunlawful act under domestic law.

(b) Since international law does not form part of UKdomestic law, the U K courts have no means of applying it and there is therefore no procedure w h ereby such a fact could be established, let alone a remedy be obtained, unless the violation was unlawful under ordinary domestic law.

May 1987

TOPIC THREE

T h e R o l e o f N o n - G o v e r n m e n t a l O r g a n i s a t i o n s in t h e

C o u n c i l o f E u r o p e

I n t r o d u c e d by

Mr, P. B o u l a y

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e F e d e r a t i o n In t e r n a t i o n a l e d e s D r o i t s d e

l 'H o m m e a t t h e C o u n c i l o f E u r o p e

C h a i r m a n

P r o f , R, L a h t i

P r e s i d e n t , F i n n i s h J u r i s t s f o r H u m a n R i g h t s

R a p p o r t e u r

M r s , L, L e v i n

D i r e c t o r / J u s t i c e (u k )

T O PIC T H R E E : Th e R o l e o f N o n - G o v e r n m e n t a l O r g a n i s a t i o n s in the

C o u n c i l of E u r o p e

This topic was introduced by Mr. P. Bonlay, Representative of

the Federation Internationale des Droits de 1 'Homme, at the

Council of Europe. His organisation is Paris based and had

30 affiliated organisations around the world. He broadly

outlined how NBOs could be active with the Council of Europe

and identified a three-pronged relationship to the workings

of the Council. This was linked to three key words -

"contract", "conflict" and "confluence".

Implicit in “contract." was that NGQs had a structured

relationship with the Council of Europe- They participated

in regular sectorial meetings and thus kept up to date on

developments in the field of human rights and were able to .

andexchange information v co-ordinate joint action such as

promoting new human rights instruments and urging governments

to ratify existing conventions. ,,ConfIict,‘ arose from time

to time mainly in connection with NSOs' demands for greater

consultation, and resentment at the slowness and obscurity of

the workings of bureaucracy. On the side of the Council,

there was often impatience with the activities of NBOs. But

there was no confrontation; on the contrary, this kind of

conflict allowed the airing and accommodation of grievances.

"Confluence" implied a common meeting place, which

facilitated institutionalised col 1aboration and joint planned

action. He urged all NGOs to attend sectoral meetings,

either in their own right, if they had consultative status

or, if they were national organisations, under the umbrella

of their international body. -

03

REPORT

S o m e d i s c u s s i o n -foil o w e d on; ■

(a > F a c t f i n d i n g a n d t h e r o l e of NGOs, and

(b) O b s e r v e r inisriicns, A s u g g e s t i o n w a s m a d e r e l a t i n g to

f o r m a i i si ng t h e s t a t u s of o b s e r v e r s :i. „ e?« f o r m a l

a c c r e d i t i s a t i o n t h r o u g h e s t a b l i s h i n g s o m e o f f i c i a l

r e c o g n i t i o n . It w a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e i n d e p e n d e n c e of an

o b s e r v e r m i s s i o n w a s i t s p r i m a r y s t r e n g t h , a n d t h e

c r e d i b i l i t y a n d p r e s t i g e of t h e m i s s i o n s t e m m e d f r o m that.

■Cc) T h e p o s s i b i 1 i t e s of b r i n g i n g s i t u a t i o n s p u r s u a n t t o s u c h

- F a c t - f i n d i n g m i s s i o n s t o t h e n o t i c e of t h e C o u n c i l of Europe,,

O n e of t h e w a y s in w h i c h t h i s c o u l d b e d o n e w a s t h r o u g h the

P a r 1 i a m e n t a r y A s s e m b l y b y l o b b y i n g of M e m b e r s . T h i s m i g h t

t h e n l e a d to a d i r e c t r e q u e s t or i n v i t a t i o n to N G O s for

i n f o r m a t i o n „ It w a s n o t e d t h a t N G O s w e r e v e r y i g n o r a n t of

t h e p o s s i b i i t i e s a n d w a y s in w h i c h t h e y c o u l d w o r k t h r o u g h

t h e C o u n c i l of E u r o p e , a n d t h e r e w a s c o n s i d e r a b l e n e e d to

e d u c a t e N G O s in t h i s r e s p e c t .

<d) T h e p o s s i b i l i t y of N G O s p e t i t i o n i n g on b e h a l f of

i n d i v i d u a l s u n d e r A r t i c l e 25 w a s d i s c u s s e d . T h i s p r e s e n t e d a

q u a n d a r y as t o w h e t h e r an N 8 0 w a s c o m p e t e n t t o d o s o a n d to

c a r r y it t h r o u g h . T h e ICJ c o u l d o n l y d o t h i s i n d i r e c t l y w h e n

a c a s e w a s b r o u g h t t o i t s n o t i c e t h r o u g h f i n d i n g k n o w n '

l a w y e r s in p a r t i c u l a r c o u n t r i e s to t a k e up s u c h c a s e s . T h e

S e c t i o n s w e r e i n d e p e n d e n t and c o u l d t h u s act in a n y w a y t h a t

t h e y f e l t c o m p e t e n t to do. T h e o n l y S e c t i o n w h i c h c u r r e n t l y

h a d t h e e x p e r t i s e a n d s t r u c t u r e to t a k e on a c a s e a n d s e e it

t h r o u g h w a s JUSTICE:. In r e s p o n s e to a r e q u e s t , P e t e r A s h m a n

g a v e a s h o r t r e s u m e of o n e of t h e c a s e s J U S T I C E h a d t a k e n up,

i.e. th a t of of R o b e r t -Weeks. H e w a s i7 y e a r s o l d at t h e

of his .t i m e -' c o n v i c t i o n f o r r o b b e r y . H i s s o c i a l w o r k e r ' s r e p o r t

i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e w a s i m m a t u r e a n d u n h e a l t h i l y i n t e r e s t e d in

guns,, H e w a s s e n t e n c e d t o l i f e i m p r i s o n m e n t . H i s s e n t e n c e

w a s u p h e l d on a p p e a l . JUSTICE: h a d s u b m i t t e d t h i s c a s e t o t h e

C o m m i s s i on w h o s u b s e q u e n t l y r e f e r r e d it t o t h e C o u r t , T h e

C o u r t f o u n d a v i o l a t i o n u n d e r A r t i c l e 5(4) in t h a t t h e r e w e r e

n o p r o p e r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w p r o c e d u r e s . P e t e r A s h m a n a p p e a r e d

-For t h e a p p l i c a n t in h i s c a p a c i t y as t h e L e g a l O f f i c e r of

J U S T I C E , and at n o t i m e w a s t h e r e a n y o b j e c t i o n r a i s e d .

I n d e e d t h e R e g i s t r a r 's r e p o r t f o r m a l l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e w a s

a p p e a r i n g in h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y w i t h t h e ■o r g a n i s a t i o n

concerned., R e f e r e n c e w a s m a d e to t h e g r a d u a l des'el op-rnent of

p r o c e d u r a l j u r i s p r u d e n c e , w h i c h w a s i d e n t i f i a b l e in

3 1 r a s b o u r■ g w h e r e b y

li) An i n d i v i d u a l w a s a b l e to s u e a s t a t e in an

i n t e r n a t i o n a l t r i b u n a l , e v e n t h o u g h t h e i n d i v i d u a l w a s n o t

f o r m a l l y p a r t of t h e proceedings.,

(i i ) T h e M a l o n e y c a s e o p e n e d t h e w a y for m e m o r i a l s front

i ndi vi dual s / o r g a n i sati o n s w h o h a d an i n t e r e s t in t h e case,,

T h i s w a s t h e f i r s t t h i r d - p a r t y m e m o r i a l a d m i t t e d and t h u s

t h e r e w a s a c r e e p i n g d y n a m i s m w i t h i n t h e o r g a n s of S t r a s b o u r g

long b e f o r e t h e n a t i o n a l c o u r t s w e r e p r e p a r e d to d o so,

preparedA w o r k i n g p a p e r on t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s s e s s i o n h a d beenV b y

A n d r e w D r z e m c z e w s k i , w h o i n t r o d u c e d t h e p a p e r and h i g h l i g h t e d

c e r t a i n a s p e c t s of it. .

W h i l s t a f o r m a l d e f i n i t i o n of an N G O w a s c i t e d , t h e r e

r e m a i n e d s o m e c o n t r o v e r s y a s to t h e r a n g e of a t t r i b u t e s w h i c h

q u a l i f y an o r g a n i s a t i o n to b e c a l l e d an NSQ„

The- i m p o r t a n c e of t h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n (' t h a n not

in f o r c e ) on 'The R e c o g n i t i o n of t h e Leg a l P e r s o n a l i t y of

I n t e r n a t i o n a i N o n G o v e r n m e n t a l O r g a n i s a t i o n s ' w a s s t r e s s e d .

T h i s e n d o w e d N G O s w i t h a legal l e g i t i m a c y a n d a l l o w e d for a

r o l e for N G O s w h e r e t h e s t a t e w a s not n e c e s s a r i l y a member-

s t a t e of t h e C o u n c i l of E u r o p e b u t w h i c h r e l a t e d t o C o u n c i l

of E u r o p e work. C o n s u l t a t i v e s t a t u s a l l o w e d for a d i r e c t

i n p u t by NGOs. T h i s w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t in t h e

d r a f t i n g o-f n e w i n s t r u m e n t s as w a s r e f l e c t e d in t h e d r a f t

91

Convert t i on for t h e P r e v e n t i o n of i o r t u r e , the f i r s t d r a f t of

w h i c h was; p r e p a r e d b y t h e ICJ and t h e S w i s s C o m m i t t e e a g a i n s t

T o r t u r e , at this r e q u e s t 0 + t h e L e g a l t-omrni t t e e u

T h e c o n s u l t a t i v e m e c h a n i s m w i t h t h e L o u n c 1 i o-f E u r o p e

a l l o w e d N G O s to b e i n f o r m e d of w h a t was. h a p p e n i n g w i t h i n t h e

C o u n c i l a n d a l s o t o c o n t r i b u t e t o w a r d s i t s work. N a t i o n a l

S e c t i o n s c o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e s e c t o r i a l m e e t i n g s u n d e r

t h e a e g i s a-f t h e p a r e n t b o d y (i.e. t h e ICJ, b y a r r a n g e m e n t )

a n d t h e o n l y l i m i t a t i o n w o u l d be t h e p h y s i c a l p r o b l e m o-f

accomiTiodati ng t h e n u m b e r s of p e o p l e .

. . . . . . . .. . . as . . . .The P a r 1 i a m e n t ar y M s s e m b I y c o u l d s e r v e an e f f e c t i v e m e a n s

t h r o u g h w h i c h N G O i n i t i a t i v e s c o u l d b e c h a n n e l l e d , e.g. t h e

d r a f t C o n v e n t i o n s on t h e r i g h t s of t h e c h i l d , a s y l u m e t c . ,

a n d N a t i o n a l S e c t i o n s w h o h a d an i n t e r e s t in s p e c i f i c t o p i c s

c o m i n g up w e r e i n v i t e d b y t h e S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of t h e ICJ to

t a k e up a n d p u r s u e t h e s e in a p p r o p r i a t e w a y s on b e h a l f o-f t h e

ICJ, a n d in c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e ICJ S e c r e t a r i a t .

Tiie q u e s t i o n a r o s e a s to w h a t e x t e n t t h e C o m m i s s i o n or t h e

C o u r t c o u l d t a k e N G O r e p o r t s i n t o a c c o u n t . T h e r e w e r e n o

p r o c e d u r a 1 p o i n t s w h i e h a .11 o w e d f o r t h i s i n r e s p e c t a -f t h e

C o m m i ssi o n , b u t t h e n e w r u l e o-f t h e -European C o u r t , Mo. 37

para." 2, all o w e d t h i r d p a r t y i n t e r v e n t i o n s at t h e d i s c r e t i o n

of t h e P r e s id e nt.

T h e m a t t e r of t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a p p l i c a t i o n s w a s r a i s e d , a n d

it w a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e e x p e r t i s e for t h i s v a r i e d

c o n s i d e r a b 1 y ,. a n d t h i s h a d i n d e e d b e e n i d e n t i f i e d as a

p o s s i b l e l a c u n a in t h e E u r o p e a n s y s t e m .

N G O s in t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e c o u n t r i e s w e r e u r g e d to s u p p o r t t h e

p r o v i s i o n of legal aid .being e x t e n d e d to t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o-f

c a s e s . It w o u l d a l s o b e h e l p f u l if d o m e s t i c legal a i d c o u l d

b e e x t e n d e d to c o v e r c a s e s b e i n g s u b m i t t e d u n d e r t h e

C o n v e n t i o n . • . ' .

Nia.II M a c D e r m o t c o n g r a t u l a t e d Pin d r e w D r z e m c z e w k i on h i s p a p e r

92

a n d e?:prs5sed t h e h o p e th a t t h i s m i g h t b e c o m e an o t i i c i a l

d o c u m e n t and b e w i d e l y c i r c u l a t e d . H e e l a b o r a t e d an s o m e of

t h e w a y s in w h i c h N S O s c o u l d h a v e an i n p u t i n t o t h e w o r k o-f

t h e C o u n c i 1 o-f E u r o p e a n d p o i n t e d to t h e f u n c t i o n o-f t h e

S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e on H u m a n R i g h t s on w h i c h t h e ICJ w a s n o w

an o f f i c i a l o b s e r v e r . T h i s w a s an i m p o r t a n t f o r u m in w h i c h

t h e d i r e c t i o n of a n e w i n s t r u m e n t a n d p o l i c y c o u l d be

i n f l u e n c e d as h a d b e e n s h o w n in r e s p e c t of t h e d r a f t

C o n v e n t i o n a g a i n s t T o r t u r e . T h e C o m m i t t e e w a s a b l e t o i n v i t e

N G O s f o r c o n s u l t a t i o n .

C o n c e r n was, h o w e v e r , e x p r e s s e d at t h e s e c r e c y w h i c h s h r o u d e d

t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e C o u n c i l of E u r o p e o r g a n s . T h i s c o m p a r e d

b a d l y w i t h t h e UN, w h e r e for e x a m p l e t h e p r o c e s s of d r a f t i n g

c o n v e n t i o n s w a s a p u b l i c p r o c e d u r e and o p e n to the p r e s s .

T h e q u e s t i o n w a s r a i s e d as t o w h a t p o s s i b i l i t i e s e x i s t e d to

m o n i t o r t h e r e p o r t i n g p r o c e d u r e of t h e C o u n c i l of E u r o p e .

D i d A r t i c l e 57 p r o v i d e a p o t e n t i a l m e c h a n i s m f o r d o i n g s o ?

F u r t h e r m o r e , h o w d i d it w o r k ? A n d r e w Drzernesewski r e s p o n d e d

a n d e x p l a i n e d t h e p r o c e d u r e s u n d e r t h i s A r t i c l e - He

r e c o g n i s e d t h e p r o b l e m of s e c r e c y a n d p a i d t r i b u t e to t h e

D i r e c t o r of t h e D i r e c t o r a t e of H u m a n R i g h t s f o r h i s

e n l i g h t e n e d a p p r o a c h w h i c h w a s e x t r e m e l y h e l p f u l . A r t i c l e 5 7

h a d b e e n i n v o k e d o n l y f o u r t i m e s a n d o n l y on t h e f i r s t

o c c a s i o n w e r e g e n e r a l r e v i e w s c a l l e d for b y t h e

S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l . In 1 9 6 4 t h e S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l a s k e d '

g o v e r n m e n t s to i n f o r m h i m h o w l e g i s l a t i o n , c o u r t s and

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r a c t i c e s e n s u r e d c o m p a t i b i I i t y of d o m e s t i c

l a w w i t h i n t e r n a t i o n a l o b l i g a t i o n s . On t h e s u b s e q u e n t

o c c a s i o n s t h e y w e r e a s k e d o n l y t o r e p o r t on s p e c i f i c i s s u e s

a n d t h e A r t i c l e s t o w h i c h t h e s e r e l a t e d . T h e

S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l e x e r c i s e s t h i s s u p e r v i s o r y f u n c t i o n in h i s

p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y and on h i s o w n b e h a l f . It is n o t e n t i r e l y

c l e a r b y w h a t f u r t h e r p r o c e d u r e s t h e s e r e p o r t s a r e d e a l t

93

wit h , a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e p u b l i s h e d . T h e l a s t r e q u e s t w a s in

1 9 8 3 on t h e i s s u e of y o u n g p e r s o n s and c h i l d r e n p l a c e d in t h e

c a r e of i n s t i t u t i o n s f o l l o w i n g a d e c i s i o n of t h e

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ' or j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s in r e s p e c t of t h e

i ( n p l e m e n t a t i o n of A r t i c l e s 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 arid 13. T h e

S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l h a s c u r r e n t l y i n v i t e d t h e C e n t r e t o r

S o c i o - L e g a 1 S t u d i e s to

 m a k e a c r i t i c a l e v a l u a t i o n .

The m a t t e r of h o w N B O s c o u l d m a k e an i n p u t i n t o t h i s still

r e m a i n e d . A r e c o r n m e n d a t i o n in r e s p e c t of t h i s w o u l d be

d i r e c t e d to t h e S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l (See R e c o m m e n d a t i o n 4),

T h e q u e s t i o n of h o w N G O s c o u l d b e c o m e a c q u a i n t e d w i t h v a r i o u s

p r o c e d u r e s a n d h a v e a c c e s s to p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n w a s r a i s e d ,

a n d it w a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t e a c h S e c t o r w i t h i n t h e C o u n c i l

h a d its o w n p r o c e d u r e s a n d r e g r e t t a b l y it w a s n e c e s s a r y , in

o r d e r t o h a v e a c c e s s t o i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t i n g to v a r i o u s a r e a s

of t h e C o u n c i l ' s wor k , to m a k e c o n t a c t at e a c h point-. T h e

p r o b l e m of h a v i n g an a p p r o p r i a t e i n f r a s t r u c t u r e for h u m a n

r i g h t s b o d i e s d e a l i n g .with c a s e s w a s r e c o g n i s e d a n d t h e

p a s s i b i 1 i t i e s f o r N G O s t o s e r v e as p a r t of a • h u m a n r i g h t s ;

i n f r a s t r u c t u r e w a s d i s c u s s e d . It w a s n o t e d t h a t t h e w h o l e

m a t t e r of -i n f o r m a t i o n flo w , g a t h e r i n g , a n d e x c h a n g e , w a s

b e i n g v a s t l y a d v a n c e d t h r o u g h t h e H u m a n R i g h t s D o c u m e n t a t i o n

C e n t r e , w h i c h w a s c u r r e n t l y c o m p u t e r ! s i ng i n f o r m a t i o n on Strasbourg

j u r i s p r u d e n c e , n a t i o n a l l e g i s l a t i o n , o m b u d s m e n etc. R e g u l a r

m e e t i n g s w i t h n a t i o n a l c o r r e s p o n d a n t s w e r e h e l d w h i c h

f a c i l i t a t e d t h e c o m p i l a t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of p u b l i c

i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , a n d t h u s w o r k e d t o w a r d s

e n s u r i n g t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e w o r k of h u m a n r i g h t s •

a g e n e i e s .

T h e r e l a t i v e i g n o r a n c e a n d l a c k of e x p e r t i s e of N G O s w a s

9 5 / o

Lincier i i n fid b y t h e r e f e r e n c e in tfie W o r k i n g P a p e r to t h e '

p o s s i b i l i t i e s u n d e r t h e E u r o p e a n S o c i a l C h a r t e r w h i c h

a l l o w e d tor c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h N G G s on i s s u e s of s o c i a l

w e l f a r e arid e c o n o m i c and s o c i a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e -family but

w h i c h h a d n e v e r y e t b e e n used,, N G O s s h o u l d e d u c a t e

t h e m s e l v e s on t h e s e m e a s u r e s a n d , b y l o b b y i n g for i n v i t a t i o n s

t h r o u g h t h e P a r 1 i a m e n t a r y A s s e m b l y , d e v e l o p p r e c e d e n t s and

p r o c e d u r e s tor e l i c i t i n g i n v i t a t i o n s to be c o n s u l t e d b y t h e

v a r i o u s b o d i e s and s e c t o r s of t h e C o u n c i l of E u r o p e .

96

Tj

97

T o p ic Three: The Role of N o n - G o v e r n m e n t a l O r g a n i s a t i o n s in

the C o u n c i l o f Eu r o p e

T o the P r e s i d e n t of t h e P a r l i a m e n t a r y Ass e m b 1y


J u r i s t s (ICJ) r e p r e s e n t e d at the C o n f e r e n c e in S t r a s b o u r g from 2 2

to 24 A p r i l 1987 r e s p e c t f u l l y r e q u e s t the P r e s i d e n t of the

P a r l i a m e n t a r y A s s e m b l y of the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e to a r r a n g e for

oral h e a r i n g s , w i t h the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of NGOs, to c o n s i d e r the

r e p o r t s on the r e p l i e s of g o v e r n m e n t s to the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l 1s*

e n q u i r i e s u n d e r A r t i c l e 57 .

In p a r t i c u l a r , s u c h h e a r i n g s s h o u l d be h e l d on the r e p o r t

c u r r e n t l y p e n d i n g b e f o r e the A s s e m b l y on the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of

the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on H u m a n Ri g h t s in r e s p e c t o f y o u n g

p e r s o n s and c h i l d r e n p l a c e d in ca re or in i n s t i t u t i o n s f o l l o w i n g

a d e c i s i o n of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e or j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t i e s .

■ T o the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e ral o f t h e C o u n cil o f E u r o p e

The E u r o p e a n n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n o f


to 24 A p r i l 1987 r e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t the f o l l o w i n g r e s o l u t i o n for

the a t t e n t i o n of the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e

Th i s m e e t i n g :

1. h o p e s that the p a p e r on "The Role of NGOs on H u m a n R i g h t s

M a t t e r s in the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e " p r e p a r e d by A n d r e w D r z e m c z e w s k i

will b e c o m e an o f f i c i a l d o c u m e n t and be wid el y c i r c u l a t e d ;

"On r e c e i p t o f a r e q u e s t f r o m the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e any H i g h C o n t r a c t i n g P a r t y s ha ll f u r n i s h an e x p l a n a t i o n o f the m a n n e r in w h i c h its i n t e r n a l l a w

e n s u r e s the e f f e c t i v e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f any of the p r o v i s i o n s o f this C o n v e n t i o n s

■2. e x p r e s s e s its c o n c e r n at the s e c r e c y s h r o u d i n g the o p e r a t i o n

o f C o u n c i l of E u r o p e or g a n s , w h i c h s e r v e s to r e s t r i c t t h e

c o n t r i b u t i o n t h a t c o u l d be ma d e by NGOs to th e w o r k of th e

C o u n c i l . This is p a r t i c u l a r l y d i s t u r b i n g wh e n c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e

p u b l i c p r o c e d u r e s f o l l o w e d at the UN, in w h i c h NG Os are able to

p a r t i c i p a t e fully'

3. r e c o g n i s e s and w e l c o m e s the i m p o r t a n c e of the w o r k of the

H u m a n R i g h t s D o c u m e n t a t i o n C e n t r e o f the D i r e c t o r a t e of H u m a n

R i g h t s in c r e a t i n g g r e a t e r a w a r e n e s s for the p r o m o t i o n an d

p r o t e c t i o n of h u m a n ri g h t s ; n o te s w i t h deep c o n c e r n the p r e s e n t

s h o r t a g e of c o m p e t e n t s t a f f to c a r r y out this work; and u r g e s

t h a t a d e q u a t e r e s o u r c e s be made a v a i l a b l e wi t h the u t m o s t u r g e n c y

to a v o i d any d i s r u p t i o n of this f a c i l i t y ;

4. r e c o g n i s e s the v a l u e of m o n i t o r i n g and p r o m o t i n g c o m p l i a n c e

w i t h t h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on H u m a n Ri g h ts by m e a n s a d d i t i o n a l

to i n d i v i d u a l and i n t e r - s t a t e a p p l i c a t i o n s , n ot es the s t a t e m e n t

of th e S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l of the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e on A r t i c l e 57

of th e C o n v e n t i o n m a d e b e f o r e the Le gal C o m m i t t e e of the*

C o n s u l t a t i v e A s s e m b l y in Os l o on 29 A u g u s t 1964 and

(a) e x p r e s s e s the hope that the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l will, u n d e r

A r t i c l e 57,

(i) u n d e r t a k e r e g u l a r p e r i o d i c r e v i e w s o f the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n

o f the s u b s t a n t i v e a r t i c l e s of the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on

H u m a n R i g h t s in the i n t e r n a l law of S t a t e s P a r t ie s;

(ii) c o n t i n u e his p r a c t i c e o f m a k i n g r e q u e s t s in r e l a t i o n

to s p e c i f i c are as ; an<i

(i ii) take a c c o u n t in the e x e r c i s e of thi s p o w e r of s p e c i f i c

s u g g e s t i o n s by NGOs.

In c o n s i d e r i n g (a)(i), it is n o t e d th at m o s t m e m b e r S t a t e s

o f the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e c o m p i l e c o u n t r y r e p o r t s u n d e r

A r t i c l e 40 of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o v e n a n t on C i v i l a nd

98

s e e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on H u m a n Right s: C o l l e c t e d T e x t s .M a r t i n u s N i j h o f f P u b l i s h e r s ; L a n c a s t e r / D o r d r e c h t / B o s t o n ;19 8 .7 .

99 'P o l i t i c a l Ri gh ts (ICCPR) w h i c h c o n t a i n s a r t i c l e s s i m i l a r to

m o s t of the C o n v e n t i o n a r t i c l e s . S u c h re p o r t s c o u l d be

a d a p t e d to the C o n v e n t i o n t h e r e b y a v o i d i n g an u n r e a s o n a b l e

b u r d e n up on g o v e r n m e n t s .

(b) e x p r e s s e s the hope that the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l will ma k e

p u b l i c any r e q u e s t s he m ak es u n de r A r t i c l e 57 at the time he

doe s s o .

(c) e x p r e s s e s the ho p e tha t the S e c r e t a r y - G e n e r a l will ma ke

a v a i l a b l e c o p i e s of all r e p o r t s f u r n i s h e d by St a t e s P a r t i e s

u n d e r A r t i c l e 57 wh e n r e c e i v e d by him, and th at he will

inv ite wide d i s c u s s i o n of t he se re po r ts , in p a r t i c u l a r a m o n g

NG O s h a v i n g e x p e r t i s e in t h es e areas.

T o N G O s

Th e E u r o p e a n n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n of


to 24 A p r i l 1987:

1 . u r g e i n t e r n a t i o n a l NGOs w h i c h h a v e not a l r e a d y d o n e so to

s e e k c o n s u l t a t i v e s t a t u s w i t h the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e an d to

endeavour, to p a r t i c i p a t e in its s e c t o r i a l m e e t i n g s ;

2. u r g e n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s to a c q u a i n t t h e m s e l v e s w i t h the

p r o v i s i o n s o f the E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n on the R e c o g n i t i o n of the

L e g a l P e r s o n a l i t y of I n t e r n a t i o n a l NGO s (24 Ap ril 1986) and

e n c o u r a g e t h e i r g o v e r n m e n t s to r a t i f y it, if they have n o t ye t

d o n e s o ;

3. e n c o u r a g e and i nv i t e n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s to s u b m i t to the ICJ

a m e m o r a n d u m on the f a c i l i t i e s for legal aid e x i s t i n g in t h e i r

c o u n t r y for the p r e p a r a t i o n of c a s es to be s u b m i t t e d to the

E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n ;

4. ur ge n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s who have an i n t e r e s t in t o p i c s c o m i n g

up w i t h i n the C o u n c i l of E u r o p e to p u r s u e these, in a p p r o p r i a t e

ways, on b e h a l f o f the ICJ in c o n s u l t a t i o n w it h the ICJ

S e c r e t a r i a t .

* Council of E u r o p e E u r o p e a n T r e a t y Se rie s No. ISBN

9 2 - 8 7 1 - 0 8 6 9 - 2 ; May 1986.

100

MPPPPP

101

WORKING PAPER

' FOR

TOPIC THREE:

T h e R o l e o f N o n -G o v e r n m e n t a l O r g a n i s a t i o n s

in t h e C o u n c i l o f E u r o p e

WORKING PAPER

The role of NGOs on h u m a n rights matters in the Council of E urope

by A n d r e w DRZEMCZEWSKI a

I. Introduction .

A w o r k i n g d efinition of NGOs can be found in the H e i d e l b e r g M a x P l a n c k Institute's E n c y c l o p e d i a of Public International L a w : "Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are private organizations (associations, federations, unions, institutes, groups) not e s t a b l i s h e d b y a government or b y intergovernmental agreement w h i c h are capable of p l a y i n g a role in international affairs b y virtue of their activities, and whose members e n j o y independent v oting rights. The m e mbers of an NGO may b e individuals (private citizens) or b o d i e s corporate. Where the organization's member s h i p or a c t ivity is limited to a specific state, one speaks of a national NGO and where they go beyond, of an international NGO". (per H. H.-K. Rechenberg, vol.9, 1986, p. 276). F o r the purposes of this paper, discus s i o n will centre on the latter category even t h o u g h some controversy remains as to w h e t h e r an NGO has to be international, permanent and n o n -prof it-making.

I I . NGOs and International L a w

T h e w o r k of NGOs was first expressly acknowledged on the international legal plane in A r t i c l e 71 of the U.N. Charter in 1945. (Article 25 of the Covenant of the L e a g u e of Nations referred solely to the national R e d Cross organisations, despite the abortive a t t e m p t of the Council of the League to incorporate all NGOs in this article in 1921-1923.) A r ticle 71 of the U.N. Charter provides that "The E c o n o m i c a n d Social Council m a y make suitable arrangements for c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h n on-governmental organizations w h i c h are concerned w i t h m a tters w i t h i n its competence". Indeed, without A r t i c l e 71, it w o u l d h a v e been.p o s s i b l e to argue that contact b e tween the U.N. S e c r e t a r i a t and institutions other than governmental representations m ight have v i o lated A r t i c l e 2 (7) of the Charter w h i c h prohibits in t e r v e n t i o n "in m a tters w h i c h are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State".

* D i r e c t o r a t e of Huftran Rights, C o uncil of Europe. A n y views in this p a p e r are those of the a uthor expre s s e d in his personal capacity.

104

A number of efforts h a v e been made to provide NGOs w i t h a legal status in international law. Of special note are the efforts of the Union of International Associations (Draft Convention of 1959 submitted to UNESCO) and of the International L a w Institute (sessions of 1910 in Paris, 1911 in Madrid,. 1923 in Brussels and 1950 in Bath), as well as certain types of ad-hoc "accomodations" (e.g., foreign private law persons participation in international arbitral proceedings : R a d i o Corporation of American case (U.S., China)U.N. Rep., vol. Ill, p. 1623 (1935) ; close links between the ILO and NGOs, and the PCIJ's expansive interpretation of Article 66 of its Rules). However, despite their b e i n g g r anted consultative or observer status b y intergovernmental organisations (see, e.g., U.N. EC0S0C Resolution 1296 (XLIV) of 23 May 1968 a n d article by A. Cassese “H o w could NGOs use U.N. bodies more effectively ?" in vol. I Universal H uman Rights (1979), p. 73), NGOs remain legally subordinated to the control of States w i t h the resultant disadvantages this m a y entail, such as the p o s s i b i l i t y of financial paralysis or personnel difficulties consequent to the imposition of rigorous exchange controls or restrictions relating to the employment of foreign nationals (a subject further discussed b y J.J. Landor-Lederer in International G r o u p Protection (1968), at pp. 410-412).

It is therefore of considerable importance to note the existence of the E u r opean C onvention on the Recognition of the Legal P e r s o n a l i t y of International Non-Governmental Organisations w h i c h is aimed at f a c i l i t a t i n g the activities of NGOs at the international level. A r ticle 1 of this Convention provides the conditions w h i c h international NGOs (associations, foundations or other private institutions) must satisfy in order to qualify for the advantages conferred therein. NGOs must (a) have a non-profit-making aim of international u t ility (thereby d i s t i n g u i s h i n g them from most commercial companies and national political parties) ; (b) have b e e n established by an instrument gover n e d b y the internal law of a Party (which means that organisations and institutions set up b y treaties or other instruments g o v erned b y public international law are excluded) ;(c) carry on their activities w i t h effect in at least two States (whether or not these be member States of the Council of Europe) ; and(d) have their statutory office in the territory of a Party a n d the central manage m e n t a n d control in that P a r t y or in another Party (thereby m a k i n g it.possible to avoid a n y b r e a k in continuity in an N G O 's p e r s o n a l i t y w h e n its seat changes if a n e w secretary general or president resides in another country). W h e n these conditions are fulfilled the legal personality and capacity acquired b y an NGO, h a v i n g its statutory office in a contra c t i n g State, ensures that the said N G O is r ecognised as of right in another contracting State, w h e ther or not the latter is a member State of the Council of E urope (see A r t icles 2 (1) and 7). This Convention, opened for signature on 24 April 1986, will come into force three months after the date on w h i c h three member States of the Council of Europe have expressed their consent to be b o u n d b y it. To date it has been signed but not as yet ratified by Austria, Belgium, Greece, Portugal, Switzerland and the U.K.

pun

105

For further discussion on this and related topics see M. Bettati and P.-M Dupuy (editors). Les O.N.G. et le Droit International (1986, Economica), esp. p. 104 and the texts reproduced at pp. 272-291. See also recent E u r opean Parliament "Resolution on non-profit making associations in the European Communities" (doc. A2-196/86).

III. NGOs and the Council of Europe

The Council of Europe, whose Statute was signed in L ondon on5 M a y 1949, is an intergovernmental organisation w i t h a membership of 21 European democratic States. The aims of the Organisation are to w o r k for greater European unity, to uphold the principles of p a r liamentary democracy and human rights, and to improve living conditions a n d promote human values. A r ticle 3 of the Statute declares that each member State must recognise the principle of the rule of law and g u a r antee all persons within its jurisdiction the enjoyment of h um an rights and fundamental freedoms. A s early as 1951,in recognition of the importance of NGOs and their contribution to the activities of the Organisation, a resolution was a d o p t e d b y the Committee of Ministers, the executive organ of the Organisation, providing for consultation w i t h NGOs on matters w ithin the competence of the Council of Europe. This was followed b y guidelines for granting consultative status to a group of NGOs in 1954 (inspired principally by the regime set up by E C 0 S C 0 C in the U . N . ), and the subsequent adoption of rules relating thereto in 1960 w h i c h were m o d i f i e d and up-dated b y the Committee of Ministers in 1972. At present, R esolution (72) 35 of the Committee of Ministers - w h i c h is reproduced in Appen d i x I - contains rules on the Council of Europe's relations w i t h NGOs, irrespective of whether they enjoy consultative status or not (some NGOs do not desire consultative status: see Report of R. v a n Schendel in a colloquy organised under the auspices of the P a r l i a m e n t a r y Assembly on “The Role of International NGOs in Contemporary S o c i e t y " , Strasbourg, 23-24 F e b r u a r y 1983, doc. Coll/ONG (83) 6). At present some 300 NGOs have b ee n,g r a n t e d consultative status and m a n y others participate in diverse activities conducted by the Organisation.

a) Consultative status

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Resolution (72) 35 stipulate that the Council of Europe "may establish w o r k i n g relations" w i t h NGOs “by g r a n t i n g them consultative status". "For this purpose the Council of Europe shall d r a w up a list" of NGOs "particularly representative in the field of their competence." Whereas NGOs have a number of duties (para. 3), this Resolution provides that (para. 4) committees of the Consultative A s s e m b l y and committees of experts may "consult" NGOs on “questions of mutual interest" and that the latter “may submit memoranda to the Secretary General who, if he sees fit, shall transmit them to a committee of the Consultative A s s e m b l y or a committee of governmental experts", (para 5). It is of interest to note, by w a y of illustration, that the Draft European Conven t i o n for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (presently p e nding b e f o r e the Committee of Ministers for formal adoption) is

largely based on a report (Doc. 5099) drawn up on behalf of the A s s e m b l y ' 3 Legal Affairs Committee by Mr Berrier and a d opted on 30 June 1983. This report contained a draft of the Convention elaborated by the International Commi s s i o n of Jurists and the Swiss Committee against Torture at the request of the Rapporteur.

Consultation may take the form of an "oral hearing" (see (c) below) or be in w r i t i n g (para 5).

NGOs p o s s e s s i n g consultative status have a Liaison Committee w h i c h is designed to facilitate relations w i t h the Council of Europe, through the latter's External Relations Division in the Directorate of Political Affairs. More specifically, as the number of NGOs p ermanently and d i r e c t l y involved or interested in h uman rights questions is relatively limited, "sectorial" meetings are regularly o rganised b y the D i rectorate of Human Rights for NGOs w h i c h possess consultative status w i t h the Council of Europe and are specifically interested in h u m a n rights questions. These usually take place d u r i n g sessions of the P a r l i a m e n t a r y (Consultative) Assembly. T o date 56 h a v e b e e n held.

b) Observer 3tatus

P a r a g r a p h 5 of the Committee of Ministers R e s o l u t i o n (76) 3 on committee structures, terms of reference and w o r k i n g methods enables non-member states of the Council of Europe, intergovernmental and n o n-governmental international organisations to obtain observer status. The p r o c edure is rather complicated : see A p p e n d i x II.A r t i c l e 9 of the Rules of Procedure for Council of E u r o p e committees, A p p e n d i x 2 to R e s o l u t i o n (76) 3, reads :

"Article 9 - Observers

a. A n observer shall have no right to vote.

b. W i t h the Chairman's permission, an observer m a y make oralor w r i t t e n statements on the subjects under discussion.

c. Proposals made b y observers may be put to the vote ifsponsored b y a committee member".

In a d d i t i o n A r ticle 5 of these Rules (Secrecy of m e e t i n g s ) stipulates "Committee meetings shall be h e l d in private", and A r t i c l e6 (Communications to the p r e s s ) reads : "By unanimous and express agreement of the Committee, the Chairman, or the S e c r etary General on his behalf, may make suitable communications to the press on the w o r k of the committee."

To date, the f o l l o w i n g have been admitted as observers to the Steer i n g for H u m a n Rights (CDDH) :

- Canada, as o f 1987 ;

107

- The Holy See (including committees answerable to the CDDH) ;

- The Commission of the European Communities (including committees answerable to the-CDDH) ;

- two NGOs, n a m e l y A m n e s t y International, as of 1982,and the International Commission of Jurists, as of 1985, b o t h w i t h respect to specific activities and/or agenda items of the CDDH, determined b y the CDDH in each instance.

- Canada and UNESCO also have observers status w i t h the Committee of Experts for the Promotion of Education and Information in the Field of H u m a n Rights, a committee w h i c h is answerable to the CDDH.

It can be added that b o t h NGOs m e n t ioned h e l d consultative w i t h the Council of Europe prior to their admission as observers b y the Committee of Ministers - through this is certainly not a prerequisite for observer status, - and that the International Commission of Jurists received: the first Council of Europe Human Rights Prize awarded b y the Committee of Ministers in 1980, and A m n e s t y International's Medical Section the second H uman Rights Prize in 1983.

In a “m e s s a g e“ from the Committee of Ministers to steering committees and ad hoc committees of experts b a c k in 1982 on the admission of observers to intergovernmental committees of experts, it was indicated that account had to be taken of two essential criteria : the presence of the observers should be in the interest of the committee a n d that their presence should not h inder its work. Needless to add, in w e i g h i n g these two criteria account must be taken of the actual number of observers that can be permitted to participate in the committee's w o r k and the applicants specific expertise. .

c) Hearings

Observer status is not the only w a y in w h i c h "outsiders" areable to get involved in committee w o r k w i t h i n the Organisation. Whenterms of reference of committees are drawn-up, use is sometimes made of "oral hearings" a formula which permits these committees to b e n e f i t from expertise or opinions of other organisations, NGOs or spe cifically qualified individuals. This forms of consultation does not require the application of the procedure laid down in paragraph 5 of R e s o l u t i o n (76) 3.

IV. Miscellaneous activities and collaboration in the humanrights field

a) General remarks

It is impossible to enumerate all the activities of NGOs and their c o ntribution made to the Council of Europe. For example, A m n e s t y International has cooperated w i t h the Parliamentary Assembly and its

108

committees on such matters as the declaration on the police, the recognition of the right of conscientious objectors to refuse m i l i t a r y service, and the abolition of the d e a t h penalty (see also Parliamentary A s s e m b l y R esolution 754 (1981) calling for closer cooperation.between NGOs and Council of Europe organs). Likewise consultancy w o r k has b e e n carried out b y the S trasbourg based International Institute of Human Rights relating to the competence of the European Court of Human Rights to give p r eliminary rulings at the request of a national Court (doc. DH/Exp. (76) 23 of 22 December 1976; see further C o m m ittee of Ministers Resolution (76) 4 on consultants).

G e n e r a l l y speaking, the role of "human rights" NGOs is to promote knowledge and identify problems in the protection and enjoyment of h u m a n rights a n d seek changes in practice a n d legal norms that further their protec t i o n and enjoyment. Here, the role of numerous N G O s a n d their active participation in w o r k carried out under the auspices of the Council of Europe - be it w i t h respect to migrant workers, refugees, a s y l u m seekers, data protection, equal i t y of sexes, prisoners rights, children's rights or other subjects - is perhaps not as w e l l - k n o w n as it ought to be. NGOs have circulated and prepared discus s i o n papers and documents, m o b i lized public opinion, organised colloquies, seminars and conferences on human rights issues. They have, w i t h or m o r e often without financial assistance, prepared studies and reports, made investigations and conducted detailed r e s e a r c h a n d above all positively contributed to the elaboration of legal instruments d i r e c t l y linked w i t h the Organisation's Programmes of A ctivities (e.g., E u r opean Agreement on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, 1977, a n d European Agreement on the Instruction and E d u c ation of Nurses, 1967).

For more information consult H. Golsong's article "Les ONG et le Conseil de 1'Europe" in Les organisations non-crouvernementales en Suisse (1973, Etudes et T r a v a u x de 1'Institut Universitaire de H a u t e s E tudes Internationales, Geneva), p. 93, and the Council of Europ e ' s H u m a n Rights Information S h e e t s , p a s s i m .

The above o v e r v i e w is but one aspect of the diverse w o r k NGOs p u r s u e : see D. Weissbrodt "The Contribution of International NGOs to the P r o t e c t i o n of H u m a n Rights" in Human Rights in International Law. Legal and P o l i c y I s s u e s , vol. II. (T. Meron, editor, 1984,O xford U.P.), pp. 403-438.

b) E x c h a n g e of information

Information has an important preventive and educative function: awareness of h u m a n rights case-law b efore the Strasbourg institutions as well as d o m estic case-law may prevent (recurrent) violations of h u m a n rights. T h e H u m a n Rights Docum e n t a t i o n Centre of the Directorate of H u m a n R i ghts ( H R D C ) , set up in 1982, has a specific mandate in this respect ; its w o r k is of importance to NGOs for two reasons. When fully operat i o n a l the HRDC will offer computerised d o c umentation facilities on h u m a n rights c a s e - l a w of the Strasbourg institutions and p o s s i b l y that of national courts, and it already n o w centralises and

processes documentation, information and research services, offers library facilities, liaises ad co-ordinates its w o r k w i t h other specialist centres and institutions. Secondly, the HRDC is the convenor a n d provides secretarial assistance to the European Coordinating Committee of HURIDOCS, (Human Rights Information & Documentation System) a branch of a universal network of NGOs, institutes, academics, and activists. T w o such meetings are convened per annum in Strasb o u r g thereby e n s uring that the w o r k of human rights agencies develops, and that public information about their activities is p r o p e r l y compiled, classified and disseminated. For further information concerning this latter activity consultB. Stormorken's HURIDOCS Standard Formats for the Recording- and Eyrhanae of Information on Human Rigrhts (1985, Martinus Nijhoff).

c) C o n t r i b u t i o n to international h uman ricrhts procedures

T h e contribution of NGOs to international human rights procedures, in particular developments under the European Convention on Human R i g h t s is increasing steadily. Likewise, the indirect lobbying/impact and potential influence of NGOs' w o r k in the legal field as e x emplified b y their w o r k w i t h respect to the 1981 Convention for the P r o t e c t i o n of Individuals w i t h regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, in force since 1985, should not be underestimated. This b e i n g said, it is disappointing to observe that although under Article 27 (2) of the 1961 European Social Charter (in force since 1965) the Sub-committee of the Governmental Social Committee may consult representatives of NGOs h a v i n g consultative status w i t h the Council of E urope on issues of social w e l fare and the economic and social p r o t e c t i o n of the family, this has in fact never yet been d o n e .

W i t h the exception of Cyprus and Malta, all member States of the Council of Europe have accepted the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights w h i c h provides that the Europ e a n Commission of Human Rights "may receive petitions ... from a n y person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the v i c t i m of a violation". A l t h o u g h f e w NGOs claim to be victims of violations of the Convention (see vol. 4 Digest of S t r a s b o u r g Case-Law relating- to the European Convention on Human Rights (1985, Carl Heymanns, p. 355), they do of course in practice often- play a vital role in h e l p i n g applicants prepare submissions and occasionally represent them in Strasbourg proceedings.C.f. their more 'active' a n d direct participation in other _international h u m a n rights fora (see H. Hannum, editor. Guide to International H u m a n Rights Practice (1984, Macmillan Press, p a s s i m ) . NGOs may, in addition, be h e a r d as witnesses or experts and their documents can be examined by the Commission and the Court both in inter-State cases as well as in applications brought under Article 25s see, eg, The Greek Case 1969, Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights (1972, Martinus Nijhoff), atpp 146 a n d 501, a n d Rules 40, 41 and 43 of the Court's Revised Rules. Whether or not "judicial notice" can be taken of facts and information made available b y an NGO w h i c h has resort to sources of virtually indisputable a c c u r a c y and accessibility and brought to the attention of members of the Commission or Court is more difficult to a n s w e r .

110 r

Rule 37 (2) of the Revised Rules of the European Court of Human Rights, a d o pted on 24 November 1982, allows the Court's President, "in the interests of the proper administration of justice" to invite or grant leave "to any person concerned other than the applicant". (The F r e n c h texts reads; "toute personne i n t 6 r e s s 6 e " ).The first successful intervention of a "third party" (amicus c u r i a e ) under this Rule was made by the Post Office E n g i n e e r i n g Union at the instigation and w i t h the help of two NGOs, namely J U S T I C E and INTERIGHTS, in the Malone case (Judgment of 2 August 1984).Since then successful NGO "third party" interventions have been made by M I N D (National Associ a t i o n for the Mental Health) in the Ashinadale case (Judgement of 28 May 1985), INTERIGHTS (on behalf of the International Press Institute) in the Lincrens case (Judgment of 8 July 1986), and JUSTICE in Monnell and Morris (Judgment of 2 M a r c h 1987). For further discussion of this important development see A. Lester “Third Parties before the E u r o p e a n Court of H uman Rights" in M e l anges E.J. Wiarda (F. Matscher and H. Petzold, editors, to be p u b l i s h e d in 1987, Carl Heymanns). C f : C. Moyer "The Role of A m i c u s C uriae in the Inter-American Court of H uman Rights" in La Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos (Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, Costa Rica, 1986), pp 103-114.

The texts of the European Convention on Human Rights a n d its Protocols, d e c l a r a t i o n s a n d reservations made thereunder, the rules of procedure of b o t h the European Court and Commission, etc, can be found in Collected T e x t s , European Convention on Human Rights (Bilingual, 1987, Martinus Nijhoff).

V. C o n c l u d i n g remarks

What are the principal factors w h i c h account for the successful p a r t i c i p a t i o n of NGOs in the Council of E u rope? D e spite NGOs inadequate a n d more often than not precarious financial situations, one can detect an intense personal commitment and h i g h l y specialist knowledge in certain subjects w hich civil servants (whether international or national) often just do not possess. This commitment and knowledge can be invaluable w h e n personal contacts are establ i s h e d and interest a r o u s e d in a given sector of intergovernmental activity. Also, unlike State r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , NGOs are not hindered b y restrictions w h i c h prevent the former from speaking out on specific or delicate h u m a n rights issues. Moreover, and paradoxically, the lack of a structured or hierarchical bureaucracy often permits NGOs to react rapidly a n d w i t h flexibility in the face of n e w developments. T h e y can raise f r e s h issues and lobby for n e w ideas. M a n y NGOs have established t hemselves as b e i n g trustworthy and well-i n f o r m e d a n d are often able to p e r suade a sympathetic Government or policital institution such as the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly, to take initiatives. Indeed, when doing so, they have a potential in influencing international normative activity: they can carry out research, submit specific proposals and drafts in the elabor a t i o n of international h u m a n rights instruments.

Ill

And what about the role of NGOs as observers in the human rights sector of Council of Europe activities? As noted by Peter Willetts in his remarkable study on "The Impact of Promotional Pressure Groups on Global Politics" (in Pressure Groups in the Global S y s t e m , 1982, Frances Pinter, London, chapter 10 at p. 182), "pressure groups" often mistakenly emphasise their efforts b y trying to influence decisions in national capitals rather than focussing pressure on and keeping abreast of work within international governmental organisations: "Such an argument rests heavily on the fact that governmental delegates are supposed to be obeying instructions from their home foreign ministries. In practice instructions are not necessarily very detailed; it is the delegates w ho themselves have to decide whether to ask for further instructions as the debate progresses; and the instructions may be re-interpreted or even on occasions disobeyed". In such instances, the role of the well-informed NGO observer at a given meeting may be of crucial importance.

Insofar as the Council of Europe is concerned, it would appear that improved reciprocal information and exchange of ideas appears a sine crua non for collaboration in the field of human rights. In this context it is w o r t h n o t i n g that back in 1984 the Committee of experts for the Promotion of Education and Information in the Field of H uman Rights d r e w attention to the restricted character of Council of Europe documents a n d information, which in the field of human rights education and information (and w i t h due consideration of the idea of fostering closer collaboration w i t h NGOs!), may be regarded as b e i n g excessively strict b e a ring in mind Recommendation R (81) 19 of the Committee of Ministers on the access to information h e l d b y public authorities as well as the legislation and practice of many member States. It urged a more flexible application of these rules in the human rights field which, in its view, is an area where the principles of a more transparent administration should apply. The need for more openness was again recently stressed b y M r P. Leuprecht, the Council of Europe's Director of Human Rights, d u r i n g a symposium organised to commemorate 30 years of Austria's membership of the Council of Europe (held in Vienna,21-22 M a y 1986): Mr Leuprecht "findCsH it surprising that an Organisation w h i c h stands for democracy and human rights and w h i c h preaches an open information p olicy and transparency, in fact practices the opposite" (translated from the German text).

In M a r c h 1987 the U N Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations recommended that a special commission should consider ways to encourage and strengthen the participation of NGOs in the w o r k of the Economic and Social Council and its subsidiary bodies. I therefore put the question: should a similar initiative be taken w ithin the Council of Europe in the human rights field?

APPENDIX I

112

COUNCIL OF EUROPECOMMITTEE OF MINISTERS

R E S O L U T I O N (72)35

OH RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE AND INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS

RULES FOR CONSULTATIVE STATUS

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 16 October 1972 at the 214th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers,

Recalling that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its. Members for the putpose of safeguarding and realising the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress; '

Having regard to its resolution on relations with international organisations, both intergovernmental and non-governmental, adopted at its 8th Session in May 1951, whereby "The Committee of Ministers may on behalf of the Council of Europe, make suitable arrangements for consultation with international non-governmental organisations which deal with matters that are within the competence of the Council of Europe'1;

Having regard to the rules on relations between the Council of Europe and international non-governmental organisations adopted at the 90th meeting of the Committee of Ministers at Deputy level in October I960;

Considering Recommendation 670 of the Consultative Assembly;

Considering that it i s expedient to amend the said rules particularly with regard to the granting of consultative status with the Council of Europe, in order both to simplify the procedure and to extend the range and depth of co-operation between the Council of Europe and international non-governmental organisations^

Adopts the following rules on relations between the Council of Europe and international non-governmental organisations, which will enter into force on 1 January 1973 and replace the rules adopted at the 90th meeting of the Committee of Ministers at Deputy level : .

1. The Council of Europe may establish working relations with international nongovernmental organisations by granting them consultative status.

113

2. For this purpose the Council of Europe shall draw up a list of international non-governmental organisations which are particularly representative in the field of their competence and, by their work in a given sector, are capable of contributing to the achievement of that closer unity mentioned in Articfe 1 of the Statute as the assigned aim of the member States.

3. The organisations concerned shall undertake to :

(а) give the maximum publicity to the initiatives or achievements of the Council of Europe in their own field of competence;

(б) inform the Secretariat General of those of their activities likely to be of interest to the Council of Europe;

(c) furnish information, documents or opinions relating to their own field of competence as requested by the Secretary General;

(d) report periodically to the Secretary General on the fulfilment of the obligation set out in sub-paragraph (a) above;

(e) acquaint the Secretary General with their diary of meetings and admit an observer from the Secretariat to such meetings when so requested by the Secretary General.

4. The committees of the Assembly, the committee's of governmental experts andother bodies of the Committee of Ministers, and the Secretary General may consultthe organisations on questions of mutual interest. .

5- The organisations :

(а) may submit memoranda to the Secretary General who, if he sees fit, shall transmit them to a committee of the Consultative Assembly or a committee of governmental experts;

(б) may be invited by an Assembly committee to express their views orally or in writing on a question included ini that committee's agenda;

(e) shall receive the agenda and public documents of the Assembly and be invited to send observers - without the right to speak - to public sittings of the Assembly,

6. The Secretary General shall keep a list of organisations enjoying consultativestatus with the Council of Europe.

7. Any organisation wishing to be entered on this list shall send to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe an application accompanied by thirty copies of a file (in French or English) containing its Statute, a list of its member organisations, a report on its recent activities and a declaration to the effect that it accepts the principles set out in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Statute of the Council of Europe.1

1. P ream ble and A rtic le 1 of the Stacuce of the Council of Europe :' 'T h e Governm ents of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French R epublic,

the Irish R epublic, the Ita lian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of (he N etherlands , th e Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of G reat Britain and Northern Ireland, ,

C onvinced th a t the pursuit of peace based upon ju s tic e and international co-operation i s vital for the p reservation of human soc ie ty and c iv ilisa tio n ;

114

8. Any organisation already on the lis t may be removed from it by the Secretary General if, in h is opinion, it has failed to comply with irs obligations under the rules set out in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 above, or if it is represented twice as a result of affiliation to a larger organisation which is itse lf on the list. However, the Secretary General shall first inform the organisation in question of his intention to remove it from the list, in order to give it an opportunity to present its observations.

9. Every six months the Secretary General shall inform the Gommittee of Ministers and the Consultative Assembly of the names of the organisations which he is considering adding to the list or removing from it, together with those items of the relevant files which are necessary for the assessm ent of each case and h is reasons, for suggesting they be added to the list or removed from it, having re|ard to the rules laid down in paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 above; the Secretary General's memorandum concerning the removal of any organisation from the list shall also include any comments submitted by that organisation oa the Secretary General's intention. In the absence of any objection as described in paragraph 10 below, the names of organisations that have thus been communicated shall be added, to the lis t or removed from it ,-a s the case may be, six months later. .

10. During the six-month period, a member of the Committee of Ministers or three members of the Assembly of at least two different nationalities may request that an examination be made of the file of each organisation whose name has been communicated. In the former case, the examination shall be made and the decision to add the name to the list or to remove it from the list shall be taken by the Committee of Ministers. In the latter case, the Assembly, acting on a report from irs competent committee, shall address a recommendation to the Committee of Ministers, which shall take a final decision. If an examination of the file of an organisation is requested both by a member of the Committee of Ministers and by three members o f the Assembly of at least two nationalities, the Committee of Ministers shall defer ics decision until it has received a recommendation from the Assembly.

Reaffirm ing their devotion to die sp iritual and moral values which are the common heritage of th e ir p eo p les and the true source of individual freedom, policical liberty and the rule of law , p rincip les which foim th e b a s is of a ll genuine dem ocracy; .

B eliev ing tha t, for the m aintenance and further rea lisa tio n of these id ea ls and in the in te re s ts of econom ic and so c ia l progress, there is need of a c lo se r unity betw een all like-m inded coun tries of E u rope ;

C onsidering that, to respond to th is need and to the expressed asp ira tions of th e ir peoples in th is regard, it is n ece ssa ry forthwith to creace an organisation which will bring European S ta te s into c lo ser a sso c ia tio n ,■ H ave, in con rcquence , decided to s e t up a Council o f Europe co n sis tin g of a Committee of

R ep resen ta tiv es o f Governments and of a C onsultative Assembly, and have (or th is purpose adopted the follow ing S ta tu te : - •

C haptar 1 * Aim of the Council of EuropeA rtic le 1 .

(a) T he aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between i ts Members for the purpose of safeguarding^ and rea lis in g the id ea ls and princip les which are their common heritage and fac ilita tin g the ir econom ic and soc ia l progress.

(b) T h is aim sh a ll be pursued through the organs of the Council by d iscu ss io n of questions of common concern and by agreem ents and common action in economic, so c ia l, cu ltu ra l, sc ie n tif ic , legal and' adm in is tra tive m atters and in (he m aintenance and further rea lisa tio n of human rights and fundam ental freedom s.

( r ) P a rtic ip a tio n in the Council of Europe shall not affect the collaboration of i t s Members in th e work of the U nited N ations and of other in ternational o rgan isations or unions to which they are p a r tie s . ■

U ) M atters re la ting to N ational D efence do not fall within the scope of the C ouncil of E urope."

115

11. The procedure described above shall noc restrict the right o f the Committee of Ministers or of the Assembly to initiate any action concerning other non-governmental organisations in pursuance of their respective Rules of Procedure.

12. An organisation whose application has been refused or which has been removed from the list may not submit a fresh application until three years have expired after the decision in question has been taken.

13. The organisations enjoying consultative status with the Council of Europe onthe date of the entry into force of these rules shall be entered on the new lis t of organisations granted consultative status with the Council of. Europe referred to in paragraph 2 above, but may be subsequently removed from this lisc in accordance with these rules. .

ftPPENDIS IX- Extract from

RESOLUTION (76) 3

ON COMMITTEE STRUCTURES,. TERMS OF REFERENCE AND WORKING METHODS

(adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 February 1976 at the 254th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies)

Types of committees

Observers

II. Committee structure!4. There shall be the following types of committees :

a. steering committee denotes any committee which is answerable directly to the Committee of Ministers and responsible for a substantial portion of the medium-term plan, and to which the governments of all the member states are entitled to designate persons, .preferably from among national officials of the highest possible rank ;

b. ad hoc committee of experts denotes any committee (other than a steering committee) answerable directly to the Committee of Ministers ;

c. committee of experts denotes any committee answerable to a steering committee, whose members all member states are entitled to designate ;

d. select committee of experts denotes any committee answerable to asteering, committee, whose members only a limited number of member states are entitled to designate ; -

e. working party denotes any committee composed of a limited number of members of an existing committee designated by that committee.

5. Any steering committee may, by a unanimous decision, admit or admit to any committee answerable to it, observers from non-member states of the Council of Europe, or from intergovernmental or nan-governmental international organisations, provided that:i. Any request for admission as an observer shall be forwarded wttftout

delay by the Secretary General both to the Permanent Representatives ;■ of member states and to the members of the steerine committee

concerned ![ ii. Any government so notified may inform the Secretary General within

four weeks of its intention to refer the matter to the Committee of Ministers for decision. This decision shall be taken by a two-thirds majority of all the Representatives entitled to sit on the-Committee.

116

i

»

PSP®"- mmm*

TOPIC FOUR

N e w T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d H u m a n R i g h t s


Mr. P, S i e g h a r t

C h ai rm an / E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e , Justi ce (uk)

C h a i r m a n

Dr, I, Cr o mm e

Mem be r, B o a r d of ICJ G e r m a n Sect ion

R a p p o r t e u r

M r , D. M a r c h a n d

M e m b e r , E x e c u t i v e C o m m i t t e e , L i b r e J u s t i c e ( F r a n c e )

119

T O P I C FOUR: NEW T E C H N O L O G I E S AND H U M A N R I G H T S

REPORT

In t r o d u c t i on by Paul S i e g h a r t

As a w o r k i n g p a p e r had b e e n d i s t r i b u t e d p r i o r to the c o n f e r e n c e on l y t h ree i n t r o d u c t o r y p o i n t s w e r e made:

- the d i f f i c u l t y of the s u b j e c t s t e m m e d from the c o m m u n i c a t i o n d i f f i c u l t i e s b e t w e e n the two d i s c i p l i n e s - s c i e n c e s and law. At the b e g i n n i n g of the i n d u s t r i a l age it was m u c h easier for the n o n - s c i e n t i s t to u n d e r s t a n d the e f f e c t s and r i s k s of t e c h n o l o g i c a l a c v a n c e s , b u tit is n o w no longer p o s s i b l e for h i m to fully c o m p r e h e n d the p o s s i b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s of new t e c h n o l o g y ( e x a m p l e s were g i v e n in the f i e l d of n u c l e a r p ower plants, c o m p u t e r s and b i o t e c h n o l o g y , etc.)

- the o n e - s i d e d a s p e c t of the w o r k i n g p a p e r was s t r e s s e d ; it o n l y e m p h a s i s e d the d a n g e r s of the new t e c h n o l o g i e s but t h e r e we r e a l s o m a n y p o s i t i v e a s p e c t s w h i c h must not be i g n o r e d (for e x a m p l e , the p r o d u c t i o n of e l e c t r i c i t y by n u c l e a r p o w e r plants, p r o g r e s s in c u r i n g d i s e a s e , i mproved c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ) as well as all the fu t u r e b e n e f i t s s t ill to be r e a l i s e d or not yet ev e n f o r e s e e a b l e .

- it is i m p o r t a n t not to f o r g e t th a t to a large e x t e n t the d a n g e r sdo not co m e from the n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s t h e m s e l v e s but from the use m a n k i n d m a k e s of them.

- M a n y d e v e l o p m e n t s have t a k e n p l a c e in the field o f c h e m i c a l andb a c t e r i o l o g i c a l w e a p o n s which, as well as s p r e a d i n g di s e a s e , s o m e t i m e s new d isease, also t h r e a t e n life by d e s t r o y i n g the e n v i r o n m e n t . V e r y l i t t l e is known a b o u t these new w e a p o n s . _

- T h ere was d i s c u s s i o n on the i n f l u e n c e that n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s c o u l d have on the right to w o r k and on w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s . R e f e r e n c e was m a d e to o r g a n i s a t i o n s su c h as the ILO and the EEC, w h i c h h a v e c o m e to the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t it is n e c e s s a r y to have: d i a l o g u e a m o n g all c o n c e r n e d to a l low for s u c c e s s f u l i n t r o d u c t i o n on n e w t e c h n o l o g y ; a c c e l e r a t e d and i n c r e a s e d t r a i n i n g and help in f i n d i n g o t h e r e m p l o y m e n t for those made r e d u n d a n t by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of new t e c h n o l o g y ; and, a b o v e all, d i s t r i b u t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n on the c o n s e q u e n c e s of the i n t r o d u c t i o n of new t e c h n o l o g y .

- The d e v e l o p m e n t s in the fie l d s of t r a n s p l a n t s and g e n e r i c e n g i n e e r ing were also d i s c u s s e d . In this r e g a r d it was h e l d th a t a g u i d e as to the e t h i c s i n v o l v e d is o f . u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c e .

The n e e d for new r u l e s in this f i e l d '

It is of g reat i m p o r t a n c e to e l a b o r a t e n e w rules in the f i e l d of new t e c h n o l o g i e s , ie, to f o r m u l a t e new h u m a n r i g h t s to c o p e w i t h the s i t u a t i o n s th a t are a r i s i n g and to find the m e a n s o f p r o t e c t i n g them. T h e s e would t h e n c o n s t i t u t e a n e w ethical' guide.

* A copy of this r e p o r t in F r e n c h is a v a i l a b l e from the ICJ.

120

M a n y areas were t o u c h e d on in d i s c u s s i o n , for e x a m p l e , t r a n s p l a n t and g e n e t i c e n g i n e e r i n g , the r i g h t s of the u n b o r n child, the r i g h t s one has ov e r o n e ' s o w n bo d y ( e u t h a n a s i a , b i r t h con t r o l , etc.).It i’s n e c e s s a r y to d e t e r m i n e the s c o p e of these n e w h u m a n r i g h t s : ie,w h e t h e r , in any p a r t i c u l a r instance, the c o n s t i t u t i o n o f a n e w h u m a n r i g h t is n e c e s s a r y ; if so, wh a t its c o n t e n t s h o u l d be; and f i n a l l y , 1

h o w it can be p r o t e c t e d .

The q u e s t i o n w h i c h c o n c e r n s the ICJ and its s e c t i o n s is h o w they can m o s t e f f e c t i v e l y w o r k t o w a r d s his goal, for e x a m p l e , by o r g a n i s ing a c o l l o q u i u m or h a v i n g the s u b j e c t as one of the t o p i c s of the n e x t ICJ C o m m i s s i o n m e e t i n g .

The r i g h t t o i n f o r m a t i o n

G e n e r a l l y , i n d i v i d u a l s have very little c h a n c e of access to in- 1 f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d by g o v e r n m e n t s a b o u t t h e m - o f t e n b e c a u s e the g o v e r n m e n t c l a i m s the n e e d for s ecrecy. 1

It has b e e n h e l d e s s e n t i a l , h owever, that the p u b l i c ha v e a g e n e r - ' al r i g h t of ac c e s s to s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n , a b o v e all b e c a u s e the n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s i n v o l v e d have by t heir v e r y nature, an e f f e c t on i n d i v i d - ’ ual and t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t .

I n d i v i d u a l s also n e e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g the new t e c h n o l o g i e s , for e x a m p l e , the n e e d for c o n s u l t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g ,the i m p o r t a n c e and p l a c e m e n t of n u c l e a r p o w e r plants.

The u s e f u l n e s s of b r i n g i n g t o g e t h e r the p r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s and in d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s in o r d e r to c r e a t e a ba s e for f u r t h e r w o r k was also d i s c u s s e d .

The i m p o r t a n c e of an e x c h a n g e of i n f o r m a t i o n b e t w e e n t h o s e w o r k ing on the p r o b l e m s c o n n e c t e d wi t h the n e w t e c h n o l o g i e s at b o t h n a t i o n al and i n t e r n a t i o n a l level was s t r e s s e d as this w o u l d a void u n n e c e s s a ry d u p l i c a t i o n and w a s t e of r e s o u r c e s .

121

R E S O L U T I O N

T o p i c F o u r : N e w T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d H u m a n R i g h t s ,

T h e E u r o p e a n n a t i o n a l s e c t i o n s o f the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o m m i s s i o n o f


to 24. A p r i l 1987;

1. u r g e t h e ICJ to u n d e r t a k e a s t u d y on the l e g a l i t y u n d e r

i n t e r n a t i o n a l law of the p o s s e s s i o n and use o f n u c l e a r w e a p o n s ,

a n d r e q u e s t it to c o n s i d e r the i n c l u s i o n of c h e m i c a l a n d

b i o l o g i c a l w e a p o n s in th i s study;

2. r e c o g n i s e t h a t w o r k s h o u l d be d o n e t o w a r d s the e l a b o r a t i o n

o f a n e w i n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n v e n t i o n e x p a n d i n g and e n l a r g i n g the

i n f o r m a t i o n r i g h t s p r o t e c t e d by A r t i c l e s 19 of the U n i v e r s a l

D e c l a r a t i o n o f H u m a n R i g h t s and the ICCPR, and A r t i c l e 10 of t h e

E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y in the fields of

(a) r i g h t s of ac c e s s to i n f o r m a t i o n ;

(b) w ider o p p o r t u n i t i e s for i n d i v i d u a l s and groups to co m -

• m u n i c a t e with e a c h o t h e r ("the r i ght to c o m m u n i c a t e " ) ;

(c) s a t e l l i t e t e l e v i s i o n ;

^ b e a r i n g in mind p a r t i c u l a r l y R e c o m m e n d a t i o n No. R ( 8 1 ) 1 9 of the

C o m m i t t e e of M i n i s t e r s of the M e m b e r States of the Council of

E u r o p e on the Ac c e s s to I n f o r m a t i o n he l d by Public A u t h o r i t i e s ,

and th a t C o m m i t t e e ' s D e c l a r a t i o n on the F r e e d o m of E x p r e s s i o n and

I n f o r m a t i o n d a t e d 29 A p r i l 1982;

3. u r g e the ICJ to c o n s i d e r a p p l y i n g for o b s e r v e r s t a t u s on the

C o u n c i l of E u r o p e ' s Ad Hoc C o m m i t t e e of Experts on P r o g r e s s in the

B i o m e d i c a l S c i e n c e s (CAHBI).

WORKING PAPER

FOR

TOPIC FOUR:

N e w T e c h n o l o g i e s a n d H u m a n R i g h t s

Working Paper

NEW T E C H N O L O G Y AND H U M A N R I G H T S

by Paul S i e g h a r t

For several decades now, -there has been mounting concern — and a mounting literature — about the threats posed to human rights by new technology, mainly in the -fields o-f nuclear -fission and -fusion, in-formatics, and biotechnology. The purpose o-f this paper is not to review this literature,3 nor to explain the technologies concerned to the non—technical reader, but rather to identi-fy some underlying issues, and to try to relate these to the rights declared in the current code o-f international human rights law.

Nuclear fission and fusionThe -first o-f the new technologies that has given rise to grave apprehensions is nuclear -fission and fusion. There is every reason why it should. The power which it can unleash is vastly greater than anything that mankind has ever handled be-fore: that indeed is one o-f its attractions -for engineers, and -for States — either because they are short o-f indigenous -fuels -for generating electricity, or -for the enhancement of their military potential. But it also increases the risks by the same measure. Those risks fall into three categories: war, catastrophic accidents, and pol1uti on.

As it happens, these risks are not unfamiliar: they have been presented by the chemical industry for well over a century. Until August 1945, it was this industry that produced all the explosives used in warfare. In the immediate aftermath of the Bhopal disaster, far more people died than in the immediate aftermath of Chernobyl. And the toll of slow pollution by sulphur products (acid rain), chlorinated hydrocarbons (DDT, etc.), and heavy metals (lead, cadmium, etc.) is so far still much greater than that resulting from nuclear waste. In these respects, therefore, the risks presented by the new technology of nuclear fission and fusion are not themselves new in k i n d : the

1 Chairman, Executive Committee, JUSTICE (British Section, International. Commission of Jurists); Chairman, European Human Rights Foundation; Founder and first Vice-Chairman, Council for Science and Society, London; Visiting Professor of Law, King's College, University of London.

2 A helpful, concise, reasonably comprehensive, balanced and non—technical introduction to the subject can be found in the UN booklet Huitan R i g h t s and S c i e n t i f i c a n d T e c h n o l o g i c a lD e v e l o p a e n t s (New York, 1982).

r

126

chemical industry has presented them to us long since, and we should long since have learned to control them. Nonetheless, there are several other respects in which the dangers -from nuclear energy di-f-fer substantially -from those of the large-scale manu-facture, distribution, and use o-f chemicals.

The -first is in the mi 1itary^field: we(have never be-fore . had weapons with destructive powers even remotely comparable with those generated by nuclear ones. Moreover, at least two nations now have arsenals o-f these weapons which vastly exceed whateither o-f them could conceivably need -for the purposes o-f its ownsecurity - however widely that concept may be interpreted - and have adopted a deliberate policy o-f "deterrence” by threatening to use these against each other in certain contingencies.

If any substantial proportion o-f either o-f these arsenals were ever to be detonated, the e-f-fects on the human species - andindeed on the biosphere as a whole - c o u l d be o-f a kind anddegree never be-fore experienced in human history. These e-f-fects go -far beyond the immediate victims -from blast and -fire, and those who will die o-f radiation sickness within a -few weeks o-f exposure.

But so -far they have been comparatively little studied. It has long been assumed, -for instance, that exposure to radiation •from a nuclear explosion would create mutations in the reproductive cells of the survivors which would be passed on to their children, who would therefore suffer from genetic malformations. In fact, however, this has not proved to be the case so far: among the first generation of the descendants of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the rate of such malformations has turned out not to be significantly higher than in the unirradiated population. However, there may still be some reason to fear that later generations might become afflicted in this way through the mechanism of "recessive" genes — that is, if two people with the same damaged gene (which shows no effects in either of them) have children, at least some of these children could be gravely handicapped.

An even more serious threat may arise through climatic disturbances. The detonation of nuclear weapons on any substantial scale, especially over urban or industrial targets, could carry into the upper atmosphere so much smoke, soot, and dust as to obscure the sun for perhaps months, or even years — so creating sub-zero temperatures at the planet's surface which would make it impossible to grow crops. This effect might well not be limited to the hemisphere in which the detonations took place. In such conditions, even if humans were somehow able to keep warm, they would rapidly starve by the million, if not by hundreds of millions. And even if the effect were geographical1y limited and comparatively short-lived, the loss of only a single season of the Canadian wheat crop could result in widespread starvation in many parts of the globe. This theory - popularly known as "nuclear winter" — now appears to be reasonably well established, and its realisation could amplify the threat from

127nuclear weapons -Far beyond even the most pessimistic earlier calculations.3

Another di-f-ference between nuclear and conventional chemical technology, more important in the context a-f the peaceful use o-f nuclear power, arises -from the -fact that most (though not quite all) polluting chemicals are perceptible by the ordinary human senses o-f taste and smell, while radioactivity is not: it is there-fore more di-f-ficult -for ordinary people to protect themselves -from this threat, which is consequently bothmore dangerous and more -frightening.

A -further di-f-ference is that plutonium — an explosive many thousands of times more powerful than anything known before - is a necessary by-product of all nuclear fission, even the most peaceful. It is therefore impossible in practice to decouple civilian nuclear technology completely from its military use.

Accordingly, the potential "worst case" destructiveness of nuclear energy - by warT- catastrophic explosion, or slow pollution — is quantitatively much greater than that of the more conventional chemical or power industries.

How then does all this threaten the human rights nowestablished by international law? In the case of nuclearwarfare, the threat is obviously total and disastrous. Indeed it is difficult to imagine how any human rights (and not only the right to life) could be maintained during a nuclear war — and possibly for many years, if not for centuries, after such a holocaust. Doubtless these were the considerations in the minds of the Human Rights Committee, established by the ICCPR, when it declared in 19B4 that "the production, testing, possession, deployment and use of nuclear weapons should be prohibited and recognised as crimes against humanity."4

Nuclear war apart, however - and subject to one further danger mentioned below - the technology of nuclear fission would seem to threaten our established human rights only in ways which do not differ fundamentally from those presented by the large- scale application of chemical or power technology. Every chemical factory, and every coal or oil fired power station, poses a potential threat if something goes wrong, or if its effluents are not properly managed. These threats are principally to life and health, both established human rights, and to the emerging right (so far only declared in the African

3 See E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s e q u e n c e s o-f N u c lear War, vol. 1, "Physical and Atmospheric Effects" (London, 1986); vol. 2, "Ecological and Agricultural Effects" (London, 1985); Sadruddin Aga Khan (ed.), N u c l e a r War, N u c l e a r P r o l i f e r a t i o n r a n d their C o n s e q u e n c e s i Part III (Oxford, 1986).

General Comment 14(23), O-f-ficial R e c o r d s , 40th Session of the UN General Assembly, Supplement No. 40 (A/40/40), 162.

1281

Charter) to a general satis-factory environment. But in these respects the threats to human rights -from nuclear fission are no different in kind.

However, there is one additional threat. This is both subtle and indirect, and arises -from the stringent security precautions which any responsible government must necessarily undertake in order to ensure that plutonium can never -fall into the wrong hands - such as those o-f i 11 — motivated terrorists.Over time, this could lead to an increase in surveillance, and to restrictions on traditional civil rights such as political activity, membership o-f trades unions, or the right to strike, which could slowly but gravely erode many human rights even in the most open and liberal democracies.®

That this fear is not fanciful is well illustrated by the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, adopted by 58 nations within the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1979, which adds a number of offences connected with such material to the list of "crimes under international law".6

"In-formatics"The second area of new technology which has given rise to increasing apprehension is that resulting from the very rapid progress now being made in the separate electronic technologies of computing and telecommunications, and more particularly in the symbiosis of the two - now collectively known as "information technology" or "informatics".

This technology lies at the opposite end of the spectrum from nuclear fission. It consumes virtually no energy or other scarce resources; it creates virtually no pollution; and, contrary to earlier fears, it is now beginning to become decentralised as the power and sophistication of its products increases, and their sizes and prices fall. Where, only a decade ago, the popular nightmare was of vast central computers operated by small Elites of power— holders, today's reality - at least in the developed countries — is a fast growing number of small, cheap, but powerful computers in the hands of schools, small traders, households, and families.

Meanwhile, however, the technology is also making possible increasingly sophisticated methods of visual, auditory, and

= See N u c l e a r P o w e r a n d H u m a n R i g h t s , ICJ Review, No. IS; JUSTICE, P l u t o n i u m a n d L i b e r t y (London, 1978); Roftnagel, A., B e d r o h t d i e K e r n e n e r g i e u n s e r e F r e i h e i t ? (Munich, 1983); Roftnagel, A., R a d i o a k t i v e r Z e r f a l l der G r u n d r e c h t e ? (Munich, 1984); Zofka, Z. , T e r r o r is a u s , S a b o t a g e r Biirgerkrieg (unpublished, 1986).

A See "Guarding nuclear materials and civil liberties", The Bui l e tin o f the A t o m i c S c i e n t i s t s , May 1990, pp. 32 ff.

129psychological surveillance of individuals without their knowledge. As in the case of radioactive substances, many o-F the newer devices are not perceptible to the ordinary human senses.

Here, the principal threat to human rights - apart -from the economic effects o-f automation, with their consequences for employment — lies in the risk to the privacy o-f individuals, as governments, public authorities, and the larger enterprises in the private sector accumulate more and more data about them, and use these to make decisions which may well be adverse to them. Through this process, it has long been -feared, the individual would become increasingly "transparent" to those in power, while they remained "opaque" to the individuals over whom they exercised that power. And indeed, the risk remains. Among recent trends have been schemes for unique personal identity numbers; computer— readable national identity cards; the "matching" by computer of apparently unconnected categories of records - such as social security records and those of private bank accounts - in order to detect frauds and those who perpetrate them; and a steady increase in surveillance by the construction of data profiles, telephone tapping, lie detectors, personality tests, and the like.

However, it is interesting to note that in the period of less than 20 years since this threat first began to be discussed, many countries — pre-eminently in Europe — have already begun to legislate in order to regulate the computerised processing of personal information, and indeed an international convention relating to this - adopted within the Council of Europe, but open to accession by other nations also - has already come into force.7 At the same time, there has been growing pressure for "freedom of information" legislation which would make governments more transparent to their citizens; several countries have already enacted such laws, and others are actively considering them.

This is much to be welcomed: the main criticism is that such legislation is still rather haphazard, and that we still lack a proper understanding — let alone any coherent plans — for the flow of information within and between our societies.®Article 19 of the Universal Declaration and of the International

Convention for the Protection of Individuals with respect to Automatic Processing of Personal Data; see also the parallel OECD Guidelines Governing theProtection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data. However, there seems to have been much less progress in the regulation of technological surveillance, and no sign at all so far of any advance towards the adoption of international standards in this area, such as those -recommended in considerable detail at pp. 17-19 of the UN publication cited in Note 2, supra.

" See I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y a n d H u man R i g h t s , ICJ Review, No. 26; Sieghart, P. (ed.), M i c r o c h i p s u i t h E v e r y t h i n g (London,1982 >.

130

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights admittedly protect -freedom of expression, both in the direction o-f i m p a r t i n g and in the opposite direction o-f s e e k i n g ideas and information of all kinds. But it has little to say, except by implication, about the provision and use of channels for such communication.Classically, the pattern has been one of a small number of channels, such as newspapers and broadcasting networks, controlled by a small number of individuals or groups (and, in the case of broadcasting media, often subject to government licensing), with little opportunity of active access to them by individuals who do not occupy some position of power or influence.

Here, there is special opportunity for further thought and action, as the technology makes possible a great increase in the number of such channels, and in the opportunities for access to them. A reinterpretation and e x t e n s i o n of the classical freedom of expression under Article 19 is becoming a major priority.This might usefully proceed in the direction o-f imposing obligations on governments to give their citizens greater opportunities of communicating with each other, and with their public authorities, by the multiplication of available channels — such as, for example, "narrowcasting" by community cable television — and the provision of greater, and non- discriminatory, access to them.^ _

As broadcasting technology improves, especially with the use of satellites, another major problem area will soon become the extent to which governments will continue to be able to regulate, through licensing, the number or the content of broadcasting channels — something which Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights still allows them, within limits, to do. This area too is currently receiving close attention.10

B i o t e c h n o l o g y

This is by far the most intractable of all the recent technological advances. For a start, we are not dealing here with a single technology, but with a whole cluster. The technique of fertilising a human ovum in v i t r o has no connection at all with the laboratory manipulation of genetic material, which in its turn is entirely distinct from the transplantation of organs from one human being to another - or the maintenance,

w The work of UNESCO on a "right to communicate" — not to be confused with the entirely different project on a "New World Information and Communication Order" - is directed mainly towards this objective.

10 See, for example, the conclusions of the Vienna Conference of Media Ministers of the Council of Europe in December 1986, called to consider a "Blueprint for TV in the 1990s".

131on an elaborate life support machine, o-f the vestiges of the "life" of someone who is in a terminal coma.

In the context of human rights, the genetic manipulation of non-human organisms is perhaps the simplest of these technologies to analyse. Here, the threats are obvious: once again, they are the familiar ones of warfare, accident and pollution. The nightmare of a new species of pathogen, against which the human species has no natural defences, being accidentally or deliberately released into the biosphere is potentially terrifying, since it could - at all events in theory - result in a world—wide epidemic which could eliminate humanity before there was time to develop an effective vaccine, let alone to evolve natural antibodies by the familiar, but very slow, process of natural selection.

A similar, though more subtle, threat arises over the development of improved varieties of plants. In the past, many of the results of the "green revolution" have been very beneficial in producing plant varieties with higher yields, or a shorter ripening period, or better adaptation to unfavourable environments. But such new varieties have also sometimes proved less resistant to some virus or other pest, and this has on occasions resulted in painful crop failures. However, in such cases the appropriate resistance is often evolved after such an episode by the ordinary mechanisms of natural selection — that is, those individuals within the new variety which have some degree of genetic resistance will survive the attack, and from their descendants in the next generation those with the highest degree of genetic resistance will again be selected for survival and reproduction, and so on. It should be noted, however, that this mechanism depends entirely on the individuals composing the population of the new variety differing from each other genetically, so that the population will always contain some individuals with the desirable genes, from whom selection can then take place. In short, those genes must be present somewhere in the population's "genetic pool".

If, however, new and improved plant varieties are produced by "cloning" them from a single cell — as is already beginning to be done - then every individual plant so produced is genetically identical with every other one. If, therefore, these are produced in large numbers, and after some time they are found to lack resistance to some newly introduced or newly evolved pest, there will be no resistant individuals in the population from which selection could take place, since its entire "genetic pool" will be identical. In such circumstances, the resulting crop failures could prove catastrophic, and lead to starvation on a huge scale.

As in the case of nuclear fission, all these are potential threats to the established rights to life and to health, and to the emerging right to a general satisfactory environment.

Turning to human beings, the case of organ transplants is still fairly simple - so_.long as one is dealing with competent adults and with organs which, though they form part of the human body, do not directly determine an individual’s personality. In

the case, -for example, o-f a healthy adult wishing to donate one o-f his or her kidneys in order to save the li-fe o-f another, the only real question is that o-f su-f-ficiently in-formed, and su-f-ficiently -free, consent - di-f-ferent only in degree, and not in kind, from the case of blood donors. Again, though one may thoroughly dislike the idea of such activities being conducted for profit by commercial enterprises, and may for that reason support national legislation prohibiting this, that would not be primarily a human rights question — unless, say, one were to find a government secretly conniving at an export trade in kidneys bought for a few dollars from poor and illiterate persons, an activity not different in principle from the suspected connivance of some governments in the international trade in hard drugs.

Matters become a little more complex when the donor is not competent to give a sufficiently informed and free consent — as in the case of children, or the paradigm case of the mortally injured adult, already in a coma and fast approaching death, but still technically alive. Such cases raise many dramatic tensions, but on objective analysis they cannot be said to raise any new problems in the human rights field: in principle, they are no different from those with which physicians and lawyers have wrestled for centuries when dealing with patients who are not competent to give consent to medical interventions. National laws generally provide for consent in such cases to be sought from some third party - a "proxy" — Mho has no interest that conflicts with the patient's, and in the last resort from a court of law.

But the last example — that of the potential organ donor who is dying, but not yet dead — begins to raise a problem which increasingly manifests itself in other cases. It is the fundamental philosophical problem of human personality: "Who am I?"

Suppose, for example, that microsurgeons might one day find themselves able to transplant an entire living brain from one body to another. (For the foreseeable future, this is still science fiction; but like all the best science fiction it is theoretically possible, and experience has taught that what is theoretically possible has a consistent habit of becoming practically feasible.) Here, we begin to arrive at a p r o b l £ a a t i q u e which has, at all events so far, defied all attempts at rational analysis.

The ancient Greeks may have believed that the human personality resided in the heart, but all the available evidence now leads us to believe that it - or, more precisely, the great majority of the factors which compose it — reside in the brain. Suppose, then, that one transplanted the brain of B into the body of A. "Who" then is the resulting person? To sharpen up the difficulties, suppose that A is (or should it be "was"?) an African, while B is (or was) a European or a Chinese — and/or that A is or was male, while B is or was female. Until one can answer the question "Who is this person?" it does not seem possible even to begin a meaningful discussion of this p r o b l £ n a t i q u e in terms of human rights — or even in terms of the giving of informed and free consent to the operation. How, for

133

example, can A agree to want to acquire B's personality without knowing what it is like to be B — let alone what it would be like to be B in A's body — especially when A ’s own personality will become extinguished by the operation?

Turning -from organ donation at one end o-f li-fe to the p r o b l g m a t i q u e presented by the new techniques o-f human procreation, it quickly becomes apparent that the problems which these techniques present have stubbornly resisted analysis or solution -for precisely the same reason as the hypothetical brain transplant — that is, because they raise the same unanswered question: "Who am I?", only this time not because the brain is regarded as the seat o-f personality, but because the personality a-f individuals is known to be strongly a-f-fected (and in some respects conclusively determined) by their genetic endowment, and their early environment. As in the case o-f brain transplants, therefore, what we are considering here is the deliberate creation, with the help of the new technologies, of new individuals who cannot be asked beforehand whether they wish to exist at all - and, if they do, whether they wish to have the attributes which the technology will try to give them, such as gender, descent from a purposefully chosen genetic father or mother, gestation by someone who may not be the genetic mother — and, perhaps one day, a high intelligence quotient or a wor1d—breaking sprinter's legs and lungs.

And yet, once one puts the problem in this form, it has a familiar ring. Is this not precisely what mankind has always done when it procreates its species? Parents have never been able to ask their children whether they wished to come into the world, let alone whether they wished to be the individuals they are. They have always taken it for granted that all adults have a right to procreate. Indeed, we are horrified at the notion of forcible sterilization, which is precisely why all the human rights treaties declare an unqualified right of everyone to marry and found a family.

At all events in their original intention, the new techniques of procreation are designed only to facilitate the exercise of this fundamental human right, and to enlarge the opportunities for its enjoyment. Fertilisation in v i t r o — with the opportunity thereafter to implant the embryo either in the genetic mother, or in a surrogate - was developed precisely for the benefit of women otherwise doomed to infertility, just as artificial insemination, by husband or third-party donor, was designed to overcome male infertility. Far from posing a threat to human rights, these techniques were only intended to support ■ them. True, they make it possible to "improve" the desired embryo; at present, only by fertilising several and selecting the one that appears healthiest, but in the foreseeable future perhaps also by a little genetic manipulation in the Petri dish, substituting healthy genes for genetically defective ones. But why should this be seen as an affront to human rights, when it assists the founding of families, and reduces human suffering?

’ And yet, the development and use of these techniques has raised storms of protest in many countries - and, as so often happens when there is a major public outcry, repeated assertions

134

that they pro-foundly violate human rights. But just whose human rights are being violated? The artificially -fertilised embryo that comes to -full term and is born a healthy child has not had his or her rights violated any more than any other baby that did not ask to be born. I-f its male genetic ancestor was not its mother's law-ful husband, then it would be "illegitimate" under many legal systems - and so it might perhaps be (though no such case has yet been decided anywhere) i-f the woman who gave birth to it was not its genetic mother. But in this respect it is in no di-f-ferent position from many millions of other "illegitimate" individuals all over the world, and all that international human rights law has ever had to say about them is that it is thestatus of illegitimacy, and the associated stigma anddiscrimination, which violate their human rights.*1 No one has yet suggested that a State would violate its international human rights obligations by not installing sufficiently strong deterrents against adultery; indeed, we forcefully condemn those few countries still left which execute adulterous wives, by stoning or beheading.

What other candidates then are there for victims of human rights violations in the practice of these techniques? We have only one category left: the embryo that is not allowed to developinto a child, generally called the "discarded" embryo. It isundoubtedly the case that, in order to improve the efficiency of the techniques, more embryos are fertilised than are actually brought to term, and that those which are not will be "discarded" at an early stage - either by not thriving in the womb or, as one practitioner has put it, by being "flushed reverently down the laboratory sink". But in this respect, man is only imitating nature: a very high proportion of all embryos (some researchers have put it at over 90X) spontaneously abort for one reason or another, often before the woman even realises that she has conceived — and are flushed, unconsciously and quite irreverently, down the domestic lavatory pan. The only difference appears to be that in the latter case this may be regarded as "natural" or the work of God; in the former, it is "artificial" that is, a deliberate human act without natural or divine intervention.

Clearly, there are here some obvious threats to some very important human v a l u e s - some easily foreseeable and others more fanciful. Among the foreseeable ones are, pre-eminently, threats to the structure of the family; but also the commercial exploitation of surrogacy; too many'donations by the same sperm donor resulting in too many of his offspring within the same community; and experimentation on embryos.

This last question is the one which presently leads to the most acute differences of view. On the one side, some scientists claim that further progress in this field cannot be made without conducting experiments with live human embryos in their very early stages; that there are good prospects that such progress

11 See, for example, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in H a r c k x v. B e l g i u m , 2 EHRR 330.

135will lead to developments which will be beneficial to humanity in general; that in this early stage the embryos concerned have no perceptions or -feelings, bear no visible resemblance to human beings, and are nothing more than minute "blobs of jelly" only visible through a microscope; and that accordingly there can be no moral abjection to conducting the experiments. On the other side, it is argued that each of these blobs of jelly is genetically unique, biologically human, and has the potential, if implanted into a human uterus, of growing into a fully-developed human being.

On this issue, it may perhaps be relevant to observe that Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that "no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation", and it may be difficult to see in the present case who could validly give such a consent on behalf of an embryo - unless it is regarded as being someone's (e.g. the parents') "property", which begs the question by reducing it to the status of an object capable of ownership.In addition, under the internationally accepted principles of medical ethics,13 experiments on individual human beings are permissible only if the experiment is conducted for the benefit of the particular individual concerned: they are never permissible if they would in fact result in damage or detriment to that individual, however beneficial the results might be to others.

Among the more fanciful threats from this technology are the storage of frozen embryos for indefinite periods, with at least the theoretical possibility of their resuscitation many years after their genetic parents have died, the "cloning" of large numbers of identical individuals, and the creation of chimerae - that is, hybrids between humans and other species.The new techniques (or their further development) may enable such things to be done one day, but they are very much at the margin and it is not immediately obvious why more than a few cranky or i11-motivated individuals would ever wish to put them into practice. At all events, it should not be difficult to regulate or prohibit such marginal activities by national laws: several countries are already on the way to doing this, and the Ad Hoc Committee of Experts on Progress in the Biomedical Sciences of the Council of Europe is hard at work on drafting common principles in this area.13

However, apart from those matters, it is at least arguable that the impact of this technology is not fundamentally different from the impact of many other technologies which past societies

*■“ See, for example, the D e c l a r a t i o n of H e l s i n k i adopted by the World Medical Association in 1964, as amended in 1975 and 1983.

1:3 See P r o v i s i o n a l P r i n c i p l e s on the Techn i ques o f H u n a n A r t i f i c i a l P r o c r e a t i o n a n d C e r t a i n P r o c e d u r e s C a r r i e d O u t on E m b r y o s in C o n n e c t i o n H i t h T h o s e T e c h n i q u e s; Document CAHBI/INF(86)1, Council of Europe.

136

have experienced as an assault on their traditional values, but to which they have eventually adapted themselves. In much the same way - though obviously to an immeasurably greater extent — as our ancestors were shocked and disturbed by some of the developments o-f technology in their time, so we are understandably shocked and disturbed i-f the traditional act o-f procreation — which our species has practised throughout its existence, and which has immensely power-ful emotional significance -for us — is suddenly performed by faceless white—coated scientists in clinical laboratories, squinting down microscopes and manipulating fine needles. Clearly, there is here a potentially gigantic assault on our feelings, our traditional values, and a whole complex of emotions associated with things "which we have always held sacred".

But it is by no means equally clear whether there is a comparable assault on the human rights in the current international code - and if so which, and whose.

Technology, civilization, traditional values, and human rightsThe development of new technologies is as old as human civilization: indeed, it may be said to be a necessary concomitant of the progress of any civilization. Every technology brings profound changes in human societies — as, for example, when mankind first discovered how to plant and harvest crops around 10,000 years ago; when pottery was first invented; when metals first began to be worked; when the Iron Age displaced the Bronze Age; and, more subtly though at least as profoundly, when goods which had for thousands of years been transported overland by horses, mules, and donkeys began to be transported first by canal barges, then by railway trucks, and eventually by heavy goods lorries and aeroplanes.

At every such change, there will be winners and losers. If there are more winners than losers, the technology will become widely adopted, the losers will eventually adapt themselves to it, and in retrospect we shall say that the society has made progress, despite the burden which the losers will have had to bear. For some time, we may lament the loss of the old, but eventually we shall accept the new. The "green" movements have a long ancestry, yet there are not many today who would prefer the reality (as opposed to the fantasy) of nomadic life in a primitive hunting band in the savannah.

In historically more recent times, the pace of change in the development of new technologies has gradually accelerated.The agricultural revolution of the late Middle Ages took several centuries to become established; for the mechanisation of the production of textiles and other staple goods in the nineteenth century, that period was already a great deal shorter; it took the motor vehicle less than fifty years to change the face of most of the world, and the habits ..of many societies; and the machine-gun, the tank, and the atom bomb have revolutionised warfare three times in less than a century. What is new in our own times is not the mere fact that new technologies are being introduced which will produce profound changes in our societies,

137but rather that these changes now take place at a much higher rate than in earlier times, and so make the process o-f adaptation to them more difficult - and, -for many, more pain-ful.

The other new -factor is the very recent introduction o-f the international code o-f human rights law. In the past, those who were adversely af-fected by social changes following -from the introduction of a new technology complained of the abridgement or denial of their "traditional" way of life, or their "traditional" rights. As the changes were absorbed and societies adapted to them, new ways of life and new rights emerged; as, in turn, these were threatened by yet more new technologies, they were again defended as "traditional". But we are apt today to see human rights not so much as a tradition than as something new and revolutionary that has only just been achieved after a great deal of struggle, and we are therefore apt to see them as more fixed, and less open to evolution or adaptation, than those which had been familiar -in the past - rather as the architects of the new-fangled "constitutions" of the eighteenth century must have felt about the values which they enshrined, after so much debate and the spilling of so much blood, in those instruments.

Perhaps, therefore, the most interesting — but also the most difficult — questions which this entire cluster of issues raises are the extent to 'which our modern human rights law enshrines some values that are more lasting than others; the rate at which even those values may evolve with the progress of human civilizations; and the rate at which human rights law may ultimately need to evolve with them.

l* See Kirby, M.D., "Human Rights — The Challenge of New Technology", The A u s t r a l i a n L a w J o u r n a l , Human Rights Issue 1986.

APPENDIX A

T e x t o f t h e E u r o p e a n C o n v e n t i o n o n H u m a n R i g h t s

a n d

its PROTOCOL No. 8.

r1 4 0

i

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The Governments signatory hereto, being Members of the'Council of Europe, _

Considering the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948;

Considering that this Declaration aims at securing the universal and effective recognition and observance of the Rights therein declared;

Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is the achievement of greater unity between its Members and that one of the methods by which that aim is to be pursued is the maintenance and further realisation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend;

Being resolved, as the Governments of European countries which are Iikeminded and have a common heritage of political traditions, ideals, freedom and the rule of law, to take the first steps for the collective enforcement of certain of the Rights stated in the Universal Declaration;

Have agreed as follows:

Article 1The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their

jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.

. SECTION IArticle 2

(1) Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No oneshall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime fo r 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 3No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading

treatment 'or punishment.

Article 4(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;

r142

c °.1 5= c

a

! <o to*> Z4> . -C

c co c4> o M *55

«5 <9 G «** O -

- O

toJZ a c

-c E o

o ° d SO w ‘-2 -c: C COS ’= ' £< c «O 4> O U

Uco&4>>w

_Q *n O jgT3 2£ c Cd qj<g to js00 o '= § := >• > o o >4)(A2 E

c « o e

L *ff £ « 4>c-O 3 C Oa _ oC Jv

I f4> S•a rtg -c0>G wcd c « >* i

~ ,2- CO •—

*»■& 5 8° 09

O c« 5O V & *

JS-8

£ ~ O CO

4>JD S cdC >% O -QtOS’SU J3 rt .2c 32 5C3 to

"S2 w .5 09£ 4)wV ul-S" o4> — «-C ca ~ c

so 2 = § s^>V ' •C

“O ov *° *? •3-8* o4> U U 2 £> -OS'2*S J2o 2 — o3 C D<V O"c —ro 4>to )f5 <o _v O e U B D,4>u -G •c **

J2 o-25 4>> .is 2. 3•"■* O'

„ t> O -5a s

tu a> O M2 oV» VIov- (/»41 O.s’Scao Cu

.S Or3 too So. 4)| S

4)“o -

« . 2 w*3 1 °« 4)4) *o U2 «>

§.§

Q« 7? o 2:CLO

£ 2c .5 O *

3 _ £ A

o.o «.a-D 3 Aa o.

- o « J= -O3 <4-1Q* O

oc,13 &O J>o

J o .

>.S3 t/i = — <A CJo JS § = c a

t j s - <s d a v 'C jC

.5 *s tS ^

u I*-* >»

C *o4)oc

O v> cd

E '”

e j

< =

M « O•S 2 .1"C 5 9> ° §•£ >. u *“c — ts€0 O'S e » >.3^2 — —

4> . wCT3 a o « 5tS >G5 E*E:§ aS ° "o S2 c? A•n 3t

Ss 4> .2o o ca cE «£ «— <M J«„ o —

•“ « S

>-•£ = E.2, c’C “ ” o

o

I s >.& o

i f 5 Ci*

is * 4>

r* *C j-°°.o o•o JC w1 S E

v»

.Si G > g B « E Z5

<ocd-CM4>coo lu ca O C O

a a * 3 •Gu-M M O ® VJ

t; 2 .» C_1 • —O U *Jz « Sc -

s 5 !O 3

* 4 i5« Q<q> w S wiM *= « w e ^

.60 vfi O.H -cpC? oO GO5.S.2 T3E O “j ° a ou rto _ «« CO c ° c — “g ^

S «-5

s l lo ”S -o 2 i S« >— *3°<E M >> E g G O oS O t-

to ■34>#o t3c cdXV <u*o(OG VooCJ ’>k.•m oo touV) -aiT3 4)O (Oc ‘ceooL. oo <uuu4> uOed

ucd _Urned >N£2 <L)U JZ>»cd 4>.u

’>

•3 u .tsit'e ® >» 1 , 11 uo *c oW H— (/)4) c *G .“ = §, > O t. O E u O« C 3 >■'"■ - n£°2-0

«»-s t» cdo v o w 'f =

cao edEw

0 o c>s£ o4J W CO.- _

I I s1 g a? tn

c o c « ° Eo o 'oS'~S o . “cd J3O a, J.C‘S .>•9 u

■a = '>« Uo s %cdx <-*« ° su j;.2 = c 4> o 4> «C £

5s 2? >» 2 C c c c s'c « 2 S B

3 3^-3>^T-§

i . sE 5 flj o a = o<M VhM

o 4)>»J5

3 CO •“■ 4)in 4) >•g 3

>> 5 ti -om «/) ^ 2

X)5 ccd Q >. OX) >

-a § o 3 J3

Uak. cd O.

2 o3 V) 3 Lm"3 4) 4J &,o

s «a

cd o_ oj=.2p-o «c _ u u r 5

> ^ .2 4) ^ ^£ & 8 S

T3 C o co cd "o2 4) *Q

S = 8 1“ « s » » £ eu >■» C “

> z Z «U § c £cd

Oc z

o cC 4)^ E 0.5i « E

V uC j= O —C 4J

c w o oi/iCl V

•a

= tl 2 3 CJ o •o w

t = 3 -o c

o

3-E8

U G M V

5 ° : ° cL- >* " o • - c **ri- 4> O O J3 c4J tSo ^ W>ii ° -5'7j *rt « S

G ■ O

4) 4)^ 4JCd |

OO o G «

.2 *5

o . a :Lm I3 : O, :

o; -c

w X■5 S

O - ■o

G .£■2 ES-gU 3

E .2

>>-D

flj , v:L, 1* UU 4) jed Cu

k* oa « G•. ‘Si3 C

*- « — Zc o4) ** 4) °4> *G >>Q.^ n G-C5 JS Cd

4) O

S e-3Qc

“OSJ c w 4>.tS >

s sg a o ot o *-

! { • & '> G CdJ VJ’■* > co cd 4)

a: c

' ° ^C 4>

.2 o u

*a.‘5 i_3 O w

4> Ofl^ -D ca* <«G G O O O -2d t/» to *** cd cd ,4> 4> t u u O

jd

>*

, i i « “ e-S uS = O “ 1 1 •a —ed G ■2 M O 3 4> co

G O

co v)

> ^ « t; a c 0.0

4JCO o'3 G.-* Eu Oo o

(O G O 4) cd to w _ cd 00 G 4) cd - to -

00 O c

'II

! *52 4)> fe L« OU )MQ. 4>3-0

O ,i2 >c4) V)■SI

4)“O

COE 42^

ocd,C1c u

£ SP.2 &0

.Ew G

•5g 3 *5b

'C/—s ed

3•a *u W k.

aV J3

•5 oO-G£ *u « c

.22 .E O «G ed «- g “ « > s -U 0 X i! « « °*S u o a o

G ®S - ® 2 o - " k “

<w u O * TJS 3 Of s ;5 « ,4J

« 5 >- 2 2O grS

3 * s ■ «a-aS

s i g> JS s iO JB 5 B .a

S c S = -2

G a co c*

cd <m O

■S-oG

>, <«

GiE gs 5O* to

§£ | S•S3 o

.1 >»— O -O> .iS —g S-.2 u co

011.1° 5« S S GJ3 ft* 4) E Cd(O ■_r« 5 OM5 = X .o O u «s

cd3CO

8 -° ovJ wB O .42*° P ed

GOm ^s «G

_ O8 Is >*rtO - TJJ .Eg*2 O cd cd« .H G ^

S C « ' S ^ 8 -S, — „ — 73.H > «S 4)ed .G

•s^■8°.COS ’S t: «

■or o Z -S 3 >,

« . a 5 u -^■ 5 u o

U **-* .S. m MO O C I? cd - to ^ — O« u V "S' ° -3 Ji ■--a t j 5 ' - h cOS

1 S-s °J8-So f . E o S ^ - .S ,o ® ® ^ u ® 2P o.o 00 o « S ^ .ESf-S * fcS’o *§0 ^ 0 0 2, 3 .Q C > bo > aw a s rt §- « 3 ’S ^ « 2 uag*>.cg^ s

c .£ "a .2 -c 2

u Ogo-24J «0 ©■° 8 S

«O 3 « M 1)S i ” !- « i/i % 2 s^jz -a ^ ** c

ts

4J -G 3.•S ^ O u

ed>xJC

(m £o J2°.s >.*S ”S ■S> « o ■g. o 8.^u a. M 3•a a >o'3 .2 ^ ^ S

- § 2 J s^ O *0 Gv ~ o trt

S S = 3 d5 g . 3 « o

v- ♦s JS 5 O G to gP > « a &

.2 « 9 " (fl>0 f ill

: w ^.2-sCd JM 4)Tf S 4) 3 9<w <d w

O t . n 4> ,. . 04 " U S

143

t a . o

- § > . £ • §

5! ^ L- " S o« C c/i

“ 8 ^ ° S'gu o ■S2 2 uo « w •> — ~ x ’O (d« c c

V ** . 2

-S * gc-£ G° >,*o

• 0 . 0

5 « i 5D . J 3 u

* c wo ° C J D ifl , r

V—- u .t ; a u 2 “ ' j :

• s u •“u«

M A Sc —1O v )

•— cd >>

•H j=.!2 i : o S

S 3 2o = “

Z x « '

*"" oo E

c <2

.2 £ B-S“ u

£ " a * -

T 3U c

^ 2 *<9

5 « ^ I « «

U h Oo £

S ' * £ o ° flw S g W < - «o ■

E E “•“ tf» r. .

I-SU «M

u °o e ‘ - ■ 2

■H«o o

4> «

S °4>

5 >* s .2c « «o . c i s

5 . S P -u. u CQ , s E

2 • £ S - a— f l O rr(•a °'

o - S

. 1 *

c *-5 oS J 2 1? rta s

o _ c C w

w c •— 0 3 3 OS* u H

• j : 4 ) ^I V) M 0

' « a * ■ a s ®■f- A> Vj 3 . a * W) H C

O o 60r3 VJ . 2 ? £

cd

5 l ■ = §

2 & „CO

JO 1> w . 2 j o o

0 0 OO 03 COoCjCd

c > * 0 SJ J 5 e o

E E ’=O Q i/) * "*■£

cd ~

fe a

u OS

— a j cdo -o w o o

J £ IO -O

• — !> hN V

< ■ *

- a c cd

OS0 0

'Z O

2 2 • 5 *>3 ** * cd * °

g-a. 5 <L>•*>» -«_J

cd . tS

G E E oo

*+* -. u d4>O

> > ,£ >* ai» C/53 cd

s |c j ed 4) Q *a-iC o cdcd ^ a

cd cd — £ £ . 2

3.2O0 09 _ « * 2 &

2 § ° O u .

e t - o.5 fto j - > . o^ c .

o .ts

cdS

#o

I dC

i/)

Eo- o

<1)

J 2 T 3 o cw <d

° cde . 2 o ■ - .

‘S l ;. 5

E c • n o .

^ .w >

" O ' o u

JZ00

w «/J3 - 2 o « cd

■ c 2 P

? 3)ccdJ i * q cd ' C « -

5 0 o 4>w L- w r-

T 3

S ' SC S« O * o^ •- u

(jjo x

o5 

S ow J=

cd cd

« O - - w

c . o o

E5»^ «O cd u• S * - 12C M m

4J

jg.i sH E "

U C/J> cd

cd

"* i}|) u V O ,r*

3 ~(A Co

3 * £ o

3

E * ^3) * o «

— ocd

« > * • = 2 ® ? ! d - w uU E S § «i >> C •;

« t o - o « U a ) . s

“ 3 t , “ >Cj 3 CO1- * Ca . E £ « « ^

i- i o 5

S 2-8 S no g i-3 S

S-5-2 5 x a

= .£2 ui 4) t/> 0 0 C £ g « 2

•j- W ^

> > 3 - c o o cD

— >t c r

I 8 .

^ d 2 c a

w cflj cd

E c >. w-- O-- JD 5JC c3 £ wiM C

<d « c« Q ,*o cd

0 0 o cd

* 3 « ** -• o * - 2

“ » c £ u . E « J J sC 3 X T3 3

• 2 3 u i i «« « „ 1 2 nS S r > o

^ t - o s

^ o O Q« M e ^

< j cd - - ■“

4 ) V)a c o ok* VJ3 cd

u S i

3 « o JZ C

° - g o S

f ns *- ~ g "O E cO g C3

- c « i

ed ♦ -

cd

A 4>o x

u

__ _ o ^•2cc*^ *- iy '-5 sa

o <,5 s<N ■gs1 - < s

si Q "•n"3“ (Ma &>

i s(A > * O U u cd aon

E o o

1) , c» <d c h. u .— «1 o u« S co > .5« cd C/3 JS Si « «»^ o w

5 c O 3w «• V>u- u* e O 3 c

c rt .2 3

b. o t) cd■o iE c *cd %§>1 u a>

O « Cj t:cd jc “ 00E . P=E

IJJ u irjC *= «« w eo i. ed

— a* oo ~ S E

*"'3 E ™ o 1*- — Z eo cd c c.2S-

-O— >,« 5 as <to

ocd JC Uw E cO O

3 cd to „ cd c 4) Oe £ ^.C « -C > O O r W 3 Qcd M CJ

* ¥ (A > Vm *- ©

; -o cd

a> uj -~

M

£ o

cd >»*Sc - *3o 5 u

■oc

0=uo

JD3a

c S as^ cd o o

C O u -

? -.2

oo ^

a> £ 7J fcC O< w as 00

<« c

>*

Eflt *M cj _2 8 2i O «-gn « © «o £0 u ,u..S E o*® .£■?-£ = rt— u .S *

S g

■§! o Q« o</) w2? a

, o 1- -° 5 *o =s

C cd cd . c(Aue aO Vas <c

U V5 2 ■*=■" >, u . g*V) ** (1 Im

" , S E e »» o o .s j ca o S ^ 3, “ S u - ■s .a 8 s °* 2 u jj §ai^-a'SJJEl o Sw v O .52 O5 ^ . T3 bas • « ob• M Cd

a>co>>u4>>w

.2 w cj *-* o5 <83- zj-3 > o■s H §• 2 -i i i j s So u- eh u 3 EU o L,K C u O ^« cd 55 C; o

« 5’■5 •§ ■° & ‘ c

003J3Vcd

O .3 Sia t 3 o c

'So63ft

o-- w «- - s

*as003OJ=2 ° « 5 g'5: -§«

w<J4)

> » Si »-> a scd

C. 2

’-O3(/}

cnV)oCJO

Imo

<4M

oV

o4>

JO c

«f t

u « 4>cd cd a scd<« * a Vi

,y> 3cd y

uO

<+*u

" uX )

j d

1 53f t

h«o

u

On « « o ^.S <4H

o 2‘ ‘ JO C

O 3 Js- E °

u >. O S O o

*00• — u, h*— ft 41

O cdkM</) ots £

S Eo o< 2 w ij=- 00 ,

J3 w Was -c V 00/3 *C «s E "•O ... uc S* ..2* .SP-o

co>*k«u>UJ

S 2cd v

Ej3 o °* * T 3

j f Scd . . >

aM 4J^ a, u « E ^° s2 1/5 v22 a

»*3 5/5! 5 ce-Bo 2

5 1o

*8-5 .S 3

Jl o sc ai ^ 5 *£— cd 5 J5 «M

• c o

s-iufa ocd u u. O ft

OI N >* w C O ■

S E >>■2 o

S 0 ’S o.2 a«1 «-S *+4

o ”§ 'gs “-S *4-'8 ° s E S ’S «.2 c■° rs » <«

oe i!K!= Q . o

S j ’c E i.2? Q, a 2 4J '-. c ^ e J o .52 .t£ vi£ t j5 S 5 h c S « Ec- 19 3 «« co » a - u K ’53.2 S u. S S 2 5 °& : § . & § u O .3 W

“ o 1 3 •“ C S

S S §=3-o •§ s a-g <£~ S.2Ji .£1) g u o Js •«.£! U ’T 2 u a , ++ . y cd

■■s S O.SJ.8 £ 2 5 < S

00 2 ° -2 JO ‘5 * 5 ^o O > I" o

<rt 2 °0 « E « s c a o “ • fl’o S cc « os i c " -O id >*« •£«» u g o as «• g 5 ~>^,2 (Am o -*-» oo w c « « c E *0*2 .

O S 3 Iw OO O'-as e v u '

V) .« '

(A cd u'■3 T3 U S C cd cdi *O cd — as >>O 03 3uj *a4>o as

Cd « «

2 ^ <*- ■c ° OU 1-S o c

^ o

•C2 « g o o S.5S,«9 U**3 O £

■ 2 c uS-B^S5?

O t 3

w cjo gJ O ft 3CA O O03Cd t/3E-S

<A ft Ov g.B- S

2 O x■5-S

iw O° •£ a> 2La Cd3en O -2 ■£ "o w 00 -a c«:§ as cd^ c»-3 •§ E

cflj U,> OO S-H k« ft »-

s a g as 8.

u fc- ft

> S «A ! O c1 S\2 a u i^'Ss «cd b

.s-a^ ■ sU c/i O

o .2 aco O

la'i

| s |u — “ ■O C •£. oo “ “* «> u

•E .5 £

a ^,_- G u 2^.2 ui2 oO Q 3 ° C X(A ~*

■C-3 oe c

81cd•2.2 ft

5 « .i“■S c o o 5i « «m cd

M O >,•*•JO OES j= “ju; oo t?“ E u= uii ^ JZ cUw..u ^

cd GO .—

S..E ■*=. “O u.*s 3 oo e£.E o■§ “>* yu u ua.s aO ® t t

2 -jg i 5; *-• c ***V O <Aas +2 a o

m y ccd O 3

^ „ a "‘■S“ «M Ao o -E.E

w-g-a8 p• -OO 5

1441

m jz<N (A *> C

*3 .2w (A I— Vi

< E E o

U

■o-S SPo a3 35" o S u>■« _ Q fl

•3 *■o cCJ o Oo g p u

(N

t ; <■> S3<M O ,o cd

oi/tLn —" « «

.£5 3

E 3U >E ’■S

c

f - f C j =

CO « C o o

£ £ Cd

L*■ u

« _ C CU w O 0 5* B^ 3 (ri

2 t u

o Q -®u __ , <■»u S g. c j . O>■» c - 3 5 § C

I s su o 0« j s U

c u —

u eg 1 « !rtL_ 4)

1 so'?-- c i 1CO (9

X £ ao

>V 4J uc c f l x : ;

< w -

» n(N

a S ' ^ ’S j o= "n °°2 -Cl 0

S “ ° £T? «1 J O *

3 2 o -flo

'*} u ■3> • 3CQ 3

E q - >s ° =B « .2 V o

5 5 3 j O « & “ " e . a - i

o - e j c u

c a oo o

. c =CJ) u

i « . I* _ 0>

J 3 "O

O *0 d O *o O*— « u j = C r j j cn» ••* w 4i w tS■a S - j = 2 -c S<H a <a .2 ,£p ,.s -S ■£ ^ - | 'i

£ £ 1 *■ ° ■£ -p> • _ > - a n<n -* C « '■**

cd cd « Cv i CJ

<SJ Cd

Co

<d o c u

V) Ihd

E E 2

U c —u cd

« O cJ S • 4JH u £2 c - "^ £ E *— *- £ : s j ?

« a .£2 ® o caV) CO > 'u Q- - -

S .a t : ■ft/> -W -u- eg g f - i>

> « S3 a £ ' £ %

^ w ^ C O u ^ c f l

“ a o

- s

« . 2 ' = ^ ”! 5 '*i s i h -S .. t 4> OC/5Co . £

co a . «..

S » 2 - 2 .

— .2 5 « '« ^ w«d — " fiu c “Ot - cd «. . c ^ ^- ■ o m | | E

« o 5/5 y n j i =

o

o J 2O CJ —

T 3 « a- 13 c

- c 3O

- ^ ■•= j - y1—* • h L«rt « W4J 3 x C . w)

_ e r h B

co H U o h < So ^ tfl u

^ ^ J S wrj w ’3irt *5 o X .5 ja

00 ' c =

c q .

a .co

cdunC

4> O * 0 •“

S - ~ 00 • £ . 2 ? t i o l «

^ o " aJS u

° 1 I> * Xw (/I

> 2 . 00 i

o ~ r t ^

 > * - C C « A =

O0 ®ca • -? — oo 0 <dS e e

o £

s l . ; i — h u e• G </»oo « ^ 5; u ^ - c

« - © i - U

c •* o cs ^ w

(9 c £ c 53

U Ct/5 y y —

t E i u a - = _ o

•2 -S'S

a ac

£

oZ

o °° “ '-■a S' S’ '5 >= 5 «j o O <0 >-I— t/) Q .

“ E E .

« £ *a cM *M «} CM SI

2 o “ <4

x : o

.■2 5£ - C

o o

oau*3a *

> >c(9

a> w »- o. c « o « w

ZZ .22 u-

o l .--r «

* o

< § T 3 U

U• a J 3 . « ‘C

a oo a £« n .

c

x »■ 5cU u

^ u(9 w

* r - e

o s

 .: m u! P j c

: o w• -o j=

u o

! - 5 .

• *2 •£ o «d

ac

uJ S

-*— VI

00

^ S Sio o S ’

* 3 j s a

< o €

§ 8 > .Hb . w4i != w cl•S0'

00£ - i

s §5 U .

O JS ■ i- «p;

i :

° £U •-

aP3E

B . .O : '« B

J=

-- a<* 3

S 5E O= C

55 5-«M UO CO

§ I u § c <Q 4>

oUccd<uap :

3 S I _ w o

oJ=

1 «3 .52 £ £

ou0 J3 -*-«

> » JS

1 y

^ -c « a° ^ o .2 " . b -!

C& V> «M£> . JJ O

E E r ^

S 8 £ »^ J2 ^ ^00 T3 co C 1 3flj o •— *o

4i

vJ 3

O . 2 O

edO 3

<N

73

a jx>E4>

E4>

- J SH

c «J s

> » c u £.ts O w u - n - C —

.2. .SP“Scd 2 *r* «*S 'S 35 s ^ )-■

S o

a 31tt w js O « o 2 Sg o Cl« £j3 u m __ Oed 3 « — •- - CD <« ed C w 5 J3 C eo ij <d w>>£ S >>3

2-° *.£■“

O 5^* v) t— ~ t>

S? *3 o « c% i« 3 t 0*0

— i! « 3« 5/5 !>o-S

to cd2 3 J3 «/»

4JJ Cd73 i u j= co “to 4C u u —5 - 5 -

■ D O f i4> . —Uo o °a t = ft-si «« o •E > £ « o• to ♦-*

? M O c 4) <5 U

J = ^ >

*1.S §3 b ^ * 2 .2 s S £S e o

V ^ «w a, o <5 «< -O

co

•« C «s “ S'<9 3 fl

S S f t S " I | § i 9 e 2 i u !

- cW9 O ,«o*,« «> « •«-£ cu2 „ » ■< S c^■o.‘S.c e s

S

E

ta

r 145

Cd "O 4>s-§-<-* O^ •++ o> £ w - g rt ci_ U 3 *o «

= ucd — JZ

Ec £ _ o o

~ - C3_ qj CO <JJ§5'3-S ■5! a o ■.2 -g o a $ <2 3 .t£ i/)c O >- 3 w «*_ uO ^ o -DU a _ POJ

..= s « o ■a a. c — Q2 o o H~ 2 u3 •- U U

- «c/,C "3 -P .2 "3 .2 c - c ii e ^ ^ ‘5. 2 o a -o o -

in , “

. = “5■— n :

M « u. -O o —

*E § 5=5<** J= O « u O0 JZs *1 ’ £ g° uu si o

■ s ss 00

o -3 _D «5 v) .t2E.S E — o „u —■s\o edJZw V).

— Q.o S S- “■a -c

co-^C “

- ^“ C. U C .y>* y .iC o •

c* -3 u *5

o - s c nO 3 </5 r— JO C, 3 3

0* _ o o *- —« 8 - ~ c

h f i'-’i ~ 5J 3

r-l -C .IT r-i 3

c" r* Ui3 C O O « o -C£ o >» «« iJ ■■s y w wC f p A— C Cd «*3b*Oo E E S E ° - • ' " u «4>c « J3 S C £ f o

£ - E o >U

* Tl <W3 « oo. £ 8 “• 1). wo 25o E ° E >, or u

s =5 s-s

0>SiC

u i> «S

•O-’3 ■o o — c =.M'5 | | °-2- a as -5-a g3 y, _ >4J u» O C*3 C£ U - o£ Lc w .22 U— • — cO > c ---- - £K ^ 2 -u c c■“ o .2 *s - oC w V) © ■ VJ c c.<2 o C<« U p “ .2 c = S ~ E aS o - p u — ■;U u r E ®a .2 “ ,c o ^ = j: « U J= 35 a- ~ -3 — c-_ ««— ,£»S o -W 3C

. . ftoS.c'S

eo

•— .C

*- 3 O CJ O w 3«• «-o, vi rs in— '4 2 z.•52 JS r IE —> U '<'■—■— o'3 *•* Q l”"•to — y v< f 2 ! £

£ ■- .« 3ed

•S © «s 8-g,"e “ « "a° '5 Sr« c ^ E M sa P 2C c

O..S2— O o U

,.Eh

u — 'a S§8

gU-S

i-S-SO *>•os > , J8-•S'S

fl t il'O J5 ©■© *n cJ2 © « -E

£*=■§.£? S J>T ug a o °o T3 Q, j2(J U '-

>»>*'n .ts ©u- O W- *-c« vj O CU *“

O “ =**r 5? «c '= w^ o zL o •— o*£ u

ao. £ « w

_ *E 4J «d *“ -D- c §-2-°« U | 3 »

00 u1 3Is?

« 2 •-— 2'

CS « y Q- g >*Sb

<d dr " .U ^ yi*o *c -fic E CL= E £(T O CO . 2 0“!a % D.- eo ftt f c

.E *5M 2 4)u ur: > V

o .2 ujr o » - U.l2f .S>3-auOj:a>- X 5-!= S-.s?'3 °u S 2 OCX >< =r - C O^ ^ JZ Z £>, •> ■ J. H E =f OJ-i _ r* —

Ci-o ?.£C^.5 o^S; «' u r * 5 c co c a a o .=

co

EEo.U<UH

41 V) J=

ca

e r

.© JS

= e- i

J3 C

l !6T _Q . 'u 3 £ « V) o ■© -O D CV) C

J

© tr> ©>* J=“3 — V)3 *Co

5c E ’f/7inO w Er“co- 2 UCJ 3x> c CJE JZ« o H

o r3 JZ o

^ g

a u‘5 4, cr_c 9J

J=

s E■a

T3UOOuc*o4i

C*o

G.

r3i.■a

^ o g*i 5tLJ" u- C O

cpoU

w -a o \s o -cto </> —i l f ■§§2 — w c/i « >.£ SJa o ^ £ EC3 r-u S.s^ CO <ji« 'o E *a « © .2 -c *-

sofN

CS.J2

% 5^ I •- Sw « -r _73 T,* O ,>* ajc « « H0 3 " cS > 3

5 —2 X — «®E ° — .£_ e rt < «

Q ° S « O o o _c•55 Xi ~ * 5« (Q'£ J) c £C > V- uE S - 2 o .£ SU tfll> «*-! CU T? ° O«C 4i go

o 3 «

CJD3v)Co

>»ccd

r-<N_o73

•© c>,s * 1? *£ ?u

«I C £ U vi

■5 -5rc ^ 1.2S u» <0S«.s>,cdE *> t) «d > ,-c P

3 O 3 ^ t/i Cl* a u.2 "B S j=u .ts D.J

cd

JD O.'5 E

o

‘S E*o • ed c

« .s

OW9 *3cq JZ'E.*£ o mU O o.H £

S o g g e l3 0 * -s : i s«• e «

s^i.s. >< o

°g ' s « Sc 5 £ 3>?2 w -aC ./i u o >» o C 3 O Cd V3 u-.2.2-5 *

.E «

3 S S o. X C V A

© S s— w tfj *o cc c SO 8 *U-| ^c -M JSid.y

5^5 >

U s5 </» v g </> o»*§.*5

! » < §u s «. «-S p £ p 3

-COIE

VO

cu >

3 0.2 :S* — in </»c ,t; !/i i/)s I £ 'i

E "v*Q O g

O O y ,S■“ £ o 2<*4 00 JC 1}O 'CHS

p o<j C- —« E '? o .ts

o£;Cou

0-300«j T3 O

V *■*

<4-. fd w « —DC T3O C

*3 3

O .•5 OZaJ > a**-, - « © -3 wC3.0^03 O O « ,

■3 «O -3 C — k.u c2 o

</> — O r- ■— C

« i2 O* yed «mc-SQ. 00oo u C <N CJ *3w .5 «d r

'o

Co

S u J

°"E * 4> . IE *E © -

_ u ed X V w 4>sz

1 ed- §SH .2 u> w S

E 5 E sa IJS -— JZ <M .'ts © * ■++ «. 3 =: u edU wo .t5 J3

C« is

.2d o** vm Imed * a § £ « w 00 .■M *30 M «U) >£.S1 S3 Oo -Q

cs a — u

u "3E ^ >. 15

At _ ^

ed v»P 5 £= U - •

I SCJ 00o= -c . » s

g* I■o j u i I

a*n u u u <uU C JZ <4-1

> —

m 3 £ ■a'i S

U U ws s rCO ed -K -C W <J w J3 ><• w U

O L-S OM o1)> a> <s: .22 w *> L“ ed *0“ (/)

CnriX)O

< Q.

*cdJZ

cr“ «coU- 3H

oQ.o.

y J. u E 5 o“3 O k .0U «3 u —

c oOw

2 .E*5 OJi pc £

1 °

°o -C ri —

■3 OU f 3 CJLaCJ _0 .tsS o</» 3.a ©w inLm U.VQ . CL,

1 < : — s; w. oo

» j= •§• ° E: ed =: UX E ; ©

Ci-o

. u —

— V) 3

= « Eu -c E °00 i— C CL

a cE ?i« C v- o 00 c

3 v: l t3 .! i y -

3 r-i' -E ■= — 7 & S E.'

t) r3? *s -S

3 2 c*5 vi j= — b .i

.is - U

i>

^ E ded o

r*i

i s

£ < ; £ i

c o t:u r

o5 *3 o 53 S5 0 v5 >■

■a j=__ u

.O

(SI Z £

W (/5 in

; >-1 « ir §OC- 3

3

= 3 S g S S o

■ S . a . i ' g i ?^ (A w o w .5 — 2 — « c

3 = C C j C « O « O +* CLu - t S o °- ^ s - 2 q * s !S £ £ “ £ u

SH 5 8 s oo

U 6 0 " 0 “ £

■°’S.a.a - cM .s, o o*c « a) 60*0 00 c JC t- 73 •— 3 « w « 3 2 O > w *"* u» l" O (i

^ -o « o “:W 4> c — «7? w o 5 . >> -G.a « 2 L. — —

TJ ° 73■ <■ £&. - Q.

o 0 ‘S « -

0 £ >> * J3O 0.-C” E ~ o o c ° °

I— a»

o c e

S . Cg u

-c o

o • lu

E i ‘3 J

S S = «fc Q- <2 «O (U 1/1

S w > x o * w

x c* _ _W J3 ■ — CJ)(o o o •=,:

>cdJ=

Cd-C

co

EEoU

■ocCd

UV U\5 x:

00J3 c c o —c 1c .ti i- > o ^ o^ — SC Co O L- (j \s o

.s s a% g = O O cd— U ■*=S3 w co <4 w C = O u O <s> -rza s

EvnTT

<*.2 c o •s -O

• « 8 W CdC O3 - MC

' «•=. X-°

o 2

cO

<;

“Ocut scd O u JC _ -CIfl c -*- 2 «-

« °‘ ‘ (A3 .O <-»O ' - E -

0 . - 3

10 ®- .U"2 eo.y £ = t: c o < ! i £

5 o ' S.2 S Ub o.

o o

. c« SO S3^ .E £ *2 £ O“ 4J O O

5 - S u

■0) £J)b= .5 G -2 <-> *s 73 u e« SinS (A u3 40 o4> <-*S 3 .E o— ,e

5 « 73Jm ,i2 CJ </5 hi _C CJ -* p" ty) •— > 5

*e .2**-’ r« w s ° o-S 5>. o *‘C ft c c s £ u <a t; >_ (9 C

3J f 3I a M 5«1 Q .S W■J: c.S § 3 «S. ° W

.E >. u ° o o — 5cd v) O

cd T3 b.2 s S.(A &

S'S

e. O «*

E c -s l £

o u *5 -O cd u

a a

cd H — g £ c«u

u e 0J^ o

CJ c/l O V O u *5— a i-

-3 'H £0 £;-= eoS ’g.sa u «- c «

o i: g 5 cI i 6cd O1 cj .eCO

c « o X

u i- O w

cd

f p >> o — ' *« t-

>» o

» § o *-

CO a*

s’l

-s.? CCJT3 i:"S3 cd O J=n, c/1

■° Ju s

oja.

^ P 00cd u u -C 3 •— ^ W u cd

O _ ®us.-g-It- S ocd 5 cd

« u ^

JZCOJS o .S'

t. ^ W _c m G w uO 2

M •acd cJS cd

c0 c* t/J ( i«o E m

6ju

E « 'o0 <ALb

OJ=-«_*

-ac

c

•H U4b«<u<4-t 0cd cd *T3

u0 u ,■2V]cd 0

<*« >0 0cd

c/)u

a,

£ 0CMCh.

CO■ £

u CO

*cdImO E

C O ‘>. u ,cd jz *3 E - . 2

w O & O. 3 CO o U

U | £W o CH - S -

*t2«3 t) *J“ VJ O ® -C H m mmm t

oE

J3 t- cd ^ i

' OJ■8 °

> S c f ^ 2 p p 1-a.rfji. > n i

S «5 p c 1 ”S

u " E a ° =O Q U,« «9 CJ «5 ^ g _g *- §

- C L ° *ts ’S M-l ^O Q to oOO f «4_J C w“ JS’S-- g -s S3 jj u £ ■g - £ °*■a S 3 S = ^ ““ u c o 15 p •-< ea S § 'C U u

g» S - 8 - 7 . f icd■a cu .1 C X p

._ p u5 (/) u

g = £

E1gj 2 .c O ^ «| § a.s i fo u is - O o “ C o 0 -'S.farjjg^ X o — Q

- 1 “1JS !

o 1 ^ \ =a oOQ

cdco

aa>V)O-C

ua&,so

c .2S' *co

• = - - j = c

■E I

’S o

p -c u “ 0 K

'i-s«® S

«3 -Q •-

>o

r^

J)"o

Cd rtj•fi a. M ou> C =.2 w'Si ^

- E -J? E y

u I

*5 «

<d cd

‘5 s5 c u ud a

S >*

« B-C gH b

oco

>■M 00 .H

op

zm

50 VO c

p cd

0 ELU00 3

X

o u5*E 2

3 3 c LU

cd «u ^ °O —

- yvi C *v» 3c o o CJ u

. a i cd

"m ■£ .55

■S'S £

§■

cou4>•s>1.2

U) L V)C OO -o^ p u ka C O 4J U

a 2 s

o-g-S

« «

vi • _Q d> Os — •

•s ” «

>*- 7? ^O .Si W

S> cd

O o g

+* tsu A o 3 •£ &

O O ^

c __ £

s 3 SO' ®o o -a

5 .2.w S>ou n 5 j: = ■£t-'

“* . • cd u u

(4 fl."- P *-

, | a s! 2 w p

!'*"<— Motn __ -*jflc £

u o p

« 3 ■?U O ^ g U ^ , > u ojlS <A

■a <« o i;

^ E o ^

u >

■° 1 "■ss ,5i « «- 'o f P c w — «

S «u O a t ' 3 >

I fE - =

■a 2 c« - „• - S 2 B E S

£ U.5 a° Pa £D. O

V uJO -C

.52 — <«

o Z

O (3o m !2 • x " c•■s-S *

s ° . a a o ed S wE ** w 4) -C

— ? I «• fl g <1 E c c G

: * 6^-2 20 £ « < C m c

C Cd8 - 5 S

1 “ SQ. o

-C 608 - ec *** —(S O ". <w0 C c1 g--

U (C Q*

a H ^ V g U

S° ou _

S — '3

* * a iu o 0.0 E uO J= u *-

•a_ v O </>

_ 0 D. ^ U - X.2*3 « uU v) U 3 Q, U U Cd

at .S °-*5cd • " x . C « *0 O r - l3 ^ E «■“ *Q 4> C 5 JS ^ fljo *"* ES 1-

o

■0 2." £ S uQD-— u

2O “ °

w i2 u c —■°.2Ss S §js.si S■C lu !/l

u St; cr u13 O ' - ^ £ f- — *• Q

(O< •

<N

cedu

r~- o o H o*

_ L- «?n _g.aw £ -a

_ o1 p • S x

oTT

JJ

■S I ’S'-s < o i i »

« V £ 2 0)

E 2d

't? >. O X)

■g O ’

« 8 * 5

£■5 «.•— vi fi. u2-° =

** X Wo MiZI V»cd u

o «o1 ^■£'

(A . >»u ' cd c•* c 5J3 C O

1 5* S>

E £ *«

|=-SH <d m-* o>1 o

.— Oc

E >< « >< w *55

O =JS cd

I ^ o

’ e o «S V)C T3« - 2»*= S3

a

o u -« 1

> w ? *TDu-.EU C3

•? Ec o£ -2 £

ITi I— w* *- tjJJ

13

, o’ *0 ( o-C

”cd-C

ocd■S

EE

C cd 3 4>

.5 cc .28 2

o=: “O

J i* O > ,0 o «- •= ii

C

o.

s -O EC W

O co r\ __ c_ «/»b «• c v- « « *

£ . •

- S l - o . £ ,J i <

cuai,;

! <N ’ j

C•i:w3

Q,-»E Cpu

^ • n h o «

E ° -gI- V» s-'o •pC

■= sJ- M4> 4j .•*•** CO

5. U

TJ1

*5J

*€

o gi2 SCuj=

»- >»

e--SO u 4> 1- •° « CO >,e o 5 -c

■ao

a.

cd

c0.*2*S5<0wa,1oo

>

T3

§1S ““O o

■j VI ■< j;

<NTf

cd

>v

^ U V

o .2c

S's•a ^

jr *5ucd dj u oti .ts

£ £

« Il u

JJ =o *cd

Im tf) . < -

>»Xi

Q. oJ3

to•tS

- co £

u >t o

3S

, S H “» «; +* Itt. cd 3 « O >*U u« ajz r H w

o g cj 5

uu tj

fi-S

J!p

•° £ E - 2

8 « E g

H I.

147

.■= c »Sd o Eo S f

U J 2 . £a* ^ ..z y 4)5 8 >>*- c o o caJJ

u eCO E*3 4> O

<«« to 4> fi > = 3 C« J O

" c Uu

(- - -<-> 5 FUU < gw 2

r< «*-^ « oe ) c in c i- c ~ " os s .e :s

- j= « >- §•“ S u - gCT • —V J Z J Z«- to £* £ C O

>>.o

oX)4>03

3o

U

(AT 3 O n

C « ned

^4)

CJ c0

CJ

U *to

<CO

<

OL.o.>c> b ^. C qj; a c iw r c <*- : & « ° > o E c : = s -2 j W -5 m

fci-, (M c O O U

EoU .

n»*- 3 O £|

S 'sto Oa. u X C 4> 3

Ji<5H o

E ® E ‘ 3— c

H o S ocdO S

fi« ° . 3 lou £ 4> OS (3 "2;s §0)

■a ca

_ c~ .2 ’to

t/5

E £ o U

«*£ js

J °Scd

' Ec <_3 y tO

■s-i g ~ <?e

8O c u.5 coft) ed

113 =4) > C-c g « w a. 0CO Q.C •■« Q

u . i 2■5 '5 u

° E tM-g C V\3 V

«CUCOC

E*~-S

«/> ceg 4)•73 e3 a) "O 3 C

OVO

O .

u 2?-C SCOCLE « >»CCd ~

O -=co o S2 • — co ‘35 * f« S -tv i-K

- E « °

! ! “ - c ucoU

c4>v ^ C£ ^ cW C <L>

- 3 S0-0 cn

CJ CdCedEo

C O C Oc c

O COZ - E

: j=1 o

xi >■ >» 31 fe

. c !L> = J=£ o

VO

4)O

<0 Q4> .MvZ Oc c O 3 O O,« u4J O5 JC o w

« ° ■£ ii4) WO cd

■g4? 4) u -Ca —— >. Cd -o -CC/1 (O L.c « o </> — c c •—2 2

S'Su ° .12 Si j= —

I IM P

-C O ^

l - l

o .3“ O bC _e?

a, c .v) O- c *-c .2 >-E S u

^ c ■§ 2 ■£ j ? S £ o

c ^ —■w o cCX| O ® 2 4)8 - « . E EX4) • —a _ g r

U 4J 3 ~ “ Q«Im Vh.O oo-C *-* to•J 3 c

. O cd■§?sd£ !5 .2| “ S J e f i g = 5 j .2 o « cu — rj> m C ^ - i 5 « v) 4) ^ > • =-O c -£

o

§ = ° '= -2 | ! ° ■- M.— 7OV* • . e ° o o 3i_ g O 3 ? - - OU c4J £• r~ ■3 -O r: •£

cdcd <b•C .,,4) </» 4> 4JCO —« son ^ 3 J=Im Wcd —0-*5>eo « C w — O «-» C

U >,4)j c £CO

4JOSH

■ LU

I 2 C•— 4) 4>c 'S^ o X u« cd

3 S §■= gj ' Cd C CO *- CO C o• — 4) 4) •—** - ^ o5 " C

o c3 « rt _ c u -o

VO-2u

< w *9

c4> 4) to cft 4) O & » » 0>4) J i 1-

1 1 -^O T3

«

•Si .& g ,t- o ox 8 I S4> U ,-■ S 'S

4) O>>'S = I s*<3t 73 U

= ii n £i—• as +*4) O

O 4)u S

1 ^ 0 «; e >>s> ™

“ S o 2« g o 'E>> 3 H

— ^ 0 c3 2 —. o^ S ’| 3sS. "3 3 3 .

c* O ^ —c t U K - 5

,w O m cd W C- S j= = o

= 6 I “ s-■S a 2 t

O ed

5 cd o■S 5/5 sz

o\

1 3O 4)u - 5

”5 ©c o

edPUCOc

couas as60 . • CO .K‘“ C M *0o A 4)

's « -a" I I.3 E S Sw o w g

U -O

■3 ! 8w- ? -a^ o «»

i ed ' CU

g - s “ rtlco cr.

* 2 5 i; o «*-* .2! O cd i 0.2?' r- 2 i «C: oo °

c - ° ? O ed -C4) (O

o ± ;.

« " 3 —c « ^l. ^ as 4) cd w= S ’s

2 §o ?>s

4)T3

“ >> 4> -O2 *nS"jn

'•5 5

4) </)*£ *•. 4Jc rr^ cc

E

2 c •£ o3 #*

J S J S J ~ 0 .i2 _ o-. oC T3■O ° B 'S S

“a

. cx--l . s S[C, 5- CJ^ 0-0 4)£ « 3— o 2i <— -C0 7 ^

aT3

U .CE -CO c -a o 3 ^ —. .=1, u4) D.D £ «

CO*3

5..2,?w 0.2.2, -5 }q * MiiSiS=::a-a.S i°g'5

CTJas.5 rt 2 *

0.2 > « 5 a

3OU >t

>* 4)

= D- £>O 4) 3■ s '- SC _, Cd ’ o at o>■2 c c r e «O cd u..(j a o

F -F.o

5 ' ^ EO Q.X E5 s

</l 4) 0.^-0« -2 .2

•- o .C0T3 4) — , £> C

— •* 1 I)

"3(A «■%•co ft>fan J=ca +*

0 e

§ ' ^

1 -O. fart ato *>£ (OO cdE u

E >CO ‘JZ C 4)3 "a

03 or« .Si

° mm cn C.

2 5

■g-s3CO w cd 'ZZ

30

U

ECO*CJ

0=H

cEo

U

‘3 C C O to ■“S 3£ Sj~ X 4) 4)•O co

_ to o< - S s

S * a. o00 4) C to

■— cd t> «cd* C c ed O _JZ w CO 3X*" O

U4) V t- ~

<

C$o

cEu.4)

C«US■oc

j) j£> — .s;cd cj -C y> w > «_■ 1-U 4) 3 O. O 3( ) wi

•SOS<0(Mo

1 5 £ to CO lm *0 4)3 Xn

vnv-»«o

8 = cd

« g ^ O cd *13 c— 4>cd EOSto <0 w 4)

H^ .S

to r- ■L. CC_ o

4)

Co

£o03

oU4>as

as <y co <X

'■5 E-^ox.^ u 2C « ts

a.3

O 4)U 5 £ * h g

40o c O*wto is L« J2

tZZ o4)

H i

co 5 3 o

■2 #> JZ -O8 s e s4) 4>- S3SO O

! ^ Zr ju

;-SS

(3)

The

prov

ision

s of

this

Conv

entio

n sh

all

be ap

plied

in

such

(2)

Su

ch

a de

nunc

iatio

n sh

all

not

have

the

ef

fect

of

relea

sing

the

terr

itorie

s wi

th du

e re

gard

, ho

wev

er,

to lo

cal

requ

irem

ents

. Hi

gh

Con

tract

ing

Party

co

ncer

ned

from

its ob

ligat

ions

un

der

this

T1 4 8

ao 4>c o c o

O >»O JO*** *a -■o « ~ >*« £ g »-

o o —:_p" 2 “ £ VO_c £»* w

2 .0

u ^

'1*2 O. >-360 e S2 c « «-8-° g

. u c •

2 o . c>* -2 cr ^ « go «— fco o L-

i j C *

>» ,' u. fl ci8 -c Ofl. MJ ■—•

* rt atJ E-218 «.2 >1 C Clc o e ed rs 3 jj, cd Co .SP.S2

oa jj 5 e £• =

' ' ^-Oa O _

S u ru 3 u</J •“c . «c>o >cO S #

•s o 2 wCo o

■a §’ \s «cu J2, Cd

c .2 o > wU M'S

'u £_) = SI O u= U |

< 1 § . c 0.2

* o e « 2*. .5 Q-£ 

I * :

VOvOJ£o

u u5 -c «O J3U — o £ ** 2 j : £ -c *“ §■-

M r-— rr > O

S « B ,!o j : o 2r » L °l2 «=? -So 5 W S o u ■£ s '*-> j :C9 O **O r s uo - a g c>- ta § M

3atf o » _-U Sioo *M

e s o £U |

>% o

c -o ' eto uo

S 2-3-5_ o <u2 -0 .'« E c ^ « 8u 2 c°’S u —°ro « d -S ” £*“ 2n Q." o n a o K - .a •c i: o c «-1/5 3 ^ 0 wUU CO > «

I s8,fC/5 ”

“ *S■>v t>

« «■« >- u x: >* —

.ii O rt

o cu ? "5<j ea

- £ . S Soc

o is s

a >. bo ° o t- c 2 ■g-iS 2 = 5 y CU 0J u U i G «m j s ^! £o - g £•“ o U s o w cC 4> ^= a ei-i o o •— — U bffi «

■a JS o o C u f x« 2 H - J= s.2 . a °m m Qs p a u £c O 3 U U o y -e J2 — 00 oO.S-S3in <a <J2 «. § .

- o h .S U

. O§ .s .cV9 5i O ’O P v=m O «OX) O .11

u ~cd cd

V ) X L.

c o , - ..2 ~I rn c ;>— C 4> • 1 W c< > C

oO .■= ^ o 3 y ° a <TC 4J§ i s’0 1 5 ° ijs 3O « s -7 3

Ji c H fl o - «s £2 c - -S i i o - i ,V) -s -a -B E c u

U S 5* § 2 E

? S U.o' — u m JS — r n r

to ■S j s S

•- o .a JS -a - ■“ .2 o H o ■3Z 1 ^ 8° >»lc « ^ ~ o -« s « I ■° § j - 4) r g i -

•rj- eo c.ifi *SA1)£ oOS J-

.S — .T3 » U «C.ts ^ ’3?a 2

oM J3C J=O c Q g

a.

i 9 -.

E >>.- a « o ss a g 2 8 §) ws CO 53

j: c c o o .S u ®8 J2 «C 4) oCO « li•o T3 -o

4> M <> a c ” 3 O2 0u

° S? U(J " ?

CO ^

2 o S= s «o g a

CCW «£

.s 6.W_ J= J2 C « > o >o

o

E 2

o >,.Uc = ^ m o

& ++ *Wcd u> o u. T3 >s^

& ft miE E |S3 Jil j=.H o

w O »o « — r i s « „ ' • S . u

. 2 -CU ?>'?1 O «S e gJH.2-3t cd W

3 OJS.’S OQ, > co V •—O *U - O C .SCQ • —

w C l o gka< d « M (gs m ■> .

I ! J. « T3 o 5 c £ u^ J5,« ~JJ « S E

_ e *— *7?uo.E

VO

>COU

-e c >» « o i i . - -o •s x £ —CQ 41 Z O t « © c «■£ c =V O CQu o O -C •“ «n« g -5 s;

a5 £ c « - >■ 2 C t/f JS O-- <J

Ji 60

C4J -CJ>1CQEjU

(75>»■c<

cac

’Sco

1° >*--- _C O ^- c •- *n u - u eo 2 o « _*** c° .2 -2 o« J; c c E 2 ' “ .2 2 a 8 « • | S S

•oc

60 « e -• .J5.£ f t S o£ •a "n. ® s o ^ ■S "o — o. 3

C O

■S »CQ CQ > — s «</) SI w —*- w .>. o c „ < = u_ E <-i a

C •

u :cK

-f -a ? g

o 2u *j o i * oi -13 «

1) (JI JS wI — oj E c2 ’<2 I*. £

0.2 u r

CQO cu■5 co #cO a

CQ„ L.

2 5o O c CjA t W

ir\vOc

>.J

U) c!= o

I 'i rco4>

CoUJZ60

S<

tM UJo c>s«k«

•5-1 d ® D .— j= o

CO OHJ

5> j s

oT3 ' c

u - w =

cd wCQ

cQ CO

C «J..2 E

c a4) 4) > JO

w CQ_fT

■S’5Oo f JQ «a

it= O

149

tSi u- TJ G. y C °*** c/j CO>*.2:2 -O s >

G-.2 os w. t/i C 3 .2 U

) c : 0 -a *w o> y

o oC/S -C

o.£<J

o >“»-0 .Hr j: cU " tfl «1- -35 2

O — k-

. u —<: B.Sf <— o i o c.

- o c<s:£ s**. 01 CJ o0 -go.5/J *0 ~ "Te s «2 2 _0 n — y *i75 o -O*> s-j£ £o n 2 w S. = E «-S j= 2•£ ca “O ao o *0 *] 2'" >>CJ ea ,S2 'w S^ .2 , 3 s .a a®

5 ■§ §S.H

^ c-■S5

-. .0’ T3

t/i m co T3 C

<3-*y= ■= -‘ - ' 5 5 -

0 •“ “ ^ c S£ eO’o :S ** J5 - - ° - -E o 1°

UX.hU U utr IS -c ° S *“ >* g‘tr C ss «uo c .2 *oC ’5 -S3 tZ « “ .U ea JS

E ocl-

i o SCJ

u w o ji .5c 'J ?e -- *n «/■•: jZ. 7“ «- U > “3 M

= = = “2 0 = 150,. = U -O «/> »■^ ea — -" w X

o

c ^ £ ■a o u8 a-s.a a &< o cr

S°rH*o o 2 —. **C « = ?> o ca _“ & S

© ca3-5o r *3 o•*2 u •C >* ? <! S w—* s e

^ *c 1, *=u u o *a5 g S 5

2 >*-. - - t S-S.s.5 E<■*

~ QJ.p U C ^ c c 3 —0 c o - -C —

o w = S£ O J{ o O c -O o O 9

. = ii w .!=R O U

Co^'=

5 0“..O; u Ooii £> H "= «- - 3 ca a . wo

o caV) >ca o.s .2 c l

w •a~ 0.a ?

« ^ = ££ O —"

o “— ?

Z, ■£ ^ c m o £ .C

w 7: *o■sSsC o o.0 Si

•J 2 §■ E H 3 5 J3 -3 ■gU“g eo -C o« o

II

» _ *o-j S « <jea .O — C> *- 00 3O CO o on.»n o o.- "O wa S «■£5 ^ o“ 2~ ^ lM L/~o .■rrc. ea

s s— c ■— n-SP c.,

(N

b. w « — <uo j= a h a“ C - U c-0“ « .5 £ —l i s 2 E’St> ca u CUw r- qjO 'S t ' r; e —

o £u OU« a. >»e c B a o k. ej ■s E o o

wi C ej i?*c « £c.-- 3

- > *0

c — —O ktME Oa 0’S

= ra0’S<J o h. . uojJS -S «■ o.H<J t“<st CS o <

; J5 .2 .y « ■ "35 *3 ..

Os-ii; o

ao o"3 e . o «, S£ — «aIk I 13”a

" H e > - .2 ca >>’aJ= ■>= ■=2O § c; ~ o oy >C > O —5 *° WU 2 *

01

I I

? Iv2 o ÊD ,22 c

2o -a w u- .3 ■—* ^ *« . rsi

o C .2 Fr E 3 ^ o•cn is

w “3E - g «

“O o

U -= O^ — CJ

I I -•S <u 5icss 2ca co &o c s’ o • - J . g

^ I o

ea ca •S to

o .2 *5^ c -C ^;.2 « 0 « P —

S 2CJv— CO «J

«oii *E -23 5 u CJ 00

S'Sa- iS t- c u O O t£3 « ,v5 Uta*,o o "3 g-f'J = w f»

W “g o

-2 73 oi? -t Ov oO 3 So O £ •— c a

^ O 3 e« * -= i H. £ M o . * a c p5 h > ck. k. ^ > CJ ■si

“5 a e « 3 = 12

— -- "S « c -3 0 t — C O vi U"3"Tl ^ p **“ ^ e S « *r _ — ^ a

d X Z

4J CO O O 00 , ■ —u ~I I f3 ^ « —ca o“ * u "O

O■ac

o «

S'® «0-0 3 - O O 13 J5 —flj VI■IISo ca O y vs ._

C k. a> . 2M k. 3 34J o « o .tso •' --

obw u *° o y s •- b .. ~ ••

>."3 •— qj 2'u °~ E o w^ W53 3 v)- 4)

.a .E ■-i’5 <5 r w u u.

■ ° C - gw W u C . c - 2 y O ^ \S •= «

c t3O 4> 1 ■— 3

o I r « « c r =p- -a -5 j? «-sc sO o *T3e a/3 -g

,2 » S J» O W5 «4-l .3o J2 5PCÔ'C| §.2#>£J .0 o'5^S 3

•— aE o3 rs

3 c/5> .5 *Sw 5 n O ca w

isZ 8|

i-S-'S3 4/5 -3 ca\r.

vi "oO w — ^ •£t/J ■— 3 T2 — .-3

o K

2 H £ . ‘3

I I«SU 2 « H -

3

2 oCl

u .2

CL

a & caE.S3 <j c

o „

J -3 o, — OO S •

J s g CJ -5 .a -5 =Tj o*"5 *S w 'Z 5

O * - tov — o ts <j

*6 *"3 o 22u■a (

caE.

ca ?iU 3 — 3 O cj

C- O O — —

- u 2 h

>%3

cEc

0

■aOCL

O > ‘ ^

O 0

LmO

u■£ CL

ea

OOca

caL-

<2

U

0

. 2

C/3

O-C

c

c

0CLV)O

V)CN

0

1 c

00

’ >0“

J _3 O0CJ Um 3 Xn Cm

c oSO 2

3 CJ«/:C t )

= S.S2 = £ = .Ss: '£ «V3 —

•- 2 -J0 “ 4/5

.!«§ • - • £ «

1 -5 ra g 3 a-S >.

~ ~ . o -3? ^- 1/5 5 ^3 5 u o 33 CL u CJ------

o _ _cu o — > S

• • CJ (S u w a y -a 5 . ca js - & =— ea ea

= * 3 eb-SC o w ’5 « 15 c J a - 3 . 2

3 (A

U O

st;

o 00 *3y M E 3 u Er j c— — w

« (— *« >*' — *5 c —< £■ . V5 “w *— « ■— <_cos j: ?n

uS f “ oO ss_ c 0.2 c-.E« c

EdS | 3z S ® » Q uo u u P S ®yesSâ

»“z?; U « S

-gSiSO O Q WSi<g

i a g > u

2 = o2gu o s | w 7 2

P 3 Zf’ X Ou

XlSca

eoJ ...I

B

o * 3 O ,.0 a.CJ 00r|c o U S3• “S..P

-c « i , - oo2at ^ ^§3 8,§ I 2 -

2PJ -c *Q« ^ m n CL ’ "-O k-“ S « < o «

■j w « u — .S ’SO c“ ■I-^ £S S(H-I k* . K . ’o o m o ca

SJi *« o*5 a 2 ° s - i 5c Z « S ■ K - g ' o iC & CiO-a 3 * ?’E .S o ao oI = “§-i is15Si-Ha • = u - "° s

t/i BAjJ

'N e

°T= — O\ £ E 5 S J 2' ^ .o~ *

1 -d CJ J .E

o o u*D U U.2> a « " ••q'SQ.Jg.® E J5u n O m'-'u 0 2cô.2 o .2. n s •— «aS ’m ^S sJ*3 a_ u e ea O k* ■“ 3 W IM krt O’— O Ou. 5 («- -= c = 2- c o S__ «o 7S wj O 3 " «« 2 k- •—;r* _ff t— rs si ej —

u -=« S M

■o " '■3 H■a 3

g<8 -s* OJ? G.< Cl

005 3 Q . CO X . 3

V) Q . 3o au e

' 2 (fl U O (A■ • *3 — cj _c !3 3 * ’S^ M !■< U..|S'|l° o 5 s > 8.S-S “ u J3 X c 00 u - -9 M•ES o•- g E 5 o-=.i- a uO «m '35 u « 75 S_— "* u>2 E °"j- «-=j 6 a*w ■5 r* a > -JX offlota S' 4> — ’S Bj- 2■o w 2 ■— S mu ao o 2 S' S2 •!•§■ = e -S I ' -E Q o §■§ oS

o o 73 E s o< u.«<4-4 T3

>< « O “ ” K

O a

-2 «c S . | S s, 2 % u « o« c .*3 £ oo = *3 H «*h<3 •= la *s . *>< °CN W

ao « C is 4J « #c ca “ J *2 s! s § S s g 1* ! !a a c1-0 <=«a J3 w o «C— «- L>

u4 S S2- n rflj CAo.« „§ is -t- 2P i5 Js

O o u — .2*- 00 Js o ca j=

*0 c■? O o•* E g

s

j= ca o ea

O « ?P«

E 0I-0O go ,«3

OO k-<N^ CJ) o oO w*2 C — k- o a> <* > Cl . « --v « “* ea .s <o on—; - «-* w * rf“ -T” 1/1 r? « U 1

O Oca CJ3 J3cfl cj

-M 5 9

^ H ca ««X S «c "O G«00*' Q. O r42 E

Cl,a.E — o.a

>i<o5 5lua C — .s Ua S “ o 3i-s u <=1 & =•= = « - 2 -Sa c a y u

■S 1 8.5'“.a" S S S f l u ■- u a ® “ Ji • .c o * y <*- (9m h U 3 U

^ C k-X c flj oS"«5V)w 1v e 5 o -o -u2 in oS *> a t) *s <-* 2:5 .ff

o S Icj <*2 ?

3 “* 3 5 ca « 2 «-. u fiQ, QJ (A EM'S o <0 .§ ^ ’£' O O S 'S E >-S | « g uorfi^ Q--S I)» S10 -a 0=S '“ “ 2 a> c >*JS k*3 t) w 0 3 — CO

i c ■g o

- — — - 'J Oa ^ - . s c u. B J3 cJ! % g*| 8 g 5.•gge^.is d o l.|> , a c. - .E 8 2 ’= 2 2

S = 2 = ' i c n 5 f i > i ^ a » l i 3 S S u £'• w k. y O.QW p Q 0>S«» « - “ Sc j S O S

O i l -a• o S - g _(N k- C S00 B ea

0 «a j y . . ^

1 §.££ "^ = &B«,< » “ !o . E u oo*s 4!^ ox a m Z3 0 8 — is *5I g-8! s-i> = 0>1 ~ o

ca - a o G 2®js e ~ " «uC/1 C O .g J5*5 .2 .a JH O ts s o

(/)5 o «,g x> ts s k- .0 p ’— —O kS>-□2 O O -C* gu 2 a. u

- E £sA o H

og 6 J SE o «*a *2 £ -° 2 3 S O — «« O j- «f- U — .2 w» c »E c.2 o £ .S-S-a k- .5 .-0

i « cS -S .2 .3 o

:*r *5' “ o

t o _3J3 5/1aea «»00 y ca Xs i o ea

E m . _ w •— —r j r ' S J i S a S M : ca .0• u ES - O.2 £2 Evj sjS-O G8 I >>. 2 w

.2 2 oU

iO -

fS i - 123“ o w « C J-S5

■e-S-o-S s < s ^w 0,22

E i t 2

C JD o a^ u751/5 O .£> es* ®^ e *s «.2g § s >■= a o8 O.U

.2 J</> m

o-TJo

_ ,2 T-1 O ^s = .a S g E Ji > E e e .0 o onS u^ o o5 -c JS

B.-0 ^0 oJ3 . 2 k- t/» o — . -o 73 E £ o E a «« o “‘g uo o 2

e j= « o a cl-s; o “o 00 J3. 2 3 £ S — • - ."TT 1— •“ ™

-= « .a « ? ±-S- a S =

— S u* £8 “ ° - I ^ -

a-a.Si.-r■— 2 J = 2 t3 2 ** “ o ’E E t3•I-S •- 2 S O ^ E eaDOU^ Jj C q w j-~ ea ao-2 <ii B £> « 0 c uo O o ^ f iJ i O 3

a > . « J? 5 = U

C . » £E“ 25 E

•E S’S 2 |6

c. 3 ?2*i/T ca <2

y S^ o e ■> -o -o E P "o> o^ 2o £ -c •£SS = ea

*S 3CJ o“ •■f ea ?■/> • o 1n Z rJ

■a <a s o t o r .<2 « i ° : - 2 j c B o y «o 5 'H .c - 3 s ^ E 2 2 o 7 j « P u 81) U . 0£ X Ji o CJ C l’ S O - n o o “O

v; o u y

i b « .E c --’ .2 =-,_.2 2 , ** fl B ifl .> 3 E .2-S .S j ’S t , .a | g! a S'S I 2Siiu5•I I s « t:k- O t/i c oa s ' 3 - " 2W o O ' CL o

o 0 = o S ■£-° S-£*SH J a 0 «a r> E P o C .S 1. fc

wi 5 as < -

150

ft) o ** 1= s . ^

M.i e !■s s 1 ‘i - (_ .:

* .£ 1> c S j o o '” g a :CO Cm — "• E U

cn-i“ .5 •= o

1/3w sv) 3 co as ^ s s5 8 -g S3 co E

• H " a E '

■3 ■?! >. « > ,- 3 r U T 3 c j S ' ’ i _ l- d c j c c

3 .. a(O wW U « S c £= c is "S .2 wT» 2 eo

’ e ®«o —

o

ii .£ .£ 2 o

£ Eu•5 £cj w

w .3

_ - s %° -o 3 _ c 2 c “" CJ

ft) CO CO >* _ 3 — CL eo — 315 cj r3 .£ iaT* in

E s =

2 u o__ Q,.= ■'-

- S.'£ a

■3 J= ’0 tJ u1 5 o _

o 5 ~ 1/1

40 cj .2P.S2— O 3 o CJ 3 -3 vt — oj •— _e « 2

•£ O 8 "e co t« ^ £ = w o s3 t/s ft) O

^ J .i :=.3 — k. _. a/8 19 o-’ l o S lO C5 £ 'tr s s 5 cs .2 .2>, 3 « = .* -o i;

"3 3 H .

ft e- o

-2 H

g _2 ••=■=;_•= 3= ’S 3 O

*3§(/]*3ik»CJ d </)ft)ft)

ftjftH >•oC3 E

3V)2 ft)2ft)"c/>

0CJ 003’5 0c20

0‘15•yi "n3 'SiC/I

Cy» the vi3

3©UCJ.3 4)CJ<

CmCJJZ i ■|J2> E*3OJ2’3E *2#o ft).3

'o3Ou e\ a 5u

3OV 53 f53 O•o 0u- 0) O ft£

■5 osO =3.E “©—* re *>.£ >. ^

r 5 -S Sw > “*

J ft)

"*- V * c ° £ 5 y

— £ ft)© -o

•a *ts u £,4) P o 2 ••- S"* ^ r*. ft s

. o

c u •2 =. o w : .H, a-

cr.S*« , ~ ■g 5

^ c 2 «

oo 4> =

| | | 6

; E 8eg £ O£ o o l. CJ o CU

■= ^ u0 *5 ^

3 o .£

S o ^03 >

«/) C *S C

O c S-CJ*s c WJ

: U

co.=

• i - a 1

s ~ S ■-

cz u

S E > c E u o o cu u .—

4) w^ o — S o w

.= v js 2 s o « -

i~ = °I - i s■*2 to

yrlll CJ <

■s «cj —

' 5 co zr o

'C

— in _

■1 - 0 n 0 .£ =w . “3 >O ra w W5 £ ft

O.

5 c

.o I ** !s £ Z

H H

o _0 0 -0 C3 ^

C </} C •-' ° 2 .o u !-s -c £P—«. * 3 w 5 ^ uWO CS TO —

m 6a! §*S «

e. ^C -“Q *— «C u SX (/)

co c5 c J=J2 jJ

i g».H o «■

s i r l— •■= c^.E cjSO g -a «= § o z, c *= ^ J= o «a“ >** i/i r i <y

“ 2 -2 _• £ s tj 2 - > 35 f u U

_ 4> —

•2 jS S-C3« -O OC3 U ^ u «

" -a Ho o

o o • -s ^ t: 0 a <

i-rr J s-g u -

= O

O wJZ X— o

— 3C Oo — r )•3 W ww fll

3 Vi w

— 4) 0 ■= O

§ S e.2 o o yi J: r

- - > •= E

£ s o . < °

1 * 02 o u

5 ^

o 05 TJ M U -sc <

oCJ

^ e _ © 31 .E P ?

C y H <0c « > 4>

C3 O — c

o

U

• .2p-g : « g c £

. « s; s o: s u

T3r'i « 3 5 . f t

= | o a■ Sa ^ a D.

2 o -■» 2 _~ S n O o

O tsi W o ^ vt O CU OS ' o o S g■3 S-c. 3-” 5 “v S i

f-S-O o

O' Su •—

•S I

3 § » u

% CO*■* r-

ftS ■§ "a7 ,-fi =

c- = P OV P

1 ?3 c o "5 •U <9 -3 .S P3

1 S O — J- S3 ft _ 3 CO O 5 i/i CJ<J 5 ° *5 s:J W inS oo ^ CJ Ono *5 ^

a p *5 c-

2 «« ~ — * u-i —**

S .° 2’£ -£ 2 8 £ f « 3 - o f i «

3 “ P 5 o o »«

-o -o os ;

'§ N | E

ill IS i§ S CJ

Q m

^ | i , aj ^- -o 2

; £ « ' E -I1 § '

g E £ g S! 2 3 « •— O i S w = S = !- s o 6 c 6

5 O S 8 . - g |

2 -3 w 'o 2

o 5 > g 2 fc- ti f t

1 - - §= _ w

o u oCJ 4J ^ S

■« o s e ;

o ;

« .£

u ? o o ft ft

tS P •O tc —ft e -s cj « •— v- U £

2 2 o ft“Q.

E S

O 3 (S

^ 2 p o c £ o °*

C CJ 1

p £ oo2T3

Si 8P ^

CA •“ — CJoo 2 >

S OS

2 P U

*0 4Ji- -C

Cu^-o oT3

.w

q _0 =u ocCJ c/:T3 *“ ft •s: £*.2 :A- o os u U &

o p5 CJ

CO —c rs

^5 ^3 yj

IE .£ H

c —o

o ^ °.2 ft <S!t n i" u 2 • = O1 1 s fI - - «f9 vj° S ' S 2

j 5= a — CO CjCO.E ^ “s *> *2

— n <,^ «« S K

CO *

■II8 S

c0 «a - g

1 2

o g <-> sO•£

3 ^

2 1E j= I o o CJ 3 j «

-• * 5lQ —C U CO I

<u

cj *s t: s

E *2

c k.

•2 8, C . y £ S -o

^ Ji Si

c oE 11 S

I l l sa ^ r i»

“ a a . " 1■= K O L.

« ° - . 2 y2 cj C jD — ft S

« E U

0 3 . ’3

2 8 .1 S U 5 2 U

•2 = 2 ^*!fl 2 ;° u j: o ^ § •_ “ o

8 i g ^ |

l - = i i |

""Ilia

CJ 3 3 eo 3 3-C O O ©

*0 O ft)J 3 ’</5

ka2

ft)Tj

1)ft

*35 W3co

’>©

_ cjeo

O j= ft

, 2 ^ )j ; — 3

c 3 ."2 1 .© COCJ O *C(/I1/3 "55 ? ft)CJ Vi

*£Vi ft

-0 3 ft) OCJkaft)

£0

'so00

>

2J3 ft)

3^ 5 CJ eo ** J= O 'vj ■2

© U ft)

3 2 P3 “3 3©CJ — Co O

COOcj

U9C5 O

<0 “OJD

2

ka O 3kaft)

CJu0

Oft)J5

CJkaft v: CO CJX CJ V) k a

£ft)ka u

ft)ba

o

o o o 1*; «<*- c j : O j : o * ' ‘ >-.

.ts" o 3>M—. o ^ "P t3

3 « k- S ck M bCQ .3 ---%a*-o■y p. —« fl o * o -S p « — °

O ’

?:*-« ?p*55 c

° 3 * 2 °■3 Ss *--g " . ? s Sn o u. X <m r

o « y

« « S 2-*°.2O W fc £ 02 oV) Q . O M >

l o i ^ I I- S ) S 8 -° o

C tfl

a**o

S . S«

■= E

g Ju -*-* «M CJ

^ g - a Crs O P

j s S * ^

i^° -§SO jj COu -c .S . ^ *3 — »»3 u 3 (9 o

w o - oo e

. 2 " O 5 JS ■> 5 u

3 § 2 C*_fi o •—^ £ . 5 •£ U -2

o —

o ^ 2 «

CJ•a

*p 5tS > j" “ 2P e c 2P c o o

o E *3 •— ws w T3. •§ C Si

cj 5 cj ft 00 4> e > c « . 5 c >* ■S y « O V4J fc- e r \ -CXI ft £ CJ w

*ts CJ s <0 00*0 p -C eo C 4J

■“ ft> ‘C 3ft * dj *3

8 P i2 ‘ o E3 05 55- w . 3 >: «

vj « u c oc > eo

^ s . | o c

- u ^ 3 >> >1 “o ^ >t!

= . ^ u £ ,> S 2 u S « . 0 <0 o

H i ■ s.§ = | I

x 2 o “2 o u jcu C j S o

P Jjs P £ o= 4J .2 3 <D 3 >a u «- jd .e ?U o « *3 4)

U ^5 C o S-° < « ~ fe Su ^ S 3 t3 a-.e

5 o . t; o u -S = § 2 5

^ . 2 3 <> e S

'= u = u "O 0 S•2 2 " 5 a IS . ^ S 5 ft 2

- 5 ^ 2 «» 2 ft £ ““ U9w P *i— y c« *0 4)u S j j si2 3 .2 w Vi *0 3

““ ‘3? 2

iio

cj CJo JS— u b. OS CJ CO*- S 3 fl'5 O£ 2 :

cj a * ft c 2 x u s S « u .2s o i lEo p 3 v i «k U c Jj«cj o -2 cj s p1-S « IS.2-5 8

- « p p -c — O Q O fl«3 S 002 — 3 Q«0 E8 Ob- u -e Jr; 0.2^ 5 . 2 2 5 00.0 u

■ E E Sk. *0 3 -O . O 3 3 o — **- O — O X

E m 2 2■2 “ E 0 . u

“ 13 <; “-■a --".S

o a o 3 -0•S-O'S O 8 c 2 C O 3 U J- U fl <3 > Se e 2 o y o u —

G a.O S .S

>< % -a >> c <2 -o « g = S o - “3a o > 3i 2 . 2— 3 « catU.H

o w 00.52 .*s ►* °* *ESo=> O OgS-o «-° 3 «- 2 «>u

2 !> «ft-«— 3 - _ ■ « w o s c « « - o eooiJte.tS#-03 r3 is •“ ft s £

- 5 P r o E 0 « £ « w tj £ oS g s g o o S f O g•= CJ ■£ O M Q . U O'«„ 6 § a B= 2 eo 0 e, 2 - 2

■5 >» < o CJ

I

* s S o « " S?S< s S £ 5 J O S

Oo3.2**33££o

« e2 pCO’m CS V3fc- oa m

5 u o 0 ** -J3« —1/1 H *o

. 2 8 2t: a.an o CU «52 «oM 3 M ^ ft . 2 sw U o o

>»c *£ s s > Ho eo a4> *'C *«.£ C > v 2- o u = *s o< 12s i l l

" J ! 5

• * ka Im H I) « Arn « 0 § 8 «□9P a y u 3 2 ^ 0 D--= 1- £j

l l i i l f *l°-8«g3|i,

S s o t S s JO *3 3 S c cad 2 Yi oO "O vn ciJ w-3 u c • o XI “ OS -O o 8 °2 « e P -O ^ U 3 >

°-T8-Sl-S3 o .2 S»5 £ u ■g O.eos-1- « Di3 CJ O ***? **J r/J 00 cj k-fl © •■2 w. gr in O u c o2 *2 s o t2s w ?.S2 2 o 2^ S'O -C -C *■* r \ ^w y ftCJ O H

s i S^ k- o-2: « -3 c —

^ c f^ P .. 2 f o K S -rU *w CVi u 3 U D.r°.£ o UH 3 uW £

■jg !H |u 0 X

> «M fci 32 o < o2? ^ • — /-

w ^

5 8.CO *'

s -£ <n w •

2 0 *0S"s oo cj H u y« ‘S *c o =^ 8

£ Ji 2— ocj ft« <

*2 OOP .E

• o »-

u C -C ’S O CJ *

& ! l. B i i 1 ■ o J-I'O u On

ft, J

° o

S o 1o S .H „ ■<2Z 2S^<UJ

.spS -2E - =H "s00 = & 0 o2 u c 2■2 =5 ~

2 2<| O JS oyp rj h U N UU D “^ 4> O —Q-S “‘S2 s a st- • o'55^ <S>Z. T3 D <5

ft PO3 .2 u

= o > = ■P w S 4J • • S c O O s •B 5 «H -■3 >- - b «>£.2 2e O «i O « r«_ O ji w w r■■ U 3 vi i JJ w— cq « w,3y -c s o 3 £ .E

ss- •- S•£ 2 40 ^ o 2 a. 2 •£ 2 0 «o ■£ 2 E - -13 a S’■-g « .U 'C '3 ■£ -•

_q “ wj a 002 « S 2 s b=5ha _e »3_ c ^

£ cj c y 5fc U >32 U S « i J3,S.*0 «5 I 1,8 a * S

2~

00C w t3 (j O-C . _ OfiP*= O

oo t- c o cj y»C « f3 - OS -o-S E-o “'S »*r «~S 5 I .X!« e css S §QfS c 210 S u i

•>' OS'5 J 9-ss'

4) u.-’O / ea «-*“0 3 > T ft) •* flj *rCJ

CJ ft 7:g g c # 3 2I S sa £ E■" “S)2*S "s w 2 W <C ® *S «3 *C <3

•E J I 1 1 1 1 1 E f%? I.f: g > 2 i: -fi — S id li. Ji S s 3 e..=_- ■« u s " _ o = iii c .2o k Q* Q0V » k." ^15 . c cjE .0 05 0 3-5

5/5 -o k. ft)2 V*•2 4) E S p-

• o ft) -- jj.•2 E g Ei s « 3 «

i -d k« 2« «T p “ S z= -T«J 3 O' ft) V5

u £ « 52 ST3^'g « JS “^ C A S 'Z« 3r3 JTO U v» e'ow S — ft)2 •— <0 .2 ft)

o ft*n y u r! -3 c/5 e ft 2 23 O e 2 ^— S 2 o os■” o 3 t k -H - u ? »• ■

CJ S3 v*» iu “ .,O Q y C &*CJ 3 co ft) w,.*w c o S Wl" w P 0— -■ ■= S *-3 O 5 •-j-'O ft)

E oSO • —£•3

O ■ ® <m ftj S* 2 3O J3 c O n ftj

3 3 0)... .O 3o s «, M 2‘S u, w £o.S'u^ 2 m u '.2.S> « 5 -3 *G *3 eo oo h | c g g.„ ts s

^ » G« g <9^ 2 >>j o a " ?“=— 3 l h y „ E-H.c- o 5 K S Q.« '-oraJ=S S o — -=■S'" 0-3 2 " 3 J g» S « «»&£-■£ > s tea 2 .S ~ = S S<ra ■* > •» ,0

- 2 3 err *■* u- »— =

w Q. W O .S —

_« .E <« “ - E2 r* a j=i,« ES Qf) «e'v = w o £ °2 ©

S 2 •= ■£ J ■£)« E O-S -S uios.su

a s4) x s.a^ u u o *i

P , 3 :«.

V , w C5‘.

js 2'oo«S S- a -a «S' 3 « «-w-02; E,-— 3 *£:■>> v «2 ?* P 2i3 5:- 3- «» c U-5 « s e T3 « .ft) ft) .3 2 > S S - w *s00 §■. a s -s § " = sa 3-<Ls.su S.Sa :

151

>> s «o Jtr oO w <— 0

f I "3 i/i ? £ >2 «

2 is .U flj 'cL“o o. «— flj u CJ r* *— j- * U _> — (U>? ft

CJ Ui g SO■ofi e -2 B5 -2

o -a “ 3 „—* a , ■”’ ras jj" p o ■£

c o ■= S O = .2 « * o -^ Irt U. g* co

C.awOOD." O :

op ;-n PM 'crO

O v» _c _c u “- s *

o « JS

w. w nj e ’

E u_C° B o e^ 3 35W B£.8.£ ^‘c.2 B 3 CO 3

bo £ t:2 £ °P*o S 5 2 «l i 3 '

Qa C* cj -C

2? 5

s « <5i-su .—.E E

-Iu v

„ cCl.O 55 I “- =* E"O CJ «J £o Sto

“ ou c V)-c o z.‘■S3c 5 ©E .i; u2 9- « ^ ES/1 4J5 a.-C ■ -a “--a .aaj CJ.fi

= .S.i>'S:w* 'BCJ U E>- « ■a -a.2 t/j co

>-. 4> J= J S co —

i ’a" E oj

<L> J S•S ^w COo ob ** co k>aflj Q*o C — £ J£a «

s ^ =O -c -ss “

.ts^ e(S C « *s- js S

? o Sj *S .P R5 c o .5 ,

8 2 —nO^re'eU <*N «-

<j 'S O *o; •£ " _ E M >a * K O

X V — X 5QJ w CO CO

00 - c o4J £---3 cu>O fljo.££>

■§ GJ3 «jo. £^ u H fl y o

O J— L. k.*D t n o.

= a■S3fg £• o•- « O •- C Xtfl 1-

oc§•§5-I«N

gO“<33 . 2

(S .=

k< 00k> —CJ ih-

X) OE uCO 00

.B eou w5COt/>

JJECO

*co «BU «J

CJTT ■“J= •pQ.czob 0co tjk.CO ■a

CU ato

v)CJ

j; >i U ■g « ■£ S. c b.JJ Cc. r:

— — c c: u.A -coo -= —

2 Ju U

■ - oo eo Hoi: o ? J£- I 5 15 «

■ — 'r *“ *o — '

i J E■ S -/J «. e =2 P ■

On ,> 5 .o*vi —< </)^ E

to u> .

JDB . 5

c.o

.2 • a

.2 >«0Cl

1/5k.CO to

*u« 1/1t/J *■1^3 CJ O(JCJ BO S e

B <D coOJ O BE

-CW1a . E

co

‘3cr

JZ00 CJ

.£ E •SS

E H.— c >•— c o"5'^*r =w p .= a I ? ?: f

ii o■§ E . >m _LT O. eo

O*3 «

(U(/> 4Jr: — (✓)^ U flj5 »-o c ou c c

u

00*0

c h c■2 -S8

2 § •§“8 8 5 = ■*=x '3 e u £ £ o -O •=£ 3 ?^ 5/5 s~ s gCO O §2 '5 u f = a

C >%JS« r u CO 3 OO .u 5/3 e JS im■5 o o— 4>« C gc .2 2/■*. 1/5 ^'loo. E &..§e .aO co £u .=

CO *"*rt eo a H °3 i2 TVi 5 E.|-|

o <

O 4) w w w >» J3"3 "3u n S y c \sV3 u CAu *r a w Q. ^

o o — o cc. 2 -O

■§ sCO

00 u w '5 o flco *55 -_o. S> 22 ■w ■'T>. o *>5 S . 2 1C “ “o

SJ "2

1 ^= o a u[O e« w■a « 1 'g-s6-.2 a u.■£ u j=

■ l i 2<a .C qj

£>

w EJS Ee. o 2 OO2 o

a <! o o l ; 1 co .£ “

o « co tr. —o'"”Cl

4> •*- C «0 C t)j; O y u u« y C O ■tr K -o o “*oCJ.S ^ o. ta .

r t “ «5 !0 ■—• t "S .2 S'— o''il

1 .— uI U3 *£' A: O co

. £.C « to “O co u n co j= ^ _e U •-,= uEs-,C3i

n 'S •?? ■5 C Q.

O O «(A r~ t“

CJ £.I I— oo

3J O .S 00 j _ f i VI w o (fl> » p- rs •=

O u - O■e •= « 3 a 'o 1jd ? jd o . — £:

a * 'Ss c. a. c/5 *ao

S ^ « =S S « S

J «£ | H 5 ^U a a. £ U

O 4J^ S

c_ C3 CO JS

o = - £ >>rt (J C3

o o— flj r§ = '35 SV5 iOO JO . Q. <0

o - a » • =

o _

O §JS 'Soo 'Z- o— a .

o o e.

.a oco ^ £ -

■= « tn2 ^ " IU JSu > c . 5<Si ■**U Mc '3•- QO- o CO

_>.-o&s«o .1*3 trtc ■—

S-°O V9

JS C <0 C

so u v;, .E « “

, o o : U U

T3 "O m a .ez ~o00 "O «jflj CO

OOONV9 'B CN< V)

"6 CJ Qi o \ y JS■3 Um_o 2 < 0

« S3o -c

o *: = > <^ co “O ^

S -o Oc » ? “ U 'gOJ > oS . S fVI V C t—

S « •- Sj -S ^P ? *7*

.S'S i^ so —O o - „

i i -i2 O‘ 1 — CJO

< 2 2- — ~ “ o s “o

j loo u § &

0JS >» Ew to CO

X0 0

0 L*

c/s£CJ

£Lm

JS CJO

"cO E3 eoco JS

u“O2Oco

•5 5 2

■g c c a ? oI'ag = jg :sa s s

-e ? v).. . vi

— w _ e u-

■{■ s f i . *— .u x .

s i; o * - co w

-S c p 2 ^ 0

U co

u- ^* o r f

2 M & on £ o

ea o S '- m

T3 E8 J «um —ACO

■S-s3 jj‘

£ 2 E

2 ao .2 g-

s OO u c £ 2 4J ,M

*3 *2 cr 2

d-'- . «^ e oM g -O O 4)S CU fc

J i « £ c |- }>3 CO we 2

c o • *.2 *S5 £w c/» co « *£ <-> O B U9«.ii M o -2e « X •S £

i ^ l u v> O* , 5 2° *2 • a £ se c 5 **<o eCJ B

B .SS§ -2 34) 'Z.>»< JS B w° m e>>■5 s a -ssV) ___fc- • -y « f l ■2 s « £ •£ -oco B -v -C JD

CJ a 5/3 p

S a 3"i *2 ."S co *2 15JS fli ^

U a .s ff

i 6 —T 4> B I Q T3 b. —» ' • - 4> O: 3 1 e -s i g . r ^ »

•yl.1^1O B« SQO B •= 8

T3 a" >» C 5 X I ed co2 u o3 <s :s“ ° Si c ‘s > . oS & “> r* ^

<2 2

-o u .2B o O e

3 g; 2 f

2 ? - - US •—

l i>X> WO 39 ^

S «9 o . t s ^ — *

>■ c.is 2 -aV Zi — • *S^ *35 *0= § 5o o o > « Oao w «. 3 r>

C 52 .2 g g3 S «“ T3 2&* W 3S g o e c -c u o-o 8 oo4J B .

u t JS w •2 6 .a = ; - a U ■§ J 1> E # U

•a o o eU JS ■*-* DJ - — o,S2 B -O3 ^ . 2 2 ° «=?c/1« C KI- .2 o = cC cO •—CJ

— M-- Q. C 0 0 , 0

•T3 W5 © r t «« a —M P CO« 3 . S

2 J2U g . Q>

■s 1 w £ •M COo J3

■2 u o 2 ^ «2

"S g .> o 5 5/3O B

*3 O — W5 BO K O3 O **3O * co*D k-

a> *3.5 -S ^

2 = o O> -scoUrn ■**Q. oJDV3 _

J J ft

S ^

's-i

u u.

-se § §

£ o£ - 2 tS g - >* ^V3 W w ^:s s s •§

■o £

■a ^ > -5

s a ■» l-i § .= -£ ioo E D- e o „_,

j U oVi

i s JO

U Q. CD u

■ 3 5 5

 <§■^2

S a -a u “= -5 ■£ o b y oB 'S 3 c" f o i i l i“ s = - 1 1-|<s s u c .- y

s . 2 o M -_ CO E

o -2 2•S ^ . r £ «t/J Q. t/l y « »» i!3 " O -O O" D< ■=

J" WS fljw o ’■ i»3 — XO — «

*C £ „ * o 8 | g |o — — “= g;'g2

> u1 1 §2 a = u i

‘ .S o

» o Cl Oco w i «

1 1t/5 e i/j B*5 a « § u .s«5 ,si*Skao

e v>J 8tS CL

B.2 t : js « —

! 0 ^ 5Cl m

D. wa . _ jo o

E 25 w» O wj

= 0 .2 5.2 a .CJ u

B2 8 ^ . 2 =cj z i a —

O B CJ —

CO"O

° « BO s5 co

4)Z s-° s-3 .-a 22 «

T3 .2

— ui C/i dj O1> "O

*2 B ^ .2 o .a

ai - mB* c2 *2 b *3u

J 1

I Is

CO c 00 u & £

o ,

I «-C .

‘S 2 . 1 - « xsD. 1

JS O '^ 5

o o JS: 2 ?

£ .B 50

c « o•i o | I V !f V h

rR ° « ^ g | t i eQ . o ^ « —

■ £ ^ 2 > nH . *-JS CJ

£ & F s 5

iT o B« "O.

a - w . a- o -> s i i: « °

., V

> S «-■

S 'J? •-o . < e

_ J■ • O

CJtu o

> • 1

^ • o- i i i W3

—• “ O - s a

•: ■ ■ ■ o ' 06 ,

. .. a .

-

$?

%■C - ;5s . -

■s:

- or 5 ;

s-

u ■« S I

« .2 .a — ■—Q» u £5 o

o *d a ° : G 2 ;« ' S> rO '=3.■5 . e > - ^ — - o >

5

= r.5 Si'

5 J;S..-Sa i

’S S

a — '" '. o o c ^ o

o

v» JO £ *=•2 5 S S?-s

O.W .u o

2> - . « ffl r» . c15 £ <32 ' q .« <o o

d £■ o . 1 a .

EE _ .o <A O 'CU o

0 0 'Sco

- co «» o « P £3. .£ •O ’ u... CJ t>

> , - O V

3.. O «« vW! -3

■ • B w * £ ’— *u £ •o o E••V O o

■ -o - 'S ° '■s- 4> “O£ * * o :. o E- B . t j

r « ; ’ 3 -H ■

s== 2 J “

'.2 , : .2 O «/»'*•„

. E - S ET O > a - r a

V ^ i 6

CL — e . * -co O

2 33 **Ojf 5

a 3 *J2 « 2 =^ -S « -SI ? = I^ g a i^ o - 8 . ' c ‘ ^ e S

<N 8

■w ^ - £§ “

i- t>St -O e.^1 S w- «£ -aw 4Jv»a> O

■ 5 - 1 1S S n00 BCO olin£ u

.i (A0U •- £

. E | 2 E 5 *" o fU U

•— .E —i. E i oo .2 *sw? "ft. E>* s «w B >

^ 3 4> 2 .0■g^oB «J q_) «o w Sf i n -V* * O 3 *= 5 > ° £> 5 o *2,£ u y» b *r *sJ C B J?> s S <: .o k. w

i n o -te h- ; sJ3 *0 O!'“ oU

* CO «*3 U£ zrS

u -aou U <s><N

M £ JS « M.-O 3 CO ^ O i— fl_l- 5 ”fi CO5 J= = 32 Q.i .2- 2 ^ %« n*-E 'I « 2 ; gu S.'3* 6.52 a U w «o

— JS o

°« o -3 o S'Sj c E 3a S E ._ B ft CO£ S i u£

kM O•2 J=a c2 = oWJj; gg.'s " * 81

V Bs •-u t/1

00 > .£ Sri BCO O PL J - ■ « t £ 3 OB B UP'S «

J 3 * 5

fe 3O- o co CJ

- •a* 2 3Q. ***'o s•E ?“■ e n .2

“ H js . •—

: -E E

I I |' U r t ' fa. VJ

U O</) .a 3 B qj eo > ^

*7> CJ

2 2 >< ° ou .=

.—s ^£ Q.

flj -2 «- P w’•5 to 2

-a —4Jfc 3

O —£uO (0u

u _JS .slA j3 I. — uti ^3 U t ° CO 3o S u.

■“ j=ss .•

• I ' lii 5 .rr o« CJha-oe «4> 5CJM «co >

i ut oo' u .=JS 4J: | -o1 -3 Q:^1 > VtaM COi <= 3 : u Cl’ N •— 'm 5/5

o 2 Q-C E Ho•O 0 — -£

It o JS -BB ' *a e

: *o -o -60 « - u e n- ui - « - r y

II■— to « -3 O.U

u .—B «ES OJmU .0

^ « • to ^

S5 ^ *B- o■2 «co

to cj k. 2 *3 jy

152

« ■a o h3 U Q,

J I ! ■“3 ki VO4/1 ’ £! • </) co « « W £ X - C=t « r - = id 5>S '= -H “ .y-H g r s

g lM p... CO

.S2 e 5 -c

eo J2 3 **- 60 vi -O 3 vs )- t>o OO U- 5? -3 3 « o w

0 <L> (/>003 </l

33 OCO u .u co 3 3

u O CO*C0b. id

X:CJO

4>J=0'Rj)H

3 33 CJvt O ' CL

— CJ co

CO OO0 k« 3 OCJ _o 30u O

3O

reCLC3

0_i/> 3

OOS3

30

. 3

1C3X

' co _S) O OCU *)

a3 3

° - i 0,^3 -= 0 2 ~ o —4> .E 2 = ~ 1

^ 32 o dj .£3 vs

— o r 1

C. O2 5aO

2 O a — .2 ■- _ c3 ~"o 9“ -C

-D 5 a. 3O W1 Vif s S . o •£ S £

ao«/)a .J3OJS-C V)

3 •33

33ed ca3“E..Sd3

03 VIco.3

S. 3A rz3 •—

Q,3 CL•“ «030#C O3 O

v> *2 CJ ocj £ «s js/ B ^ 'S

y <— O'CJ «£

5 S'ra 3 •=y o ~

is c 2 .2 -

a g 'S. Ivo 3s 3 '

■3 u _ 3vj .3 i «cj co

o .3

i i .£ C «— T" U y *r ”!2 -e *75 c t- O cvt ^ ^ v

“ *= 'y OD 3 Cu

2 53 00

« X

co y Q.. £ 3 2ha QO —■- u 2 s ■2 ^ E 3CJ 3 >—a u O c« :S Q

■ ElcooO O

3Mm VJO eO

c w 20 -c ■£3 op e ’*? ■aI s -e u o es 3 S

S =.21 .go■ 00 vj ^ CJ w

I * 3aO 3

2 = 3 5wj ^ 3■2 « s

£ ^ 3 U “

3 -Oo .a

C

--V)

: ? = ^ . 2 2«/> cj£ c

£ 3 •=« -Q. V) u

C o'1-1 . . . S i .

|< 2 o S3 g

.5 O j§3 ^ VJ .£ 50 - 5 ® ~ 8-3R

t ■£ ao-51 3 ^ g1 '= u S1 l- D . O

i 3 y c i 3 o .5

o « Sn r

•tS •- 3 o ^O. U M«J cw -a 53 a *HO wi O .

u “ P-U « B

^ = . ^ £ !2 »oO n > rNw v5 ^P .£ .2 s « rO e i/) -•O..S n <

c.a,a

^ s : O J t j 35 .2o' ersi t «. t/i"S.lcIf-|P 90I "

ya. 2 ■s

C. CL<N S wi .i c - s r a . .2

§ 1 1Q."S o r a S

^ u 2P'S

.2 8 .2 •2 s .3 ■ S .Q .I .o sra o Oo « U

i E w w i- fl CJ

Q, O“•u£ C -S C . O -

= S u "o*3S ^ C

W - C C rt ■- 3 ra .2S2 &nS «- y g u s" t— C3 "5

i/l o w -O

3 O 3 Co 2 -o

"« o >■» C « 3 « • — C

o y o. 5- — «ST c ■=a o = -B « [1 •—

cj ■_"o — . S 2 -*o —£ —.

w 3.2 y c 3 C ra £> «

1 ° !■■=• O O « B

u u 's-°s?n p

■a .Ub (fl*3 *- 3 ^ o 5

i (/} 4J| £: * " .£ ;: >» 52 *i -° |! U 3 , QO o■ 2 CL": r = !i g §: « 3

qj o

>>3 *0<-* si « «cd3 r: o

o _{X-D5 2■5 o3 — « .

o -2

A C M « j

o c2 -g 4m ■“C s >> T .3 O

■§ = S n At

1) g- *» s g u 52 X o

! 1 "

?5 -O *? s

o %- O 3 cj •*

P c*- o ”

S '= « £ ■§•s s > c3 e w <uc O - « E3 U 3 a

5 <

4>

3 y C 3P3w .£V> «^ sQm =

C w co« s ic =3 *2

3

n ^ .3 tj S.3 .55 •— >*X ^ ^ •= ^ Ss « = s S c s £ ' I

£ -5 = u -BIS ^ -r- <D i j ?i. O .= S J3 Q.-g*“ a2 -5 u_3 « O

O .3:

’ £ ‘KOf- © 3 . m 8 ^ “2 i - ^ s

oO “ y "5 tfi 3■a CS O . *3 »i C ® o .2 vi€ a *2 5 E 3- 1 i ' . u s

■gO

3C

Si 5 CL .O

z> ^ « vw y, o o "0 3 y*.3^s®P^= S2 ^ y 3 c•r" •" u a .. +* .*3 3 (-,E 4/5 -c 2 o «

^ ! o ! cu :

I Ic o E4.U

(U

g ov) — <C 3 OJZ v>£ e .2 o

.£ ^ . .

3 t>w is— 3J O• o o£ o

i e “■ _g — u£(D wj I - =i 2 P

1 ca ' aZ — 3

O O u D. M'S ;■ = -arS oo ; *w to O

O .25 5/5>* M

»1w» 3'5 pa u

r 2 o

c ,o ^ O

o s «.5 -2 *2^ 5/5 J®

1 . i 3“* 3 «c o

I -> 9J uS ~ o l

. C-.-3<A D ^_y — S

w zl E ~3 V Ifjz 2 *“ c -fi £*- — Vi u. <— C

? JD .

5 - 3

00

0 ( 3 u

J: « c£ w o 2 2 CJ

k. JZ.o 2 2 o aK

a _ f l j O5 —

-■S = s— ^ o >- .3 > o. ^ U C - « S C O 3£ J ~ U u

3 k. O Z(J u C - u _ „ c

id 3 O? o a

a ;| s

5 uC Cj C . 3

| a « •

3H 3 3 id O 3 3 U 2 &

• c ! O

•£ 0 3 ^ —

51o —

3 3 z a* '» £ >, Ji/5 *?

s &S” i

O .!

2 % oSi o c —t- /-. ?32 3 -C3 O 3

3

. C.c SO n 3 X *3 u u u C L £ u . JZ ^

^ J3 3 OO 3>- - & j

3

u a

O 3

^ > .3 0 ? u

B 2 O 3

I |U 3

C- ~ C..3« .3

3 Cs <3&0 •

? v> r*i— .52 O _-C J= .3 —

V3 CUf

o o'O —

-G

i sr .. < .

•2 J3 j2s H iCU co *53§ 5 = 8

.£ o

00c3

■O « «C W 3 « -g § ^ Cl o

a ^ ! l - i|S

s

Oi 3 ■

3 • &

c*-S2 5

O c•c o

O O

E u

E ■£ «

c t> - fit M 3D .£ H ’ ^ 2 • S - - J

= e “ « 5 e2 -1

c« CV3 C Uw> 53 > § i § y ^ o

aVi3ueo00

ka S

</} .Zi o 3 — SS ol u3 t> OO J5

C *2 2: s o g ^3 3 C *3 ' ^3 *g g = 2 "Oc &•" >, <o “ w C J5 43 « ffl ? ^ £ *o " o3 *o JS ? c u ^ .3 w• ” . . > CJ

C C « O.2 to 3 C.« 3 3 « > p « rfi o e a H^ M 3 ,S Q, ^ C ^ 4> O o X> a

E m -S

_ - S S

E 2“ 2 — w

H r o

JH 5* 3•“ Q. o §

^ ■aU 4J

, « i- ■ 1 5 ^ '

V) id 1> Q. > £

! U m

I E . S

■ n

«2 S b — O 3 C u u w

S ® *£2 « eQc £

3 O8 S - U

— JZ.2 EM OI EC C C O« *s- S* I '

C .= oy y y

.2 t« o s • - u«> «#» vi "X _e H

_ _ O , £ .£ .b a> uE.s5

- « ■£1 O — +* tn fo = -a

5 E .2 S ..c c S 5 E

j i o • S O

c c OO o S> c C .§■«C 3 O

.£ &O 3

J2 c ea 3

CJ Vi00CCO-3

UE

CJ UV) kH3 *5.O v

3 0O X3CJ H»2(A 0coVi

O »03e s - - «■§ 2 5-a £ oo ° £ cj *g g 4> c ££ o « „

^ cd “ 3 ■

8 g2.C3 «i . 4) _5 D

I f i S -a. ! ^ ’O 3

3 a lo ^ « ’S y - S ' * -

- § '■! I - § a-

s-scm o<N -5

co >« J3

a . ^

i c S S5 w 0 > u

w- «« O ^ ,

^ *“c oU 3

S 1V Q<E

J- 5ec 3CL 1) - . .E kM > M*3 O &S a-1

.5 S x

>•>Q.£ . oo rs

2 e >->3 £ o c (0 u 3 eo 53 o ao’> CJ ’> CNs « a sO.JS 0.-3

u • * 3y> « 9P ■—

<1

c

3 s: >- Q

^ o

§. ■ 5 '

^ ?

C ^ "1

a o> .2 £v 3> oS V)

a tS1) u

On O O CS 3 fi„. «o e,w 3

3 0032 U u■S goO ^S >*O oj

5 ^ 3 ft> o .5U w3 3 C O 3 3 3 uy *c£ S3H t-i

0 * 3kMoeo S

3 O

TO S — Q. ? ,** C rr *• m .

S = £ « cow CO oO o >r r") 3 ^ .

oO 3

o

-OV) _co *0

4J

&o

c

■5c

a•2•§ 3

t 'fea cs ° i0- c

C/5« 3 —1— ~ 3- 3 g2P 2 =

&U Sd .£ «b

HJ OO•jf3

•o -ii

-a 5 S -

ft. Sd

CT3uw c

o>% 3 3 3 o t « ^ .2» o* w - E ®

IMo

£ <= o «

g H (.O iN “5“ S -m •“e* ^ fiJft a. £

00 vs- aJS4> rZ u “ 3 X)« *s a . aoj p(J CCJ 3

3 OO rt 3 .£ JS O j= .3 JS 3:W 3 3 k- CT «5 -£ 3§ £> 2

3 2

CJ

a«3

5^ JZ Um ° JS 2 to •c «J ,_ id •- «

? 3 *

o

w W«: .hr wJS 3 -3> .3

■riS-S = i ' i •2 § 2 B u ^E

S lg .a •3 .11

n E

s s l . * 8S— 3 « ' U u

•3 C .2 b

^ u :22 " viw -H Vi

‘E3

o (9O _ o- 5 « -— 0 ^ 3 3 w J Or» m •— .s.i ff

•s s

■- £ J o *5 u

00c■s

•S3c

1 1 s °c>

5*

CL s

? 1 - i = 8 -3

f C ?

- 5 S 5 5-U

if) U =B £ £ “ ■2 E .=« S-S

.H E a

I s !ar«~ n c

*) w C•c id 35 H .«. S E« 3 £

C ”

racj O

u CO MO W (fl „ w 2 ^ S EU (0 (AU E « r a

<* ° •- < 3"g2 o SJS S. a u *P3 J= 2 ^ Um mi w

V) Vi Ou

O

<0J=00 >>00

4>O

M3 1c'w. *« 3u co

V) u 3wCO

w V)u 3 C

CO

! ! ■y wi u Jd « eo C BO"

s 5 |C ^ (0

t s ? ? *.03

*3 3^ fl “>

- 2 ^2 c l3 |s-.§

eo .3o i o

■g Jw C J Q.

3 O

>- co&r: :s5 n 3

s r S f l ' s

C» u o Z % 5 « »

6 o e

<0 *

*Zt « •£

JS 0

00^

5 id Cu. d

o o ■' -£ -a

u u - o5 -2 5 S

« ,9 ~'J!H e “

S S c JS' S o b 19 b % u ■» 3 £ 3 O W o

3 U

2* 2 -R 2 "5 cao m ?. CO cs

1 1 =

2 =id j o y ,j= &<-'^ E s

• O ;km CJ

00 u .E o

C " .2 .£

o 00S oCJ

S f S S : "

<=•=-<=« o cr §

4i .SkaQm Ua §■s o

0 t. -flj

c - s | o U 5

U E u.

c “ _ u o •£ u _«o <0 Ky;3J{> 3 «2 co a O -C .2, Q.

3 ,“- o .a3 -C

u^ 4> »“ ■S'S

= • 3 0 2 £• .— w £ ^ 3 o w5 cj c -4> ^ X

O 3 « *>ii M .s JS^ £ fc- *-S o 0 . 3

- 3 <N 3 3 2 .O •<Q, 4ia. • o « e J= .5

E ao

: cj O' £> .£ CS o c yk« O Q.< JB

_n O-

O£ £' s i ic o

o _ *3 ■£ § »

-o..

u

e IS So

Q.&•

.

- I tJj* V ,g

= 3*5 2t/i ft — r*

0O 0

0 tflU 3CJ.3.ts

3«jTo3 a*

3 O’3<0 u-3

>

4JCJ V) *«ctJe

JZ2

. 9J 3VS U)3

3 3 3e r*'*!

ft0r4

*2 CJ fij

•liVi u O

C9J O

ftfS<3e

5 V

U 9vO Q*

0N 3

CJ 3

153

- 2 3 a. «

« 2 §

.S3 « Jjr oo — ~ "O e m 3 ec *— oaj _ wp (9QO 3 OO_ o .Lej W5S 3 4> S O h© 73 2

2P’c “ 2 . c .a o ~

^ c•a -S •51' S O .

Uo© ,*->•5 *> l-n«u C5

- 3 -U T3 -g C

oU

£o _

v ) u « ■ ; o2 h u</> weO „j > — >* O O o ui C<» OJ ^

■O

o - 2uo° <5

o u 1)5 e boc _r w• S t «

g «3 aV - c

1 . a o O '— e .SJ

« 73 ^ 4J— - o

^ co f j

M« re > JS

<5 e

o © o e- C V

w — «2O V5 V)

t? % 2 “c f

- >r-

J2 ts -c‘■S * 3 •— O O_ “ - “* “■. .D: Ec a * 3 s 5 " = 3 S .2o «J w <— ■—

O

3 £ **C u _£ -5

1) y7 3 V-

i>

.o •- 73 O -o

•c: c 2fc. ,0 Q^ u u £.= S.E■Si 5 "S .!=! = 5 >n t o -5 's O \j

- «- JS? « o 12 = ■ = , •a »EosQfl .O CJ

« i S- E _ ■= ■« ° i “

u •" -O*- J= ,« E“o JJo•**4J ^> «

i2- r* o!i U .2 -So

in '<—• —iSi ° « J o g"o a>2 olit-o ^4J U O*8 * © ,, o£ J -*

= o e o T5 T O £ fj OC u •r**-«n_Q 9»u_e.r;_ee_e■M t> — cj

5u* w CU s5j CQ

S -Qi-s == s = u

o = .o— r° Eu c Cj 5^ CJ cv £ Sr£ 1 .2 = 2”" 3 — 0 cr q.5

« -C. .15I a « -is W» lM

<N « O -o Jsw «- I—M 5 ' Irt P3 -2 . O

° 3S 8o

y ts " *s .s *s- = cIIu a = a

= 2 J oL,Cm

g -ts— U

S e D.Os

s § -5*^b-i's!^ 22 .5

£ =

> -oC un 1/7CJ O c.S X ra <u8.g.is £ ^3 -= -O H “ T3

U °S u3 £u 'Z. •° u S? - *5 <5 ej cS.-2

— > .aw •%

3 So c. ;g o-o «js.«

QGo = 2 c

g - s * -*73 C_ O« uJC — O i—°'5 v)

3 r5' CJ w . «jS ’S 2£ c=‘ o

« *t3O g 5-5,^ 73 Oa ■£ c eLo g.» s73 ra= C ^ <9 — u>t« 3 CW "O ^

— oo i o .5 o ow w On 73

°| S £ 6I s s,g -■e a .s «S 5= 3 E -JO

c *“

O *“I I “• §Cl. ?

re - Si ’> "J? •• ®o P — _

w »*■— o Cl

qo :o

M

.=C l n ofio o te =U w O 4J

* r- wH B •?? ?Soo £ gc

*j= "S a> vj

xAre

.£ cp c.23CJjso

o o V)re'35‘> ."e“3-o. V)i—Q > OL_ cre V9u.re « c. c W

Cco3reo

<j-C•a

"rec#o.2*3?‘g

ejOu'C -C «j V) O't/io H u

."H c $ Pc.oo *Eo re CJ £o c w o■s ou re J3

^ >.is S_g Q.^w C O * — ft« 2 c a. .2E 1/9 w o *3 w y i os ~ SS u ‘C >»■£ 5 S •?? »--3 O O

—< e co

-cS- “3 — o V 73•C -3 '3

c .aIk SQ

o g *« ♦ o ~ . t/; « i— ■— 73

3 —cr c o i/) •—_ « ■S u

QO .5 P

!t: e *5?w .22© .3 3 ■O y O ^ C- C•3 O% «:1 t -a u3 - ®-

"N J1■S 'i t 5 .S

3 0 w

w w v) -n- a o «3 s \r> “» C -3 3 « 2 3 a co u“ u w re « = o

o o = 2 u w re 3g ? o Ss ! gc

3 C>§.<3

S- s .2 -S.

e*5 * 2 •=

o 1 a. ^ Jt w. - a

C-_o _- y Si oX C3 > Wo v P ea— w o u

eo *5 “

m= S t>H <

= 'uT 2 « n o o s js -3 "S 3•|| S Eu c >2

1 «! s«o . ^ cI = ■£ -2s I S “ « y 7

. = ON U-: O n >— v t/) u l — w *: i.3 _3•— fO C.“

S *3 {J _M 5>* c 3c S .2■a si „>— “ 3 ~

■a-S-lg5 •“ c ~- 8 — . Si .|j: — o H c ?U

o o — oC. cj -C 3 O <* ’ G

o JS .a •— 3 -C§ ’£ S “ 5» < .£ o

-i"«:3.c Si .ii 3-C &

I 1> .: *7? u?

S 3 s _ y 2 c _ .P 2 m

o reu.§ 73 *E.Q.g

rn .*5“3 re Ec SJ o*2i■S u3 3u. u73L» re >» o2 o5J E u

GO*5 JS’5 55 V) re ha1?* q re cj= 3 3C 2 TT CJc m5 w oc CJ c V)C«o .2 tl 3o to’S < (jre’u

tr c o o-□C5 c o

O -o% ‘S.4i * .«-» o c: u < c ^ -‘5 F 2 5 Ci-

’§ CJ 3 i! O fz

i: — « 3.5 “ 5 c3Jo

^ oC. « JZ« — cQO — — 5j

> w

z -3

O -3 C— s on js 3 ’7>X O 4/5s 2 *K ‘5 Si *= > §3 (/] O 3ST

o t> cO o2-al« c y o t» >%ft V3 CP* 73 P! i u

E 'IE “ u

re '

5 o I g-g.5» *2 •

i s °,o ^ 2

i g io' § E

£ -5 £ c o _■“ ■> a = P r= .a«; fl }i y JIP 3 ■—

On - S

-i £

.Ci.•C u

3 re id u re — > re ‘3 ou «e .1*3

^ 2 o. • q . reW (A§5 2■S's! = 833 e1*1 S

o •£C.w

•= es ~ ±>_ V- 60c- <

| 133 3 -3 y I) ’■ y —c g 1 1if i S H i !i- o aC*. — o « 3 re £■

.2 O 3 1 ^ JZ *“*

I S 2P.1x y .=« .3 -j

.2 M > p

w ?’ *s Su 5 co2 &E S 1 S= = ^73 3 8 —_ t/j ^^ - O *S »•— t/i ™ 4JJS 'o =V5 4J {j i/i “ "u5 H «/) ^

* m £•SS J s " Eci = £ o E S £ .

S 3 " " " “° .-s •a t: i"- I ?- J5 u 5 o >>2 c c.

u P

P 3 u Scc

* from Human Rights Law Journal; Vol. 6 Part 1; N p Engel,FRG, USA; 1985

i c j c e n s held in cooperation with the human …...eric ostberg frank orton eva wah^berg jens...

Documents