Human Rights Act 1998

Historical background of European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998. The European Convention of Human Rights was first established in 1959, under article 19 of the Convention. On January 21, the same year a court of human rights was established which controls and provides all jurisdiction solutions on Human rights. The convention charges the court with ensuring the observance of the Legal agreement of engagement undertaken by the states which are the signatories to the convention. It is also responsible of ensuring the enforcement and implementation of the Convention in the member states of the European Union council. Jurisdiction of the court has been recognized to date by all members of the European union. On November 1998 the court become a fully pledged institution with the European Commission of Human rights, which used to decide on admission of applicants was abolished by the protocol 11.

The accession of new members to the European Convention of Human Rights after the fall of Berlin wall in 1989 led to an increase in applications filed in the court. This led to overcrowding of applications which negatively affected the stability of the court. The number of applications were too huge more than the court could handle. The efficiency of the court was highly challenged by the higher number of pending applications which had accumulated and were increasing steadily. At this error most states had realized the effectiveness of the European Convention of Human Rights and the most had accepted the charter. In 1999 for instance over eight thousand applications were scheduled to be heard in a future date. In 2003 more than twenty-seven thousand applications were filled which increased the number of accumulating applications tremendously.  In 2005 over forty-five thousand case files were opened, which by figure didn’t stop the applications. In 2009 for instance the number of pending cases were over one hundred thousand. At the same time over 90% were recorded inadmissible, while most were heard and solved. The most of the solved cases by court were termed as repetitive cases, where the court had already delivered a judgement on violation of European Convention of Human Right and others termed as case laws exists on a similar case.

The number of applications were increasing per day, this led the court to create protocol 11 primarily to deal with the backlog of pending cases by establishing the court and its judges as full-time institution by simplifying the procedures and reducing the time per each proceeding. Despite all the efforts by court to reduce the backlog, it didn’t work much as more applications keep registering has more backlogs. Due to increased workload of the court the signatory states agreed on further reforms.

The effect of further reforms led to formation of protocol 14. On May 2004, the council of European committee of ministers adopted protocol 14 to European Convention on Human Rights. The committee of ministers of Council of Europe which supervises the execution of judgements argued that there was a need to reduce workload so that the court could handle cases which were more Human Rights importance. Between 2006 and 2010 Russia was only country which had refused to ratify Protocol 14, in 2010 Russia come into a deal in order to ratify protocol 14, their judges had to be involved in reviewing complaints against Russia.

Protocol 14 led to reforms in three areas, first, the court filtering capacity was reinforced to deal with clearly inadmissible cases, new admission criteria was established whereby the applicant if realized had not suffered significant injustice the case would be termed inadmissible and stricter measures were established to deal with repetitive cases.

Secondly, the protocol amended the convention so that the judges were elected for a nine year non-renewable term unlike in the other term where the judges served for a period of six years with an option of renewing their contract. Changes were also made where a single judge was given power to reject an inadmissible application, unlike in the other protocol where a committee of three judges only was powered to reject an application.

Protocol 14 also provides that when a three judge committee sits to decide a merit of a case a judge elected to represent that country is no longer a compulsory member of that committee. Protocol 14 also allows the committee of ministers to ask the court to interpret the final judgement if there is a contradiction in the execution.

Initially the aim of the convention was to enhance equality. Reasoned that equality in the society enhances valuable capabilities. Equality enhances people to achieve substantive freedom and live in the ways they choose and value. An equal society enhances and values people’s diverse opinions, needs, situations and individual goals.

European convention of Human Rights recognises human dignity, and contains both substantive and procedural rights. It divided in three parts; section one is the main rights and freedoms mostly found in article 2 to 14 while freedoms are in article 15 to 18. Section two contains the court provisions that is from article 19 to 51. Section three contain the charter provisions. Human Rights Act 1998 provides legal remedies for the violations of European Convention of human Rights.

   Main Rights as outlined in the European Convention Human Rights.

Right of life. This is an absolute right. Rights of life of individuals are protected in article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It extends to Humans and not ‘animals’  to legal persons such as corporations, for example, Evans vs United Kingdom the court ruled the question of whether the life extends to the human embryo ruled that the case it falls under the State’s appreciation. However, the right is limited on account when one is defending himself.

Right of Liberty and security. Provided in the article five of the convention, liberty and security of people is taken as the compound interest, a factor to maintain. The right of liberty is limited on account of lawful arrest of person/s who violates the Law however it provides that that person be informed of his Rights of, having an advocate, and be informed the reason of his arrest. For example, a case of Assanidze vs Georgia case no 71503/01 (Eur. Ct. Hr 8 2004)

Freedom from Servitude. As provided in article four of the convention, prohibits any form of slavery, servitude and all forced labour. However, the it is limited on account of labour; done as a normal part of imprisonment, compulsory military service.

Right of fair trial. Every human is entitled to be fairy tried under any circumstances of his/her crime. It is provided in the article six of the convention, it entails fair hearing and also public hearing before an impartial and a neutral tribal. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is ultimate in this case. This is a qualified right; it advocates for justice. However, the majority of today’s violation is delay of cases. An example of cases under this right include; Steel vs United Kingdom (1998) EHRR 603.

Specific Advice.

Breaches of European Convention Human Rights in the case of Grainville Tower.

The management of the grainville tower had breached the right of security of the residents as provided in the Article 5 of the European convention of Human Rights. The right provides for the security of every citizen and his liberty. The community at the Grainville tower expressed their security concern, this would have motivated the management of the Grainville Tower to work on the cited areas by, improving the cost-saving claddings, and providing an alternative of circuits. In this the management would have provided the community with original and safer circuits which would not be easily short-circuited.  This would have prevented the broke of fire in the Tower. As a result of ignorance of the management some people lost their lives while majority sustained serious injuries.

In this article the ECHR has a responsibility of protecting the residents of their rights.

The broke of fire was an error by the management which caused lives. This can be termed as voluntarily manslaughter. The management made people to lose their lives, which is in violation of the article 2 of European Convention of Human Rights, the article provides for the right of life. In this article the convention requires the state to prevent any foreseeable loose of life in unnatural circumstances. Through the management the of Grainville Tower the state would have made prevented the loss of life in such unnatural circumstances. The ECHR has a responsibility of protecting human life. In this it has to take the required actions against the management of the Grainville Towers.

Section six of the convention outlines that it is illegal for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with the conventions rights of human. The management of the Grainville Tower violated this law by ignorantly compromising the rights of the resident.

The convention provides the right of privacy and ownership of property. When one is deprived of his/her property then his rights has been violated. The fire consumed properties of the residents hence violated their right. As provided in Article 8 it ensures protection of individual’s properties and their private life. The management willingly made the residents of the grainville Tower to lose their properties hence violated this article.

The management also violated the right of free from torture. Those people who succumbed to injuries were subjected to torture. This is against article 3 which is against inhuman treatment and degrading situation subject to humans. Those who were injured were subjected to suffering which was caused by error of a human and which was addressed by the prior but only the concern fell on deaf years.

The responsibilities of the Council and the management tower.

Introduction.

Article 2 is the act that talks about the right of life of humans under any circumstance, the life of an individual needs to be preserved, human was the ultimate concern for the establishment of the convention. In this aspect he needs to be defended with the highest quote ever. The article protects the life. The convention relegates the responsibilities of defending the life to the court of human rights convention.

Responsibilities of the council in protecting life

In this case of grainville Tower the council has a responsibility to defend a life. The massacre has already happened and through the court the court the council has to ensure justice of those who were affected, first, though a life cannot be restored back the court should take action to the management who neglected life of human. The management was notified of fake circuits and their safety concern yet they ignorantly did nothing at all. This should attract dire punishment by the by the convention including banning their properties from being rented by the public, through the Government of the United Kingdom, the convention should push the government to take action to them management including financial sanctions.

The council has a responsibility of launching an investigation of any administration that has violated the European Convention of Human Rights. Through the states’ government the council has to investigate the root causes of any incident which resulted to the violation of the Convention’s rights.

The council has a responsibility to follow any circumstances of violations of human rights to ensure that justice has been met under any required circumstance. The initial motive of the formation of the Convention was to enhance justice to all human races. In this it had advocated for equality of humans. One the way of enhance equity is by ensuring the victims of injustices has been compensated in way which will make them feel equal with others and that the perpetrators of the injustices has been brought to book. In this regard the council, through the court has to ensure that it has followed the matter to the latter of it jurisdiction.

The responsibility of management of the grainville Tower.

The management is the custodian of the administrative law in this case. It administrates the responsibilities in the tower. It is the caretaker of the life of all the residents in the tower.

The management of the Grainville Tower has a responsibility to protect it resident as required by the Human Rights Act. The management as the owner of the facility should ensure that their residents are free from any harm or any circumstances which may cause them pain and suffering.

The management of the Grainville Tower is responsible of designing laws which will govern the relationship between residents. These are the administrative laws, these laws should not conflict the law of the ECHR, rather he rules should be a duplicate of the article two of respecting life.

The management through it security department has a responsibility of ensuring security in the residential areas of the human in that area, this is in accordance with article two and has to be regarded with utmost responsibility and care. The value has to be transcribed from the European Convention of Human Rights act of preserving life, this is the utmost highlight of the convention.

Final comment on the duties and the need for a formal enquiry  

The overall duties run into the preserving the life of a human being. There may be a conflict between the constitutional law and the administrative law but the only principle of difference is the procedural of executing such laws. The value of human life rights is concern of every man living.

The administrative law fail may call for the involvement of constitutional law. The constitutional is the ultimate law of the land and above all laws, all such laws are under constitutional law and has to have an originality from constitutional and international laws like the European Convention of Human Rights and also the United nations. They have to be advocative of human rights and all factors to protect them.

In the case of Grainville Tower there needs an enquiry to handle the situation. The involvement of the Teresa May is a right step to fasten the process of enhancing justice to the victims.

The management failed on its side by failing to listen on the residents concern of their safety. This shows that they cannot be trusted on solving justice matters of the affected people. The enquiry will have to process the compensation of those people by the management of the Grainville Towers. It is also not considerate letting the management of tower to investigate a mistake which happened as a result of their error, they cannot take themselves on the cross, therefore it is much reasonable to involve an enquiry which is neutral.

References

Ovey, Clare; White, Robin C. A. (2006), The European Convention on Human Rights (4th ed.). Oxford University Press,

F. de Londras, K. Dzehtsiarou, Great Debates on the European Convention on Human Rights (2018)

Korff, Douwe, The Right to Life: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe – Human Rights Handbook No. 8, November 2006 ), p. 10

Mowbray, Alastair (2007). Cases and Materials on the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–2.