One thought on “Fact: Protecting The Exposed”

  1. Judge Bonello’s concurring dissent – agreeing with the majority but criticising the route to their conclusion – in Al-Skeini is a particularly powerful articulation of your inclusivity dimension of human rights instruments.
    http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-105606
    Do you think his proposal of a functional test of jurisdiction will gain any traction in the long term?
    “10. States ensure the observance of human rights in five primordial ways: firstly, by not violating (through their agents) human rights; secondly, by having in place systems which prevent breaches of human rights; thirdly, by investigating complaints of human rights abuses; fourthly, by scourging those of their agents who infringe human rights; and, finally, by compensating the victims of breaches of human rights. These constitute the basic minimum functions assumed by every State by virtue of its having contracted into the Convention.
    11. A “functional” test would see a State effectively exercising “jurisdiction” whenever it falls within its power to perform, or not to perform, any of these five functions. Very simply put, a State has jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 1 whenever the observance or the breach of any of these functions is within its authority and control.
    12. Jurisdiction means no less and no more than “authority over” and “control of”. In relation to Convention obligations, jurisdiction is neither territorial nor extra-territorial: it ought to be functional – in the sense that when it is within a State’s authority and control whether a breach of human rights is, or is not, committed, whether its perpetrators are, or are not, identified and punished, whether the victims of violations are, or are not, compensated, it would be an imposture to claim that, ah yes, that State had authority and control, but, ah no, it had no jurisdiction.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *