Bouyid v Belgium: The “minimum level of severity” and Human Dignity's Role in Article 3 ECHR

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently delivered an important judgment on Article 3 ECHR in the case of Bouyid v Belgium. In Bouyid, the Grand Chamber was called upon to consider whether slaps inflicted on a minor and an adult in police custody were in breach of Article 3 ECHR, which provides that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Overruling the Chamber judgment in the case, the Grand Chamber ruled by 14 votes to 3 that there had been a substantive violation of Article 3 in that the applicants had been subjected to degrading treatment by members of the Belgian police; it found that there had been a breach of the investigative duty under Article 3 also. In this comment, I focus on the fundamental basis of disagreement between the majority of the Grand Chamber and those who found themselves in dissent, on the question of whether there had been a substantive breach of Article 3. The crux of the disagreement lay in the understanding and application of the test of ‘minimum level of severity’, which the ECtHR has established as decisive of whether a particular form of ill-treatment crosses the Article 3 threshold, seen also in light of Article 3’s absolute character, which makes it non-displaceable – that is, immune to trade-offs of the type applicable in relation to qualified rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. I consider the way the majority of the Grand Chamber unpacked and applied the concept of dignity – or ‘human dignity’ – towards finding a substantive breach of Article 3, and briefly distil some of the principles underpinning the understanding of human dignity emerging in the Court’s analysis.

"Judicial Activism in the ""Eye of the Beholder"" : the Israeli High Court of Justice and the Human Rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories"

Il est mondialement reconnu que les institutions judiciaires jouent un rôle central dans le processus de prise de décisions politiques, à la fois au niveau national et international. C’est d’ailleurs le cas à la Haute Cour de justice d’Israël. L’étendue de son succès (ou de son échec) dans la tentative de trouver une solution aux violations des droits humains dans les territoires occupés est un problème qui continue de faire l’objet de bien des débats et de recherches académiques. À cet égard, il a été suggéré que, malgré l’absence de constitution écrite et l’existence d’un état d’urgence prolongé en Israël, la Haute Cour de justice a réussi à adopter une approche « judiciairement active » quant à la protection et la promotion des droits de l’homme de manière générale, y compris ceux des Palestiniens dans les territoires occupés. Dans cette perspective, le débat sur le processus d’examen judiciaire de la Haute Cour de Justice tient pour acquise la notion qu’Israël est une démocratie. Ainsi, cet article cherche à examiner cette hypothèse. Premièrement, en adoptant la position que le processus de révision judiciaire est compatible avec la démocratie et la règle de loi. Deuxièmement, il examine l’approche « judiciairement active » de la Cour et soumet un bref aperçu du processus, des outils et des principes légaux que la Cour adopte pour examiner les actions des autorités israéliennes, y compris l’armée, et imposer une loi commune de protection des droits de la personne, donc ceux des Palestiniens dans les territoires occupés. L’article argumente également que le contrôle prolongé des territoires occupés par Israël a eu des conséquences significatives, car tout effort fourni par la Cour pour garantir le respect des droits humains de la population civile palestinienne doit se faire sans compromettre la sécurité du pouvoir israélien. La conclusion à laquelle on arrive ici dépend de la façon dont on qualifie ce contrôle: une occupation à long terme ou une annexion (ce qui n’est pas réglementaire par rapport à loi internationale), ce qui n’est pas sans conséquence sur le rôle que la Haute Cour de justice peut effectivement jouer pour faire respecter les droits de la personne dans les territoires occupés.

Strategy proposal, from the perspective of Latin America and the Caribbean, for advancing towards an international convention on the human rights of older persons

The Brasilia Declaration, adopted in 2007 at the second Regional Intergovernmental Conference on Ageing in Latin America and the Caribbean: towards a society for all ages and rights-based social protection and ratified in ECLAC resolution 644(XXXII) of 2008, called on participating governments to work towards adopting a international convention regarding the rights of older persons (Article 24). It also established a mandate for a Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur who would be responsible for promoting and protecting the rights of older persons (Article 25).Three meetings were held during the past biennium pursuant to that commitment. The first and second meetings took place, respectively, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (2008) and in Buenos Aires, Argentina (2009). At the third meeting, held in Santiago (Chile), on 5-6 October 2009, participating countries requested the Secretariat of the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLAC) to prepare "a proposal for a strategy on how to follow up article 24 and 25 of the Brasilia Declaration." This proposal should include the "minimum content necessary in an international convention on the rights of older persons from the Latin American and Caribbean perspective."In response to this request, this document first presents a general overview of existing human rights standards, both at the international and at the regional levels, that are relevant to the promotion and the protection of the rights of older persons. It then provides the arguments that, from a Latin American and Caribbean perspective, justify the adoption of an international convention regarding the rights of older persons, as well as the minimum contents that this convention should include. The document finally presents a proposed strategy to move towards the adoption of an international convention in this realm from a Latin American and Caribbean perspective.

Brief of Amici Curiae Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children in Support of Petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges

Supreme Court precedent establishes that the government may not punish children for matters beyond their control. Same-sex marriage bans and non-recognition laws (“marriage bans”) do precisely this. The states argue that marriage is good for children, yet marriage bans categorically exclude an entire class of children – children of same-sex couples – from the legal, economic and social benefits of marriage. This amicus brief recounts a powerful body of equal protection jurisprudence that prohibits punishing children to reflect moral disapproval of parental conduct or to incentivize adult behavior. We then explain that marriage bans punish children of same-sex couples because they: 1) foreclose their central legal route to family formation; 2) categorically void their existing legal parent-child relationships incident to out-of-state marriages; 3) deny them economic rights and benefits; and 4) inflict psychological and stigmatic harm. States cannot justify marriage bans as good for children and then exclude children of same-sex couples based on moral disapproval of their same-sex parents’ relationships or to incentivize opposite-sex couples to “procreate” within the bounds of marriage. To do so, severs the connection between legal burdens and individual responsibility and creates a permanent class or caste distinction.

Fundamental Rights of workers in the Digital Age: A methodological approach from a case study. WP C.S.D.L.E. "Massimo D'Antona" .INT - 89/2011

The relationship between employer and worker is not only obligatory but above all, as Sinzheimer said, a ‘relationship of power’. In the Digital Age this statement is confirmed by the massive introduction of ICT in most of the companies that increase, in practice, employer’s supervisory powers. This is a worrying issue for two reasons: on one hand, ICT emerge as a new way to weaken the effectiveness of fundamental rights and the right to dignity of workers; and, on the other hand, Spanish legal system does not offer appropriate solutions to ensure that efficacy. Moreover, in a scenario characterized by a hybridization of legal systems models –in which traditional hard law methods are combined with soft law and self regulation instruments–, the role of our case law has become very important in this issue. Nevertheless, despite the increase of judicialization undergone, solutions offered by Courts are so different that do not give enough legal certainty. Facing this situation, I suggest a methodological approach –using Alchourron and Bulygin’s normative systems theory and Alexy’s fundamental rights theory– which can open new spaces of decision to legal operators in order to solve properly these problems. This proposal can allow setting a policy that guarantees fundamental rights of workers, deepening their human freedom in companies from the Esping-Andersen’s de-commodification perspective. With this purpose, I examine electronic communications in the company as a case study.

The measure of management; designing organizations for human effectiveness,

Mode of access: Internet.

Statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222: School Bus Seating and Crash Protection. Final report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Final design and implementation plan for evaluating the effectiveness of FMVSS 215: exterior protection. Tasks #4 & #5 report.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.

Investigations of certain proposed methods of bank and embankment protection : part 1, full-scale experiments to determine method for protection of railroad embankments subject to overflow : part 2, laboratory investigations of the effectiveness of various proposed types of revetment.

Mode of access: Internet.

Influencing human interaction in public schools : studies of IPR effectiveness as an inservice teacher training program /

Research performed under contract with the National Institute of Mental Health.

The measure of management; designing organizations for human effectiveness.

Mode of access: Internet.

Assédio moral na administração pública e a responsabilidade civil do estado

The social and economic changes of the last decades have enhanced the dehumanization of labor relations and the deterioration of the work environment, by the adoption of management models that foster competitiveness and maximum productivity, making it susceptible to the practice of workplace bullying. Also called mobbing, bullying can occur through actions, omissions, gestures, words, writings, always with the intention of attacking the self-esteem of the victim and destroy it psychologically. In the public sector, where relations based on hierarchy prevail, and where the functional stability makes it difficult to punish the aggressor, bullying reaches more serious connotations, with severe consequences to the victim. The Federal Constitution of 1988, by inserting the Human Dignity as a fundamental principle of the Republic, the ruler of the entire legal system, sought the enforcement of fundamental rights, through the protection of honor and image of the individual, and ensuring reparation for moral and material damage resulting from its violation. Therefore, easy to conclude that the practice of moral violence violates fundamental rights of individuals, notably the employee's personality rights. This paper therefore seeked to analyze the phenomenon of bullying in the workplace, with emphasis on the harassment practiced in the public sector as well as the possibility of state liability for harassment committed by its agents. From a theoretical and descriptive methodology, this work intended to study the constitutional, infra and international rules that protect workers against this practice, emphasizing on the fundamental rights violated. With this research, it was found that doctrine and jurisprudence converge to the possibility of state objective liability for damage caused by its agents harassers, not forgetting the possibility of regressive action against the responsible agent, as well as its criminal and administrative accountability.

Tthe right to effective judicial protection and disability: the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities

On 13 December 2006, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). It is the first comprehensive human rights treaty of the 21st century. The Convention is intended as a human rights instrument with an explicit, social development dimension. It adopts a broad categorization of persons with disabilities and reaffirms that all persons with all types of disabilities must enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedoms. Precisely, the Convention marks a 'paradigm shift' in attitudes and approaches to persons with disabilities The Convention contains two articles directly connected with judicial effective protection, one more than the other, but on the other hand, one cannot be understood without the other. Both articles are Article 12 –Equal recognition before the law- and Article 13 –access to justice- As a scholar in Procedural Law, my contribution to the International Scientific Congress on Private Law of the Philippines and Spain aims to enshrine the relevant importance of the both provisions that guarantee effective judicial protection for persons with disabilities in order to analyze, subsequently, the implementation of them in Spanish legislation

Contemporary consumer law : the role and effectiveness of regulation in consumer protection

This issue of the Griffith Law Review focuses on consumer law, and the pervasive nature of this area of law. We are all consumers, but do not necessarily identify as such, nor are we a homogeneous group. The boundaries of

The concept of vulnerability and the protection of human subjects of research

This article provides an overview of the concept of vulnerability through the lens of the U.S. federal regulations for the protection of human subjects of research. General issues that emerge for nurse researchers working with regulated vulnerable populations are identified. Points of current controversy in the application of the regulations and current discourse about vulnerable groups are highlighted. Suggestions for negotiating the tension between federally regulated human subject requirements and the realities of research with vulnerable subjects are given. The limitations of the designation of vulnerable as a protection for human subjects will also be discussed.