The European Convention on Human Rights is one of several documents of international and regional protection ofhuman rights. The European Convention stands out from other documents in its creation ofenforcement machinery to ensure the observance of the obligations assumed by Contracting States under the Convention. The European Convention contains provisions hat relate directly to he acceptable standards ofcriminaljustice in Contracting States. In the 40 years of its existence, the European Court of Human Rights, as the chief enforcement organ of the Convention, has handed down decisions that address a wide anray of criminal justice issues. These Court decisions have brought about changes in Contracting States' criminal justice legislation and have played a crucial role in the development ofcriminaljustice standards in Europe. This articleisintendedtointroducetoreaders some major Court decisions concerning the rights ofprisoners and the rights ofcriminal defendants. The article will also provide readers with a preliminary view as to the status of the Convention and the impact of Court decisions in different Contracting States.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aksoy v. Turkey, Judgment of December 18, 1996, 23 European Human Rights Reports, 533.
2.
Allenet De Ribemont v. France, Judgment of 10 February 1995, Series A no. 308.
3.
Andrews, J. A. (1984). The European jurisprudence of human rights. Maryland Law Review, 43,463-517.
4.
Attorney-General v. Guardian Newspapers, [1990] 1 A.C. 109.
5.
Aydin v. Turkey, Judgment of September 22, 1997, 25 European Human Rights Reports, 251.
6.
Barbera, Messegue and Jabardo v. Spain, Judgment of December 1988, Series A no. 146.
7.
The Baribeau Decision, Judgment of November 24, 1989. Assemblde Pleniere, 1990 Juris-Classeur Pdriodique Jurisprudence No. 21418.
8.
Brogan v. United Kingdom, Judgment of November 29, 1988, Series A no. 145-B.
9.
Buxton, R. (2000). The Human Rights Act and the substantive criminal law. Criminal Law Review, 2000, 331-340.
10.
Campbell v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233.
11.
Campbell and Fell v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80.
12.
Clapham, A. (1993). Human rights in theprivate sphere. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
13.
Clements, L., Mole, N., & Simmons, A. (1999). European human rights: Taking a case under the Convention. London, England: Sweet & Maxwell.
14.
Cohen, S., & Taylor, L. (1978). Prison secrets. London, England: National Council for Civil Liberties and Radical Alternatives to Prison.
15.
Drzemczewski, A. (1983). European Human Rights Convention in domestic law. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
16.
Dworkin, R. (1996). Does Britain need a bill of rights? In R. Gordon & R. Wilmot-Smith (Eds.), Human rights in the United Kingdom (pp. 59-77). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
17.
Eckle v. Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of July 15, 1982, Series A. no. 51.
18.
F. v. Switzerland, Judgment of 18 December 1987, Series A-128.
19.
Fawcett, J. E. S. (1987). The application of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
20.
Field, S., & West, A. (1995). A tale of two reforms: French defense rights and police powers in transition. Criminal Law Forum, 6, 473-506.
21.
Foti and others v. Italy, Judgment of December 10, 1982, Series A. no. 56.
22.
Frase, R. S. (1990). Comparative criminal justice as a guide to American law reform: How do the French do it, how can we find out, and why should we care?California Law Review, 78, 539-683.
23.
Golder v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18.
24.
Gomien, D., Harris, D., & Zwaak, L. (1996). Law andpractice of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Publishing.
25.
Grace v. United Kingdom, 62 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 22 (1989).
26.
Harris, D. J., O'Boyle, M., & Warbrick, C. (1995). Law ofthe European Convention on Human Rights. London, England: Butterworths.
27.
The Hurtado Decision, Judgment of 28 January 1994, Series A no. 280-A.
28.
The Imbert Decision, Judgment of June 12, 1952. Chambre Criminelle, 1952 Juris-Classeur Pdriodique Jurisprudence No. 7241.
29.
Ireland v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25.
30.
Jackson, D. W. (I1997). The United Kingdom confronts the European Convention on Human Rights. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
31.
Jacobs, F. G., & White, R. C. A. (1995). The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford, England. Oxford University Press.
32.
Janis, M., Kay, R., & Bradley, A. (1995). European human rights law. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
33.
Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, Series A no. 168.
34.
Kinley, D. (1993). The European Convention on Human Rights: Compliance without incorporation. Aldershot, England: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited.
35.
Krocher and Moller v. Switzerland, Commission Report 16.12.82 (1983).
36.
Kruslin v. France, Judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176-A.
37.
Lawless v. Ireland, 1961, Judgment of I July 1961, Series A no. 3.
38.
Lawson, R. A., & Schermers, H. G. (1999). Leading cases ofthe European Court of Human Rights. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Ars Aequi Libri.
39.
Lord Bingham. (1996). The European Convention on Human Rights: Time to incorporate. In R. Gordon & R. Wilmot-Smith (Eds.), Human rights in the United Kingdom (pp. 1-11). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
40.
Malone v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, [1979] Ch. 344.
41.
Malone v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 2 August 1984, Series A no. 82.
42.
McGoffv. Sweden, Judgment of October 26, 1984, Series A. no. 83.
43.
Merrills, J. G. (1988). The development of international law by the European Court of Human Rights. Manchester, United Kingdom: Manchester University Press.
44.
Mikaelsen, L. (1980). European protection of human rights. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff& Noordhoff.
45.
Minelli v. Switzerland, Judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 62.
46.
Morrisson, C. C., Jr. (1981). The dynamics of development in the European Human Rights Convention system. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
47.
Neumeister v. Austria, Judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8.
48.
Pettiti, L. E., Decaux, E., & Imbert, P. H. (Eds.). (1995). La Convention Europdenne des Droits de L'Homme-commentaire article par article. Paris, France: Economica.
49.
Prowse, R. M., Weber, H. M., & Wilson, C. R. M. (1992). Rights and prisons in Germany: Blueprint for Britain?International Journal of Sociology of Law, 20, 111-134.
50.
Reed v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Comm'n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 5 (1981) (Commission Report).
51.
Regina v. Home Secretary, ex parte Anderson, [1984] A ALL E.R. 920 (Queen's Bench).
52.
Regina v. Home Secretary, ex parte Bhajan Singh, [1975] 2 ALL E.R. 1081 (Court of Appeal).
53.
Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind. [1991] 1 A.C. 696.
54.
Ribitsch v. Austria, Judgment of 4 December 1995, 21 European Human Rights Reports, 573.
55.
Robertson, A. H. (1977). Human rights in Europe. Manchester, United Kingdom: Manchester University Press.
56.
Robertson, A. H., & Merrills, J. G. (1993). Human rights in Europe. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
57.
Sakik and others v. Turkey, Judgment of November 26, 1997. [See Clements et al., 1999, p. 147.]
58.
Swart, B., & Young, J. (1995). The European Convention on Human Rights and criminal justice in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. In P. Fennell, C. Harding, N. Jorg, & B. Swart (Eds.), Criminaljustice in Europe: A comparative study (pp. 58-86). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
59.
Tomasi v. France, Judgment of 27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A.
60.
Tomlinson, E. A. (1993). The saga of wiretapping in France: What it tells us about the French criminal justicesystem. Louisiana Law Review, 53, 1091-1152.
61.
The Tournet Decision, Judgment of October 9, 1980. Chambre Criminelle, 1981 Juris-Classeur Pdriodique Jurisprudence No. 19578.
62.
van Dijk, P., & van Hoof, G. J. H. (1998). Theory andpractice of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Hague, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law.
63.
Velu, J., & Ergec, R. (1990). La Convention Europienne des Droitsde L 'Homme. Bruxelles, Belgium: Bruylant.
64.
Wadham, J. (1996). Why incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights is not enough. In R. Gordon & R. Wilmot-Smith (Eds.), Human rights in the United Kingdom (pp. 25-36). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
65.
Wemhoffv. Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7.
66.
Wilmot-Smith, R. (1996). Incorporation and the loss of illusions. In R. Gordon & R. Wilmot-Smith (Eds.), Human rights in the United Kingdom (pp. 91-98). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
67.
Wilner, G. M. (1995/1996). Reflections on regional human rights law. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, 25, 407-426.
68.
Wilson, C. R. M. (1993). 'Going to Europe': Prisoners' rights and the effectiveness of European standards. International Journal of Sociology of Law, 21, 245-264.
69.
Young, A. L. (2000). Fact, opinion, and the Human Rights Act 1998: Does English law need to modify its definition of 'statements of opinion' to ensure compliance with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights?Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 20(1), 89-107.
