Supplement to Chapter 12: The European Human Rights System
(November 2003)
Section AÂ Introduction
(Coursebook at 623)
Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe states that " [e]very member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council…" [1]
Section CÂ Areas of Protection in the European Court of Human Rights (Coursebook at 628)
“Article 8 (art.8)� at paragraph 38 should be “Article 8� (Coursebook at 629).
Section C.1. Areas of Protection
in the European Court of Human Rights: Homosexuality (Coursebook at 628)
Note 7. Further case law on the rights
of Transsexuals (Coursebook at 639)
 In this 2002 case,
[2]
 the applicant
alleged violations of Articles 8, 12,and 14 of the European Convention with
respect to the legal status of transsexuals in the
 The court paid particular attention to the fact that the State had authorized, financed, and assisted in the treatment and surgery, and found that it was unreasonable and illogical to refuse to recognize the legal implications of the result of the treatment. [4]
 The court agreed with
the government that, as in its previous cases, there was no medical consensus
on the origins of transsexualism, but found persuasive
the fact that “it has wide international recognition as a medical condition
for which treatment is provided in order to afford relief.�
[5]
 Based on the research of
 In subsequent cases, the Court has continued to develop its Article 8 jurisprudence on the rights of transsexuals. In Van Kück v. Germany [7] the Court found a violation of Article 8, reasoning that the state did not strike a fair balance between the interests of a private health insurance company, on the one side, and the interests of an individual seeking health care reimbursement for gender re-assignment surgery, on the other.Â
Note 10. Further
 On
“The
sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of  Western
civilization and to Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards did not take
account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction. . . . Of even
more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided
the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels
to  Bowers
and to today’s case. An adult male resident in
Section C.2. Areas of Protection in the European Court of Human Rights: The Death Penalty (Coursebook at 641)
In May 2002, the European Convention
added Protocol 13 to the already existing Protocol 6 on the death penalty.Â
Protocol 13 abolishes the death penalty in all circumstances, including
in times of war. It came into force on
Note 2. The
Another case against the U.S. challenging
the impending execution of 52 Mexican nationals because they had failed to
receive their rights to be informed of consular assistance under the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations.
[9]
Â
On
Note 4.Â
In
October 2003, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe found that
Section C.3. Areas of Protection in the European Court of Human Rights: The Death Penalty (Coursebook at 641)
Note 2. Corporal Punishment
As of 2001, 10 countries in the
world have banned all forms of corporal punishment of children in all circumstances.Â
They are:Â
Section D.1. Remedies in the
European Court of Human Rights: Bringing a Case (Coursebook
at 647)
In May 2004, the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers is likely to adopt Protocol No.14, which will amend the European Convention on Human Rights. [18]  One of the aims is to improve the filtering capacity of the court so as to relieve the workload of the registry and the judges. The proposed changes include creating a layer of adviser-rapporteurs who would do much of the initial examination and determination of cases to filter out the more than 90% of inadmissible applications. Another proposal that has caused some concern among human rights NGO’s is the addition of new admissibility criteria. As of March 2004, the Steering Committee on Human Rights had reached agreement on several proposals: Friendly Settlements will be considered at all stages of proceedings, not only after a determination of admissibility; judges of the court will serve a single nine-year term rather than six years with a possibility of re-election for another six years; manifestly well-founded cases, where the case law of the court is clear, will be given an expedited hearing. [19]
Notes for the guidance of persons
wishing to apply to the European Court of Human Rights are available at
<http://www.echr.coe.int/Notesfor%20guidanceApplicants/NoticeENG.pdf>
(last visited
a brief summary of the facts;
which convention rights the applicant believes have been contravened;
a statement of the domestic remedies used by the applicant;
a list of all official national court decisions in the case;
and summaries and attached copies of the full decisions.
The Explanatory Note for persons
completing the Application form under Article 34 of the Convention, is available
at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Explanatory%20Notes/NoteENG.pdf>
(last visited
Admissibility of Complaints by Applicants not
resident in, nor nationals of a
 Article 1 of the European
Convention limits the responsibility of the member states to ensuring Convention
rights only for persons falling within their jurisdiction.Â
In a 2001 case brought by Serb victims of the NATO bombing of a radio
station, the court addressed the issue of whether the Serb applicants came
within the jurisdiction of the respondent NATO states under Article 1.
[20]
 The court ruled the application inadmissible,
finding that the meaning of “jurisdiction� under Article 1 is essentially
territorial. The court decided that
any exercise of extra-territorial jurisdiction is limited by accepted doctrines
of international law and, in particular, the consent of the state on whose
territory such jurisdiction is exercised. The
court outlined the circumstances under which it would admit a case based on
a member state’s extra-territorial jurisdiction. Referring to the case of Cyprus v. Turkey,
[21]
the court ruled that where a state exercises effective
control over a territory, its actions in that territory fall under its jurisdiction
within the meaning of Article 1.
[22]
 The court found no such effective control in
the NATO bombing case. In its conclusion,
the court limited its primary obligation “to having regard to the special
character of the Convention as a constitutional instrument of European
public order . . .. The Convention was
not designed to be applied throughout the world, even in respect of the conduct
of Contracting States.�
[23]
Committee of Ministers:Â Supervision of ECHR Judgments (Coursebook at 649)
 Loizidou v.
Resolutions of the Committee of
Ministers on past and continuing supervision of ECHR judgments can be found
at <http://wcm.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=35403&Lang=en>
(last visited
Note 2. The European Commissioner for Human Rights (Coursebook at 649)
 The Council of Europe created the post of Commissioner for Human Rights in 1999. Alvaro Gil-Robles is the present Commissioner elected by the Parliamentary Assembly with a mandate to promote awareness of and respect for human rights in member states. [26]  The Commissioner is also empowered to identify possible shortcoming in human rights law and practice, including initiating investigations and fact-finding missions. The role has no legal power to compel testimony or require reports from member states.
Further
Dinah Shelton, The Boundaries
Of Human Rights Jurisdiction In
Section F.1. Human Rights Law
in
 The European has added
10 new member countries:Â the
 The proposed Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights would make several amendments to the treaty to allow the EU as an organization to accede to the treaty. See Section D1 above for more information on Protocol 14.
Section F.3. Human Rights Law
in
 The Framework Convention
for the Protection of National Minorities
[27]
is the first multilateral treaty on the protection of national
minorities in general. Opened for signature
to Council of Europe member states, it entered into force on
For further information on national
minorities and the Council of Europe, see <http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Minorities/>
(last visited
[1]
Statute of the Council of Europe available at <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/CadreListeTraites.htm>
(last visited
[2]
Case Of
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]  (2003) 37 E.H.R.R 51, _ Eur. Ct. H.R. (2003) (Application no. 35968/97)
[8]
Lawrence v.
[9]
Avena and other Mexican Nationals (
[10]
“
[11]
Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), 2004 I.C.J. _ (Judgment) available
at <http://212.153.43.18/icjwww/idocket/imus/imusframe.htm>
(last visited
[12]
Resolution 1349 (2003) available at <http://assembly.coe.int>
(last visited
[13]
Resolution 1253 (2001) available at <http://assembly.coe.int>
(last visited
[14]
Recommendation 1522 (2001) available at <http://assembly.coe.int>
(last visited
[15]
Recommendation 1627 (2003) available at <http://assembly.coe.int>
(last visited
[16]
CM/Del/Dec (2003) 856/3.1E,
[17]
Ending Corporal Punishment of Children: Making it
Happen, Save the Children, September 2001, available at <http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.28/SC-UK-ES.pdf>
(last visited
[18]
Briefing and Invitation to a Debate on Proposals to
Reform the European Court of Human Rights at the Council of Europe, Strasbourg,
Thursday 29 January 2004, (AI Index no. IOR 61/004/2004) Amnesty International,
[19]
Amnesty International’s Comments on the Interim Activity
Report: Guaranteeing the Long-Term Effectiveness of the European Court of
Human Rights, (AI Index no. IOR 61/005/2004) Amnesty International,
[20] Bankovic, Stojadinovic, Stoimenovski, Joksimovic and Sukovic v. Belgium, The Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2001) (Application no. 00052207/99) <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm> (last visited March 24, 2004)
[21]
 (2002) 35 E.H.R.R. 30, _ Eur.
Ct. H.R. 2001 (Application no. 25781/94) available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm> (last visited
[22] Bankovic et al. v. Belgium et al.  at ¶ 70.
[23]
[24]
(1998) 26 E.H.R.R CD5, Eur.
Ct. H.R. (1998) (Applicant no. 00015318/89) available at <http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Judgments.htm>
(last visited
[25] Interim Resolution DH(99) 680, Concerning The Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 July 1998 In the Case of Loizidou Against Turkey, available at <http://cm/coe.int/ta/res/xh/1999/600-899/99xh680.htm> (last visited March 24, 2004)
[26] The Commissioner’s website is at <http://www.coe.int/T/E/Commissioner_H.R/Communication_Unit/> (last visited March 2004)
[27] Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, CETS 157, entered into force February 1, 1998, full text available at <http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/157.htm> (last visited March 24, 2004)