Human Rights Courts

I4 Human Rights Courts 1. 1. 14.1 The European Court of Human Rights 

The establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) was confirmed in April 2002, following ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court by a required 60 countries. The UK ratified the Rome Statute in October 2001 , becoming tiie 42nd state to do so. The ICC came into existence in July 2002 and enables prosecution of human rights abusers worldwide. 

---

ECtHR Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia (Isayeva 1) Case Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00, 57949/00, [2005] ECHR 129, 24 February 2005, paras 167 and 169 ECtHR Isayeva v. Russia (Isayeva 11) Case No. 57950/00, [2005] ECHR 128, 24 February 2005, para 173 and EQHR Ilascu and others v. Moldova and Russia Case No. 48787/99, [2004] ECHR 318, 8 July 2004. The debate whether or not (regional) human rights courts or other bodies should be applying humanitarian law remains outside the scope of this contribution. 

In this context, the European Court of Human Rights, which has jurisdiction over the Convention, has noted ... 

First, Bahners does not make clear how an intention to agitate can be recognized, if not by errors of form. It is stated in the German constitution that science is free without restriction. Decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court have stated that science is defined by formal rules alone and not by content. These decisions are in agreement with fundamental theoretical works on the nature of scientific knowledge. If Bahners thinks differently, he is anti-constitutional, anti-scientific, and anti-human rights. 

He was also surprised to find that the courts take judicial notice of the events of the Holocaust as described by eyewitnesses - i.e., they consider these accounts to be self-evident and proven facts - not only in order to obviate the need for their formal proof and thus to spare themselves the bother of bringing evidence for these events, but that they also make use of this judicial notice in order to deny the opposing side the right to bring evidence to the contrary. Liiftl considers this practice to be a violation of human rights, since judicial notice should be taken only of such matters as are also undisputed by both prosecution and defense - such as water is wet, fire is hot, and ice is cold. However, as soon as there is any justified and reasonable dispute of any point, such a point must be open to discussion. 

But even new and extensive scientific material evidence, advanced in order to reverse the decree of self-evidence, has been refused by the courts. In this context the Federal German Supreme Court decided in 1993 that even the refusal of motions to examine self-evidence, as one defense counsel proposed to do in an appeal document,341 is proper legal procedure due to the self-evidence of the Holocaust.139 The Holocaust, therefore, is a judicially safeguarded view of history which this decision renders completely untouchable. This represents an inquisition in its purest and highest degree, and a gross violation of the human rights to academic freedom and the freedom of expression and opinion. 

The Dutch legislator has a broad scope of opportunities to fulfil its task. International law is of particular importance because in the Netherlands acts of parliament are bound to the constitutional law but courts cannot review their constitutionality. This is not true for the conformity of rules with EU law and other international statutes. In this case, courts can review the conformity of rules with these norms. The rights fixed in the European Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO Conventions play a particular role. They might work as an obstacle in the legislative process since courts have the power to check completely their observance. The most important sources of law with regard to activation are the Unemployment Insurance Law, the Work and Welfare Act and the Act on Employment and Income Depending on Work Capacity (WIA Act). 

Such enforcement would then occnr through third parties obtaining access should the affected authorities be unwilhng or unable to provide assistance themselves, as discussed in the following Section. Enforcement ex post facto through, for example, adjudication by human rights bodies, the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Conrt remains an option, but falls outside the scope of this Chapter. 

Abresch W (2005) A human rights law of internal armed conflict The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya. Eur J Int Law 16 740-767... 

While there appear to be numerous European laws and rulings infiltrating the British legal system, few, at present impinge on school law. At present, UK legislation is required to harmonise with EU law and it is well to keep this in mind and keep abreast of new developments. This is not to say that issues to do with human rights, pupils, parents and teachers, may not be referred to the European Court. 

The European Court of Human Rights determines whether a legal proceeding is a matter of criminal law by reference to the outcome involved if a charge may result in a penalty being imposed, it will be deemed criminal Benham v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 293. 

---