The European Convention of Human Rights is an expansion of the United Nations General Assembly’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights ~an enhancement to it and all others –in its Court anyone anywhere may sue any European government with the ultimate sanction for non-compliance of expulsion.

All 47 countries of the continent of Europe are bound by this protocol, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, commonly referred to as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) -with legal effect on still more countries on other continents.

It was introduced by Europe and influenced by the European Union peoples’ decision to make themselves extinct as nations to become a single nation as a ‘United States of Europe’.

After the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 the Council of Europe in 1954 enhanced that with the European Convention of Human Rights even more to protect against abuse of any person or group of persons anywhere by any European person or government -prohibiting also co-operation by commission or omission contrary to the letter or the spirit of the Convention ~of which the essence is human dignity.

(The Council of Europe was set up in 1949 following Briand’s proposals in 1930 for the integration of Europe as envisioned, e.g., by Victor Hugo and called ‘É tats-Unis d’Europe’ [The United States of Europe -‘U.S.E’], a considerably established future name for the European Union [which in 2007 a British-French-German amendment as a Reform Treaty has removed reference to most state-like terminology and symbols of, e.g., the word ‘constitution’, its flag and anthem]).

The Convention is Europe’s peoples’ decision on the lines pursued by John Locke four centuries ago to extend the operation of human rights from their present form as civil liberties with state discretion to civil rights incorporated rather like the Magna Carta into laws at state level and directly binding on governments.

The European Convention of Human Rights is unique. It not a pressure group as the Asian Human Rights Commission; neither as the African Charter on Human & People’s Rights and the African Court of Justice, nor as the American Convention on Human Rights, nor as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, does it limit complaints of specific human rights to violations of the citizens of and within the borders of and by a member state with the specific agreement of both sides with hearings in closed meetings.

The European Convention’s member states under Protocol 11 of 1998 may not opt out of agreeing to any state’s or body’s or person’s direct and public access and evidence and argument for a desired remedy against any member state including itself for any act or omission or co-operation with any state or body or person anywhere in breach of the Convention violating any right of anyone anywhere (including in respect of rights minor by comparison, e.g., state legal aid to sue for defamation of character by another individual), to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) -and are bound by the Court’s judgements, with a duty also to accordingly amend their laws.

The European Convention of Human Rights sets out peoples’ freedoms and rights to be commonly enjoyed by the individual persons in the world (Article 1) in the acts or omissions of its 47 countries. These include the right to life and prohibition of capital punishment, prohibition of extradition by any European government of anyone to a country that has not formally by legislation abolished the death penalty and life imprisonment without parole and in state security courts in any capacity the involvement of the military if it might be faced, to fair civil and criminal public court hearings, right to privacy of one’s family life and home and communications -and that one shall enjoy these freedoms and rights, with more set out in its Articles, without discrimination on grounds of, e.g., race, gender, religion, nationality, political or other opinion held or expressed.

The Convention in effect is binding on the member states ~each has undertaken (with judicial and political Russian moratorium not to use capital punishment) to abide under Article 46 (1) & (2) by the final judgements of the European Court of Human Rights supervised in their execution by the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers, with the ultimate sanction of expulsion.

There is an expectation that not only individuals but each member government itself also will bring before the European Court of Human Rights a signatory government to the Convention that fails in respect of these freedoms and rights.

(While governments are considered rarely to have lived up to that expectation and proposals in Protocol 14 [pending ratification] are considered capable of limiting individual redress for human rights violations, the proposals include empowering of a Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe [without effect on states who have not yet ratified the convention in full, e.g., Britain’s position on Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the Convention in respect of double jeopardy] to bring before the Court any governments that refuse to enforce any judgements against themselves.)

Where a member state has incorporated the Convention into its laws (e.g., Britain’s Human Rights Act 1998 making its courts [as public bodies] bound by the Convention) its national courts must operate as though they were local branches of (with a right on one to directly challenge them at) the European Court of Human Rights and declare ‘not law, not of legal effect’ any national laws involved but incompatible with the Convention.

In the case of the European Union there is an expectation to seek to centralise and equalise the laws and the legal standards in respect of all of the Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, formally adopting by 2017 also the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (EUCFR), to be followed by the European Union’s Court of Justice (ECJ) -where disagreed with (by the European Union Reform Treaty amendment in 2007 by British-French-German governments with an express right [Articles 1 & 2] on the part of the United Kingdom not to comply) possibly tolerably not bindingly.

(In line with this expectation has come about through the European Union Council, e.g., the repeal of the Romanian Penal Code’s Article 200 [public manifestations of homosexuality], and in the course of the processing of its application to join it the formal abolishing in Turkey of the death penalty.)

(The European Convention itself also enjoys indirect but effective influence in the upholding of those rights, and, e.g., in the constitutional Monarchies of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand [each with also a British Governor-General], and where in the British Commonwealth appeal lies to the British Monarch the United Kingdom’s membership of the Convention would normally be a consideration and indeed the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has been responsible, e.g., for blocking death-sentences passed by the courts in Trinidad & Tobago.)

In 1950 the peoples of the signatory countries to the Convention established in Europe the European Court of Human Rights which in 1998 was instituted permanently with full-time judges equal to the number of the signatory countries elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) but with no nationality requirement (i.e., not as representatives of member countries -e.g., in respect of Liechtenstein a Swiss national) and considered impartial (also not having disregarded criticism of undue consideration for some states’ preferences in respect of, e.g., family re-unification [Article 8] –although it is difficult to see how in applying the Convention it has not been regarded incompatible with the spirit of it where the state represents the society such state interest as by prosecution appeals once those representing the society at trial level by acquittal have expressed the end of their interest in the mater, or such state interest as increase of sentence which only comes into play upon the convict’s exercise of a right given by the society by his own appeal.).

The Court rules on such issues as below:-Civil Law: Sex discrimination also in the case of immigrants breaches Article 14, Abdulaziz -v- UK 1985… Denial of right to family reunification Article 8 breach, Şen -v- the Netherlands 2001… Right to life in Article 2 (1) does not apply to fetus as much as to pregnant woman, Paton -v- UK 1980… Lack of civil legal aid (for, e.g., libel) limits the right to fair trial and freedom of expression under Articles 6 & 10, Steele -v- UK 2005… Article 6 breach of Employment Appeal Tribunal who took nine years to decide a case, Darnell -v- United Kingdom 1993…Criminal Law: Under Article 6 not fair to try children in adult courts, Bulger & Venables -v- UK 1999… Convict entitled to privacy in dealings with lawyer, Golder -v- UK 1975… Unlawful to beat prisoners, Ireland -v- UK, 1978… Discretionary interception of telephone communications breached Article 8, Malone -v- UK 1984… Requiring disclosure of journalistic source beached Article 10, Goodwin -v- UK 1996… Detention with delay in bringing suspect before judge in Brogan -v- UK 1998 beached Article 5 -which Britain has since opted out of…Application of Convention: Human dignity is immanent in private life [Article 8] which includes physical and psychological integrity, Botta -v- Italy 1998… Its is “the very essence of the Convention”, Pretty -v- UK 2002… Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14) applies to all of the Articles of the Convention, Airey -v- Ireland 1979… Application of national law must not negatively affect in circumstance of vulnerability, e.g., re. the right to remain silent (Article 6 [1]) by compelling a convict to disclose information -or, e.g., re. the right to privacy (Article by disproportionate search of one’s premises, Funke -v- France 1998… A State’s responsibility extends not only to individuals also outside its territory, nor only to acts or omissions of its own, but anywhere where in the eyes of the Convention in practice it has control, Cyprus -v- Turkey 2001… This responsibility exists also where a State has no control over matters which is wholly in control of another State but may be involved, e.g., re. extraditing to a jurisdiction where a possibility is foreseeable of treatment incompatible with the general spirit of the Convention, Soering -v- UK 1989… Reparation: State laws must allow for and make reparation which is not partial and which does not fall short of being an effective remedy (Article 13) and this applies also to claims with a clearly casual connection to the violation, Mikheyev -v- Russia 2006… Just satisfaction (Article 41) includes compensation for loss of future earnings, Barberà -v- Spain 1994… There may be damages also for distress suffered and psychological trauma, M.C. -v- Bulgaria 2003… Allegations may imply remedies for the benefit of relatives, Kaya -v- Turkey 2000. (Legal costs are recoverable if they relate to violation found [Beyeler -v- Italy 2002], may cover domestic court costs [Kyprianou -v- Cyprus 2005], for non-pecuniary compensation there must be ‘real loos of opportunity’ [Ezeh -v- UK 2004] ~cost & compensation calculation is in EuroDolar convertible to complainant’s currency and include any taxes payable -default interest is at the European Central Bank lending rate plus 3%.)

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg previously had a two-tier structure and involved the European Commission on Human Rights set up in 1954, but since 1998 it operates as a single court with a Grand Chamber composed of 17 members -a President and a Vice-President and the 5 Section Presidents (all for a term in such office of 3 years) and 10 justices from its gender and geographic balanced 5 Sections (each of which has 6 under its President) who rotate 9 monthly, the Court’s members sitting full-time each with a 6 year term of office, dismissable with two-thirds majority vote if and fails to meet the required criteria.

The procedure of the European Court of Human Rights has been to ascertain complaints by 3 judges (who only unanimously may reject them) to be put before 7, if precedent may be departed from or appealed 17, judges to be heard.

(Protocol 14 of the Convention awaiting ratification proposes admissibility of cases to be decided by a single judge instead of 3, and in cases arising from failure of a member state to amend its laws in line with an earlier judgement by 3 judges instead of 7 -and interpretation by the Court where it may help enable a government to determine how best accordingly to amend its laws ~also [as favoured on grounds of expediency by Britain and France and supported by Germany -more on the lines of the American and UN Conventions] less access by individual persons on significance basis at admissibility stage and un-enforcing state representation at judicial level.)(The Holy Sea has Observer status [which also the USA has been given -together with Canada, Mexico and Japan] and membership status is enjoyed by all of the countries of Europe, i.e.: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Britain, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marine, Serbia & Montenegro, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine –Belarus being a candidate, Kazakhstan having received confirmation that may apply.)

With such a multitude of member states of the European Convention the European Court of Human Rights is charged with the duty to reflect the common views and the shared values in the Convention as are held by and are the united will of the peoples of Europe.The author has a website at: http://www.geocities.com/eoa_uk

    The USA PATRIOT Act broadly expands law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers and represents one of the most significant threats to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions in U.S. history. The act in its current form gives sweeping United States Constitution   Page one of the original copy of the Constitution

 search and surveillance to domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence agencies and eliminates checks and balances which had been the difference between the free world and the suppressed.

That difference previously had given courts the opportunity to ensure that those powers were not abused. PATRIOT and follow-up legislation now in development threaten the basic rights of millions of Americans and has turned America into a suppressed state.   A new bill introduced in this 110th Congress is designed to extend the USA Patriot Act allowing what many experts say are illegal provisions which will continue to allow the FBI, DEA, ICE, ATF, U.S. Military and other federal agencies to spy on investigate and arrest innocent Americans. The law because of the act allows for violations of Americans constitutional rights that our fore Fathers did not intend.    Constitutional lawyers all across America say the Patriot Act should be repealed not reinstated. President Bush signed into law the earlier renewal of the controversial Patriot Law on December 30, 2005 as the provisions were due to expire they were extended with Public Law 109-160 that pushed the date from December 31, 2005 until February 3, 2006. The date of expiration was again changed from February 3, 2006 until March 10, 2006.

The origenal Patriot Act was passed into law on October 24, 2001 by the Congress of the United States, just 45 days after the September 11 attacks, with few Congressman even reading it and virtually no debate.  There are significant flaws in the Patriot Act, flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause, and even worse the power to break your door down at your home at any time of the day or night and conduct unconstitutional searches and seizures or if your lucky and are not home they can search your home or business in secret without telling you for weeks, months, or even indefinitely.  

According to Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) the law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual’s web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals “proximate” to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.

PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism EFF writes on their web site. They point out that the Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of “any crime of violence.” Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) and all of this and more requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on and monitoring any computer user’s searches, e-mails and in fact record every stroke on any computer.   Foreign and domestic intelligence agencies can more easily spy on Americans.

Powers under the existing Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) have been broadened to allow for increased surveillance opportunities. FISA standards are lower than the constitutional standard applied by the courts in regular investigations. PATRIOT partially repeals legislation enacted in the 1970s that prohibited pervasive surveillance of Americans.   PATRIOT eliminates Government accountability. While PATRIOT freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for Government activities, making it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government are taking.   PATRIOT authorizes the use of “sneak and peek” search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A “sneak and peek” warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant’s permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.

The Department of Justice, with little input from Congress and the American people, is developing follow-on legislation – the Domestic Security Enhancement Act (nicknamed Patriot II) — which would greatly expand Patriot’s already sweeping powers.   The federal government has turned American freedoms into a world wide mockery with their unchecked spying on ordinary Americans, part of a broad pattern of the executive branch using “national security” and or “suspected terrorism ” as an excuse for encroaching on the privacy and free speech rights of Americans without adequate oversight. It eliminates many protections against unlawful imprisonment and now many rights in U.S. legal system are absent — such as the important right of habeas corpus.

As written the act violates due process for all Americans. All the president has to do is call a citizen an “enemy combatant,” and the person’s due process rights disappear. The US Government says that U.S. citizens can be detained and then tried in secret trials – in absentia, and can use secret evidence that the accused cannot see or challenge.  If evidence is obtained by coercion, or torture government lawyers contend that it should still be allowed as a basis for conviction, there by erasing 300 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

You should be very uncomfortable with the collection of your records by the governmentwhich are using the Patriot Act to demand your social security number and other private financial or medical information by order of secret courts and the muzzling of those citizens who receive such orders from speaking publicly about them. This is a violation of both the 1st and 4th amendment. You should also oppose the collection of both private and business records by banks, pharmacies and other businesses which are using the Patriot Act to demand your social security number and other private financial or medical information. Criticism of former President Bush’s admission that he had received warnings only weeks before September 11th has made it more important to understand the origins of the act. There has never been a more urgent need to preserve fundamental privacy protections and our system of checks and balances than the need we face today. As illegal government spying, provisions of the Patriot Act and government-sponsored torture programs transcend the bounds of law and our most treasured values in the name of national security and just the allegation of suspected terrorist activity be it true or not. The current Act that was extended and updated you can read online at this site: www.epic.org.

Financial TransactionsThe sections of the Patriot Act that deal with financial transactions fall under Title III, which is also known as the International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. It stands on its own as a separate act of Congress as well as being part of the Patriot Act, and is an amended version of the 1986 Money Laundering Control Act and the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act. The earlier acts tended to focus on preventing money laundering and international cash flow as it related to the drug trade, or to gambling, smuggling, and other types of criminal activity. In the 2001 version, the focus has shifted towards money laundering as a means of financing international terrorism.The current act encourages financial institutions to collect certain data to identify customers and their transactions in case any of the activity should be flagged as “suspicious” by a government agency. “Suspicious” in most cases means involving any foreign nationals or corporations. The Patriot Act considers any such accounts or transactions worthy of intense scrutiny. (Although the scrutiny will, of course, be more severe for certain nationalities than for others.)What if you are a US-born, US citizen, do not have any arrest record, and are not involved in any type of criminal activity? If you’d just like to open a bank account or engage in another banking transaction, can a bank force you to provide your social security number? How about fingerprinting you? Is either of these strictly required by law? Not exactly – although if you do not wish to provide your social security number you will have to obtain an alternate taxpayer identification number. This information (along with your name, address, and date of birth) is used as part of the required Customer Identification Program (CIP) used to verify customer identity (and to compare customer information with lists of known terrorist suspects). Such information may also be required by other money service businesses such as currency exchanges. All having the effect of the financial institution acting as agent to and for the US Government.Fingerprints are not a requirement of the Patriot Act, and they are certainly not required by all financial institutions – so if your bank insists on this procedure, you may wish to take your business elsewhere.Cash TransactionsCash transactions are certainly not prohibited, but they bring more government scrutiny, and they are now more inconvenient for certain vendors to process. If you deposit, withdraw, or make a purchase involving more than $10,000 in cash in one day, the other agency involved has to file a Currency Transaction Report (CTR) with the IRS that reports details such as your name, address, and taxpayer identification number. If you purchase over $3,000 of traveler’s checks, money orders, or cashier’s checks, such a transaction will also be reported to the IRS via a Monetary Instrument Log (MIL). And should you engage in any activity that indicates you may be engaged in money laundering or otherwise violating the law, your transaction may even trigger your being put on the no fly list and on the Suspicious Activity Report (SAR). The SAR will be filed without your knowledge – it is, in fact, against the law for you to be informed of the SAR as your knowledge would compromise the subsequent investigation.

If you want the Patriot Act to be repealed you should immediately write your Congressperson and express your concerns, if you and millions of others don’t America’s leadership in freedom and many of our own basic freedoms and liberties will be a thing of the past.