The Strasbourg court is a mess. It does not help human rights reforms to condemn our highly sensitive as reactionary
I spent last week in Strasbourg for an update on government efforts to strengthen the protection of European human rights. The ambitious goal is to gather enough support during the UK Presidency of the Council of Europe for the necessary reforms at European and national levels.
There will be a high-level conference in Brighton in April - the third since 2010 - to adopt a statement on what must be done to ensure that the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg Court are effective in protecting the rights and freedoms of 800 million people. The central question is whether the momentum can be built to ensure that proposals are less fine, indeed.
The European Court of Human Rights is drowning in paper. There is a period of 150,000 applications, mostly unfounded. The court quickly reduce this delay, but even when the delay has been addressed, it will remain a core of 25,000 eligible cases and must be important somehow decided in Strasbourg or the State concerned. There is an obvious solution to this problem.
The proposals in the draft declaration are especially sensitive and not new. The Strasbourg Court, in unpublished opinion, said he supports the main objective, subject to two conditions: that the right of individual petition is preserved, and that effective measures are in place to accommodate the many cases based as the court can not cope. President of the Court, the British judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, played a courageous role in refuting the myths and misconceptions about the British court.Brighton This reactionary approach is misinterpreted as the coalition plans to carry out. This error weakens the bargaining position of the Government, as the fact that the United Kingdom to comply with the Court seven years ago on the voting rights of prisoners of stains our reputation for meeting our international obligations.