UNRAVELING THE RIGHT TO LIFE IN CASES OF DEATHS RESULTING FROM THE ACTIONS OF STATE AGENTS UNDER THE SYSTEM OF ECHR
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.blj.2017.004.01.04Keywords:
the right to life, state agents, ECHRAbstract
it shall be done in a certain threshold of necessity. In particular when the taken of life is done by the agents of states. This article examines the interpretation of article 2 by the European Court of Human Rights, especially when it is read in conjunction with state's positive obligations under article 1. The discussion will proceed in three sections: first, the review of the evolvement of the procedural requirements of article 2 in cases of deaths arising from the acts of state agents. Second, is the examination of whether the procedural requirements of article 2 can be used as a mean in securing the adequate protection of the right to life from arbitrary killing by the use of lethal force. Third, is an analysis of an effective legal system as a procedural requirement of article 2 in the case of homicide caused by the negligence of the authorities. Finally, this essay will conclude by examining the Court's position in its endeavours to achieve an appropriate balance between not over-burdening its Member States and securing the adequate protection of the right to life.
References
Treaties
European Convention on Human Rights.
Cases
Al-Skeni v. the United Kingdom, no. 55721/07, 7 July 2011.
Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, 13 June 2001.
Brecknell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32457/04, 27 November 2007.
Cakici v. Turkey, no. 23657/94, 8 July 1999.
Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, no. 32967/96, 17 January 2002.
Ergi v. Turkey, no. 23818/94, 28 July 1998.
Erikson v. Italy, no. 37900/97, admissibility decision of 26 October 1999
Giuliani and Gaggio v. Italy [GC], no. 23458/02, 24 March 2011.
Hackett v. the United Kingdom, no. 34698/04, admissibility decision of 10 May 2005.
Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, 4 May 2001.
Isayeva v. Russia, no. 57950/00, 24 February 2005.
Isayeva, and Others v. Russia, nos. 57947/00, 57948/00 and 57949/00, 24 February 2005.
Kaya v. Turkey, no. 22729/93, 19 February 1998.
Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 30054/96, 4 May 2001.
Leonidis v. Greece, no. 43326/05, 8 January 2009.
McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 18984/91, 27 September 1995.
McKerr v. the United Kingdom, no. 28883/95, 4 May 2001.
Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, 6 July 2005.
Oneryildiz v. Turkey, no. 48939/99, 30 November 2004.
Osman v. the United Kingdom, no. 87/1997/871/1083, 28 October 1998.
Powell v. the United Kingdom, no. 45305/99, admissibility judgment of 4 May 2000.
Ramsahai v. the Netherlands, no. 52391/99, 15 May 2007.
Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, no. 37715/97, 4 May 2001.
Sieminska v. Poland, no. 37602/97, admissibility judgment of 29 March 2001.
Szula v. the United Kingdom, no. 18727/06, 4 January 2007.
Tanrikulu v. Turkey, no. 23763/94, 8 July 1999.
Ulku Ekinci v. Turkey, no. 27602/95, 16 July 2002.
YaÅŸa v. Turkey, Reports 1998-VI, 2 September 1998.
Books
McGleenan T, Investigating Deaths in Hospital in Northern Ireland: Does the System Comply With the European Convention on Human Rights? (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission 2004).
Harris DJ and others, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (3rd edn, OUP 2014).
Journals and articles
Aolain FN, ‘The Evolving Jurisprudence of the European Convention Concerning the Right to Life’ (2001) 19/1 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights.
Chevalier-Watts J, ‘Effective Investigations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Securing the Right to Life or an Onerous Burden on a State?’ (2010) 21 3 The European Journal of International Law.
Cowan A, ‘A New Watershed? Re-evaluating Bankovic in Light of Al-Skeni’ (2012) (1)1 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law.
ECHR, ‘Country Profile’ <http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=press/factsheets&c=> Accessed 7 July 2016.
Korff D, ‘The Right to Life: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2006) 8 Human rights handbooks.
Ryngaert C, ‘Claritying the Extraterritorial Application of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2012) 28/74 Merkourios.
Sanctis FD, ‘What Duties do States have with Regard To the Rules of Engagement and the Training of Security Forces under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights?’ (2006) 10 1 The International Journal of Human Rights.
Skinner S, ‘The Right to Life, Democracy and State Responsibility in ‘Urban Guerilla’ Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber Judgment in Giuliani Gaggio v Italy’ (2011) 11:3 Human Rights Law Review.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Brawijaya Law Journal : Journal of Legal Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
