UK still has best human rights record in Europe
And Strasbourg court granted only one UK request for interim measures last year
The United Kingdom continues to have the best human rights record in Europe, according to new figures published by the European court in Strasbourg.
On the human rights court’s standard measure — the number of cases before the court for every 10,000 inhabitants of a country, the UK had the the lowest percentage in 2023 — 0.03% — as it did in 2022 and in 2021. Its nearest rivals last year were Ireland with 0.04% and Germany with 0.06%.
Síofra O’Leary, president of the European Court of Human Rights, was asked at the court’s annual news conference yesterday about the court’s rule 39, under which it may issue so-called interim measures. As I explained last week, the government has a clause referring to these in its Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which is to be debated by the House of Lords on Monday.
Unsurprisingly, O’Leary declined an invitation from UK journalists to say anything about the bill itself: “as president of a court, I can take no position on draft legislation”.
But speaking “generally and in relation to the court’s existing case-law” — as this clip shows — she confirmed that there was a “clear legal obligation under the convention for states to comply with rule 39 measures”:
There is, of course, nothing remotely new in what O’Leary told reporters. Article 34, in summary, says that the court may receive applications from any person, adding that the 46 Council of Europe member states “undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right”.
A factsheet issued by the court last year explains that this principle was first established in the court’s case law in 2005 and confirmed in 2009. It’s well understood by the UK government that the UK’s international obligations cannot be overridden by domestic legislation.
O’Leary reminded the government that it had previously expected other states to comply with rule 39 indications. In February 2021, the UK had supported interim measures requiring Russia to release the leading opposition figure Alexei Navalny.
Interim measures could also benefit British citizens, she added, referring to a letter in the Guardian this week from Dr Alice Donald and Prof Philip Leach of Middlesex University. They said:
In the same month (June 2022) that the court issued an injunction against the UK, preventing a person from being removed to Rwanda until UK courts had finally decided their case, two others were issued against Russia — to ensure that British prisoners of war who had fought with the Ukrainian army were not executed in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine. The men were later released.
Just as the vast majority of cases brought against the UK are dismissed — the court found two violations of the convention in one case out of 176 lodged last year — the proportion of interim measures issued is also tiny. The court received 61 requests relating to the UK last year. Only one was granted.
The court president also made the point that the urgency of any case depended on the actions of the state concerned, implying that if the state agreed to delay actions that were about to take place then there would be no need for an overnight ruling.
But she accepted that the process was not well understood. I reported in November that the court was consulting on tighter wording for rule 39 — though O’Leary explained that the final decision was one for the court.
Already, the court was naming the duty judges who issued interim measures. From “the early part of this year”, she said, the court would begin issuing formal judicial decisions when granting interim measures. And an updated practice direction will clarify a process that, until now, had not been well understood.
Perhaps prophetically in view of some of the subsequent media coverage, O’Leary told journalists covering the court’s news conference yesterday that they played a vital role in helping to ensure that the court’s judgments were not mischaracterised “in a world which desperately needs fact and truth”.
At lunchtime today, the International Court of Justice in The Hague will deliver its ruling on provisional measures in the case brought by South Africa against Israel. I plan to publish a short piece on the ruling this afternoon and a more considered assessment next week.
Many thanks as ever, Joshua.
The points made and markers for the future concerning interim measures articulated by the head of the European Court of Justice dovetail tellingly with those of the authors of the letter identified in your contribution.
The government’s actual rather than professed stance on this subject seems to be a case of :” Yes, we have a (relatively) good human rights record vis-a-vis the ECJ- and it has to stop whenever we say so!” Being further interpreted, “we” expect that (foreign!) Court to uphold OUR domestic interests but also to keep its meddling hands off any issue which might impede or delay the UK government’s factional (and party electoral) interests.
Now on the contrary THAT very factionalism and xenophobic attitude HAS to stop.