Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, imposes a duty on States to protect and respect life, and has put to another level the importance of positive obligations on States. The lawfulness of intentional and unintentional killings as well as the level of effectiveness of the investigation by State members is being judged. The protection of life in respect of Article 2 opens a new scope of cases, such as those dealing with abortion. An interesting issue is whether an unborn child has to right to live under Article 2. Article 2 of the Convention does not state that life starts at conception. This matter becomes controversial in the light of women's freedom and respect of the right to life.
[...] The lawfulness of intentional and unintentional killings by State members is being judged as well as the level of effectiveness of the investigation. The protection of life in respect of Article 2 opens a new scope of cases, such as those dealing with abortion. An interesting issue is to whether a unborn child has to right to live under Article 2. Article 2 of the Convention does not state that life starts at conception. This matter becomes controversial in the light of women's freedom and respect of the right to life. [...]
[...] Article 2 of The European Convention on Human Rights provides that: 1. “Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: In defence of any person from unlawful violence In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.” Article 2 of the ECHR requires that everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. [...]
[...] The nature and extent of these obligations were elaborated in Osman v UK. In this case, the Court was asked to consider if the police had taken sufficient measures to protect a family whose dangerous situation was know by the police. In summary, Amhet Osman was a 14-year-old pupil whose teacher developed for an unreasonable attachment. The teacher got designated unfit to work and took a medical leave. One day, the teacher went to the Osman house, shot dead Mr Osman and seriously wounded Amhet. [...]
[...] Indeed, the Commission considered that “given the soldiers' perception of the risk to the lives of the people of Gibraltar, the shooting of the three suspects could be regarded as “absolutely necessary” for the legitimate aim of the defence of others from unlawful violence”. Therefore, the Court held that there was no breach of Article as the killings were regarded as lawful. The last point to focus on is the carrying of the operation. The Court held that the actions of the soldiers did not, in themselves, give rise to a breach of Article 2. But it was held that “either the authorities knew that there was no bomb in the car which the Court has already discounted . [...]
[...] Further investigations were done, and it appeared that three terrorists had planned to attack by the way of a car bomb using a remote control device. They were spotted in a street in Gibraltar looking at a car that one of the suspects had parked earlier, and it was assumed to be the car bomb. The soldiers in the street shot dead the three suspects because they genuinely believed that their targets were about to set off the bomb by remote control. In fact, no weapons or detonations devices were found on the suspect's bodies and no bomb was found in the car. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APACitez le doc consulté
Lecture en ligneet sans publicité !
Contenu vérifiépar notre comité de lecture