II Council of Europe
| Date | 01 June 1992 |
| Published date | 01 June 1992 |
| DOI | 10.1177/016934419201000207 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
HUnlQIl
Rights News
The mandates of all thematic rapporteurs was extended again, whereas the
mandates
of
the Special Rapporteurs on Romania and Occupied Kuwait (the
Swiss experts Voyame and Kalin) were terminated in accordance with their
own proposals. Much discussion focussed on Guatemala, and finally the report
of the expert (Prof. Tomuschat from Germany) was again discussed under the
item
of
"advisory services" rather than under that on human rights violations.
The most serious violations were again found in Iraq, which was moved from
the confidential 1503-procedure to the public one, but all attempts to condemn
China for its human rights violations, above all in Tibet, failed. On the other
hand, two other serious country situations in Asia (Sri Lanka and East Timor)
were for the first excondemned by extensively negotiated statements by the
chair.
All in all, the 48th session of the Commission turned out to be a successful
one
even
though many NGOs had hoped to achieve more. But the ground was
laid for improving and expanding human rights monitoring with new proce-
dures in the near future. For a detailed analysis of the session from the view
of
amember
of
the Dutch governmental delegation see the report of Koen M.
Davidse which will be published in the next issue of the NQHR. Cf. also the
analysis
of
the 46thsession from a non-governmental perspective by Adrien C.
Zoller in NQHR, Vol. 8 (1990),
No.2,
p. 140 et
seq.
and for the 47th session
NQHR, Vol. 9 (1991),
No.2,
pp. 160-163.
II COUNCIL OF EUROPE'
On 25 March 1992 the 10th Protocol to the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has been opened for
signature. This Protocol amends the voting procedure of the Committee of
Ministers
of
the Council
of
to the reduction of the two-thirds majority provided therein. The words
"of
two-thirds" shall be deleted from paragraph 1 of Article 32
of
the Convention.
The Protocol shall enter into force when all Parties to the Convention have
expressed their consent to be bound by the Protocol. This Protocol has been
ratified
by
Malta and Norway and signed by Austria, Belgium,
Cyprus,
Czech
and Slovak Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and United Kingdom.
• Leo Zwaak
185
NQHR2/1992
On 7 May 1992 Bulgaria became the 27th Member State of the Council of
Europe. At the same date Bulgaria signed the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its Protocol No.
1.
A The European
Court
of
Human
Rights
Article 5(4) ECHR: Right to
take
proceedings in case of deprivation of
liberty to have the lawfulness speedily decided by a
court
12 May 1992, Megyeri
(Germany),
A.237-A. In May 1983 it was decided by
a court decision that the applicant should be detained in a psychiatric hospital.
It was found that he had committed certain acts which constituted criminal
offenses but that he could not be held responsible since he was suffering from
aschizophrenic psychosis. The applicant subsequently instituted numerous
proceedings in connection with his detention. These proceedings were
unsuccessful, while the applicant was not represented by counsel. The applicant
has been under guardianship since a court order
of
1987. He was released on
probation in 1989, since when he has been living in an open ward of a
psychiatric hospital. Having recalled the principles that emerged from its case-
law, the Court observed that where aperson was confined in a psychiatric
institution on the ground of commission of acts which constituted criminal
offenses but for which he could not be held responsible on account of mental
illness, he should, unless there were special circumstances, receive legal
assistance in subsequent proceedings relating to the continuation, suspension or
termination
of
his detention. Analyzing the applicant's case the Court found
nothing to reveal that it was one in which legal assistance was unnecessary.
Nor did
it
perceive any other special circumstances which would lead it to a
different conclusion. The Court therefore held unanimously that the failure to
appoint a lawyer to assist the applicant in those proceedings had given rise to
aviolation of Article 5(4). It further awarded the applicant under Article 50
5,000 German marks for non-pecuniary damage.
Article 6(1) ECHR: Length of
civil
proceedings
26 February 1992,
Nibbio,
Borgese;
Biondi;
Monaco and Lestini
(Italy),
A.
228-A-E. The periods to be taken into consideration were as follows: Nibbio:
20 October 1982 - proceedings still pending; Borgese: 4 September 1984 - 6
July 1989; Biondo: 7 March 1986 -proceedings still pending; Monaco: 28
February 1985 - 27 November 1990; Lestini: 11 March 1985 - 13 December
186
To continue reading
Request your trial