I am a young lawyer working on a research proposal on how NHRIs can contribute in development of the human rights jurisprudence by assisting courts to establish proactive human rights precedence. I will appreciate insight and information on previous research works, baseline studies, workshop reports, caselaw or any other materials indicating amicus curiae role played by NHRIS in human rights cases.

My research interest is to establish the role that NHRIs (can) play in assisting courts to embrace proactive interpretation and application of human rights principles in arriving at their decisions especially on matters concerning emerging (or is it controversial) issues on human rights.

I appreciate the role that training and induction of judicial officers on international human rights law has played. I have seen many sound, human-rights-reasoned and proactive decisions being made in recent years by some of the judges trained especially by RWI.

My hypothesis is that it is important for NHRIs to seize every available opportunity to apply for amicus curiae status in cases (whether in domestic courts or regional systems with judicial competence) dealing with new or emerging areas of human rights or where domestic legislation are inhibiting enjoyment of 'internationally recognized' human rights - of course taking into consideration the social cultural and economic environment in the given jurisdiction. I am convinced that such professional intervention by NHRIs will anable the courts to engage in 'heroic' deliberations to ensure maximum realization of international human rights law standards for citizens in their jurisdiction.

NHRIs are recognized as specialized quasi-governmental bodies with expertise and competence in the field of human rights. They should therefore play an important role in assisting courts to deliver more human rights focused justice for citizens and further help in establishing fresh, reasoned and proactive precedence to guide development of the human rights jurisprudence domestically and globally.

Let me know if any one has any information, comments or thoughts on this topic.

Thank you.

Hello,

I have recently been selected as part of an aid team to travel to Kenya. Although I have traveled extensively,  I have not yet had an opportunity to visit/work in this part of the world.

Our team comprises of Doctors of Audiology, Educators and myself.  The primary goal of our trip is to perform hearing tests, as well as potentially fit those in need of help with aids.  A major organization has very kindly agreed to donate funding as well as a large part of the technology and equipment needed.

Can anyone share insight as to how receptive our efforts may be received? 

Thanks.

Hello.

I'm engaged in poverty and gender studies here in the Philippines. I've been in one of the poorest of the eighty provinces of the country in 2007-2008 -- 76% of the total population lack the amount of income required to buy basic needs. If the situation is like this, following Maslow's hierarchy of needs, people are more concerned with food before they even think about non-economic rights. They know that the government has the obligation to provide jobs or at least give them food. But while the government is absent, which happens most of the time due to the remoteness of the poorest communities, people are busy looking for what to eat for the next meal. Still, they cannot afford to eat three times a day.

Because of this, they are prone to surrendering their social, political, and even personal rights to whoever can give them food on a sustained basis. This becomes glaringly real during election period when politicians suddenly remember to visit the remote areas to give poor families the food they needed, in return for their votes. The next visit will be three years later, the next elections.

So, unless poor people are empowered -- politically and economically -- they will remain poor. By empowerment, that means being aware of their human rights and having the capacity to assert them.



     

According to Mike Fitzgerald in Prisoners in Revolt "It is no accident that the most crucial question raised by lawyers at a 1971 Prisoners' Rights Conference 'How does one get a court decision implemented?' remained unanswered".

Almost 40 years later I find the question still very relevant and unanswered, particularly in relation to Hirst v UK(No2) aka the Prisoners Votes Case http://www.unlock.org.uk/userfiles/file/Votes/Hirst%20v%20UK%20Grand%20Chamber%20Judgement%206%20Oct%202005.pdf.

On the Council of Europe website I was referred to the FAQ section...

"What means are available to the Committee of Ministers to exert pressure on a State that does not want to execute a judgment?
 
The Committee of Ministers is a political organ and, as such, it can bring its weight to bear on the State concerned to execute the Court’s judgment, including through the use of the heavy political sanctions provided for by the Statute of the Council of Europe. http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/HTML/001.htm

Fortunately, in practice, the supervision of the execution of the Court’s judgments is essentially – and successfully – based on constructive and co-operative dialogue between states".

I would challenge the "in practice", because this is the theory. Hirst (No2) is evidence that in practice the theory does not stand up to scrutiny.

In 1997, Tony Blair, stated in his introduction to Bringing Rights Home: The Human Rights Bill: "For individuals, and for those advising them, the road to Strasbourg is long and hard. Even when they get there, the Convention enforcement machinery is subject to long delays. This might be convenient for a government which was half-hearted about the Convention and the right of individuals to apply under it, since it postpones the moment at which changes in domestic law or practice must be made. But it is not in keeping with the importance which this Government attaches to the observance of basic human rights".

Gordon Brown has replaced Tony Blair as Prime Minister. But, there is still no real change because only 3 days ago the media was reporting:

"The Council of Europe has issued an unprecedented warning to the British government to take urgent steps to enable prisoners to vote in the forthcoming general election or face thousands more compensation claims.

The committee of ministers issued the warning six years after a former prisoner, John Hirst, won a landmark case in the European court of human rights in which Britain's blanket ban on prisoners voting was declared illegal" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/prisoners-vote-general-election-europe.

On 21-22 September 2009, in BLED (Slovenia), Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights, at a Round Table, gave a speech called "BRINGING RIGHTS HOME or How to deal with repetitive applications in the future".

And, as recently as 18-19 February 2010, in Interlaken (Switzerland), the 47 Member States of the Council of Europe held a Conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights. All Member States, including the UK, reaffirmed their commitments to abide by the Convention and the Court decisions. However, what the UK says over there and then does over here are direct opposites.

If rights are to mean anything, in practice, they must be able to be enforced.
                                                                                           

Hi my name is John Hirst, I use the online identity of Jailhouselawyer, and have the honour of being described in the media as the Devilish Advocate http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/12/crime.penal. Basically, I went from law breaker to law-maker. I delight in exposing the so-called law-makers who are law breakers. I am the author of Jailhouselawyer's Blog, a combination of law, politics, autobiographical and humour http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/.

Human Rights Watch's 20th World Report.

HRW has published its 20th World Report 2010 whose aims and objectives are to shed light on the human rights situations obtaining in different parts of the world. The Introduction of the report underscore thus,
      "This 20th annual World Report summarizes human rights conditions in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide. It reflects extensive investigative work undertaken in 2009 by Human Rights Watch staff, usually in close partnership with human rights activists in the country in question.

Every government is at times tempted to violate human rights, but the global human rights movement has made sure that abuse carries a price. Still, some governments cannot resist trying to minimize that price by attacking human rights defenders, organizations, and institutions. The aim is to silence the messenger, to deflect pressure, to lessen the cost of committing human rights violations.

These efforts have yet to succeed, but the campaign is dangerous. Human Rights Watch calls on governmental supporters of human rights to help defend the defenders by identifying and countering these reactionary efforts. A strong defense of human rights depends on the vitality of the human rights movement now under assault."
Check out for the report at   http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2010